Park Over Highway Useful For Boulevard Concept (Updated)
Last week the public was updated on the CityArchRiver project. Much of the presentation (pdf) focused on getting to the Arch from downtown.
From the press release:
In December, the US Department of Transportation announced a $20 million TIGER grant for work on the I-70 corridor connected to the CityArchRiver 2015 plan. With matches and other resources, $57.2 million has been secured for work on I-70 connections surrounding the Arch Grounds making it possible for a critical piece of the project—the park over the depressed lanes of I-70 between the Old Courthouse and the Arch grounds—to move forward.
“Visitors will now have a tree-lined green space to traverse between the Old Courthouse and the Arch without a stair step in their way,†said Ed Hassinger, St. Louis area district engineer for the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT). “Not a single stoplight or dangerous intersection will hinder visitors between Fourth Street in front of the Old Courthouse and the Arch Grounds.â€
In his remarks to community members, Gullivar Shepard, associate principal for the lead design firm Michael Van Valkenburgh and Associates, identified the crucial role the park over I-70 has in achieving the project’s full potential.
“A park over the highway is probably the most important piece of the whole puzzle,†said Shepard. “It is a great big move, which humanizes and strengthens the link between the city and the new Museum entry, and a central tenet of what the original Arch designers, Eero Saarinen and Dan Kiley, wanted to achieve. Following on this move, projects on the Arch Grounds, especially the reflecting ponds and north gateway landscapes, will also enhance the experience of the Arch grounds for everyone.â€
Work on the park over the highway is already taking place. MoDOT has solicited engineering proposals and expects construction to be completed in connection with the new Mississippi River Bridge well in advance of October 2015.
Despite this park over the existing highway I’m not giving up on the idea of replacing a mile stretch of highway with an at-grade boulevard. But the lid will be in the way of this vision? Shouldn’t we stop the lid and push for the boulevard? I’m not so sure. Here’s why.
The boulevard that replaces the highway can simply dip under the park just as Chippewa & Gravois go under railroad lines and how Forest Park Ave goes under Grand Ave. I still picture the elevated highway over Washington Ave/Eads Bridge removed.
To me the intersection at Washington is far more critical than at Market or Chestnut. The view entering downtown on the Eads Bridge without the elevated highway will be excellent, enough so I’m personally ok with the park space to connect to the proposed new Arch museum entrance.
UPDATE 1/30/2012 @ 11:45am CST:
My friends at CitytoRiver sent me a link to when they discussed this issue in late 2010 — click here to read it.
– Steve Patterson
Or it can be incorporated into a future at-grade boulevard. It’s unlikely, but possible.
Or it can be incorporated into a future at-grade boulevard. It’s unlikely, but possible.
It’s definitely an option. My concern though is that a graded approach to pass under the lid would necessitate removal of crosswalks at Pine and Walnut — which goes counter to the City to River boulevard concept.
Really, the $20 million issue is that MODoT is putting in a bunch of money — state money — in order to have I-70 expanded and redone through downtown. That’s why everyone is upset with the plan…there’s no way that, with that money being spent on the highway, that the decision would be made to tear it up and replace it with a boulevard five years down the road.
This is likely, in a very literal sense, the last chance to implement a boulevard plan for the next 20+ years. Which makes some of the design choices — removal of Washington Avenue, expanded on/off ramps, removal of pedestrian routes, etc. — all the scarier.
It’s definitely an option. My concern though is that a graded approach to pass under the lid would necessitate removal of crosswalks at Pine and Walnut — which goes counter to the City to River boulevard concept.
Really, the $20 million issue is that MODoT is putting in a bunch of money — state money — in order to have I-70 expanded and redone through downtown. That’s why everyone is upset with the plan…there’s no way that, with that money being spent on the highway, that the decision would be made to tear it up and replace it with a boulevard five years down the road.
This is likely, in a very literal sense, the last chance to implement a boulevard plan for the next 20+ years. Which makes some of the design choices — removal of Washington Avenue, expanded on/off ramps, removal of pedestrian routes, etc. — all the scarier.
I don’t see the issues as mutually exclusive. Whether it ends up being a wider freeway or a multi-lane boulevard, you’re going to still be moving a lot of vehicles. Separating pedestrians and vehicles, while also expanding the park, seems like a win-win to me. Plus, if the current depressed portion can be converted to parking under a new boulevard (like around the lakefront in downtown Chicago), there’s more of a financial incentive to pursue the boulevard concept.
I don’t see the issues as mutually exclusive. Whether it ends up being a wider freeway or a multi-lane boulevard, you’re going to still be moving a lot of vehicles. Separating pedestrians and vehicles, while also expanding the park, seems like a win-win to me. Plus, if the current depressed portion can be converted to parking under a new boulevard (like around the lakefront in downtown Chicago), there’s more of a financial incentive to pursue the boulevard concept.
I believe another opportunity is truly going to be missed with CVC’s plan to upgrade the Edwards Dome.  Why not tear down the raised section and have an at grade Boulevard from Washington Ave to the New Mississippi River as part of the plan. Not spending money on the Wash Ave interchange could fund the demo. It would be a great way to open up the Dome, Bottleworks that is being folded into McKee’s northside with Pinnacle and Laclede’s Landing. While minimizing MoDOT’s fears as they would still have there section going past the Arch Grounds. Unfortunately, they want to add an interchange downtown and can’t find money to demolish the bad idea of 20th street parkway on the west side.  Downtown St. Louis is in desperate need of some infrastructure common sense on what is working for urban areas!!!
Like Steve noted, its a shame what the raised section does to Wash Ave and the front door to a great street that is only getting better.  In the breath as JZ71 noted, underground infrastrucure whether present or/and in the future is a very uasable asset in a urban area. Chicago leveraged it pretty well when reinvented their water front.
I believe another opportunity is truly going to be missed with CVC’s plan to upgrade the Edwards Dome. Why not tear down the raised section and have an at grade Boulevard from Washington Ave to the New Mississippi River as part of the plan. Not spending money on the Wash Ave interchange could fund the demo. It would be a great way to open up the Dome, Bottleworks that is being folded into McKee’s northside with Pinnacle and Laclede’s Landing. While minimizing MoDOT’s fears as they would still have there section going past the Arch Grounds. Unfortunately, they want to add an interchange downtown and can’t find money to demolish the bad idea of 20th street parkway on the west side. Downtown St. Louis is in desperate need of some infrastructure common sense on what is working for urban areas!!!
Like Steve noted, its a shame what the raised section does to Wash Ave and the front door to a great street that is only getting better. In the breath as JZ71 noted, underground infrastrucure whether present or/and in the future is a very uasable asset in a urban area. Chicago leveraged it pretty well when reinvented their water front.
The two challenges (other than money and public fears) facing doing a boulevard are Metrolink and connecting to the Broadway / 4th couplet. The reason I-70 is currently raised over Washington is that it couldn’t be depressed since it would conflict with what is now the Metrolink main, line under Washington. And, as the current confusing ramps show, at both ends, integrating southbound Broadway and northbound 4th with either a freeway or a boulevard is difficult because they’re almost parallel, but not really.
Personally, I think a much better soultion would be to relegate the I-70 / Memorial Drive corridor to a secondary role and to shift north-south through traffic to 4th and Broadway, respectively. From a traffic engineering standpoint, it’s much easier to synchronize traffic signals on one-way streets than on two-way streets. 4th and Broadway are already one-way streets, so let’s just use them. Rebuild / reconfigure the ramps on both ends so that they’re at least three lanes wide (not one or two). And with less traffic and slower traffic on a Memorial Boulevard, it should be possible to add on-street patking.
How would you connect between Broadway/4th and Interstates 55/64 at the Poplar Street interchange?
