urbanSTL

Conurbation wrote:
I welcome you to convince me otherwise. What do we gain by removing the 70-44 connection rather than covering it?

As I stated earlier, it is all about a connection. Connect the masses with the Arch and the Mississippi, but also connect the masses with STL!

scb wrote:these people driving on the streets of Saint Louis just might help them make a better connection with the city. Also, businesses can thrive from the new traffic.

There can still be a street "Memorial Drive" that connects 44 and 70.



You shouldn't be in such a hurry to leave the city.



Personally, I hate the depressed lanes and fear for my life when driving down there.

Why couldn't someone from S. City take 44 to Hampton to 40/64 to 170 to the airport? I drive that route several times/week from Clayton down south and it's quite quick. Imagine when the new interstante opens!

Moorlander wrote:Why couldn't someone from S. City take 44 to Hampton to 40/64 to 170 to the airport? I drive that route several times/week from Clayton down south and it's quite quick. Imagine when the new interstante opens!

I live in south STL, and have timed both 44-70 (55-70) and Hampton-64-170, and they are darn near the exact same time. Now, I can tell you the distance through DT does add 4 or 5 miles.

I'm with Conerbation on this one. I just don't see the removal of the depressed lanes as a realistic option. All you've got to do is look at all the cars driving on it to realize that it serves a lot of commuters. Sure, the new bridge will remove those coming from the East, but that's a relatively small portion of the traffic. Most of the traffic is coming from 55/44.



But I'm open to new ideas. Can anyone post an example of how this has been done elsewhere? How do you handle the backup that will result from suddenly switching from 60 MPH uninterupted highway flow to 35 MPH stop-and-go street traffic in the middle of Downtown (and don't leave out the traffic lights, pedestrians, merging local traffic, etc.).



Seriously, I'd like to see some comparable examples.



And what's wrong with simply burying the highway, and covering it with a nicely re-designed Memorial Drive?

I'm taking a lesson from I-290 in Chicago. It turns into Congress Pkwy and ends at the fountain in Grant Park. If you want traffic to go from 60 to 35 mph safely, you need a longer approach, and traffic needs to be traveling in one direction. Take a look at a map of the 55 interchange with the PSB. The northbound highway can end with a signal at Plum/Cerre St. if we connected them. Motorists will be given a choice of going to the riverfront, downtown, or continue north on memorial drive. Another signal can be used at a reconnected Poplar St. . Memorial Dr. as we know it will be eliminated, and a new one-way Memorial can utilize the depressed section, providing a non-stop parkway to the north side. A ramp to the PSB can branch off of Plum. This also connects Chouteau's Landing with the stadium.



Southbound Broadway is already one way with a large exit into downtown from 70. It would provide enough southbound lanes to connect 70 with southbound 55/44. Trucks would have to be prohibited though.

bonwich wrote:To reiterate a point I've made probably a dozen times. Once the new bridge is built, the function of the then-obsolete depressed section could only be



1) to connect I-44 EASTBOUND with I-70 WESTBOUND

2) to provide connectivity between residents of south St. Louis and St. Louis county (north of 270) from I-55 to I-70 westbound.



1), obviously, makes no sense whatsoever.

2) ignores the function of an INTERSTATE highway. INTERSTATE traffic will access 70 westbound by getting off 55 at 270 and going around.



Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee and San Francisco have all recognized that the savaging of downtown areas by Interstates in the '50s and '60s needs to be reversed. Here's our chance. Where are our "leaders"?

I agree. I just wish the dullards in charge of this region would give this idea serious consideration as others have elsewhere.

^ I used to commute to Earth City from Tower Grove south and still do sometimes to go downtown.



But I am all for getting rid of this connection.



Framer said:

All you've got to do is look at all the cars driving on it to realize that it serves a lot of commuters. Sure, the new bridge will remove those coming from the East, but that's a relatively small portion of the traffic.

I think you are wrong. I used to do this daily. Very few cars that were with me prior to the PSB exit were still with me past downtown.



Conerbation said something like "but you would have to go into Illinois and comeback". Your point is? You don't need a passport to go into Illinois. This is a road you follow it, whether it goes through the arch grounds or jogs into Illinois for a bit. If you look at the plans on the New Mississippi River bridge site, you will go about three miles out of your way to make the same trip with the new configuration. The depressed section will be redundant to a newer, wider road with better exits on the Illinois side.



Plus whenever I pitch this idea to someone, I mention the experience of closing Highway 40. Turned out to be not that big of a deal for commuters. There are other ways and people figure it out.



Also do forget the congestion the exit onto the depressed section causes daily, including accidents, and the long-term maintenance required to keep this obsolete dinosaur of an interstate open as a shortcut for us South City residents.

The Landmarks association submitted comments to the park service. The first item on the list was removal of I-70 along he West side of the grounds.



Here is the link:



http://www.landmarks-stl.org/news/state ... l_expansi/

It's not specifically asking for removal, but asking for the option of removal to be included in the plan. The plan calling for removal would never happen, but putting the option of removal into the plan allows for that political fight to happen over the next couple of years.

Good clarification. I'm sure they don't have authority to remove the interstate highway, but it would sure be interesting to see what designers might come up with if they had the option to do a design that used that space too.

I-70 will be removed already in name with the new bridge. Don't extend the I-44 designation past its current terminus with I-55 and then perhaps the depressed section can avoid being an "Interstate."

Nice post, Grover!

Grover wrote:I-70 needs to be removed from I-64 north to the new Mississippi River Bridge. It's not just San Francisco and the coastal effeminate elites doing this now, but rival beer cities like Milwaukee and little midwest cousins like Louisville. St. Louis needs to show some leadership!!!

Louisville might not be a little cousin, rather a big brother. Their balanced population is estimated at 554,496, STL's is somewhere near 350K.

^^^

Louisville Metro 1,245,941

St. Louis Metro 2,822,118



Little Brother!

stlmark wrote:Louisville might not be a little cousin, rather a big brother. Their balanced population is estimated at 554,496, STL's is somewhere near 350K.

I believe Louisville is one of the cities that was smart enough to expand its boundaries by annexing surrounding communities.

DeBaliviere wrote:

stlmark wrote:Louisville might not be a little cousin, rather a big brother. Their balanced population is estimated at 554,496, STL's is somewhere near 350K.

I believe Louisville is one of the cities that was smart enough to expand its boundaries by annexing surrounding communities.

are you suggesting st. louis do the same or even....a merger with the city and county? I'd love to see us have a boroughs.