How do we get from here... Can t go through it, can t go under it......to here? we ve got to go... Poughkeepsie Connected Linking together the city s waterfront
Past Planning Projects 1. Local Waterfront Redevelopment Plan Completed in 1989; Updated in 1998 Called for a waterfront greenway Recommended going around the rock 2. Comprehensive Plan Completed 1998 Need to improve Kaal Rock Park Improving connections is essential to success 3. Main St Corridor Action Plan Completed 2012 Need to improve Kaal Rock Park Improving connections is essential to success Proposed both over and around the rock 4. Waterfront Redevelopment Strategy Completed 2015 Goal 3: Complete Waterfront Trail Recommended going around Kaal Rock History of the Project
Project Goals 1. Increase access and use of the waterfront parks a. Provide continuous ADA-accessible waterfront greenway b. Improve access into northern end of Kaal Rock Park c. Improve public safety in Kaal Rock Park d. Provide unique views of the Highland/Lloyd SASS 2. Minimize physical, visual, and environmental impacts a. Minimize site disturbance b. Preserve usable park space 3. Create a unique architectural element a. Provide a draw for visitors and residents b. Complement existing 19th and 20th century bridges c. Attracts donations for capital costs Project Goals
Feasibility Study
Not Recommended 1. Floating Walkway Environmental Impacts High cost of operation Not usable year-round 2. Causeway Environmental Impacts Ice shear during the winter 3. Bus Does not improve ADA-access in the park 4. Improved Sidewalks Does not improve ADA-access in the park 5. Elevator High cost of operation and maintenance Difficult to use year round 6. Free-Standing Ramp Difficult to use year round Final Alternatives 1. Suspended Easiest to use, most accessible design Concerns with Coastal Consistency Potential visual impacts Middle cost 2. Cantilevered Easy to use, accessible design Requires walking bicycles Potential concerns with Coastal Consistency Potential environmental impacts Potential physical and visual impacts Highest Cost 3. Switchback Accessible design Longer trail and higher climb Potential physical and visual impacts Lowest cost Considered Alternatives
Switchback Suspended Cantilevered Final Alternatives Routes
ALTERNATIVES ADVANTAGES CRITICAL ISSUE NOTES Suspended Cantilever Switchback ADA/bike-friendly User experience Design opportunity Public safety Low site disturbance Shortest route ADA-friendly User experience Design opportunity ADA-accessible Structurally simple Avoids Walkway Landscape opportunity Potential Impacts to docking Potential visual impact Coastal Consistency Rock climbing Falling rock Potential visual Imact Limited sightlines Physical disturbance Potential visual impact Site disturbance Significantly longer Physical difficulty Add a 21st century walkway to complement the 19th & 20th century bridges Keeps many of the advantages of the Suspended option Reduces coastal consistency concerns Limits coastal consistency concerns Takes people around the backside of the rock COST EST. Construction: $$$$ Maintenance: $ Construction: $$$$$ Maintenance: $$ Construction: $$$ Maintenance: $ Final Alternatives Summary
Rendering ADA/bike-friendly Easy, gentle approach Low site disturbance Shortest route Unique, dynamic relationship with river Complements the existing 19 th & 20 th century bridges with a unique 21 st century design Construction: $$$$ Maintenance: $ Site Plan Northern Cut/Fill Southern Cut/Fill Case Study Suspended Design Alternative
Rendering ADA/bike-friendly Easy, gentle approach Low site disturbance Shortest route Unique, dynamic relationship with river Retains some advantages of the Suspended option Reduces coastal consistency concerns Construction: $$$$$ Maintenance: $$ Site Plan Northern Cut/Fill Southern Cut/Fill Case Study Cantilevered Design Alternative
Rendering ADA-accessible Easy, gentle approach Significant site disturbance Longest route Limitss coastal consistency concerns Opportunity for unique landscaping Construction: $$$ Maintenance: $ Site Plan Bird s-eye Cut/Fill Southern Cut/Fill Case Study Switchback Design Alternative
ALTERNATIVES ADVANTAGES CRITICAL ISSUE NOTES Suspended Cantilever Switchback ADA/bike-friendly User experience Design opportunity Public safety Low site disturbance Shortest route ADA-friendly User experience Design opportunity ADA-accessible Structurally simple Avoids Walkway Landscape opportunity Potential Impacts to docking Potential visual impact Coastal Consistency Rock climbing Falling rock Potential visual Imact Limited sightlines Physical disturbance Potential visual impact Site disturbance Significantly longer Physical difficulty Add a 21st century walkway to complement the 19th & 20th century bridges Keeps many of the advantages of the Suspended option Reduces coastal consistency concerns Limits coastal consistency concerns Takes people around the backside of the rock COST EST. Construction: $$$$ Maintenance: $ Construction: $$$$$ Maintenance: $$ Construction: $$$ Maintenance: $ Final Alternatives Summary
Which option best serves the city and its residents? Why is it the best option? Core Question
Any questions? We are happy to answer any you may have about each of the options. Questions and Answers
Suspended from Mid-Hudson Bridge Cantilever from Mid-Hudson Bridge Switchback from Mid-Hudson Bridge Suspended from across the river Cantilever from across the river Switchback from across the river Suspended from Walkway Over the Hudson Cantilever from Walkway Over the Hudson Switchback from Walkway Over the Hudson Visual Impact Assessment
Suspended from Mid-Hudson Bridge
Cantilevered from Mid-Hudson Bridge
Switchback from Mid-Hudson Bridge
Suspended from Across the River
Cantilevered from Across the River
Switchback from Across the River
Suspended from Walkway
Cantilevered from Walkway
Switchback from Walkway