StL P-D Editorial: Replace I-70 with Boulevard

[Revive 755]

http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-platform/published-editorials/2010/02/designers-should-plan-removal-of-i-70%E2%80%99s-downtown-lanes/
(This blog post appears in the upper left of the Post-Dispatch Editorial Page today)



And as usual, someone fails to think about traffic that is using I-55 and I-70 either to reach northern destinations since I-170 doesn't go far enough south, or to avoid a crowded I-270.  Or how "pedestrian friendly" a much busier Memorial Drive would be.

GSV's of the "Oh So Great I-70 Barrier":

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.629745,-90.186864&spn=0,359.986267&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.629544,-90.186237&panoid=XPBAJD7FFCKL7PmMmzmiXg&cbp=12,83.25,,0,-3.3

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.629745,-90.186864&spn=0,359.986267&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.631277,-90.186282&panoid=jNwxoNtytZpCcRscplYxYw&cbp=12,139.5,,0,2.12

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.624859,-90.187615&spn=0,359.986267&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.625077,-90.187525&panoid=pIQ4N3R5w2gLUTzbj1qOKA&cbp=12,44.98,,0,-8.43

And any arch ground improvements are likely to be a waste of money anyway IMO; only thing the arch needs is a bigger underground museum and a return to the days before airport level security was required to enter said museum (like the latter will happen any decade soon).

[Chris]

Any road above 30,000 AADT needs grade-separation. I'm sure I-70 will still handle this amount of traffic, therefore it's nonsense to turn it into a 24/7 congested boulevard. But that's the way of thinking of some of those "new urbanists", "smart growth", "sierra club" or whatever name they have. Remove the freeway, and then the traffic is gone. 

[Truvelo]

Perhaps moving I-70 to the east of the river would put it out of harms way 

[Alps]

Any road above 30,000 AADT needs grade-separation. I'm sure I-70 will still handle this amount of traffic, therefore it's nonsense to turn it into a 24/7 congested boulevard. But that's the way of thinking of some of those "new urbanists", "smart growth", "sierra club" or whatever name they have. Remove the freeway, and then the traffic is gone. 

Wow, that's odd thinking.  Any road above maybe 80,000 AADT should have it, and certainly over 100K, but there are plenty of arterials in NJ that function in the 60-70K range with moderate rush hour problems but otherwise good enough flow.  NJ has had various freeway proposals all over the state, but if you build everything as a freeway, there's no local economy left.

[Revive 755]

Perhaps moving I-70 to the east of the river would put it out of harms way  

Few problems with that:

1) Extra distance.  I'm assuming here the through I-55 to I-70 movement is being provided via new NB-WB and EB-SB ramps at the Tri-Level when the I-64 connector to the new I-70 bridge is built, since this would be the easiest option and probably cheapest option.  From a rough Google Maps estimate, such a route is around 5.5 miles long compared to 1.5 for the current through route.  Might not look like much, but when you're already using I-55 and I-70 to compensate for not having I-170 providing a direct route.

2) PSB issues.  It's stated in the final EIS that the I-55 ramp onto the Poplar will operate at Level of Service E even after the new bridge is built and said ramp is widened to two lanes.  It's also stated that the PSB Complex will still have congestion issues (see Page 20/25, http://www.newriverbridge.org/documents/eis/feis-03-01feis-03-01/chap3.pdf).  Granted those are for the rush hours with the original bridge plan.

Then there's having the Poplar repaved every two years given its poorly designed deck and the associated backups that happen due to lane closures any time of day, plus having a second bridge available as an alternative in case of a crash on the Poplar.

3) Assuming a brand new alignment is built somewhere between the existing I-55/64/70 and the river on the Illinois side, there's no guarantee that such a route would not face a similar challenge in the future.  Sure, East St. Louis might be better to be converted to a new state wetland compensation bank now, but who's to say that a revitalization attempt in the future might not target a new I-70 connector or even the existing highway?

Local TV story on the issue with video:
http://www.kmov.com/community/blogs/reporters-blog/Group-Proposes-Removing-I-70-Lanes-Downtown-85895567.html

The AASHTO green book recommends looking at freeways for roads over 45,000 to 50,000 IIRC.

