Gravois Ave MO-30

imran · PostApr 30, 2015#262015-04-30T20:34+00:00

From Lewis Reed:

"Dear Residents-
Tonight at 5:30pm I've invited MODot engineers to the Five Star Senior Center (2832 Arsenal) for our first Transportation Town Hall to discuss plans to redesign Gravois Avenue from Russell to S. Grand Blvd, including the potential to close 16 intersecting side streets (later proposals are calling for 11 closures). More information on this plan: http://www.modot.org/stlouis/major_proje...
MODot will take feedback and questions from residents and living nearby is not a requirement, since this route is a regional connector and serves drives from a large geography. Residents will have time then to speak to the attendees in support or opposition."

dbInSouthCity · PostMay 01, 2015#272015-05-01T00:25+00:00

Well that was a waste of almost two hours. Very poorly run meeting. I think MoDOT was told it was going to be something else then it was. Reed just introduced the main MoDOT person and not the 5 others so most people just thought there was one MoDOT person there. I think she was a bit pissed off that the format wasn't properly explained.

I've seen these types of meetings all the time, these projects are on the books and public for 2-3 years. They go thru EWG tip and MoDOT stip month long comment periods each year, nobody comments and MoDOT and city and EWG move forward thinking well nobody said anything, then the project comes to the 11th hour and the crowd shows up. This isn't just in transportation, this is an issue in anything government does

PostMay 01, 2015#282015-05-01T01:15+00:00

And by the way everyone involved in this meeting tonight should be embarrassed about how that went, lewis Reed and his staff, MoDOT, all the alderman there and the crowd too...

And lastly the guy who drove up and down Gravois 10 times with a stop watch apparently and counted cars too for presenting that as actual traffic data.

moorlander · PostMay 01, 2015#292015-05-01T03:13+00:00

dbInSouthCity wrote: I've seen these types of meetings all the time, these projects are on the books and public for 2-3 years. They go thru EWG tip and MoDOT stip month long comment periods each year, nobody comments and MoDOT and city and EWG move forward thinking well nobody said anything, then the project comes to the 11th hour and the crowd shows up. This isn't just in transportation, this is an issue in anything government does

They may be public but they aren't well publicized and they're complicated for the layman to understand. Not to mention people have other things going on in their lives.

dbInSouthCity · PostMay 01, 2015#302015-05-01T03:33+00:00

Some odd comments at the meeting;

"I don't like how grand is now, it's not a neighborhood anymore with people coming from all over the city to eat shop ect"

"Why are you putting bike lanes on Gravois, I thought a road was for cars"

And some actually applauded those comments and I'm in the back going

quincunx · PostMay 01, 2015#312015-05-01T12:02+00:00

dbInSouthCity wrote:Well that was a waste of almost two hours. Very poorly run meeting. I think MoDOT was told it was going to be something else then it was. Reed just introduced the main MoDOT person and not the 5 others so most people just thought there was one MoDOT person there. I think she was a bit pissed off that the format wasn't properly explained.

I've seen these types of meetings all the time, these projects are on the books and public for 2-3 years. They go thru EWG tip and MoDOT stip month long comment periods each year, nobody comments and MoDOT and city and EWG move forward thinking well nobody said anything, then the project comes to the 11th hour and the crowd shows up. This isn't just in transportation, this is an issue in anything government does

Yep, I went to one of the tip open houses last year at Schlafly library,no one there.

They need to engage communities at the scale of the project.

When WashU wanted to put lights on Skinker they knew that they had to engage and even worked closely with the alderwoman to make the process as smooth and fruitful as possible.

Northside Neighbor · PostMay 01, 2015#322015-05-01T12:15+00:00

This is actually a good thing. The meeting last night might have been awkward, and, as incoming traffic commish for the city, DeAnna Venker might need to change her mindset from old MODOT to new City, but the fact 250 people showed up because they passionately care about their community is a good thing. Government needs to build on the momentum of engaged residents.

dbInSouthCity · PostMay 01, 2015#332015-05-01T12:46+00:00

3 options for this project at this point

1. proceed as planned
2. just replace lights- leave streets as is- most of the closures were city streets dept idea (was told they weren't allowed to speak for whatever reason)

12m12 minutes ago
Woke up thinking about the #Gravois meeting. @StlStreets (Todd W) told me that he disagreed with almost every point made by the public. JC

3. turn over the entire project and the $1.2M in CMAQ funds BACK to the City and let them do the project.

