urbanSTL

I think capping I-70 and the existing work underway with new exits/etc. for 64 are the most realistic options in the short to medium term. I don't see the political will or literal capital to remove 64/40 any time soon.

That said, I'd be elated if they could cap the 4-5 blocks of 70 on either side of the existing one. Would do wonders practically and in terms of perception.

jtlq53 wrote: ↑

6:36 PM - Sep 30

I think capping I-70 and the existing work underway with new exits/etc. for 64 are the most realistic options in the short to medium term. I don't see the political will or literal capital to remove 64/40 any time soon.

That said, I'd be elated if they could cap the 4-5 blocks of 70 on either side of the existing one. Would do wonders practically and in terms of perception.

Just for clarity, the stretch of highway in question is I-44 (I-70 crosses the river a mile north on the Stan Musial Bridge)

Cap and removing/burying elevated lanes when the maintenance bill comes seems like an obvious solution.  Too obvious, though.

I agree that there's little optimism of I-44 removal.  I think I-64 is a nonstarter.  Removing I-44 would make more connectivity sense unless we're pursuing Chouteau's Lake again.  Then we can talk, but that also sounds like a nonstarter with the railroads.

A lot goes into this. The first question is purpose: what is the objective of doing it?
For the stretch in front of the Arch, if the goal is to connect the Arch to the rest of downtown, the next question is whether it's financially feasible and whether it makes sense. If the money comes from elsewhere, such as the federal government, then sure, go do it. But if it requires significant local money, I don't see the benefit.
For the stretch from downtown to the Foundry and Kingshighway, there's really no need to do anything. Converting the double-decker into a conventional highway would just take up more space. And again, what would be the objective of getting rid of it? Do we need more land to develop? No. So what's the goal?

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

9:29 PM - 19 days ago

A lot goes into this. The first question is purpose: what is the objective of doing it?
For the stretch in front of the Arch, if the goal is to connect the Arch to the rest of downtown, the next question is whether it's financially feasible and whether it makes sense. If the money comes from elsewhere, such as the federal government, then sure, go do it. But if it requires significant local money, I don't see the benefit.
For the stretch from downtown to the Foundry and Kingshighway, there's really no need to do anything. Converting the double-decker into a conventional highway would just take up more space. And again, what would be the objective of getting rid of it? Do we need more land to develop? No. So what's the goal?

I also personally don't think the double decker on 64 is the issue, its the very wide rail yard. Fixing the highway doesn't fix the rail yard which is really the thing making a large divide. 

I wish 64 was double-decked from Vandeventer to the bridge.

Sent from my Pixel 8 using Tapatalk

jshank83 wrote: ↑

10:16 PM - 19 days ago

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

9:29 PM - 19 days ago

A lot goes into this. The first question is purpose: what is the objective of doing it?
For the stretch in front of the Arch, if the goal is to connect the Arch to the rest of downtown, the next question is whether it's financially feasible and whether it makes sense. If the money comes from elsewhere, such as the federal government, then sure, go do it. But if it requires significant local money, I don't see the benefit.
For the stretch from downtown to the Foundry and Kingshighway, there's really no need to do anything. Converting the double-decker into a conventional highway would just take up more space. And again, what would be the objective of getting rid of it? Do we need more land to develop? No. So what's the goal?

I also personally don't think the double decker on 64 is the issue, its the very wide rail yard. Fixing the highway doesn't fix the rail yard which is really the thing making a large divide. 

Agree with this. Bring back the Chouteau's Lake proposal! 

-RBB

the highways didn't just cut vast swaths through the city when they were built, they *continue* to erode the city's built environment along their edges. living next to a highway means more noise pollution, more air pollution, less walkability, and overall worse health outcomes. there's a reason why residential property is cheaper next to highways—very few people want to live there. so it ends up vacant or strip malled or gas stationed and the rot continues outward. there's more than enough reason to remove them all within city limits.

Indeed a purpose of removal would be blight removal. But so many people and so much commerce have been made dependent on them that they dismiss the blight and the people negatively impacted, so it is politically impossible, with the handful of exceptions of course.

urban_dilettante wrote:the highways didn't just cut vast swaths through the city when they were built, they *continue* to erode the city's built environment along their edges. living next to a highway means more noise pollution, more air pollution, less walkability, and overall worse health outcomes. there's a reason why residential property is cheaper next to highways—very few people want to live there. so it ends up vacant or strip malled or gas stationed and the rot continues outward. there's more than enough reason to remove them all within city limits.

Imagine the vast public transit network we could build in wake of removed highways. No matter what anyone thinks, highways will always be a detriment on every city they exist in.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk