urbanSTL

Also, its not like there are no roads connecting these regions. One can simply take tucker or broadway to easily get across downtown and its such a short distance that it probably adds no more than 5-10 min to the commute. I think removal would also encourage development of a north south metrolink or streetcar line. After the embarcadero freeway collapsed in San Francisco, the city took the opportunity to get rid of it entirely and replace it with a boulevard and streetcar line and it looks great.

Does the fed have any authoritative opinion about the downtown interstates and what can be done? Also, as of yet I am still not a fan of creating the blvd downtown as the replacement. Just not sold on it yet.

inTheGrove wrote:Does the fed have any authoritative opinion about the downtown interstates and what can be done? Also, as of yet I am still not a fan of creating the blvd downtown as the replacement. Just not sold on it yet.

Where does that put you at this point, then?

Do you still think the highway MAY be the way to go? Are you just desiring a regular city street in it's place? Something else? Or just totally on the fence?

^ I really think I am on the fence with this one. If all the traffic is routed as a blvd through the existing area I think we are back to the way we were with complaints of too much traffic between the arch grounds and down town. Sure there would be stop lights and so on but just think the over all congestion would be a pain in the ass.

Totally respect being on the fence, but as far as that specific concern goes... it probably isn't much of a concern anymore regardless. Might have been if the wildest dreams of CityToRiver had come true, but they aren't. We're getting a lid.

So even with if we remove the interstate designation and tear down the elevated lanes, the park over the "fill in the blank" straight to the Arch Grounds will exist.

Now if your concern is more about traffic congestion from a driver's stand point, that's different. That might be there or it might not (regardless of the lid).

Given that the current design is going forward, I do think I will like MODOT's decision to add entrance and exit ramps just North of POTH Park. We usually park in stadium garage East for ballgames. When I exit out the East side of that structure onto 4th street going North, I try to get right as soon as possible to get over to the Memorial Drive I-44 West entrance via Walnut. But when I can't get over fast enough, I go on down to Chestnut and turn in front of the Hyatt to get to I-44 West.

But with the new design, the park will be in the way from Chestnut. No problem. I'll just go on North to Washington and turn right and right again to get onto the new Southbound entrance ramp to I-44 West. Looks like once I get down on the depressed lanes and under the park, my only options will be to continue on I-44 West / I-55 South. They are removing the ramp from the Southbound depressed lanes to the PSB.

I almost think they should rename the Southbound depressed lanes I-44W, and Northbound depressed lanes I-70W.

Overhead view of construction staging:
http://www.modot.org/stlouis../major_pr ... lt-005.pdf

Back to the same old thought, the current MoDOT/Arch Grounds plan could easily incorporate the removal of the elevated lanes in favor of a blvd starting with an at grade intersection for Wash Ave/Eads Bridge to the Stan Span. That opens up the huge redevelopment possibilities of reconnecting Lacledes Landing/riverfront to downtown, vice versa, as well as redevelopment of Bottle Works and any new open air stadium on North Riverfront at a fraction of the infrastructure cost.

Unfortunately, I see Slay administration really lacking on a grand infrastructure vision/long term plan for the city as it relates to connectivity within the city along with making any arguments to counter perceived adverse affects upon the region. Can't see why the city can't pursue within in its own planning departments as well as Metro & MoDOT & EWG. Maybe they are to an extent. But putting it out in the open matters even if you might at odds with a regional or state body.

I still believe that taking out the traffic study on the removal of elevated lanes was really backing down to regional players who have it in their minds that somehow a one to three minute loss in traffic thru time will be crushing blow to the region. Like many noted, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a significant thru traffic decrease for depressed/elevated lanes once the Stan Span is open.

I agree. After a ballgame for me, the depressed lanes only serve as a backup entrance ramp to I-44. Ironically, to take advantage of the underpass, I will need to cross downtown via the 4th Street boulevard to get far enough North to reach the Southbound entrance ramp. I suppose that could serve to inflate the count of the number of cars going under POTH Park by counting cars from the stadium area starting south of downtown who go North on one way streets in order to go South on I-44. So you could say with this design I have to cross downtown twice -- once north on 4th and once back South on the depressed lanes.

