We have read columns and letters in the PD and numerous blog posts and comments suggesting that perhaps the best solution for the riverfront is not fancy designs, but the removal of Interstate 70 through downtown once the new Mississippi River Bridge is online.



This accomplishes three things



- Removes the subterranean barrier between downtown and the Arch grounds, which could arguably be solved by the “lid”

- Removes the elevated barrier between downtown and the Arch grounds, Eads Bridge, Lacledes Landing, Lumiere Place which I contend is an even bigger problem and not addressed by the “lid”

- Allows the street grid immediately north of downtown to be repaired making more sites attractive for development and easier access to near Northside neighborhoods.



This section of Interstate will be made largely redundant by the changes proposed with the New I-70 bridge project.

Removing the section may make travel for some less convenient, but not impossible or overly difficult.

The lack of problems caused by the shutdown of Highway 40 proves that the removal of this much shorter stretch of interstate can be accomplished with minimal if any pain to commuters, travelers and trucking.



Now on to the main point of this post: IT IS TIME TO ORGANIZE!

Perhaps we are tilting at windmills here, but the idea has merit and the benefits are undisputed. But, I don’t see any way this would happen without a large and organized effort to promote and explain the idea to the larger public.



I was inspired by this article about a similar proposal in Louisville…

http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/23/f ... aterfront/

and this organization…

http://8664.org/



Of the top of my head something needed for an effort in St. Louis are…

- A catchy name (Deep670?)

- Website/Blog/Facebook

- Some PR and organizing savvy

- A sympathetic traffic engineer who can show the impacts of the removal of the Depressed and Elevated Section

- A landscape architect who can sketch a vision of downtown without the - Depressed and Elevated Section

- Get some big names on board that might benefit (Danforth, Clayco with Bottle District, Lacledes Landing, Lumiere [less interstate visibility, but improved access], McKee [More traffic through his Northside development, better connections to downtown]). Shudder the thought of Doug and Paul McKee working together on an issue.



I’m not sure I can or want to take an active lead in a grass roots effort, but I certainly would love to get involved in something like this.



I'll let this post simmer for a few days and see what other people think and what other ideas there are out there. Then perhaps those interested could meet up in the next couple of weeks to discuss this in person.



Have at it.



[Note admins: I put this in Projects and Construction rather that the Transportation forum since it relates to downtown in general and the Transportation forum gets very little traffic, ironically.]

Love it, love it, love it.

Yes, the City to River Group actually has done some drawings to show what Memorial would look like sans highway and has also gathered several good examples from other cities. They have also met with some different stakeholders to present the idea. I was involved in the initial organizing of the group, but have kind of dropped out due to time constraints on my part. If anyone would like to be involved in the effort, you are certainly more than welcome to be a part of it.

How do we get HOK to draw up a sketch of what it could look like? I would think it would be in their interest -- especially if the newly available land could be used for new high-rise buildings adjacent to the Arch grounds that they design.



They did the Chouteau Lake sketches, right? Hey, maybe they would replace the depressed lanes with a street level canal connecting to Chouteau Lake. (OK, I Ballpark Villaged that one.)

Jeez. The City River Group won't even let you see their website unless you become a member. What's up with that? Seems kind of off-putting to me. Are they interested in the public's thoughts or just their own?

I think I might be the only soul who would put forth that the interstate grade north south pathway not just be preserved but to be upgraded. Though I think the favorable option would be to drop it further and provide a from scratch cut and cover design for it that is more hospitable to the city. I would just shift all of the current at grade roadways directly over it to simplify the crossover.



I think to plan for the future, the ability of infrastructure to rapidly transport from point to point without leaving the city would serve to yield a better outcome than removing capacity. In addition, I always feel that it is better to prepare for the eventual possibility that there is a major transportation failure of some variety. Leaving a pathway of this variety in place would help load sharing of the cross river transit. Just imagine a failure of the type that Minneapolis suffered, and there are more than a few possible risks that can yield that kind of outcome even with a perfectly maintained bridge.



This isn't meant to be an argument, simply a few observations from someone who thinks as an engineer.

clellchatman wrote:This isn't meant to be an argument, simply a few observations from someone who thinks as an engineer.

The challenge for all of us is to redefine success. Civil engineers define success via carrying capacity of roads, attainable speeds, and so on. There is no metric for quality of life, usability of the road, and so on in the little traffic guidelines book.



I agree with your sentiment - let the data drive the decision, but stress that you should examine the appropriate metric.



I'd hate to see us upgrade every road just in case. We already have far, far too much road capacity downtown (except maybe from 7:30-8:15 am and 4:30-5:15 pm). I walked through downtown the past few nights and was shocked at how many streets completely devoid of cars I saw.

Framer wrote:Jeez. The City River Group won't even let you see their website unless you become a member. What's up with that? Seems kind of off-putting to me. Are they interested in the public's thoughts or just their own?

It's a listserve that has not been publicly published, but you are more than welcome to request membership and check out the discussion. There is a public website in the works. City to River Group at this point is more of a loose coalition. Exactly how the group will be set up in the future will be determined soon. The group did a presentation at City Affair last night, and will continue to do more in the future to present the concept of lane removal to more and more stakeholders that need to be informed and convinced of the idea.

Matt Drops The H wrote:I love it. Even though I don't live there at the moment, count me in for promotion/blogging/etc.



This is exactly what we need.

Absolutely. I'd love to see a serious effort to make this happen, and it might as well be led by some of us on this forum!

Actually, thinking in terms of capacity as an engineer an argument is easily made that relocating I-70 to the new Mississippi River Bridge is actually increasing capacity compared to the current interstate configuration of constraining four interstates to one bridge, I-70, I-55, I-64, and I-44 on Poplar Street Bridge. Beltways I-270 and I-255 as well as an innerbelt in I-170 are meant to bridge traffic and facitlitate the movement of traffic that go through or around the city. I honestly don't think their is an engineering arguement that a downtown I-70 connector will be a benefit to the mass marjority of the traffic when the New Mississippi River Bridge is built.

MattnSTL wrote:

Framer wrote:Jeez. The City River Group won't even let you see their website unless you become a member. What's up with that? Seems kind of off-putting to me. Are they interested in the public's thoughts or just their own?

It's a listserve that has not been publicly published, but you are more than welcome to request membership and check out the discussion. There is a public website in the works. City to River Group at this point is more of a loose coalition. Exactly how the group will be set up in the future will be determined soon. The group did a presentation at City Affair last night, and will continue to do more in the future to present the concept of lane removal to more and more stakeholders that need to be informed and convinced of the idea.

Got it. Thanks for the explanation. I didn't mean to piss on them; I just found it odd.



Count me as one of the skeptics on this whole highway removal thing, but I do find the idea intriguing, and would like to learn more about how it would work.

I'm going to be honest and say I would love to see some traffic jams downtown.

JMedwick wrote:

Mill204 wrote:Most don't believe that it is even possible to remove the highway without overloading existing cross-downtown connectors like 4th, Broadway, Tucker and Jefferson (much like local leaders predicting gloom and doom for the Highway 40 closure). Until the feasibility question can be answered, you cannot get any seriously considered.

Yeah, I feel like it will take a lot to convince local leaders that an Interstate connection between the PSB and the new Mississippi River Bridge won't be necessary, especially since no alternatives for 64/40 were considered. Removal of Interstate 70 through downtown could do wonders to reconnect the core of downtown with the Gateway Arch and Laclede's Landing, just as conversion of 64/40 into a parkway could have reconnected Forest Park and all of the neighborhoods in the suburbs to the west. And it's not like the Interstate 64 designation couldn't have been applied concurrently to the south 270/255 loop instead- it's not like anyone calls the highway Interstate 64 anyway!

ThreeOneFour wrote:Yeah, I feel like it will take a lot to convince local leaders that an Interstate connection between the PSB and the new Mississippi River Bridge won't be necessary, especially since no alternatives for 64/40 were considered.

Heck, if we can live without a wide swath of 64/40 for two years, eliminating that stretch of 70 should be no big deal!

San Francisco got it done, but an earthquake helped push them along. Please don't wish for an earthquake.

Arcturis was leading the concept design effort. They laid off another 30% of their staff today. I have no idea who is left in the firm, or if the planning staff is more than two. Their idea was interesting, but they cannot pull this off. They are in way over their head. They have the "status" as a "preferred" vendor....this project needs leadership far beyond their capabilities for communicating ideas.