urbanSTL

Friday this resolution will be introduced at the St. Louis Board of Aldermen. At some point in the next month or two there will be at least one public hearing for the issue conducted by the Transportation and Commerce Committee, chaired by Alderman Kennedy. When I know the date I will post it. The hearings will provide a forum for proponents of all solutions to the I-70 issue a chance to air their views, and will most likely include testimony of involved parties like MoDOT, etc. If the resolution ultimately passes, it simply expresses the opinion of the full Board, but is not binding on MoDOT.

Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman

Resolution Number 174
Resolution to Remove the Downtown Elevated Lanes of I-70

Whereas, the National Park Service has stated in their General Management Plan a desire for better connectivity to downtown along the north and south edges of the JNEM and that I-70 is an impediment to such connectivity; and

Whereas, the St. Louis Chapter of American Institute of Architects, Landmarks Association of St. Louis, Laclede’s Landing Redevelopment Corporation, Laclede’s Landing Merchant’s Association, St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission, Citizens for Modern Transit, Open Space Council, City of St. Louis Mayor’s Vanguard Cabinet – Planning and Land Use Committee, and the William Kerr Foundation have endorsed the removal of the elevated sections of I-70 as an urban design solution; and

Whereas, all five finalists in the City Arch River Design Competition advocated for removing I-70 to improve connectivity between the Arch and downtown St. Louis, noting that Memorial Drive could not be activated and utilized to its full potential until I-70 is removed from downtown; and

Whereas, I-70 will soon be rerouted over the new bridge into Illinois, making the stretch of former I-70 between the Poplar Street Bridge and Cass Avenue redundant; and

Whereas, due to the new bridge, traffic will be diverted into Illinois and reduced along the present I-70 corridor in downtown St. Louis. An at-grade boulevard in place of the elevated lanes can potentially accommodate up to 50,000 cars per day, sufficient for the traffic that would remain in St. Louis city; and

Whereas, the removal of I-70 and creation of an at-grade boulevard will provide new economic opportunities with the creation of new and expanded buildable parcels as well as opening up now isolated districts to redevelopment. This will bring new jobs, new residents, and ultimately new revenue for the city; and

Whereas, removing the elevated lanes of I-70 and replacing them with a boulevard creates connections between the Mississippi River and the City of St. Louis, particularly in the areas of Laclede’s Landing and the Bottle District, improving access for both pedestrians and automobiles and re-establishing St. Louis' historic connection to its riverfront; and

Whereas, the U.S. DOT, in their 2010-2015 Strategic Plan (April 15, 2010) stated, “In this era of limited resources, achieving a State of Good Repair will require DOT and our State partner agencies to take a strategic approach by considering and evaluating where transportation and community needs have changed over time. As parts of our major roadway systems reach the end of their useful lives and must be replaced at significant cost, those portions in center cities should be identified that, because of employment and residential decentralization, no longer serve central transportation goals and are capable of being decommissioned or downsized. In such instances, a wiser public investment might be to reclaim the land for commercial and community use, particularly in economically distressed communities. For example, after the Loma Prieta earthquake, San Francisco tore down the damaged Embarcadero Freeway in 1991 rather than rebuild it, reuniting the waterfront and downtown and spurring new commercial development. Similarly, Fort Worth relocated a portion of its interstate away from its downtown, and cities like Seattle, Phoenix, San Diego, and Hartford have capped their downtown interstates with decks in order to reclaim land for parks, museums, schools, and housing.”; and

Whereas, in February 2012, the St. Louis Development Corporation issued a
"Request for Proposals for Downtown Multimodal Access Study" that asks the
selected consultant to "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." This major objective of the study is recommendations for
connecting downtown to the riverfront acknowledging the obstacle posed by the
elevated lanes of Interstate 70.



Now therefore be it resolved by the St. Louis Board of Aldermen that the City of 
St. Louis and its agencies shall work toward removal of the elevated lanes of 
Interstate 70 and their replacement by a suitable at-grade roadway upon the
 opening of the new Mississippi River bridge that will carry I-70, and that the Transportation & Commerce Committee shall hold public hearings to investigate the aforementioned and shall invite stakeholders on the subject to provide testimony.

