Great news! "it belongs to MODOT" no, it belongs to all of us.Is St. Louis eyeing teardown of I-70's elevated section?
BY TIM LOGAN • tlogan@post-dispatch.com > 314-340-8291 | Posted: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 2:15 pm
Are St. Louis officials laying the groundwork to take down the elevated section of Interstate 70 downtown? It sure looks that way.
For the two years since a citizens group formed around the idea of replacing I-70 downtown with a street-level boulevard, City Hall has remained lukewarm to the idea. After all, big plans in the works to re-do the Arch Grounds and build a three-block lid over the highway, and tens of thousands of cars driving that road each day. And city officials have said the world-class architects and MODOT engineers working on all that are better equipped to deal with the issue than they are.
But now the city is poised to fund a study of how knocking down the elevated section of 70 might work. Last week, the St. Louis Development Corp. issued a request for proposals for a $90,000 "downtown multi-modal access study." It focuses on ways to improve connections between downtown and the riverfront, and includes this request:
In particular, address the potential removal of the elevated sections of I-70 from north of Pine St. to O’Fallon St, to determine feasibility and traffic impacts should the elevated sections be completely removed, brought to grade, and what various alternatives might be considered for this scenario to occur long-term.
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... z1no2vkHVc
With this news, it will be even more interesting to see what appears in MoDOT's environmental assessment for the I-70 "improvements". The RFP MoDOT issued makes no mention of possible highway removal.
Awesome, hopefully something comes of this. As terrible as the depressed lanes are, the elevated lanes make crossing from Washington Avenue (one of the most successful neighborhoods in the region) to the Arch (one of the most popular tourist destinations in the region) a nightmare. I think getting rid of the elevated lanes will do more to connect the city to the Arch grounds than anything proposed in the Arch ground redo.
Well its a first step, still a long way to go, but kudos to those whose efforts got the conversation started.
You know, I could be WAY, WAY off, but I can't help but wonder if Stan Kroenke has something to do with this, behind the scenes. Hear me out:
The Rams and the St. Louis CVC are currently negotiating about improvements to the Edward Jones Dome. People close to the situation have hinted that the negotiations, which are going well, are looking long-term to a new stadium plan eventually. Bernie Miklasz recently said "When there's a new stadium, it is unlikely to be downtown...though nothing is certain. But a long-term plan is targeting suburban locations...a new stadium, however, is a bit down the road...there will be a lease extension at The Ed to cover the years until a more long-range plan is set."
Perhaps the city realizes that in order to compete with any plan for a new stadium in Chesterfield/Fenton/wherever else in the suburbs, they would need to offer Stan Kroenke large amounts of develop-able land. This would certainly be a first step toward making that possible.
I have nothing real to back up my speculation here. It just seems like it could be possible. The idea came to me after I read the latest blog post here. I mean, look at this picture. If you're a billionaire who's made his money in real estate development, and you're in talks with the city right now as it is to help develop the failing Union Station area, you must admit, all those big colored swaths of potential land that surround the stadium where your NFL football team currently plays probably look at least a little appealing:
![]()
The Rams and the St. Louis CVC are currently negotiating about improvements to the Edward Jones Dome. People close to the situation have hinted that the negotiations, which are going well, are looking long-term to a new stadium plan eventually. Bernie Miklasz recently said "When there's a new stadium, it is unlikely to be downtown...though nothing is certain. But a long-term plan is targeting suburban locations...a new stadium, however, is a bit down the road...there will be a lease extension at The Ed to cover the years until a more long-range plan is set."
Perhaps the city realizes that in order to compete with any plan for a new stadium in Chesterfield/Fenton/wherever else in the suburbs, they would need to offer Stan Kroenke large amounts of develop-able land. This would certainly be a first step toward making that possible.
I have nothing real to back up my speculation here. It just seems like it could be possible. The idea came to me after I read the latest blog post here. I mean, look at this picture. If you're a billionaire who's made his money in real estate development, and you're in talks with the city right now as it is to help develop the failing Union Station area, you must admit, all those big colored swaths of potential land that surround the stadium where your NFL football team currently plays probably look at least a little appealing:
I thought the same thing, only that McKee might be behind the pressure since the city has so much invested in him.rawest1 wrote:You know, I could be WAY, WAY off, but I can't help but wonder if Stan Kroenke has something to do with this, behind the scenes. Hear me out:
The Rams and the St. Louis CVC are currently negotiating about improvements to the Edward Jones Dome. People close to the situation have hinted that the negotiations, which are going well, are looking long-term to a new stadium plan eventually. Bernie Miklasz recently said "When there's a new stadium, it is unlikely to be downtown...though nothing is certain. But a long-term plan is targeting suburban locations...a new stadium, however, is a bit down the road...there will be a lease extension at The Ed to cover the years until a more long-range plan is set."