SPACEarchitects ‏@SPACEarchitects
The #Gravois plan came from the city, and was handed to @MoDOT. If you're upset about the proposed street closures, let @MayorSlay know. JC

Mark Groth · PostMay 01, 2015#342015-05-01T12:56+00:00

MoDOT accused Reed et al of grand standing. They dismissed the speakers who were mostly articulate and passionate about the negatives of more street closures. Not only did the preservationists and city boosters speak on the matter (Michael Allen, Randy Vines, Chris Naffzinger, etc), so did business owners, like the One Night Stand, Jefferson Awning, etc.

The key takeaways I had were:

MoDot spokesperson (who was very defensive and unprepared) did not appreciated the meeting forum. They felt blindsided. They were expecting a poster session where they can talk 1:1 with citizens and see what they can tweak. The most important thing she stated is that the aldermen have the final say on the street closures. So please reach out to them (Ingrassia, Ellyia-Green, Spencer, Ortman).

Then, when I spoke to a MoDOT planner at one of the poster boards, he was very honest in saying that the city gave them the plan with the street closures already in it. He was not happy that they were taking the heat for something that was given to them. They are just in charge of striping, lane narrowing, bike lanes and pedestrian crossings. I asked him which city dept gave them the street closings and he didn't know. If this is true, the real vitriol might be pointed at the wrong party.

It was great to see such good community participation. I was proud of my city and neighbors and happy that Reed et al organized this meeting otherwise I wouldn't have been able to engage in the process and gain a deeper understanding of what is being proposed.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 6302a.html

https://www.facebook.com/GreaterGravois

STLEnginerd · PostMay 01, 2015#352015-05-01T13:22+00:00

Out of curiosity was the stances against closures specific to particular intersections, or is it just all closures are bad. I ask because I think it's fair to say that some of the closures could be implemented without a significant impact on connectivity.

What was the crowd consensus in you opinion. General disapproval, specific disapproval, all over the map?

dbInSouthCity · PostMay 01, 2015#362015-05-01T13:35+00:00

^ looking at the maps, some were not total street closures...they would just block off those odd triangles that the 6 way intersection creates...closing those wouldn't have a negative impact.

example

americancitizen · PostMay 01, 2015#372015-05-01T14:30+00:00

Honest question.

If this plan happens as presented, what do you think will be the impact on the streets that get turned into cul-de-sacs? Say in 5 or 10 years time. Net positive for those blocks? Net negative? Net nothing?

mill204 · PostMay 01, 2015#382015-05-01T16:17+00:00

STLEnginerd wrote:Out of curiosity was the stances against closures specific to particular intersections, or is it just all closures are bad. What was the crowd consensus in you opinion?

General feeling was all closures are bad. One resident said the street grid is sacred. Michael Allen pointed out how there have been 262 road closures in the city, almost all done by board of aldermen. Others concerned about trucks and patrons reaching businesses and closures leading to additional traffic on streets left open.

There for only an hour, but I can't recall hearing a single person who openly said the plan was a good idea. General consensus was that even if there was advance notice of something happening on Gravois (resurfacing, signal retiming) , the part about the road closures was surprised everyone and felt like they were being sold a done deal.

roger wyoming II · PostMay 01, 2015#392015-05-01T16:23+00:00

So I'm confused now on whether this was a plan initiated by MODOT or more by the City but having to be led by MODOT b/c of the state highway status. Anyway, both orgs need to do a better job of public outreach of major projects in general and something like a Great Streets initiative for Gravois would be helpful... the S. Grand meetings were a model of good public input and participation.

STLEnginerd · PostMay 01, 2015#402015-05-01T17:26+00:00

looking at the maps, some were not total street closures...they would just block off those odd triangles that the 6 way intersection creates...closing those wouldn't have a negative impact.

