I always thought that the connector would remain even with the cap. I don't like the idea of filling it. I'd rather see it become an expressway. But at the same time, I'd like to see it burried from bridge to bridge. Reconnecting the grid of the CBD to the riverfront from bridge to bridge would be a big bonus for downtown.
I definitely agree that the time is now when it comes to involving all of these projects as one project, instead of several small projects with no periferal of the others. The Mississippi River Bridge, Downtown/Memorial Drive Lid, Riverfront Project...isn't this what we pay Rollin Stanley for?
MattonArsenal wrote:2. The main Highway 55, 44, 40/64 connection to I-70 would now be located immediately across the river in IL. Yes you would be forced to cross the river and come back over the river, only about 2 miles longer than the current path along I-70 depressed section, but with the improvements it will also be a smoother path.
Please note that under no plan for relocating I-70 across the Mississippi on a new bridge will there be a "direct" way of crossing bridges to go from NB I-55 to WB I-70 and vice-versa. Exiting and reentering the highway along with the use of local roads will be just as necessary in IL as in MO. In other words, IL to MO is accesible from SB-I-55 and WB I-70/I-64 only. (Includes new coupler bridge plan)
I know very well that there won't be any full interchanges in East St. Louis as part of any bridge plans. Besides, I doubt anyone would want to cross two bridges to make such connection anyway.
However, we already live without a direct connection from NB 55 and EB 70 to WB 64. Could we also live without a direct connection between 55 and 70? Memorial Drive is already so wide that it could likely handle traffic going between 55 and 70 (or vice versa). Plus, Memorial Drive should have slightly less traffic, when it loses its access to the PSB, as planned following a new MRB or MLK coupler. Signalization could be upgraded such that a non-speeding motorist would only hit one red light, with signals at Walnut, Market, Chestnut, Pine, Washington and MLK Bridge/Convention Plaza. Yet landscaped blocks where the depressed section now sits, as well as textured crosswalks between Walnut and Pine would calm traffic.
To transition from the expressways into Memorial Drive, NB 55 would have the two right lanes going to the PSB (helping alleviate current evening jams on 44/55), while the two left lanes going to Memorial Drive. EB 70 would have two right lanes going to the MLK (existing bridge converted to 3-lane EB 70; third lane on MLK coming from Downtown), the left lane and express lanes going to Memorial Drive.
Memorial Drive could be three through-lanes in each direction with added turn lanes at MLK/Convention Plaza, Washington, Pine (NB only), and Market (NB only). To transition from SB Memorial Drive into SB 55, the far right lane would be right-turn only to Spruce (as today with signs to WB 64), with two lanes continuing onto I-55. To transition from NB Memorial Drive into WB 70, the right lane would go to a right-turn yield for EB 70 via the converted MLK bridge and the two left lanes to WB 70, with an option for express-lane access from the far left lane, when the express lanes would be open in the westbound direction.
Around the depressed section, Memorial Drive would look very much the same as if a lid will built, just there wouldn't be any highway beneath it. But Washington Avenue would be the most dramatic transformation, as there would clearly no longer be any highway over it. Indeed, if it's too cheaper to build a lid than rip out the depressed section, the depressed section could instead become an extended I-55 exit to/from Washington Avenue, tearing out only the elevated section of I-70 south of the modified MLK bridge, and building an urban boulevard or an extended Memorial Drive between Washington and Cole/I-70.
southslider wrote:I know very well that there won't be any full interchanges in East St. Louis as part of any bridge plans. Besides, I doubt anyone would want to cross two bridges to make such connection anyway.
However, we already live without a direct connection from NB 55 and EB 70 to WB 64. Could we also live without a direct connection between 55 and 70? Memorial Drive is already so wide that it could likely handle traffic going between 55 and 70 (or vice versa). Plus, Memorial Drive should have slightly less traffic, when it loses its access to the PSB, as planned following a new MRB or MLK coupler. Signalization could be upgraded such that a non-speeding motorist would only hit one red light, with signals at Walnut, Market, Chestnut, Pine, Washington and MLK Bridge/Convention Plaza. Yet landscaped blocks where the depressed section now sits, as well as textured crosswalks between Walnut and Pine would calm traffic.
