^ Of course cost can be an obstacle, but there would be little construction involved here, mostly closing I-70, tearing down the elevated second and filing in the depressed section. I understate it a bit, but it's not as if we're digging a tunnel or anything.
The Count wrote:I am not opposed to an at-grade parkway replacing the depressed section of I-70.
However, since we already have the depressed section in place wouldn't it be cheaper and more effective to put a lid over it?
We'd keep the highway traffic underground and connect dowtown to the arch grounds with our without the desired parkway on top.
If the depressed section was removed and a parkway was put in it's place, it might leave enough space to build new buildings west of the new parkway. These buildings could have ground-level retail which would make the connection between the arch grounds and downtown much more inviting as you would be able to see restaurants/shops from the arch grounds and it would draw you into downtown. Also as was stated elsewhere, removing I-70 would improve connectivity for much more than 3 blocks.
^Exactly.
The other problem with the lid besides it not addressing the connectivity issue anywhere besides with the Arch Grounds is that the expense has ballooned to about $120 million, whereas the parkway method would likely come in around $10- 20 million.
The other problem with the lid besides it not addressing the connectivity issue anywhere besides with the Arch Grounds is that the expense has ballooned to about $120 million, whereas the parkway method would likely come in around $10- 20 million.
^ I think you are vastly underestimating the costs of a parkway alternative. Demolition of I-70 alone and nothing else is likely to cost $10 million. Construction and reconstruction and realignment and reconfiguration of a 1.5 mile corridor (I'm assuming Cass to Gratiot) and all the roadways it touches is likely an order of magnitude more expensive that what you are assuming. I would not be surprised if it ends up being just as expensive if not somewhat more that the "lid" alternative. $100-$150 million would be my guesstimate.
^ So, you're estimating that the removal of the depressed section and the construction of a new parkway is about the same cost as the lid? Great, let's do that instead of the lid!
^^^
The lid would cost $ 120 million (where does that number come from?) but converting the whole stretch of I-70 into a parkway would cost only $10-20 million?
Something's wrong with this picture.
The lid would cost $ 120 million (where does that number come from?) but converting the whole stretch of I-70 into a parkway would cost only $10-20 million?
Something's wrong with this picture.
- 11K
Who knows what the numbers are. My concern is that the lid is a partial solution and the removal of I-70 from downtown is a better solution. I "think" that the cost wouldn't be so different.
- 549
Grover wrote:Who knows what the numbers are. My concern is that the lid is a partial solution and the removal of I-70 from downtown is a better solution. I "think" that the cost wouldn't be so different.
And if the costs for each proposal are comparable, there is absolutely no reason to not go forward with the complete removal of I-70:
...
Removing the barrier for 3 blocks.
vs.
Removing the barrier for all of downtown.
...
Doesn't seem like The Lid even stands a chance.
Who knows what the numbers are.
Unfortunately, the numbers dictate often whether or not a project is going to happen.
Doesn't seem like The Lid even stands a chance.
As it stands now the Mayor, the National Park Service (who controls the Arch grounds) and the Danforth foundation (who are/were willing to privately fund it) are all in favor of the lid.
I would argue that the chances of the lid being built are higher than the prospect of a parkway, at this point.
One could also argue that a parkway would still be viewed as a barrier for pedestrians between downtown and the Arch grounds. With a lid, through traffic would be completely separated, therefore making the connection more pedestrian friendly. And no existing infrastructure would have to be destructed.
- 11K
^ Not true as I understand it. Memorial Drive would still be there with a "lid". The option of removing I-70 would also leave Memorial Drive.
I understand that memorial drive would still run through the lid, hence:
![]()
Only local traffic would use Memorial Drive, in a pedestrian friendly environment.
Grover wrote:
It would leave only Memorial Drive. All traffic, local and through, would have to use the envisioned parkway.
With a lid, through traffic would be completely separated, therefore making the connection more pedestrian friendly.
Only local traffic would use Memorial Drive, in a pedestrian friendly environment.
Grover wrote:
The option of removing I-70 would also leave Memorial Drive.
It would leave only Memorial Drive. All traffic, local and through, would have to use the envisioned parkway.
- 11K
^ but in that case the "lid" is a waste in my opinion because you can make crossing memorial drive much better for pedestrians without any kind of lid over the I-70 lanes. The actual lid parts are not going to be for pedestrians though I suppose it may make the area look more inviting.
If we build the lid first we can assess the traffic flows after the new Mississippi River Bridge has been built. I know that some here feel that the depressed section of I-70 would become obsolete but let's first see if that will really happen.
Once we decide that a parkway would be the way to go, we could then "extend the lid" and make the complete roadway at grade. Just fill in the tunnel under the lid, et voilà!
At least "the lid" would be funded (partially) with private money.