I agree, but if you do block them I think you can't leave it as a little parking cul de sac, you need to completely rip them up and convert it into a pedestrian plaza of some kind.

imran · PostMay 01, 2015#412015-05-01T20:08+00:00

http://www.change.org/p/modot-plan-for- ... on-gravois

dbInSouthCity · PostMay 01, 2015#422015-05-01T20:54+00:00

^ someone passed those out last night and honestly that's just not possible. In the real world that plan costs $15-20m. ADA sidewalks are EXPANSIVE! especially for 5 miles and federal rules say you have to do ADA even with a resurface. This is why the MoDOT resurface job+ signals is $7.8 million
I would be happy to have something in between what is currently proposed and what those shows but GRG or the city will have to put in a few million to get there

jstriebel · PostMay 01, 2015#432015-05-01T21:01+00:00

dbInSouthCity wrote:^ looking at the maps, some were not total street closures...they would just block off those odd triangles that the 6 way intersection creates...closing those wouldn't have a negative impact.

example

For what it's worth, I disagree that it doesn't have a negative impact. And I'm speaking as a driver even. We shouldn't have to navigate our street grid like a maze.

mill204 · PostMay 01, 2015#442015-05-01T21:11+00:00

Would this work? Should fit within the curbs.

dbInSouthCity · PostMay 01, 2015#452015-05-01T21:49+00:00

I think the business owners would bark at the no street parking

That's a very wide road- won't be able to make everyone happy but there is plenty of room for 2 lanes of traffic each way, street parking and dedicated & protected bike lane but again GRG would need to toss in some $

imran · PostMay 02, 2015#462015-05-02T01:40+00:00

dbInSouthCity wrote:I think the business owners would bark at the no street parking

That's a very wide road- won't be able to make everyone happy but there is plenty of room for 2 lanes of traffic each way, street parking and dedicated & protected bike lane but again GRG would need to toss in some $

The cross-section shows street parking used to buffer the bike lanes. The only places parking would be eliminated is where there is a bus stop which the case anyhow.

vollum · PostMay 03, 2015#472015-05-03T04:49+00:00

Is increased safety not an issue in these proposed street closures? I haven't seen any mention of it in the discussions of the proposal. Reductions in access points woulds reduce the number of vehicle conflict points. Is the accident/crash rate high on this stretch of Gravois? I am always extra cautious traveling down Gravois especially when on the motorcycle because of all of the entrance points. A lot of drivers blow thru red lights in this town.

imran · PostMay 03, 2015#482015-05-03T13:34+00:00

Closing streets does not eliminate accidents from people running red lights or from driving above the speed limit. If safety for cars was the only concern, we could just close off all cross streets and make Gravois a highway with no 'points of conflict'. That extreme example would devastate the neighborhoods next to Gravois as well as prospects for pedestrians.

The answer for eliciting safer behavior from drivers (and cyclists/pedestrians) is to provide an environment that is equitable to everyone and accessible for everyone. If you build a 6 lane road, you can't expect people to drive slowly/safely on it. And if you close entry points, like it or not, someone's access is being limited.

vollum · PostMay 03, 2015#492015-05-03T16:33+00:00

The point I intended was that since a need for increased safety is not being brought up by proponents of the plan, it must not be a factor. The crash rate on this segment of Gravois must not be unusually high.... And, yes... A freeway with no interchanges is undoubtedly the safest road design...no vehicle conflict points...The road areas off the two ends might be a little hairy though.

Northside Neighbor · PostMay 03, 2015#502015-05-03T18:51+00:00

How do we get people to think of our larger streets as neighborhood corridors?

You know, something just occurred to me. Maybe one reason they don't is that we tend to divide our neighborhoods by these larger streets instead of thinking of them as the backbone of an area. "I'm on my side; you're on yours. And between us we have this giant six-eight lane road dividing us that has always been and will always be." So don't ask any questions!

Could it be our parochial nature that keeps us from thinking about how to connect communities?

Gravois Ave MO-30

Choose Display Mode