urbanSTL

jcity wrote:I HATE how wash u added two lights to forest park PARKWAY near their campus.

If it's the lights I'm thinking of, they've been there since I was a student at WashU back in 1998 at least. Back then that stretch of road was called Millbrook.

Maybe one of the two lights was there, certainly not the eastern most.
And yes, I'm not advocating for thoroughfares of speeding traffic from the city to the burbs, but I'm sorry, reducing Lindell from four lanes to two is ridiculous. What if west pine through slu all the way downtown was converted to being a designated "bike highway" or one that ran from forest park along Clayton ave underneath 64/40 to the Mills Pond/ railroad yard all the way to the river? Over the municipal bridge into Illinois? Oh wait, they removed that deck...

The eastern most light by Wash U. is the light at Skinker and FPP. That's been there forever. (Unless you mean the light at DeBaliviere and FPP. It's the last one before Euclid. And it's also been there as long as I can remember. The light at Des Peres might be new. Not sure on that one. But it's already in the middle of a bunch of lights. And it seems well timed.) I almost hate to say it, but I think I will back the darn thing. I still believe regional comment should have been entertained. I still don't like the way it's been rammed through. But . . . I drove through today dropping a friend off at the airport. I'd forgotten just how short the controlled access stretch between Wash U. and Barnes was. They're well enough timed that usually I only have to stop at Big Bend when I'm going east. And then I'm cruising. There are so many lights there that I can't see how one more is going to make a difference. Okay, they're less likely to tim e things correctly for FPP, as they might want to time it for Kingshighway. Kind of a tough call that, which is an argument in favor of leaving it separated. But in reality the timing already ends a hair east of KH. (They're timed past the park, but that's probably all.) It's one more construction project to screw things up and there are already so many bridges closed that it's a little annoying to face another. But . . . I'm on board I think. Or at least I don't see it as making a darn bit of difference one way or the other, so if Barnes wants to waste money on the thing, well, at least it's not my money.

jcity wrote:Maybe one of the two lights was there, certainly not the eastern most.

Perhaps you're revealing yourself as an old man? Aerial imagery clearly shows that Millbrook Blvd has had signalized intersections at Throop and Hoyt Drives since at least 1996.

Of course, your correct that at some point in the past, those traffic signals did not exist. But then, not much before then, Millbrook Blvd did not exist, either—the right-of-way was taken up by a railroad and a streetcar line!

And yes, I'm not advocating for thoroughfares of speeding traffic from the city to the burbs, but I'm sorry, reducing Lindell from four lanes to two is ridiculous.

I'm guessing its likely 4 to 3 with the 3rd lane being a middle turn lane. Its not that ridiculous. I really encourage you to research road diets from 4 to 3 lanes. Look at South Grand as an example.

The real problem is all of the other east - west streets being arbitrarily closed (Laclede, West Pine, Maryland, Olive). If these streets were open from Kingshighway to Grand, then all the traffic could spread out, and speeding and aggressive driving would be reduced.

But I guess that makes too much sense for the "leaders" of this city.

I agree with re-opening the street grid throughout the city. I'm also talking about the light just west of Skinker that is next to wash u's new buildings. Yes, obviously Skiner has probably had a light at FPPY since traffic lights were invented. This 35 year "old man" doesn't go too far back....but those two light were more recently. Ok 1996 isn't that recent, but my original point is that I still prefer to keep this as a "parkway" and not add two more lights/ stops to it. In the least they need to time the lights correctly.
And "road diets" make sense in some places. Perhaps the vastly underused olive st. just went of downtown to grand makes sense, but it doesn't at Lindell along the park.

I would argue that making FPP accessible to folks on Kingshighway actually serves the purposes of the parkway better than having it return to grade at Euclid. I think this will drive quite a bit of additional traffic onto westbound FPP, at least.

