urbanSTL

Looked to me that it was the trestle heading south, not the one heading north to the Arch grounds.

quincunx wrote: Looked to me that it was the trestle heading south, not the one heading north to the Arch grounds.

Right you are!

STLEnginerd wrote: ↑

Aug 02, 2018

https://fox2now.com/2018/08/02/normal-c ... n-soulard/

Thankfully no one was hurt. Now OPPORTUNITY!!!

I hope they use this incident as a pretense to repurpose this trestle for the connection of the Chouteau Greenway to the Arch Grounds.

The railroad will have to do repairs, and It would be great if they opted to construct an alternate way to connect the N-S tracks to to the E-W tracks. This trestle is a far more functional greenway conversion than the MacArthur Bridge lanes because of how it connects to the arch grounds and the proposed greenway site relative to the rail lines.

I don't think that's the bridge you think it is. It doesn't connect directly to the arch grounds any more than the MacArthur does. Doesn't help that Fox misreported it. That's not the TRRA trestle that leads to (and is part of) the High Line that goes under the arch. It's the UP line that connects the Lesperance Street yard to the 23rd Street Yard. TRRA dispatches it since it's part of what's unofficially called the Poplar Street Wye, but UP owns it. It . . . connects to the TRRA line, but backwards. (Since the third leg of the Wye was built to replace the line on the wharf.) Doesn't really lead to it, per se. But again, that's a different bridge owned by a different railroad. And I really doubt there is a better way to do it. It's not busy, but it's an essential link in their system or they'd simply tear it down. There's absolutely no way UP is going to close it or allow anything like pedestrians on it. Sometimes a railroad bridge really does need to stay a railroad bridge.

^Heh! Nice one! Dig a deep enough hole (physically, not financially) and Gravois Creek will do that for. Easy peasy.

STLEnginerd wrote: Weeeellll.... No not confused, but assumed since the relative age and construction of the north trestle closely mirror that of the southern trestle, perhaps it is nearing a similar expiration. So using the situation as a pretense to advocate for on of my many wishlist items.

I am completely surprised that these two parrallel trestles could possibly have different owners.

My vision is both would legs would be merged into one for pedestrians ith ramps to street level at broadway, 2nd, 4th, and 7th. Merge the ends into the arch grounds and chouteau greenway. It just works so well in my brain that i look for ways it could happen in reality. Its value to their overall rail network is obviously a big hurdle. Its value to a greenway system should also be considered though...

I dont think a ped trestle works well if there are trains running on a parrallel track a few yards away. This is why i dislike the repurposing proposals for the MacArthur.

Ah, I see your thinking then. They're not actually too similar in age either. The TRRA high line was replaced in the 90s. All very new and quite spiffy. (Though with a couple of older bridge sections left in to create confusion.) Essentially the TRRA replaced all the 1880 vintage bits with 1990 vintage, but left the 1960 vintage parts. (Which, while visually similar to the MoP/UP trestle, are much heavier and I think probably at least a little newer as well. Not immediately familiar with the age of the UP structure, but I can ask around if you're curious. I'd guess forties to maybe a skosh newer.) To add to the mess there's a bit of 1980s trestle in there as well. It's a hodge-podge, to say the least. But the TRRA bit that goes under the arch is actually a fairly busy line.

On top of everything else, I didn't get the idea the damage to the trestle was really structural. Looked like your garden variety "things fell off and tore up the tracks and things adjacent" problem. Didn't see any obvious bridge collapse. Just some damage to the deck and track structure. Might not be a thing wrong with the trestle itself, so long as none of the derailed cars hit it. (Hard to say really, without carefully examining the debris field.)

MacArthur, on the other hand has one advantage that makes it . . . almost possible. (Though expensive and impractical.) The separate piers from the old road deck could, in theory, support a new pedestrian deck that could be completely separated from the rail traffic. If the span can support separate rail and road decks I see no reason why it shouldn't be able to support a newer, lighter pedestrian deck. (Apart from TRRA liking their spiffy new clearances and lack of chunks of concrete falling on their trains. And not wanting people near their bridges. And removing dead load undoubtedly increased their safety margins, which they'd be loathe to give up, even for something pretty light.)

Anyway, how about we retire the Poplar Street instead and make that a linear park. It's old too!

STLEnginerd wrote: ↑

Aug 03, 2018

Anyway, how about we retire the Poplar Street instead and make that a linear park. It's old too!

Well obviously id prefer we give it the Ponte Vecchio treatment instead. What with needing more street level retail and all.

I believe you have a plan I can get behind entirely.

PD had a link to a story about the old Chouteau's Pond, thought I would pass it along:

https://mohistory.org/blog/chouteaus-pond/

https://greatriversgreenway.org/event/m ... alm-house/

Making of Chouteau Greenway: Feedback & Fun Fests- Tower Grove Park at Piper Palm House
July 9th 5:00 pm - 7:30 pm
Help shape the Chouteau Greenway that will connect up to 20 City of St. Louis neighborhoods. As we work towards a framework plan for the project, we want to hear from YOU! We want your feedback and reactions to make sure we are on track so far. All ages and abilities are welcome. Stop by anytime!
Let us know what you think about: design ideas/concepts, route options, economic opportunities, equity considerations, how you want to be involved in the process, & more
In addition to the engagement activities, the Tower Grove Feedback and Fun Fest will include Bike tune-ups from Big Shark Bicycle Company, music, food and ice cream (Ices Plain & Fancy), face painting, and yard games!
Let us know about any accommodation needs at 314-436-7009 or info@grgstl.org

There has been a bit of a lull in news about this in the last half a year but pending board approval next Tuesday, the framework for making Chouteau Greenway a reality will be out Wednesday

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Dec 06, 2019

There has been a bit of a lull in news about this in the last half a year but pending board approval next Tuesday, the framework for making Chouteau Greenway a reality will be out Wednesday

Has there been a formal "final design" issued? - I stopped following the progress on this after they were selected. Hope it has been refined, I thought the winning design was pretty uninspired compared to the others. 

beer city wrote: ↑

Dec 07, 2019

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Dec 06, 2019

There has been a bit of a lull in news about this in the last half a year but pending board approval next Tuesday, the framework for making Chouteau Greenway a reality will be out Wednesday

Has there been a formal "final design" issued? - I stopped following the progress on this after they were selected. Hope it has been refined, I thought the winning design was pretty uninspired compared to the others. 

