City to River - Removing I-44 (X I-70) Downtown

gary kreie · PostAug 11, 2010#1512010-08-11T22:24+00:00

Roger Wyoming wrote: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.

Instead, why not extend the Boulevard and merge it with Broadway going South at grade level. Then eliminate the elevated combined I-55/44 lanes and send all I-44 Eastbound traffic South on I-55 to a new I-55/44 bridge just South of Anheiser Busch. Poplar Street Bridge could serve I-64 exclusively.

http://urbanstl.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... 85#p170985

I would prefer that to a 2nd I-70 bridge someday as had been planned.

jakektu · PostAug 12, 2010#1522010-08-12T23:28+00:00

^

Cool

notes from home · PostAug 13, 2010#1532010-08-13T02:19+00:00

^^Ditto on the Cool. I've had a pretty similar idea idea for a further south I-44/I-55 bridge.

gary kreie · PostAug 14, 2010#1542010-08-14T18:15+00:00

I heard Alex on KMOX the other day. Great job explaining the concept and why it can work.

Alex Ihnen · PostAug 15, 2010#1552010-08-15T04:03+00:00

Thanks. We have a lot of work to do.

By the way, everyone's invited to the big City to River event at the Schlafly Tap Room this coming Wednesday!

Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=1 ... 933&ref=mf

Please pass on the FB invite to everyone you know.

the central scrutinizer · PostAug 15, 2010#1562010-08-15T23:35+00:00

The 5 proposals will be on display starting Tuesday at the Arch. Apparently, the Garden is also hosting them, but maybe only for 3 days? http://www.mobot.org/events/calendar.asp#car

Alex Ihnen · PostAug 16, 2010#1572010-08-16T01:40+00:00

Yep. The complete schedule was posted on the urbanstl.com blog here: http://urbanstl.com/index.php?option=co ... &Itemid=18

The calendar can also be found on the official competition website.

mill204 · PostAug 16, 2010#1582010-08-16T15:41+00:00

If anybody wants to take a look at what was proposed back in 2001 for the Missouri approach to the Poplar Street Bridge (a deferred Mississippi River Bridge project), I have the DEIS excerpts posted on my blog. At the time, Spruce St was to be extended to the Arch grounds and northbound Memorial Dr, but over the highway and southbound Memorial Dr, relegating the road to nothing more than a highway bound traffic sewer. Thought it would be relevant as the project would meet some of the goals of City to River while conflicting with many others.

Gateway Streets: The Missouri South Interchange

downtown2007 · PostAug 17, 2010#1592010-08-17T01:24+00:00

I hope we have enough money to go around to remove I-70, revamp the Arch grounds, and fix the problems with the Arch itself.

gary kreie · PostAug 17, 2010#1602010-08-17T01:39+00:00

What problems with the Arch itself?

downtown2007 · PostAug 17, 2010#1612010-08-17T02:02+00:00

Next time you are down there pay special attention to the black scuff marks about 3/4 up each leg. It got some attention in the local news about 5 years ago but nothing has been done and the marks have gotten worse.

DaronDierkes · PostAug 17, 2010#1622010-08-17T02:20+00:00

Downtown2007 wrote:I hope we have enough money to go around to remove I-70, revamp the Arch grounds, and fix the problems with the Arch itself.

I hope we have enough money to remove I-70 and the Wash Ave parking garage, add pedestrian options to both bridges, and make East St. Louis a part of downtown.

The competition is on both sides of the river.

ttricamo · PostAug 18, 2010#1632010-08-18T19:14+00:00

It would seem to me that the "Foundation Team Members" of CityArchRiver are the precise people that need to be wooed by the City to River folks, yet it has become very clear that the removal of I-70 has almost nothing to do with the Arch Grounds redesign competition. Seems as though that should have been the goal.

I am both hopeful for the successful removal of I-70 and extremely skeptical that it will actually happen.

dredger · PostAug 18, 2010#1642010-08-18T19:45+00:00

I think St. Louis biz Journals put together a nice article on their website today, explaining the support for removal of I-70 from four out of the five design teams but the contraints of the competition by a 2015 deadline. Hopefully Post Dispatch will reprint article and/or make it an editorial or both.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stor ... ily35.html

I believe Alex and few others noted correctly that support is spelled out in the full plan even though it is not evident on the boards. The comment in biz journal article that I think is accurate is that the plans for the most part would still fit nicely with a boulevard

gary kreie · PostAug 22, 2010#1652010-08-22T03:17+00:00

If the boulevard goes in, should the winning Arch-City-River team consider putting a pedestrian tunnel under the boulevard to Ely Luther Park straight into the underground museum -- like the one going under I-70 into the casino? Or better yet, move the museum West entrance to Ely Luther park to connect under the boulevard to the museum.

