THE FUTURE OF I-787 AND THE ALBANY WATERFRONT

The Future of I-787 and the Albany Waterfront is the premiere of The Stakeholders, Inc.s Sustainable Cities Project. The mission of the Sustainable Cities project is to create visions that act as starting points for inclusive community discussions that, in turn, lead to transformative projects based on the pillars of sustainability: social, environmental, economic. The goal is to have these discussions lead to further design scenarios, with one of those scenarios eventually becoming a reality.

This project could not have been completed without the assistance of the following: Sponsors:

Design Team: Jodi Smits-Anderson, DASNY Alicia Germano, 3tstudios David Hogenkamp, Empire State Future Sandy Misiewicz, AICP, CDTC Scott Townsend, 3tarchitects Craig Church, ASLA Rocky Ferraro, AICP, CDRPC Doug Melnick, AICP, Team Leader, City of Albany Chris Netski, 3tarchitects Mike Wyatt, NYSDOT

Report Development: Writer: David Hogenkamp, Sustainable Cities Chair Editors: Jen Ceponis, Sustainable Communities Institute Co-Chair Jillian Faison, Sustainable Cities Team Joseph Moloughney, Sustainable Communities Institute Co-Chair Volunteers: Jen Ceponis Martin Daley Jamie Dughi Chris Franklin Addy Haberbush Omar Peters Jim Salengo Laura Schultz Meaghan Tartaglia Stanley Tartaglia Michael Weidrich Michael Williams Leah Ziamandanis

Special thanks goes out to the Grand Street Community Arts Center for allowing us to use their venue free of charge for our public input session.

Content
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5 The History of I-787 ....................................................................................................................... 6 The Successful Transformation of the Working Waterfront ........................................................ 10 Baltimore, Maryland: The Inner Harbor ....................................................................................... 11 The Hidden Waterfront: The Highway Dilemma ......................................................................... 13 Decking Over Highways to Reconnect the Waterfront ................................................................ 14 Freeways to Boulevards: Scaling Down our Highways ............................................................... 20 Complete Removal of the Right-of-Way: Eliminating the Highway ........................................... 24 Visions for a New I-787 ................................................................................................................ 27 Public Input Sessions .................................................................................................................... 30 Survey Results .............................................................................................................................. 33 Conclusion: Making the Right Decision for Albanys Future ...................................................... 38 Works Cited .................................................................................................................................. 42 Appendix1: Design1 ..................................................................................................................... 43 Appendix 2: Design 2 ................................................................................................................... 44 Appendix 3: Results from Public Input Session ........................................................................... 45 Appendix 4: Survey ...................................................................................................................... 53 Appendix 5: Survey Results.......................................................................................................... 56

Figures:

Figure 1: Proposed Buried Highway Interchange at Washington Park. 7 Figure 2: Planned Arterial System within the City of Albany.. 8 Figure 3: I-787/South Mall Arterial Interchange.. 9 Figure 4: Entrance to Albanys Waterfront.. 10 Figure 5: Bridge Apartments 16 Figure 6: The Duluth waterfront 1960s.. 18 Figure 7: Duluths waterfront transformation.. 19 Figure 8: CNU and CNTs: Top Teardown Prospects.. 20 Figure 9: Milwaukees Park Freeway East.. 22 Figure 10: A Postcard of the Harbor Drive.. 26 Figure 11: Tom McCall Waterfront Park. 27 Figure 12: Descriptions of the Two Designs........ 29 Figure 13: May 17 Community Input Session.. 31 Figure 14: Willingness to Tolerate Longer Commute ..36 Figure 15: Desire for an Attractive Waterfront. 37 2

Executive Summary
Interstate 787 has consistently been identified as a barrier to waterfront access and to vitality in downtown Albany. The Stakeholders, Inc., in conjunction with sponsors, Mohawk Fine Paper, 3tarchitects, and the City of Albanys Office of Energy and Sustainability, teamed up to address this challenge by commencing a discussion on designing a more sustainable future for I-787. The Future of I-787 and the Albany Waterfront is the premier of The Stakeholders, Inc.s Sustainable Cities project. The mission of the Sustainable Cities project is to create visions that act as starting points for inclusive community discussion that leads to transformative projects based on the pillars of sustainability: social, environmental, economic. The goal is that these discussions will lead to further design scenarios, with one of those scenarios eventually becoming a reality. The Sustainable Cities Project included three components: a research effort of successful waterfront transformations, a concurrent visioning design effort, and a public outreach process. The volunteer project team created two visions for a new waterfront that incorporate the pillars of sustainability: social, environmental, economic. The team consisted of design, transportation and planning professionals. The two visions generated for the I-787 corridor were finalized following multiple group design meetings, personal research, as well as industry experience. The team identified the major challenges with the current design and the resolutions that should be incorporated in any future redesign efforts. These resolutions included: - New connections via better pedestrian and bike access - New commercial and residential development sites - Utilization of green infrastructure & buildings - Redevelopment includes renewable energy sources 3

- Job opportunities for new development - Better connections with neighborhoods - More opportunity for commuter and visitor access - Design to reflect the impacts of climate change and sea level rise - Minimizes maintenance costs to City of Albany and NYS From these resolutions two visuals were born (Appendix 1, Appendix 2) to serve as the visions for starting the community discussion. While the designs serve as two separate concepts, both designs incorporate the aforementioned ambitions. Public turnout for the session was strong at the April 26 and May 17, 2011 input sessions, with over fifty community members attending each. Through the visioning exercises and the ten question survey, The Stakeholders, Inc. learned that the public believes there is much potential for the waterfront and I-787, but as it stands, there is a lack of amenities- commercial/shopping, safety concerns because of underutilized space, poor access, aesthetically unappealing and loud due to vehicular and rail traffic. The survey indicates that participants would change their living, spending, and recreational habits if a more sustainable I-787 design existed. Participants indicated that they would like to be engaged in the conversation to find a community solution and those who use I787 to commute, would be willing to sacrifice a longer commute in return for a more accessible and vibrant waterfront. The Stakeholders, Inc. is thrilled to offer this report to our elected officials and to the public at large as we stake a claim in our community. We look forward to this report being the basis for future discussion on how to create a more livable and sustainable city that is equitable as well as environmentally and economically sustainable. Vibrant urban areas, main streets and town centers are the answer if we are to make the Capital Region the preferred destination for the young and innovative generation.

Introduction
In many cities, physical barriers serve as expensive obstacles preventing the reconnection of the urban center to the waterfront. These barriers, whether they are in the form of massive highway and rail infrastructure or polluted industrial relics from the historic working-waterfront, restrict desired quality-of-life improvements and economic development opportunities. For residents of Albany, New York, it has become overly clear that Interstate 787 (I-787) and the adjoining rail line will frustrate any substantial effort to reconnect the city to the river. In the past, cities like Albany have conceded to the premise that resolving the problems created by highway infrastructure is an unfeasible venture. These infrastructure projects, in some cases still relatively new, served as major public investments. Conjointly, many community members as well as local representatives hold the belief that highways are part of the solution to urban decay, not part of the problem. Despite evidence pointing to the contrary, many today still believe that creating access to the city by single-occupancy-vehicles is the most crucial element to the urban centers vitality. As the design-lifespan of the I-787 infrastructure approaches, many in the community have led the call for a new vision for the waterfront and I-787; a vision that jointly addresses vehicle movement and the vibrancy and livability of the city. The Stakeholders Inc. decided to explore the future of I-787 as their first Sustainable Cities Project. The project consisted of a visioning process, with a project team consisting of design, transportation, and planning professionals. That effort was followed up with a public input campaign based on the design proposals and a research effort that explores the history of I-787, the alternatives that have been implemented throughout the country, as well as the results of the public input sessions.

The purpose of this report is to share with the public what the Sustainable Cities Project Team has learned during this effort. All of those involved in the project intend for this to serve as a starting point for a more sustainable future on the Albany waterfront.

The History of I-787

I-787 is a 10.16 mile, north to south auxiliary highway that is the main artery for vehicle traffic traveling north from I-87 entering downtown Albany. I-787 begins at I-87s exit 23 toll plaza, running parallel along the western shore of the historic Hudson River, north until the Interstate intersects with Route-7 North at exit 9. I-787 also connects to the New York State Thruway, Interstate-90, north of the city of Albany. The highway incorporates a series of viaducts providing for the Colonie Main Line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, a heavily traveled freight rail line. This rail line intersects with I-787 in the center of downtown. Beyond the official end of Interstate 787, New York State Route-787 continues north to downtown Cohoes as a four-lane divided highway with at-grade intersections. With the end of World War II, New York State began to develop highway laws that would confront the issues created from automobiles passing through city limits. HAY (highway law) Article 12B 349, which allowed for the development of highways in New York State, declared that the modernization and the construction of arterial highways which are to pass through cities, will contribute greatly to post-war reemployment and to the stimulation of industrial recovery (349-b). The planning of Interstate-787 commenced in the 1950s led by the New York State Public Works Department (Jordan, 2006). I-787, known as The Riverfront Route, was planned to connect with a proposed Northern Expressway. These routes along with a proposed Mid-Crosstown Arteriala project that many likened to Robert Moses proposed and fortunately never built, LOMAX in Lower Manhattan- were part of a complex 6

transformation planned in the City of Albany (Jordan, 2006). While in many urban-centers such transportation projects would bring the highest of public scrutiny, these transportation initiatives ran concurrently with a public works project that displaced nine thousand residents, Governor Nelson Rockefellers modernist concrete exhibit, the Empire State Plaza.

