Finishing I-170

doug · PostApr 10, 2007#262007-04-10T20:01+00:00

bpe235 wrote:
Doug wrote: We would have been much better with having no highways inside the 270 belt. That means no 170, 70, or 40 highways inside 270. Instead a ring around the City for transportation, along with a green belt to prohibit further sprawl. Think of our density!

I think that's an extremist view.

That would make the city and island, and very hard for people to get in and out. Yes highways disect neighborhoods and create sprawl, but some highways are important for many obvious reasons.

People would get in an out with boulevards like forest park parkway as well as transit systems like street cars and light rail.

Alex Ihnen · PostApr 10, 2007#272007-04-10T21:00+00:00

We would have been much better with having no highways inside the 270 belt. That means no 170, 70, or 40 highways inside 270. Instead a ring around the City for transportation, along with a green belt to prohibit further sprawl. Think of our density!

I think you're right - but this ignores many significant factors in St. Louis sprawl. If race had not been a factor and if there had been a way to lessen resident's addiction to the automobile and if . . .

Cities responded to their constituents. The real question is what's next? Does the cycle of urban development begin again (less dense housing built and then replaced when demand increases - as has been the case in the past) or do we 'skip' some steps and build nodes of density? What are people going to demand? (and I mean 'people' as synonymous with 'market' and not USTL forumers)

kc_visiter · PostApr 10, 2007#282007-04-10T22:55+00:00

bpe235 wrote:
Doug wrote: We would have been much better with having no highways inside the 270 belt. That means no 170, 70, or 40 highways inside 270. Instead a ring around the City for transportation, along with a green belt to prohibit further sprawl. Think of our density!

I think that's an extremist view.

That would make the city and island, and very hard for people to get in and out. Yes highways disect neighborhoods and create sprawl, but some highways are important for many obvious reasons.

I don't think it's so extremist. It's not like you wouldn't have wider avenues like Lindell, Gravios, etc.

A tale of two cities: Look at San Francisco compared to it's ugly sister city Oakland across the bay. One is relatively interstate free, vibrant and has great transit. The other is more typical of most cities carved up w/ interstates. I know which one I'd choose between the two if moving to the area....

edit: whoops, didn't read ahead. this point was already made.

but yeah, coulda woulda, shoulda...

wheelscomp · PostApr 11, 2007#292007-04-11T03:46+00:00

There still wouldnt be a fast way to get from south st louis north. There really isnt now, but imagine if there was nothing between 270 and the mississippi... lots and lots of stop lights

jefferson · PostApr 11, 2007#302007-04-11T12:42+00:00

kc_visiter wrote:
bpe235 wrote:
Doug wrote: We would have been much better with having no highways inside the 270 belt. That means no 170, 70, or 40 highways inside 270. Instead a ring around the City for transportation, along with a green belt to prohibit further sprawl. Think of our density!

I think that's an extremist view.

That would make the city and island, and very hard for people to get in and out. Yes highways disect neighborhoods and create sprawl, but some highways are important for many obvious reasons.

I don't think it's so extremist. It's not like you wouldn't have wider avenues like Lindell, Gravios, etc.

A tale of two cities: Look at San Francisco compared to it's ugly sister city Oakland across the bay. One is relatively interstate free, vibrant and has great transit. The other is more typical of most cities carved up w/ interstates. I know which one I'd choose between the two if moving to the area....

edit: whoops, didn't read ahead. this point was already made.

but yeah, coulda woulda, shoulda...

There's a difference between being "relatively" interstate free, which can be a good thing, and saying you want no interstates at all. You're not going to commute from the suburbs to downtown on Lindell, Gravois or FP Parkway. IMO, a metro area the size of St. Louis needs at least one limited access expressway with no intersections to let people get from one side of the area to the other. I can see how having less would be an improvement though - I-44 especially seems to have done a lot of damage in relation to its benefit to the region.

trent · PostApr 11, 2007#312007-04-11T14:13+00:00

I disagree, if you are traveling through an area, instead of cutting through the city, you would go around it, like on 270, or 435 in KC.

