Highway Lid Concept is Really a Pricey & Inadequate Tunnel

For over 40 years I-70 has been a major barrier dividing downtown St. Louis from the the Mississippi River.  Isolating Laclede’s Landing.  Hovering over the Missouri side as you exit the historic Eads Bridge:

At the Gateway Arch the freeway dips into what us known as the “depressed lanes.”  Depressing indeed. For years now the political establishment has been talking about the idea of a lid over the sunken highway lanes.  Sounds simple enough, just put a lid over the top.

The problem is, “lid” is the wrong word.  The correct word is tunnel.  A lid implies you might use a crane to set it in place just as the final piece of the adjacent Arch was set.  But for our officials to keep saying lid is misleading.  They want to put the highway into a new tunnel.

The Highway 67/Lindbergh tunnel under the extended runways at Lambert Airport is probably the closest example to what will be required next to the Arch.  Hardly a lid.  The ventilation and security requirements of this tunnel contributed to the billion dollar runway price tag.  Ouch.

The extensive tunneling required for the latest MetroLink expansion drove up the price tag for that project.  Face it, tunnels are expensive.  In many cases, too expensive.

I can’t help but think of the biggest of the big in terms of tunnel projects:

The Big Dig was the most expensive highway project in the U.S. Although the project was estimated in 1985 at $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2006),^[3] over $14.6 billion ($8.08 billion in 1982 dollars) had been spent in federal and state tax dollars as of 2006. A July 17, 2008 article in ^{[update][update]}The Boston Globe stated, “In all, the project will cost an additional $7 billion in interest, bringing the total to a staggering $22 billion, according to a Globe review of hundreds of pages of state documents. It will not be paid off until 2038.”  (Source: Wikipedia)

Estimates of under $3 billion but ending up over $22 billion.  Our tunnel will not have the complexity of Boston’s Big Dig but I think that project serves as a lesson for cost overruns and delays to completion.  Our own Cross County Metrolink expansion is a local lesson on costs and completion deadlines.

At least in Boston the Big Dig addressed how their Central Artery freeway had divided their city.

Above is one of many points where the former elevated freeway divided Boston.  Their expensive tunnel resolved the division issues not for a mere 3 blocks but for more than a mile.

But in St. Louis our tunnel would resolve access to the Arch grounds at the center only.  My solution, first advanced in August 2005, is to remove the freeway lanes once I-70 is routed across the new river bridge currently being planned:

So imagine the existing I-70 removed from the PSB to the new bridge (North of Laclede’s Landing & the proposed Bottle District). In its place a wide and grand boulevard lined with trees and shops. The adjacent street grid is reconnected at every block. Pedestrians can easily cross the boulevard not only at the Arch but anywhere along the distance between the bridges. Eads Bridge and the King Bridge both land cars onto the boulevard and into then dispersed into the street grid. The money it would take to cover I-70 for 3 blocks in front of the Arch can go much further not trying to cover an interstate highway. Joining the riverfront and Laclede’s Landing to the rest of downtown will naturally draw people down Washington Avenue to the riverfront.

In one bold decision we can take back our connection to the river that shaped our city. The decision must be made now. The interchange for the new bridge is being designed now — we’ve only got one chance to get it right. Similarly, the lid project in front of the Arch could shift to a removed I-70 and connecting boulevard design before we are too far along the current path.

We are at a crossroads at this point with three major projects involving billions of dollars and affecting St. Louis for at least the next half century. Removing I-70 would, in twenty years, be seen as a pivotal decision. Will our government leaders have the courage to make such a decision?

In the four years since I wrote those words more people agree.  Some are banding together to sell the concept to the region, moving the idea forward.  Property owners along this section of interstate that will no longer be I-70 favor the idea.  The problem is our leadership is still stuck on the costly lid concept.  They want to address 3 blocks rather than 30 blocks — for 10 times the cost.  Sounds about like St. Louis’ leadership.

The problem is they have….well…tunnel vision.  They see only a problem at the center of the Arch whereas most of us see the access problem along the length of the highway as it slices through downtown. Examples of problems that will not be addressed by a tunnel:

We can fix all of the above with a tree-lined boulevard.  Remember, this 1.5 mile stretch will no longer be I-70.  Those drivers using these lanes as a pass through can still use the boulevard to get North-South.  The choice is simple, repair a large portion of the downtown and near North side where it has been divided by a 1.5 mile long stretch of highway or focus on 3 blocks for at least twice the price.  The solution is a no-brainer to me.

The first thing we must do is get our officials to stop insulting our intelligence with the overly simplistic “lid” idea.  The highway is not a Tupperware container that you can just close up with a simple snap-on lid.  Even if the price tag were the same, the boulevard concept reconnects much more of the city — 1.5 miles vs. 3 blocks.

Unfortunately our officials are all talking the same 3 block tunnel.  Many have a say from the Mayor to MoDOT to the National Park Service.  Getting them to be open to other, more encompassing, solutions will be challenging.

Take this week’s poll in the right sidebar to vote on how to reconnect the city to the river.

– Steve Patterson

Let the FUD Campaign Begin

Voters in St. Louis County will have a smoke-free measure on their November ballot.  Those addicted to nicotine to campaign against the measure.

The measure does have flaws — exemption of casino floors and bars that serve little food.  A state-wide smoke-free measure, more likely once we

The rhetoric will be high, pure FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt).

