http://www.stltoday.com/suburban-journa ... d3681.html

This was being discussed in the grand ave replacement thread. It probably needs it's own.

Great news on transportation projects in the area.

Sean

Lame. I realize this neighborhood is different, but imagine if a monster bridge like this were at Delmar and the Metrolink tracks. No hope of Loop development crossing such a bridge and no trolley either.

How much did the new Delmar bridge cost? A lot less than $22M. How close would the balance come to trenching the railroad tracks? Would a grade crossing be tolerable until we can afford better? Can we at least weigh the options? We should demand better.

I'd at least like an examination of the options. If a trench costs way too much or is completely unfeasible because they want to maintain access to the facilities alongside, the grade would be too steep, there's a big sewer running under it, or whatever then fine. But there's already a trench ~1500 feet down the line at Southwest, and it doesn't appear the buildings adjacent are using the railroad at the moment.

I think we should expect answers to some questions before we accept a repeat of what's there now:
1. What do residents and business owners in the area want?
2. What are the cost and feasibility of the options here?
3. How much rail traffic is there?
4. Is a 6 lane bridge necessary?

If no City money goes into replacing the orphaned I-70 lanes downtown as they are surely we aren't going to keep quiet.

I'm all worked up about this because in my neck of the woods (Skinky-D) we don't have a huge bridge like this. All the Metrolink tracks are in a trench/tunnel and it's a nightmare to think what it'd be like to have a bridge like this on Delmar/Skinker/DeBaliviere/FPP/Union.

The other big reason why govt entities such as local, county and state governments prefer bridges over tracks or under them is that railroad right of ways have preference over local right of ways because of the commerce clause. In essence, UP simply can say NO as a vehicular bridge provides a reasonable alternative. Thus, local entities generally and the railroad have to come to an agreement if altering the railroad ROW is beneficial to both parties or local entities or willing to cover liabilities.

Unfortunately, that is the reality of the situation and UP has no real gain for a trench nor does covering future liabilities is really desireable without a direct benefit to the local community, ie fixed transit along the ROW or commuter line on the existing rail line.

The other alternative, which Gone Corporate notes the big disadvantage on this heavily traveled street, is to go with an at grade crossing. However, Railroad still has right of way and the crossing guards will come down anytime UP sends a train down the line. If the city was footing the bill outright it might be an alternative to provide UP with funding to limit or restrict service to specific hours. Once again, UP might see a 20% share of the bridge cost more beneficial over time versus self imposed restrictions on its own ROW.

Come on, guys; there's no way anyone would seriously consider an at-grade crossing here.

Thanks to the Alderman for getting my question to the right person.

Alderman Roddy,

Reconstruction of the Kingshighway Bridge Over the Union Pacific Railroad track is one of the City's highest capital infrastructure priorities. The City has already received $3.5 million Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Grant for design and right-of-way. BPS plans to submit Phase 2 TIP application this month for $18.5 million dollars covering construction and additional right-of-way.

The City conducted a Feasibility Study to investigate various options. Unfortunately, the option of lowering the track is not feasible due to grade problems with adjacent intersection streets. In other words, the track could not easily be designed to go under Kingshighway and meet other adjacent street crossing elevations due to limitations on maximum track slope to accommodate freight trains.

Project design will commence this year, followed by right-of-way, and construction anticipated to start in 2014. Attached for your information is additional project background and data.

John P. Kohler, P.E.
Planning and Programming Manager

Hmm. Didn't page 2 just disappear? I posted some pics last night from the public meeting. Did I cause this?

imran wrote:Hmm. Didn't page 2 just disappear? I posted some pics last night from the public meeting. Did I cause this?

Didn't see the pics, but doubt anything you did could have deleted a page.

Okay. Let me try this again:

A new access for Shaw is being created to better align with Shaw on the west. This access will pass through the area to the south of O'Connell's (currently their parking lot)


To compensate O'Connell's for parking the 3 story Mobot owned building immediately to the east of it is to be demolished for parking (see middle of the photograph)




Next, the bridge span. filling out the area underneath where the skate park is.


Proposed design elements


They will continue to accept public comments until May 12.2012

Contact:

Richard H Stockmann
Project manager
suite 301 City Hall
1200 Market Street
STL, MO 63103

phone: 314-589-6606
Fax : 314-622-4028
e mail: StockmannD@stlouiscity.com

at least there will be a net increase of surface parking

Since there is federal money involved, doesn't that therefore trigger a section 106 review?

Alex wrote:

IMO - splitting Shaw is a mess. The street should run south of O'Connell's only. The only reason to maintain it north is to keep access to MoBOT parking - but then it's only one-way access. Bad idea.

Or at the very least, leave "North Shaw", and close it off from Kindshighway. Put it some sidewalk and planters and call it good. It seems confusing to have tqwo roads.

Last I heard this was to start after Grand reopened. What's the status of this?