Not much differently than today, only with new, wider ramps. Remember that I-44/I-55 would end up like SB I-170 at I-64 – there would no longer be any northbound freeway traffic north of I-64. All northbound traffic would be peeling off onto ramps to 4th Street and onto I-64:
NB I-44/I-55 to EB I-64 – rebuild & widen existing ramp onto PSB
NB I-44/I-55 to WB I-64 – add new ramp
NB I-44/I-55 to NB 4th St. – add new 2-3 lane ramp (left exit) between Hickory & LaSalle Streets
SB Broadway to I-44/I-55 – add new 2-3 lane on-ramp paralleling the existing SB 7th St. off-ramp
SB Broadway to WB I-64 – existing ramp (south of Busch Stadium)
SB Broadway to EB I-64 – existing ramp (accessed from Gratiot)
WB I-64 to SB I-44/I-55 – rebuild and widen existing ramp
WB I-64 to SB Broadway – no connection (no change from existing)
WB I-64 to NB 4th St, – relocate existing I-70 ramp further west, constructing new ramp using the surface parking lots bounded by Broadway, 4th, I-64 & Spruce St.
EB I-64 to SB Broadway – use existing “Last Missouri Exit” to Gratiot St.
EB I-64 to NB 4th St. – no connection (no change from existing)
EB I-64 to SB I-44/I-55 – maybe add new ramp (if demand warrants)
The two challenges (other than money and public fears) facing doing a boulevard are Metrolink and connecting to the Broadway / 4th couplet. The reason I-70 is currently raised over Washington is that it couldn’t be depressed since it would conflict with what is now the Metrolink main, line under Washington. And, as the current confusing ramps show, at both ends, integrating southbound Broadway and northbound 4th with either a freeway or a boulevard is difficult because they’re almost parallel, but not really.
Personally, I think a much better soultion would be to relegate the I-70 / Memorial Drive corridor to a secondary role and to shift north-south through traffic to 4th and Broadway, respectively. From a traffic engineering standpoint, it’s much easier to synchronize traffic signals on one-way streets than on two-way streets. 4th and Broadway are already one-way streets, so let’s just use them. Rebuild / reconfigure the ramps on both ends so that they’re at least three lanes wide (not one or two). And with less traffic and slower traffic on a Memorial Boulevard, it should be possible to add on-street patking.
 How would you connect between Broadway/4th and Interstates 55/64 at the Poplar Street interchange?
Not much differently than today, only with new, wider ramps. Remember that I-44/I-55 would end up like SB I-170 at I-64 - there would no longer be any northbound freeway traffic north of I-64. All northbound traffic would be peeling off onto ramps to 4th Street and onto I-64:
NB I-44/I-55 to EB I-64 – rebuild & widen existing ramp onto PSB
NB I-44/I-55 to WB I-64 – add new ramp
NB I-44/I-55 to NB 4th St. – add new 2-3 lane ramp (left exit) between Hickory & LaSalle Streets
SB Broadway to I-44/I-55 – add new 2-3 lane on-ramp paralleling the existing SB 7th St. off-ramp
SB Broadway to WB I-64 – existing ramp (south of Busch Stadium)
SB Broadway to EB I-64 – existing ramp (accessed from Gratiot)
WB I-64 to SB I-44/I-55 – rebuild and widen existing ramp
WB I-64 to SB Broadway – no connection (no change from existing)
WB I-64 to NB 4th St, – relocate existing I-70 ramp further west, constructing new ramp using the surface parking lots bounded by Broadway, 4th, I-64 & Spruce St.
EB I-64 to SB Broadway – use existing “Last Missouri Exit” to Gratiot St.
EB I-64 to NB 4th St. – no connection (no change from existing)
EB I-64 to SB I-44/I-55 – maybe add new ramp (if demand warrants)
Love the signage at the Washington Ave – Eads Bridge entrance to the Arch grounds. Who did it? Slay’s grandkids. There should be a GRAND entrance to the Arch gounds .. and to Washington Ave … St. Louis and Missouril. Come on!
Love the signage at the Washington Ave – Eads Bridge entrance to the Arch grounds. Who did it? Slay’s grandkids. There should be a GRAND entrance to the Arch gounds .. and to Washington Ave … St. Louis and Missouril. Come on!