Also, it was my understanding that the Lindell configuration was going to be studied after the FPP changes we complete. My guess, and it sounds like a fair number of people posting on here might agree with this, is that Lindell will see considerably reduced traffic after this FPP change. If that occurs, a road diet makes perfect sense. Even today Lindell doesn't really have the traffic to justify four lanes. But if those traffic reductions don't occur, I assume they will rationally keep the road as is.

Traffic on Lindell will continue to increase in the years to come, no matter what happens with FPP. Construction and demand is booming everywhere between Downtown and Clayton; exactly the areas served by Lindell.

I agree. Also, when people park on the both sides of Lindell for events you essentially only have one lane in each direction. What happens then when you add bike lanes? It doesn't work. Keep it as is and spend this money elsewhere.

Well, Lindell deadends at WashU, so it doesn't really take you into Clayton.

I can't speak to all stretches of Lindell, but the stretch from Union to West Pine often has bikes on it. Which is in contrast to say, Union, which pretty rarely has bicyclists.

I'd say a majority of the traffic off Lindell ends up on either Forsyth or Forest Park. As recently as the 90s there was a road that led through the park between Lindell and Forsyth, making that transition somewhat easier. It was deactivated and added to the golf course around 2000, possibly during the big Forest Park Forever campaign. I'm inclined to think all of that flowed a little better before, but it did take a chunk out of the park. That said, even if Lindell doesn't itself continue west, I'd guess quite a bit of the traffic does. Some surely flows north to the Loop or south to Hi-Pointe, but I'd guess a majority of the traffic going west down Lindell ends up in Clayton or U. City somewhere. If you want to stay in town there are probably better routes. So Lindell is carrying what will probably become local traffic in Clayton and U City, where FPP is carrying mostly commuter traffic bound for points further north and west. Doubtless there are traffic studies that can either confirm this or shoot holes in it, but Lindlell surely doesn't feel like a purely local city street to me.

I work in Midtown and live in U City. My options are either FPP, Delmar, or Lindell. Personally, I like to vary my route for variety's sake.

Regardless of whether bike lanes are added to Lindell -- although I think they'll get much more use than the ones on Union, which probably have more cars drive in them than bikes -- I think reconfiguring Lindell to one lane in each direction plus a turn lane will make the road feel a bit safer to me. Especially in the stretch east of Kingshighway, the road feels very tight to me. And west of Kingshighway, I just don't think there's enough traffic to warrant two lanes in each direction. I don't drive it much at rush hour though, so I could be wrong.

Lindell through the CWE is definitely too narrow as it is; very unsafe for everyone. Either the curbs need to be pushed out and the lanes widened, or else reduced to one lane each direction plus a turn lane. I'll leave it up to the engineers to figure out which.

framer wrote:Kingshighway through the CWE is definitely too narrow as it is; very unsafe for everyone. Either the curbs need to be pushed out and the lanes widened, or else reduced to one lane each direction plus a turn lane. I'll leave it up to the engineers to figure out which.

Kingshighway should be reduced to 1 lane???

I think he misspoke and meant Lindell.

Wider lanes make streets less safe, not more, by making car drivers feel more comfortable driving faster speeds and operating less attentively. The old idea that wider is safer is wrong and is incompatible with urban environments.

http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/10/w ... ow/381117/

^Right. Widening lanes causes people to drive faster. It feels more like a highway.

hiddeninput wrote:I think he misspoke and meant Lindell.

Oops; yes, I meant Lindell.

framer wrote:

hiddeninput wrote:I think he misspoke and meant Lindell.

Oops; yes, I meant Lindell.

Makes more sense

Park Central ‏@ParkCentralSTL
Euclid South CID Meeting to discuss reconfiguration of Kingshighway and Forest Park - Schlafly Library- 9/15 @ 2pm

Latest word from the City is that work is scheduled to start in October.

framer wrote:Latest word from the City is that work is scheduled to start in October.

I wouldn't be surprised if this gets pushed all the way to spring