I-10 Removal and Claiborne Alternatives - New Orleans

8/9/2019 I-10 Removal and Claiborne Alternatives - New Orleans

1/60

Restoring Claiborne AvenueAlternativesfortheFutureofClaiborneAvenue

AReporttotheClaiborneCorridorImprovementCoalitionandCongressfortheNewUrbanismPreparedbySmartMobilityInc.andWaggonner&BallArchitects

15July

2010


2/60

CLAIBORNECORRIDORIMPROVEMENT COALITION

ThemissionoftheClaiborneCorridorImprovementCoalitionistoplanandadvocateforthetransformationofthe

Claiborne Corridor into a healthy, vibrant boulevard thatwill not only serve as an anchor for the Corridors

neighborhoods,butforthewholecityofNewOrleans.

Thisreport

is

the

result

of

the

efforts

of

the

Coalition

to

gather

information

and

inform

the

community

about

the

alternatives for the Claiborne Avenue/I10 Corridor. The Coalition was formed by NEWCITY Neighborhood

Partnerships,acoalitionofdevelopers,funders,neighborhoodorganizations,serviceproviders,churches&faith

basedgroups, schools&universities, and governmentagencies focusedon educational, economic,health,and

housingdevelopment intheTrem/LafitteandTulane/Gravierneighborhoods.Thereporthasbeenpreparedfor

theCoalitionbytheCongressfortheNewUrbanism,anationalleaderinpromotingwalkable,neighborhoodbased

developmentasanalternativetosprawl,withassistancefromtheNationalEndowmentoftheArtsandtheFord

Foundation.

Members:VaughnFauria,NewCorpInc.,CoChair,ClaiborneCorridorImprovementCoalition(CCIC)

LisaAmoss,

Broad

Community

Connections

BillBorah,SmartGrowthforLouisiana

ArianneCousin,UrbanDevelopmentResearchCenter

JackDavis,SmartGrowthforLouisiana,CoChair,CCIC

CliftonJames,UrbanDevelopmentResearchCenter,CoChair,CCIC

JimKelly,ProvidenceCommunityHousing/CatholicCharities,CoChair,CCIC

NickRoosevelt,NEWCITYNeighborhoodPartnership

DanielSamuels,Architect

JohnNorquist,CongressfortheNewUrbanism

NoraBeck,CongressfortheNewUrbanism

ReportPreparedfor: ConsultantTeam:LucyGibson,P.E.

SmartMobility,

Inc.

POBox750/16BeaverMeadowRoad#3

Norwich,Vermont05055

(802)6495422

[email protected]

DavidWaggonner,MacBallandRamiroDiaz

Waggonner&BallArchitects

2200PrytaniaStreet

NewOrleans,Louisiana70130

(504)5245308

[email protected]

CoverIllustration:

The intersection of the surfacelevel Claiborne Avenuewith St. Bernard

Avenuecouldberestoredtoatrafficcircle.Atrightexistingconditionsare

shown.(Seepage28)

DrawingsbyMacBall,Waggonner&BallArchitects,2010

Congressfor

the

New

Urbanism

140S.DearbornSt.,Suite404

Chicago,Illinois60603

(312)5517300

www.cnu.org


3/60

ClaiborneCorridorAlternativesReport

SmartMobilityandWaggonner&BallArchitects P a g e |i

TABLE OF CONTENTSClaiborne Corridor Alternatives Study ........................................................................................................................... 3Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................................................................................ 4

New Orleans Street Network ........................................................................................................................................ 5Impacts of I10 ................................................................................................................................................................ 8

The Claiborne Corridor Today ...................................................................................................................................... 9Highway and Street Network Connectivity ......................................................................................................... 9Economic Conditions .................................................................................................................................................. 10Structural Condition ................................................................................................................................................... 11

Role and Function of the Claiborne Expressway/I10 Corridor ................................................................... 12Current Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................................ 14Regional Model Traffic Patterns ............................................................................................................................ 15NonMotorized and Transit Patterns ................................................................................................................... 16Hurricane Evacuation Routes ................................................................................................................................. 17

Current freight traffic ................................................................................................................................................. 17

Baseline Assumptions ..................................................................................................................................................... 18Planning for the Future of the Claiborne Expressway....................................................................................... 19

Traffic assumptions .................................................................................................................................................... 20Alternatives for the Claiborne Corridor .................................................................................................................. 20

New Orleans Region Interstate Highway System Changes ......................................................................... 20Potential Claiborne Corridor Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 22Segment A: Pontchartrain Expressway Interchange Alternatives ............................................................... 23Segment B: Claiborne Avenue from The I10/Pontchartrain Expressway to Saint Bernard Ave ... 24

Possible Cross Sections of a Restored North Claiborne Avenue............................................................... 24Multiway Boulevard Alternative ........................................................................................................................... 32

Segment C: St. Bernard to Elysian Fields ................................................................................................................ 33Option C1: Replace Elevated Highway with Urban Parkway/Boulevard ............................................. 33Option C2: Restoration of the Seventh Ward Street Network ................................................................... 34

Analysis of Alternatives.................................................................................................................................................. 35Impact on Traffic Circulation .................................................................................................................................. 35Impact on Corridor Travel Time ............................................................................................................................ 35

Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 38

ATTACHMENTS

UNOP District 4 Plans for Claiborne Avenue

Future Land Use Map for the City of New Orleans

Examples of Urban Freeway Removals


4/60

ClaiborneCorridorAlternativesReport July2010

SmartMobilityandWaggonner&BallArchitects P a g e |ii

ViewoftheClaiborneCorridor

PossibleFuturefortheClaiborneCorridor

ByMacBall,Waggonner&BallArchitects,2010


5/60


SmartMobilityandWaggonner&BallArchitects P a g e |3

CLAIBORNE CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES STUDYThis report has been commissioned for the Claiborne Corridor Improvement Coalition by theCongress for the New Urbanism, to explore future alternatives for the elevated Interstate10 (I10)Claiborne Expressway corridor. The mission of the Claiborne Corridor Improvement Coalition is toplan and advocate for the transformation of the Claiborne corridor into a useful, vibrant boulevard

that will serve as an anchor not only for the Corridors neighborhoods but for the whole city of NewOrleans. The Coalitions work for a better Claiborne is a continuation of efforts that stretch as farback as 1976, when Clifton James, Dr. Rudy Lombard, and the Claiborne Avenue Design Teampublished a master plan report funded by the Louisiana Department of Highways with detailedanalysis and recommendations for improving Claiborne and its adjacent communities. TheClaiborne Corridor Improvement Coalition was formed by NEWCITY Neighborhood Partnerships.NEWCITY is a coalition of developers, neighborhood associations, funders, service providers,churches & faithbased groups, schools & universities, and government agencies that strives to bean engine for educational, economic, health, and housing development in the Trem/Lafitte andTulane/Gravier neighborhoods. The elevated I10 Claiborne Expressway presents one of thegreatest and most complicated challenges to this vision. Far beyond its relation to the issues offuture economic development, smart transportation investments and the overall quality of life in its

surrounding neighborhoods, the construction, maintenance and future of the Expressway alsotouches on many important and highly sensitive issues of social, economic, and environmentaljustice. The elevated I10 Claiborne Expressway has been detrimental to the vision of a renewedClaiborne Avenue. Before any investments are made to repair or rehabilitate this aging facility, it isimportant to consider alternative investments that could better address the needs of the peoplewho live and work in this corridortheir transportation needs, social needs, and businessdevelopment needs.

Once a thriving commercial corridor, the areadefined by Claiborne Avenue suffered seriousdecline following the construction of the I10expressway in the 1960s. Pushed through

over the wishes of the areas largelydisenfranchised AfricanAmerican population,it was intimately tied to the overall decline ofthe neighborhood, replacing a lively strollingstreet, oakcovered neutral ground andbusiness corridor with an eyesore that madeClaiborne Avenue both a physical andsymbolic barrier between the areasneighborhoods. 1

Considering the proximity of nearbybusinesses, hospitals, affordable housing,

schools, parks and greenways in the area, the Claiborne Corridor Improvement Coalition sees anopportunity to restore the Claiborne commercial corridor as a beautiful mixeduse boulevard. Thebenefits of and possibilities for such a transformation are many. The Coalition recognizes, however,that the project must be considered with a full examination of all of the consequences of conversionto a boulevard. The goal of this report is to start the process of gathering expert opinion andcommunity input to inform future discussion of this concept. By bringing together community,

1 Samuels, Daniel. 2000. "Remembering North Claiborne: Community and Place in Downtown New Orleans."M.U.R.P. thesis, University of New Orleans

ViewofNorthClaiborneatEsplanadeAvenue,March,1955.