Figure 1: Proposed Buried Highway Interchange at Washington Park

Figure 2: Planned Arterial System within the City of Albany

Red- Crosstown (I-85) Pink- Proposed Southside Yellow- Proposed Northside Green- River (I-787) Purple-Proposed Mid-Crosstown

While many of the proposed highway projects never materialized, the construction of the Riverfront Route began in the early 1960s. By the mid-1960s the first segment of I-787 connecting I-87 to Bassett Street was opened to motorists. Construction of I-787 continued north throughout the late-1960s, soon taking the modern form we know today. The initial construction cost of I-787 was eighty million dollars (in 1969/1970 dollars). The original construction included a twelve year planning and design period followed by six years of construction.

Figure 3: I-787/South Mall Arterial Interchange

Promised as a project that would enhance the quality-of-life in the region, many feel that I-787 ended up having the reverse effect for countless Albany residents. The development of I787 created a waterfront that is primarily shut off from pedestrian access. The gateways that do exist to the waterfront are not representative of the beauty and historic nature of the Hudson River. Many feel that the noise and air pollution from the highway destroy the tranquility of the natural resource. As the lifespan of much of Interstate787s infrastructure enters a time period when comprehensive repairs or replacement is necessary, Albany has been given a second opportunity to form a new riverfront that enhances, rather than impedes, quality-of-life.

Figure 4: Entrance to Albanys Waterfront

The Successful Transformation of the Working Waterfront

Starting as early as the 1930s, many cities chose to build immense highway infrastructure to serve the growing suburban population and to act as visual barriers to the still working or now abandoned industrial waterfronts. By the 1960s, this highway buildup was in full force. Modernity in the 1960s represented a break from the past when physically, and psychologically, society relied on the waterfront and believed in the urban setting. As technology changed, allowing industry to abandon waterfronts, they vacated land in such a poor environmental state that the waterfront lost its natural attraction to many urban residents (Khanolkar, 2009). The waterfront, once the lifeblood of the urban center, stood as a virtual dead, inaccessible and unsafe area, further separating the urban core from the water (Khanolkar, 2009).

10

Despite many believing that the damage to our waterfronts was irreversible, others insisted that the waterfront could be saved for a purpose other than a highway corridor. By the 1970s, with large tracks of urban waterfronts lying unused, centrally located, and inexpensivein conjunction with the development of federal and state policies that promoted waterfront development, such as the Clean Water Act- some communities began to make progress towards transforming their waterfronts. In some cities, local governments began creating workforces to generate visions for the waterfronts. These efforts resulted in real change in those communities, when the visions turned into realities. While it would be insincere to represent that redeveloped waterfronts are a panacea of urban ills, in all of the communities studied such redevelopment resulted in substantial benefits to the surrounding urban area by creating a fresh image and new economic opportunity.

Baltimore, Maryland: The Inner Harbor

One of the true success stories in waterfront revitalization is Baltimore, Maryland. The Baltimore Harbor was once one of Americas most productive ports during the 1700s and early 1800s. This was until 1904, when the Great Baltimore Fire destroyed more than 140 acres of prime business land (Pike, 2003). This fire dismantled the main commercial center which included shipping agents, chandlers, copper and tin manufactures curriers and furniture makers thus severely limiting the need for imports. Many businesses chose not to rebuild, and the economy slowed to the point that, by 1950s, the Inner Harbor was almost abandoned (Pike, 2003). The closing of ONeills Department store in 1954 symbolized the final straw of the disinvestment within the region, in particular the commercial center. The momentum to rebuild the harbor was first spearheaded by local merchants, who later gained support from utilities, banks and other property owners. These parties created a joint 11

effort to form a Committee for Downtown while other concerned citizens concurrently formed the Greater Baltimore Committee. These committees, in 1956, created a wholly owned subsidiary, the Planning Council, which was financially supported by both committees. By 1959, the citizen groups, alongside the City government, adopted their first official urban renewal plan (Pike, 2003). By 1964, construction within downtown was underway. David Wallace, a renowned planner and architect, who had been guiding the city through the development efforts, produced a plan that provided the basic guidance for a 30 year, $260 million effort to redevelop the harbors edge. His idea to bring the public to the waters edge was visionary in an era that trended towards keeping the public away from the industrialized waterfront, by proposing highways to effectively block off access (Pike, 2003). In 1968, Inner Harbor construction started and by 1972 the first attraction, the U.S.S. Constellation moved to a new home within the harbor. The progress continued throughout the 70s as athletic fields, a world-class aquarium, and the Maryland Science Center were among the many new attractions along the waterfront. Other features implemented in an attempt to promote pedestrian traffic included new office space within the IBM building and a Harbor campus of the local Community College (Pike, 2003). By 1978, James Rouse, an American developer, best known for his work with planned communities and festival marketplaces, proposed two pavilions of shops and restaurants along the Inner Harbor promenade. His proposal was met with public opposition with fear that commercial development would; eliminate open space, local shops would suffer, and that the African American population would be frozen out of high-priced shops and restaurants (Pike, 2003). After addressing these issues with concessions to the minority community and attention to design to provide for open space, the proposal for the project, later named Harborplace, passed with a slight majority.

12

While Harborplace has been seen as the symbol of the harbor development, it is important to point out that there were more than 90 different developers and millions of dollars involved in the areas revitalization (Pike, 2003). The communitys aptitude to voice initial concerns, followed by the strong partnership between business and government, were imperative to this transformation. One of the most important and often overlooked elements, that those close to the Inner Harbor project give credit to, is the comprehensive plan. The project, except for a few minor changes, stuck to the comprehensive plan; this resulted in a project that had credibility and long-term vision (Pike, 2003).

The Hidden Waterfront: The Highway Dilemma

Following World War II, a mass exodus occurred in many of our industrial centers, to the suburban life of backyard pools and barbeques. As many found comfort in the new suburban landscape, the public at large did not envision the industrial waterfront as a future area for recreation or residence. To support the suburbanization massive highway infrastructure was needed, with much of that built along the undesired waterfront land. Since some of our nations earliest transportation projects, often the easiest place to build transportation networks ended was along waterways. The Erie Canal, built from 1817 till 1832, along the Mohawk Valley, is just one example of how the naturally flat land along a waterway allows for an easier surface to build a transportation network. The same passage way that was used for the canal was eventually used for rail lines and portions of I-90. Many of Americas largest cities now have extensive and expensive highway infrastructure that severely limits redevelopment of the adjoining waterfronts. A select few have taken up the challenge of finding creative ways to improve waterfront access while dealing with

13

the existing infrastructure. Three design options in particular have inspired transformations in other American cities. These options can serve as models in Albany, N.Y. The first scenario is decking over the highway; this refers to removing the raised highway and rebuilding the road infrastructure below-grade. This alternative would allow for the use of air-rights to allow development or create more green space over the highway infrastructure. The second alternative is to boulevard the right-a-way by removing existing raised highway infrastructure and replacing it with a grade-level roadway. This alternative has been actively promoted by the Congress of New Urbanism (CNU), who has ranked the Top 10 Freeways without Futures. The third viable alternative that has been implemented elsewhere is a complete removal of the corridor for automobile transportation. While at first, an option this radical may appear unrealistic to meet traffic demands. Yet, there are precedents in cities much larger than Albany where this has been accomplished with great success.

Decking Over Highways to Reconnect the Waterfront

The reality for any project is that the most amicable scenario can often be the most expensive. As the I-787s elevated freeway portion approaches the end of the suggested usable lifespan, an interesting alternative is to take the elevated section and bury it below grade. The most famous, or infamous, example of below-grade highway development was completed on December 31, 2007. The Big Dig in Boston, MA, was as one reporter put it, one of the most tumultuous eras in the citys history (LeBlanc, 2007). Air rights development is not an idea that arose with the Big Dig project in Boston. Examples of integrating transportation networks with other development can be traced as far back as the Fourteenth Century in Florence, Italy, where the Ponte Vecchio Bridge has supported a vibrant commercial development still in existence today (Campbell, 2004). It 14

wasnt until the early 20th century that the United States first began air space development. Most of the early air space development that was seen was over or under rail infrastructure rather than highways, despite the push of influential urban theorists such as Le Corbusier. By the 1950s, during Eisenhowers push for a national highway network, federal highway planners actively promoted air rights development as a way of enticing reluctant cities to embrace highway construction (Campbell, 2004). This strategy was unsuccessful in most American cities as inexpensive land was plentiful for new auto-centric development. This continued to push development out rather than promoting density in many American cities. Only in the largest urban areas, where the premium for land was much higher, could highway planners and city officials entice developers to pay extra to build over transportation corridors. Some examples include Chicago; the Central Post office over the Eisenhower Expressway, completed in 1935, and the Bridge Apartments low-income housing, developed in 1964, over I-95 in New York City (Campbell, 2004). The developers who did pay the premium to build over highway corridors often dealt with unforeseen side effects due to poor technology. The air and noise pollution from highways can lead to a severe loss in quality-of-life for the people who will use the development daily. In the case of the Bridge Apartments, The New York Times columnist David Chan offered up a great narrative with a few contesting views in his 2004 piece Life on the Road; Learning to Sleep as Trucks Roar Through the Basement. New York City, he describes, has no shortage of places where transportation and private housing overlap The Bridge Apartments are however quite unique as it hovers over the Trans-Manhattan Expressway, one of the busiest arteries for commuters entering into and out of New York City from New Jersey. The four 32-story buildings, developed from the auctioning of the three-acre air rights over the right-of-way to the

15

Kratter Corporation for a little over $1 million, are fully rented (as of 2004) and offer panoramic views of everything from the Tappan Zee Bridge to the north, and the New York skyline to the south (Chen, 2004). While location and views are breathtaking, serious downfalls exist. According to Chen: If the windows are open, the noise is most deafening on the middle floors, and people inside find that they need to raise their voices to hold a conversation or talk on the phone. The winds carry vehicle exhaust upward, which is especially noticeable on the terraces. And on most floors, the vibrations of trucks can clearly be felt, along with those of any construction equipment (Chen, 2004). The Bridge Apartments have continually suffered from ventilation issues due to the lack of knowledge on how to construct such a project in the 1960s. A major design flaw was that the structure only covered part of the roadbed. If the roadbed had been completely covered then pollution (air and noise) could have been dramatically reduced.
Figure 5: Bridge Apartments

16

As building and ventilation technology has improved and as undeveloped parcels have become scarce surrounding metropolitan area, using air rights for development or to create a more livable environment by building park space, may be a strategy for smaller metropolitan areas like Albany, New York. In fact, precedence for this exists in Duluth, MN, a city similar to Albany in that its geographically significant port was once the cause for urban development.. Duluth, once a booming center for Great Lakes transport, by the 1970s was in the midst of a period of mass disinvestment. One reason for this change was the mode-shift from shipping by water and rail to shipping by trucks. Another factor in Duluths decline was that the geography of the harbor was important for sending commodities during the building boom on the East Coast. As demand for those same commodities shifted to the Western United States and to other locations such as Asia, Duluth continued to see a declining role in the shipping industry. In 1983 officials from Duluth began planning for a Downtown Waterfront Plan and Strategy, where Interstate-35 (I-35) served as a major barrier to change. I-35 was originally proposed in 1958 as a $45 million project that drew little objection from the public (Gray, 1999). A continuation of I-35 was planned in the 1970s which would relocate the railroads which threaded their way between downtown Duluth and the Lake Superior waterfront (Gray, 1999). This section was designed to be fairly similar to that of the raised section of I-787 in that it would be elevated 20 feet into the air on concrete columns, creating a massive physical barrier between the waterfront and downtown Duluth. The raising of the highway entailed building a large concrete seawall to protect freeway traffic from spray off Lake Superior, which could be treacherous in the blustery winter conditions.

17

Figure 6: The Duluth waterfront 1960s (Gene Bunnell Making Places Special)

The objective of the waterfront planning sessions was to develop a solution that would both improve livability for residents and still have the capability to handle the large freighters and total volume of cargo that made it one of the most productive ports on the Great Lakes (Bunnell, 2002). Residents did not believe that a freeway blocking their waterfront would be the most productive use of the land, and collaborated to block the plans for I-35. While Duluthians did get out in numbers as close to 1,100 attended public hearings, many wearing red Stop the Freeway buttons, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) argued that congestion downtown, which under the current alignment of the highways was dumping 30,000 cars a day into the congested center city forced the fact that the highway must be built (Gray, 1999). Through a strong planning effort led by the citys director of planning and development, concurrent with a documented series of visions for a lakefront park dating as far back as 1910 the city was able to reach concessions with MNDOT to depress the highway to make it possible to create physical connections between the city and the lake by decking over the highway (Bunnell, 2002). The proposal was well timed as although joint-use of a transportation corridor was very foreign to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the MNDOT, the FHWA was beginning to understand that poorly-designed urban freeways had negative effects on the 18

communities in which they were built (Gray, 1999) Even though the new design was approved by the Duluth City Council in October of 1977, many other challenges, including, moving railroad lines, acquiring right-of-ways, [and] legal challenges would stall the project (Gray, 1999). The moving of the rail-lines alone was projected to cost $45 million. The project itself was planned to be broken into two phases, the first opened to traffic in October, 1987, with the second phase being ready for traffic in November, 1989 (Gray, 1999). While the price of the 3.2 mile extension from Mesaba Avenue to 26th Avenue East would end up costing about $200,345,000, federal policy at the time called for 90% to be shared by the federal government, leaving the state only responsible for 10% (Gray, 1999). The design allowed for the lakefront park which utilized the rock blasted from the highway, using it to rebuild the shoreline that had been suffering from erosion (Bunnell, 2002). The cars that had been dumped along the shoreline by one or two businesses located along the lakefront in an attempt to protect their properties against erosion were removed and replaced with the boulders. By reusing these boulders, the project saved at least $3 million by eliminating the need for disposal (Bunnell, 2002).
Figure 7: Duluths waterfront transformation (Gene Bunnell: Making Places Special)

19

Freeways to Boulevards: Scaling Down our Highways

The second alternative that may be deemed appropriate for the I-787 corridor is the option of re-characterizing I-787 as a boulevard, by rebuilding the road at grade-level. This vision is inspired by an initiative led by the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU). The CNU, organized in 1993 promotes walkable, mixed-use neighborhood development, sustainable communities and healthier living conditions. CNU recently developed the Highways to Boulevards initiative to publicize the top-ten locations in North America where the opportunity is greatest to stimulate valuable revitalization by replacing aging urban highways with boulevards. The list was prioritized based on factors including the age of the structure, redevelopment potential, potential cost savings, ability to improve overall mobility and local access, existence of pending infrastructure decisions and local support. The CNU website asserts that the elevated highway is an outdated model that needs to be replaced in favor of surface streets that support walkable, compact development. The list of the Top Teardown Prospects is as follows:
Figure 8: CNU and CNTs: Top Teardown Prospects 1. Alaskan Way Viaduct, Seattle, WA 2. Sheridan Expressway, Bronx, NY 3. The Skyway and Route 5, Buffalo, NY 4. Route 34, New Haven, CT 5. Claiborne Expressway, New Orleans, LA 6. Interstate 81, Syracuse, NY 7. Interstate 64, Louisville, KY 8. Route 29, Trenton, NJ 9. Gardiner Expressway, Toronto, ON 10. 11th Street Bridges and the Southeast Freeway, Washington D.C. Courtesy: (Congress for the New Urbanism, 1997-2007).

The omission of I-787 in Albany, NY should not make one confer that it would be a less viable or important project. The above mentioned list includes infrastructure in immediate need of repair and/or scenarios where community groups are already organized to fend off the status20

quo. The CNU and CNT believe that these ten scenarios may greatly benefit from boulevarding the right-of-way, and can use the model cities of New York City, Portland, San Francisco, Milwaukee and Seoul, South Korea as examples on how to replace elevated highways to save billions of dollars while increasing real estate values on adjacent land (Congress for the New Urbanism, 1997-2007). A range of cities, from Portland to San Francisco, New York and Seoul, are all examples of successful boulevard conversions. A recent effort that might best serve as a vision for Albany could be the work in Milwaukee, WI. Milwaukee, WI, on the shores of Lake Michigan, served as a major immigration point for German, Polish and other European immigrants throughout the 19th and early 20th century. Likened to the plans that called for the continuation of I-787 to dissect the heart of Albany, in the 1960s, highway designers planned to surround the Milwaukee central business district with an expressway known as the Park East Freeway. In comparison to Albany, where I787 blocks off access and view of the Hudson waterfront, the Park East Freeway never made it to the shores of Lake Michigan. Despite plans to loop around the city in all directions, due to enough public opposition, the project was stopped before it could continue east to the waterfront of Lake Michigan. Although the community retained access to the waterfront , the portion of the freeway that was built managed to displace multiple blocks of development, occupying 16 acres while only producing a 0.8 mile stretch of highway (Congress for the New Urbanism, 1997-2007).