I guess what I am trying to say is; the lid would not prevent the parkway from happening, it could be the first step towards it.
Once we decide that a parkway would be the way to go, we could then "extend the lid" and make the complete roadway at grade. Just fill in the tunnel under the lid, et voilà!
At least "the lid" would be funded (partially) with private money.
I guess what I am trying to say is; the lid would not prevent the parkway from happening, it could be the first step towards it.
So we would spend $120 million on the lid and then fill it in? You do realize that the length of the 3 block lid actually qualifies it as a tunnel. That requires all of the safety features of a tunnel including a ventilation system. Not to mention the retaining walls would need to be rebuilt, just to get buried. Either way, construction on Memorial Drive would occur after the bridge opens, so we will know the traffic count regardless. Then we will know how the through traffic can be dispersed as well as handled by the new parkway proposal.
- 10K
^
And isn't ventilation the biggest challenge for something like this?
And isn't ventilation the biggest challenge for something like this?
^ ^^
Tunnels many miles long are being built all over the world, even through mountains. If we can't build a lid over a less than a 1/4 mile long stretch of (already depressed) highway than yes, we should give up on this idea.
As I said in an earlier post, I am not opposed to a parkway or the lid, as long as we get something done.
Tunnels many miles long are being built all over the world, even through mountains. If we can't build a lid over a less than a 1/4 mile long stretch of (already depressed) highway than yes, we should give up on this idea.
As I said in an earlier post, I am not opposed to a parkway or the lid, as long as we get something done.
- 8,907
The Count wrote:^ ^^
we should give up on this idea.
Please place lid idea in the cylindrical file where it belongs.
- 11K
DeBaliviere wrote:^
And isn't ventilation the biggest challenge for something like this?
Yes. You can go about 250ft and have no ventilation/fans. Anything close to 1,000ft or more needs ventilation (think Metrolink stops at Skinker and Big Bend). Though unlike the electric Metrolink the issue is air quality in the tunnel, measured in ppm of various pollutants. I'm not sure where the line is in between. Check out http://stlurbanworkshop.blogspot.com for a post on this Monday. (hint: I'm with Moorlander and I'm not a wild dreamer either)
Moorlander wrote:
Empty one liner.
Grover wrote:
Hint: We already knew that.
I take it that you're referring to the Mayor, the National Park Service and the Danforth Foundation?
Please place lid idea in the cylindrical file where it belongs.
Empty one liner.
Grover wrote:
Hint: I'm with Moorlander
Hint: We already knew that.
and I'm not a wild dreamer either.
I take it that you're referring to the Mayor, the National Park Service and the Danforth Foundation?
^Don't put words in the mouth of NPS. They don't necessarily prefer a lid. In fact, a certain very important person within NPS in St. Louis likes the parkway idea.
MattnSTL wrote:
I didn't.
From Saint Louis Beacon:
Source
If you have more reliable information do not hesitate to share.
Don't put words in the mouth of NPS.
I didn't.
From Saint Louis Beacon:
"After months of back and forth with the public about ways to improve the Gateway Arch grounds, the National Park Service has selected its preferred plan. It includes, among other things, a design competition to generate even more ideas.
The preferred plan also calls for an elevated deck, bridge or "lid" over Memorial Drive to connect the Arch grounds with the rest of downtown, a featured favored by Mayor Francis Slay and the Danforth foundation."
Source
If you have more reliable information do not hesitate to share.
- 11K
About that lid . . . I say forget it, and removing I-70? Unfortunately unlikely. So what to do . . . http://stlurbanworkshop.blogspot.com/20 ... e-and.html
Didn't we get like $ 5 million in stimulus money to fix up memorial drive? Or is this just for I-70?
- 549
Nice...
http://tinyurl.com/njj2mx
http://tinyurl.com/njj2mx
Salazar noted what visitors before him have lamented for years: The Arch is cut off from the rest of downtown, isolated by the depressed interstate lanes that run along Memorial Drive.
"One of the things we need to do is find a way of connecting the Arch to the community of St. Louis," Salazar said. "That will be a priority of President Obama, and it will be a priority of mine."
...
One of the things that became very apparent to me as I studied the Arch and the Mississippi is that there is a connection to Illinois, "Salazar said. "East St. Louis is a very important part of the picture."
After a lengthy public engagement process, the Park Service is poised to launch a design competition to provide an overhaul of the Arch grounds. The plan calls for possibly extending the park boundaries across the river, adding 70 acres in Illinois between the Eads and Poplar Street bridges.
...
Revamping the Arch grounds will move forward without Danforth, though it may take some time: Salazar said the goal is to finish by 2015, the 50th anniversary of the completion of the Arch.
"We will get it done by then so we can have a great birthday celebration here," Salazar said.