urbanSTL

gary kreie wrote:Also, in their defense of not building the Boulevard, they make the statement that "There are only two north-south interstate corridors in St. Louis – I-55/I-70 and I-270." Go to Google Maps and get directions from Spanish Lake to Mehlville. It shows THREE North South interstate routes, not two. I-270, 40 minutes, I-70/55, 41 minutes, and I-255, 43 minutes. They forgot Illinois is in the St. Louis metro area, just like I-270.

Unfortunately, MoDOT's worldview is quite similar to that of most people in power on the Missouri side of the Mississippi River: They think the Metro East doesn't exist. Apparently when one crosses a bridge, they fall over a cliff, never to be seen again, like the yodeling mountain climber on The Price Is Right, I suppose.

This myopic perspective and the policies that reflect it are a large part of what's held St. Louis back over the last 40 years. Keep in mind that Missouri politicians defeated the plan to build a world-class international airport to replace Lambert Field in the mid-1970s. Then decades later, they paid over a billion dollars to add on a runway to an airport that was behind the times and decimated by the loss of Trans World Airlines.

I guess when one makes this many mistakes, they're doomed to mediocrity?

That's not how I feel about St. Louis as a whole. In fact, I feel quite the opposite. But I have no confidence in our leadership, and the people in MoDOT and in Jefferson City in general REALLY don't get it.

Sadly, MoDOT was never open to alternative ideas like an at-grade boulevard. Months ago, when they installed new signage on northbound I-55 and eastbound I-44, they put up signs with covers over new Eastbound I-44 logos, which will no doubt be uncovered once the I-70 bridge is built, that stretch of interstate is rerouted north of downtown, and the depressed/elevated lanes receive the I-44 designation south of the new bridge. So this was clearly the plan all along. No one was going to talk MoDOT out of it.

Never mind that several cities like San Francicsco, Oakland, etc. have removed freeways for the betterment of their communities. Places like Louisville and Oklahoma City have either done this or plan to do it, and I'm sure many St. Louisans wouldn't think of either place as particularly progressive cities.

(Well, maybe Louisville is. They did merge with Jefferson County, Ky. after all.)

MoDOT has essentially closed its eyes and stuck its fingers in its ears any time someone has suggested that they deviate from their original plan. It's appallingly stupid.

So instead of a project that could have truly transformed downtown and opened up many new blocks facing the arch grounds for development, we're stuck with the status quo that promotes highway travel above everything else, and a half-arse solution to reconnect downtown to the arch grounds.

Alex Ihnen wrote:^ just want to reiterate that this plan didn't originate with MoDOT - for all its faults, MoDOT is serving its client - the City of St. Louis, which has handed carte blanche to CityArchRiver

Strongly agree with Alex point, this is truly about local political and business leadership at end of day. What MoDOT has done correctly and appropriately is recognize an effort to replace I-70 with a blvd and that in so many words is it can still be done.

The priority should be at this moment is to convince local, regional politicians as well as EWG that a Wash Ave freeway ramp(s) should not be built until, at a minimum, the traffic study for a blvd between Pine Street (believe I got it correct) to the new MRB needs is completed. Being a broken record, I go back to the fact that Rams/CVC/Mckee/Pinnacle need to be brought into this discussion. They will be some of the biggest benefactors of a blvd. Don't know how.

^ maybe that is part of the issue, I see very few in political and not many more in business community publicly expressing a strong pro or against stance on this topic let alone the Arch Grounds and what needs to be done in core to benefit the region as a whole. In other words, it would be nice to see someone in favor step out and call out those who might be in favor or not. Maybe, I'm mistaken Alex, you and the others on this blog have a lot better feel what is being expressed by who and where.

Very different I think compared to when Prop A was put on the table for Metro a few year. Maybe that will change when the Parks/Arch Grounds sales tax is on the ballot or being voted on, not sure if it was put on the November ballot or not.

Latest plans from updates to the MODOT-St Louis site. Some of these were shown at the public input session August 29th. Notice the pedestrian bridge at Pine now.