21

Figure 9: Milwaukees Park Freeway East (Source: Wisconsinhighways.org/Milwaukee/part.html)

Opposition to the freeway system began as early as 1965 when organized opposition stood up against the Lake Freeway that was proposed to dissect Juneau Park in downtown Milwaukee (Bessert, 2009). The battle waged on between pro-highway supporters, which came from Milwaukee County, and the city dwellers that actively organized and brought suits to prevent the construction of future segments of the highway project. In 1969, a new tool arose that changed the landscape of this conflict. With the passage of the National Environmental Protection Act each project required a completed environmental impact statements. This fresh prerequisite effectively grounded all highway projects in Milwaukee. By 1975, the courtordered public hearings for each highways environmental impact statement, stood as a great forum where residents spoke out in opposition to future highway projects. This led to a series of public forums for the remaining highway projects where the opposition spoke loud and clear, convincing the Federal Highway Authority that the significant opposition on many fronts drew them to the conclusion to reject each project (Bessert, 2009).

22

By the 1990s, it had been clear that the Park East right-of-way was not appropriate for the city and the 1999 estimate, created with new methods developed by the Department of Transportations Transportation Management System, was that the freeway only carried an estimated 54,000 vehicles on an average weekday, a number that doesnt justify such a large freeway. With a renaissance underway in the 1990s, including a river walk system stretching along the Milwaukee River, it was clear that the Park East Highway was a waste of valuable land resources in the city, and it was not serving the purpose that it was built for (Congress for the New Urbanism, 1997-2007). The 2002 demolition of the highway was accomplished with forty-five million dollars in a variety of federal, state, and city sources. The landscaped McKinley Boulevard was built as a four-lane boulevard in place of the Park East Freeway. The new boulevard recreated the original urban grid. The redevelopment of the area was led by The City of Milwaukee, under direction of city planner, Peter Park. The new boulevard was complemented by a form-based code for the renewal of the area to encourage development to reinforce the original form and character of the area (Congress for the New Urbanism, 1997-2007). Form-based zoning code enforces the physical look and quality of a structure rather than the more prevalent Euclidian zoning, which regulates use. The close tie of transportation and land-use planning resulted in great successes around McKinley Boulevard. While the boulevard only recently opened to traffic on January 23, 2006, there are many signs that this area will transform into a strong mixed-use neighborhood. The average assessed land values per acre in the footprint of where the freeway once stood grew 180% in the time period between 2001 and 2006, while land values in the Park East Tax Increment District grew forty-five percent. This growth is twenty percent higher than the citywide increase of twenty-five percent (Congress for the New Urbanism, 1997-2007).

23

Complete Removal of the Right-of-Way: Eliminating the Highway

Imagine a waterfront that is clear of any motorized vehicle, a beautiful public space filled with parkland, business, tourism, or whatever else that can be imagined. The pundits say that we cant have such a transformation in Albany or many of the other cities around the nation where highway infrastructure chokes urban vitality. They exclaim that traffic must be able to flow freely around the city for business to prosper within. This has obviously been proven incorrect based on the current state many once vibrant urban areas. Subsidizing commuter highways has had questionable improvements on overall quality of life for the highway commuters and has, with no question, further distressed the well-being of city-dwellers. Another argument made for the continuation of massive highways is that due to Albanys vast commuter-shed, we need an array of highway networks surrounding the city. Yet the fact remains that many cities that have made the drastic decision to remove their highways happen to be much larger in scale and population than Albany has ever been. New York City, San Francisco, and Portland are examples of larger American cities that have acknowledged and responded to the fact that there has been an over-accumulation of highway infrastructure within the past fifty years. Despite continuing traffic concerns in all three of these cities, a realization formed that the solution was not building more roads, lanes, or bridges. The theory of induced demand states that if supply of a good is to increase it will result in more of that good being consumed. Latent demand is this theory applied to transportation. J.J. Leeming, a British transportation engineer, describes this theory in his 1969 book after spending more than forty years analyzing the phenomenon. He states; Motorways and bypasses generate traffic, that is, produce extra traffic, partly by inducing people to travel who would not otherwise have done so by making the new route more convenient than the old, partly by people who go out of their direct route to enjoy the greater convenience of the new road, and partly by 24

people who use the towns bypassed because they are more convenient for shopping and visits when through traffic has been removed (Lemming, 1969). Portland now is a city known for strong planning practices. Their efforts have led to some, including the Wall Street Journal, to describe the city as an urban mecca. Not long ago, Portland suffered from many of the same transportation problems that currently plague Albany (Norquist, 2000). What is unique about Portland is that the city has actively addressed the issues that decreased the vitality of the urban area. One example of this was in 1974, when the state of Oregon closed Harbor Drive so it could use the land to build Tom McCall Waterfront Park (2000). Harbor Drive was first completed in 1942. The public works project, funded by the Roosevelt Administration to stimulate the economy, was a four-lane freeway along the west bank of the Willamette River (2000). The road served as a limited access road, closed to pedestrians and to cross traffic thus disconnecting the city from using and enjoying the river. By the 1960s, Oregon officials were already planning for 50 new freeway projects by 1990. The first freeway project proposed under this plan, Interstate-5, was completed in 1964 along the east bank of the Willamette River (2000). This new freeway along with Harbor Drive, which state officials proposed widening in 1968, officially engulfed public access to the river on both the west and east bank (2000). In 1968, the city of Portland completed a Downtown Waterfront Plan which recommended eliminating Harbor Drive and developing the land as a park to beautify the downtown riverfront (Norquist, 2000). This planning process, which included public input, was followed by the 1969 development of the Riverfront for People group and a report by the Portland City Club recommending that the riverfront should be developed to provide varied public use of land: the suggestions including creating an aesthetically pleasing environment and 25

easy and attractive pedestrian access (2000). While the citizen action was heard, it didnt prevent the Intergovernmental Task Force responsible for Harbor Drives future to draft three options in August of 1969, none even considering the option of completely closing the freeway(2000). While two of the options were vast improvements over the current freeway, one being to bury the road and build a park above it, similar to the previously mentioned decision in Duluth MN, the other to relocate the road a block further from the riverfront; the Task Force insisted that a six-lane highway would be included in any changes that were to be made (2000). The Task Force reinforced this decision stating that State Highway Engineers projected there would be 90,000 trips per day in the corridor by 1990 (Norquist, 2000).
Figure 10: A Postcard of the Harbor Drive (Courtesy: cnu.org/highways/Portland)

By December of 1969, after continued citizen outcry, Governor McCall urged that a citizen advisory committee be appointed (Norquist, 2000). This committee of eighteen, while attempting to create consensus that Harbor Drive could be closed, went on to hire an outside consultant. Not even the hand-picked consultants felt that a complete removal of the road was justified, as they recommended two one way surface streets (Norquist, 2000). Local planning consultant Richard Ivey, familiar with the traffic patterns within the city, strongly disagreed with 26

the outside consultant, offering the justification that the already existent Front Avenue along with the access capacity on other parallel freeways could justify a complete removal of the road (Norquist, 2000). With the support of a proclaimed environmentalist Governor, and the continued public clamor, by May 23, 1974 after the Fremont Bridge was completed to carry traffic to parallel roads, the state began closing portions of Harbor Drive (Norquist, 2000). Richard Ivy, the consultant who first proclaimed that this could be done, ran into one of the traffic engineers so adamantly opposed to the project. The traffic engineer exclaimed to Ivy, Well Dick, you must be a mighty proud fellow today they closed Harbor Drive and there wasnt a ripple (Norquist, 2000). Four years later, the waterfront park was completed and renamed Tom McCall Waterfront Park after the Governor who brushed aside the experts who told him that it could not be done (Norquist, 2000).
Figure 11: Tom McCall Waterfront Park, circa 2005 (Courtesy: www.cnu.org/highways/portland)

Visions for a New I-787

The Sustainable Cities project involved a research component as well as a concurrent visioning effort. The volunteer project team created two visions for a new waterfront that 27

incorporate the pillars of sustainability: social, environmental, economic. The team consisted of design, transportation, and planning professionals. The two visions generated for the I-787 corridor were finalized following multiple group design meetings, personal research, as well as industry experience. The team identified the major challenges with the current design and the resolutions that should be incorporated in any future redesign efforts. These resolutions included:

- New connections via better pedestrian and bike access - New commercial and residential development sites - Utilization of green infrastructure & buildings - Redevelopment includes renewable energy sources - Job opportunities for new development - Better connections with neighborhoods - More opportunity for commuter and visitor access - Design to reflect the impacts of climate change and sea level rise - Minimizes maintenance costs to City of Albany and NYS From these resolutions two visuals were born (Appendix 1, Appendix 2) to serve as the visions for starting the community discussion. While the designs serve as two separate concepts, both designs incorporate the following strategies for much of the existing infrastructure. The designs eliminate the South Mall Arterial raised highway infrastructure up to Empire State Plaza by incorporating a boulevard design. The designs also boulevard I-787 creating twolane northbound and southbound routes, as well as two roadways for local use (labeled Water Street and Corning Street). The new planted boulevard is designed as a complete street, allowing for pedestrians and bicyclists to travel from existing neighborhoods to the waterfront. The roadways (boulevard and local) are separated by planted raised center medians which will create a visibly pleasing environment and also assist with storm-water runoff. Along the Empire State Plaza Boulevard, the existing cross-streets will reconnect with the new boulevard and pedestrian signals will be placed at S. Broadway, Pearl Street, and the 28

new 787 boulevard. Eliminating the raised infrastructure allows for new development opportunities in addition to the development opportunity at the proposed convention center site. The new development can incorporate mixed-use development allowing for commercial, retail and residential development. New development can also incorporate parking. Both designs also include a park promenade on the Hudson River as well as highlight a potential Albany highspeed rail station along the existing rail line. The following in Figure 12 provides a detailed description of both designs included in Appendix 1 and 2.
Figure 12: Descriptions of the Two Designs

Description 1 (Buried Rail Line)Design: Rail: The rail line in this design is buried from where Bassett Street will reconnect, when taken down to the river, north to Spencer Street. The rail line is submerged for roughly 1.25 miles with vents allowing for proper air circulation. The medians between the roadways will serve to vent the submerged rail line. Bridge: The Dunn Memorial Bridge is kept in the same location but is rebuilt to allow for adequate boat clearance. The rebuilt bridge includes pedestrian and bicycle access to Rensselaer. Open Space/Development/ Access: Crosswalks and pedestrian overpasses will both be used to allow for multiple access points, while at the same time minimizing traffic disruption. Additional development opportunities exist along the western local road (Water St.).

Description 2 (Raised Rail Line) Design: Rail: In between the northbound 787 lanes and the eastern most local road (Corning St.) there is a raised rail line. The raised line will begin at roughly Bassett Street and will continue as a raised line for 1.25 miles until it reaches Spencer Street.

Bridge: Dunn Memorial Bridge will be relocated south, connecting to Rensselaer St. in Albany and 2nd Ave in Rensselaer. This new bridge will allow for pedestrian and bicycle access as well as automobile access. Open Space/Development/ Access: The raised rail line and all transportation infrastructure will be covered with an elevated platform off of the existing pedestrian bridge, serving in our design as a park. The covered park will be roughly half a mile long and will incorporate two additional pedestrian bridges. 29

Additional green space is incorporated in multiple neighborhoods along the Hudson River and where highway interchanges once stood. A park promenade is also designed around the new Dunn Memorial Bridge.

Moving the bridge maximizes park space along the riverfront in both the City of Albany and Rensselaer. Along the sides of the new raised park space will be development space that could have commercial, retail, or residential uses.

Public Input Sessions

Following the completion of the visioning process, public input sessions were planned. The first public input session was on April 26, 2011 at Victory Caf in downtown Albany. The second public input session was held on May 17, 2011 at the Grand Street Community Arts Center. An online survey was also developed to continue reaching out to the public about the current waterfront and The Stakeholders Inc. proposals. The August 26, 2011 networking event served to unveil the designs and to further the communitys knowledge of the effort and turned out over fifty participants. The event successfully generated thought provoking conversation and inspired the media to cover the project. ABC (WTEN), NBC (WNYT), and CBS (WRGB) all interviewed members of the project team and compiled segments for the evening news. The May 17, 2011 public input session was attended by members of the local Albany neighborhoods, industry professionals, and commuters. The night was opened by Congressman Paul Tonko (21st District), who shared information on his waterfront initiative, Mighty Waters. Congressman Tonko has led the Mighty Waters Task Force, which brings together stakeholders from throughout the community, including local business owners, developers, planners, college

30

students and the general public to discuss regional efforts to promote sustainable development, environmental preservation along the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers.
Figure 13: May 17, 2011 Community Input Session

Following a presentation on the findings of The Stakeholders Inc. research, participants were divided into four different groups and rotated through multiple discussion stations. All results are available in Appendix 3. At Station 1: The Existing Waterfront/I-787 participants were asked to discuss the best and worst features of the existing waterfront and of I-787. The most frequent responses as the best features include either the natural amenities or the entertainment and recreation amenities. Overall, the greatest assets at the existing waterfront were identified as: The Corning Preserve + Trail, w/boat launch Amphitheatre for Entertainment/Cultural/Recreation Potential for development Access via 787 Aesthetics- River and City view Boating

The features that were identified as inhibitors to waterfront enjoyment included environmental concerns, lack of places to shop, live, or work and liabilities associated with I787. In particularly these features were ranked as the most disliked: 31

Lack of amenities Safety concerns because of underutilized space Poor access/ waterfront cut off Eyesore/aesthetics of I-787 - too much concrete Lack of development and commercial/shopping options. Noise from I-787 traffic

Each discussion group also had the opportunity to converse on which of the design elements that were formulated by the design group should be the highest priority. The following design elements were all reviewed by each group independently, who then selected their top-three (number of times all the groups voted an idea into their top-three in parenthesis):

New commercial and residential development sites (4 ) Better connections with neighborhoods (4) Utilization of green infrastructure & buildings (2 ) More opportunity for commuter and visitor access (1) Minimizes maintenance costs to City of Albany and NYS (1)

Station 2 focused on Design 1 (Buried Rail Line). Discussion questions asked what improvements could be made to the vision, what are the best elements in the vision, and what type of development is more important. Participants offered many suggestions on how to improve the highway infrastructure/roadway, how to minimize the impacts of the rail line, general aesthetics concerns. The following suggestions were offered regarding Design 1:

Move rail line to share space with boulevard to create more space for people/public land Rail design may not be realistic/trains below sea level/ sewer overflow Provide more space for private development (i.e. housing, hotels, grocery stores) More Public areas w/boat access, BBQs, playgrounds If possible, eliminate side/local roads Better aesthetic view- sight lines of Hudson Include a public marina/boat access Residential development

32

Station 3 focused on Design 2 (Raised Rail Line). Discussion on Design 2 mirrored that which was had at Station 2. The following suggestions were offered regarding Design 2:

A need for more development opportunities along waterfront Create an opportunity for recreational boating Keep the concept of a promenade Liked the added park space created by raised platform A need for a unique/signature bridge

Each group was also asked the following questions about the raised rail line: 1. Will the waterfront be attractive even if there is a raised rail line? Y-23 * N-16* 2. Does the raised park provide adequate public access to the waterfront? Y- 26* N- 12* 3. What features would you most like to see in the park? Murals/art visible from water, park and street Turf fields, community gardens spread out over multiple parks Museums City pool, bike rental, dog park Welcoming center, Development that is built-out to the Hudson *Not all participants stayed for/participated in all stations.

Survey Results
In an attempt to seek as much public input as possible, The Stakeholders Inc. also used their website, Facebook, and email marketing to encourage the public to complete a ten question survey. The survey titled: The Stakeholders Inc. 787 Project, was made available to the public on April 26, 2011 for interested parties to share their ideas and concerns. The results that are being reported on in this report are the responses received prior to July 16, 2011. During that time period 139 unique responses were received. The complete survey and the summary of the results of each survey question can be found in the Appendix. 33

Many of the questions on the survey were based on a survey created for The I-81 Challenge, in Syracuse. The I-81 Challenge is being led by two entities, the New York State Department of Transportation and the Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council (SMTC), the regions metropolitan planning organization (MPO). The questions attempted to gain some perspective on how often the respondents use the infrastructure and how it specifically impacts their lives. We asked survey respondents to respond on how tolerant they would be to a longer commute in exchange for a more accessible waterfront, and how they would take advantage of better riverfront access (i.e. living, shopping, visiting downtown). We also asked for comments on how they felt about The Stakeholders Inc.s design proposals, their opinion on what the overall goals for any future redesign should be, as well as what the role public input should take in future decision. Lastly, we gave respondents the opportunity to share with us any personal ideas for the future of I-787. The survey turnout was higher than expected and we soon found out that the public at large identified the waterfront as an issue that needs to be addressed, with a strong majority stating that improving the waterfront would make Albany a regional destination (92% of survey takers identified that an attractive waterfront would be a regional destination). The public also does not want the waterfront issue to be debated and decided without their involvement. 85.4% of the respondents indicated that they would not find it acceptable if I-787 was to be rebuilt, reconstructed, and/or expanded without a public input session or if the public was in favor of a different design. This question also received forty-five comments ranging from support for public input to information on the current legal requirements for public comment. The most troubling trend for The Stakeholders Inc. was the issue that some people found viewing the visions on our website. While we had hoped that people could see our visions, as an