^That's great news!

I'm introducing it. I should say it was put together by some active St. Louisans. Not sure if this will be a "courtesy" issue or not, but resolutions on most things are essentially non-binding, although they do allow committees to call people in to provide testimony, which is part of their value.

Very interesting, Scott. Good work! Is this the announcement Alex was teasing us with in this thread in October?

If nothing else perhaps this can help to garner some media attention to the issue.

Thanks for doing this. Great summary of points favoring the removal of I-70.

New TED talk up about how to minimize traffic. They charged a small $1 or $2 congestion fee and decreased traffic into a city center by 20%. That amount doesn't seem like much, but it was sufficient to basically eliminate all traffic jams. Once the new bridge is complete, maybe a hefty user fee of $10+ could be tested to see how the city does without the I-70 depressed lanes.

Here is the link:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonas_eliasson ... _jams.html

realclear wrote:New TED talk up about how to minimize traffic. They charged a small $1 or $2 congestion fee and decreased traffic into a city center by 20%. That amount doesn't seem like much, but it was sufficient to basically eliminate all traffic jams. Once the new bridge is complete, maybe a hefty user fee of $10+ could be tested to see how the city does without the I-70 depressed lanes.

Here is the link:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonas_eliasson ... _jams.html

Why? St. Louis doesn't have a traffic problem for all intent and purposes. Sorry, between living in Chicago, St. Louis and now San Fran Bay area as well as working everywhere else it amuses me that anyone thinks St. Louis has a congestion problem. The idea of adding a congestion fee will only convince people to convince their employers to go somewhere else in a region where space is cheap or convince someone not to bother with downtown the second time around. I think the idea fails on the economic reality that their is not enough demand and thus value on space downtown. The same reason why I think jacking up the parking fees will convince those with capital to build on surface lots without demand is pure fantasy.

What St. Louis has a barrier problem between its urban core and the river that was the basis of its existence. Instead, remove the raise section after the MRB is built and then you will see how quick the idea of needing a freeway will go away.

dredger wrote:

realclear wrote:New TED talk up about how to minimize traffic. They charged a small $1 or $2 congestion fee and decreased traffic into a city center by 20%. That amount doesn't seem like much, but it was sufficient to basically eliminate all traffic jams. Once the new bridge is complete, maybe a hefty user fee of $10+ could be tested to see how the city does without the I-70 depressed lanes.

Here is the link:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonas_eliasson ... _jams.html

Why? St. Louis doesn't have a traffic problem for all intent and purposes. Sorry, between living in Chicago, St. Louis and now San Fran Bay area as well as working everywhere else it amuses me that anyone thinks St. Louis has a congestion problem. The idea of adding a congestion fee will only convince people to convince their employers to go somewhere else in a region where space is cheap or convince someone not to bother with downtown the second time around. I think the idea fails on the economic reality that their is not enough demand and thus value on space downtown. The same reason why I think jacking up the parking fees will convince those with capital to build on surface lots without demand is pure fantasy.

What St. Louis has a barrier problem between its urban core and the river that was the basis of its existence. Instead, remove the raise section after the MRB is built and then you will see how quick the idea of needing a freeway will go away.

That would be my main concern as well. The last thing we need is to drive (pun unintended) people away from the center of the city. This isn't Manhattan or London we're talking about.

My thoughts are along the lines of a methodically divide and conquer mentality. Just wish for St. Louis sake that Slay would embrace a long term infrastructure plan for downtown St. Louis, outline what needs to be done and how it beneftis and encourages economic growth. Building and rehabbing parks/civic spaces is not enough.

First) The sooner the remants 22nd street pkway go away the better, everything is in place and City/MoDOT already have agreed to such an outcome. If anything, McKee's northside plan for this immediate area is halfway decent in my mind. This needs to start happening in 2013 and I think it could go forward one way or another no matter what the outcome of MO Supreme court decision on Northside is.

