urbanSTL

^ YES - it's worth going. It's not a meeting, but an open house with MoDOT reps taking questions and input. It's not apparent that this will be systematic, but it's what there is.

Kevin B wrote:
MODoT is frustrating. With gas prices rising (causing less people to drive) and cars becoming more energy efficient (reducing fill-up frequency), MODoT has flat-out admitted it is approaching a point at which it cannot sustain on state gas taxes. And yet it insists on adding costly pieces to a soon-to-be-superfluous highway system -- one which anyone with a little foresight can tell will be in need of major upgrades and reconstruction by 2020.

MODOT does not only serve downtown or the city. MoDoT reflects the political culture of out-state Missouri and traditional ideas on transportation. It is not unique in failing to be progressive. Most state departments of transportation operate the same way.

Attending the meeting, making a big deal about the unfairness of this process, is the best way to push this issue forward. They will cite their professionalism as a reason for not considering highway removal, but how can that be determined without an independent traffic study? Moreover, other processionals have already indicated that one billion in development could result from removing the highway.

Toronto stopped highways from being built through its downtown core by forming an opposition coalition, lobbying, and then downright protest. People today are quite proud of the outcome with quite a few of those on the ground being elected to office, working in top areas in government, or becoming journalists.

In Saint Louis, so far, alternatives were proposed by City to River with endorsements from broad sections of civil society, including every professional planning firm which participated in the design competition, downtown property owners, downtown business interests, and the Post-Dispatch. MODOT is not going to consider alternatives until you make them do it politically and perhaps with a legal challenge. It will not be easy, as the EA process is structured to inherently exclude public input and deliver projects quickly. Yet the only way the highway will be removed is if people continue doing what they have already done, taking it to the next level.

Is there a way we can comment on this electronically?

"MODOT does not only serve downtown or the city."

In fact, they don't really serve either.

^

If anything their role should be curtailed with MPO's like EWG taking a larger role.

I could be wrong, but in my view MoDOT is likely the lesser problem. They serve a constituency. That's not the people at large, but the political establishment. MoDOT is set to spent $30M or more on new highways ramps, etc. at the Arch because Mayor Slay wants them to do it.

^ I think your Twitter question got through. Don Marsh was pretty good asking about why the deadline is so important. MoDOT can only say it's the deadline and CityArchRiver is our client. CityArchRiver stays quiet.

^Everyone is avoiding the alternative, obviously. At least the MODOT rep said outright that she is more concerned about South County drivers getting to the airport. That's at least one point of honesty given from the establishment.

To be clear, October 2015 is not a National Park Service deadline, it's a CityArchRiver deadline. The park and the city has pledged full support to CityArchRiver and whatever they're doing. It's incredible that such an organization - which is trying to tackle a very important and necessary project - thinks they can rearrange a city, spend $500M, ask local taxpayers for $200M+ and avoid any scrutiny at all. We should be angry and appalled.

^Toronto has a 2015 deadline. Quite a few projects, transportation and housing, are moving fast to meet it. They did actually push some EA's through quicker than some residents liked. Though there is a real economic imperative. It's this thing, kind of a big deal, called the Pan American Games! What exactly is the City of Saint Louis going to do for the 50th anniversary of the Arch? Cut a few ribbons, drink some bud light, and think something great was accomplished?

That justifies not considering a proposal which would entirely reshape downtown in ways that all planning efforts to date could never accomplish? Like Joe Biden would say, removing the highway is a big MF deal. To dismiss it before consideration makes no sense. It sounds like the same mindset that contributed to Saint Louis losing out to Chicago.

If Saint Louis is ever going to be a world city, where people stop asking about high school origin(if I did this in Toronto no one would talk to me again), then it needs to step up and take risks. Why would someone want to come to Saint Louis where leaders express such provincial, outdated, backward ideas? Highway removal is an increasingly attractive option in bigger cities. Yet unlike Saint Louis, which has more highway miles per capita and less congestion than its peers, these big cities actually use their highways to some degree.

There is no excuse. Saint Louis has too many highways. They are a fiscal burden. It was a mistake to build them through our cities. The results of this are evident in Saint Louis' depopulation. Yet downtown, one of the few areas which gained population, will explode with highway removal. It's time to make that happen, because this opportunity will not appear again. People need to get organized.

Get those Occupy hippies / Wash U kids on this. They protest Peabody Energy and should be all for transitioning modal share. Are people going to organize? This is bigger than Real Estate Row, the Century Building, or Blairmont. Unlike those removing the highway will actually have a positive benefit. It seems like a large coalition of could be assembled now to support the City to River proposal.

What's SLDC's status on their study? Were consultants chosen for the RFP? What legal authority does this study have in MODOT's EA process?

If you look at St. Louis' planning history, the city really embraced modernism in big ways. Great outcomes, albeit destructive, were accomplished. It, an other movements before them, were pursued in Saint Louis for entirely economic reasons. Why, after making significant steps in the right direction, are leaders not pushing to build a city for the next generation? Have groups like Civic Progress lost their relevancy?

^ YES, YES, YES. We're talking about 1mi of boulevard not dissimilar to Kingshighway at Forest Park (though the ped crossings there should be better). If one averages 15mph instead of 60mph for that one mile, the difference is 3 minutes. With timed lights, this average would certainly be higher. AND that is the only negative that's been expressed. Every other aspect of this - land development, more and better connections for commuters/visits/sports fans going in and out of downtown, less expensive to maintain, more walkable along the length of the Arch grounds...on and on and on...is a huge positive.