To transition from the expressways into Memorial Drive, NB 55 would have the two right lanes going to the PSB (helping alleviate current evening jams on 44/55), while the two left lanes going to Memorial Drive. EB 70 would have two right lanes going to the MLK (existing bridge converted to 3-lane EB 70; third lane on MLK coming from Downtown), the left lane and express lanes going to Memorial Drive.
Memorial Drive could be three through-lanes in each direction with added turn lanes at MLK/Convention Plaza, Washington, Pine (NB only), and Market (NB only). To transition from SB Memorial Drive into SB 55, the far right lane would be right-turn only to Spruce (as today with signs to WB 64), with two lanes continuing onto I-55. To transition from NB Memorial Drive into WB 70, the right lane would go to a right-turn yield for EB 70 via the converted MLK bridge and the two left lanes to WB 70, with an option for express-lane access from the far left lane, when the express lanes would be open in the westbound direction.
Around the depressed section, Memorial Drive would look very much the same as if a lid will built, just there wouldn't be any highway beneath it. But Washington Avenue would be the most dramatic transformation, as there would clearly no longer be any highway over it. Indeed, if it's too cheaper to build a lid than rip out the depressed section, the depressed section could instead become an extended I-55 exit to/from Washington Avenue, tearing out only the elevated section of I-70 south of the modified MLK bridge, and building an urban boulevard or an extended Memorial Drive between Washington and Cole/I-70.
That seems odd that there wouldn't be a NB 44/55 to WB 64 connection or a SB 70 to WB 64 connection. Did they not have enough room for that? Any other reasons? Maybe that should redesign the interchange, if needed.
^It's not odd to lack a WB 64 connection, when it's been that way for years. Highway 755 to the west of Downtown was envisioned as a way to have such connection, but fortunately died. Such highway would have made Downtown an island surrounded by highways (like KC or Indy) and would have torn through Lafayette Square and Old North St. Louis.
Could It have something to do with the fact that Hgwy 40 (I-64) didn't come into Missouri untill the late 80s? No reason to connect a non-interstate to interstates...
Anyone heard any news about the I-70 Lid intended to span the grand canyon (I-70) that seperate the cities most important Icon (The Arch) from the city itself? Last I heard of it was in June when companies were submitting proposals for the project. Unfortunately, it was awarded to a non-St. Louis Architect, but I don't recall who.... since then, I haven't heard a thing
I think the masterplanning was assigned to a local firm. Just like you, I don't know who the main designer is. Sometimes it is good to have an out of town firm work on st. louis projects.
The Arch, Pulitzer, Contemporary Museum, COCA, Wainright Building, and Danforth Center were designed by out of towners. The future SLAM addition is also designed by an out of town architect. I'm sure there are many more but as I'm not an architectural historian I can't cite them.
The out of towners bring a fresh look to our city. Point is, I don't mind seeing an out of town firm work on this.
There just aren't many NEW local buildings designed by local architects, recently, that have inspired me. I request to be proven otherwise. I look forward to seeing progress. I'd love to see a lively Memorial Drive as shown in the renderings!
Magnatron wrote:Anyone heard any news about the I-70 Lid intended to span the grand canyon (I-70) that seperate the cities most important Icon (The Arch) from the city itself? Last I heard of it was in June when companies were submitting proposals for the project. Unfortunately, it was awarded to a non-St. Louis Architect, but I don't recall who.... since then, I haven't heard a thing
rustedhinge wrote:I think the masterplanning was assigned to a local firm. Just like you, I don't know who the main designer is. Sometimes it is good to have an out of town firm work on st. louis projects.