Source:HistoricNewOrleansCollection


6/60



experts and local, state and federal governments, the Coalition hopes to secure a bright new futurefor the Claiborne commercial corridor.

The Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) is assisting the Coalition as part of its Highways toBoulevards initiative, which seeks to improve the urban environment by replacing aging elevatedfreeways with surface streets and transit facilities in appropriate locations. Together, CNU and the

Coalition have secured the professional consultant services of Smart Mobility, Inc., for atransportation study of the Claiborne Corridor area surrounding I10. The goal of the study is toinform future deliberation on replacement of the I10 Claiborne segment with a restored ClaiborneAvenue. The concept of a surfacelevel replacement for the elevated expressway has beenconsidered often in postKatrina planning, notably in the Unified New Orleans Plan and in the cityscurrent Master Plan draft.

This preliminary transportation study provides an analysis of a surface boulevard replacement asan alternative to the current elevated structure to help inform future stages of review by local andcity residents and by other local and regional decisionmakers. In anticipation of eventual largescale and comprehensive transportation and infrastructure analyses of the elevated structure bygovernmental entities, this preliminary study illustrates how a surface boulevard would perform

under the actual conditions of todays New Orleans.

This is not a full engineering feasibility study, but rather describes the concept of converting theClaiborne Expressway to a boulevard, including several alternative design schemes. Issues that willneed further technical review in a subsequent feasibility study are identified.

PhotosbyR.Diaz

BASELINE CONDITIONSThe Claiborne Expressway is an aging interstate that runs through the center of New Orleans.Structurally, it is nearing the end of its useful life and beginning to deteriorate. When it was first


7/60



constructed, it divided the Trem and Seventh Ward neighborhoods, and its impacts of noise andblight either caused or significantly contributed to substantial economic decline along ClaiborneAvenue. Because of the highways age and deterioration, it is appropriate to proceed with thediscussion about its future begun in postKatrina planning efforts. The purpose of this report is todescribe the function and infrastructure of the corridor as a basis for considering futurealternatives for the Claiborne Corridor.

NEW ORLEANSSTREET NETWORKNew Orleans street network has evolved under the citys unique geography and history. It isnotable for its network of broad boulevards, which remain valuable and effective corridors for avariety of functions. The general form of the street network is a shifting pattern of streets thatgenerally run both perpendicular and parallel to the evertwisting Mississippi River. This patternevolved in part because of early land ownership and subdivision patterns, which emphasized longstrip lots that provided access to the river.

The Robinson Atlas provides a more detailed view of the historic street network. The figure belowshows the central area of the Faubourg Trem and Claiborne Avenue. The boulevard configuration

of the Claiborne, Rampart, Canal, and Esplanade corridors includes broad medians, or neutralgrounds (in some cases with canals), and streetcar lines. Claiborne, like Canal Street, is wider thanmost New Orleans boulevards. While there is a wellconnected network of local streets betweenthese boulevards, there are a few interruptions where streets intersect with canals or railroad lines.

Source: Robinsons Atlas of the City of New Orleans, 1883, New Orleans Notarial Archives, www.notarialarchives.org

The Claiborne Corridor fromCanal to Esplanade, with

streetcar lines and centralcanal in neutral grounds.


8/60



Below are views of Claiborne Avenue before expressway construction, showing transit, canals, andlandscaping.

HistoricViewsoftheClaiborneCorridor

South

Claiborne

Avenue

at

First

Street

with

canal

and

streetcarincorridor.

Source:NewOrleansPublicLibrarySpecialCollections

North

Claiborne

Avenue

Oak

trees

on

the

neutral

ground

(exactlocationnotknown)Source:NewOrleansPublicLibrarySpecialCollections

The following aerial photos show Claiborne Avenue in survey photos taken prior to expresswayconstruction in the 1960s.

SouthClaiborneatMelpomene(now

MartinLuther

King

Boulevard)

ClaibornebetweenContiandSt.Ann

Streets

ClaibornebetweenCanalStreet(top)

andTulane

Ave

(bottom).

Source:NewOrleansLibrarySpecialCollections


9/60



CONSTRUCTION OF I10For decades, interstate highways were extended directly into cities with the goal of improvingaccess to the city with highspeed,limited-accessroutes. While the intention was that easyautomobile access would maintain a vibrant central city, the results 50 years later in the Claibornecorridor and in cities across the country indicate that the expressway brought great harm to thesurrounding neighborhoods. Among the many impacts are the following:

Redirection of local traffic onto the expressway led to the commercial decline of a oncevibrant corridor along the boulevard as well as the destruction of the wide neutral groundlong enjoyed for picnics, parades and community gathering.

The expressway encouraged people to drive in (and out of) the city rather than use thepublic transit system or walking. This extended travel sheds well beyond the citysboundaries and the service area of its transit system. The longterm result was adisinvestment in urban public transit and urban businesses and more migration ofhouseholds to suburban locations than would have happened otherwise.

Street network connectivity was lost in the interchange areas, and where ramps access theelevated freeway. The interrupted street network leads in turn to more circuitous autotrips, increased traffic funneled onto arterials, and decreased connectivity for walking andbicycling.

The diagram below shows the early concept for the highway, noting it intention of the highway was

to revitalize the Central Business District.

PlanforInnerBeltwayforNewOrleans

Source:CityPlanningCommission,1957.2

2 Samuels, Daniel. 2000.


10/60



IMPACTSOFI-10

Clearly the construction of the Claiborne Expressway resulted in an immediate, enormous physical

impact, as shown below in before and after views. Over time, the expressways impact was also felt

on the economy, with the substantial decline in local businesses along Claiborne Avenue.

Viewsof

Claiborne

Avenue

1966

(left)

and

1968

(right)

Source:ClaiborneAvenueDesignTeam,19763

The table below is reproduced from data collected on the dwindling registered businesses onClaiborne Avenue. There was clearly a significant drop in the number of businesses along theAvenue after the construction of the freeway.

BusinessRegistryofClaiborneAvenue

Source:PolksNewOrleansCityDirectories:1949,1960,1965,1971and2000.

3 Samuels, Daniel. 2000.


11/60



THE CLAIBORNE CORRIDOR TODAY

HIGHWAYANDSTREETNETWORKCONNECTIVITY

In general, New Orleans network of highly connected boulevards and streets has adapted well tomeet todays needs for accessibility and mobility. The dense street network has also contributed to

New Orleans relatively high rates of bicycling, transit, and walking. However, there are areas wherestreet connectivity has been diminished over time. The primary areas of traffic congestion, in fact,are in the vicinity of the interstate corridors, where the combination of higher volumes ofinterchange traffic and disrupted street connectivity combine to create congestion.

The interruptions in street connectivity resulting from the combination of I10/PontchartrainExpressway corridor, railroad corridor and facilities, public housing projects, and the Superdomehave greatly restricted traffic crossings of I10. Traffic crossings of the primary railroad andhighway corridor are limited to Broad Street, Claiborne, and Rampart Street which means traffichas been channeled onto these streets. With the potential street closures from the proposedLSU/VA medical complex, traffic will be concentrated on Galvez, which has neither a crossing norinterchange with I10. Street connectivity is critically important to avoid the formation of traffic

bottlenecks and constraint points. The lack of connectivity in this area of New Orleans is of concern,as it greatly restricts the overall capacity of the street network to carry traffic.

StreetConnectivityintheI-10Corridor

The Unified New Orleans Plan (UNOP), recognizing the traffic benefits of street connectivity,suggests reestablishing street connections in several of the housing projects and also proposes toeliminate a number of ramps to the Claiborne Expressway as a short term, which would allowrestoration of street connectivity. In addition, the UNOP includes a recommendation to fund a studyfor the removal of I10 over Claiborne Avenue. The citys nearly completed Master Plan, asapproved by the City Planning Commission, also calls for such a study.


12/60



ECONOMICCONDITIONS

The map below shows blighted properties in the vicinity of the Claiborne Expressway, as well asthose registered with the Louisiana Land Trust, which have been purchased since HurricaneKatrina. There are numerous blighted properties in the Seventh Ward neighborhood, which hasbeen significantly impacted by the expressways presence. At the same time, it is notable that

properties along Elysian Fields Avenue have much lower levels of blight, despite this corridors hightraffic volumes.

