urbanSTL

$575 million for fixing up the Truman Sports Complex? Yikes, for another $100 (new Busch costed $375m) million they could probably build two new stadiums. I'm one that hopes KC doesn't 'fix up' their stadiums, I'd like to see them move the baseball stadium downtown. I know that's not necessarily on topic, but just a thought I had.



As for the lid, I don't understand why it's taking so long to get done. I understand construction times, but this thing has plagued the city since the Arch was built, why is it that we can't seem to figure out how to get it started.

Blzhrpmd2 wrote: Build more offices ( residential, too) between civil courts and kiener and get more bodies in the area who would in fact use this space as they are hoping will happen.

I agree in theory but I think you can develop plenty of density without affecting the park space between Civil Courts and the arch... I think this string of parks is very valuable - or could be.... the parks to the west are less 'valuable' in my opinion. Develop the mall all you want west of the Civil courts building, but before you take away the parks east, when those parks are finally getting a possible boost (with all the development in that park to downtown and the lid etc... lets develop all the surface lots in the area...... that would increase density enough.



The lid shouldn't take more than a yr once they get through the red tape - which might be nearly impossible. Also if you don?t do something to make the crossing pedestrian friendly - it will be worthless. Nice wide sidewalks, well light signs, etc. Promote people to ride metro to the 8th and pine stop and walk through downtown, BV, OPO, then to the arch. Right now - visitors see on all the metro signage that arch is at the "arch-Laclede's Landing" station.... this should DEFINATELY be changed if the lid is implemented.

I think this will look good whenever they decide to build. Although, I wonder if this will end up just like the lid over I-71 in Cincinnati-- in that they never built it!

Could some of you transportation planners out there explain to me why the hell we can't just close down Memorial Drive altogether for those 3 blocks? Reroute all traffic to Pine, Walnut, Spruce, Broadway and 4th. They would have to modify the access ramps to I-70 and the Poplar Street Bridge a bit, but it seems feasible to me. If you closed off Memorial Dr. and landscaped those three blocks properly, you wouldn't need a lid or a bridge. It would probably be quite a bit cheaper too.

jlblues wrote:Could some of you transportation planners out there explain to me why the hell we can't just close down Memorial Drive altogether for those 3 blocks?

Do you mean close the interstate downtown? I-70?



Has anyone thought about connecting the new river bridge to the old north - south distributor interchange, and closing down I-70 through downtown? Kind of like what Portland Oregon did? The city could sell the land where I-70 used to be for a small fortune.



http://www.newriverbridge.org/pdf/MissouriMap.pdf



http://www.midwestroads.com/missouri

Gary Kreie wrote:

jlblues wrote:Could some of you transportation planners out there explain to me why the hell we can't just close down Memorial Drive altogether for those 3 blocks?

Has anyone thought about connecting the new river bridge to the old north - south distributor interchange, and closing down I-70 through downtown? Kind of like what Portland Oregon did? The city could sell the land where I-70 used to be for a small fortune.



http://www.newriverbridge.org/pdf/MissouriMap.pdf



http://www.midwestroads.com/missouri

Yes, but Please tell me you're not seriously suggesting we tear down a hundred city blocks to build I-755. Those plans died for good reason. Also, Portland is more famous for not building highways than it is building them.



Lastly, I think jlblues meant closing Memorial Drive, and thereby eliminating the danger to pedestrians, and turning the Market and Chestnut bridges over I-70 into pedestrian bridges. Aside from I-70 still being a hole in the ground and some downtown commuters needing to reroute to Broadway, I don't think it's that bad an idea.

jlblues wrote:Could some of you transportation planners out there explain to me why the hell we can't just close down Memorial Drive altogether for those 3 blocks?

At some of the "town hall" meetings about the lid last year, it was mentioned that Memorial Drive is currently a major freight route for traffic from I-64 onto I-70. This is expected to change with the new MRB, if that happens. If the MRB does not happen, all of the lid plans will need to be reevaluated, in my opinion.



Another reason for decking was the noise level from the depressed I-70. If Memorial was completely abandoned, this could be address with plantings at the edges, I imagine. Of course, the near-completion Downtown traffic studies all identify Memorial and Chestnut as a present and future major outbound path, so closing that off nearly calls for starting over on traffic planning.

Please tell me you're not seriously suggesting we tear down a hundred city blocks to build I-755. Those plans died for good reason. Also, Portland is more famous for not building highways than it is building them.

No, I'm not. I said "connect[ing] the new river bridge to the old north - south distributor interchange", which already exists. Not -- build the entire I-755 from I-70 to I-55.



It looks like the end of the bridge isn't that far from the interchange now and could possibly be routed onto existing streets that are underutilized now to get traffic to the North - South distributor.