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Bill Hannegan, who fought the county bill, said he thought opponents would have a real chance of defeating it at the polls.

People are angry about “the way it was handled and the unfairness of the law,” he said.

“For example, bowling alleys are out of luck. You can smoke on a casino gaming floor but can’t smoke at all in a bowling alley. Bowlers will be angry about this.”

This bowler will be pleased.  What Hannegan should have said is the nicotine-addicted bowler will be angry.

Next month the St. Louis Board of Aldermen will resume consideration of a bill that would create a smoke-free St. Louis, triggered by a measure in St. Louis County.  Hopefully the existence of the ballot item in the county will help the city measure pass.  In turn, I hope a passed city ordinance would motivate county voters to pass their measure.  If anything the fragmentation in our region may stretch the opposition forces thinly.  Now is the time for officials in St. Charles County and Jefferson County to push their own measures.

The poll this week, in the upper right sidebar, asks both if you support or oppose the St. Louis County ballot measure and if you think it will pass or fail.

If passed St. Louis County would go smoke-free in January 2011.

– Steve Patterson

Welcome to Houston

Hello from Texas!

A little over a year into property ownership in this town in which I have been resident for two years has been an education in “development without borders.”  As many are no doubt aware, Houston, the fourth largest city in the country (a title once held by St. Louis), has no zoning laws.  In addition, the building requirements are also quite minimal.  Oh and historic preservation laws?  Hardly.  It makes for largely unregulated market-based development, and it’s interesting to see the results.

My current home is “Inside the Loop,” as we say here, which means it is inside the innermost highway ring of the city in which downtown is at the center.  As urban as the location may be, it is a far cry from the layout I grew up with in Dogtown.  My neighborhood is a redeveloped community that started turning over in the late 90’s, after Houston removed its minimum lot size restriction that had resulted in the building of tiny bungalows on huge lots for decades prior.  It was a great plan for creating the urban density the city lacks, but it left the planning of that re-creation largely up to the developers who now buy the properties, tear them down, and squeeze massive townhouses into the space like mini cul-de-sacs.

Now that my neighborhood has almost completely turned over, it is easy to see where a little guidance from the local planning commission might have prevented a few of the annoyances we currently face over things like parking, sidewalks, and utilities.  Alas, the “damage” has been done, and the residents are left to make it work somehow.  This is good, in a way.  It promotes community activism and participation in what your neighborhood becomes.  When people decide they no longer can tolerate this style of community, they will move to an area that more closely fulfills their needs.  If enough people turn away from this area, developers can tear down the current stuff and start all over with a new “product.”  Market-based planning at its finest.  It’s not very “green” but there are no rules against it, so it will happen.

It’s too early to predict how all of this will play out, so for now, I give you my neighborhood – and a couple of others later on – as they currently stand, along with the issues that come with them.

A well-kept version of the bungalows that used to dominate this neighborhood:

This is what is left of two nearby bungalows by 4 in the afternoon, after receiving demo permits that morning:

A typical townhouse cul de sac development. The prevailing design of the three story townhouse consists of two front entrances: one for the household cars and a much smaller one for the people. In some designs, the “front entrance” is on the side of the house. It is not very inviting for guests. Street parking is awkward as well, as can be seen in the following picture.

Another typical set up across from the cul de sacs – driveways on one side, narrow parking on the other. When this area started to redevelop, the city did not seem to pay any attention to the narrow streets, the awkward utilities, or the drainage options. As a result, the developers are able to build all the way up to the narrow right of way, and the residents play chicken with each other down the streets. The loser ends up in the drainage ditch or backing into the closest available driveway. There is talk of making the neighborhood streets one way and moving to permit parking. This will be an interesting issue to watch.

It’s been an interesting adjustment to change my expectations of what I think neighborhoods should have and what is provided. I’ll try to tackle a few of the areas of my neighborhood I would have liked to see done differently, plus show off a few of the other trends in other neighborhoods and a little bit of real estate politics down here as I go along. Be patient though! I also have to get your natural gas delivered safely to keep my own lights on!

– Liz Rutherford

Most Important Non-Project for St. Louis

This week’s poll attempts to cover those non-project items that could improve St. Louis:

• Reduce the number of wards from the current 28
• City becomes St. Louis County’s 92nd Municipality
• Elimination of city earnings tax
• Switch to non-partisan local elections
• City takes over police department from state of Missouri
• None of the above
• Unsure

You will note that schools & crime are not on the list.  We can’t just pass a measure that improves schools or reduces crime.   Options on how to accomplish these will be on a future poll.

For this post I ask that you stay on subject.  If you can think of something that could be offered on a ballot item please suggest it below.  The poll is in the right sidebar.

– Steve Patterson

The Most Important Single Project For St. Louis Is…

Readers have started leaving comments about this week’s poll on unrelated posts. So here is a poll-specific post.  The question is simple: Which of the following do you think is the most important future project for St. Louis?

• Improved Arch connection
• Riverfront
• Gateway Mall
• St. Louis Centre transformation, removal of skywalks
• Ballpark Village
• Kiel Opera House
• Tucker bridge
• Mississippi River bridge
• Chouteau’s Landing
• Chouteau’s Pond
• Bottle District
• None of the above
• Unsure

I didn’t include Paul McKee’s NorthSide project because I view that as more an overall framework to guide numerous projects.  The poll is in the right sidebar until Sunday 8/2/09.

– Steve Patterson