What? You don't want HOK to design it? Come on -- it could match their breathtaking, avant-garde design for the Edward Jones Dome.
U.S. cities are increasingly putting freeway segments underground and covering them with parkland. Whether called a lid, deck, bridge or tunnel, there are already some 20 highway parks in the country, several under construction — most notably, the Rose Kennedy Greenway park atop Boston’s Big Dig — and at least a dozen more in the planning pipeline. As urban auto impacts become less welcome, these decks have moved from the novel to the expected. Despite the sometimes considerable cost — as much as $500 per square foot — they are no longer classified as porkbarrel. They’ve been redefined as amenity investment with high economic payback.
ok..... so what happened then? I know these things take a long time to develop, but last I heard, it wasn't going to completly cover I-70 because of a structural survey saying it was impractical and too costly to completely cover the highway within the 3 blocks. I can't quote the source though. Is this thing still alive?
I hope they're waiting to see if they can get rid of the highway instead of building a deck over it. Getting rid of the depressed and raised areas of 70 in along the riverfront area would do a lot to connecting the entire city with the river.
Step One, Build a new River Bridge connecting 70 from the east side to the west side north of the Dome.
That would never happen because you would destroy 44/55 northbound access to 70 west on the missouri side.
Cover it, it'll be great.
They always talk about the Danforth Foundation funding the design, but there is never any mention of where the funds for construction will come from...
It's not just the depressed section i take issue with. It's the raised section that is just north of the depressed section. It breaks up the grid that connects the area to the river, and is very unappealing to pedestrians.
TheWayoftheArch wrote:That would never happen because you would destroy 44/55 northbound access to 70 west on the missouri side.
That's something that I've worried about. 70,000+ vehicles/day is definitely nothing to sneeze at. However, the more I think about it, the more I think that people can make do without the connection and find other ways to get to where they need to go. Nobody in San Fransico misses the Embarcadero Freeway.
The volume (some 72,000 daily vehicles) is of concern. As in my previous posts, I too fantasize about ripping out I-70 between the Poplar and new MRB (or MLK-coupler), or at least a hybrid solution of still a lid over the depressed section but an at-grade boulevard between Washington/Eads and the new I-70 (MRB or MLK). However, the volume on this section of highway is easily more than double that of the busiest, signalized section of Forest Park Parkway (26,000 daily vehicles), our best local example in an urban setting.
No doubt, the visual connection between the Landing and Washington Avenue would easily be improved with an elevated highway. However, pedestrians would still need to cross a very busy boulevard. Still, it can and has been done. Much busier (127,000 daily vehicles) Lakeshore Drive has limited, but multiple signalized intersections along Grant Park in Chicago between Millennium Park and Soldier's Field. There is even a signal just for pedestrians to cross Lakeshore Drive's eight lanes of traffic at Buckingham Fountain.
Speaking of that elevated section, why was that built in the first place?!
I've noticed in many old drawings, usually proposals for the riverfront/arch, that this section runs in a tunnel and not the elevated hulk that we see today. I know they sawed off some of the ramps near the landing.
I don't have an engineering degree, but it seems pointless just to raise a roadway only to lower it half a mile later. Unless there are some crucial utilities in the way or unstable geography.
St Louis has a chance to do something right for once. Bury the darn thing! Why stop at three blocks? I can think of many other parts of the city where the highways could be covered up or even removed/relocated.
Does anyone know how many cars used the Embarcadero Freeway right before it was demolished? How many cars currently use the Embarcadero today? I did a quick search and came up with nothing.
Jax wrote:Does anyone know how many cars used the Embarcadero Freeway right before it was demolished? How many cars currently use the Embarcadero today? I did a quick search and came up with nothing.
I don't think it had much volume. Really more of a glorified on/off ramp. But the Embarcadero and the Skyway, San Franciscos other elevated eyesore were never liked much from the start. The wonderful city library has an old 1966, but great, book called "Freeways" that is chock full of photos of urban highways. SF's are featured in depth.
