City to River - Removing I-70 Downtown

[ttricamo]

In the "Report to the Community" schematics for the 2015 site plan, I see that we have a "lid" over roughly a one city block wide tract of I-70.

Has the "Boulevard" ship sailed?

[zun1026]

In the "Report to the Community" schematics for the 2015 site plan, I see that we have a "lid" over roughly a one city block wide tract of I-70.

Has the "Boulevard" ship sailed?

Alex suggested in another thread that the BLVD could still work. I hope that it comes a reality.

[stlsteve87]

I was extremely disappointed that Michael Van Valkenburgh didn't even mention the concept of highway removal on Wednesday. I was expecting him to address it when he talked about the cap. At least a passing "this wouldn't preclude further development" would have been nice.

[realclear]

in theory, the boulevard could dip under the lid.

[Joe Huber]

I don't know if this link has already been posted but this is a link to the Congress for New Urbanism's initiative called, "Highways to Boulevards." It's pretty interesting to read the success stories in Portland and Milwaukee and the ongoing campaigns in New Orleans and Seattle.

http://www.cnu.org/highways

[hebeter]

St. Louis is not the only city debating the highway removal option
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0302/ ... mainColumn

[ttricamo]

bump!

Alex - any more news on this initiative? I was driving over the PSB on Monday and thought about how cool it would be to have a Boulevard in place of that blasted highway.

[Alex Ihnen]

Yes. This is a very long-term project, but City to River continues to work hard to build partnerships in the effort. The Congress for New Urbanism has placed I-70 downtown on their list of "Freeways Without Futures" (http://www.cnu.org/node/3472#4). By itself, the list doesn't do much, but it's a great recognition by those with expertise that this 1.4 miles of I-70 isn't needed. We continue to educate people on what a boulevard in place of I-70 would mean, as many have heard of the proposal, but know few details. The removal of the elevated lanes from Washington Avenue to the new bridge has received an especially enthusiastic response.

[ttricamo]

Awesome! Keep up the fight.

Imagine if you had the entire St. Louis County power structure behind this initiative rather than just the City and MoDot. Behold, the (potential) beauty of regionalism.

[doug]

It could be a long battle but doesn't need to be with leadership expressing the people's will to remove expressways. Toronto has had several proposals to remove the Gardiner which divides downtown, to a greater extent than St. Louis, from Lake Ontario. At least in Toronto they have studied removal as an alternative of several proposals (none of which occurred). The problems are similar: politicians with divided constituencies, agencies and their turf, and finally cost. It is a lot bigger. Yet unlike Toronto the depressed lanes are one of the most underutilized sections of highway in the region. It will be unnecessary with the new bridge. Presumably there will be fewer voters upset with its closure. Moreover, our region survived the I-64 rebuild. This is why I don't understand the absence of a cost benefit study and environmental assessment of removing the highway?

We have advocates for removal citing potentially more than a billion in private investment with costs well under 100 million. Since the new I-64, the Metrolink expansion, and the new Mississippi River Bridge were far more expensive, shouldn't this at least be evaluated? Surely, in a democratic society, such community support for highway removal merits a study with several proposals reviewed on their merits. With the amount of money directed to the Arch grounds why not? The rest of the improvements can go forward with the highway study occurring simultaneously. There's no harm in doing a study, thus it should be undertaken while we have the opportunity (federal dollars and friendly administration -- at least before Jeff Rainford began channeling the Tea Party on KWMU today regarding income tax) to move forward with highway removal if it is feasible.

[iceburg]

Article from the folks at the Urban Land Institute highlighting several notable cases in which divisive interstates have been (or will be) torn down.

http://urbanland.uli.org/Articles/2011/ ... leyFreeway

[stlien]

Nice vid

[Alex Ihnen]

^ Yep, still working hard to get St. Louis included in things like this. On another note, City to River has been included as part of the Regional Plan for Sustainable Development effort (Technical Planning Committee).

[stlien]

^ Yep, still working hard to get St. Louis included in things like this. On another note, City to River has been included as part of the Regional Plan for Sustainable Development effort (Technical Planning Committee).

Congrats. Is the Regional Plan for Sustainable Development a new effort?

[jakektu]

Thank you for your recent e-mail about the section of interstate 70 in
downtown St. Louis between the future location of the new Mississippi River Bridge and the Poplar Street Bridge.

There are no plans to consider a study to replace that section of
interstate. When I-70 moves north to the new Mississippi River Bridge,
this stretch of interstate will be redesignated I-44 to ensure that there remains a north-south interstate on the east side of St. Louis.

According to the Federal Highway Administration, there is very little
precedent for decommissioning an interstate highway and that process would be highly scrutinized. The plans currently underway will meet the requirements of the project, to include creating an easier pedestrian
access between downtown and the arch and a project completion date of
October 28, 2015.

We believe that the current plan that we are designing with our partners,
and will unveil to the public sometime next spring, will not only further
open up the Arch grounds and the park to the many visitors and downtown residents, but will also handle the anticipated traffic levels for the downtown area after the new Mississippi River Bridge has started carrying I-70 traffic.

v/r

Andrew Gates
Customer Relations, MoDOT St. Louis District
1590 Woodlake Dr.
Chesterfield, MO 63017
phone (314) 453-1808 cell (314) 223-8003 fax (573) 526-0085
NEXTEL 140*2*1086
[email protected]

"Our mission is to provide a world-class transportation experience that
delights our customers and promotes a prosperous Missouri."