Alex Ihnen · PostApr 11, 2007#322007-04-11T14:43+00:00

I can see how having less would be an improvement though - I-44 especially seems to have done a lot of damage in relation to its benefit to the region.

IMO it would have been nice to run 44/64 together, if not to 270, then at least to around Hampton/McCausland so that Shaw/Lafayette Square/The Hill would have been left more or less in tact.

shadrach · PostApr 11, 2007#332007-04-11T15:42+00:00

trent wrote:I disagree, if you are traveling through an area, instead of cutting through the city, you would go around it, like on 270, or 435 in KC.

That's how Paris and London are (only two cities I've visited)

The freeways dead end at the perimeter freeway (i.e. 270) and after that it's all surface streets. Of course, their perimeter freeway is located about 4-5 miles from downtown/city center.

mill204 · PostJun 16, 2013#342013-06-16T22:46+00:00

Just an interesting paragraph I found in a MoDOT document on the proposed changes to the MO PSB interchange.

Adding a connection between I-55 and I-64 would be a higher need than between I-70 and I-64, since I-64 runs parallel to I-70 and they intersect in St. Charles County forty miles west of downtown. As shown in Figure 3, they are currently connected by I-270 and I-170 in St. Louis County. US Route 40/61 has also recently been upgraded to I-64 between I-270 in St. Louis County and I-70 in St. Charles County adding another regional interstate connection. Currently I-44 and I-55 are only connected to I-64 via freeway to freeway movements at I-270. However to provide that freeway to freeway connection at the riverfront would require most motorists to driver further out of their way and back-track to reach most destinations. For the reasons stated above, MoDOT does not recommend providing these movements until the alternate routes become undesirable to the public and would pursue an alternate location to provide these movements, such as a southern extension of I-170

.

Alex Ihnen · PostJun 17, 2013#352013-06-17T14:53+00:00

^ And so it shall be, as said by our policy making DOT.

chaifetz10 · PostJun 17, 2013#362013-06-17T15:31+00:00

MoDOT does not recommend providing these movements until the alternate routes become undesirable to the public and would pursue an alternate location to provide these movements, such as a southern extension of I-170

So the depressed lanes downtown are undesireable but they must stay...but we can go ahead and plan a new interstate that no one even wants?! Makes perfect sense to me.

Alex Ihnen · PostJun 17, 2013#372013-06-17T15:44+00:00

If I were Mayor: MoDOT can suck it, we're going to build a world class city.

dweebe · PostJun 17, 2013#382013-06-17T16:21+00:00

I'd like to know the drug testing rules at MoDOT because whoever wrote that is clearly smoking something if they think I-170 could be extended south to I-44.

moorlander · PostJun 17, 2013#392013-06-17T16:25+00:00

^ Elevated flyovers sounds like an economical solution.

pat · PostJun 17, 2013#402013-06-17T16:44+00:00

If I were Mayor: MoDOT can suck it, we're going to build a world class city.

Sounds like a great campaign slogan - "Ihnen 2017: MoDOT can suck it"

quincunx · PostJun 17, 2013#412013-06-17T16:46+00:00

I'm sure a combination of elevated and depressed sections and some lids could get I-170 to I-44 all without severing connections or blighting the areas nearby, right?

wabash · PostJun 17, 2013#422013-06-17T17:22+00:00

Let's face it, this won't really help the folks down in Lemay get to Clayton. 170 should be extended to 55, but that still leaves the good people of Cahokia without adequate access to Clayton, so it should be extended to 255. And then there's 355, which doesn't exist yet, but should seriously be considered so that Belleville is adequately connected with downtown Clayton.

Basically, if someone wants to work in or spend time in Clayton they shouldn't have to live in or near it, or in the same County or the same state.

jem79c · PostJul 12, 2013#432013-07-12T17:49+00:00

moorlander wrote:^ Elevated flyovers sounds like an economical solution.

Not just economical, but aethetically pleasing to property owners as well!

Finishing I-170

Choose Display Mode