urbanSTL

I didn't see wild. It was well attended.

Wild? I was there for half of it. The first half though. Nothing out of the ordinary at an open house happened in that time frame.

Comments due before Feb 1.

StlToday - MoDOT weighs potential changes along 40/64 corridor in St. Louis

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/met ... e64bd.html

I guess they're due on Feb 1, if I read the MoDOT tweet correctly.

MoDOT, City and GRG need to get there game on big time for this corridor improvement as their will be Federal Infrastructure funds to be had the next couple of years.  Especially if you can tie in multimodal.   Great example is Philly's Roosevelt Blvd Corridor project that received a $78 million mega project grant.  I can't see what the harm if the city took some of the Ram's settlement and earmark for something along the same lines whether it be the I-64 Kingshighway corridor or even removing the short stretch of raised freeway next to dome, street improvements for near north St Louis.

Maybe this study first step but timeline suggests that most of the Feds Infrastructure funds will be spoken for 

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/do ... 0Sheet.pdf

• The project: The project will make improvements along approximately 12.3 miles of Roosevelt Boulevard, from North Broad Street to the Bucks County line. Improvements include traffic signal upgrades, reconfiguring intersections and roadways, constructing median barriers and pedestrian refuge islands, corridor access management improvements, and complete streets improvements for accessibility, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements. It will also create new business access and transit lanes. 

I get a feeling that the mayor just doesn’t care for bike/ped stuff.

Here's the final study on Future64. I guess next is getting the money together.

https://future64.com/wp-content/uploads ... 8_v2-1.pdf

Those proposals seem to just rearrange the mess rather than simplifying things

Sent from my Pixel 8 using Tapatalk

^ Have to agree with you thoughts.   Ran through the doc rather quickly but my first impression is it sems nothing fundamentally changes.   Specifically, both Grand and Market interchanges give the opportunity to reintroduce more mutli-modal grid & developable land back to City and Harris Stowe for that matter if a vision is embraced.  Our as MIss Shell puts it, simplifying things seems like an elegant solution.  

is it possible to think anew??
https://youtu.be/L7_O1GSPIWo?feature=shared

The highway is in Forest Park.

I would love to see 64 buried. But if they do that, wouldn't the land on top technically return to Forest Park? I believe everything North of Oakland is parkland, so we would need a referendum to build residential on top. Also, is it safe to build on top of a tunnelled highway?

Sent from my Pixel 8 using Tapatalk

While we are dreaming just remove the highway. Let it terminate at Skinker and develop the north side of Oakland with luxury high-rise residential. North side of those buildings spills onto a wide greenway with no vehicle access. Some buildings have cafes and bars with seating spilling into the park.

South side of the park is completely configured as it's currently the ass of the park facing the highway. Remove the giant Hampton interchange, zoo parking lot, baseball fields, and park maintenance area and replace it with high quality PARK. Walking paths, monuments, maybe even zoo expansion. The baseball fields and maintenance areas can be moved elsewhere in the park, just remove one of the golf courses.

Still a dream, so lets throw a metrolink alignment in there somewhere too.

I mean the north side of Oakland is Forest Park.

Hey, I like to see the city as I drive through. I vote no on the tunnel dream. 

^I think the desires of people living adjacent to he park to be free of highway noise and air pollution probably outweigh the desire of commuters to enjoy a view. I understand, mind you. I feel the same way about the noise walls in Frontenac and Ladue. But even then, in a place with many fewer residents close to the road, the math still probably holds true.