urbanSTL

What is reasonable is not 7 lanes of traffic. Also it's called Forest Park Avenue east of Kingshighway.

quincunx wrote: ↑

Jan 12, 2023

I was referring to sc4mayor's drawing.

Apologies, misunderstood, I was looking at the previous MoDOT images

^I've seen a tiny few pedestrian bridges, at Stephens College in Columbia, that were pretty functional. But most even modern ones require either a very long walk up ramps or a lot of stairs or tight corners, since heavens to Betsy, you could never reduce clearance for automobiles on a major road. Honestly, this whole thing feels deeply disappointing to me. MODoT really needs to pull their collective head out of their tailpipe and smell the roses. There's no need for seven lanes on that or any street in this damn town. And that is clearly a place in desperate need of better pedestrian and bicycle access, which seems to be utterly lacking in all of the drawings I've seen so far. All looks like more of the same. I sincerely and honestly prefer what we've got to what I'm seeing, since it all looks like even more concrete to cross, not less.

Went through the MoDOT video and added up lanes in some of the "improvements" they've rendered:
(current->proposed)
Grand at Forest Park Ave: 5->9 lanes on Grand and 4(not counting underpass lanes)->7 lanes on Forest Park
Eastbound I-64 Offramp/Bernard at Grand: 2->4 lanes on Bernard/ramp and 5->7 lanes on Grand
Westbound I-64 Onramp at Grand: 1->2 lanes on ramp and 5->6 lanes on Grand

Meanwhile the only bike infrastructure they seem to be considering is making the sidewalks wider and labeling them "shared use paths" which in reality means cyclists will need to walk their bikes along most of this route to avoid terrorizing and colliding with pedestrians.

I can't even say that making Forest Park and Grand entirely at grade is a win if it's a 9 lane wide intersection. The problem with developing along Forest Park Ave east of the intersection wasn't the underpass, but the fact that it was essentially an oversized highway ramp at that point, a situation easily fixed by reworking the stretch between Grand and Compton. I would rather cross north/south in the current configuration if they would clarify the turning movements, improve the sidewalks, and ideally add a protected bike lane instead of what they're proposing. Currently people only cross 1-3 lanes at a time, not 5 or more. There is no reason any of these roads should be more than 2 lanes per direction, I thought the Foundry was a step in the correct direction taking the eastbound lanes from 3 down to 2, this proposal seems like two steps back.

Reduce the lanes and add pedestrian islands so people don't need to cross more than 3 lanes at a time then this could be a decent at-grade crossing, but what they've drawn is worse than what is currently there and that's saying something. It's like they took all the comments wanting safer bike options and more pedestrian-friendliness and chucked those in the trash then proposed something even more car-centric than what's there now.

Counting the underpass lanes, Forest Park Ave is 9 lanes wide currently at the intersection with Grand. It's hard to see how that couldn't be reduced to at most 6 lanes with a landscaped median for pedestrians. Maybe gong down to 5 lanes could work. But it's not really going from 4 lanes to 9 lanes or widening the ROW from what's already there. The design could definitely still be improved for pedestrians though.

mullanphy wrote: ↑

Jan 13, 2023

Counting the underpass lanes, Forest Park Ave is 9 lanes wide currently at the intersection with Grand. It's hard to see how that couldn't be reduced to at most 6 lanes with a landscaped median for pedestrians. Maybe gong down to 5 lanes could work. But it's not really going from 4 lanes to 9 lanes or widening the ROW from what's already there. The design could definitely still be improved for pedestrians though.

I'd do a landscaped boulevard with a center median and grass/tree strips that protect bike lanes. That would narrow it down to 6 pretty easily if done well. It would also make it look nice.

mullanphy wrote: ↑

Jan 13, 2023

Counting the underpass lanes, Forest Park Ave is 9 lanes wide currently at the intersection with Grand. It's hard to see how that couldn't be reduced to at most 6 lanes with a landscaped median for pedestrians. Maybe gong down to 5 lanes could work. But it's not really going from 4 lanes to 9 lanes or widening the ROW from what's already there. The design could definitely still be improved for pedestrians though.