Proposed road improvements:
http://www.modot.mo.gov/stlouis/major_p ... hCMT_2.pdf

Access to and from downtown:
http://www.modot.mo.gov/stlouis/major_p ... nExits.pdf

Overall Plan from -- St. Louis side only:
http://www.modot.mo.gov/stlouis/major_p ... 8-12MO.pdf


These are all from the MoDOT St. Louis site:
http://www.modot.mo.gov/stlouis/major_p ... earing.htm

The proposed tax increase passed the first hurdle: Passage by the alderman's parks committee (which I think was no surprise). Story

I found some interesting insight into whats going on internally with CAR in the story. I think Alderman French's statment may have summed it up best:

We threw some more money at a dream. It was clear to almost anyone watching that it was not thoroughly thought out.

The parks committee passage was briefly covered on KWMU's morning news segment this morning with NextSTL's own Alex Ihnen quoted concerns with lack of transparency and the broken promise of the project being funded without public taxes used.

Its good to see at least some critical light being shed on the project by the media. If at least that doesn't happen the chances of this thing turning out positive seem slim.

Doesn't look like the tax will make it to the St. Charles Bounty Ballot...

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... ke-st.html

I have no problem with it not going through. I just want to point out that the people running CityArchRiver continue to have no clue how run a project.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch polled the council members, with four saying they'd backed off supporting the idea because the agency overseeing the project refused to cover the county's $150,000-$175,000 in extra election costs — there are no countywide issues on the April ballot.

So CityArchRiver claims this tax is essential to the project funding. They need this money. But they don't want to front the money for election costs to potentially get millions of dollars for their project? It just seems like they continue to have this disconnect from reality and hat everyone should buy in because they say its a good plan.

That's true. Didn't look at it that way. Would have set a bad precident

^ This is not a positive. Remember MO allocates 1% of its transportation budget. How would that percentage increase if a sales tax is implemented? It wouldn't.

Why is a sales tax proposed when the MO gas tax is one of the lowest on the nation? The gas tax needs to be increased. Someone who doesn't drive shouldn't be funding highway improvement when the purchase a loaf of bread.

This is a sprawl promoting measure that will hurt the city and should be defeated

NPS Environmental Assessment for Implementing City Arch River.

I think this was just released today - see the PDF link at the bottom of the page. I skimmed it (~200 pages) and didn't see anything super noteworthy but thought others may find it interesting.

Comments can be made and there's an open house planned for the 29th as well:

The park has recommended alternative 3 as its preferred alternative to the Regional Director of the NPS Midwest Regional Office. This alternative includes a new landscape over I-70 to connect the Old Courhouse and a redesigned Luther Ely Smith Square to a new west entrance and an updated underground visitor center/museum. In addition, this specific alternative includes removal of the Arch Parking Garage, replacing it with a new park landscape; improvements to security, accessibility, plantings, and exhibits throughout the park...

The EA comment period will run until March 1, 2013. You may provide comments [on the website] or at the January 29, 2013 public open house, 4-7 PM at the Old Courthouse, 11 North 4th Street, St. Louis, MO 63102; or by mail.

terence d wrote:NPS Environmental Assessment for Implementing City Arch River.

I think this was just released today - see the PDF link at the bottom of the page. I skimmed it (~200 pages) and didn't see anything super noteworthy but thought others may find it interesting.

'

There's quite a bit of worthwhile information - the fact that they are exploring three alternatives for improvements (No Action, Moderate Change, and Maximum Change). A quick summary of the proposed improvements under each Alternative scheme:

Alternative 1 - No Action: Would reflect current conditions at the Park and Central Riverfront but the NPS would improve the surface of the 'Park over Lid'. Some long-term deferred maintenance projects could occur as funding becomes available.


Alternative 2 - Moderate Change: Under alternative 2, Luther Ely Smith Square would be developed into a large plaza at its western edge that slopes to the confluence of the extensions of the Processional Walks across the Park Over the Highway. The paths on either side of the lawn would be lower than the lawn with planted slopes of canopy trees on the exterior edges of the pathways that shield pedestrians from the noise and pollution of I-70. These paths would transition to meet with existing Processional Walks, creating an accessible link to the Arch across the Park Over the Highway.

