urbanSTL

Alex Ihnen wrote:Yeah, but MoDOT's stance has softened greatly. As I understand it, they are basically saying, "sure, put in a boulevard if you want, but just make sure you can carry the traffic." City to River (and some professional traffic engineers we have spoken with) know this can be accomplished.

Alex, you are right, MODOT does appear to be more open to the idea. It wasn't too long ago that MODOT's attitude about such things was so bad that it would have been a non-starter. ("Patrick" would have been visited with a latenight knock on the door by a MODOT road crew and roughed up a bit to send a message to punks who want connected streets!)

TimeForGuinness wrote:Would the Boulevard still fall under MoDOT? or does that revert to the city street dept?

/confused on who runs what

I think it likely will (I chose will rather than would as I'm an optimist!) remain with MODOT as it would not terminate into the city street system; rather it connects at both ends with interstates; of course.

TimeForGuinness wrote:
So, does Forest Park Parkway fall under MoDOT since it connects at both ends with Interstates (170 & 64)? Or because it turns from a Parkway to an Avenue at Kingshighway is it not under MoDOT?

Sorry for asking some stupid questions, just curious.

Ah, good question and as the traffic of the upcoming boulevard (again, I'm optimistic)will intermingle two types of traffic... city destinations and interstate through traffic so its not crystal clear. But I think there are a couple important distinguishing factors b/w the new boulevard and FPP.... first, there is the historical nature of things: FPP was never part of MODOT's system, with the FPP pre-dating the existence of I-170 (and maybe even portions of 40... not sure on the precise history of each); here of course we're impacting MODOT's turf, if you will. More important, though, is the fact that the boulevard will still have to meet the need of adequately connecting what still likely will be thousands of vehicles using the boulevard to connect between the I-70 and I-55/44 Interstate System; while its possible to just use FPP to go from 40 to I-170, that meandering route is not of consequence to traffic planners.

Roger Wyoming wrote: while its possible to just use FPP to go from 40 to I-170, that meandering route is not of consequence to traffic planners.

I should say it isn't of great consequence for state traffic planners; of course it was very helpful during the shutdown.

Roger Wyoming wrote:

TimeForGuinness wrote:
So, does Forest Park Parkway fall under MoDOT since it connects at both ends with Interstates (170 & 64)? Or because it turns from a Parkway to an Avenue at Kingshighway is it not under MoDOT?

Sorry for asking some stupid questions, just curious.

Ah, good question and as the traffic of the upcoming boulevard (again, I'm optimistic)will intermingle two types of traffic... city destinations and interstate through traffic so its not crystal clear. But I think there are a couple important distinguishing factors b/w the new boulevard and FPP.... first, there is the historical nature of things: FPP was never part of MODOT's system, with the FPP pre-dating the existence of I-170 (and maybe even portions of 40... not sure on the precise history of each); here of course we're impacting MODOT's turf, if you will. More important, though, is the fact that the boulevard will still have to meet the need of adequately connecting what still likely will be thousands of vehicles using the boulevard to connect between the I-70 and I-55/44 Interstate System; while its possible to just use FPP to go from 40 to I-170, that meandering route is not of consequence to traffic planners.

Thanks, I knew my question was a stretch, but I figured I'd ask it anyways. While I know traffic is considered evil in the eyes of MoDOT, I would think a business owner along the proposed new boulevard (and other N-S streets taking some additional traffic load) would want traffic for advertising purposes.

Also, I know pro-boulevard supporters (like myself) compare the traffic to Kingshighway...but Kingshighway isn't the most pedestrian friendly street to cross. If the goal is to link the Arch grounds to Downtown, how does one allow the traffic volume while keeping the area pedestrian friendly? It's a tough question to answer.

I know I've stated previous posts where: rush-hour will be the worst for pedestrians but add a few minutes on the commuter, traffic lights will probably be synchronized for different times of the day to help with both the pedestrian and commuter, and that loads will increase on other N-S streets...but there is still would be a large barrier to the arch grounds...an easier more pleasant barrier to navigate on foot...but a barrier nonetheless.

I guess what I'm saying is that while Kingshighway is a good model to show traffic flow, it doesn't get the point across on being pedestrian friendly. But I guess 6-8 lanes of traffic is intimidating no matter how you look at it. Maybe if the Northbound lanes and Southbound lanes were separated with more land in between, it wouldn't be as intimidating (subconsciously) and more aesthetically pleasing. Maybe the new boulevard is taking this into consideration...I dunno...

Just thinking out loud.

^^I'd agree that Kingshighway isn't that bad to cross. People cross at Lindell and West Pine all the time. Especially runners and bikers. No one really crosses between 40 and Forest Park because there is only the park across the street with no entrance. Only reason to be over there is the on-street parking.

Mill204 wrote:We've all been talking about how great a new boulevard would be for Memorial Dr, but all we have to show are idealistic visions and example from other cities. Everyone is focusing on the traffic and can't envision how the pedestrian realm would be any better. For example, Les Sterman, former Executive Director of East-West Gateway, tweeted...

not sold on removing I-70 depressed lanes. so how does crossing a wide heavily used surface roadway improve access to Arch?

.

I have heard this pedestrian concern expressed from others who should be on board as well... there is no shortage of design alternatives to look at for safe pedestrian passage, but I think it would be helpful to have some visuals on some possible alternatives; for example, what it would look like if we were to duplicate the Embarcadero at the Ferry Building focal point.

Perhaps the best would be to visit other cities boulevards and take pictures or video of development spurred as a result of highway removal. Shots of sidewalk cafes, retail, dense development, etc... Additionally it would be great to pair that with documents indicating the amount of traffic that used the highway prior to removal and commentary after removal. I think that would help the public understand the benefits and get over this "massive traffic" myth.

Alex, I agree that getting people to the site and open to the idea is what is most important at this point. And City to River certainly shouldn't tie itself down to an actual boulevard design preference. But what I have seen on the website seems a bit weak on potential road configurations and what it might be like for pedestrians to cross. The renderings for the Spruce and Washington intersection gives somewhat of an idea (it looks like there might be two lanes in each direction seperated by a grassy median), but they seem to be more focused on the commercial development. A piece or two on this is just a suggestion to add to the to-do list; but if Les is having a hard time envisioning how pedestrians will cross it is no small matter.

Or (whishful thinking part), National park servcie can declare I-70 a hindrance to the park and state the obvious of traffic engineers own design. As everybody knows on this blog, That the new Mississippi River Bridge master plan calls for extending and relocating I-70 and the existing route becomes a connector. MoDot in the end would have little to say and might actually make Linda think the metro region actually as a region in two states instead of one.

Even my engineering training but limited use can recognizes that the MRB master plan actually provides a much better interchange between I-70&I-55 on the Illinois side of the river compared to what is provided now or what will ever be provided in the constrained location at the foot of the Poplar street bridge. What is lossed in the few minutes of extra time of I-55/I-44 northbound going across the river to get to I-70 is probably more then made up for traffic southbound trying to cross Poplar street bridge to get I-70. Engineers need to be focused, but Linda is really showing a lack of big picture planning for the Metro region if she thinks the only option is I-270. She should know better after closing Hwy 40 and probably does. Instead, she sounding more political then anything.

After a close look at the plan, it looks like it also opens up a very feasible opportunity to create a viable connection b/w I-44/55 with I-64. This would draw some of the north/south through traffic away from the boulevard. For example, someone going from Carondolet to the airport area could take 55 to 64west to 170 instead of going through downtown.

All that would be required would be to build a relatively short east-west road directly adjacent to the 64/40 deck piers from what would be the transition lanes of the boulevard to the 6th street ramps.