I was just counting the number of lanes pedestrians are going to need to walk across. While not adding any more road lanes overall to Forest Park Ave, my concern is that MoDOT is proposing making pedestrian crossings much wider. Some of this could be alleviated through a landscaped island as long as it has an actual pedestrian refuge and not one of the medians that stops short of the crosswalk. Most importantly it would help to make sure Forest Park only has 2 through lanes each direction rather than 3. It is already narrowed to 2 lanes in the eastbound direction at the Foundry, and it's tough to argue it needs more than that. As long as they're rebuilding the street, let's not add more lanes than needed as that will just result in more reckless driving and a more hostile experience for anyone next to the road.

Reminder that the open house for Future64 is today Wed Jan 18 4-7 pm at 4220 Duncan. Let MoDOT know that more of the same is unacceptable. Here's some prep material.

quincunx wrote:Reminder that the open house for Future64 is today Wed Jan 18 4-7 pm at 4220 Duncan. Let MoDOT know that more of the same is unacceptable. Here's some prep material.

I am planning on being there.

Lucky you. My employer thinks the website is too dangerous.

doellingd wrote: ↑

Jan 18, 2023

Alternatives are live: https://future64virtualmeeting.com/

Thanks for posting, good to see before the open house. I'm sure we all have our thoughts, but I thought I'd list mine.
Pros:
- Looks like the second image has Theresa and a 'shared use path' crossing the tracks which would be great for north/south accessibility for the Steelcote development
- Converting the Tower Grove Ave overpass to non-car use would a great, although combining with ramp traffic on the south side isn't ideal, I'd rather keep highway traffic on Boyle for speed/safety reasons
- A lot of usable land recapture along Forest Park east of Grand

Cons:
- Not a fan of shared-used paths as bike infrastructure in pedestrian heavy areas like around Grand, mixing when there are a lot of people on foot will make biking either too slow to be useful or so fast that it's dangerous, it would be nice to see at least one bike-dedicated north/south crossing. Also in many of these materials, what they call a 'share-use path' looks to be essentially a widened sidewalk. While I support wider and better sidewalks, I don't want to pretend they are more than they are especially when it comes to using them as bike infrastructure.
- Image two seems like the only one that provides for improvements to the north/south route for non-cars around Grand. In image 1 and 3, the 'shared use path' stops at Benard.
- I don't see any improvement for crossing the highway between the Armory and the Foundry, given the popularity of the two venues, this should be a priority both for convenience and for safety (although one may be planned west of the area shown in these images)
- We need to stop adding lanes to Forest Park and Grand, I know MoDOT prioritizes traffic flow over all other concerns, but crossing up to 8 or 9 lanes of traffic is going to be a dangerous intersection both for cars and non-car traffic. There is no reason for either of these streets to have more than 2 through lanes and 1 turning lane. There needs to be islands in the center for those on foot, actual raised protected ones not just painted ones. There is a freeway right there and another only a mile south, let's not make these streets highways as well.

Not-sure:
- Dedicated bus lanes are nice, but only if they can function as such. What keeps other traffic from using them? We know that wider roads (or the perception of width) increases drivers' speeds, is there anything to keep Grand feeling narrow despite bus lanes on each side? Are there accommodations at crossings so that pedestrians and bikes don't feel like they're crossing two more lanes of traffic? If these are the plan they need to be more than just painted infrastructure otherwise we're just widening Grand to 3 lanes each way.

Off the cuff without too much deep dive… Option 2 seems like the best of the 3? Reclaims land while also reconnecting Theresa from steelcote to forest park avenue, and dedicated bus line on grand.

So I heard the meeting got a little wild last night... anybody care to share the drama with us?