Second) Remove Rasied section of 1-70 downtown between Pine and new MRB. I believe St. Louis Downtown group has already called for the traffic/or going forward with much needed traffic study outlining impacts. I really think you make the argument that this needed going forward for the sake of Edwards Dome/Rams/CVC/McKees Northside Bottleworks. A 2015 timeframe is doable and a Hwy 40 rebuild type plan to do it is the best (design build with full closure of route)

Third) The long term goal is a comprehensive replacement of the trench. When you have solid growth and development on all sides of downtown you have a much much stronger argument. In the meantime, I think near term investments on the first two projects would be a huge step forward and very much doable and agreeable by a lot of parties.

Maybe I wasn't making my point very well. I'm not suggesting that we implement city wide congestion pricing. Instead, I think charging people to use only the depressed section could be a low cost - revenue generating way to prove the lanes are unnecessary.

It's highly possible that the state will still be dragging their heels on this by the time the bridge opens. If the blvd is not in the works by that time, then charge people ten bucks to drive in the depressed lanes. This will show how quickly and painlesly people can alter their commutes. It's a way to prove the viability of C2Rs concept while preventing reactionary whining.

^Exactly. They shut own a whole highway and life continued. I'm just saying congestion pricing is a less drastic way to make the same point.

I wish I couldve made it to the talk last night. From all the tweets, it seemed pretty cool.

stlien wrote:I wish I couldve made it to the talk last night. From all the tweets, it seemed pretty cool.

From what I heard, whoever was speaking from City To River really missed an opportunity to showcase their vision and educate everyone what their vision is, City To River assumed everyone was already familiar with their vision and concept and failed to captivate the audience.

Personally, I think that they need to beef up their marketing of the vision - get on TV, radio, posters around town, get a rally going, something... hell, get a demonstration on the highway with a wall of people and block traffic.

The only way to get this REALLY moving is to capture more of the public's attention - we cant wait for every CNU official to stroll into town to ramp up the talk on removing the highway - City To River needs to start actively promoting.

^I'm interested in helping. Filled out the sign up page on your website last night.

I had a funny feeling that it was probably you speaking and given that I was was unable to attend I can only go by word-of-mouth but knowing your understanding and familiarity with everything involved I'm sure you did a good job - I wouldn't doubt that.

I'm ready to help - I'm pretty sure I signed up for the mailing list twice and am willing to donate my professional (landscape architect/urban planner/gis technical/graphic design) skills.

P.S. At my firm, we are working with The Landing/MoDOT/MVVA/City on preparing plans for improving the Third Street Streetscape between Wash Ave and Laclede's Landing Blvd as well as improving what's underneath the raised portion of the highway, streetscape next to the Hampton Inn Hotel and the pedestrian connections from the Dome/Convention Center to the Landing (a fairly large area).

So, work is evolving to re-define the urban realm next to the highway and creating a concept that would fit into the vision of a future boulevard alongside this improved space.

The majority (70%) of our work would be cohesive with the building of a boulevard, (i.e., improvements that would complement the addition of a boulevard); the rest is dealing with a already bad situation (elevated highway) and improving pedestrian connections, defining public realm and pedestrian scale, and developing underutilized land into attractive and inviting spaces (see below).

The long plaza to the west of the parking lot would be in somewhat similar fashion to Harry Bridges Plaza along San Francisco Embarcadero - it would be a definable edge of the Landing (with similar industrial materials) and would be a gathering place for events, beer gardens, festivals, concerts, etc. A proposed residential tower at the corner of Third Street/Eads Bridge would further enhance the urban fabric and character of the space. The only proposed improvements that would disappear with the boulevard would be whats happening under the highway (a concrete wall with mosaic tiles, sidewalk, landscape plantings and relocated historic cast iron lights).

Yes and No.

We have made changes to MoDOT's plans to integrate more urban streetscape principles. MoDOT's version wasn't bad but still treated Third Street similar to a suburban outer road. We eliminated the road that bisects under the highway to connect to the surface parking lot entrance/exit and converted the Third Street/Morgan Street intersection from signalized to a stop sign. Lastly, we added more on-street parking on Third Street and the street adjacent to Hampton Inn.

MoDOT says that they are committed to creating pedestrian-friendly streets but everything during this process from MoDOT has been 'Move the Cars' suburban-oriented concepts.