Decent piece on removing I-70 on KSDK at 6:00. Not sure if it will be on at ten. I'm afraid to look at their website to see if anyone left a comment
I would love to see revenue of any casino license sale go towards infrascture including a portion going to removing I-70 and fullfilling a direct Tucker Ave ramp to/from the Mississippir River Bridge. Matching the funds from the National Park Service could possible leave enough money for a new 22nd interchage. The city could fundamentally improve ingress/egress downtown to/from Metro East and County, connect with the river, and provide great developable space if it at least demands a portion of the revenue as compensation for losing the President's Casino license.
- 2,005
^The new river bridge will tie into Tucker, once the current Tucker bridge is removed and the road rebuilt. Traffic continuing to West Florissant will have to turn left to get off of Tucker.
Is that connection actually a part of the MRB project, or is that a separate city or McEagle responsible project?brickandmortar wrote:^The new river bridge will tie into Tucker, once the current Tucker bridge is removed and the road rebuilt. Traffic continuing to West Florissant will have to turn left to get off of Tucker.
The new exit is MODOT, but the new Tucker is a separate City Project. MODOT is building the exit to Cass which will meet the new Tucker that the City is building through the parking lot of the old Schnucks.
- 3,429
Just came back from Boston and walked from Quincy Market downtown to the Italian North End for dinner. You used to have to walk under an elevated highway. Now, since the Big Dig, you walk at grade level through parks to the North End and the Harbor. Fortunately we don't need to bury the highway now that I-70 will have its own bridge North of the Arch instead of South. We can get grade level streets like the ones in this image for a tiny fraction of what Boston paid to get this same benefit -- removing barriers to circulation downtown. I think that steeple in the distance is the Old North Church near Paul Revere's house. Downtown is left of the highway/parks. The Harbor is to the right of the highway/parks.
![]()
- 2,005
Here are four good examples of eliminating freeways and how they don't cause gridlock.
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/07 ... ve-a-city/
Huh?! 4 Cases Of How Tearing Down A Highway Can Relieve Traffic Jams (And Save Your City)
CASE 2: Portland, Oregon - Harbor Drive
The idea that it’s possible to remove a major road without creating traffic jams is not exactly a recent one: Portland proved its merits more than 30 years ago. Until the early 1970’s–a period when the city’s now-thriving downtown area was losing the battle with urban blight–there was a four-lane freeway known as Harbor Drive occupying the western shore of the Willamette River, creating a barrier between the downtown area and the waterfront. Even citizens and a few politicians began arguing in favor of taking down the road in the late ’60s though, Oregon’s Highway Department wanted to widen the thoroughfare.
Ultimately, the most important advocate for its demolition was then-governor Tom McCall. After a long and contentious political battle, McCall prevailed and the highway was closed in 1974. On the first day it was shut off to traffic, one of the highway engineers who predicted gridlock catastrophe reportedly called one of McCall’s lieutenants to congratulate him: there hadn’t been “a ripple” of disturbance in the city’s traffic flow
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/07 ... ve-a-city/
- 11K
^ That and other examples are why people who demand to know where 25K or 50K cars are going to go is B.S. It's simply not a linear relationship and for frick's sake we have one of the very best examples in our back yard in the past two years!!!!!! (I-64 for those who are scratching their head)
For those worry about gridlock...I recently saw a video through the e2 (thats e squared). They discussed taking down an entire heavily used highway in China and how the traffic didn't spew to the surrounding roads. The traffic engineer went on to explain that many traffic engineers tend to believe that traffic is comparable to water. The quantity is constant regardless of pipe size (ie number of lanes). He said traffic actually works more like a gas. It expands with more space and contracts with less. When there are fewer roads, people turn to living in closer proximity to amenities and work, or rely on new forms of transportation.
Now this is not to say that this is a known fact or anything, but it does pose an interesting thought. Is the way we currently view traffic legitimate? Or do we need to look at it from a new vantage point?
Now this is not to say that this is a known fact or anything, but it does pose an interesting thought. Is the way we currently view traffic legitimate? Or do we need to look at it from a new vantage point?
- 10K
Good read, brickandmortar.
I found it interesting that in the case of Portland's Harbor Drive, it was the governor of Oregon who was championing the removal of the highway.
Think Jay Nixon would be on board with City to River's ideas?
I found it interesting that in the case of Portland's Harbor Drive, it was the governor of Oregon who was championing the removal of the highway.
Think Jay Nixon would be on board with City to River's ideas?
- 1,000
My friend who does political campaigns and fundraising says there's a reason Nixon is so popular outstate and it's not because he's good.Moorlander wrote:Nixon, sigh /rant over
- 11K
Anyone know of a commuter using I-55/I-70 daily who would endorse the Memorial Drive boulevard idea?
