Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > St. Louis
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-12-2010, 10:22 PM
 
14 posts, read 35,419 times
Reputation: 14

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by aragx6 View Post
2. The city won't be able to annex those areas until the city is technically a part of the county. Who knows when that will happen. But I am in agreement that it should. That said, just annexing for the sake of annexing isn't all that useful, and some of the municipalities you mentioned have no real reason to want to be annexed. They're doing just fine on their own.

5. Don't just hope that this will happen. Get involved! There is a killer plan out there to really pull downtown and the riverfront/arch together, but it won't happen without public support. City to River
I realize some municipalities dont want/need to be annexed, but i feel like there are alot of cities that could become part of STL and still retain their own identity. They would just be neighborhoods, like Soulard, Tower Grove, CWE, etc.

What's City to River? (sorry, we don't hear about this stuff in west county lol)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-13-2010, 07:10 AM
 
Location: South St Louis
4,358 posts, read 4,523,803 times
Reputation: 3144
^It's a move to rejoin the downtown area with the riverfront, which has of course been long-separated by I-70. Some say to "put a lid" on the highway, while others simply want it removed altogether. The advantage of a lid (creating a tunnel) is that people would still get to use the highway. The advantage of removal is that it's said to be the cheaper alternative (no estimates have been presented.) I vote for the lid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2010, 08:02 AM
 
Location: Tower Grove East, St. Louis, MO
12,063 posts, read 31,485,827 times
Reputation: 3798
The proposed "lid" is only three blocks as opposed to a mile and a half under City to River's boulevard plan. The new bustle on Washington would still be completely cut off from the river front, as opposed to the boulevard plan, which would add a busy vibrant street corner at Washington and the new Memorial Blvd.

Because they are building the new Mississippi River bridge that will divert 70 traffic north of downtown will make that current strecth of 70 redundant for almost everyone, this is the first time such a plan could really be possible.

Those who are heading across the city and continuing on 70 won't be affected at all, and it will actually be easier for those who are going to destinations downtown itself because there will no longer be limited on and off ramps.

Approximately 50,000 cars per day would need to use the boulevard -- and we already have a boulevard doing that in St. Louis right now -- Kingshighway.

And while official estimates have not been released on the price, they've done some nice approximation using the figures from the recent Hwy 40 rebuild. It's got to be one of the easisest road projects ever as there's nothing to clear. Just basic demo, then infill, then build a boulevard.

For much more -- including the ever growing list of supporters -- make sure to check out the link I provided to their Web site in my last post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2010, 02:20 PM
 
Location: Clayton, MO
1,521 posts, read 3,582,024 times
Reputation: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by lancerbaseball5 View Post
What's City to River? (sorry, we don't hear about this stuff in west county lol)
That's because you aren't looking. Want to know about EVERYTHING happening in St. Louis... www.urbanstl.com/forum (http://www.urbanstl.com/forum - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2010, 05:50 PM
 
Location: South St Louis
4,358 posts, read 4,523,803 times
Reputation: 3144
Quote:
Originally Posted by aragx6 View Post
The proposed "lid" is only three blocks as opposed to a mile and a half under City to River's boulevard plan. The new bustle on Washington would still be completely cut off from the river front, as opposed to the boulevard plan, which would add a busy vibrant street corner at Washington and the new Memorial Blvd.

Because they are building the new Mississippi River bridge that will divert 70 traffic north of downtown will make that current strecth of 70 redundant for almost everyone, this is the first time such a plan could really be possible.

Those who are heading across the city and continuing on 70 won't be affected at all, and it will actually be easier for those who are going to destinations downtown itself because there will no longer be limited on and off ramps.

Approximately 50,000 cars per day would need to use the boulevard -- and we already have a boulevard doing that in St. Louis right now -- Kingshighway.

And while official estimates have not been released on the price, they've done some nice approximation using the figures from the recent Hwy 40 rebuild. It's got to be one of the easisest road projects ever as there's nothing to clear. Just basic demo, then infill, then build a boulevard.

