Readers Support Replacing Downtown Highway With Boulevard
I’ve been doing weekly polls for a year and a half and in the time I’ve noticed a pattern with the voting as the week goes by the percentage of each answer stays roughly the same as the total vote count grows. Sometimes a few answers will switch places. Last week was different, the answer opposing highway removal was in last place for the first few day with just under 5% of the votes.
By Sunday morning when I changed the poll it had shot up to get the most votes of any single answer — 172. The “yes” votes, however, total 186.
Q: Now that 4 of 5 City+Arch+River teams say highway removal is best, do you agree the highway should be replaced with a boulevard from the PSB to Cass?
- No, highway lanes are still needed 172 [43.32%]
- Yes, start the day after the new I-70 bridge opens in Spring 2014, even though the boulevard would not be complete on 10/28/2015 (Arch 50th Anniv) 127 [31.99%]
- Yes, any time in the next decade is good. 37 [9.32%]
- Inclined to agree, but I want to see a traffic study first 23 [5.79%]
- Yes, start October 29, 2015, the day after the 50th Anniversary of the Arch (anniversary + ground breaking in one event) 22 [5.54%]
- Maybe but I need to see the traffic after the new I-70 bridge opens 8 [2.02%]
- Other answer… 7 [1.76%]
- Unsure/no opinion 1 [0.25%]
The other votes were:
- Start today!
- who’s paying? we have other priorities.
- Start immediately–remove the lanes completely, create a boulevard.
- There needs to be a quick and efficient way to bypass downtown from the east.
- Can I get a hell yes?!
- begin now
- Yes! Get rid of the Highway ASAP!
It is clear to me from these results that someone, or a group of persons, against removing the highway, made an effort to throw off the vote count. Also clear is that among those who support replacing the highway with a boulevard favor starting work as soon as possible, even if not done by the 50th anniversary of the Arch.
The following needs to happen:
- Do a very comprehensive traffic study to see how to make the boulevard work in conjunction with other north-south roads.
- Look at redesigning the interchange at the new I-70 bridge so that traffic heading into downtown from the direction of the airport is directed onto a boulevard approach.
- Build the first part of the boulevard between the new bridge and the start of the elevated lanes.
- Change connections to tie in 4th & Broadway into the new boulevard.
- Hold the ground breaking for the rest of the boulevard at the same time as the 50th anniversary of the Arch.
I’d previously noted that four of the five teams in the City+Arch+River competition supported removing the highway. On Thursday last week the 5th team indicated they assumed highway removal after 2015!
This is one of those issues where polling is probably not going to help. You readers are more informed about the issue, however, the general public knows little about. Heck, you'd be amazed at the number of people who do not even know that there is a new I-70 bridge under construction north of downtown.
I knew readers would be supportive, I wanted to see how soon it was wanted.
“It is clear to me from these results that someone, or a group of persons, against removing the highway, made an effort to throw off the vote count.” Umm, no, just a direct result of splitting the vote and a poorly-formatted survey. You gave us one “no” answer, one “no opinion” answer and six (six!) “yes” answers, in varying shades of grey. The majority of those voting support your vision, we just can't agree on timing. Like I said on the previous posting, focusing on timing distracts from the bigger picture. Short of ASAP, it could easily take decades for anything to happen, since it's going to take years to put a funding package together. So if really we want this to happen, we need to speak in a unified voice, not spend time and resources debating 2014 vs. 2015 vs. 2017 vs. 2020!
The problem was not the provided answers but the phrasing of the question. I should have asked, “When should construction on the new boulevard begin?”
Flawed methodology or not, a flood of “no” votes shouldn't mysteriously pop up overnight unless there were shenanigans involved.
The no votes come from a combination of reverse NIMBY and an “If it ain't broke, don't fix it” mindset. If you live or work downtown and walk in this area on a regular basis, then you “get it”. But if you're like Nick, below, or me, before I learned more, then no makes more sense. I walk in this area maybe 2 or 3 times a year, but I drive through once or twice a month. This isn't my 'hood, it's mostly a place to get through / an obstacle to get around, and I know that what's there is the best available option, now.
