urbanSTL

goat314 wrote:St. Louis is a total failure when it comes to the riverfront. Not only is it dead, it is visually ugly. I'm often shocked at how dark the Arch is at night, none of the bridges downtown are lit, and the skyline looks dark and gloomy. St. Louis just doesn't present itself as a major metropolitan area in this respect. I believe NEXTSTL did an article about the visual blight in St. Louis that we are obviously numb too. The abandoned buildings on the North and South river landings, the "Chouteau Greenway" underutilized rail yards, and the three elevated highways that dissect the downtown.

And if you give me $100 billion I can fix all of that for you.

Replacing the unneeded downtown train switching yard with something more valuable this close to downtown, like the flatwater Chouteau Lake, is obvious. But what about I-64 long term? Push it to the South side of the switching yard? How about in a tunnel under the lake? Make I-64 a boulevard for a few blocks?

I am loving seeing the new bridge going up. The old pump house has such a nice view of it. I took a handful of photos 2 weeks ago, thought someone might care to look at them.


2012.01.28 STL and Auto Show - 0079-2 by c2city, on Flickr

2012.01.28 STL and Auto Show - 0086-2 by c2city, on Flickr

2012.01.28 STL and Auto Show - 0090 by c2city, on Flickr

2012.01.28 STL and Auto Show - 0094 by c2city, on Flickr

2012.01.28 STL and Auto Show - 0009-2 by c2city, on Flickr

I think a lot of people in the area don't realize how much of an icon this will become for the city, right after the arch.

I wonder if the Gateway Foundation has any money left after City Garden; after all, public lighting is one of their fortes.

That thing better be lit up! What at waste if not. A giant beautiful bridge and you can't see it with the skyline at night? That would be a shame.

LOVE the pictures from the Pump House. How is it currently being utilized? God those would be some loft views to die for.

gary kreie wrote:Replacing the unneeded downtown train switching yard with something more valuable this close to downtown, like the flatwater Chouteau Lake, is obvious. But what about I-64 long term? Push it to the South side of the switching yard? How about in a tunnel under the lake? Make I-64 a boulevard for a few blocks?

I've actually been pretty skeptical of the Chouteau Greenway/Lake plan. While the mock-ups look beautiful (as mock-ups are wont to do) and I can see how a downtown lake like that could be utilized by new and existing businesses and residences, I just can't shake the feeling that the rail lines should remain.

Sure, the high-volume days are over for both passenger and freight rail, but I could see a semi-resurgence if unleaded gasoline prices continue their rise and some heretofore untapped engine models (hydrogen/fuel-cell/electric/etc.) become more acceptable. And if St. Louis continues its upward trend and bold, forward-thinking planning is enacted, a dedicated metropolitan passenger rail system centralized at Union Station doesn't seem too far-fetched either.

I can certainly look at that Chouteau Greenway siteplan and see how it might enliven downtown's southern edge, bu I am wary of the potential connective cost.

RobbyD wrote:^ call me crazy...but I've always loved the downtown lake idea...if done right, it could be quite amazing...

OK crazy one, a shallow pond trying to pass as a lake just doesn't seem like a good plan at the end of the day, you already got something similiar with the Arch Grounds. Why does downtown need two such areas?

I like the linear plan of Chouteau Greenway but definitely needs some tweaking in my opinion - first, don't need a massive park or the lakes but the idea of connecting the river trail with Forest Park as well as River Des Peres Greenway via the Choutea Greenway is awesome in my opinion. Second, tear up the existing surfact parking lot that already exists on the Greenway's footprint and relocate Cardinal's softball field along with a soccer field(s) and the likes for downtown residents to use. A relative modest start to the Greenway without breaking the bank or spending countless years trying to reach a real estate deal with the railroads. You kill two birds in one stone - you get something that downtown residents can actually use and get rid of a parking lot at the same time. Heck, throw in the Arch Grounds parking garage demo into the same plan, a two-fer on removing unnecessary downtown parking.

Back to the thread topic, while it might be nice to think that the New Mississippi Bridge will cause a cascade of street/highway infrastructure improvements such as doing something with I-64. I doubt it will ever come to be. Heck, the CitytoRiver proposal can't even get any traction with politicians/local leaders and that seems like a no-brainer to the posters on this blog and every other city out there. City is lucky that N. Tucker came together and should push for N. Trestle Greenway as much as possible with Near northside being in spotlight.

dredger wrote:

RobbyD wrote:^ call me crazy...but I've always loved the downtown lake idea...if done right, it could be quite amazing...