[Chris]

Any road above 30,000 AADT needs grade-separation. I'm sure I-70 will still handle this amount of traffic, therefore it's nonsense to turn it into a 24/7 congested boulevard. But that's the way of thinking of some of those "new urbanists", "smart growth", "sierra club" or whatever name they have. Remove the freeway, and then the traffic is gone.  

Wow, that's odd thinking.  Any road above maybe 80,000 AADT should have it, and certainly over 100K, but there are plenty of arterials in NJ that function in the 60-70K range with moderate rush hour problems but otherwise good enough flow.  NJ has had various freeway proposals all over the state, but if you build everything as a freeway, there's no local economy left.

30,000 is a desirable number. It may be even significantly lower in practice, especially in long-distance rural settings. The fact that there are roads with 60,000 - 70,000 AADT with traffic lights doesn't mean it's something that should be pursued. Emissions of pollutants at such roads are significantly higher than a free-flowing 4-lane highway and the level of service is low. Travel times are several times higher, especially for through traffic that occurs on a road like I-70.

Interstate 70 near downtown St. Louis does not only carry east-west traffic, but also regional north-south traffic that wants to enter I-55 south. You don't take that away by building the new bridge.

[Chris]

By the way, I-70 runs depressed, you can't wish for less of a barrier than that. Maybe it's an option to cover it completely.

In my opinion, it would make MUCH more sense to move that rail yard out of the downtown area, and let I-64 run depressed through that area with 8 lanes. That way you remove the barrier between downtown and the neighborhoods to the south. Rail classification yards in downtown areas is really something from the 1800's. There is no need for having them in the middle of a city anymore.

[Revive 755]

By the way, I-70 runs depressed, you can't wish for less of a barrier than that. Maybe it's an option to cover it completely.

That was being planned for many years.  There was even a small competition a few years ago where the public could view models of the lid or an alternative design involving an arching "park bridge" that crossed both Memorial Drive and I-70, I think it was between Market and Chestnut Streets, in the Old Courthouse.  The public could cast a ballot for the preferred option.  Pretty sure the lid won.

In my opinion, it would make MUCH more sense to move that rail yard out of the downtown area, and let I-64 run depressed through that area with 8 lanes. That way you remove the barrier between downtown and the neighborhoods to the south. Rail classification yards in downtown areas is really something from the 1800's. There is no need for having them in the middle of a city anymore.

There was also a plan to at least remove some of the rail lines and put in a lake, and was a TIGER grant candidate.  A previous version of the plan ran to issues with Union Pacific wanting to reactivate a line they abandoned  that had been developed into a very popular trail.

An eight lane I-64 would run into issues with having to drop two lanes for the PSB since there aren't ramps connecting EB I-64 to SB I-55 or WB I-70.  MO 755 was going to handle these movements (and is likely why I-64 drops to six lanes at the partially built interchange for 755), and a late 1990's study found a lack of traffic and high cost for adding a 55-64 connection - though this one was more of a parallel freeway running between the last Missouri Exit on I-64 and the 7th Street interchange on I-55 than ramps at the west end of the PSB.

Further back there was a plan to consolidate many of the rail yards around St. Louis into one large yard on the Illinois side, but that plan seems to have died for good.

EDIT:  Regarding truck use of this route, a plan for a new port in Granite City with a truck and rail facility received some TIGER grant money.  So truck use of the I-55 to I-70 movement could easily increase.  Sure, trucks could cross over and use the IL 3 expressway between Sauget and Venice that is finally starting to be built, but given that finding coordinating traffic signals on a highway in Illinois is harder than winning a $1000 in the lottery, most will likely opt to use I-70 and the McKinely Bridge.

Also, many of the people who call the freeways a bad idea in St. Louis seem to forget that St. Louis city had a population around 800,000 when the plans were made.  Should St. Louis city succeed in regaining population, congestion that has since left the city will return.

EDIT2:  Another problem with converting I-70 to a boulevard is that the present Memorial Drive closes for various festivities, most notably the July 4th celebration (Fair St. Louis).  With the current design through traffic can easily pass through downtown.  The boulevard idea will require a lot more driving to get around any festivity closures.