The reality is that a properly-designed parkway or couplet of one-way streets would work nearly as well in accomodating north-south local traffic, a) once the non-local traffic has the option of the new bridge, and b) people learn / realize / are educated that a new parkway won't be the same slow crawl through downtown as Memorial Drive (especially northbound) is currently. It has a lot less to do with any shenanigans and a lot more to not understanding what is being proposed.
Interesting perspective considering how broke the 1.4 mile stretch really is. The vote count changed too much too quickly to be anything other than shenanigans.
Conceeding shenanigans, to what end?! There never has been any representations that these have been anything other than polls of a small, self-selected sample, no different than polling teabaggers on gun control or reader's choice polls on favorite restaurants (like the ones that identify Taco Bell as the favorite Mexican restaurant or Red Lobster as the best place for seafood). It makes for some interesting discussions, but need to be taken with a certain amount of skepticism.
Bigger picture, it all gets back to funding. Just one example is the need to replace the westbound Boone Bridge, as illustrated by recent weekend closures, and MoDOT's assertion that there are no funds in the pipeline. All five of your closing bullet points have cost implications, a “fiscal note”. Taken alone, they would increase the cost of the new bridge project. But if they're packaged as erither a way of shifting the responsibility of this 1.4 milke stretch from the state to the city, or as a way of significantly reducing the cost to the state of any future reconstruction, then you start to build a constituency to move this beyond the talking and dreaming stage.
Yes, the poll responses are self selected. The pattern of votes in the last few days was unlike anything I have seen before – there was an effort to change the results.
Actually, I do live downtown and worked downtown for 31 year, the last eight at 1 Memorial Drive, right next to I-70, and I find the proposal very problematic. I also walk a lot, including for hours at a time on the arch grounds, so I think that I'm not unfamiliar with the situation. While I generally support the tearing down of urban freeways, this proposal needs more careful thought.
The argument that the traffic volume will be significantly diminished on I-70 with the building of the new bridge is to some degree accurate, but the volume will still be quite high, especially when considering the traffic on what is now Memorial Drive. A very large portion of the residual traffic will be trucks coming destined for I-55 south. So bringing all of that traffic to the surface will actually increase the barrier between the arch grounds and downtown. Rather than some idyllic urban boulevard, I see a treacherous, noisy, polluted major thoroughfare. So much of what I've seen on this proposal (including the subject poll) has been so one-sided as to discourage people to think for themselves, having a good set of facts and form an informed opinion.
It's already a nightmare to cross Memorial Drive. Add another 50,000 vehicles a day to the mix, many of them trucks, and that hardly seems like a complete answer to the problem of access to the Arch grounds. In fact, we could indeed take a bad situation and make it worse.
I do however, advocate a less dramatic action that would indeed solve the problem of access to the Arch grounds, at least the area across from Luther Ely Smith Park. Simply close three blocks of Memorial Drive and re-route traffic to underutilized city streets like Broadway and 4th St. This could be done in a matter of weeks, with the only expense being signage and alterations to signaling. This solution would create complete unobstructed pedestrian access from downtown to the Arch grounds…no street at all to cross, land freed up for a more productive use and more active city streets…all good. Waiting for decades (if ever) to relocated I-70 with a highly questionable outcome while ignoring a low cost but significant, if only partial, solution just doesn't seem like the best answer. At least it deserves some serious discussion. Steve, denigrating the no votes in your poll as simple ballot stuffing is not up to your usual standards of thoughtful analysis.
All five teams have proposed lids over Memorial Drive and the depressed lanes, creating a clear, unsignalized, 100% pedestrian connection between the Old Court House and the Arch grounds. Highway removal and a new boulevard would have to be compatible with that.
and why do we need a lid (which is really a very costly bridge), when simply closing the street will do, and it can be done tomorrow??? We can then put far less costly canopies over the highway openings. This is one of those situations where we people have leaped to a conclusion without thinking it through and are now wedded to idea that seems to have taken on its own mythology. I think we would be far better served by taking the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to remove the highway, build the lids/bridges, etc. and invest it in better public transit or in addressing so many other basic transportation and other needs in the community. There is only so much civic energy and money that we can muster in the City, and to use it all on this proposal, especially when its benefits are illusory, just doesn't work for me…at least not without far more analysis and thought.
Contratrian, since you're posting anonymously, we don't know who the person is behind the voice, but regardless, you do know that there is a design competition underway and the five of the best design teams in the world have proposed a lid over Memorial Drive and also support highway removal as the best way to reconnect downtown to the riverfront, right? They all analyzed the situation for months and came to the same conclusion.
Yes, of course I know that. However, the design teams were affected by the 2015 deadline, so they did not give serious study or carefully analyze this particular proposal. Further, their objectives were quite different and cost was no object. True, we could wait many years for the perfect solution (which in your view would be to build a wide surface roadway and then build a bridge — euphemistically called a “lid” — to deal with pedestrian traffic), or we could start by doing something now that might actually help people in our lifetime. I actually think both approaches can coexist peacefully, but we seem to be eschewing immediate and practical solutions (BTW, I think only one of the design competitors did anything meaningful to get pedestrians across Memorial Drive, which seems like a great mistake) for an idea that will take many years and hundreds of millions of dollars to execute. And before we commit to the perfect solution, we need to have a far better idea of the costs and benefits and have a serious discussion about our priorities for the use of very limited resources. I think it's foolish to commit to a particular solution based on so little information.
BTW, I think the merit of ideas is far more important than anyone's identity. And since an email address is required for posting, none of us are actually anonymous.
Lots of good points Contrarian. Given your interest in this, I wish we could speak directly. I'm one of the City to River organizers. We've put in a lot of time on this issue and thought a lot about the costs, the options, the 2015 deadline, and so on. You're welcome to contact our group to expand on your ideas and work with us. If interested, please contact us at info@citytoriver.org. Thanks.
I agree, and have always said that 4th and Broadway, as a one-way couplet/pair of one-way streets would work better than a new, improved Memorial Drive in moving northbound and southbound traffic, plus it would allow for a partial restoration of the original street grid at the end of the Eads Bridge. In a perfect world, Memorial Drive (3rd Street?) would be a sleepy, narrow, two-way street with stop signs and on-street parking, while the one-way streets (4th & Broadway) would have synchronized traffic signals and limited, if any, on-street parking. For one, it's MUCH easier to synchronize signals if traffic is moving in only one direction, and for two, the streets next to the arch need to be designed to let drivers either savor the moment and/or be confused in peace, neither of which would be possible with Lake Shore Dive-like Memorial Parkway.
I agree basically with contrarian, but would note that shifting traffic to fourth and to broadway would result in the same problem that now exists with memorial drive. I would add that my wife and i went to the arch several months ago on a weekday mid morning and crossed memorial drive to the old courthouse. I wasn't that bad–not much different than crossing michigan ave to the Art institute in Chicago.
Crap, I hate that casino. The tower is bad enough, but the squat building and garage have all of the charm and aesthetic appeal of the backside of a coal-fired power station. Dont' even get me started on the electronic sign. So, um, classy. As for the highway removal: get it going as fast as budgetary and political realities will allow. Who knows, maybe Kit “I've never seen a drink I didn't like” Bond might throw us evil libruls here in the Big, Bad City a bone and get the ball rolling before he leaves for his new lobbying job.
In my mind this is Clare's baby as any realistic opportunities for federal funding will be the next multiyear transportation bill which is already passed due, thanks to both Kit and Clare. It won't be taken up until after the Nov elections and Clare will be the Senior Senator. Kit will be retired. Which might not be a bad consequence as this needs strong political and consensus to happen. Time might help more then hurt.
True. Hence my nod to political realities. In my hypothetical scenario, Mr. Bond chats up the idea with some of his fellow party members and asks for support before he checks out. I've not heard what he plans to do after he retires from the Senate, but for a good number of them, the prospect of passing up a big paycheck “working” for a lobbying firm is just too good to ignore.
Currently when I need to go to the industrial area of North Broadway from South City it takes me less then a couple minutes to pass through the entirety of downtown on Hwy 70. If this gets changed to a boulevard, it will take who knows how long to pass through the downtown area.
I think most St. Louis residents have no interest in driving down a street like Kingshighway to go through downtown.
Is a street like kingshighway more walkable than the current situation? Maybe only slightly. I know I don't like to walk across such a busy street.
Nick, your comments about having to drive a mile and half on a blvd floors me. Having to get a job forced me to move. The bonus of moving is that fact that I spent an hour and half in traffic this evening (would live closer but my wife would have the hour and half commute instead). Working as well as living in such cities Chicago, Houston, New York, LA, Miami, and now the Bay Area of San Fran has pretty much convinced me that St. Louis is easily one of the most convenient auto centric cities to get around in. I thought that St. Louis would even come to understand that themselves after surviving the Hwy 40. But to no avail, you sound like a five minute drive is eternity or termendous inconvenience to your lifestyle. Heck, like the rest of us you probably waste that amount of time on this blog at work.
Compared to many other cities, yes, “St. Louis is easily one of the most convenient auto centric cities to get around in.” Which gets to the crux of the problem, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it”. This the Show Me state. You gotta convince “me” that taking away an existing crosstown connection, however imperfect, will make my life better (and yes, it is all about me). We put up with the Highway 40 closures because we were promised / convinced that “it would be worth it”, and for many of us, it was.
The bulk of the arguments being made for removing the depressed section focus on urban design issues and improving the connections between the arch grounds and downtown, not on “fixing” existing traffic issues. Remember, this is MoDOT property and their mission is to move traffic, not slow it down or to knowingly increase congestion, nor to improve local neighborhoods.
To make removing the depressed section a reality, two things need to happen. One, it needs to be cheaper than reconstructing / widening / capping the existing depressed section and the approaches to the Poplar Street bridge, and two, people need to be educated that the new Memorial Drive won't be the existing, dysfunctional Memorial Drive (fear of the unknown, no different than the fears preceeding the Highway 40 closures). Both are doable, but neither is happening, yet . . . .
The depressed lanes are the least of my concern. If you can't see how broken the stretch from the PSB to Cass is I don't know that I can help you.
Hey, I get it, but you and I are just a couple of voices. You / I /we / others need to convince MoDOT and the politicians that this needs to happen, not because “how broken the stretch” is from an urban design standpoint, but because it makes financial sense. Heck, the same negative urban design arguments can be made about pretty much any stretch of freeway in any urban area (I-44 thru the Hill, I-70 thru north city, to name just two, here). The DOT's primary job is to move vehicles, not be a warm-and-fuzzy neighbor, and they're extremely reluctant to revert to a more-congested alternative out of pure altruism. But “show me the money” and you start to get their attention . . .
The politicians are being reached, many understand the issues involved.
T Ekren –
I'd be very interested in talking with you re. your relocation from STL to the Bay Area. I have had the opposite experience (relocating from the Bay Area to STL – twice), and would love to compare notes and experiences. If interested, please email me at rbonasch@sbcglobal.net or post a comment at stlrising.blogspot.com. Thanks!
It sounds nice that we can make use of the space by the dome; however, a lot of people that live in the city are not really considering the many daily workers that need that stretch of 70 to back and fourth to the county. Eliminating that stretch would cause complete grid-lock for those that live east of down town. A new bridge could help with some of the traffic yes; however, I think there needs to be a better solution before we go that route.
There is simply no such thing as gridlock in St. Louis. I suggest people that report otherwise leave this little burgh and try visiting an actual big city that has gridlock.