Portland used to have a highway blocking downtown access to their riverfront. They got rid of it in the '70's.



This link talks about that , and how Seattle is now considering taking out a major downtown viaduct. It also discusses what other cities did to simply remove interstates and use existing downtown streets.



http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transport ... uct23.html

phobia wrote:

jlblues wrote:Could some of you transportation planners out there explain to me why the hell we can't just close down Memorial Drive altogether for those 3 blocks?

At some of the "town hall" meetings about the lid last year, it was mentioned that Memorial Drive is currently a major freight route for traffic from I-64 onto I-70. This is expected to change with the new MRB, if that happens. If the MRB does not happen, all of the lid plans will need to be reevaluated, in my opinion.



Another reason for decking was the noise level from the depressed I-70. If Memorial was completely abandoned, this could be address with plantings at the edges, I imagine. Of course, the near-completion Downtown traffic studies all identify Memorial and Chestnut as a present and future major outbound path, so closing that off nearly calls for starting over on traffic planning.

Thanks, I figured the reason was something like that. Of course, the question is, they are going to spend $50 million to build a lid and add landscaping, to make the area quieter and more tourist friendly...and yet there are still going to be semis rolling down Memorial Dr. every few seconds - does that make any sense?



It really is pretty amazing when you think about it that the only way for freight traffic to transfer between the two busiest highways in the region, is to take a city street, right in front of the regions biggest tourist attraction. Maybe we should take that $50 mil and use it as a down payment on fixing that problem, instead of using it to patch the problem, while possibly creating more problems?

The new MRB still would not fix 64/70 connections. You would still have to get off downtown 70E to 64W, or drive over the new bridge and come back over the Poplar. Same applies for 64E to 70W connection.



The double-decker Poplar design is a nightmare. Any possible 70/64 interchange would be 70 feet tall and would require the leveling of the Millenium Hotel Complex. I always wondered if this design faux pas was because US 40 was not part of interstate system when Poplar was built?



I wish Memorial was configured somewhat like Joe Edwards proposed years ago. A liner two-lane street right over the depressed section. On either side would be retail/ground floor--residential above. He envisioned Memorial Drive as somewhat like Delmar in the loop. Call it STL's little Michigan Ave.



Traffic solution? How about a new ramp feeding from Northbound Tucker to 64W (left lane entrance). Use the 7th/Park and Soulard Market exits (which seem to have low traffic counts). Chouteau to Tucker would be the new traffic route 70E to 64W. The 64 E to 70 W connect already exists...exit broadway S to Soulard Market ramp. Maybe better signage would help there? Jefferson to Cole makes sense on the West and North perimiter too... Now you can see what the 22nd Street Parkway would have solved, though.

marc buxton wrote:Now you can see what the 22nd Street Parkway would have solved, though.

That is what I was thinking as well, but I can understand why those that live and work along 22nd St. may not want numerous semis rolling through their neighborhood at 45+ mph. I have lived on a street like that and it is incredibly annoying, not to mention unsafe. Every time a semi hit a pothole, my entire building would shake, stuff would fall off shelves, etc.



I assume what we are talking about here is local freight traffic. If we simply prohibited large trucks from Memorial Drive, all of the through freight traffic would adjust. There are still plenty of options to pass through the region without having to transfer between 64 and 70 at downtown. Local truck traffic would obviously have to take city streets. It seems feasible to have several designated corridors on city streets, rather than just one or two, and prohibit truck traffic on all other city streets. This is hardly my area of expertise, but I know similar solutions have worked elsewhere. The problem is one of enforcement, I suppose. Does the city have the resources and/or willingness to enforce such a prohibition?

Plans are in place for the massive amount land under the 22nd street interchange of I-64/US 40 to be reverted back to the City for reintroduction of the street grid and infill development. Ideally, ramps at both 14th and 22nd could then be replaced by new ramps at 18th, which will soon feed into the Truman Parkway, and thus provide access to I-44/55.

southslider wrote:Plans are in place for the massive amount land under the 22nd street interchange of I-64/US 40 to be reverted back to the City for reintroduction of the street grid and infill development. Ideally, ramps at both 14th and 22nd could then be replaced by new ramps at 18th, which will soon feed into the Truman Parkway, and thus provide access to I-44/55.

That would do the trick if Truman connects cleanly to 40/64.

Funny how we talked about this today and the Illinois King Bridge plan broke just a couple of hours later...Sounds like a possible solution for a whole lot less money. Only four more lanes, but still a dedicated I-70 crossing. With this plan, 70 to 40/64 connections will be made by going over both bridges while looping over to the east side. Memorial could be a completely different street under this scenario.

bry456 wrote:I think this will look good whenever they decide to build. Although, I wonder if this will end up just like the lid over I-71 in Cincinnati-- in that they never built it!

