St. Louis County’s retiring director of administration was on 90.7 this morning and he mentioned at the end of the interview that he thinks the region will “pay a price” in the future as a result of not completing the I-170 south to 55 (listen). Does anyone else agree with this? Is there any way to finish 170 without taking out places like Old Webster?



I have some immediate reaction against any new interstate construction inside the 270 ring, but when you think about it, it would be useful helping people to get around inside the 270 loop as opposed to encouraging sprawl outside it. Granted, with the new Hanley Rd. construction project, it looks like it is becoming the de-facto southern portion of 170; plus, the completion of CC Metrolink has added more capacity to this corridor. What do people think, does the current situation (even after the I-64 and Hanley reconstruction) serve the area’s north-south transportation needs?

There is no way to now finish I-170 without substantial takings and property impacts. However, a long-range vision of MODOT and St. Louis County Highways and Traffic is to build multiple projects, which b&m and I jokingly refer to collectively as "the poorman's 170."



Per recently studied plans, MODOT wants to build bridges over River Des Peres between Germania and Carondelet under I-55 to turn those half-diamond interchanges into essentially a full interchange. From there, motorists would take River Des Peres Parkway north to I-44. At I-44 per another recent study and its plans, MODOT wants to build a new Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) at the City Limits with Shrewsbury to a new signal at Big Bend. The current ramps from Shrewsbury Avenue would be removed.



The missing piece in "the poorman's 170" is how to get from Big Bend to Hanley (or technically Laclede Station near where it becomes Hanley). However, the largely vacant Deer Creek Plaza sits in such path, so I personally could see a parkway and trail built across its southern edge near the creek with the bulk and remainder of the site rebuilt as a New Urbanist neighborhood with walking paths to the Sunnen MetroLink station.



Once on Hanley, St. Louis County, per their own recently studied plans, wants to build a grade-separated SPUI over Manhester, similar to 141 over Manchester, such that Hanley traffic would not need to stop. Hanley has already been widened along Maplewood Commons. Finally at Eager Road, and again per their recently studied plans, St. Louis County desires a tunnel for northbound Hanley traffic to westbound Eager, which is the final connection to I-170. Eastbound Eager Road traffic coming from I-170 would have a new dual right turn onto southbound Eager as part of the New I-64 project.

What price could we possibly pay that we would not have paid already? Interesting thing about highways: when you don't have them, you don't know what it'd be like with them; once you have them, you can't imagine (or even conceive of) life without them. I must say that I'm really entertained by all the hand-wringing and doomsday prophesying in the Post-Dispatch's letters to the editor. When the highway finally does shut down, there won't be 150,000 vehicles scrambling to find a way like ants to their destination. It's more likely that 1/3 of the traffic the highway carries will simply disappear without a trace, not to return until the rebirth of Hwy 40.



In all likelyhood, the only price we're paying is less connectivity between inner North County and inner South County: I remember that Wash U to Linbergh & Tesson Ferry would take me half hour regardless of the route I chose. Had I-170 been extended though, would be have needed to expand the central Clayton/Richmond Heights section to 8 lanes from the present 6? That would have required the demolition of many houses and businesses as there's almost no room for even auxillary lanes.



Anyways, I don't think St. Louis is missing anything without southern I-170; the last thing we needed was another barrier. Hanley is to become a partial expressway, Eager to get a tunnel for I-170, Brentwood serves Rock Hill/Webster Groves well enough, River Des Peres Blvd will, someday, be extended to directly connect with Shrewsbury Ave to Big Bend and Hanley - that's good enough.



Now about the downtown double deck Hwy 40 and the depressed and elevated sections of I-70...

Maybe I'm being optimistic, but I think the era of building new highways through built up areas is over. Public oppposition was what killed the southern extension of the Innerbelt in the first place. Aside from making it a little easier to get into Clayton and to the airport, I don't see much reason for the highway.