DaronDierkes · PostAug 22, 2010#1662010-08-22T08:10+00:00

^That was my initial thought, but all the design teams suggest new openings that more or less do the same thing.

Not doing that leaves a future metrolink right-of-way as the Behnisch plan suggests, or a parking garage like Chicago's Michigan Avenue has, or a new stormwater run-off basin for MSD. I think moving the entrance messes up the careful planning the teams have already done and removes any future uses for the depressed lanes if they're not being filled in.

It is probably worth noting btw that the Behnisch idea for a MetroLink line under the boulevard doesn't make any sense with the current metrolink tunnel at Wash Ave and the Lumiere tunnel further up. To put another line there, they'd have to dig deeper. Maybe that could work with each of those becoming stations along such a line. It'd be sensible to have a station under Wash Ave with a good transfer to Eads Bridge.

Alex Ihnen · PostAug 22, 2010#1672010-08-22T13:48+00:00

My understanding with the Behnisch MetroLink line is that it would follow the same elevation changes as the current I-70, though maybe be at-grade, then in the depressed lanes and return to at-grade at Washington Avenue and continue that way.

DaronDierkes · PostAug 23, 2010#1682010-08-23T00:46+00:00

So would it be safe to assume that this MetroLink would replace one of the BRT lines?

Alex Ihnen · PostAug 23, 2010#1692010-08-23T01:08+00:00

Well, this is a guess offered by a design team based on largely a guess by Metro. If I had to guess I'd say that the North-South line already imagined may run here, though I have no idea how the alignments would work. The MetroLink lines are so incredibly expensive that it is clear the region may see one new line per decade, maybe. The Interstate routes will be BRT and not rail.

DaronDierkes · PostAug 23, 2010#1702010-08-23T01:50+00:00

Actually it might be easier than the currently planned alignment under 14th street. Moving it would mean the Amtrak station, City Museum, the loft district, and the Library would lose a vital connection, but if said new alignment was on the surface of the boulevard, it could easily turn onto Cass or Chouteau and run along the surface until meeting up with the alignment as currently planned. That'd be much easier than digging up 14th street.

Can the BRT and MetroLink share the same right-of-way on the Boulevard? If so, the transfer options around Wash Ave and Memorial would be incredible: Two light rail and four BRT lines plus MCT buses on Eads and local buses MetroBuses plying the same stations for a few blocks. Too many turning buses can slow down traffic significantly though.

Alex Ihnen · PostAug 23, 2010#1712010-08-23T02:00+00:00

I don't believe the current planned alignment is under 14th Street. The options I've see are all at-grade on city streets through downtown.

dredger · PostAug 23, 2010#1722010-08-23T06:43+00:00

Why Metrolink? Why not relocate the rail line the currently runs through the Arch Grounds to a portion of the trench and away from the river instead. It might be a pipe dream, require additional tunnels to work and the rail configuration/interchanges on the south end probably prohibit the idea. But is is an idea to conceptualize.

Alex Ihnen · PostAug 23, 2010#1732010-08-23T14:43+00:00

^ The problem is that any tunnel in the I-70 right-of-way would have to get under the existing MetroLink tunnel. That's expensive. You would then have to connect this line in the north and south riverfront somewhere, likely creating new barriers possibly worse than the current ones.

timeforguinness · PostAug 23, 2010#1742010-08-23T17:40+00:00

Dredger wrote:I think St. Louis biz Journals put together a nice article on their website today, explaining the support for removal of I-70 from four out of the five design teams but the contraints of the competition by a 2015 deadline. Hopefully Post Dispatch will reprint article and/or make it an editorial or both.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stor ... ily35.html

I believe Alex and few others noted correctly that support is spelled out in the full plan even though it is not evident on the boards. The comment in biz journal article that I think is accurate is that the plans for the most part would still fit nicely with a boulevard

Basic rule of engineering: You can build it fast, cheap, or right...pick two.

Build it fast & cheap, but it won't be right.
Build it fast & right, but it won't be cheap.
Build it cheap & right, but it won't be fast.

The reason I'm bringing this up is that the boulevard can be put in by that deadline, but for how much? Also, I have a bad feeling that if the lid/magic carpet is implemented, it effectively kills the momentum for the boulevard...no matter what the design teams say.

nerfdude · PostAug 23, 2010#1752010-08-23T18:22+00:00

TimeForGuinness wrote: Basic rule of engineering: You can build it fast, cheap, or right...pick two.

Build it fast & cheap, but it won't be right.
Build it fast & right, but it won't be cheap.
Build it cheap & right, but it won't be fast.

ha, i didn't know people used that outside of cars, where "right" is replaced with "reliable".
anyway.

City to River - Removing I-44 (X I-70) Downtown

Choose Display Mode