I think that if citizens (maybe with help from some of the downtown associations and businesses that support City to River) fund their own study it will at least get some attention, especially if input (during the study) is directly and professionally sought from all interested parties. Definitely if there were some sort of "Grand Unveiling" (ala Downtown Streetcar only much bigger) that received media attention and included invitations to civic leaders both inside and outside the government. Could be helpful to get the public support of at least one influential area developer (McKee, Amos Harris, etc.) and at least one major downtown employer. And most importantly some hard numbers about cost of the project and return on investment.
Bonwich, year-end roundup, 2003.roger wyoming II wrote:I agree more and greater public pressure is the the answer, but I'm just not sure on whether a study is the answer. Certainly something to look at. Maybe something cheaper in the meantime is printing up stickers saying "Tear Down this Wall" and slapping them on the supports!Alex Ihnen wrote: IMO - more and greater public pressure is the only way to move the issue forward and that's what a study might do.
I knew I'd actually said this publicly long ago, and I finally found the citation, for all the good the intervening decade did us.Our opinion that downtown still represents a great opportunity for development-through-dining brings us to our suggestion for redevelopment: Why not combine all these plans for a new Mississippi River Bridge and a "lid" for I-70 in front of the Arch into a real vision for a reunified downtown?
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan: Mr. Slay, Ms. Geisman, Mr. Sterman, Mr. Gephardt, Mr. Danforth or whoever can get it done -- tear that wall down! Boston did it with the Big Dig. San Francisco did it with the demolition of the Embarcadero Freeway. Their downtowns became whole again. When the new bridge is done, there will be no reason that the aptly named depressed section and the elevated portion of I-70 that amputates Laclede's Landing should remain highway. We're restoring the original street grid around the new stadium, so why not fix the northeast quadrant of downtown while we're at it?
It'll cost a lot of money, but so will all the infrastructure for a potential new casino on Laclede's Landing, and we're wagering that the reconnection of the Landing to downtown would have a lot more benefit for the dozens of bars and restaurants that have done their best to make a go of it down there for the many years since the Landing was first redeveloped.
I'm not trying to be negative: but I'm really afraid we'll be saying the same thing in 2023.bonwich wrote:Bonwich, year-end roundup, 2003.roger wyoming II wrote:I agree more and greater public pressure is the the answer, but I'm just not sure on whether a study is the answer. Certainly something to look at. Maybe something cheaper in the meantime is printing up stickers saying "Tear Down this Wall" and slapping them on the supports!Alex Ihnen wrote: IMO - more and greater public pressure is the only way to move the issue forward and that's what a study might do.
I knew I'd actually said this publicly long ago, and I finally found the citation, for all the good the intervening decade did us.Our opinion that downtown still represents a great opportunity for development-through-dining brings us to our suggestion for redevelopment: Why not combine all these plans for a new Mississippi River Bridge and a "lid" for I-70 in front of the Arch into a real vision for a reunified downtown?
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan: Mr. Slay, Ms. Geisman, Mr. Sterman, Mr. Gephardt, Mr. Danforth or whoever can get it done -- tear that wall down! Boston did it with the Big Dig. San Francisco did it with the demolition of the Embarcadero Freeway. Their downtowns became whole again. When the new bridge is done, there will be no reason that the aptly named depressed section and the elevated portion of I-70 that amputates Laclede's Landing should remain highway. We're restoring the original street grid around the new stadium, so why not fix the northeast quadrant of downtown while we're at it?
It'll cost a lot of money, but so will all the infrastructure for a potential new casino on Laclede's Landing, and we're wagering that the reconnection of the Landing to downtown would have a lot more benefit for the dozens of bars and restaurants that have done their best to make a go of it down there for the many years since the Landing was first redeveloped.
My only hope is that the traffic patterns change enough after the new I-70 bridge is opened so that someone in the right position of power has the guts to start the process to remove the downtown canyon.
- 11K
In the end, there is no proof that making I-70 a boulevard does x, y & z, and no proof that it's better for absolutely everyone - it's a social decision - what's best? What's best for downtown? What's best for city residents? What's best for tourists? What's best for businesses? It's a value decision - yes, number can and should help convince people - which is how a study could be helpful.
- 8,155
MODOT opposes elevated lane removal in comment on today's Road Crew chat:
"Memorial Drive which runs next to, parallel to, the Arch grounds will be removed as part of the overall CityArchRiver improvements. These improvements include not only roadway changes, but many other changes to the Arch, its public entrance, the parking lots and the overall Arch grounds. MoDOT is going to build a covered walkway, a park, over the depressed section of I-70 in front of the Arch leading visitors to the new entrance to the Arch. However, I-70 will still exist as an interstate in the depressed area. The article about removing the elevated section of I-70 near the dome and Laclede's Landing was regarding changing I-70 from functioning as an interstate. The idea was to have the lanes of I-70 on the ground with potentially signals and crossings of the local streets. This section of interstate will continue to have a daily traffic demand of 60,000 vehicles after the new I-70 Mississippi River Bridge opens next year. We will continue to need an interstate highway running through this area to provide a north-south interstate through the St. Louis region. Without it, the only north-south interstate would be I-270. We are supportive of working with downtown and making many changes to the city streets and the interaction with the state highways, but removing an interstate would not be good for the overall mobility of the region or the state."
