The 14 ft. lane sounds good. Wide enough for bikes and cars. I also like parallel parking on this stretch better than angled parking.
Does anyone know if the utility work on Manchester is related to the streetscape project? Last I heard they weren't going to start til late spring / early summer, but it seems like a lot of trucks for routine maintenance. Maybe Laclede needs to move some lines before the project begins?
- 11K
Haven't heard directly, but the Tour de Grove bike race is mid-June and is using Manchester and other streets for the race course so apparently nothing's happening until after that.
- 1,000
As much utility work is going on, it almost has to be related. Could be prelim work though, surveying and marking, etc.
According to 'Blog 17', the streetscape improvements have started at Sarah and Manchester
http://www.17thwardstl.com/wordpress.com/
http://www.17thwardstl.com/wordpress.com/
- 453
excellent. work on South Grand should also be beginning soon. I also saw an interesting post on Blog 17 about a green redevelopment on McRee and created a new topic on that.wuphys wrote:According to 'Blog 17', the streetscape improvements have started at Sarah and Manchester
http://www.17thwardstl.com/wordpress.com/
Did I miss something or did they move some of the Schoemehl Balls along Gibson Ave?
- 3,762
yikes... time for a streetscape refresh along Manchester in the grove. it looks rough.
Pretty sure MoDOT is repaving the entire Manchester/Chouteau from Broadway all the way to the city limits.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Jul 28, 2025yikes... time for a streetscape refresh along Manchester in the grove. it looks rough.
- 3,762
that'll help the aesthetics some, but i'm mostly referring to the pedestrian realm. not enough trees. too much road debris. broken crossing buttons. broken street lamps. it's just not an enjoyable walk, and it should be. the road needs more traffic calming and narrowing, wider sidewalks, protected bike lanes... the usual.
I think the MoDOT repave will fix a lot of that. I would also like them to put in real traffic lights instead of the lights on wires. Looks so cheap and crappy right now.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Jul 28, 2025that'll help the aesthetics some, but i'm mostly referring to the pedestrian realm. not enough trees. too much road debris. broken crossing buttons. broken street lamps. it's just not an enjoyable walk, and it should be. the road needs more traffic calming and narrowing, wider sidewalks, protected bike lanes... the usual.
Overall, the plan looks a hell of a lot better than what exists right now.
https://www.modot.org/projects/missouri ... louis-city
- 6,140
^When there's an awful lot of segments where it says "no changes"? (Like the segment from Taylor to Vandeventer that's pretty much the heart of the Grove.) Actually, the plan looks pretty much exactly like what's there now, just with new pavement and fresh lights so that it's harder to do anything to fix the disaster for the next twenty years. Grr. 
Manchester in the Grove is an unwalkable disaster. I frequent Urban Chestnut. There isn't enough space in front of UCBC for two people abreast at one time, so if you have two people walking in opposite directions one of them will have to stop and wait for the other to pass at the frequent bottlenecks for light poles, parking boxes, street trees . . .
What the street really needs is a road diet, and that doesn't appear to be any part of MODoT's plan. One more missed opportunity in a long, long line of them. I'm glad the city is at least doing something where it can.
Manchester in the Grove is an unwalkable disaster. I frequent Urban Chestnut. There isn't enough space in front of UCBC for two people abreast at one time, so if you have two people walking in opposite directions one of them will have to stop and wait for the other to pass at the frequent bottlenecks for light poles, parking boxes, street trees . . .
What the street really needs is a road diet, and that doesn't appear to be any part of MODoT's plan. One more missed opportunity in a long, long line of them. I'm glad the city is at least doing something where it can.
Manchester through the Gove will be 1 lane in each direction with parking lanes on each side. No suicide lane either. That's already pretty dieted.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Jul 29, 2025^When there's an awful lot of segments where it says "no changes"? (Like the segment from Taylor to Vandeventer that's pretty much the heart of the Grove.) Actually, the plan looks pretty much exactly like what's there now, just with new pavement and fresh lights so that it's harder to do anything to fix the disaster for the next twenty years. Grr.
Manchester in the Grove is an unwalkable disaster. I frequent Urban Chestnut. There isn't enough space in front of UCBC for two people abreast at one time, so if you have two people walking in opposite directions one of them will have to stop and wait for the other to pass at the frequent bottlenecks for light poles, parking boxes, street trees . . .
What the street really needs is a road diet, and that doesn't appear to be any part of MODoT's plan. One more missed opportunity in a long, long line of them. I'm glad the city is at least doing something where it can.
There are quite a few more pedestrian crossings in the new plan.
- 1,298
Anyone know what's up with the streetlights on Manchester? Was driving around last weekend at 3AM and it seemed like not a single one was on between like McCausland and Vandy.
- 3,762
thanks for the link. the plan includes a few median refuges, which is good, but it sounds like MoDOT's not responsible for anything that's not between the curbs. and i don't understand why the agreement allows them to build medians in the road, but not "a vertical barrier" for protected bike lanes? city is responsible for all aesthetic improvements... so MoDOT gets to maintain their dangerous, destructive thoroughfare cutting through what should be a thriving commercial district with tons of foot traffic, and the city's on the hook for all the external destruction. f*cking sigh.
i especially love:
high volumes of automobile traffic speeding through the grove is more important than high volumes of pedestrian traffic patronizing local businesses and contributing to the local economy and quality of life. so f*cking MoDOT. so endlessly saint louis.Much of the corridor will have fewer lanes, except for the area through The Grove, due to the high volumes of traffic into and out of The Grove area.
anyway, here's the project synopsis from the link:
What improvements are being done?