34

alternative to the existing I-787 infrastructure, prior to taking the survey, 39.7% (54 total) responded that I have not seen the proposed designs. In the Comment fields people shared with us feedback on the difficulty that they had in finding the designs on The Stakeholders Inc.s website. While the designs were available on our site throughout the process, we understand the frustration that some had in navigating our site. We hope to share the designs with a broader share of the public, including those without internet access, moving forward. The respondents identified themselves collectively as a group that drives on I-787 (93.5%). In fact, many drive I-787 on a fairly regular basis with 55% utilizing I-787 at least 3-5 days a week and 26.1% indicating that they use I-787 at least daily. Of the participants, 55% classified themselves as City of Albany residents, 26.1% live in an immediate locality (a location within a 10 minute drive), with the remaining participants being from further outside the city. With 55% of the survey participants already living within the City of Albanys borders, it was not surprising to find that 36.5% of our respondents do not use I-787 to commute to their work location. With little to lose in the respect of impacting their daily commute, it would make sense that they would be very interested in rejoining the waterfront to the city. The results of our survey do appear to show that even the people who do utilize I-787 on a more regular basis believe that there should exist a better compromise between the ease of commute and the quality of life improvements that are garnered from waterfront access. Of the ninety-two survey participants that indicated that their commute is tied to I-787 only six were unwilling to accept a longer commute in return for a more vibrant and attractive Albany riverfront. Five suggested that they would accept a commute that extended their trip thirty minutes or more, twelve would accept twenty extra minutes, and a majority would find an extra ten to five minutes acceptable.

35

Figure 14: Would you be willing to tolerate a longer commute in return for a more accessible riverfront in downtown Albany? If so, how much longer? The Stakeholders Inc. 787 Project

40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%

Yes, 5 minutes Yes, 10 minutes Yes, 20 minutes Yes, 30 minutes or more No, I would I-787 does not accept a not affect my longer commute commute in return for a more vibrant and attractive Albany riverfront.

Not only did some of the participants believe that they would accept a longer commute in exchange for a better waterfront, many also indicated that this kind of destination could impact where they choose to live and spend their discretionary income. While these figures do not take into account the behavior that is already being displayed by survey participants, we believe that the results indicate that people would be more willing to spend more of their time and dollars in downtown Albany if there was interconnectivity with an attractive waterfront.

36

Figure 15: If Albany had an attractive and accessible waterfront, which of the following would you be more likely to consider?

Probably the most striking result from the survey was how much time people took to share their thoughts in writing. One hundred and fifty-two different comments were received in the three sections that allowed for comments/other. Forty-five of those comments were recorded following the question Please share with us any ideas that you have on the future of I-787. The energy in the comments field was evident. While some were pessimistic, others remained optimistic about the future. Some offered valuable insight about ranking priorities: I'm not sure the I-787 design should be top priority in Albany right now. I believe that we need to be planning of the significant economic growth that will be coming our way with Tech Valley. If a reconstruction of I-787 is critical to that urban planning, I would support it. Otherwise, I would think our scarce public resources should be spent elsewhere Others offered questions that would need to be answered before any work commences: How will this be financed? There are few enough of us paying taxes in Albany now- don't want a larger tax burden. 37

Others brought perspectives from other places including Portland, Denver, Boston, New York City, Vancouver, Madison WI and more: I used to live in Portland, Ore. and I was there for the revival of their waterfront. The difference was amazing - the waterfront now serves as Portland's "Living Room" to the world. And still others added insight on how to improve the two proposed design alternatives: The current two proposals are still filled with unneeded roads. These roads should be minimized with one boulevard traveling each direction. New buildings need to be proposed in order to pay for any construction. Submerge the rail and pedestal buildings over the tracks. The selection of comments offered in this paper is not meant to summarize all of the unique and insightful comments that were shared by people who were interested enough to share their perspective. We received many ideas and comments on all aspects of the project and all are equally valuable as we find the right alternative for I-787 moving forward.

Conclusion: Making the Right Decision for Albanys Future

The beginning of the 21st Century in the United States points us in a new direction. The massive highway and infrastructure build-up in the second half of the 20th century was for an industrialized economy, with an abundance of cheap, easily accessible fossil fuel. Today, the United States is in a post-industrial, service based economy. While all signs point to a future with oil that will be less easily accessible, at a much greater price, our government and private sector appears slow to accept that change is coming, whether we like it or not. We have learned some valuable lessons in economic and transportation development throughout the past sixty years. Transportation planners now know that Robert Moses plan to keep building more bridges, tunnels and lanes does not solve all of our traffic issues. Former Mayor of Milwaukee, WI and leader of the Congress for New Urbanism sums up how we must 38

rethink traffic; widening roads to solve traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to fight obesity (Norquist, 2000). The reality is that Albany and other cities throughout our country are now left with an over-capacity of steel and concrete that is expensive to maintain, and may not serve a purpose in the future economy. Choices exist, and many cities have capitalized by improving their cities with the future in mind. Large cities such as New York City, Boston, Portland and San Francisco have all made politically difficult decisions to admit the failure of past decisions and to invest in appropriate ways that one could equate to smart growth. Can only large central cities, those whom enjoy economic, political and private industry power command change? Based on the examples that were shown in Duluth, Baltimore and Milwaukee, one can infer that this isnt the case. The citizens opinions of the waterfront have altered drastically from the time when the waterfront was seen as an unsafe, dirty, environmental hazard. Most cities now have begun to accept that the waterfront is an entity that citizens do want access to, for recreation, residence, and commercial uses. Despite this recognition, few cities and state governments are willing to make the large investments necessary to move highway infrastructure in fear of limiting the accessibility of the city to commuters and visitors. The majority of American cities still hang on to the past, not accepting that the preconditions are already written on the wall for a new future. Large or small, political or apolitical, economic force or not, these arent the factors that usually promote smart development. What were the key features that promoted the drastic changes in our focus cities to abandon the past investment of massive single-use highway infrastructure? Firstly, organized community involvement. In the majority of these cases the first decision or idea was always to replace or grow the existing infrastructure. Without community involvement, replacement or expansion scenarios would most likely have been

39

implemented. An active community, one that invests their time and energy into the planning process is most likely to be heard in the development process. Citizens are most likely to be heard not as individuals, rather as organized groups. In Portland, citizens pushed until a citizen advisory committee was developed; in Milwaukee the constant lawsuits and involvement in the public forums paralyzed efforts to fortify the city with a ring of highway; in Duluth it was reported that over 1,100 people protested the raised highway that would have blocked off the beautiful lake views. In every case of success there was a community of citizens willing to invest their time, and take ownership of their city. We may not all agree on one single solution at this point, but the reality is that without an organized and constant community voice, citizens are bound to lose. While community involvement may a necessary element for change, it is not sufficient. Many other elements must align to justify tearing down multi-million dollar investments that still serve a purpose, if not the whole purpose. The appropriate use of the modern waterfront is to balance social, environmental and economic needs. In Albany, it is time to create the foundation for community discussion as the New York State Department of Transportation will soon be making considerations towards the investments needed to renew the existing I-787 infrastructure. Already we have seen significant work being done to the Dunn Memorial Bridge. As we speak, crews are working on shoring up the South Mall Arterial, which was closed throughout July, 2011 as it was deemed structurally unsafe for travel. A new plan for I-787 would result in a plethora of new economic development opportunities. The concern for economic development should never be taken into account without focusing on the social and environmental impacts that might arise. The overwhelming belief, expressed throughout The Stakeholders Inc. public input forums, is that the modern form

40

of I-787 doesnt fully maximize all economic development opportunities and continues to hamper the social benefit of access to the river. Going forward with new designs that change the elevation of the freeway will force the need to reevaluate the flood plain elevation of the Hudson River and reassess any other environmental and safety concerns that may arise. Additionally, the social concerns of gentrification and universal access to new economic opportunity across socioeconomic levels should remain in the forefront as we move forward, as some of the most depressed neighborhoods in the city are adjacent to the waterfront. The City of Albany will be offered an exciting opportunity within the next decade to reevaluate the Hudson River waterfront, creating a more exciting place to live, work, and play. The Stakeholders Inc., a non-profit organization within the capital region focusing on civic engagement and sustainability within the region, has taken the first steps to get young people involved with proposing future scenarios for I-787. If the community support continues to grow, just as shown in the other case studies, the City of Albany will be more likely to have a riverfront that fits the needs and demands of all its citizens. We hope that this report and the public input that we gathered can serve as the foundation for new, more sustainable, waterfront and I-787.