OK crazy one, a shallow pond trying to pass as a lake just doesn't seem like a good plan at the end of the day, you already got something similiar with the Arch Grounds. Why does downtown need two such areas?

I like the linear plan of Chouteau Greenway but definitely needs some tweaking in my opinion - first, don't need a massive park or the lakes but the idea of connecting the river trail with Forest Park as well as River Des Peres Greenway via the Choutea Greenway is awesome in my opinion. Second, tear up the existing surfact parking lot that already exists on the Greenway's footprint and relocate Cardinal's softball field along with a soccer field(s) and the likes for downtown residents to use. A relative modest start to the Greenway without breaking the bank or spending countless years trying to reach a real estate deal with the railroads. You kill two birds in one stone - you get something that downtown residents can actually use and get rid of a parking lot at the same time. Heck, throw in the Arch Grounds parking garage demo into the same plan, a two-fer on removing unnecessary downtown parking.

Back to the thread topic, while it might be nice to think that the New Mississippi Bridge will cause a cascade of street/highway infrastructure improvements such as doing something with I-64. I doubt it will ever come to be. Heck, the CitytoRiver proposal can't even get any traction with politicians/local leaders and that seems like a no-brainer to the posters on this blog and every other city out there. City is lucky that N. Tucker came together and should push for N. Trestle Greenway as much as possible with Near northside being in spotlight.

i always thought it would be way smarter to connect the river to forest park with a canal? Run it up the old rail lines. Have a greenway around it. getting through the CWE is a problem though... maybe curve south to botanical gardens? That would make for an excellent taxi service!

Stltoday.com - Construction buffs, bridge lovers lining up to tour new span over the Mississippi

Planners included lighting into the design because they anticipate that the bridge will be one of the most photographed structures in the area. Right now the Arch and the Clark Bridge are the most photographed.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 7ae4a.html

Apparently there has been some type of construction accident. One of the crane operators has fallen from the crane into the river. Found the life jacket, but not the crane operator. Doesn't look good. Story on StLToday.com

Does anyone know the per day vehicle count for N. Tucker Blvd?

stlien wrote:Does anyone know the per day vehicle count for N. Tucker Blvd?

Per Google Earth Pro's data (from http://www.mpsisolutions.com/) - the Average Annual Daily Traffic:

North 12th Street - 14,341 (1993) (nearest cross street to the count-Gay Street, direction from the count to the cross street-South)

North 12th Street - 22,370 (1994) (nearest cross street to the count-Wash Ave, direction from the count to the cross street-Northeast)

North 12th Street - 17,703 (1994) (nearest cross street to the count-Cole Street, direction from the count to the cross street-North)

Google Earth (Pro version) provides alot of nice factual data - traffic counts, block and block group census data, and parcel data.

geoffksu wrote:

stlien wrote:Does anyone know the per day vehicle count for N. Tucker Blvd?

Per Google Earth Pro's data (from http://www.mpsisolutions.com/) - the Average Annual Daily Traffic:

North 12th Street - 14,341 (1993) (nearest cross street to the count-Gay Street, direction from the count to the cross street-South)

North 12th Street - 22,370 (1994) (nearest cross street to the count-Wash Ave, direction from the count to the cross street-Northeast)

North 12th Street - 17,703 (1994) (nearest cross street to the count-Cole Street, direction from the count to the cross street-North)

Google Earth (Pro version) provides alot of nice factual data - traffic counts, block and block group census data, and parcel data.

Its a little pricey though.

I really wish there was an easier way to find current traffic counts...for public consumption.

Thanks Geoff. I was hoping for more recent info.

I know MoDot has traffic count data but not for individual streets, mainly highways.

Alex Ihnen wrote:^There's surely been a new Tucker count, and more importantly, an estimation for when the new bridge is complete - but I haven't seen them.

The data I got was freely available but if one dives into and combs through, they may be able to find some more recent data on the New Mississippi River Bridge website under the Plans/Docs section.

Though, I just realized that I could look into the City/County GIS data I have and see if any traffic data has been incorporated.

geoffksu wrote:

Alex Ihnen wrote:^There's surely been a new Tucker count, and more importantly, an estimation for when the new bridge is complete - but I haven't seen them.

The data I got was freely available but if one dives into and combs through, they may be able to find some more recent data on the New Mississippi River Bridge website under the Plans/Docs section.

Though, I just realized that I could look into the City/County GIS data I have and see if any traffic data has been incorporated.

Thanks. According to the access Justification Report (http://www.newriverbridge.org/documents ... y_2009.pdf), EWG estimates that 55,000 vehicles will cross the new bridge daily.

Considering these reports are for the bridge, N. Tucker isn't mentioned.