Perhaps the city realizes that in order to compete with any plan for a new stadium in Chesterfield/Fenton/wherever else in the suburbs, they would need to offer Stan Kroenke large amounts of develop-able land. This would certainly be a first step toward making that possible.
I have nothing real to back up my speculation here. It just seems like it could be possible. The idea came to me after I read the latest blog post here. I mean, look at this picture. If you're a billionaire who's made his money in real estate development, and you're in talks with the city right now as it is to help develop the failing Union Station area, you must admit, all those big colored swaths of potential land that surround the stadium where your NFL football team currently plays probably look at least a little appealing:
- 11K
To be honest, I think there are a whole lot of people behind the pressure to see this explored. More than just Kroenke and McKee are invested in downtown - though it couldn't hurt to have them working the angles as well, but what do I know?
Honestly, if anyone had any idea, I thought it might be you.Alex Ihnen wrote:To be honest, I think there are a whole lot of people behind the pressure to see this explored. More than just Kroenke and McKee are invested in downtown - though it couldn't hurt to have them working the angles as well, but what do I know?
The question is, can you legitimately remove the elevated lanes without also removing the depressed lanes? Because I'm not sure you can.
I guess one way to do it would be to transform the depressed lanes into basically an off-ramp for northbound 55'ers. By the time you hit Washington, you've had enough slow down time to safely hit a stoplight. Conversely, heading southbound through the depressed lanes allows people time to get to cruising speed at 55-South (a current problem when entering the highway from southbound Memorial Drive). People coming over PSB exit to Memorial on their way north, 55/44 drivers take the depressed lanes.
A solution, yes, but not an ideal one.
More and more, it seems it will end up being an all-or-nothing decision. And if MODot spends money expanding the role of the depressed lanes for the C+A+R plan, you can almost guarantee the "nothing" side will win out.
I guess one way to do it would be to transform the depressed lanes into basically an off-ramp for northbound 55'ers. By the time you hit Washington, you've had enough slow down time to safely hit a stoplight. Conversely, heading southbound through the depressed lanes allows people time to get to cruising speed at 55-South (a current problem when entering the highway from southbound Memorial Drive). People coming over PSB exit to Memorial on their way north, 55/44 drivers take the depressed lanes.
A solution, yes, but not an ideal one.
More and more, it seems it will end up being an all-or-nothing decision. And if MODot spends money expanding the role of the depressed lanes for the C+A+R plan, you can almost guarantee the "nothing" side will win out.
- 3,429
IF MODOT would go to the next step and consider a boulevard in front of the Arch grounds, and they still wanted a way for people to get to the Arch without crossing any traffic, they could consider a tunnel under the boulevard for people that goes straight into the museum -- not unlike the one built between the EJ Dome plaza and Lumiere with moving sidewalks. The pit is pre-dug.
- 2,386
^With all due respect, I think that it a horrible idea. I would prefer to keep the pedestrian traffic at street level regardless of the boulevard.
Lately I have been noticing a lot of grief on this board (Not necessarily from members, but in stories, comments, etc.) about the perceived dangers of crossing streets and traffic. Is it REALLY that big of a deal? I don't think it is a particularly hard skill to learn. If you cannot become adept at crossing a street, I think you have much larger problems.
Once again, it isn't like people are flipping in the air all over the place just getting hit by cars constantly in cities much larger than ours with massive amounts of traffic. If one person a year gets hit by a car cause they aren't paying attention that isn't called "dangerous," it's called evolution.
Lately I have been noticing a lot of grief on this board (Not necessarily from members, but in stories, comments, etc.) about the perceived dangers of crossing streets and traffic. Is it REALLY that big of a deal? I don't think it is a particularly hard skill to learn. If you cannot become adept at crossing a street, I think you have much larger problems.
Once again, it isn't like people are flipping in the air all over the place just getting hit by cars constantly in cities much larger than ours with massive amounts of traffic. If one person a year gets hit by a car cause they aren't paying attention that isn't called "dangerous," it's called evolution.