I think the proposed upgrades to Hanley would be more than enough to improve flow.



~~~~

And though a hijack, the plans for I-55 are extremely disturbing! Is that a 14 lane death strip I see??? For shame MODOT!! Though I don't mind what I assume would be Metro in the orange.....

^I agree that the I-55 River Des Peres Study design shows way too many lanes. But the EIS for New I-64 also once showed a similar configuration of lanes between Brentwood and Hanley, and that has since been reduced to a more reasonable reconfiguration shared in the preliminary design of what the awarded design-build team now plans to construct.



I think MODOT often devises the widest solution in their studies, only to later accept something narrower and cheaper, when it comes time to pay for it. The only benefit to thinking wide in assessing environmental impact is that you see the maximum amount of property possibly impacted by their most "ambitious" (I'd say gluttonous) preliminary design only to hopefully reduce impacts and cost as the project moves to final design.



And yes, that orange line is an alternative for MetroLink expansion south of the Shrewsbury to South County via River Des Peres and I-55. Per the Metro South study, two final alternatives remained as future expansions south of Shrewsbury, either RDP to 55 at the city limits (the "orange alternative") or along the BNSF railroad to 55 at Green Park (the "blue alternative"). The former had more mileage and was less direct but still ultimately cheaper than the latter due to BNSF's liability concerns requiring MetroLink to be built at a vertical grade separation (on retained fill) significantly higher than the parallel freight railroad.



As for a Southside extension from Downtown more directly to South County via South City, all alternatives carried forward in analysis as part of the Northside-Southside Study end up along the east side of 55 south of Loughborough. Unlike the "orange alternative" of Metro South, Southside alternatives are not shown on the I-55 studied improvements, only due to the fact that the MODOT study of I-55 improvements pre-dates the current Northside-Southside Study. However, a future MetroLink extension along I-55 in South County as part of Metro South and/or Southside extensions is all the more reason to consider reducing the width of highway improvements. That way, there will still someday be room for MetroLink without impacting even more property.



Finally, getting back to the I-170 topic, in theory, the Cross County extension should provide some commuters a practical alternative to driving north-south arterials to Clayton and WashU. In other words, this is the one corridor where the St. Louis region actually chose transit over highway improvements. However, I then find it alarming that changes to roadways parallel to the Cross County extension in order to build the "poorman's 170" may now end up threatening the TOD potential or even just the walking environment surrounding the new extension.

You mean like 8 lanes across Missoura?

^I don't think there are any aside from intersection improvements and an occasional lane addition here and there. Traffic in St Louis isn't all that bad. Many of us complain about traffic, but even at our crunch zones traffic rarely comes to a dead stop unless theres an accident. Thats why I'm pissed at mammoth road projects like the 55 idea as they simply are not needed.



Granted we would all like to get to work in 15 min or less, but it nots gonna happen. For my commute, it takes me around 25-35 minutes driving from Lemay to Ladue. A southern Innerbelt would speed up the process a little bit but the traffic isn't there to justify building it. I pick up enough speed on River des Peres. I actually wouldn't mind seeing that road rebuilt with a tree lined median ala Forest Park Pwy.

^ but, but, if you put trees down the median of a new River Des Peres Blvd, you could end up losing the beautiful view of the river itself...



...



...

i don't think we need anymore lanes anywhere.

it would be useful helping people to get around inside the 270 loop as opposed to encouraging sprawl outside it

I actually think if 170 (south) were built, it WOULD HAVE encouraged more sprawl into south county and jefferson county, just as we saw along 70 from North county into St. Charles.

It's never gonna happen so why even debate? Jeff Co is now catching up with St. Chas. so lets just hope this helps center downtown in a north south sense.

^ I think completing I-170 down to 55 would have more benefits than some folks give it credit for. I know that it's not going to happen, but it's interesting to talk about hypothetically.



The huge volumes handled by Brentwood Blvd. and Hanley already make this area hostile to pedestrians. Perhaps if the southern portion of I-170 had been finished and the north-south traffic channeled onto it, some of the pedestrian character of these areas along hanley and brentwood blvd. could’ve been maintained and improved upon. Sure we would’ve lost some areas to the freeway construction, but it’s an interesting trade-off to think about. Now as we see with the coming Hanley Rd. improvements, this area is becoming a mini-expressway anyway, and without the convenience of one uninterrupted interstate.

Link to the EWGateway Cross-County MTIA report from 1998 with some figures linked near the very end. Somehow I never found this link despite visiting the page it's link on a number of times.



Final MTIA Report CROSS-COUNTY CORRIDOR

I have a hard time believing that so many on this forum are interested in completing yet another major highway through residential neighborhoods that have existed for a long time. As if the area hasn't already been dissected enough by highways.



What we need is a better transit system. With a completed southside extension, you could take a train from the Carondelet area right to Clayton. Forget more highways.

Yeah, sitting at the edge of Benton Park and Soulard staring into the cavernous 55 makes me want to cry. Especially with all the really hawt houses on both sides. Think about whats been destroyed.

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.