Chouteau Lake District - Chouteau Greenway

Downtown construction activity, including hotel projects, major renovations, office projects, streetscape improvements, etc.
First unread post609 posts
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:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:48 pm
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.
pattimagee wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 5:12 pm
Urban pools always reminds me of Barton Springs Pool in Austin TX - would love something like this somewhere in STL.

Image

Nice. I can think of somewhere. Along Watson Road...

Image
^Heh! Nice one! Dig a deep enough hole (physically, not financially) and Gravois Creek will do that for. Easy peasy.
symphonicpoet wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:24 pm
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:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:48 pm
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.
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.
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! ;-)
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.
STLEnginerd wrote:
Fri Aug 03, 2018 6:18 am
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. :D
Some updates from today's Post-Dispatch.

https://www.stltoday.com/business/local ... 4e3bb.html

Sounds like connections between the Foundry, Armory, and SLU are on the "fast track" though no timetable was given. Everything else would take some time, but it seems GRG could get it done provided they could get the private donations. Sounds like they expect to have all the private planning money in by the end of January.

Either way, things seem to be somewhat moving forward with this...exciting.