Nope, not even a route announced in a lot of areas.  I still have no idea what route or routes they are taking south to Chouteau, and south from there, just that it will run along the the Metro tracks for some distance, and Chouteau for some distance, and apparently through the Foundry and up to, and along, Forest Park Ave...

^ I would assume any route would not encroach on UP right of way.   Draw an outline of UP property and the trail is anywhere but there thought when starting the design/engineering.  Otherwise Who knows how many years and how much dollars it would take to mitigate any encroachment on any private railroad right of way, let alone a project of this scale and scope.   

Thus, I assume it would also be easier if it involves metrolink right of way which is public entity, public property and only have to address safety issue of separating trail from metrolink trains....   

dredger wrote: ↑

Dec 09, 2019

^ I would assume any route would not encroach on UP right of way.   Draw an outline of UP property and the trail is anywhere but there thought when starting the design/engineering.  Otherwise Who knows how many years and how much dollars it would take to mitigate any encroachment on any private railroad right of way, let alone a project of this scale and scope.   

Thus, I assume it would also be easier if it involves metrolink right of way which is public entity, public property and only have to address safety issue of separating trail from metrolink trains....   

That UP spur that branches off just west of Vandeventer and snakes down through the Hill and back over to the river would be perfect for a greenway trail.  Green Street buying / developing property next to it gave me some hope that maybe they have some inside info, but probably just wishful thinking.

urbanitas wrote: ↑

Dec 10, 2019

That UP spur that branches off just west of Vandeventer and snakes down through the Hill and back over to the river would be perfect for a greenway trail.  Green Street buying / developing property next to it gave me some hope that maybe they have some inside info, but probably just wishful thinking.

That line is sometimes called the "Oak Hill Branch," but in reality it's the original St. Louis and Iron Mountain main line south from St. Louis. (The alternate line paralleling the river from Ivory in Carondelet to Lesperance Street just south of downtown is officially the "Lesperance Branch.") I don't believe there's any rail served industry on the line anymore, but traffic is actually picking up lately. I quite regularly see freights on the line in the late evening and early morning. (Scrap metal, mostly.) I'd guess it's the more convenient route to move things coming north off the DeSoto Sub to points east, as you can avoid the nasty climb up the MacArthur out of Lesperance. (Which might well be weight limited now anyway. Even back in the day I think it probably required helpers for anything remotely heavy.) I'd be a little surprised if UP gave it up. As I understand it they even regret giving up the Carondelet branch from Carondelet to Kirkwood and have made noises about trying to get it back.

That said, if they ever did close it you'd be quite right, it would make a great trail.

^Correct. The noises were twenty years ago before it became so popular. I agree with you that they won't get it back, but I also think that's why they'll never give up the Oak Hill line: rails to trails is rail banking only on paper. Really it's rail abandonment with easier paperwork and a tax writeoff. They'd have a better chance of getting it back if they'd just ceded it to the adjacent landowners. I don't see them doing it again with anything they even remotely think they might want.

That said, I've always been curious about rails next to trails. I can't see any reason a carefully engineered shared right of way couldn't work, particularly if you added the right enabling legislation to sweeten the pot: some indemnity clauses and some more tax breaks. But that's really just my personal fantasy: hike along a lovely (and ideally busy) railroad. It's about as likely as Citi moving their HQ, but a body can dream, right?

But that's really just my personal fantasy: hike along a lovely (and ideally busy) railroad

It may not be legal and bit dangerous, but Union Pacific between Geyer Road and Valley Park is a rewarding hike. Just be prepared to hop into the bushes when the track police go by 

GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑

Dec 10, 2019

But that's really just my personal fantasy: hike along a lovely (and ideally busy) railroad

It may not be legal and bit dangerous, but Union Pacific between Geyer Road and Valley Park is a rewarding hike. Just be prepared to hop into the bushes when the track police go by 

For "Trails next to Rails" isn't that the long term plan for the Meramec Greenway to Extend from Arnold Grove Trailhead in Valley Park along the UP line to Castlewood, just beyond the hike your mentioning? And it gets pretty tight between the tracks and river as it approaches Castlewood. It'd be neat if they extended it up the UP line from Valley Park some along the track too, but I imagine that would be a lot more difficult with the hilly terrain.

My (short) Trail next to Rail dream would be using what I assume were pillars for a previous second BNSF track crossing the Meramec River at Valley Park to connect the Valley Park Trails to Buder Park (and then ideally extend Buder along the lines to the Old Chrysler Park to Unger Park) which would create a very long continuous trail that is kind of chopped into piece atm. The only way for pedestrians across the river down their right now is testing your mettle on the shoulder of 141 or using the edge of the active BNSF bridge. Not exactly great options.

pattimagee wrote:

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Dec 06, 2019

There has been a bit of a lull in news about this in the last half a year but pending board approval next Tuesday, the framework for making Chouteau Greenway a reality will be out Wednesday

Denis, just curious - does anything get released upon approval? or is it just a thumbs up from the city? 

Framework was published last night.
https://greatriversgreenway.org/MakingOf/




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk