Readers Prefer Boulevard Over Tunnel
A large majority of those voting in the poll last week support the idea of removing a section of highway downtown and building a boulevard as a pleasant way to move vehicles through the area. The total number of votes was 162.
The highway is now marked as I-70 but once the new Mississippi River bridge is opened I-70 will cross over into Illinois rather than pass by the Arch. The tunnel proposal solves only a 3-4 block section of getting past the highway lanes. The boulevard would help mend over a mile long zone for half the cost.
It has been suggested just closing Memorial Drive. That still leaves the exposed highway North of Washington Ave as well as creating a huge dead zone — vast pedestrian mall at the foot of the Gateway Arch. Bad idea.
– Steve Patterson
Steve-
Could you show on a google map how your proposed Boulevard would work and where I-70 would be instead? where would it cross back over into MO?
thanks
I-70 wouldn’t cross back over into Missouri. Why would it?
so 55 would simply end into the new Boulevard and then 70 would begin up north of there?
I-55 technically is carried east via the Poplar Street Bridge and already “ends” there.
then how is this all going to look, assuming we ditch the lid and go with the boulevard concept?
Questioner, Steve has put up the outlines of this idea in various entries over the past few years, including a very detailed one he wrote a few weeks ago. It’s in the related poss section just above the response section
I-55 connects St. Louis to Chicago.
I-70 connects St. Louis to KC and Indianopolis.
I-44 starts/ends in St. Louis at the Poplar Street Bridge. Under the boulevard concept, I-44 “delivers” drivers via the new boulevard into downtown St. Louis and the Arch grounds.
The on-the-drawing-boards extension of I-44 to I-70 will connect I-55 to I-70 on the Missouri side, but under the proposed realignments, those connections are already made on the Illinois side.
I don’t understand why putting a lot more traffic on a new Memorial Drive would make it easier for pedestrians to access the Arch and riverfront. Of course it would be nice if the elevated portion of I-70 were removed, but this area can be improved greatly without completely reconstructing the roads.
Even if the new Memorial Boulevard carries more vehicles than the old outer-roads Memorial Drive (note both being less than the depressed freeway), it’s still better for pedestrians because of a concept called friction.
Motorists respond to visual cues and their surroundings on how fast to go. Right now, there is nothing but signals stopping cars zooming on and off freeway ramps.
An at-grade boulevard having a smaller footprint frees up space to build active street walls facing the Arch. You also get more intersections and smaller blocks either side of today’s three-block crossing zone, also adding friction.
Why you feel more vulnerable crossing at Walnut or Pine than Market or Chestnut is because the long approaches to the outer edges of the three-block zone have little friction. Of course, since there aren’t any buildings on any of these three blocks, it still isn’t that comfortable at Market or Chestnut either.
Add on-street parking on both sides of the street and for multiple blocks and you’ll have more friction. Of course, it has to be parked consistently, which again stresses the importance of active street walls.
This concept involves a wholesale retraining of St. Louisans that downtown has value, that downtown streets are for walking from place to place, and that downtown St. Louis is a destination, not somewhere to race through in your car.
Let’s use our scarce public resources to benefit tourists not livable communities first!
^The supporters of removing this little-needed highway segment are trying to make sure those scarce resources don’t go to a useless lid, or costly three-block tunnel. The savings from not doing the lid would go far in removing the highway. Plus, the creation of new private land and the investment it would attract by narrowing public right-of-way would also help offset the project. Besides, downtown should be a livable community too.
And the freeway segment isn’t needed after the new Mississippi River Bridge re-routes I-70. It makes little sense to connect I-44 EB to I-70 WB and vice-versa. What is needed is doubling of the I-44/55 ramp capacity to and from the Poplar Street Bridge. And that can be done without widening the bridge by converting lanes going to/from I-70 on the PSB to additional lanes going to/from I-44/55.
For those I-70 EB motorists wishing to go to I-55 SB, it will be no different than how I-64 EB motorists have to get off the interstate at the Last Missouri Exit and use surface streets to reach I-55. And somehow Broadway between I-64/US 40 and I-55 is not packed with cars. Because obviously, only those who truly need to make the connection, and aren’t just passing through town, are those still doing it.
Similar to Broadway between these Interstates lacking any direct connection Downtown, the new Memorial Boulevard would carry far fewer vehicles than today’s depressed/elevated I-70, as much of the traffic would be dispersed. And just like when Highway 40 was closed for re-construction, it won’t be the end of the world, as the traffic will find new equilibrium as it disperses over alternative routes.
Brian, you’re making too much sense. How do think we overcome the naysaying, against everything types?
“For those I-70 EB motorists wishing to go to I-55 SB, it will be no different than how I-64 EB motorists have to get off the interstate at the Last Missouri Exit and use surface streets to reach I-55.”
In addition, those motorists will also have the option of crossing the new I-70 bridge and connecting with I-55 SB on the Illinois side of the river. This route would be about 6 miles or about 6 minutes at interstate speed.
http://www.newriverbridge.org/PDF/UltimateConcept.pdf
Basically, if the depressed section were maintained, there would be THREE interstate quality connections between I-55 and I-70 within 4.5 miles.
So Matt B, what are you saying? We need all those connections, or we could lose one or more of them?
So how many residents live in the community east of Tucker? You know that large area more than eight blocks wide and bounded by Cole on the north and Choteau on the south? I’m all for highway removals but like most public projects they need to be some sort of cost-benefit analysis… care to talk costs and expenses? Just askin’…
“the freeway segment isn’t needed after the new Mississippi River Bridge re-routes I-70”
This ignores the fact that 90% or more traffic through the depressed section is not through traffic on I-70 (my own observations) The majority of traffic through this section is from I-55. By eliminating this freeway section, you effectively cut out the only through norht-south route anywhere near the city. A boulevard concept may work, but as others point out, it would have to have too many lanes to handle the traffic volume. I’d rather see the elevated section by the dome lowered down to the level of the depressed section.
Ok, if thinking of cost, rebuilding the I-55 ramps to/from the PSB to handle two lanes of I-44/55 traffic is easily comparable to maintaining the mile-plus depressed/elevated former I-70 as the re-signed I-44.
You could also use the sale of excess right-of-way as a funding stream to bond against or debt-service the cost of demolishing the highway. In classic St. Louis-style, you could even use TIF on the new parcels and adjoining blocks (say over to 4th Street) to tap the future incremental increase in tax base to pay off the construction of the new Boulevard. Sure, that’s dreaded TIF, but it’s diverting new tax base you wouldn’t have, if not for the improvements.
It is impossible to calculate the “self-healing” nature of our road system, but most people agree that St. Louis has excess road capacity. We have the perfect example in the closure of Highway 40. Experts predicted armageddon and the event turned out to be pretty much a non-event.
Converting the depressed and elevated lanes into a boulevard would be a change, and we’d adjust. Lights could be timed to maximize through flow during peak commute times.
The question is, what good would come to St. Louis to have the downtown are reconnected? Washington Ave, the Arch grounds, Laclede’s Landing, the hotels, casino, Danforth’s new museum, the Bottle District, McKee’s new redevelopment area, all would be connected via this new downtown strip.
How would that change the way people experience St. Louis? How would it change the look? How would it help or hurt retail and housing uses? Would we be better off?
I’m not sure that the poll was as clear as it could be. Based on the larger discussion, I agree that the majority voted for removing the depressed lanes, but I didn’t see the same consensus for creating a boulevard. My assumption was that if the depressed section were removed, the elevated section south of Cass Street would be, as well. As Dave stated, another option would be restoring the historic street grid. With 4th and Broadway already serving as the main, easternmost north-south corridor (and Memorial drive acting more like a frontage road), there really isn’t a need for a second main road where Memorial drive is now. The tourists will continue to find the arch grounds, much like how they find Independence Hall in Philadelphia or the White House in DC, without any direct freeway access. And based on what MoDOT has posted ( http://www.newriverbridge.org/documents/TentativeConstructionSchedule.pdf ) it looks like 11th & Cass will become ground zero for any new traffic, thus making it pretty simple to terminate the existing freeway around O’Fallon Street, connecting at grade to both 4th and Broadway. Between Chestnut and Washington, and Market and Poplar, the excess right-of-way could easily be incorporated into the arch grounds. And between Washington and O’Fallon, the land could be redeveloped into real, urban uses. We really don’t need any more open space downtown (which is what a boulevard would be), we need more density!
