City to River Group Hits the Local Media 3:56 PM

KMOV (Channel 4) has covered the City to River group's proposal to tear down a portion of Interstate 70 soon to be redundant with the construction of a new Mississippi River Bridge. Watch their coverage above or read the transcript here.

The only problem is that they failed to explicitly mention this--that I-70 will be rerouted over the new bridge and that a new at-grade, urban Memorial Drive would not be replacing I-70 at all in any official capacity. KMOV opened by labeling the proposal a "radical idea".

Also, the reporter interviewed a MODOT official who claimed the agency had "severe reservations" about removing any portion of I-70. See the video above. MODOT is open to tunneling the depressed lanes of the soon-to-be-former I-70, but not demolishing the whole 1.4 mile stretch in favor of an urban boulevard.

Where do I begin?

Removing a redundant piece of an interstate is not a "radical idea" in my book. The transformation of the area would be radical in the physical sense, if that was what was meant. But the notion itself is rather, well, sensible. The Archgrounds International Design Competition is underway and has provided funding for making better connections to the Arch and surrounding neighborhoods--not just the four blocks where the depressed section runs. It makes sense to remove the barrier between Laclede's Landing and the rest of downtown and to create a nexus of activity in the Memorial's center. An urban Memorial Drive would pull visitors from Laclede's Landing southward and allow them to much more easily, and with much more urbane surroundings, reach the Gateway Arch and Old Courthouse.

Furthermore, as mentioned, the new Mississippi River Bridge will carry the new I-70 route, which will now enter the city of St. Louis at Cass Avenue rather than the Poplar Street Bridge. Funding is in place and the bridge is being constructed. Now is the time to capitalize on the fact that this 1.4 mile stretch is simply redundant and not needed. Current plans indicate that MODOT will simply rechristen the old I-70 lanes as I-44, extending it northward from its terminus at I-55. To me, it's a radical idea not to remove this ugly barrier at such an opportune time.

Now for MODOT. How exactly is any 1.4 mile stretch of road absolutely necessary to the region's transportation network? Okay, maybe turning I-270 into an urban boulevard would be a ridiculous proposal, but a small run of a road at the convergence of several interstates? That's a bit of a different proposal. There's simply no way of arguing that a new Memorial Drive with even a 30 mile per hour speed limit could not accommodate traffic attempting to travel the 1.4 miles to either I-55 or I-64 from the new I-70 landing at Cass Avenue.

At an average rate of even 20 miles per hour (factoring in a stop light or two and clear traffic), it would take just 4.2 minutes to make it from one end of the new Memorial Drive to the other. Trucks heading northbound from I-55 could choose to either cross the river twice to reach I-70 without using surface roads or simply proceed north on Memorial Drive.

Our region has an incredibly dense network of interstates for its size. Some urbanists, including me, believe more than just this 1.4 mile segment of I-70 should be studied and considered for removal as well. (How about looking into reconnecting Soulard and Benton Park by "boulevardizing" I-55 from Lemp to the Poplar Street Bridge? Now that would be in the realm of "radical".) But that is for another time. City to River's proposal is smart and sensible, looking to improve our city at a low cost to all us, who'll enjoy the project's many benefits.

The New Memorial Drive, at Spruce looking eastward toward Busch Stadium.
Image Courtesy of City to River

Forest Park's Biggest Flaw - Now Never to Be Corrected? 2:00 PM

Often called the "jewel" of St. Louis (certainly of its park system), Forest Park is a difficult space to critique in its entirety. With its variety of attractions, cultural institutions, beautiful vistas, running and biking paths, golf courses, and more, it definitely causes a moment of pause to reflect: thank the heavens the County-secessionists kept this 1,200 acre wonderment within city limits upon drawing the boundaries in 1876.

(Okay, I could complain a bit here. Other large municipal parks have cut down on paved roads and turned the park into more of an urban, pedestrian-friendly destination. And, as St. Louis Urban Workshop notes on his blog, Forest Park could definitely feature more spaces in which to simply hang out and people watch.)

To me, the biggest flaw of Forest Park is a somewhat disappointing connection to nearby neighborhoods. On each side, there's an issue.

On the west (Skinker Boulevard), you have an overly wide road that does carry a high volume of traffic. It's noisy, difficult to cross during the day, and somewhat uninviting, though a tree canopy helps a bit. Regardless, this edge of the park appears the most active and therefore enticing. It's no doubt bolstered by the presence of Washington University at its doorstep and all of its students/faculty.

