opinions of a kid from chesterfield... (St. Louis, Lemay: airport, moving, transportation)

[1greatcity]

^ I imagine that the current "depressed section" of I-70 would have to be reconfigured to accomodate shoulders for the road, required emergency access, ventilation, drainage, etc. This means widening and deepening the existing highway. But it's still a far cry from digging a brand new tunnel beneath a built-up area (like was done in Boston.)
True, there could be caves or underground waterways below the current I-70 roadway. This is a rather common obstacle in the St Louis area; our city was built atop a large system of caves. In fact, when I-55 was constructed through South St Louis, they had to seal off the entrance to Cherokee Cave and then fill the cave in.

[imperialmog]

Originally Posted by 1greatcity

^ I imagine that the current "depressed section" of I-70 would have to be reconfigured to accomodate shoulders for the road, required emergency access, ventilation, drainage, etc. This means widening and deepening the existing highway. But it's still a far cry from digging a brand new tunnel beneath a built-up area (like was done in Boston.)
True, there could be caves or underground waterways below the current I-70 roadway. This is a rather common obstacle in the St Louis area; our city was built atop a large system of caves. In fact, when I-55 was constructed through South St Louis, they had to seal off the entrance to Cherokee Cave and then fill the cave in.

From what I can tell, there would be a lot of upgrading of the highway that would have to be done there to meet modern standards. (also have to consider seismic issues in design)

The caves, springs, and underground waterways are definately an engineering issue for there and almost anywhere in the region. There are likely some old records of springs and small streams that got buried underground that would be of reference. This is how the Choteau pond idea exists since that would just be letting a spring resurface that was covered in the 1850's. (the reason being it was a cess pool, and the timing is why the railroads are on top of it which could be an issue for any redevelopment plans)

It does make me think, what would be built on top of a capped I-70 both in the depressed section and the raised section? I am thinking a combination of parks and 3-5 story buildings. I did notice on overhead maps there is a number of empty lots just North of both the dome and Lumiere place. Just wondering is there any development plans for there? (though I am not sure if this is part of the new bridge right of way) I remember seeing that most of the abandoned buildings are now either occupied or being renovated so that means nearly all new development will have to be new construction. Is there any focus area as to what section to start development in?

[moorlander]

Originally Posted by 1greatcity

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.

270 AND 170 Both go north and south. What's this about "getting off and back on again?" I always envisioned that the highway would turn into the boulevard (for only 1.4 miles) and they convert back to highway much like lake shore drive in Chicago. Why would it be more dangerous. Well designed, pedestrian oriented crosswalks would welcome visitors across the boulevard.
One of the best things about this proposal is the land opened up for development facing the arch. Right now ALL buildings turn their back to the arch. We can now change that!

[imperialmog]

Originally Posted by moorlander

270 AND 170 Both go north and south. What's this about "getting off and back on again?" I always envisioned that the highway would turn into the boulevard (for only 1.4 miles) and they convert back to highway much like lake shore drive in Chicago. Why would it be more dangerous. Well designed, pedestrian oriented crosswalks would welcome visitors across the boulevard.
One of the best things about this proposal is the land opened up for development facing the arch. Right now ALL buildings turn their back to the arch. We can now change that!

The issue is long range truck and trailers. Having no highway there just forces more to go onto 270 which would make it congested all day. 170 wouldn't work since it doesn't connect 70 and 55. Removing it would almost require a new highway be built somewhere due to trucks. The issue is more how it fits in on a regional transportation since it would be trouble dealing with the long-range truck travel.

[aragx6]

Are we talking about long-range trucks coming from the west or the east? I'm not sure I understand who these truckers would be.

A truck headed 70 west and wanting to cut down to I-55 already goes around the city on 255.

A truck headed east on 70 wanting to get to 55 already takes 270.

Maybe I'm thinking about this incorrectly, and I'm happy to hear what I'm missing.

[imperialmog]

Originally Posted by aragx6

Are we talking about long-range trucks coming from the west or the east? I'm not sure I understand who these truckers would be.

A truck headed 70 west and wanting to cut down to I-55 already goes around the city on 255.

A truck headed east on 70 wanting to get to 55 already takes 270.

Maybe I'm thinking about this incorrectly, and I'm happy to hear what I'm missing.

The problem is that 270 is already congested and removing that section of highway downtown would make it much worse. It would make it the only North-South route on the Missouri side of the river. Many trucks go through downtown since it is much less congested on average than 270.

[aragx6]

I'd be curious to see any real numbers on this. Most truck drivers I have known carefully plan their routes so that, when possible, they don't hit major metros during rush hours. 270 is perfectly fine during non-rush times.

In addition, to say that we shouldn't make necessary forward-thinking improvements to our city because of some truck drivers on 270 is crazy talk. 270 traffic is significantly less heavy than major metro areas truckers already have to drive through.

[imperialmog]

Originally Posted by aragx6

I'd be curious to see any real numbers on this. Most truck drivers I have known carefully plan their routes so that, when possible, they don't hit major metros during rush hours. 270 is perfectly fine during non-rush times.

In addition, to say that we shouldn't make necessary forward-thinking improvements to our city because of some truck drivers on 270 is crazy talk. 270 traffic is significantly less heavy than major metro areas truckers already have to drive through.

I am saying that there should be something done, just that removing the highway is the wrong way to go about it. I just see that putting the highway underground then developing on top of it is the best option.

The issue I would have is closing the highway will cause issues with 270 outside of rush hour due to that much more traffic on the highway since there would be one less North-South option which is already limited.

I just don't see complete removal of 70 downtown as an option barring a replacment highway somewhere. So in that case just putting it underground where it currently is would be the best option.

[moorlander]

it's not like 50,000 cars can't still take the boulevard 1.4 miles. You act like ALL of the traffic will have to take 270 or 170 or cross over to Illinois. The boulevard will still carry an estimated 50k vehicles per day or about the same volume as kingshighway along the Forest park.

The problem is that your solution only solves part of the problem. Would you support a lid over the depressed section and a boulevard the rest of the route? It would be crime to do the lid and not remove the elevated section that cuts off the landing and downtown.

The goal here is reconnect the sectioned off portions of downtown to create a better, safer, more desirable front door to our region. If that means "possibly" a few more cars on 270 (a highway I commute EVERY day) then so be it.

[imperialmog]

Originally Posted by moorlander

it's not like 50,000 cars can't still take the boulevard 1.4 miles. You act like ALL of the traffic will have to take 270 or 170 or cross over to Illinois. The boulevard will still carry an estimated 50k vehicles per day or about the same volume as kingshighway along the Forest park.

The problem is that your solution only solves part of the problem. Would you support a lid over the depressed section and a boulevard the rest of the route? It would be crime to do the lid and not remove the elevated section that cuts off the landing and downtown.

The goal here is reconnect the sectioned off portions of downtown to create a better, safer, more desirable front door to our region. If that means "possibly" a few more cars on 270 (a highway I commute EVERY day) then so be it.

I was talking shoving the elevtated section underground as well.

The vehicles I am concerned with are large trucks both with local traffic and long-range trucks and trailers. Such a removal will either shove all of that traffic on 270 or they just use the boulevard section.

The problem is there likely will be no money to do this plan for at least 20 years in all likelyhood. They are just now starting on a bridge that should of been built 30 years ago and will only be half of what will be needed long term. Also have to consider people outside of the city will howl in anger at removing the highway due to potential side effects. I can picture South County really angry since that might start the 170 extension talks all over again.

My sarcastic comment is the only way it could be built in the next 20 years is to ask the Chinese government to fund it.