"Memorial Drive which runs next to, parallel to, the Arch grounds will be removed as part of the overall CityArchRiver improvements. These improvements include not only roadway changes, but many other changes to the Arch, its public entrance, the parking lots and the overall Arch grounds. MoDOT is going to build a covered walkway, a park, over the depressed section of I-70 in front of the Arch leading visitors to the new entrance to the Arch. However, I-70 will still exist as an interstate in the depressed area. The article about removing the elevated section of I-70 near the dome and Laclede's Landing was regarding changing I-70 from functioning as an interstate. The idea was to have the lanes of I-70 on the ground with potentially signals and crossings of the local streets. This section of interstate will continue to have a daily traffic demand of 60,000 vehicles after the new I-70 Mississippi River Bridge opens next year. We will continue to need an interstate highway running through this area to provide a north-south interstate through the St. Louis region. Without it, the only north-south interstate would be I-270. We are supportive of working with downtown and making many changes to the city streets and the interaction with the state highways, but removing an interstate would not be good for the overall mobility of the region or the state."
- 3,429
That's the problem with having a metropolitan area split between two states: two different transportation departments with their own agenda, budgets etc. Throw the city/county issue and there and it gets even worse.gary kreie wrote:They seem to be ignoring the Illinois side of the Metro area when they discuss the North/South routes. When the new Mississippi River Bridge is complete, that will create another North/South path just across the river.
- 11K
And the entire time the central city is asked to give, give, give, sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice...land, population, revenue...all for some vague regional purpose, which isn't successful.
These MODOT people all sound the same. Is there some indoctrination process that one must go through when reporting to work on day 1 for MODOT that teaches people "the solution is always more roads, and if you think differently you are an idiot."?
Yes. Very much yes.pat wrote:Is it that hard to build an interchange from 55 to 40?
MoDOT hasn't forgotten about Illinois, it just doesn't think Illinois is that important.dweebe wrote:That's the problem with having a metropolitan area split between two states: two different transportation departments with their own agenda, budgets etc. Throw the city/county issue and there and it gets even worse.gary kreie wrote:They seem to be ignoring the Illinois side of the Metro area when they discuss the North/South routes. When the new Mississippi River Bridge is complete, that will create another North/South path just across the river.
There's at least one place where they mention Illinois on the same topic of I-70 downtown. I'll have to go look for it, though.
- 3,429
New Press Release from MODOT:
"This weekend, the Missouri Department of Transportation will close all lanes of I-70 Downtown between Pine Street and the Poplar Street Bridge starting at 8 pm Friday, January 17, weather permitting. Motorists are advised to use I-64, I-55 or I-44 to get into and out of Downtown during the I-70 closure. All lanes are projected to reopen by 5 am Monday, January 20. ... It is a portion of CityArchRiver 2015, a transformational project that will enhance the Gateway Arch experience for all visitors. The project will create a seamless park experience from the city to the Mississippi River, providing visitors with a more vibrant and safer place to visit, enjoy, and return."
http://custapp.marketvolt.com/cv.aspx?c ... st=7531647
I thought we were told that losing I-70 between downtown and the river -- the depressed lanes -- would bring all activity downtown to halt. I am surprised they are closing I-70 depressed lanes just before the new I-70 bridge opens in a few days. Would we consider this a test of the City to River boulevard concept of removing the I-70 lanes altogether?
"This weekend, the Missouri Department of Transportation will close all lanes of I-70 Downtown between Pine Street and the Poplar Street Bridge starting at 8 pm Friday, January 17, weather permitting. Motorists are advised to use I-64, I-55 or I-44 to get into and out of Downtown during the I-70 closure. All lanes are projected to reopen by 5 am Monday, January 20. ... It is a portion of CityArchRiver 2015, a transformational project that will enhance the Gateway Arch experience for all visitors. The project will create a seamless park experience from the city to the Mississippi River, providing visitors with a more vibrant and safer place to visit, enjoy, and return."
http://custapp.marketvolt.com/cv.aspx?c ... st=7531647
I thought we were told that losing I-70 between downtown and the river -- the depressed lanes -- would bring all activity downtown to halt. I am surprised they are closing I-70 depressed lanes just before the new I-70 bridge opens in a few days. Would we consider this a test of the City to River boulevard concept of removing the I-70 lanes altogether?
This MODOT OxBlue site shows the before and after photos of the removal of the Walnut Street overpass by the Old Cathedral.
http://oxblue.com/open/modot/cityarchriver
I guess traffic did just fine without an interstate highway running between the Arch and downtown for a weekend.