Actually, a large portion of I-71 is already "capped" and the rest is planned for the "Central Riverfront Park" (see SSP & UrbanOhio for "Central RIverfront Park).



When at street level I-71 is not very visible, unless you are standing over the gaps, or in one of the towers overlooking 3rd St.

Press release at MayorSlay.com names the next designers selected for the lid project.

Danforth Foundation names I-70 'lid' designer

St. Louis Business Journal - 2:35 PM CDT Wednesday



The Danforth Foundation said Wednesday it contracted with Thomas Balsley as the lead designer of the proposed Arch Grounds Connector and Memorial Drive streetscape.



The Danforth Foundation is funding and overseeing an engineering and urban design effort to determine if it is possible to pay for, build and maintain a deck, or "lid," over Interstate 70 from the Arch grounds to downtown St. Louis between Pine and Walnut streets.



Additionally, Leni Schwendinger has been retained to design illumination for the Connector and streetscape. The selection was made in partnership with the National Park Service, the city of St. Louis and Great Rivers Greenway District, according to a release.



In April, a Request for Qualifications was issued for designers, which resulted in 16 submittals representing 30 companies from four countries. After interviewing a number of candidates, Balsley and Schwendinger were selected to join the Arcturis team. Arcturis was named last February by the Danforth Foundation to lead a project development and engineering team.



This team will develop three alternative designs for the Connector Project. One design would keep Memorial Drive in its current location, one design would consolidate the north and south bound lanes of Memorial Drive to the east side of the current right-of-way, and the third design would be developed by the design team.



The work will be completed in January 2007 and include opportunities for public comment, the Danforth Foundation said in a release.



With more than 30 years of experience, Thomas Balsley has been commissioned for the Skyline Park in Denver; Gantry Plaza State Park in Queens, N.Y.; the Detroit Riverfront Vision Plan; Portland, Ore.; and the Gate City in Tokyo.



Leni Schwendinger Light Projects LTD creates lighting environments for architectural and public spaces all over the world. Recent projects include Tide and Traffic, a site-specific integrated light installation on the Kingston Bridge in Glasgow, Scotland and the designed illumination of the Coney Island Parachute Jump in Brooklyn, N.Y., which debuts in July.



Link

Man, good pick by the Danforth Foundation. This designer seems to have a good track record, just by looking at projects on their website: http://www.tbany.com/



They've done a ton of work for New York City, as well as Portland, Singapore, Tokyo and more. Take a look at some of the projects, good looking stuff.

Let's put them to work on Kiener Plaza while they're here!

JMedwick wrote:^ Thats a great idea Deb and one of the frustrating things about the narrow focus taken by the lid folks. I mean, why make a lid when you should treat it as part and parcel of a large plan with Kiener and any prospective changes to Memorial Drive/ I-70 with a new MRB. Doesn't make sense too me.

I thought the lid was a way to increase pedestrian traffic into the city? Maybe once (if) the lid's in place, then they'll extend the progress westward. I didn't think the depressed section (aside from being capped, obviuosly) was changing with the new MRB - it was being left as a way to get to hwys 44/55/64 from hwy 70.



BTW, what happened to the three proposals from a year or so ago - are those out the window now, or is TBA being hired to make the sketches into reality?



-RBB

One thing I have not seen discussed is that a new I-70 Bridge would basically eliminate the need for the I-70 connection from the Poplar Street Bridge through Downtown.



Just backfill the Depressed Section and start from scratch.



How do you get from 55,44 and 40/64 to 70?



1. First I think a vast majority of the traffic on that section of I-70 is pass through traffic, not local so most would take the new bridge.



2. The main Highway 55, 44, 40/64 connection to I-70 would now be located immediately across the river in IL. Yes you would be forced to cross the river and come back over the river, only about 2 miles longer than the current path along I-70 depressed section, but with the improvements it will also be a smoother path. Check out the map.



3. Memorial Drive can accodate the remaining traffic (no semis allowed). Charge a toll for those entering I-70 or 40/64 from Memorial to discourage use as a connector and raise money for the the "cap".



What do you think?

^Actually, I think most of the traffic on the depressed section IS local. It's the bridge, which has more through traffic, including big-rig freight going between the East/Midwest and Southwest. Since 170 never connected to 44 or 55, many local commuters, localized freight and deliveries will actually cut through the City, rather than take 270.



However, since local traffic is mostly using the depressed section, especially after 70 is removed from the PSB, local traffic could certainly drive on a new Memorial Boulevard, instead of a depressed expressway between the Poplar and new bridges. IOW, I certainly wouldn't mind if the depressed section were nixed as part of a new MRB.