For much more -- including the ever growing list of supporters -- make sure to check out the link I provided to their Web site in my last post.
I don't think you are seeing the whole picture. The stretch of I-70 that runs through downtown will continue to be very necessary, even after the new bridge is built. How else would interstate traffic on the Missouri side of the river connect between I-70 and I-55/I-44? Getting off and back on the interstate isn't a feasible option, especially for semi tractor-trailers, tankers, etc. I mean, we sure don't want all that heavy traffic trying to use city streets-- especially one which pedestrians are supposed to be crossing for the purpose of getting to and from the riverfront. That would make a walk to the riverfront far more dangerous than it is now. And, it would defy the goal of seamlessly connecting downtown with the riverfront.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2010, 06:31 PM
 
1,250 posts, read 2,504,048 times
Reputation: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1greatcity View Post
I don't think you are seeing the whole picture. The stretch of I-70 that runs through downtown will continue to be very necessary, even after the new bridge is built. How else would interstate traffic on the Missouri side of the river connect between I-70 and I-55/I-44? Getting off and back on the interstate isn't a feasible option, especially for semi tractor-trailers, tankers, etc. I mean, we sure don't want all that heavy traffic trying to use city streets-- especially one which pedestrians are supposed to be crossing for the purpose of getting to and from the riverfront. That would make a walk to the riverfront far more dangerous than it is now. And, it would defy the goal of seamlessly connecting downtown with the riverfront.
This is my big issue with removing that stretch if I-70 at this time. Trying to detour it by going into Illinois and using both bridges would just make for a traffic nightmare (also the new bridge is only 4 lanes for now). One option that could make this work is to dust off the old proposals of building a highway along the West edge of downtown. The other problem this plan has could be to dump that much more traffic on I-270 especially the large vehicles.

This idea if not coupled with something would cause massive bottleneck issues for anyone trying to get from the highway corridors North of the Missouri river (I-70/US-61) to ones South of it (I-44/I-55) by basiclly making I-270 the only highway linking the two without going on surface streets or detours. It would turn that highway into something similar to I-285 in Atlanta with traffic issues for large periods of the day due to long range travellers.

The only options if you close that section of I-70 off is to either to reconsider either the West Downtown highway or I-170 to South County again. Or if neither works consider building an outer highway in exurban/rural areas. That route I figured would start in the North around Troy and follow MO-47 down towards Warrenton. Then continue South crossing the Missouri around Washington (There is a bad need for a bridge there anyway, and the current 2-lane replacement proposal will have serious issues in 20 years due to capacity issues on several roads), then goes South towards Union crossing I-44 around the US-50 interchange. (Also set up a split highway there upgrading US-50 to Jefferson City. Then run East to around the MO-21/Route M interchange. After that follow Route M which with minor improvments can be a limited-accsess freeway, (Basically a simple change at MO-21 to a cloverleaf and an interchange in the middle, but some more work at I-55) Finally ending at I-55 in Barnhart. This last proposal weither or not in encourages sprawl (likely only in areas that it would anyway) but also can shift large amounts of long range travel out of the metro area lessening traffic on all roads and I-270 in particular.

The conculsion is that the cost in either of the three plans might make removal of the section of I-70 near impossible since the regional traffic considerations in removal might make it not feasable until some alternative can work. I didn't note that one other option is get all of the phases for the Mississippi River bridge built by building the 2nd half of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2010, 01:08 PM
 
Location: South St Louis
4,358 posts, read 4,523,803 times
Reputation: 3144
imperialmog is right. To begin with, it will be impossible for traffic going northbound on I-55 to cross over the PSB, make a big loop in Illinois, cross the new MRB back into MO, and get on westbound I-70. (Or visa versa.) There aren't going to be any connecting ramps on the Illinois side to do this.
The old proposal for a connector highway through downtown west is thankfully dead. Adding another interstate to the downtown area is the last thing we need.
So again, the only plan that makes sense is to leave I-70 in place, though underground, so it can still function as intended. Traffic will continue to flow, pedestrians will not feel cut off from the riverfront, and we'd gain tons of new usable downtown land (above the tunnel). Everyone wins.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2010, 05:51 PM
 