[Hellfighter]

I guess the only thing they need to concern is where to move Interstate 70? It's a giant east-west highway, and you can't just remove it! *facepalms*

[Revive 755]

I guess the only thing they need to concern is where to move Interstate 70? It's a giant east-west highway, and you can't just remove it! *facepalms*

I-70 is going to be moved onto the new cable stayed bridge north of downtown St. Louis:
http://www.newriverbridge.org/documents/MRBProjects-ILandMO.pdf

The section of I-70 that would be converted to a boulevard would be signed as either an extension of I-44, or, per a post in the thread here on the new bridge, I-264.

Blog entry on the P-D website says there will still be a minimum of 40,000 vpd on the stretch of I-70 between the PSB and the new bridge once the new bridge opens:
http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-platform/uncategorized/2010/03/more-thoughts-on-interstate-70-downtown/

This number could go down a bit further if the current I-70 ramps to/from the Poplar are removed since the new bridge as currently planned lacks access to IL 3 - and the weaving of EB vehicles trying to reach SB IL 3 in the afternoon seems to play a role in congesting the PSB.

The original plans for the new bridge included removing the I-70 ramps to/from the PSB, but since the planned entrance to EB US 40 near Memorial Drive was not built as planned (it was a rejected candidate in the study that resulted in the new EB entrance next to the Last Missouri Exit), I'm not sure the I-70 ramp removal will occur as planned.

Regarding the rehab/rebuilding of the I-55/44 ramps to/from the PSB mentioned in the blog entry:  Unless there are some changes to other ramps on I-70, or the ramps from the new bridge to the south are added, there will either be an extremely lousy detour for I-55 traffic in the downtown area, or the new ramps will somehow have to be built without any major closings of the existing I-55/I-70 ramps to/from the PSB.

[Revive 755]

Found a quote by the St. Louis district engineer for MoDOT in a newspaper article that indicates MoDOT did actually consider an option to replace the I-64 viaduct with a ground level option instead of spending money to retrofit the current structure to withstand an earthquake.  Supposedly it would have cost even more than the retrofitting.  The article also notes that MoDOT does not own the ground under the I-64 viaduct.

Source article is "Quake work along 40 still isn't finished After a quake in California in 1989, the elevated stretch of Hwy. 40 was set for retrofitting."  St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 8, 2008

[Revive 755]

MoDOT apparently open to removing I-70 :
http://interact.stltoday.com/discussions/news/road-crew/LD0421101090/10 (bottom of page)

[starts to type snide remarks about MoDOT's recent actions; thinks better of it]

I will say from having to detour around a non-moving PSB yesterday, the stoplights on Memorial Drive could use more green time for cross traffic - including movements to the Arch Grounds across the highway.  Such timing changes would be unlikely if one tries to cram 50,000 vehicles onto a surface boulevard instead of letting some through traffic bypass the area.

[Brandon]

^^
A very, vey, very bad idea, IMHO.  One needs to have a connection between the new I-70 and the current I-44/55/64 area.  If I-755 were built, then turning that section of I-70 into a boulevard would be fine, but it is not, and therefore, the idea is bad for traffic flow.

[Revive 755]

Another article on the proposal:
http://www.occasionalplanet.org/?p=2443

Let me see what I can find wrong with the article:
1) Already a decent number of people crossing to the Arch.  If there's problems with pedestrians getting lost, maybe some new wayfinding signs should be added.

2) Going from Historic Aerial's 1958 view of the area, it looks like I-70 still preserved most of the street grid.  It appears only five streets got cut off, and some of them may have been cut for the original, at-grade Third Street Expressway.

3) There's oh so much to do on the riverfront anyway; most of it is inaccessible and used for private parking.

4) Who's on their own planet?  Portland, OR and Milwaukee removed spurs, not a through route.  Only through freeway removal in the US was the West Side Highway in New York City.  Someone correct me, but it looks like the Milwaukee project has not been successful (or is it economy related?); there appears to be a lot of vacant ground left.  When LA or KC remove a through route without a decent replacement

5) And just how well is the route in Paris handling 80,000 vpd?  From the the streetview pictures, I'd rather cross the depressed section as is:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Champs-%C3%89lys%C3%A9es,+Paris,+France&sll=48.841447,2.335796&sspn=0.078972,0.219727&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Avenue+des+Champs-Elys%C3%A9es,+75008+Paris,+France&ll=48.870968,2.308508&spn=0,0.006866&z=18&layer=c&cbll=48.869433,2.308672&panoid=E6cI5tBpV36xepkej_4dAw&cbp=12,316.38,,0,9.28

6) Kingshighway may handle significant traffic near Forest Park, but it is also eight lanes wide:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=38.639846,-90.265359&spn=0.001456,0.003433&t=k&z=19
That's certainly pedestrian friendly.  A freeway to relieve the Kingshighway corridor was canceled in 1971 in favor of a mass transit line that was never built.

7) Definitely a decent amount of traffic going from Only the I-70 and Memorial Drive ramps to the PSB would be removed.  A lot of through I-70 traffic also appears to be using the MLK Bridge already for the westbound movement.

8) There are buildings blocking the view of the Mississippi River along Broadway in south St. Louis City; maybe those be removed also.  Even better, the Millennium Hotel blocks the view of the Arch, and breaks up the street grid - let's tear it down too 

9) I'll agree with the bad street setup under the I-70 viaduct, but a lot of it looks like an attempt at traffic calming.

[Brandon]

Re #5, for a comparison within the US, take a look at US-41, Lake Shore Drive, in Chicago:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=41.878301,-87.617168&spn=0,0.035963&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.878391,-87.617172&panoid=YykbMQNmW8TT5vsI0lyTDg&cbp=12,357.82,,0,8.87

[Truvelo]

I'm still trying to get my head around this.

This map shows an additional road running east from the new bridge marked in red. Is this going to be built in addition to the section under construction or was it an alternative?

[Revive 755]

Re #5, for a comparison within the US, take a look at US-41, Lake Shore Drive, in Chicago:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=41.878301,-87.617168&spn=0,0.035963&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.878391,-87.617172&panoid=YykbMQNmW8TT5vsI0lyTDg&cbp=12,357.82,,0,8.87

Certainly wouldn't call that one ped friendly.  Also doesn't look like parts of it would take that much more work to bring it up to a complete freeway.  Seems like there was a group wanting Lake Shore Drive removed also, calling it a barrier.

I'm still trying to get my head around this.

This map shows an additional road running east from the new bridge marked in red. Is this going to be built in addition to the section under construction or was it an alternative?

The red was the original I-70 Mississippi River bridge plan as developed in the EIS's.  I-70 was to follow that line east north of the racetrack.  As to how much of the red will ultimately get built, I don't know anymore.  There had been some changes before the super scaled-down bridge plan came out in a futile attempt to lower the project costs.  The only red part I'm 95% sure has been cut for good is the entrance ramp to EB I-64 near Busch Stadium.  An e-mail conversation with MoDOT indicates in theory they are open to never building any more of the original bridge plan and taking another look at a southern bridge.  And depending who you ask in MoDOT, the I-55 ramps at the PSB will either be redone after the new bridge opens, funding permitting, or after phase 2 of the new bridge plan is undertaken.  Phase 2 would include a parallel bridge and maybe some of the stuff shown in red.

EDIT:  And in regard to #7 from my review, there's probably still be some I-70 traffic that will be using the PSB once the new bridge opens, as the PSB will be the only easy interstate access bridge that connects with IL 3, until the new alignment of IL 3 gets built and connected to the new bridge.  There's a decent amount of weaving traffic from Missouri I-64 that seems to want IL 3 (and this seems to be one of the main problems with the PSB in the afternoon), so I think there's probably some also wanting IL 3 from I-70.

[Revive 755]

And now for a look and critique of the website of the group wanted I-70 removed, particularly the design proposed
http://citytoriver.org/blog/

The design:
http://citytoriver.org/blog/

There are several issues here:
1) On ramp from the boulevard to eastbound PSB:  Not compatible with the eventually widening of the NB I-55 ramp to the PSB.  Unless this group wants the PSB replaced with a new 10 lane bridge (5 lanes each way), either traffic from Memorial is going to have an extremely bad merge, or NB I-55 will still have serious capacity issues.  Also the possibility of the intersection queing up in the morning and backing up into I-55.