The Arch Parking Garage would remain under Alternative 2. Changes to the highway and street infrastructure introduced by MoDOT would alter access to the garage. These changes would close Washington Avenue between 1st Street and Memorial Drive. Access to the Arch Parking Garage would be provided through Laclede’s Landing, Leonor K. Sullivan Boulevard, and via a “slip-lane” at the proposed northbound exit off the interstate highway at Memorial Drive.

Alternative 2 would renovate existing exhibit space at the Visitor Center/Museum. Galleries and exhibits would be renovated in the old Courthouse and accessibility to and within the Old Courthouse would be improved. Two to four universally accessible paths would be integrated into the East Slopes from the park to the Central Riverfront. Plantings along the East Slopes would provide areas for sitting and gathering space.

The elevation of Leonor K. Sullivan would be raised and a multi-modal streetscape would be established.


Alternative 3 - Maximum Change: Alternative 3 proposes that the West Gateway serve as a major point of arrival for visitors to
the park across the Park Over the Highway landscape over I-70. The West Gateway would act as both a conceptual and literal bridge between the park grounds, the Old Courthouse, and downtown St. Louis. A plaza and ground-level West Entrance to the
Visitor Center/Museum complex beneath the Gateway Arch would be installed.

The Arch Parking Garage would be demolished under alternative 3, and replaced with a new landscape in the North Gateway that would take advantage of local adjacencies to the Laclede’s Landing neighborhood to the north and the Washington Avenue/ Convention Center corridor to the west. A parking strategy would be implemented to facilitate access to nearby parking for visitors, park staff and others accessing the Park. The North Gateway slopes and valley between the park and the Eads Bridge would be a vegetated and mown area with scattered trees, which would preserve views into the Park. An “Explorers” garden would feature woodland plantings that would serve as educational tools, such as illustrating the botanical aspects of Lewis and Clark’s journey. Alternative 3 would create multiple accessible pedestrian passages between the park, the Washington Avenue corridor, Laclede’s Landing, and the Mississippi riverfront. All four existing connections underneath the Eads Bridge between Laclede’s Landing and the park would be made compliant for pedestrian accessibility, creating full access between the two downtown attractions. Washington Avenue between Memorial Drive and Leonor K. Sullivan Boulevard would be closed to through traffic, a drop-off area would be established, and a shared ped/bicycle path installed that would provide an accessible route from Downtown to the Central Riverfront.

The existing spaces in the Visitor Center/Museum beneath the Gateway Arch would be selectively renovated and an additional 35,000-50,000 square feet of space constructed, depending on design development.

The elevation of Leonor K. Sullivan would be raised and a multi-modal streetscape would be established.


So, it would seem that there is now a plan for would will be implemented based on funding provided and public input received.

geoffksu wrote:There's quite a bit of worthwhile information - the fact that they are exploring three alternatives for improvements (No Action, Moderate Change, and Maximum Change).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but nothing is new there. I took it that the "three alternatives" were simply to give perspective of an environmental impact and not a statement of "Okay, this is what we're considering on doing". I thought all along the project was somewhat scale-able based on what funding is obtained.

The benefit of the lid providing better connection between the arch grounds and riverfront to downtown is mentioned multiple times in the report. I would like to see an NPS assessment on the benefits of altering/removing I-70 and how that would improve connectivity to the arch grounds and riverfront as well as the landing. ...Not holding my breath.

Alex Ihnen wrote:On I-70, the EA says that of public feedback received by NPS, the majority concerned removing I-70. This, NPS says, is out of their scope, they don't control it, so they can't do anything about it.

I know, I wasn't attempting to seriously criticize the NPS - just dreaming and joking around.

Here's a question I'd be interested in opinions on: Is the fact that this project is going forward limit the chances of another big project in the same area (I-70) happening for possibly decades?

Also, IIRC this is a $580 million project. I'm guessing effective I-70 rerouting or removal would be a good bit more?