^True, a variation of the boulevard would be even cheaper to build if it re-used the street-couplet already in place. That is to say, rip out the depressed section between the one-way “outer roads” then build on the resulting new blocks between them. Likewise, rip out the elevated section but not build any new streets.
Granted, you’d still likely see some minor improvements to Memorial Drive, such as striping out a lane for parking and curb extensions at intersections. But those are simple retrofits, not major reconstruction.
The only problem with this scenario is it still leaves dead street walls along the west side of southbound Memorial Drive. That’s why shifting that half of the street over to be combined with northbound into one boulevard seems more appealing.
On the other hand, since Clark, Olive, and St.Charles don’t run east of 4th, retaining the couplet may be a better way to get more blocks between Washington and Pine, plus Walnut and Spruce. Otherwise, the two-way boulevard risks creating larger superblocks of the Mansion House and Clarion Hotel complexes.
The “dead street walls along the west side of Memorial Drive” are a direct result of facing what is essentially a high-speed freeway frontage road. Change the road to a typical, walkable downtown street, especially one with a clear shot of the arch grounds, and the building owners will eventually (quickly?) take advantage of the view and improved pedestrian access and add retail, likely catering to tourists – it’s a “chicken or egg” problem – there’s no incentive for anything other than dead street walls now.
Concerning the depressed lanes to and from downtown St. Louis-west of the arch, the only conceiveable option [and it really isn’t an option at all, but a mandated imperative] is to completely ‘tunnelize’ the entire length of this bypass highway system underground, 30-40 FT. DEEPER THAN IT ALREADY IS. The future will hold major port development north of downtown with auxillary egress ramps for separate trucking and vehicular transitions. The package will be in the billions. The tunnelized system will be of a split level design carrying separate systems for commercial trucking and vehicular on different tunnel levels coming off of I-44 south of Soulard going to north of downtown, before it exits topside. The financial package will be federally funded as 44 will become a major termination point for a NAFTA superhighway system. Once this stretch of 44/55/70 is tunnelized the entire length of it will be covered over and landscaped and built on. Then you can have your Soulard neighborhood and downtown ‘BACK AGAIN’ with no disruptions. If multiple billions are going to be spent on port systems and dredging-one more isn’t going to be a difficulty acquiring. The tunnel lower level is for vehicular and enters and exits without a hitch. The upper level is commercial trucking only and exits in the new port off ramps or is filtrated into the new bridge/port system. The bottleneck downtown is caused by the ramp to Illinois swamped by trucking which is the very reason for the problems in both directions of the depressed lanes. Money must and will be spent OR ST. LOUIS’ HAUNTING AND DAUNTING TRAFFIC DEBACLES AND NIGHTMARES WILL INCREASE TO MAGNITUDE PROPORTIONS. There is no quick fix. The federal government will have to be the major player here, there’s no other way out of it. Trucking to and from port systems and egress ramps forming ‘SINGLE LINES’ ACROSS THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER IS PURE INSANITY. Vision for the future is what is needed to offset these magnitude problems, because the future gets here. It should have been envisioned decades ago, but ‘SMALL THINKING ENVELOPS SMALL RESULTS’, WITH BIG PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE TO UNWIND, JUST TO BYPASS DEALING WITH IT WHEN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN. KEEP PUTTING THESE DEVELOPMENTS OFF AND SEE WHERE IT GETS YOU. IT WILL HAPPEN AND THE FEDS ARE GOING TO WREST CONTROL OF THE SYSTEM TO DO IT. REMEMBER I SAID IT HERE AND NOW. THIS TROUBLESOME DILEMMA WON’T CONTINUE.