urbanSTL

GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑

Dec 28, 2022

Would this be an appropriate venue to lobby for a footbridge over 64 betweent the Foundry and Armory?

Yes

Ped bridge yes but I don’t think this study includes grand and FP since those are STL city routes and right of way

"the study area is Kingshighway Blvd. to Jefferson Avenue. Forest Park Avenue/Market Street is the northern boundary, and Manchester/Chouteau Avenues is the southern one"

I don't expect that MoDot would be responsible for the overhaul of the Grand and Forest Park Ave. intersection, but I don't see how you can truly and totally improve I-64 in the Central Corridor without also addressing that adjacent, connected mess. 

St. Louis city should be working with MoDot on this. The investment will pay for itself many hundred times over if executed well. Drivers should be able to seamlessly drive on Market/Forest Park Ave. between Clayton and the Arch. Doing this would give the Central Corridor a strengthened spine, and it'd open up space for significant development around SLU, Chaifetz Arena, Harris-Stowe, and Top Golf. 

It makes way too much sense to do this in conjunction with anything MoDot has for the area. 

doellingd wrote: ↑

Dec 28, 2022

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Dec 28, 2022

Ped bridge yes but I don’t think this study includes grand and FP since those are STL city routes and right of way

It does. All three alternatives include concepts that work with local agencies to reconfigure of Grand/ FPP/ Market. 

I believe the PEL looked at how those routes impact traffic to and from 64 but it’s up to the city to take it up

I'm feeling cynical and like MODOT's just having this meeting to say that they did for federal funding but doesn't actually care what the public thinks. 

PeterXCV wrote: ↑

Dec 28, 2022

I'm feeling cynical and like MODOT's just having this meeting to say that they did for federal funding but doesn't actually care what the public thinks. 

I actually take it the other way.  I see MoDOT is the one who wants to redo the I64 interchange mess between Grand & Market St as an opportunity to simplify things in long term & reduce their footprint.   Think Kingshighway interchange that offered a more efficient option & allowed MoDOT to sell off excess property and recently with the old remnants of 22nd parkway that finally got removed with MLS stadium.   

To me its really about City and lesser extent GRG & stakeholders such as SLU and Harris Stowe pushing for a comprehensive plan for the area.   Talk about an opportunity to knock it out of the park and set yourself up for a fair share of matching federal grants, still a good 3-4 years of infrastructure funds to pursue as well as setting aside some of the city Rams settlement dollars.  

MoDOT outreach gives the opportunity to look at all of the above.   

dredger wrote: ↑

Dec 28, 2022

PeterXCV wrote: ↑

Dec 28, 2022

I'm feeling cynical and like MODOT's just having this meeting to say that they did for federal funding but doesn't actually care what the public thinks. 

I actually take it the other way.  I see MoDOT is the one who wants to redo the I64 interchange mess between Grand & Market St as an opportunity to simplify things in long term & reduce their footprint.   Think Kingshighway interchange that offered a more efficient option & allowed MoDOT to sell off excess property and recently with the old remnants of 22nd parkway that finally got removed with MLS stadium.   

To me its really about City and lesser extent GRG & stakeholders such as SLU and Harris Stowe pushing for a comprehensive plan for the area.   Talk about an opportunity to knock it out of the park and set yourself up for a fair share of matching federal grants, still a good 3-4 years of infrastructure funds to pursue as well as setting aside some of the city Rams settlement dollars.  

MoDOT outreach gives the opportunity to look at all of the above.   

I feel like all these things are still done in a car-first mentality. While the Jefferson interchange is a smaller footprint, the exits are still 6 lanes of traffic in each direction that anyone has to cross to get to downtown from south of the highway. MoDOT has Jefferson and Grand marked as having dedicated bike lanes, but those are nothing more than paint on the shoulder of the road, who would feel safe using those? They also like to mention the shared-use roadway markings, which some studies have shown to be worse than useless.

I don't doubt that they would like to redo the Grand & Market mess, but I highly doubt they are concerned with making is usable for anything aside from cars. If you look at the materials they have produced, everything is about through highway traffic and traffic flow, there is barely any mention of pedestrians, bikes, or transit and where these is it is often to limited to "improving" the sidewalks, which as far as I can tell only means they'll ensure there are ADA compliant ramps at the corners. The biggest obstacles they can see are acquiring more right-of-way for the interstate and spacing of ramps.

I guess something is better than nothing at the FPP/Grand interchange, but I also think we'll all need to be vigilant that MoDOT doesn't try to chew up more of the city expanding this highway.

PeterXCV wrote: ↑

Dec 28, 2022

I'm feeling cynical and like MODOT's just having this meeting to say that they did for federal funding but doesn't actually care what the public thinks. 

I dont think so, modot planning staff is actually pretty good so they're looking at this as a complete transportation system 

Why would they have to acquire more right-of-way when they're trying to downsize their footprint?

RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑

Dec 28, 2022

Why would they have to acquire more right-of-way when they're trying to downsize their footprint?

Their report mentions it in the context of adding lanes and shoulder space to the highway itself. I think their desire for minimizing footprint only applies to interchanges and ramps.

RockChalkSTL wrote:Why would they have to acquire more right-of-way when they're trying to downsize their footprint?

I imagine the existing elevated portion of 64 between Sarah and Compton is costlier to maintain, especially now at the end of its useful life. Not sure how they would do it but I could see MODOT wanting rid of it.

I expect to see BIG ideas. Tunnels, land bridges, pedestrian bridges.

I can't imagine them getting rid of the elevated section, though. That would require demolishing a lot of buildings, including the Armory and/or Foundry

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

I've seen the three options for this reconfiguration. When they come out, I'll explain my preferences and why but, in short, different options need to be blended into one option. It cannot strictly be this one or that one. If that's the case, boo.

Is tunneling even an option there? Didn't Foundry run into trouble with groundwater seeping into the basement levels?

There will be no tunneling. GRG is asking for Fed $ to continue a feasibility study for a crossing but don’t expect a solution in place for a decade +

dweebe wrote:

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Dec 29, 2022

There will be no tunneling. GRG is asking for Fed $ to continue a feasibility study for a crossing but don’t expect a solution in place for a decade +

I’m not talking about burying 64 all the way under the Mississippi and over in to Illinois: just the Kingshighway to Compton stretch.

As DB said there will be no tunneling. All the mechanical ventilation required to do a tunnel would kill it immediately due to cost. Your better off getting land bridges at the maximum distance that doesn’t require mechanical ventilation. I believe that distance is between 200 and 300 feet as it was done in Tulsa recently. Even then you’d better have the topographic ability to do it with ease as earthwork is also not cheap.

Basically again as DB said. Tunneling is a cost prohibitive dream. Let’s fix it with real solutions.

The long N-S walks to traverse everything to get from one place with something to another place with something is miserable. Freeing up as much land for development should be the priority. Definitely not moving more or even the current amount of cars more "efficiently."