Bay Area plan to fill an underpass, reconnecting two sides of a formerly divided area:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S ... php#page-1

As I've mentioned before, I'm looking forward to the time period when the new I-70 bridge is open, and the depressed lanes are closed for the park over the highway. I assume MODOT will route traffic down memorial drive street level side lanes.

And we'll have our boulevard traffic experiment. At least temporarily.

By the way, when they remove the Chestnut and Market overpasses, it will be really hard for people to get from downtown to the Arch, until POTH Park is done.

Did they take questions last night?

As I've mentioned before, I'm looking forward to the time period when the new I-70 bridge is open, and the depressed lanes are closed for the park over the highway. I assume MODOT will route traffic down memorial drive street level side lanes.

And we'll have our boulevard traffic experiment. At least temporarily.

Will this be possible? Aren't MODOT and the City of St. Louis permanently closing Memorial Drive to build the POTH? They're working on the bridges and new ramps now (one's already open), so won't they just close Memorial Drive for good and call it a day?

Wouldn't MODOT have to sign off on removing I-70? I don't see that happening at all-highway engineers and the powers that be at MODOT have no interest in creating and providing livable spaces, as they are much more interested in the easy flow of traffic.

Wouldn't a better compromise be to agree to cover the three blocks Walnut to Pine, possibly closing Memorial Drive for all three blocks or at least between Market and Chestnut?

Eastward wrote:Wouldn't MODOT have to sign off on removing I-70? I don't see that happening at all-highway engineers and the powers that be at MODOT have no interest in creating and providing livable spaces, as they are much more interested in the easy flow of traffic.

Wouldn't a better compromise be to agree to cover the three blocks Walnut to Pine, possibly closing Memorial Drive for all three blocks or at least between Market and Chestnut?

MoDOT would have to sign off on it and the federal highway admin. Biggest problem is the lid work has started and it's using federal money, that can't be just ripped out now without paying back the Feds the $30million or whatever they have in. And nobody has the money to pay them back and build a blvd. Again as I've said in another thread on this unless a developer with a plan comes in and says he will build on/around if the road became a blvd, the chance of this section being a blvd in the next 20 years is 1% in my book

The lid and the boulevard aren't mutually exclusive.

Knowitall, I agree, this highway will never be removed-there simply isn't the political will to make this happen. The lid will be an important step. Will it cover only the one block or encompass the three blocks there?

I don't see why the lid should stand in the way of removing the northern section between DT and the landing at a future time. That portion could easily be brought down to grade when and if the money and will arise.

One block. More makes it a "tunnel" and ups what you have to do considerably which ups the cost considerably.

The elevated lanes will come down when they reach their end of life and we realize we don't have the money to justify rebuilding them.

^Maybe we should all carry chisels with us and slowly hack away at the legs of the elevated section....speed up its end of life. Is that wrong?

Not at all...though I was thinking more along the lines of sledgehammers.

quincunx wrote:The lid and the boulevard aren't mutually exclusive.

I'll put it this way, anything done to get rid of I-44 thru there, federal funds would have to be repaid for the lid, walnut bridge, ramp work ect...I believe it's at least 7 years maybe 10 that this will now have to stay I-44. MoDOT will not pay back $30million then pay to build the blvd, that's probably creeping into $100m, entire MoDOT st.louis district has like a $180m a year budget

quincunx wrote:One block. More makes it a "tunnel" and ups what you have to do considerably which ups the cost considerably.

The elevated lanes will come down when they reach their end of life and we realize we don't have the money to justify rebuilding them.

Would MoDOT or the city ever consider covering the depressed lanes on either side of the Park-Over-the-Highway with a noise lid, like this one in Germany? I don't think this would make make it a tunnel, especially if there were vents to let smoke out around the glass.

Try sending that pic to MO dot and see how they'll respond to that. I think it would be very cool to have something like that but i think most prefer the complete removal of the highway...