41

Works Cited
Congress for the New Urbanism. (1997-2007). Retrieved March 17, 2010, from www.cnu.org United States Census Bureau. (2010, March 22). Retrieved 22 2010, March, from American FactFinder: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_P001&mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_P002&-CONTEXT=dt&-tree_id=4001&-all_geo_types=N&currentselections=DEC_2000_SF1_U_P001&-geo_id=01000US&-geo_id=0400 349-b, H. A. (n.d.). Laws of New York. Retrieved February 16, 2010, from http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi Bell, D. (1973). The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bessert, C. J. (2009, January 31). Wisconsin Highways. Retrieved March 22, 2010, from Milwaukee Freeways: Park Freeway: http://www.wisconsinhighways.org/milwaukee/park.html Bunnell, G. (2002). Making Places Special. Chicago: American Planning Association. Campbell, B. E. (2004). Creating Sutainable Air Rights Development Over Highway Corridors: Lessons from the Massachusetts Turnpike in Boston. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chen, D. W. (2004, June 18). Life on the Road: Learning to Sleep as Trucks Roar Through Basement. The New York Times. Gray, T. (1999, December). The Aesthetic Condition of the Urban Freeway. Retrieved March 16, 2010, from The Duluth, Minnesota Story: http://www.mindspring.com/~tbgray/prch4.htm Jordan, C. (2006). Capital Highways. Retrieved February 16, 2010, from http://www.capitalhighways.8m.com/highways/787i/ Khanolkar, A. (2009, December 03). (Re)Creating the Post-Industrial Waterfront in Small Urban Cities. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from Texas Tech University Libraries: https://dspace.lib.ttu.edu/etd/handle/2346/ETD-TTU-2009-12-94 Kunstler, J. H. (Performer). (2010, February 10). Sage Opalka Gallery, Albany, NY, USA. LeBlanc, S. (2007, December 26). The Washington Post. Retrieved March 16, 2010, from On Dec. 31, It's Official: Boston's Big Dig Will Be Done: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/12/25/AR2007122500600.html?nav=hcmoduletmv Lemming, J. (1969). Road Accidents: Prevent or Punish. Cassell. Lewis, T. (1997). Divided Highways. New York: Penguin Group. Magg, C. (2008, November 2). Hints of Comeback for Nation's First Superhighway. New York Times. Milwaukee, C. o. (209, December 21). City of Milwaukee. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from Department of Building Development: http://www.mkedcd.org/parkeast/ Neuharth, A. (2006, June 23). Traveling Interstates is our Sixth Freedom. USA TODAY. New York State Department of Transportation. (n.d.). "Burying" I-787: Some Potential Options. Norquist, J. O. (2000). Removing Freeways- Restoring Cities. Blueprint Magazine. North, D. (1955). Location Theory and Regional Economic Growth. University or Chicago Press. Pike, D. (2003, March 17). Baltimore's Inner Harbor. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www.emich.edu/public/geo/557book/d370.innerharbor.html Ryckbost, P. (2005, April 14). Redeveloping Urban Waterfront Property. Retrieved February 16, 2010, from http://www.umich.edu/~econdev/waterfronts/

42

Appendix1: Design1

43

Appendix 2: Design 2

44

Appendix 3: Results from Public Input Session

Public Input 04/17/2011 Station 1: The Existing Waterfront/I-787 (15 min) 1) What are the 3 best features of the existing waterfront/ I-787? (As a group) Natural Amenities Walking Path (Corning Trail) (II Unique assets of the Hudson River cleaner than ever view of Albany fishing Entertainment Alive @ Five- Entertainment Proximity to neighborhoods Boat launch- Employees rowing multiple recreation uses amphitheater- events

Recreation Amenities community events development potential bridge snow dock boat launch convenience of 787 parking under colonice street access historical elements- yacht basin. HR day-line barge pedestrian bridge rowing sports boat house- potential for more playground bbqs U.S.S. Slater Dutch Apple/ Aqua Ducks Half Moon

45

Corning Preserve + Trail, w/boat launch (IIII) Amphitheatre for Entertainment/Cultural/Recreation (IIII) Potential for development Access via 787 Aesthetics- River and City view Boating 2) What are the 3 features you dislike most about the existing waterfront/ I-787? (As a group) Lack of bike/ped/boat activities Lack of freshwater access/ cleanliness, lack of facilities Eyesore aesthetics of I-87 - too much concrete sewer overflows lack of development lack of imagination- boring (lack of art) safety concerns (physical- design, auto speed/personal) design of shoreline lack of access noise from highway water quality cleanliness lack of trail connectivity to north Underused space under I-787 Maintenance cost lack of connectivity with city streets (Broadway)

lack of amenities (1-1) Safety concerns/underutilized (eyes on the street) (1-2) (2-3) Cant get there- poor access (1-3), (2-1) (4-2) Lack of access/cut off (2-1) (3-1) Eyesore aesthetics of I-87 - too much concrete (2-2) (3-2) (4-3) Lack of development and commercial options Noise (4-1) 3) Rank the top three resolutions for the future of I-787 (on your own) - New connections via better pedestrian and bike access (1-1)(2-2) (3-2)(4-1)- New commercial and residential development sites (1-2 (reduces main)(4-3)- Utilization of green infrastructure & buildings - Redevelopment includes renewable energy sources 46

- Job opportunities for new development (1-3) (2-1) (3-1) (4-2)- Better connections with neighborhoods (2-3)- More opportunity for commuter and visitor access - Design to reflect the impacts of climate change and sea level rise (3-3) - Minimizes maintenance costs to City of Albany and NYS

Station 2: Design 1 (15 min) 1) What improvements can be made to Design 1 (i.e. rail line, Dunn Memorial Bridge, local and boulevard roads, etc.) (Rank 3 as a group) Infrastructure Reduce noise from highway opportunities for alt energy- solar panels, windmills, i.e. NJ micro solar panels Increase elevation @ Dunn Memorial If you bury the rail- bury everything Road less commercial vehicle traffic (trucks) traffic mitigation concerns less blacktop/roadway/consolidate surrounding roadways separate at different grade increase elevation for rising sea levels connections to Pearl and Broadway Rail burying issues b/c of sea rise

47

rail should be above ground to create future commuter rail opportunity above ground

Aesthetics Trees, view of the waterfront/sight lines more green space- improves public health (II) Less concrete Community space Pedestrian tie INS to surrounding neighborhoods (better than what is illustrated) Emergency phones and access Retying in Broadway- Industrial and warehouse buildings Housing (residential) (I) Community bldgs. - YMCA, post office Grocery store- markets (I)/ mixed use North of downtown - warehouse district redevelopment opportunity Noise- keeps it quiet Services- more accessibility Enhanced transit- bus only lanes/commuter rail Boat and kayak rental Fishing Add to bike route- access to bridges Ecology station/educational uses No barrier fence Playing fields Marina 48

Water taxi Historic uses- museum Cost Feasibility - Move RR to share space with boulevard to create more space for people/public land: Provide more space for private development (i.e. housing, hotels, and grocery stores) - Public area w/boat access, bbqs, playgrounds - Could one of the side/local roads be eliminated? Not realistic/trains below sea level/ sewer overflow Better aesthetic view- sight lines of Hudson (II) Marina/boat access that is available to the public Residential

2) What in Design 1 do you like the most? (Top 3 as a group) 3) Rank the type of development (commercial, residential, retail, industrial) and the percentage of each that you would like to see in the space available for development (red). (On your own) Group 1- Housing, community buildings, grocery stores/markets 2Station 3: Design 2 (15 min) 1) What improvements can be made to Design 2 (i.e. rail line, Dunn Memorial Bridge, local and boulevard roads, etc?) (Rank 3 as a group) Bike lanes on a different elevation than road Lack of connectivity to existing roads Too many roads= too few development opportunities - Only have boulevard 49

Elevated rail line Air/noise pollution Stone pillars should be decorated with local art Raised train still creates a barrier- just create bridges over existing line, Underpasses get dirty- flooding concerns Freight material could be hazardous Keep the rail at grade Infrastructure Lack of parking Turn Livingston Ave Bridge into a pedestrian bicycle bridge Keep Dunn Memorial Bridge where it is but simplify interchanges Accessibility Neighborhoods north and south should be connected More development opportunities needed along waterfront Opportunity for recreational boating

2) What in Design 2 do you like the most? (Top 3 as a group)

Promenade Raised platform park space (IIII) A unique/signature bridge (III) 3) Answer and vote as a group: Group 1 - Will the waterfront be attractive even if there is a raised rail line? Y-9 N-2

50

- Does the raised park provide adequate public access to the waterfront? Y- 11 - What features would you most like to see in the park? (List as a group) Murals/art visible from water, ferry and Thatcher Street - Will the waterfront be attractive even if there is a raised rail line? Y-14 N-14 - Does the raised park provide adequate public access to the waterfront? Y-15 N-12 - What features would you most like to see in the park? (List as a group) astro turf fields, community gardens, spread out over multiple parks Museum, city pool, bike rental, Dog Park Welcoming center, buildings that go up to the water

Station 4: The Empire State Plaza Boulevard/ What did we miss (15 min) 1) What is missing/ isnt evident in either design that you want to see? (List as a group) I.E. - What type of development (retail, residential, industrial, opportunities would make this a destination? - What type of recreational opportunities would you want on the waterfront?