BlightedPropertiesintheVicinityoftheClaiborneExpressway


13/60



STRUCTURALCONDITION

The elevated I10 Claiborne Expressway was constructed in the 1960s. Its highway bridgestructures are now nearly 50 years old, and approaching the end of their useful life. They willrequire more frequent maintenance, and possibly reconstruction, to carry traffic safely. Inparticular, several interchange ramps are deteriorating and will require over $50,000,000 in

critically needed maintenance investments, according to the National Bridge Inventory of theFederal Highway Administration. Three of the ramps for the Orleans/Esplanade interchange are incritical or serious condition, and several elements of the interchange with I10, US 90, and thePontchartrain Expressway/Crescent City Connection are in need of repairs and investment. Thefollowing map shows the locations of the bridges where inspection reports were available, alongwith estimates of the investment needed to maintain these structures. The bridges shown in orangeor red are all interchange ramp bridges.

NationalBridgeInventoryDatafortheClaiborneExpresswayStructures

As these interchange ramps and structures carrying the elevated I10/Claiborne Expressway ageand further deteriorate, they will need investment to maintain safe operations. Before funds arespent to reinforce the presence of the elevated highway, it is critical to consider alternatives thatmay better serve todays New Orleans.


14/60



ROLE AND FUNCTION OF THE CLAIBORNE EXPRESSWAY/I10CORRIDORThe Claiborne Expressway/I10 corridor is a relatively short segment in the regions highwaynetwork. Looking at the broader picture of interstate travel, longdistance eastwest traffic that isnot heading to or from New Orleans uses the I12 corridor between Baton Rouge and the east sideof Lake Pontchartrain (see map below). Travel on I10 between these two points is intraregional,with origins or destinations within the New Orleans metropolitan area.

RegionalInterstateHighwayNetwork


15/60



New Orleans is a relatively compact urban area, constrained by water and wetlands, with relativelyfew freeway miles. Within the New Orleans metropolitan area, the primary eastwest route forthrough traffic is I610. The I10 corridor between the two I610 interchanges serves a trafficdistribution function. The primary functions served by the Claiborne Expressway/I10 corridorinclude connecting New Orleans East with the Central Business District, and connecting the WestBank and port traffic with I10 for eastbound traffic.

NewOrleansHighwayNetworkandPopulationDensity


16/60



CURRENTDAILYTRAFFICVOLUMES

Volumes on the Claiborne Expressway ranged from 51,309 to 69,466 vehicles per day in 2008, themost recent data available from the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development(LADOTD). Data on 2004 traffic show that the 2008 traffic volumes are well below those from thepreKatrina period. The following map shows all the available traffic counts from LADOTD for the

interstate highways and major surface thoroughfares in New Orleans.

DailyTrafficVolumesinNewOrleans,2004and2008

Source:LouisianaDepartmentofTransportationandDevelopment

Traffic volumes on surface streets are well below prehurricane levels in the Claiborne corridor,indicating that substantial street capacity is available to absorb future growth. Also noteworthy isthat Elysian Fields, Broad Street, and South Claiborne Avenue south of I10 served high volumesbefore the hurricane, while still providing a pedestrianoriented environment. These corridors havethe proven capacity to serve substantially higher traffic volumes than are using them today, andprovide a model of how a restored Claiborne Avenue might function.


17/60



REGIONALMODELTRAFFICPATTERNS

The New Orleans Regional Planning Commission maintains a travel demand model of the regionthat is useful for illustrating travel patterns. The models traffic forecast cannot be consideredentirely reliable in terms of absolute numbers, due to the huge demographic shifts since HurricaneKatrina. However, the volumes can be illustrative of traffic circulation patterns. The following

graphics show the traffic origins and destinations on the Claiborne Expressway/I10 corridor in thewestbound and eastbound directions. Significantly, these graphics show that the I10 corridor is notused as a through route. Most of the traffic using the Claiborne Expressway is coming from SouthClaiborne or from the Pontchartrain Expressway south of I10. Only a fraction of its trafficapproaches from the north on I10 as an interstate through route.

WestboundTravelPatternsontheClaiborneI-10Corridor

EastboundTravel

Patterns

on

the

Claiborne

I-10

Corridor


18/60



Because such a small portion of the Claiborne Expressway traffic continues westbound on I10 toJefferson Parish, this routes use does not match the intended function of an interstate highway.

NON-MOTORIZEDANDTRANSITPATTERNS

Data for other modes using the Claiborne/I10 corridor is limited. Several transit routes useportions of the ClaiborneI10, including several commuter routes from New Orleans East. Whilebicycling and walking occur at surfacelevel on Claiborne Avenue, there are few attractions alongthe route that would generate pedestrian activity, and no data is available. In general, several citywide trends are worthy of consideration:

Transitplanning. Transit ridership and service are currently well below prehurricanelevels. This decrease in service is of particular concern for future travel patterns. Oncetransit service declines, many residents will adapt by using other modes, especially cars. Ashouseholds adapt to commuting by car, it becomes more difficult to switch back to transitonce service is renewed. There is interest in exploring a longerdistance transit corridor onClaiborne Avenue running beyond the citys borders, which should be considered in futureplans for the Claiborne Expressway/I10 corridor.

Pedestriansafety. Pedestrian safety was evaluated in the recent Regional BicyclePedestrian Plan, which found that several intersections along the I10 corridor were amongthe areas that had a higher than average number of pedestrian accidents.

Bicycleuse. New Orleans has relatively high proportion of bicycle travel, most likely due tothe citys high levels of intersection density and connectivity, despite having limitedinfrastructure devoted to bicycling. There is great interest in improving the infrastructureand increasing the bicycle mode share further, and this should be a consideration in futureplanning for the corridor.


19/60



HURRICANEEVACUATIONROUTES

The Claiborne Expressway is not a designated evacuation route, nor is it planned to operate as acontraflow corridor during evacuation4. With the expressways elimination, its important role incollecting and distributing traffic during evacuations would be readily supplied by the restoredboulevard. The figure below shows the major evacuation routes and contraflow sections (where all

lanes of the freeway flow outbound for evacuation).

HurricaneEvacuationPlan

CURRENTFREIGHTTRAFFIC

There is a substantial amount of freight traffic generated from the Port of New Orleans, whichaccesses the interstate system primarily at Tchoupitoulas Street. While freight traffic to or from theeast of New Orleans likely uses the Claiborne Expressway, most traffic from the west uses thePontchartrain Expressway. No data on truck traffic volumes or percentages was available from theLouisiana DOTD.

Any further study of these alternatives for the Claiborne corridor must consider the implications forfreight traffic in more detail. While there may be excess traffic capacity on the street network toabsorb diverted freight traffic, the impacts of this to both the freight industries and surroundingneighborhoods should be better understood.

4 Louisiana Citizen Awareness & Disaster Evacuation Guide SOUTHEAST, undated,http://www.lsp.org/pdf/HurricaneGuideSE.pdf

Claiborne/I-10

Expressway


20/60



BASELINE ASSUMPTIONSThe following are key conclusions that can be reached based upon a review of the aboveinformation.

Capacityisavailabletoabsorbredistributedtraffic. The Claiborne Expressway traffic is30% or more below the prehurricane levels, at about 65,000 vehicles per day in its highest

volume location. Surface street volumes on parallel and intersecting streets are alsosubstantially below prehurricane volumes, indicating that capacity is available to absorbredistributed traffic.

Retainingtheexpresswaywouldentailsubstantialnewspending. The elevated I10expressway bridges are nearing 50 years in age. As time goes on, deterioration or thestructures will increase, as will the funding needed to maintain them in safe condition. Ofparticular concern is the condition of some of the exit ramps, most of which are far belowcurrent geometric standards. If reconstructed, the ramps would require a larger footprint tomeet modern engineering standards potentially demolishing more urban fabric,decreasing available tax base, and/or further reducing surface street connectivity.

Currentstreetconnectivityisinadequate. Connectivity in the Pontchartrain ExpresswayI10/Claiborne Avenue I10 interchange area is limited, especially for routes connectingdowntown and uptown destinations. Repair of street networks, in particular connectingGalvez across Pontchartrain Expressway I10, could significantly relieve Claiborne Avenueof its role as primary connector across the Pontchartrain Expressway.

Publictransitoptionswouldbeimprovedbyexpresswayremoval. An importantconsideration for the future of the Claiborne Expressway will be how it affects commutersfrom New Orleans East. This area is currently underserved by public transit, a conditionthat has likely increased auto commuting into the downtown area. Travel time for thesecommutes might be affected by expressway removal, although this will likely be offset byimproved circulation, accessibility to the street network, and expansion of public transitservices to provide more commuting options.

Freightroutesneedtobeplanned. Freight traffic circulation should be a consideration inplanning for the reconfiguration of the Claiborne, as it serves port traffic that is headedeastbound on I10.

Evacuationrouteswouldnotbeaffectedbyexpresswayremoval. Claiborne is not partof the hurricane evacuation route, and serves a role as a collector/distributor. This rolecould be served as well as or better by a surface boulevard.

Bicycleandpedestrianissuesneedtobeaddressed. Bicycle facilities along Claiborne arenonexistent, and there is evidence of some safety concerns for pedestrians along thecorridor. This is not unusual in areas where freeway traffic suddenly enters city streetswhere pedestrians are frequent.


21/60



PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE OF THE CLAIBORNE EXPRESSWAYSince the hurricane, numerous ideas for renewing neighborhoods and the transportation systemhave been generated, including studying the removal of the elevated Claiborne Expressway andreplacing it with a boulevard. Other initiatives include new transit and streetcar routes, a morerobust and developed bicycle network, and economic revitalization. The map below, from District 4,shows priority recovery projects from UNOP. The plans focus on revitalization of a number of streetcorridors that currently have much lower traffic volumes than before Katrina. Streets that areplanned for revitalization include (10) St. Bernard, (11) Tulane, (12) Broad, and (14) Galvez. Thesestreets could all be reconfigured to efficiently absorb some of the traffic that might be redistributedwith the removal of the Claiborne Expressway, and would benefit from increased activity andexposure from this traffic as long as appropriate, pedestrianoriented urban street designtechniques are used. Project (2) is the study of the removal of the Claiborne Expressway, and (13) isthe Claiborne Avenue Revitalization Plan.

UNOPDistrict4PlanningProjects

Pages of the UNOP documents related to Claiborne Avenue are attached to this report, along withinformation on the current Future Land Use map.


22/60



TRAFFICASSUMPTIONS

Currently, the Claiborne Expressway carries between 57,000 and 69,000 vehicles per day on theelevated portions. No traffic counts are available for the existing surfacelevel Claiborne Avenue,but based on the regional model the avenue can be assumed to carry 10% of the expresswayvolume, bringing the total corridor volume to about 76,000 vehicles per day at its maximum. The

segment between Elysian Fields and the Pontchartrain Expressway interchange is about 2.2 miles,and the average trip length in this section is 1.6 miles, based on traffic patterns in the regionalmodel.

If the expressway is removed, traffic volume in this corridor will drop significantly, since it is thehighspeed corridor that now draws traffic to this route. Many trips will divert to other routesthrough New Orleans that are more attractive. In cities that have replaced freeway with atgradeboulevards, traffic volumes have been reduced to lessthanhalftheformertraffic. For our planningpurposes, it is assumed that a restored Claiborne Avenue would have traffic volumes of up to50,000 vehicles per day, which assumes that about 33% of the freeway traffic disperses onto otherroutes. This is a relatively conservative assumption based on experience in other cities.

ALTERNATIVES FOR THE

CLAIBORNE

CORRIDOR

As the existing elevated Claiborne Expressway deteriorates, investment will be needed to maintaina structurally safe highway. As an alternative to that plan, the elevated freeway can be removedaltogether and Claiborne Avenue restored as a both functional and attractive boulevard. Thefollowing sections describe how this could happen and what the likely impacts might be for traffic,economic development and the environment after removal of the expressway. First is a section onthe possible changes to New Orleans transportation network. Following that is a segmentbysegment description of possible reconfigurations of this corridor for consideration.

NEWORLEANSREGIONINTERSTATEHIGHWAYSYSTEMCHANGES

The removal of the elevated Claiborne Expressway would need to be accompanied by a number ofchanges to the New Orleans freeway system. While it is beyond the scope of this study to develop a

full system model, the following changes are recommended for consideration in a more detailedstudy of this concept.

Interstatedesignationswould be changed to reflect the new system. I610 would be relabeled as I10. The Claiborne Expressway would be replaced by a restored ClaiborneAvenue. The remaining portion of the current I10 from Elysian Fields to the current I610interchange would be redesignated as a state highway or local route number. The currentPontchartrain Expressway I10, from the I610 western interchange to the PontchartrainExpressway/Claiborne Avenue interchange could be relabeled as a spur interstate (such as710), or as a federal or state route number (i.e., US 90A). There would be some advantage interms of design flexibility to take this portion off of the interstate highway system, such asfor adding new interchanges or crossings.

Freewayinterchangeswould need to be redesigned to handle the new traffic flows,especially for freight transportation. In particular, the western interchange of I10/I610would require an additional flyover ramp to allow traffic to travel north on the current I10to I610 eastbound. A cloverleaf ramp takes I610 eastbound to I10 southbound whichshould be considered for an upgrade to a flyover ramp in the next phase of study.

A newinterchange of Broad Street with the current I10/Pontchartrain Expresswayshould be considered to further encourage the dispersal of traffic onto alternate routes. Thisinterchange would also provide greatly improved access for the planned biomedical district.


23/60


24/60



POTENTIAL CLAIBORNE CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVESThe alternatives for the future Claiborne corridor are organized by segments in the following map.Segment A includes the interchange with I10/Pontchartrain Expressway/North Claiborne Avenue.Segment B includes North Claiborne Avenue from the interchange to St. Bernard Avenue, whereNorth Claiborne Avenue diverges from the I10 corridor. Segment C is where the elevatedexpressway crosses the 7th Ward neighborhood, between St. Bernard and Elysian Fields.

ClaiborneExpresswayRemovalSegments


25/60



SEGMENT A:PONTCHARTRAIN EXPRESSWAY INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVESThe Pontchartrain/Claiborne Expressway interchange is extremely complex and consumptive ofland because it was designed to provide high speed connections for three high speed freeway legs,in addition to numerous connections to local destinations such as the Superdome, North Claiborneand Poydras. There is tremendous opportunity to reduce the complexity and area of thisinterchange if the Claiborne Expressway is replaced with a restored Claiborne Avenue. There wouldbe only one high speed corridor, the Pontchartrain Expressway, which can provide connectivity tothe urban street network with more traditional urban diamond interchanges. The graphic belowshows the existing high speed ramps that make up the interchange with the I10/ClaiborneExpressway, all of which could be removed and replace functionally with a diamond interchangewith Claiborne Avenue. In addition, the proposed new crossing of the Pontchartrain is shown inblue, which would greatly reduce the volumes crossing the Pontchartrain at Claiborne.

InterchangeAreaofthePontchartrainandClaiborneExpressways

While a more detailed engineering feasibility study will be required to develop a conceptual design,the following elements can be considered.

Remove the high speed ramps that carry I10 onto the Claiborne Expressway. From thereview of traffic conditions, these ramps carry the least amount of traffic of any of the keyconnections to Claiborne, and their function can be replaced by an urban diamondinterchange with I10 and Claiborne.

Consider the necessity of the highspeed flyover ramps to and from the south on thePontchartrain Expressway to the Claiborne. These ramps carry substantially highervolumes than the other ramps in this system. Additional traffic engineering will be requiredto determine the feasibility of replacing them with a diamond interchange.

Consider a new interchange design as an urban diamond with Claiborne Avenue, whichwould allow additional connections to Earhart Boulevard and Julia Street.


26/60



SEGMENT B:CLAIBORNE AVENUE FROM THE I10/PONTCHARTRAIN TO SAINT BERNARDThe Claiborne Expressway is removed between the I10 interchange and St. Bernard Streets and isreplaced by a gradelevel restored Claiborne Avenue. The restored Claiborne Avenue would havethree travel lanes in each direction to provide sufficient capacity for traffic, and a wide median thatcan be landscaped or put to other public uses. Parallel parking, sidewalks and bicycle paths wouldalso be accommodated. The design speed of the restored Claiborne Avenue would be between 30mph and 35 mph. There would be signalized intersections as frequently as every other block (i.e.,spacing of 600 feet or greater) to allow access to and from other streets and to provide protectedpedestrian crossings. Intersections will have left turn lanes where needed, and in other locationsmedian left turn lanes will be provided for turns onto minor streets so that through traffic is notinterrupted. It is anticipated that actual average travel speeds on the new boulevard will be about30 mph during offpeak periods and 20 mph during peak traffic periods due to more delay atintersections.

AerialViewoftheRestoredClaiborneAvenueatSt.Bernard

Drawing by Mac Ball, Waggonner & Ball Architects, 2010.

POSSIBLECROSSSECTIONSOFARESTOREDNORTHCLAIBORNEAVENUE

The following figures show possible cross sections of Claiborne Avenue. The resulting corridorwould be similar in design and function to other New Orleans boulevards such as South Claiborne,Elysian Fields, or Canal Street. The generous width of the street rightofway (between 160 and 180feet) would allow for fixedguideway or highcapacity transit, such as a streetcar, light rail transit orbus rapid transit (BRT), to be incorporated into the street cross section. In addition, there is roomfor other enhancements such as a bicycle path or water retention canal. All of these features areshown in the following figures, but not all are required for a functional boulevard.


27/60


SmartMobilityandWaggonner&BallArchitects

EXISTING CONDITIONS:CLAIBORNE AT CANAL STREETClaiborne Avenue at Canal Street isheavily shadowed by the elevatedexpressway. Building heights reflectthe more central location andintense land uses of this part of thecorridor. There is onstreet parking

only on the north side of ClaiborneAvenue.


28/60



RESTORED CLAIBORNE AVENUE AT CANAL STREET

A possible cross section and plan view fora restored Claiborne Avenue is shown tothe right. There are three lanes of trafficin each direction, parallel parking isprovided on both sides of the street, and

the wide median provides room for anumber of uses. Shown to the right are abicycle path, canal for water retention,and light rail transit lines.


29/60



EXISTING CONDITIONS:CLAIBORNE AT URSULINES

The existing cross section ofClaiborne Avenue at Ursulines hastwo through traffic lanes in eachdirection, plus parallel parking insome locations. This south side of

this section is dominated by thefootprint of the scissor ramps to I10.


30/60



CLAIBORNE AVENUE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVE

This restored Claiborne crosssection continues the multimodalfeatures that was established atCanal Street. Three lanes of throughtraffic, parallel parking on both

sides, and a median with a bicyclepath, water retention canal, and lightrail transit are included.

The character of the development isof lower intensity in this area.Appropriately scaled redevelopment(shown in orange to the right) canoccur on the property formerlyoccupied by the I10 eastboundramps at Ursulines, greatlyincreasing the economic value in this

part of the corridor and providing amore visually appealing, balancedstreet cross section.


31/60



EXISTING CONDITIONS:CLAIBORNE AT ST.BERNARD

This portion of the corridor isdominated by flyover rampsconnecting the expressway withNorth Claiborne Avenue, leaving alarge footprint. The site was

formerly a traffic circle with alandmark public market, which stillexists (see bottom photo).


32/60



CLAIBORNE AVENUE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVE

A restored Claiborne Avenue wouldprovide numerous opportunities forredevelopment (shown in orange toright) on land made available byremoval of the flyover interchange

ramps. The cross section continuesthe same elements as shown inprevious sections, with a bike path,water retention canal and light railline.

The expressway removal provides agreat opportunity to restore thehistoric St. Bernard Circle (seefollowing page). The circle couldfunction as a three lane modernroundabout, or as a more traditional

traffic circle, possibly with signals tocontrol traffic. This would functionsimilarly to many of WashingtonDCs traditional traffic circles.


33/60



RESTORING ST.BERNARD CIRCLEThe restoration of Claiborne Avenue provides an opportunity to bring a former landmark location

back to life, St. Bernard Circle. The former traffic circle at St. Bernard and Claiborne Avenue was a

focal point in the neighborhood, and the site of a major public market, which still exists.

NewOrleansLandUseMap,1929

St.BernardPublicMarketandSt.BernardCircle(circa1945)fromtheHistoricNewOrleansCollection AerialviewofSt.BernardCircle,fromtheNewOrleansPublicLibrarySpecialCollections

St.BernardCircleWithandWithoutClaiborneExpressway

Rendering of St. Bernard Circle Before and After Claiborne Expressway Removal, by Mac Ball, Waggonner & Ball, 2010.


34/60



MULTIWAYBOULEVARDALTERNATIVE

Another possible cross section for segment B is a multiway boulevard, a design that is morecommon in Europe but gaining popularity in the United States. Throughtravel lanes are inthe center of the rightofway, allowing for a oneway local street on each side of thecorridor, lined with parallel parking. They are separated from the higher speed, highervolume through travel lanes by a promenade with a bike path and landscaping. In thisoption, the streetfronting land uses and pedestrian realm are buffered from the highervolume through lanes. This option provides higher traffic capacity, as there are no conflictswith parallel parking maneuvers that would impede through traffic.


35/60



SEGMENT C:SAINT BERNARD TO ELYSIAN FIELDSSeveral alternatives are possible for this segment, which is unique because the elevated structurewas not constructed over an existing rightofway but built diagonally over residential blocks.While the elevated expressway could remain in place, its negative impact can be seen throughoutthe neighborhood. Two options for this area are presented below.

OPTIONC1:REPLACEELEVATEDHIGHWAYWITHURBANPARKWAY/BOULEVARD

This alternative would create a new atgrade boulevard through the Seventh Ward between St.Bernard and Elysian Fields, in the path of the elevated freeway. The cross section would includethree lanes of traffic in each direction, a landscaped median, and a parallel bicycle path.Intersections can be provided at street crossings in a manner that will best serve the needs of theneighborhood. The diagonal path of the freeway through this street network will create challengesin terms of efficient intersection design and urban redevelopment along the edges of the corridor.


36/60



OPTIONC2:RESTORATIONOFTHESEVENTHWARDSTREETNETWORK

In this option, the expressway would be removed from Elysian Fields to St. Bernard, but notreplaced with a boulevard. Rather, traffic circulation and access to several alternative corridorswould be improved to encourage dispersal onto the street network. This would allow the SeventhWard neighborhood to be revitalized and reconnected with the removal of a substantial barrier and

source of noise and blight. It would also release many acres of developable property that could beused in a manner compatible with the neighborhood context and vision.

The following map shows some of the routes where traffic would be redistributed. From the end ofthe current I10 at Elysian Fields, traffic could turn either left on Elysian Fields to head toward theriver, or travel by the Galvez/Miro oneway pair, providing access to the planned biomedicalcomplex. Traffic that is heading uptown can either take the current I610 to Broad Street or takeElysian Fields to Claiborne Avenue. The existing street network in this area has many alternateroutes which have the capacity to absorb and distribute any traffic diverted by the closure of theelevated Claiborne/I10 Expressway.

OptionalRoutesforTrafficfromI-10East


37/60



ANALYSIS OF CLAIBORNE AVENUE ALTERNATIVESThe alternatives for the Claiborne Corridor as described above will have a number of importantconsequences both for the regions transportation system and for the neighborhoods along thecorridor. While a full analysis will require a more detailed feasibility study, the following discussionof the potential impacts is based on both existing data and on experience in other cities that haveundertaken similar freewaytoboulevard conversions.

IMPACTONTRAFFICCIRCULATION

The traffic circulation impacts of these changes can be assessed in detail through a feasibility studythat may incorporate traveldemand modeling. However, based on a review of existing data, theregions travel demand base model, and experience in other cities, the following effects areanticipated:

Traffic on the restored Claiborne Avenue is projected to be reduced to 70% or less of thecurrent expressway volume. This is based on numerous examples from other cities wheretraffic on former freeway corridors was reduced to as little as 50% of the freeway volumes.These include San Francisco, Milwaukee, and New York City, as described in more detail in

an appendix. Accessibility along Claiborne Avenue to reach the French Quarter, Louis Armstrong Park,and other destinations will improve substantially with a better connected street network.While travel times may increase slightly for through traffic, many vehicles that are headedto downtown locations will have more direct connections through the street network.

Some traffic that is now using the Claiborne Expressway as a through route will divert to theI10 portion of the Pontchartrain Expressway and I610, resulting in an increase in volumeson these corridors. However, the expected order of magnitude of this would be an increaseof less than 10% of existing volumes.

IMPACTONCORRIDORTRAVELTIME

Travel times along the Claiborne Expressway corridor from I610 to the Pontchartrain Expressway

are compared before and after the freeway removal. These travel times assume that the restoredClaiborne Avenue will have a 30 mph design speed, and also account for traffic signal delays.

TravelTimesonClaiborneExpresswayandRestoredClaiborneAvenue

Assumptions:AverageTravelSpeeds(mph) OffPeak PeakFreeway 60 45Boulevard 35 25TravelTimes(min)Scenario OffPeak PeakExisting 3.6 4.8OptionC1 5.5 7.6OptionC2 7.9 11.0FreewayAlternativeforfreight* 8.3 11.1* This option involves traveling on the existing I610 and I10 (Pontchartrain Expressway) to theClaiborne Avenue interchange


38/60



TravelTimesonClaiborneCorridorforexistingconditionsandrestorationalternatives

The travel time would be lengthened by two to four minutes during offpeak hours and by three tosix minutes during peak hours for most vehicles. Eastbound heavy freight traffic would be routedon the Pontchartrain Expressway to the current I610, which would increase travel times by asmuch as 6 minutes. Travel times for the restored boulevard scenarios are all less than using thePontchartrain Expressway /I610 route, so little diversion onto I610 is expected beyond freightuse.

IMPACTONMULTIMODALTRANSPORTATIONOPPORTUNITIES

The conversion to a boulevard will bring significant changes and opportunities for improvements in

several modes of transportation. Claiborne Avenue has one of the most generous rightofwaywidths, making it ideal to serve as a complete, multimodal street. The following changes to variousmodes of transportation can be anticipated from conversion to a boulevard.

Pedestrians.The freeway poses several challenges for pedestrians in its currentconfiguration. In many locations the freeway restricts street connectivity, especially ininterchange areas where ramps coming to grade level require street closures. This makesthe interchange areas particularly challenging and unsafe for pedestrians, as both cars andpedestrians are funneled onto single crossing points. Traffic that was traveling at high


39/60



speeds has an abrupt transition to an urban street, just at the same location wherepedestrian crossings are concentrated. The New Orleans Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan5 foundthat pedestrian crashes were relatively frequent along the Claiborne corridor. Whilefreeway removal will require that pedestrians encounter higher volumes of atgrade traffic,the street design can reinforce slower speeds, traffic dispersal onto the street network andsafer pedestrian design. These factors will mitigate the potentially greater conflicts from

bringing the corridor to grade level. Also, the freeway removal will allow for improvedstreet connectivity, which is critical in shortening pedestrian travel distances.

Bicyclists.Currently, the Claiborne Corridor does not provide good bicycle transportation.All of the alternatives described in this report include a separated bicycle path in thecorridor, which will result in a substantial improvement in conditions for this mode oftransportation. Bicycle travel is gaining mode share in New Orleans, and the changes in theClaiborne Corridor as described in this report could further encourage this positive trend.

PublicTransit. The corridor alternatives in this report are all fully capable of serving citybus transportation, but can also be readily adapted to a fixed route or highcapacity transitsystem, such as bus rapid transit or light rail/streetcar. There have been discussions in thecommunity about establishing highquality transit service on the Claiborne corridor, whichwould need to be the subject of a more detailed, focused study. Any of the alternativesdescribed in this report could be adapted to a variety of transit technologies.

OTHERIMPACTS

FreightTransportation: Freight traffic between the Port of New Orleans and destinations east onClaiborne Avenue I10 will be diverted to the Pontchartrain Expressway I10/I610 corridor, or usesurface truck alternatives. The magnitude of this potential impact can be identified in a subsequentfeasibility study, using origin/destination data from the Port of New Orleans.

ImprovedConnectivityEffects: The alternatives described in this report all have great potentialto increase street connectivity in the I10 and Claiborne corridor areas, which will bring numerousbenefits to both drivers and pedestrians. In the immediate Claiborne Avenue neighborhoods, the

existing ramps result in hampered connectivity and force pedestrians to use the same streets wherethere are also freeway interchanges.

EnvironmentalEffects: The freeway conversion to a boulevard would improve neighborhoodnoise levels, air pollution, and opportunities for storm water retention. While a more detailedenvironmental analysis can be conducted as part of a corridor feasibility study, it is anticipated thatair pollution and water quality/retention would be improved. Noise levels may increase due tohigher traffic volumes at the street level but could be somewhat mitigated by use of porouspavements and by the lower speeds.

EconomicImpacts: Existing data and case studies suggest that there will be positive economicdevelopment effects resulting from the conversion to a boulevard. Local property values,

accessibility due to improved connectivity, and redevelopment opportunities will result from theconversion. Significant acreage will become available for redevelopment, with improvedaccessibility, visibility and environment. (see figure below) Several important case studies providecompelling evidence as to how corridors can be revitalized when a freeway is replaced with a

52005 New Orleans Metropolitan Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan; Regional Planning CommissionJefferson, Orleans,Plaquemines, St. Bernard and St. Tammany Parishes; September 2006.


40/60



boulevard, in particular San Francisco, Milwaukee, and New York City. More information on these isincluded in the appendix.

BlocksforPotentialRedevelopmentwithRemovalofClaiborneExpressway

CONCLUSIONSThe following are key conclusions regarding the potential for removal of the elevated ClaiborneExpressway and its replacement with a restored boulevard.

High speed freeway travel through urban downtowns is not necessary for urban mobility,due to the close proximity of destinations. A highly connected urban street grid provides abetter way to move traffic to the complex array of destinations in a city. Distributing trafficto a street network, rather than concentrating on a freeway, reduces the impact of traffic.The potential for the removal of the Claiborne Expressway is further reinforced by theexcess capacity in New Orleans surface street network.

Removal of the Claiborne Expressway would allow the reestablishment of an attractive,high capacity, multimodal boulevard, would have numerous benefits:

o A restored North Claiborne Avenue would improve accessibility of importantdowntown locations such as the French Quarter,

o Conditions for other modes of transportation (bicycles, pedestrians, and transit)would be dramatically improved.

o A restored Claiborne Avenue would be very attractive and would enhance theeconomic potential of the immediate Claiborne Avenue corridor.

o Neighborhood connections would be restored.


41/60



Policy and decision makers should consider the appropriate balance between travel timefor some through freeway users and the benefits to the neighborhood, the economy, and for

other modes of transportation that would result from freeway removal.

The real benefits of removing a downtown urban freeway borne out by several cases ofurban freeway deconstruction in New York City, San Francisco and Milwaukee. Among the

key lessons from these case studies are:

o Traffic is adaptable. Urban traffic (i.e., drivers of motor vehicles) is highly adaptableand will divert to the best route available, especially when there is a highly

connected grid of streets. When a highspeed urban freeway is available, traffic is

drawn to that corridor due to the higher speeds. In cities that have experienced a

freeway removal, either planned or through a catastrophe, traffic has quickly

adapted and redistributed itself to other routes.

o Economic benefits result from removing elevated freeways. The localized economicharm that has resulted from the Claiborne Expressway is obvious, documented by

the low property values and decline that the corridor has experienced since the

freeway was constructed. Several compelling recent projects show the great benefitthat can result by removing elevated freeways and replacing them with well

designed, multimodal urban streets.


42/60


43/60


44/60

Existing Conditions Proposed Adjustments

4.1 miles

3.4 miles3.6 miles

Under I-10 between Orleans Ave. and Lafitte St.


45/60

68 District 4 - Recovery Planning Projects

Option 1: Partial Removal (Ramps Only)

Summary: Removes 8 individual I-10 ramps.

Provides 12 to 15 revitalization blocks.

Provides 4 blocks of neutral ground.

Ramps removed

Overpass / Interstate

Roadway under overpass

Acreage gained

CANALST.

ORLEANSAVE.

ESPLANADEAVE.

S T

CANALS

T.

ORLEANSAVE.

ESPLANA

DEAVE.

ST.

BE

RNARD

AVE

.


46/60

Option 2: Full Removal (Ramps Only)

Summary: Removes 2 miles of I-10 overhead.

Removes 12 ramps.

Provides 35 to 40 revitalization blocks.

Provides 20 to 25 blocks of neutral ground.

Ramps removed

Overpass / Interstate

Gained linear greenway

Acreage gained

CANALST

.

ORLEANS

AVE.

ESPLANAD

EAVE.

S T

CANALST.

ORLEANSAVE.

ESPLANADEAVE.

ST.

BERNARD

A V E


47/60


Type of Project: High Recovery Value

Category: Community Facilities

Area of Project Impact: Citywide / District-wide

Project Location: District 4

Project Description:

Throughout its history, New Orleanians have identi-

fied and planned networks of greenery as pathways

throughout the city. Neighborhoods were connected

by linkages that included linear parks like the Jeffer-

son Davis neutral ground, neighborhood parks like

Hardin Park, and City Park that extends from Bayou

St. John to Lake Pontchartrain. Current greenspace

planning suggests that ideally, all residents should

be within 1/3 of a mile from a park or green space.

Most of the neighborhoods in Districts 4 are far from

that ideal.

To remedy the lack of green space, open lots should

be consolidated and converted into neighborhood

parks through voluntary sale and/or exchange pro-

grams, and the landscaping of neutral grounds

should be improved to make them more inviting and

useable. Neighborhood parks which were converted

to temporary FEMA trailer sites must be restored and

replanted. As capital improvement projects are un-

dertaken throughout the city (especially utility repair

and road replacement), work efforts must be inte-

grated and coordinated so as to minimize disruption.

Anticipated Outcomes:Creating new open spaces will provide a higher

quality of life for residents and attract visitors and

potential investors. Increasing green space also offers

more drainage capacity during heavy rainfall events.

Linking green space throughout the city not only

improves aesthetics, but also facilitates alternative

transportation routes.

New Open Space Connections with-in Network (including Bike Paths)

Areas of District 4 within 5 Minute Walk of Existing Parks

2

4

6

5

7

12

13

1427

24

25

Areas beyond 1/3 mile

(5 min walk) radius of an

existing park

Green Boulevards

Existing Park Space


48/60


49/60


Bicycle paths have enormous value as recreational

assets and serve as important transportation alter-

natives for residents. Creating a network of bicycle

paths along existing streets will encourage ridership

and bicycle safety. As part of the City-wide street

reconstruction and repairwork, adequate space for

bike paths should be reserved and upgrades to side-

walks, crossings and curbs should be made a priority

to encourage pedestrian usage. This work shouldincorporate design standards from the Louisiana

Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the

AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facili-

ties and recommendations of the Parks and Recre-

ation Component of the Citys 2002 Master Plan.

Map of Open Spaces and Prop

Bike Path

Pocket Park at Esplanade Ave, Grand Route St. John

and Mystery Streets

Existing Conditions of the Lafitte Corridor.Proposed Bike Connection from River to Lake


50/60

City of New OrleaMap indicating thezation of bicycle ro

Map courtesy of NCommission, Mas

City of New OrleansMap indicating the designations for PhaCommissions Mast

Map courtesy of Nemission, Masterplan

Existing

Propos

Propos

Propos

Existing Exclusive

Signed S

Designation of Proposed Bike Paths

Phases of Proposed Bike Paths


51/60


52/60

Oak trees provide shade along North

Claiborne Avenues grassy neutral ground

between Elysian Fields Avenue and where

I-10 begins its elevated position.

North Claiborne Avenue alongside and

underneath the elevated I-10.

Louis Armstrong Park located in Treme is

home to two performance centers, the

Morris F.X. Jeff, Sr. Municipal Auditorium,

above, and the Mahalia Jackson Center

for the Performing Arts.

Restore N. Claiborne /

St. Bernard traffic circle

WES

T

Remove I-10 access

ramps - redevelop as

mixed-use with

concealed parking

Revitalize historic

commercial development

Remove I-10 access

ramps - redevelop as

mixed-use residential

development with

on-site parking

Restore Claiborne boulevard

and Oak Canopy

INTE

RSTATE

10EAST

St.Bernard

A

venue

St. Louis ICemetery

Restore MaCenter for the P

Renovate Muinto neig

/

Proposal to Restore St. Bernard Ave. Circle Proposal for Lou


53/60

FUTURE LAND USE FOR THE CLAIBORNE CORRIDORThe New Orleans future land use map identifies a variety of different characteristics along the length of the C

southwest end, near the I10/Pontchartrain interchange, shows future land uses as institutional and medica

employment are here and more are planned, which would ideally be easily accessed by public transit. The r

corridor is planned for continued residential and neighborhood commericial, much like what existed before

constructed. As noted earlier in this report, these commerical uses declined substantially following the high

the most recent future land use map from the City of New Orleans Planning Commission.


54/60

NewFuturesforAgingUrbanFreewaysFreewayshavebeen constructed through thedowntownsofmany cities across theUnited States, intended to

ensureeconomicviabilityinanerawhensuburbangrowth,alongwithcarownershipanduse,wasaccelerating.It

was feared thatwithout suchdirecthighway connectionsurbandowntownswoulddie. Inhindsight, there are

seriousconcernsthatthesefreewayshavedonemoreharmthangood.Wenowknowthaturbanfreewayshave

broughthuge

collateral

damage

in

the

form

of

environmental,

social,

aesthetic,

and

economic

harm

to

cities,

and

havegenerallycontributedtofurtherdeclineinalreadydecliningareas.

Manyoftheseurbanhighwaysarenowoverfiftyyearsoldand inneedofmajor investment.Insomecities,this

hasbeenviewedasanopportunitytoaddressthenegativeimpactsassociatedwiththefirstgenerationofhighway

constructionandtoreconsiderthefuture infrastructureandmobilityneedsoftheirregionsaswellastheir local

communities.Somecities intheUSareconsideringremovingtheiragingurbanfreewaysaltogether.Thisreport

presents three instructive examples of removal, reviewing the trafficflow and economic consequences that

resultedfromconvertingurbanfreewaysintoboulevards.

Central Freeway, San Francisco

The

Central

Freeway

was

an

elevated

highway

that

towered

over

the

moderate

income

Hayes

Valley

neighborhood.

Itwas intendedtoeventuallycrossthecityofSanFranciscoasathroughroute,butthemovementthatarose in

opposition to urban freeways prevented its

completion. Therefore, the Central Freeway

functionedasaspur,although itcarriedsignificant

traffic volumeover 90,000 cars per day.Damage

from the Loma Prieta earthquake forced this

highway to close, and public support for

demolishing it rather than rebuilding it gradually

took hold.As timepassed,drivers adapted to the

lossofthefreeway,anditbecameapparentthatits

closure

had

many

positive

effects

on

the

neighborhood, such as lower noise levels and less

traffic. Despite this, the California Department of

Transportation (CalTrans)proceededwithplans to

rebuildtheelevatedfreeway,whichwasreopened

in1996withasingledeckservingtwodirections(ratherthanthepreviousdoubledeckdesign).

Two attempts to tear down thehighwayweremade throughballot initiativesby the San FranciscoNeighbors

Associationbetween1994and1999.Acompetingballotmeasurewas introducedbyorganizationsrepresenting

neighborhoodstothewest,whichfearedthatthefreeways

removal would cause unbearable congestion. During this

time,

a

proposal

by

Alan

Jacobs

and

Elizabeth

MacDonald

of

UC Berkeley to replace the freeway with a multiway

boulevard gained support. Finally, a referendum vote in

1999had two conclusive results:measureswereapproved

both to tear down the freeway and to build Octavia

Boulevardasareplacement.Thefreewaywasdemolishedin

2002,in2005OctaviaBoulevardwasopened.Theboulevard

nowcarries45,000carsperday.


55/60

OctaviaBoulevard (Credit:BillLieberman)

Arecentstudy3ofpropertyvaluesandothereffectsofthefreewaytoboulevardconversionreachedthefollowing

conclusions:

PropertyvalueswithinmileofthefreewayhaverisensignificantlysincetheopeningofthenewmultwayOctaviaBoulevard.

DailytrafficonCentralFreewaywasabout90,000vehicles,andonOctaviaBoulevarditisnowabout45,000vehicles.Surveysofcommuterswhoformerlyusedthefreewayindicatethatmostdriverswhono

longerusethefreewayaresimplyusinganotherrouteintothecityandthatveryfewswitchedtopublic

transit.

Thetrafficcongestionthatwaspredictedfromthefreewaysclosurenevermaterialized.Theprojecthassuccessfullyaddressedtheneedfortrafficcapacity,withnearlyhalfofthepriortrafficvolume

findingotherroutesorchangingmodes.Thecityhasconductedtrafficcountsofneighborhoodstreetssurrounding

theboulevard,andhasnotfoundanysignificantincreasesfromthediversion.Theneighborhoodaroundthenew

boulevard

has

seen

increased

residential

and

commercial

investment.

The

boulevard

is

considered

largely

successful,althoughsomedesignissuescontinuetorequirerefinement,particularlyconflictsatintersections

between sideaccessroadsandcrossstreettraffic.