On the north (Lindell), there are beautiful, stately homes, but I have never seen much activity flow out of these single-family manses. I always wonder if this portion of Lindell had developed as Pershing (formerly Berling) did, with all of its mid-rises, what Forest Park's northern edge might be like. It would have been wonderful to be able to sit at a sidewalk cafe patio and stare into the park, urbanely surrounded by an attractive turn-of-the-century skyline. Don't get me wrong, the present homes are splendid; my feelings toward them are not exactly ambivalent. I just wonder how they could be employed to make Forest Park's northern edge even better. I'm excited by the possibility of the proposed Delmar Loop Streetcar continuing eastward from DeBaliviere on Lindell and into the Central West End. In New Orleans, the St. Charles Avenue streetcar carts tourists and locals alike who, cameras in hand, enjoy gawking at inconceivable wealth and their historic mansions. Could St. Louis have its own version of this pleasant, tourist-friendly transit ride? I think so.


A St. Charles Avenue streetcar passes in front of one of the many mansions on the famous street. Source.


The east side of Forest Park (Kingshighway) is an interesting case. Just to the northeast sits one of St. Louis's mostly densely-walked neighborhoods and just to the east is the well-trafficked Medical District. You would think the east side of Forest Park would be filled with sauntering pedestrians. Yet, when you look at the topography, you see why. There are definite grade issues with the eastern side of the park, which slopes significantly downward from the Kingshighway elevation. Plus, the Metrolink railroad tracks slice off a portion of Forest Park, dividing the two sections from pedestrian access.

Of all of the neighborhood connectivity issues with Forest Park, the south side of the park (Oakland/I-64) is the worst. Why? Because there's an interstate highway blocking the following from walking to and directly enjoying their park with ease and without a car: Forest Park Southeast neighborhood (ironic, right?), St. Louis University High School, the Science Center, Compton-Drew, St. Louis Community College's Forest Park campus, the King's Oak and Cheltenham neighborhoods, the old Arena site's Highlands development, Forest Park Hospital, the Dogtown neighborhoods, Turtle Park, and points west. I cannot help but think that the south side of the park would usurp the title from the west for most active if Oakland, rather than I-64, were the point of crossing into the park (as it once was).

So when I read the following Post-Dispatch headline I was disappointed:

Highway 40 project head to lead Forest Park group

All urbanists should be frustrated that the Missouri Department of Transportation thought it worthwhile to rebuild several miles of I-64 almost exactly as it was to the tune of $535 million. Sure there are now soundwalls and somewhat less egregiously land-wasteful interchanges. Great. But if there were one section of the interstate that should not have been rebuilt as it was, it was the stretch that fronts Forest Park! Yet now, Lesley Hoffarth, manager of that woebegotten "New I-64" project, will head Forest Park Forever, the advocacy group and ersatz management of the park. 

It astounds me that there was such a fight to rescue Hudlin Park (a portion of the park stranded by both a re-routing of Kingshighway and the construction of I-64) when the "New I-64" project was a real chance to take back a huge chunk of the park.

With the money spent adding even more highway lanes to a region that simply doesn't need them, I-64 could have been tunneled, reconnecting Forest Park to its southern neighbors and institutions.

Now, I don't know Lesley Hoffarth, and she may be more urban-minded than I'm aware. But any head of Forest Park Forever, a group that has done great work strengthening and improving the innards of the park, should know that its edges are important too.

The greatest improvement that could come to Forest Park would be the removal of I-64, at least visually, from the southern end of Forest Park.

Not that I think this concept ever held much weight in an autocentric region, but I worry now that this "radical" idea may now never get airtime. At any rate, the finishing touches are adorning the rebuilt stretch from I-170 to Kingshighway. Many would call it more than wasteful to suggest that this freshly redone section now be covered up.

But I say, the sooner the better. We need not live in the shadows of bad planning simply to justify the costs of a worthless effort.

The New I-64 may border on scandal. 12:45 PM

We taxpayers have spent millions.

The media nearly gave us heart attacks last year, predicting that the closure of the western portion of the "New I-64" project was an effective "Sorry, We're Closed" sign for the whole region.

And, after all of that, this is what we got?

I guess I should have looked at the plans more closely; I didn't realize it was merely a highway widening project. What a waste of money: turning old Highway 40, whose bridges actually had some character, whose roadway is actually historic, into the Page Avenue extension!

I truly thought that thoughtful design would go into new bridges; that clover intersections would be going on a "road diet" and give up right-of-way for future development.

I think that it's a scandal, in 2008, to be widening roads, for this much money and energy wasted, without consideration to non-motorized regional transit--no parallel project to expand light rail--just another widened road. It's our portly roads that ensure an ease of access in and out of the city that have proven so stifling to attempts to bring retail (and residents) back into the City of St. Louis.

This is a waste.

And it further christens the automobile, far and away, as the unrivaled king of transportation in the St. Louis region, especially after the failure of Proposition M, which would have plugged a Metro budget leak into the hundreds of millions. Instead, we as taxpayers have allowed those hundreds of millions to be shifted to car users, for the umpteenth time in St. Louis history.

I think it's a scandal. And I and other urbanists have dropped the ball; we should have acted sooner. Might it be early enough to intervene in the eastern section?