- More land available for development: commercial buildings available, larger tax revenue, the option of developing land over highway/rail - The options for surrounding communities (Menands, Watervilet) - Why it is more feasible to build new development with existing vacant/underutilized structures

Infrastructure - More detailed bike lanes - The height needs and requirements for the Dunn Memorial Bridge- (How to take an at grade boulevard and connect it to the existing bridge) Logistics - Plans for parking 51

- Incremental - short term improvements that are possible - Need to develop in stages - Using past plans (1970) - What would the impact of the new design be on traffic flow from Empire State Plaza? - Need an economic cost/benefit analysis Development - Cost of park- need development to make it financially feasible - pass bonds - need to have a neighborhood center 2) What do you want to see (recreation, development, transportation) along the Empire State Plaza Boulevard? (List as a group/top 3) - A walkable Blvd. with: - Defined bike lanes - Less noise pollution Development: - Mixed use- retail, residential- recreational/entertainment -Grocery store- accessible to local public and state workers Rehabilitation of existing buildings (vacant) Services Bike sharing Car sharing (Zip car) Commuter rail Public transportation Bike racks

52

- Dont want to see gridlock- a roadway/plan that considers rush hour traffic 3) What is your least favorite design element (top 3)? Future: - Elevated railway barrier to waterfront - creates more noise - Convention center could cause more traffic issues - Buildings should be built to the roadway to encourage as much development as possible- while keeping it with the desired urban image. - Buildings that are developed should allow view of the plaza from the river (not too high) - need parking (maybe parking underground/buildings) - revisit old designs for inspiration - Cost effective options needed: - Would like to see alternatives to bury or raise that work with existing infrastructure. Current: - Should be more of a city street that connects neighborhoods/people. - Provide connections for state workers to get into the neighborhoods (shopping, recreation, and living) -not enough green space for active recreation - Not enough green space by the waterfront - Limited public facilities - Limited public access - Lack of living services (grocery, drugstore, dry-cleaners, etc.) No community health/impact study has been done.

Appendix 4: Survey
Introduction I-787, the elevated highway effectively blocking off the city of Albany from the historic Hudson River, is nearing the end of its usable lifespan. Over the next decade, portions of I-787 will need to be replaced, reconstructed, removed, or otherwise changed at a significant cost. For this reason, The Stakeholders Inc. with a series of volunteer planning, architecture, and transportation professionals, have developed two different design options for the future for I-787. The designs are dedicated to the idea that there are better alternatives that will improve the sustainability and viability of downtown Albany. Now we ask for you to provide your opinion on our work and on how I-787 impacts our region. Take this survey and be part of our public input session so that we can make sure that the community has a say as they plan for the future of I-787.

53

1. In what ways does I-787 personally impact your life on a regular basis? Please select all that apply.
I drive on I-787 itself I drive on streets under or near I-787 I walk/bike (or want to) on streets under I-787 or along the River I hear traffic noises that come from I-787 My home is located near I-787 My employer or school is located near I-787 I-787 does not impact my life on a regular basis Other (please specify)

2. On average, how often do you travel on I-787 in the City of Albany?

More than twice a day Twice a day (e.g. to and from work) Once a day 3-5 times a week 1-2 times a week Less than once a week Only on weekdays Only on weekends

3. Which location best describes where you live?

The City of Albany A location within a 10 minute drive to downtown Albany A location that is more than a 10 minute drive to downtown Albany

4. Would you be willing to tolerate a longer commute in return for a more accessible riverfront in downtown Albany? If so, how much longer?
Yes, 5 minutes Yes, 10 minutes Yes, 20 minutes 54

Yes, 30 minutes or more No, I would not accept a longer commute in return for a more vibrant and attractive Albany riverfront. I-787 does not affect my commute

5. An attractive Albany riverfront would be a regional destination?

True False

6. Would you find it acceptable for I-787 to be rebuilt/reconstructed/expanded without a public input session or if the public was in favor of a different design? Comment field is available.
Yes No

Comment

7. If Albany had an attractive and accessible waterfront, which of the following would you be more likely to consider?
Living downtown Living in the City of Albany Working downtown Starting a business downtown Shopping downtown Visiting downtown Other (please specify)

8. Which of The Stakeholders Inc.'s Design Proposals do you feel best fits your vision for the future of I-787? (The designs are available at www.thestakeholders.org)
55

Design 1 (Buried rail line) Design 2 (Raised rail line) Neither of these Design Scenarios fit my vision of I-787 I do not want to see any changes to I-787 I have not seen the proposed designs

9. What should be the goal for the future design of I-787?

Moving Traffic should be the one and only priority. A quality waterfront in the City of Albany should be the primary goal with moving traffic coming second. Moving traffic and an accessible waterfront should be a shared goal, with equal weight paid to each.

Comment

10. Please share with us any ideas that you have on the future of I-787.
h

Appendix 5: Survey Results The Stakeholders Inc. 787 Project

1. In what ways does I-787 personally impact your life on a regular basis? Please select all that apply.
Response Percent Response Count I drive on I-787 itself 93.5% 130 I drive on streets under or near I-787 79.1% 110 I walk/bike (or want to) on streets under I-787 or along the River 60.4% 84 I hear traffic noises that come from I-787

56

23.7% 33 My home is located near I-787 18.7% 26 My employer or school is located near I-787 35.3% 49 I-787 does not impact my life on a regular basis 6.5% 9 Other (please specify) 9 Answered question 139 Skipped question 0

2 of 6

2. On average, how often do you travel on I-787 in the City of Albany?

Response Percent Response Count More than twice a day 8.0% 11 Twice a day (e.g. to and from work) 15.2% 21 Once a day 2.9% 4 3-5 times a week 29.0% 40 1-2 times a week 23.9% 33 Less than once a week 21.7% 30 Only on weekdays 0.7% 1 Only on weekends 0.7% 1 Answered question 138 Skipped question 1

3. Which location best describes where you live?

Response Percent Response Count The City of Albany 55.1% 76 A location within a 10 minute drive to downtown Albany 26.1% 36 A location that is more than a 10 minute drive to downtown Albany 18.8% 26 answered question 138 skipped question 1

3 of 6

4. Would you be willing to tolerate a longer commute in return for a more accessible riverfront in downtown Albany? If so, how much longer?
Response Percent Response Count Yes, 5 minutes 13.9% 19 Yes, 10 minutes 36.5% 50 Yes, 20 minutes 8.8% 12 Yes, 30 minutes or more 3.6% 5 No, I would not accept a longer commute in return for a more vibrant and attractive Albany riverfront. 4.4% 6 I-787 does not affect my commute 36.5% 50 answered question 137 skipped question 2

5. An attractive Albany riverfront would be a regional destination?

Response Percent Response

57

Count True 92.0% 127 False 8.0% 11 answered question 138 skipped question 1

4 of 6

6. Would you find it acceptable for I-787 to be rebuilt/reconstructed/expanded without a public input session or if the public was in favor of a different design? Comment field is available.
Response Percent Response Count Yes 14.6% 19 No 85.4% 111 Comment 45 answered question 130 skipped question 9

7. If Albany had an attractive and accessible waterfront, which of the following would you be more likely to consider?
Response Percent Response Count Living downtown 52.5% 62 Living in the City of Albany 24.6% 29 Working downtown 26.3% 31 Starting a business downtown 28.8% 34 Shopping downtown 76.3% 90 Visiting downtown 87.3% 103 Other (please specify) 28 answered question 118 skipped question 21

5 of 6

8. Which of The Stakeholders Inc.'s Design Proposals do you feel best fits your vision for the future of I-787? (The designs are available at www.thestakeholders.org)
Response Percent Response Count Design 1 (Buried rail line) 31.6% 43 Design 2 (Raised rail line) 14.7% 20 Neither of these Design Scenarios fit my vision of I-787 12.5% 17 I do not want to see any changes to I-787 1.5% 2 I have not seen the proposed designs 39.7% 54 answered question 136 skipped question 3

9. What should be the goal for the future design of I-787?

Response Percent Response Count Moving Traffic should be the one and only priority. 5.1% 7 A quality waterfront in the City of Albany should be the primary goal with moving traffic coming second.

58

38.0% 52 Moving traffic and an accessible waterfront should be a shared goal, with equal weight paid to each. 56.9% 78 Comment 34 answered question 137 skipped question 2

6 of 6

10. Please share with us any ideas that you have on the future of I-787.
Response Count 45 answered question 45 skipped question 94

59