1,250 posts, read 2,504,048 times
Reputation: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1greatcity View Post
imperialmog is right. To begin with, it will be impossible for traffic going northbound on I-55 to cross over the PSB, make a big loop in Illinois, cross the new MRB back into MO, and get on westbound I-70. (Or visa versa.) There aren't going to be any connecting ramps on the Illinois side to do this.
The old proposal for a connector highway through downtown west is thankfully dead. Adding another interstate to the downtown area is the last thing we need.
So again, the only plan that makes sense is to leave I-70 in place, though underground, so it can still function as intended. Traffic will continue to flow, pedestrians will not feel cut off from the riverfront, and we'd gain tons of new usable downtown land (above the tunnel). Everyone wins.
The only problem will be putting I-70 underground could be prohibitively expensive, think the Big Dig in Boston for example and officals might balk at doing it because of that project. Although due to where the road is, one way to make it cheaper is a cut-and-cover construction method. Isn't there a proposal to do the same along the highway at Forest Park?

One issue in terms of congestion is to deal with the sharp turns of the ramps at the West end of the PSB, that is what the main reason for traffic in the area because of having to slow down so much making a bottleneck. That does look like it will be relieved with the new bridge, since one of the related projects is to update and replace those ramps. They could only do that once the new bridge is in place.

I get the feeling that nothing will eventually happen in I-70 downtown and will be basically the same 20 years from now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2010, 09:28 PM
 
Location: South St Louis
4,358 posts, read 4,523,803 times
Reputation: 3144
Capping I-70 downtown is no way comparable to the Big Dig. Major differences include:

1. The Big Dig required extremely difficult excavation of a tunnel. Workers had to dig beneath existing buildings and other structures, as well as subway lines. They faced numerous obstacles, including sunken ships, buried houses, even glacial debris.
I-70 through downtown STL is already below street level, for the most part. Much of it just needs a cap. And the sections that would need to be excavated are not occupied by any buildings or subway lines. It's already interstate property, so there's no land to acquire.

2. The B D is 3.5 miles long; the section of I-70 that we're talking about is only about a mile long.

3. The B D project cost so much-- not only because it faced such difficult engineering challenges-- but also due to mismanagement and cost overruns, water leakage problems, lawsuits and fines. Capping I-70 would be a much smaller, far simpler, and way cheaper project.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2010, 10:52 PM
 
1,250 posts, read 2,504,048 times
Reputation: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1greatcity View Post
Capping I-70 downtown is no way comparable to the Big Dig. Major differences include:

1. The Big Dig required extremely difficult excavation of a tunnel. Workers had to dig beneath existing buildings and other structures, as well as subway lines. They faced numerous obstacles, including sunken ships, buried houses, even glacial debris.
I-70 through downtown STL is already below street level, for the most part. Much of it just needs a cap. And the sections that would need to be excavated are not occupied by any buildings or subway lines. It's already interstate property, so there's no land to acquire.

2. The B D is 3.5 miles long; the section of I-70 that we're talking about is only about a mile long.

3. The B D project cost so much-- not only because it faced such difficult engineering challenges-- but also due to mismanagement and cost overruns, water leakage problems, lawsuits and fines. Capping I-70 would be a much smaller, far simpler, and way cheaper project.
I was thinking that it wouldn't be close to as much of a problem, I just was thinking the average person will see it as the same type of project and become skeptical as a result.

Was thinking, would the current depressed section have to widened before putting a cap on? I am thinking it could with added lanes under the current roads on either side. You are right that doing it would be easy due to being on current highway land to begin with so no land acquisition.

I do think there would be a couple of issues to look at in turning the elevated section to underground section. One would be the water table due to engineering issues if you hit that. I am not sure on if there are any utility lines or tunnels there so that would need to be addressed. One thought I had is address is connections to both the Eads and MLK bridges. I do see one idea of putting it underground that might be a benefit is to work on the bicycle lanes on the Eads to connect with downtown better.

I do think the underground idea if it can be done looks like the best option, but can only be done until after the new bridge is completed. It would keep both important transport links in place and open up some land for development along with improving that stretch of highway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > St. Louis
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top