And seeing as how SF is an end-point city, there really wasn't much need to build a massive freeway only to end less than five miles later at the ocean.
Now here in St Louis, you are in the middle of national crossroads and in an auto-holic city where ripping out a highway will be next to impossible.
Since we are on the subject of Memorial Drive, the Depressed Section of 70, and the new MRB, I have a few questions, comments, and ideas.
1. With construction of the new bridge, the Memorial Drive/ Depressed section should only need to be used by traffic traveling into/out of downtown and traffic traveling between 70E to 64W; 64E to 70W; 70E to 55/44 S, and 55/44 N to 70W. Southslider, how much traffic would remain with a new bridge on the depressed section and Memorial Drive?
2. Couldn't MODOT/ the City further reduce this traffic along Memorial Drive/ Depressed Section with a completed 22nd Street/ Truman Parkway? If the traffic volumes are as you described above, this would be the equivalent of 2 Forest Park Parkways, which seems much more do-able and more pedestrian friendly.
3. How much traffic can a traffic circle handle? If the City and MODOT agreed to remove the elevated and depressed portion of I-70 and replaced it with a wide 6-lane parkway, would it be possible place a traffic circle/ at the intersection of the new Memorial Parkway and Washington Avenue? I have always thought a nice traffic circle with a huge statue of Lewis and Clark, with fountains, would be a grand entrance for the City at the foot of the Eads Bridge.
4. While I love the idea of removing both the Depressed Section and the elevated portion of I-70, wouldn't this be pretty difficult if MODOT and IDOT agree on the MLK coupler proposal? I mean, the new bridge would be near the intersection of Broadway and Cole. A complete rebuilding of the roadways for a new bridge might allow for the removal of the elevated portion at Washington, but the elevated roadways would still cut off The Landing from the Dome. Seems like a lot of expense when so little would be accomplished.
5. When considering how to pay for the Lid, a new MRB, and a removal of I-70 through Downtown, has any of those in charge (the Mayor, MODOT, IDOT, Danforth Foundation) considered the potential value of the land created in rebuilding I-70 through downtown? It seems like some decent sums could be generated to pay for the infrastructure improvements if the City tried to create developable space along Memorial Drive. Imagine if instead of simple caps over the depressed section, the City pushed for new residential or office towers? Couldn’t this same practice occur all along the current interstate route, most with excellent views of the Arch and river? I wonder how much money such new towers could generate?
JMedwick wrote:5. When considering how to pay for the Lid, a new MRB, and a removal of I-70 through Downtown, has any of those in charge (the Mayor, MODOT, IDOT, Danforth Foundation) considered the potential value of the land created in rebuilding I-70 through downtown? It seems like some decent sums could be generated to pay for the infrastructure improvements if the City tried to create developable space along Memorial Drive. Imagine if instead of simple caps over the depressed section, the City pushed for new residential or office towers? Couldn’t this same practice occur all along the current interstate route, most with excellent views of the Arch and river? I wonder how much money such new towers could generate?
Another way to generate money (before the project has begun), we could sell the land within the gateway mall strip of barren worthlessness. (i would obviously love to sell the surface lots first for infill, but that reveue doesn't directly benefit the city imediately). Then the profit from the sales of the plots of land could go to removing/improving places like I-70... which then could be integrated into the downtown street grid which then all those lots (which would be desireable) be sold for a profit for more projects.
I like the idea of the traffic circle at Memorial and Washington. But there's already a statue of L&C being put on the riverfront, at the base of Eads Bridge, I believe.
1. at the base of Washginton and LKS Blvd, the current statue will and does never get seen.
2. The new statue is pretty damn small. I am talking about something to make people really proud and really give the feel of those crossing our grand old bridge (the Eads) a sense of St. Louis. Of course, if that is the intent, maybe it should be a big U-Turn sign explaining how many miles to Chicago...
