Grover wrote:C'MON - SERiOUSLY - We can't stay on topic and discuss the arch grounds?!
lol sorry, I was just seeing where the conversation would lead. You have a terrific video on your blog about san francisco and how they removed their bridge from their riverfront.
I'd like to see some recent pictures from the arch competition if that's at all possible.
I think a post from jlblues on urbanstl is the earliest I ever heard anyone come up with the idea of closing down I-70 past the Arch altogether when the new bridge opens. Here is the link. Maybe someone is monitoring this forum for good ideas. Just a thought.
^ I think everyone would leave four lanes for Memorial Drive to connect I-55 and I-70. The other option may be to cross over to Illinois and then cross back on the new Mississippi River Bridge.
Grover wrote:^ I think everyone would leave four lanes for Memorial Drive to connect I-55 and I-70. The other option may be to cross over to Illinois and then cross back on the new Mississippi River Bridge.
Better yet, You should be taking I-270 if your a trucker heading North on I-55 needing to head west on I-44 for Springfield or I-70 for Columbia, KC or even Earth City or St. Charles. Otherwise, the possibility of sitting at a light on Memorial Drive is your mistake.
We have a golden opportunity, new Mississippi Bridge and a new Federal Highway bill that should be addressed at the end of the year. Slay and Danforth need to get on the band wagon and give Senator Bond a vision of what can be done and how. Senator Bond has made it clear that earmarks are not a four letter word. The Arch Grounds and therefore the city could possibly benefit greatly from the highway bill of all places.
JCity wrote:why close it altogether? how do you get from 55 to 70 then?
How do you get from I-64 Eastbound to I-70 now? There is no ramp. You have get off of I-64, drive on city streets, and then get on I-70. That has seemed to have worked fine for the last 40 years.
By the way, here is a link to before and after pictures of Portland where they removed the freeway.
Thanks for the link, GK. I'm skeptical about this highway removal thing, but I'm open to the possibility. It's interesting to see how it's been done in similar situations.
Grover wrote:^ I think everyone would leave four lanes for Memorial Drive to connect I-55 and I-70. The other option may be to cross over to Illinois and then cross back on the new Mississippi River Bridge.
This is probably a silly question but I'm only going by google maps...wouldn't you have to remove Memorial Drive too to fully connect the arch grounds to the city?
edit -- I guess a followup question would be why not remove memorial drive and i-70? Couldn't the traffic be diverted to Sullivan blvd on the riverfront?
Perhaps widen Sullivan and add some bike lanes? -- I'd like the riverfront to be beautified some day soon so I wouldn't push for this permanently. Its just I'd rather have no street separating the arch grounds and the city -- not unless it were served by something like a trolley.
^ Making Sullivan wider would be a travesty. Just as Memorial Drive and I-70 disconnect the Arch Grounds from downtown, a wider Sullivan would further remove the riverfront from downtown/the Arch. And an underutilized riverfront is one of the biggest missed opportunities for the city, IMO.
I do agree with you on the need for bike lanes. But rather than see them as part of a widened street, I'd rather see them take place where the parking by the water is. Plenty of wasted space down there.
I'm with you on removing (at least partially) Memorial Drive in addition to I-70. The idea of a boulevard would certainly be better than what we have now but could still prevent full integration of the Arch Grounds and downtown... unless new development were worked into the proposal of course. I'm working on a proposal for the competition (if they decide to have one), and will try to keep people informed as I get some images/ ideas a little more refined.
I just don't know where else traffic could be diverted to if all barriers (memorial i-70) were removed between the arch grounds and the city.
I'm not sure people are going to love the idea of crossing the river, that's a complaint we've heard against putting a stadium in Collinsville -- people just won't do it. That's not my argument but I've heard enough of it to take it into consideration.
I actually like the idea of diverting traffic across the river, I think it would be good incentive to actually have something on the other side. I'm just not sure people are going be enthused about it.
Also isn't the new Mississippi River Bridge suppose to service trucks only?
Has anyone thought of making I 70 at downtown an underground tunnel that way it would not have to removed from downtown and you could connect that arch grounds to the rest of downtown
stlouis270 wrote:Has anyone thought of making I 70 at downtown an underground tunnel that way it would not have to removed from downtown and you could connect that arch grounds to the rest of downtown
The proposed "lid" would effectively make it a tunnel.
Their money would be better spent elsewhere anyway.
Agreed 100%. The article even states that the National Park Service's design competition will focus on accessibility to the Arch Grounds #1. I can't agree more. The Arch Grounds need to better integrate into the downtown area on all sides. Their $50 million donation would help to kickstart this, but it appears the city will have to find donations elsewhere. Once it is easy and seemless to get from the Arch Grounds to the landing, downtown, and Chouteau's Landing THEN spend your money for additional Arch Ground attractions.
I really wish that the Danforth Foundation would take the next step and invest in the areas surrounding the Arch Grounds. The park isn't a problem itself (in my view), but its surroundings are terrible. If the NPS is going to concentrate on connections why can't the Danforth Foundation put $50M into Laclede's Landing? Chouteau's Landing? Heck, throw some muscle behind lighting the Eads Bridge or giving a few downtown parking garages a new skin . . . lots of great things to be done. It's not that the Danforth Foundation isn't doing a lot already - not saying that. It would be great to have an outdoor cafe near the base of the arch - a place to sit down and have breakfast on a weekend, etc. etc. But a lot can be done just off the grounds.
I-70 can't be placed underground because of the MetroLink tunnel at Washington. That tunnel is why the highway has to be elevated north of St. Charles Avenue only to descend back down near Cass Avenue.
Slay, Pete Rahn and our Senators have a conduit to bring about a meaningful change. MoDOT can spend the stimulus I-70 paving money on design/engineering/and any minimal land acquistion for a ground leve blvd replacment. Senator Bond and McCaskill can fund such a replacement in the next Federal Highway Bill. The current one expires in this fiscal year. Funds can be secured in time to do the work when I-70 is routed across the new Mississippi Bridge. Senator Durbin will probably be seeking more funds to rebuild I-70 in Illinois to the new bridge. MoDOT can pursue any desired enhancements to I-270 and I-170 that the county would probably desire as an alternative to losing a short connector downtown. Win, Win, Win all around.
I almost have more confidence that this is on Peter Rhan's mind then something that Slay and the city can envision. Slay and Dooley need to address some fundamental infrastructure issues. Claire McCaskills needs to deliver instead of being a mouthpiece.