Uh, why did they need to remove and rebuild the Walnut Street overpass again?
http://oxblue.com/open/modot/cityarchriver
I guess traffic did just fine without an interstate highway running between the Arch and downtown for a weekend.
Uh, why did they need to remove and rebuild the Walnut Street overpass again?
Apparently they want to build a wider bridge 
which will make everything better.
Even though it was not closed during rush hour, the weekend closure of I-70 certainly supports what most people on this forum already know: Downtown will not miss I-70 if it was removed from the riverfront.
And whatever traffic cannot find any alternative routes could easily be served by an at-grade boulevard.
No wonder the traffic study was sabotaged.
which will make everything better.Even though it was not closed during rush hour, the weekend closure of I-70 certainly supports what most people on this forum already know: Downtown will not miss I-70 if it was removed from the riverfront.
And whatever traffic cannot find any alternative routes could easily be served by an at-grade boulevard.
No wonder the traffic study was sabotaged.
Can someone help clarify this for me...
What interstates will this section of highway carry once the new bridge opens? Will 70 in both directions not be completely diverted North of these lanes with the new bridge?
And 55 is actually carried over south at the Poplar St. bridge right?
So once the Musial bridge is open, is this area even interstate any more?
What interstates will this section of highway carry once the new bridge opens? Will 70 in both directions not be completely diverted North of these lanes with the new bridge?
And 55 is actually carried over south at the Poplar St. bridge right?
So once the Musial bridge is open, is this area even interstate any more?
It could if they wanted it to, but as I understand current maps and road signs, I-44 begins (and ends) right about Lafayette off of I-55.
The stretch right now is I-70 to I-55 and I-44, but isn't actually I-55 or I-44. I could very easily be wrong, but that's what I'm seeing at this point.
The stretch right now is I-70 to I-55 and I-44, but isn't actually I-55 or I-44. I could very easily be wrong, but that's what I'm seeing at this point.
- 8,155
^ the MODOT project page for the Arch-related work refers to it as I-44.
Evidently, what you've found is what it will become, and what I'm saying is what currently is. Basically sounds like MoDOT is making sure it stays an interstate so they can keep saying it has value.
From Wikipedia:
From Wikipedia:
The eastern terminus of I-44 is slated to be changed when the new I-70 Mississippi River Bridge is opened, rerouting I-70 over the river along a more northern alignment. I-44 is planned to take over the old I-70 alignment through the below-grade section of roadway in St. Louis, making the new eastern terminus being the interchange with I-70 near Cass Street.[3] The eastbound lanes of I-44 will meet the westbound lanes, and the eastbound lanes of I-70 will meet the westbound lanes of I-44.
- 3,429
- 592
I don't understand MoDOT's rationale for holding onto the I-44/I-70 infrastructure in downtown. It's costly to maintain, and vacating the ROW would produce cash from land sales. Is this a case of a bureaucracy and turf war at work? Why did CAR (really) not want to remove it? I mean, they said it was the timeframe constraints. Was it that, or were they concerned removal of I-70 would detract from the main focus of their project, which was the Arch grounds?
I don't have the answer, but I'd theorize it's just a lack of vision.
Nobody with any real political power has come out in support of removing the highway infrastructure that I'm aware of. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the alderman have, most likely Scott Ogilvie (hopefully he's reading and can chime in), but even if so, a couple alderman aren't enough to drive this through.
And while Alex has put together a great proposal with CityToRiver and gotten our attention, there really hasn't been enough pressure from the citizens to force the politicians to really make a statement.
Even Alex pretty much conceded that the politicians are so focused on CityArchRiver at this point that it's irreversible (obviously the case now) and that nothing concerning the rest of the highway infrastructure will be considered until they meet (or more likely fail to meet) their deadline of 2015 for the CAR.
I guess the one thing that would refute this is, I believe, that the very original proposals for CityArchRiver did call for the removal of the lanes, but something obviously forced a change. Who knows what.
It's disappointing that we're not going to make the most of this opportunity, but hopefully once CAR is completed, we can then make the most of that by converting the rest of the section to a boulevard and obviously tearing down the elevated section.
Nobody with any real political power has come out in support of removing the highway infrastructure that I'm aware of. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the alderman have, most likely Scott Ogilvie (hopefully he's reading and can chime in), but even if so, a couple alderman aren't enough to drive this through.
And while Alex has put together a great proposal with CityToRiver and gotten our attention, there really hasn't been enough pressure from the citizens to force the politicians to really make a statement.
Even Alex pretty much conceded that the politicians are so focused on CityArchRiver at this point that it's irreversible (obviously the case now) and that nothing concerning the rest of the highway infrastructure will be considered until they meet (or more likely fail to meet) their deadline of 2015 for the CAR.
I guess the one thing that would refute this is, I believe, that the very original proposals for CityArchRiver did call for the removal of the lanes, but something obviously forced a change. Who knows what.
It's disappointing that we're not going to make the most of this opportunity, but hopefully once CAR is completed, we can then make the most of that by converting the rest of the section to a boulevard and obviously tearing down the elevated section.