AgreatdealcanbelearnedlearnfromthisSanFranciscoproject.Itoffersanexampleoftheabilityoftraffictore

route itself in an urban network and adapt to a highway capacity reduction. A survey of downtownworkers

conductedby theUniversityofCalifornia TransportationCenter4 indicates thatmostperviousCentral Freeway

drivers switched tootherdriving routesandvery few switched topublic transit.Theprojectalso shows thata

multiwayboulevardcancarrysignificanttrafficvolumesandstillprovideafriendlyedgeforanurban,pedestrian

orienteddevelopment. Theurban environment in theneighborhood adjacent to this freewaywasdramatically

improvedbytheproject,throughbothareduction innoiseandtrafficand improvementforothermodes inthe

corridor. Even though there are stillover40,000 carsperday travelingonOctaviaBoulevard, theydrive at a

slowerspeed.

In

addition,

redevelopment

of

newly

available

property

will

bring

additional

revenue

to

the

city.

Itneedstoberememberedthattheprocessofreplacingthe freewaywiththisboulevardwashighlypoliticized,

requiringthreedifferentballotvotesand includingconflictingviews fromdifferentneighborhoods.Theplanning

processdidnotresultinaconsensusdecision.


56/60

Park East Freeway, Milwaukee

The Park East Freeway was a onemile

elevatedspurconnectionbetween I43and

downtown Milwaukee. It was originally

intendedto

continue

through

downtown,

but was never completed. The impacts of

this freeway caused a great deal of

controversy such that the extension plans

were abandoned, and eventually the old

rightofway intended for this highways

continuationbecametheEastPointemixed

use development. In 1972, Mayor Henry

Maier vetoed funding to continue the

freeway,saying:"America istheonlynation

in the world to let her cities ride to

bankruptcyon

afreeway

....My

city

has

discovered that the freeway is not free."

Becauseofitsshortlength,theParkEastFreewaywasneverheavilyused,carryingabout40,000vehiclesperday,

wellbelowitscapacity.

As the elevated freeway was deteriorating, the Wisconsin DOT proposed spending about $100 million to

reconstruct it.TheCityofMilwaukeesoughtalternativesthatwouldbothbesounder investmentsandallowthe

reclamationofsomeofthelandthatwasblightedbythefreeway.Theresultingprojectinvolveddemolishingthe

freeway in 1999. Since then, there has been significant redevelopment of the former Park East corridor,with

substantial private real estate investments

contributing to downtown Milwaukees

revitalization.

It was the success of the East Pointe

redevelopmentinthe1990sthathelpedleadto

the consideration of removing the remaining

underutilized and deteriorating Park East

Freeway while it was still slated for

reconstruction. The funding to eventually

removethefreewaycame fromacombination

ofIntermodalSurfaceTransportationEfficiency

Act (ISTEA) federal highway funds and Tax Increment Financing through the City of Milwaukee. The total

constructioncostwasabout$25million,which includeddemolishing the freewayand reconnecting thesurface

streets

to

absorb

the

former

freeway

traffic.

The

freeways

removal

freed

up

26

acres

of

downtown

land,

much

of

itontheMilwaukeeRiverfront, for redevelopment. After theremoval, landuseschangedandvalues increased

substantially.TheCityofMilwaukeehasestablishedtheParkEastCorridordevelopmentarea,withamasterplan

formixeduseurbanredevelopmentthatisgraduallyunfolding.


57/60

TheParkEastcorridorbeforeandafterthefreewayremoval

ParkEastCorridorin2006,withstreetnetworkreestablished.

Source:CityofMilwaukee

Theprocessof removing theelevatedParkEast Freewaywas ledby thenmayor JohnNorquist.Asmentioned

earlier, the idea for removing the freeway was inspired by successful urban redevelopment in nearby

neighborhoodsand triggeredbyaWisconsinDOTinitiatedplan,proposed in themid1990s, to reconstruct the

deteriorating freeway.WithMayorNorquist strongly in favor of highway removal and traffic analysis reports

indicating that reconnecting the streetnetworkwouldprovide sufficientcapacity to replace the freeway,other

agencieswere

encouraged

to

join

in

support

of

the

idea

of

removal.

While

it

was

not

without

controversy,

overall

community leadershipatall levels solidly favored the removalconcept. In1999, thecitycouncilagreedon the

removal option by a unanimous vote, and the countyboard of commissioners approved the freeway removal

proposal by a very largemargin. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) required that additional traffic

studiesbecompletedbeforeagreeingtofundtheproject,partlybecauseFHWAwasconcernedaboutthethreat

oflawsuitsbyopponentsoftheremoval.Thehighwaywasremovedin2003.

The removal project set the stage for highly successful urban redevelopment,which is ongoing today. Traffic

congestionpredictedby someasa resultof the removalnevermaterialized. Economicdevelopmenthasbeen

encouraged, vacant property has been redeveloped, and property values and tax revenues have increased

substantiallysincethefreewaywasremoved.

Anumber

of

important

things

can

be

learned

from

this

case

of

urban

freeway removal. The street network was easily able to absorb the

freeway traffic, despite limited transit alternatives in the city. Traffic

congestiondidnotnoticeablyincreaseafterthefreewaywasremoved.

Thebenefitsofopeningupunderutilized land inthecenterofthecity

and along the Milwaukee River for redevelopment seem to have

outweighedanynegativeeconomiceffectsfromthe lossofconvenient

highway access. The removal of the Park East Freeway has been

TheFlatironBuilding,CityofMilwaukee


58/60


59/60

West Side Highway, New York CityIn1973,a sectionof theWestSideHighway,

which ran along the Hudson River,

catastrophically collapsed. While a detour

route provided for throughtraffic through

localstreets,ittookmanyyearsandthestudy

of a variety of options before the City

developed its replacement.Adetailed traffic

count program was established to trace the

carsdiverted from thehighway,and it found

thatmostofthetraffictrulydisappeared into

the streetnetworkwithno traffic congestion

evermaterializing from the freeway collapse.

The new West Side corridor is a boulevard

with a parallel riverfront bicycle path.

Economicdevelopment

and

property

values

have both increased substantially since the

newboulevardwasconstructed.

TheWestSideHighwaywasthefirstelevatedhighwayintheU.S.whenitwasbuiltinthe1920s.Itranalongthe

HudsonRivershorelinefrom72nd

StreettothesoutherntipofManhattan.Itwasnotdesignedtomodernhighway

standardsbuthadverynarrowlanesandsharpturnsatexitramps.Itcarriedupto140,000vehiclesperdayinthe

early1970sbetweenmidtownandlowerManhattan.OnDecember15,1973,thenorthboundlanesbetween12th

andGansevoortStreets collapsedunder theweightofadump truckwhich, ironically,was carryingasphalt for

highway repairs. Traffic had to be immediately diverted onto adjacent streets, which resulted in the traffic

throughout this routedropping to lessthanhalf its formervolume.

At 60th

Street, for example, daily traffic decreased from 111,000

vehiclesperday in1973to51,000 in1975.However,therewereno

perceptible increases in traffic on other parallel corridors. An

interview with Sam Schwartz, former Chief Engineer of NYCDOT,

providedsomehistoryonhowthecollapseaffectedtheareastraffic

conditions:

Oneofmy firstassignmentswas racingout to theWestSide

Highwaywhen itcollapsed.Thiswasanelevatedplatformthat

fell to the ground.Wewere hired tomeasure the impact on

traffic. Iput trafficcountersallacross theavenuesand traced

thediversion; itwent to the FDRDrive and to theWestSide

avenues.But

over

time,

we

didn't

see

any

increase

in

traffic:

the

other

avenues

absorbed

it

and

we

weren'tabletotraceit.

DesigningaReplacementBecause the collapse of the freeway was an unexpected catastrophe, there were no plans in place for a

replacement facility.Althoughthehighwayhadbeenclosed foryears,alternativesforupgradingthecorridorto

theWestwaywerefinallystudiedinthelate1980s.Theseincluded:

WestSideHighway(FHWAphoto)


60/60

1. A no build proposal that would have reconstructed the collapsed highway under the priorconfiguration,

2. Afamilyofalternativesthat includedanatgradeboulevardwithsome improvementstoaccesspoints,and

3. Afullygradeseparatedexpressway.

Thesealternativesallincludedparallelbicycleandpedestrianfacilities.Aftersevenyearsofreviewanddiscussion,

avariationofalternative(2),whichcommunityboardmemberscalledthe"Lessway,"wasapprovedinMay1993.

Construction bega

Documents

I-10 Removal and Claiborne Alternatives - New Orleans