Much of the corridor will have fewer lanes, except for the area through The Grove, due to the high volumes of traffic into and out of The Grove area. There is currently much more available space in the corridor than traffic, which tends to lead to increased speed and more aggressive driving. Most areas will be reduced by one lane, with left turn lanes onto side streets. To prevent traffic using the center lane as a passing lane, the department will create raised medians in those areas where the lanes are not needed. Remaining roadway space will be used for a buffered bike lane along much of the corridor. Pedestrian crossings will be enhanced, including more Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons along the corridor and updating striping.
What about a protected bike lane?
We’ve heard from the community about their desire for a protected bike lane along the corridor. Although MoDOT can’t install a vertical barrier along the corridor under the current agreement with the city, we are talking with the city to include those options along the corridor between Sarah and Broadway. Although that work won’t happen as a part of this project, we are moving toward an agreement for that in the future, as part of a separate project.
How will MoDOT make mid-block crossings safer?
One of the concerns we heard from the public was that drivers tended not to stop as pedestrians were crossing the roadway, especially at mid-block crossings, even when the flashing signals were activated. This project will reduce the number of lanes across much of the corridor, and will narrow most of those lanes. This should reduce the amount of time it takes people to cross the street. In addition, many of the mid-block crossings will have a median refuge to allow pedestrians to stop, in a protected area, if they are unable to fully cross. This should help make the crossing safer for pedestrians.
What about plantings in the median?
MoDOT continues to talk with our partner, the city of St. Louis, about options for aesthetic improvements to the corridor. As a matter of policy, MoDOT requires all aesthetics, such as plantings, to be paid for and maintained by a municipality or other government organization.
What are MoDOT’s responsibilities on Route 100?
MoDOT has a maintenance agreement with the city of St. Louis for certain roads within the city limits. MoDOT is responsible for maintaining signals, signs, striping, sweeping and pavement maintenance on Route 100. St. Louis City retains ownership and responsibility for everything else. During this process, MoDOT will work with the city of St. Louis to evaluate and consider other safety improvements outside of the above maintenance responsibilities.
- 6,140
That's four lanes. Eliminate a lane of parking. Narrow the traffic lanes. Make the sidewalks wider. (They really should be at least wide enough that pedestrians don't need to stop to pass one another. There's no excuse for what's there. None.) And hey, bonus, you might even be able to add a protected bicycle path. Hell, eliminate all the on street parking if you have to. I'd even be willing to accept a garage to make that happen.Auggie wrote: ↑Jul 29, 2025Manchester through the Gove will be 1 lane in each direction with parking lanes on each side. No suicide lane either. That's already pretty dieted.
There are quite a few more pedestrian crossings in the new plan.
Parking in the Grove is a nightmare as is and the transit is simply not there to make up for reducing parking spaces. Maybe a compromise like angled parking on one side and widened sidewalks could be made someday, but I just can't imagine there would be business support for removing parking spaces on a strip that relies on lots of people who drive there to patronize their businesses.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Jul 29, 2025That's four lanes. Eliminate a lane of parking. Narrow the traffic lanes. Make the sidewalks wider. (They really should be at least wide enough that pedestrians don't need to stop to pass one another. There's no excuse for what's there. None.) And hey, bonus, you might even be able to add a protected bicycle path. Hell, eliminate all the on street parking if you have to. I'd even be willing to accept a garage to make that happen.Auggie wrote: ↑Jul 29, 2025Manchester through the Gove will be 1 lane in each direction with parking lanes on each side. No suicide lane either. That's already pretty dieted.
There are quite a few more pedestrian crossings in the new plan.
I would love to see what the businesses would have to say though.
- 6,140
^Did you catch the part about building a parking garage?
Where would it be and who will pay for it? Again, doubt the businesses would choose to do that. So the city?
No. I just don't see it. I fully agree that the status quo is not ideal, but the street parking is unfortunately necessary for the Grove. Maybe someday, in a much better reality than we are in right now, the Green Line will be built and there will be better pedestrian access to the Cortex station and maybe the 31 will run more than hourly, but right now we are not there.
The Grove desperately needs additional parking now. Taking away any parking on Manchester is not an option.
- 285
I'm baffled by how strongly people feel there isn't enough parking in The Grove. I've lived in the neighborhood since 2020 and - at least as a resident - have never, ever struggled with parking except for on street cleaning days.
Although I'm not frequenting night life destinations as a very boring person, I can confidently say that friends visiting in the evening have never complained about finding a nearby spot. Whenever they drive in to dine out, the same is true.
In fact, several neighbors are also car-light folks like ourselves and utilize the ped bridge to take the MetroLink or otherwise bike/walk to work. I don't think this is as car dependent of a neighborhood as people here seem to be suggesting that it is.
Although I'm not frequenting night life destinations as a very boring person, I can confidently say that friends visiting in the evening have never complained about finding a nearby spot. Whenever they drive in to dine out, the same is true.
In fact, several neighbors are also car-light folks like ourselves and utilize the ped bridge to take the MetroLink or otherwise bike/walk to work. I don't think this is as car dependent of a neighborhood as people here seem to be suggesting that it is.
- 2,642
Americans are seemingly allergic to walking more the a block from their parked car to their destination. At this point structured parking on top of retail along Manchester would make sense, nothing crazy just upgrade an existing surface lot. The only spot where I would support demolition for a garage would be part of the Archway Sales complex.
- 3,762
the city is dying on the "not enough parking" hill. apparently all the parking isn't working either, so maybe instead try the thing that works in civilized parts of the world?brianadler6545 wrote: ↑Jul 30, 2025I'm baffled by how strongly people feel there isn't enough parking in The Grove.