^Me! I drive I-44, I-55, and a short distance on I-70 to the Madison exit every morning to go from south City to work. Of course, when my house is finished, hopefully before the time that I-70 through downtown would be able to be removed, I will only have a short 3 block walk to work.
- 11K
The Post-Dispatch once again supports removal of I-70 and links directly to City to River:
http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/t ... -schedule/
http://www.citytoriver.org
http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/t ... -schedule/
http://www.citytoriver.org
- 11K
Anyway, for the record, here's my comment added to the "Tearing Down I-70 Near the Arch Is Utterly Unnecessary" viewpoint:
Thought I'd weigh in on this, given my name appears above. The item I wrote some time ago was addressing the overly expensive band-aid that was the "lid" over just three blocks of I-70. My position was that it was wasteful and that the current infrastructure could be greatly improved for just a fraction of that cost.
However, I am convinced today, as I was when I wrote the piece referenced, that the removal of I-70 from the PSB to the new MRB is absolutely the best solution and the only solution that corrects the mistakes of the past. In June 2009 I thought that removal may be "overly optimistic," but today, led by City to River, we're closer to this goal than ever before. I not only whole-heartedly endorse the removal of I-70, I have also joined the City to River effort and am doing all I can publicly and privately to make Interstate removal a reality in St. Louis.
Just FYI, the positions are decided by a coin toss. From the counterpoint...
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed herein should be construed only as argument for the sake of argument, and not as the personal opinions of the authors. In fact, the authors' positions in "Tuesday Tussle" are decided by coin toss.
- 3,429
The new I-70 bridge opens the opportunity for removing the depressed I-70 lanes downtown. That seems to be moving forward. They originally wanted 8 lanes instead of 4 for the new bridge, and implied that someday they may build a 2nd duplicate bridge to get the other 4 lanes.
Rather than build a 2nd duplicate I-70 bridge there, what if we build the next 4-lane bridge just south of the AB Brewery and route I-55 traffic and I-44 traffic over that bridge. Four lanes should be enough since the Poplar Street Bridge will still be there serving downtown and I-64. Then restore the street grid North and East of the I-44/I-255 interchange between Soulard and the Poplar Street Bridge to link Soulard with Lasalle Park again, and provide a walkable link from the future Chouteau Lake to Chouteau Landing and the Gateway Arch grounds.
Rather than build a 2nd duplicate I-70 bridge there, what if we build the next 4-lane bridge just south of the AB Brewery and route I-55 traffic and I-44 traffic over that bridge. Four lanes should be enough since the Poplar Street Bridge will still be there serving downtown and I-64. Then restore the street grid North and East of the I-44/I-255 interchange between Soulard and the Poplar Street Bridge to link Soulard with Lasalle Park again, and provide a walkable link from the future Chouteau Lake to Chouteau Landing and the Gateway Arch grounds.
- 549
Now we're thinking big! Love it.gary kreie wrote:The new I-70 bridge opens the opportunity for removing the depressed I-70 lanes downtown. That seems to be moving forward. They originally wanted 8 lanes instead of 4 for the new bridge, and implied that someday they may build a 2nd duplicate bridge to get the other 4 lanes.
Rather than build a 2nd duplicate I-70 bridge there, what if we build the next 4-lane bridge just south of the AB Brewery and route I-55 traffic and I-44 traffic over that bridge. Four lanes should be enough since the Poplar Street Bridge will still be there serving downtown and I-64. Then restore the street grid North and East of the I-44/I-255 interchange between Soulard and the Poplar Street Bridge to link Soulard with Lasalle Park again, and provide a walkable link from the future Chouteau Lake to Chouteau Landing and the Gateway Arch grounds.
- 11K
City to River and Rick Bonasch (STL Rising) got a nice mention in USA Today!
http://urbanstl.com/index.php?option=co ... -usa-today
http://urbanstl.com/index.php?option=co ... -usa-today
Don't know how this would be implemented right now being that it's potentially a competing plan.
I would think the highway — be it lid, parkway or pedestrian mall — is going to be addressed in the Arch + City + River 2015 redesign.
Hopefully the five teams are looking at this concept and willing to incorporate some of the ideas.
I would think the highway — be it lid, parkway or pedestrian mall — is going to be addressed in the Arch + City + River 2015 redesign.
Hopefully the five teams are looking at this concept and willing to incorporate some of the ideas.
- 11K
You could think about joining City to River. You could write to your alderperson (especially if they're downtown) and Mayor Slay. You can call into KWMU or KMOX or whoever when they're discussing development downtown or the Arch competition directly. You can write a letter to the Post-Dispatch or Beacon.sirshankalot wrote:How can one help to get his done?