- 11K
gary kreie wrote:IF MODOT would go to the next step and consider a boulevard in front of the Arch grounds, and they still wanted a way for people to get to the Arch without crossing any traffic, they could consider a tunnel under the boulevard for people that goes straight into the museum -- not unlike the one built between the EJ Dome plaza and Lumiere with moving sidewalks. The pit is pre-dug.
I like this IF they could basically move the underground museum entrance to Smith Square on the west side of Memorial. Then again, I don't know, maybe not, but there are solutions other than the lid/trench.
rawest1 wrote:Honestly, if anyone had any idea, I thought it might be you.Alex Ihnen wrote:To be honest, I think there are a whole lot of people behind the pressure to see this explored. More than just Kroenke and McKee are invested in downtown - though it couldn't hurt to have them working the angles as well, but what do I know?
- 3,429
As I said, it would be A WAY, not the only way, to get to the Arch grounds and still meet MODOTs objective. I didn't mean for it to replace crossing the boulevard outside at street level. That would be the primary way to get to the Arch. For impaired people, the walk is going to be pretty far from the parking garages along Kiener Plaza. The moving sidewalks can shorten the walk, just as it does for the walk between the EJ Dome and Lumiere.newstl2020 wrote:^With all due respect, I think that it a horrible idea. I would prefer to keep the pedestrian traffic at street level regardless of the boulevard.
Lately I have been noticing a lot of grief on this board (Not necessarily from members, but in stories, comments, etc.) about the perceived dangers of crossing streets and traffic. Is it REALLY that big of a deal? I don't think it is a particularly hard skill to learn. If you cannot become adept at crossing a street, I think you have much larger problems.
Once again, it isn't like people are flipping in the air all over the place just getting hit by cars constantly in cities much larger than ours with massive amounts of traffic. If one person a year gets hit by a car cause they aren't paying attention that isn't called "dangerous," it's called evolution.
- 2,386
^Yeah, sorry, that came off more in your direction than I intended it to. I deff keep my point the same, but I understand that was an idea based on MODOT's assumption that people can't cross streets, not yours
- 30
So, as you all understand it, will this study not deal with the sunken part of I-70 at all?
- 11K
It will, from Pine north and the overall scope includes the sunken portion, but it appears to defer to CityArchRiver plans that currently call for a one-block lid at the Gateway Mall - precluding an at-grade boulevard at that point.
Not sure if this has been brought up, but what happens to semis/18-wheelers if eastbound 44 (depressed section) ends at Washington? Which streets would be designated as truck routes? A stray truck or two will still cross the MLK if there are traffic tie-ups on the new bridge. It would be nice to have the MLK for passenger vehicles only (with MCT buses taking Eads. Would it be better to prohibit larger commercial vehicles on the boulevard? I'm sure this will be brought up in the study, but doesn't hurt to get some ideas.
Broadway/4th would be an option for trucks, though an unwelcome one. More likely that Tucker would pick up most of the slack.
- 11K
The question is what trucks? Through traffic will avoid the boulevard. Delivery trucks accessing downtown will use the boulevard and find access easier than the myriad of Interstate ramps etc. The quite small number of trucks wishing to go from the near south side to 70 west (again, there are many options depending on destination - I64 west, 270 if starting further south, etc. and these would all be trucks already using some city streets) would use the boulevard. How would this be any different than large delivery and commercial trucks that use some city streets today?
A lot of coverage nationally on this study
http://streetsblog.net/2012/03/02/st-lo ... hway-cide/
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/cities/ ... moval/2249
http://streetsblog.net/2012/03/02/st-lo ... hway-cide/
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/cities/ ... moval/2249
I think you would agree that understanding what the effects are of severing this major artery between north and south city...Maybe these things have already been looked at...I would think the best way to support nad promote the positives of replacing the highway with a boulevard is credibly understanding the negative effects (which do exist) better than the opponents and offering a truer picture of the overall net gain for the public...Alex Ihnen wrote:The question is what trucks? Through traffic will avoid the boulevard. Delivery trucks accessing downtown will use the boulevard and find access easier than the myriad of Interstate ramps etc. The quite small number of trucks wishing to go from the near south side to 70 west (again, there are many options depending on destination - I64 west, 270 if starting further south, etc. and these would all be trucks already using some city streets) would use the boulevard. How would this be any different than large delivery and commercial trucks that use some city streets today?