2) The new ramp for SB I-55 from the PSB:  Doesn't look like the lanes of I-64 have enough vertical separation for a left side ramp for SB I-55.  Could also be grade issues with getting 23' of clearance to get over the nearby railroad viaduct and then getting back down to clear the MacArthur Bridge approach.  Nevermind the additional ROW this design takes up (the original plan for the new SB I-55 ramp almost stays within the current interchange footprint), nor the costs or traffic impacts of the required redesign of WB I-64.

3) New ramp from WB PSB to Memorial/Poplar Street:  Sure a five point intersection will be pedestrian friendly and operate well, especially during the AM peak 

4) Between the PSB and the Eads Bridge:  Awful lot of new streets/access points.

5) At the Eads Bridge/Washington Avenue:  The current tight # without one sticking out point design is already a tad hazardous, surely adding more traffic to that one will make it safer.  Granted, it is now controlled by flashing red signals.

6) MLK Bridge intersection terminating Fourth Street:  Doesn't perform the best now, adding more traffic and having to add left turn phases will surely not add more lengthy queues.  Granted, I'm not sure how much MLK traffic will shift to the new bridge, but I would expect the decent number of NB 4th Street drivers in the PM peak will stick with the MLK.

7) Northwest of the MLK Bridge:  That's not ROW, that's a plaza:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.631602,-90.187626&spn=0,0.006866&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.631682,-90.187595&panoid=i-IeiBYy0duqcI2gxt0XfA&cbp=12,96.94,,0,-1.19
There's some plaques in there, but I've never walked into that plaza to read them.

8) Roundabout(?) replacing the current Cole/Broadway/4th disaster:  I don't think a high volume circle would function well there, nor gain public approval.

9) New Memorial/Broadway/O' Fallon intersection:  Another wonderful five point intersection.

10) New Memorial/Dickson/6th intersection:  Yet another five point.  Also possible spacing issues with the Broadway/Dickson intersection.

11) Handling of the I-70 reversible lanes:  likely to be issues with weaving, especially if significant queues develop.

12) Buildings north of Cass gaining value with I-70 gone:  There was a Post-Dispatch article saying that some buildings had value due to the presence of I-70.

[Bickendan]

4) Who's on their own planet?  Portland, OR and Milwaukee removed spurs, not a through route.  Only through freeway removal in the US was the West Side Highway in New York City.  Someone correct me, but it looks like the Milwaukee project has not been successful (or is it economy related?); there appears to be a lot of vacant ground left.  When LA or KC remove a through route without a decent replacement

Don't worry -- Portland's toyed with the idea of removing I-5 from the Willamette's eastbank, leaving I-405 as the through route. The study committee determined that would be a bad idea.

[triplemultiplex]

4) Who's on their own planet?  Portland, OR and Milwaukee removed spurs, not a through route.  Only through freeway removal in the US was the West Side Highway in New York City.  Someone correct me, but it looks like the Milwaukee project has not been successful (or is it economy related?); there appears to be a lot of vacant ground left.

Most of the vacated land has been caught in bureaucratic limbo as various interested parties all have their own ideas on what to do with it.  A couple of city-owned parcels have been developed along the Milwaukee River, but most of the land is owned by the County and they're always butting heads with the city over crap like this.  A current riverside parcel occupied by a horizontal gull toilet, er, surface parking lot, is slated for a decent mix-use development by Marcus Theatres and a 30 story residential building should be under construction by now next to the Bradley Center.  But these are not on land formerly occupied by the freeway spur, just adjacent.

If a few blocks had simply been auctioned off after the debris was clear, something would've been built during the big condo boom prior to 08.

[Revive 755]

And now removing I-70 will supposedly bring in $1.1 billion in redevelopment:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/0/7861A9C3E22C326F862577420001E807?OpenDocument

Really would like to see some independent verification of that number, given the density of existing development along parts of I-70 - particularly the depressed section.  Also like how the article fails to mention that Boston put I-93 underground, not a replacement with a surface street.

[J N Winkler]

Thread exhumation:  it turns out that the I-70 deck proposal, spoken of upthread as if it were a distant prospect, is actually part of a MoDOT construction letting (Call F01) this June 28.