From the 17th Ward website:

New streetlights will shine in the Grove, thanks to a grant from the East-West Gateway Council of Governments. The council awarded $1.45 million for pedestrian lighting on Manchester from Taylor to Sarah in the Forest Park Southeast neighborhood. The new lights will be installed as part of Manchester Streetscape Project in 2010.



The Manchester lighting project was one of 75 projects picked by the council to receive funds. Nearly 400 projects from around the region vied for the grants, which were part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act recently passed by Congress.



Joe Roddy, 17th Ward Alderman, said the lighting grant was "another major step forward" for the community. “This is great news for the businesses, residents and patrons of the Forest Park Southeast neighborhood," Roddy said. "I want to thank East West Gateway and of course the city’s representative on that board, Mayor Slay, for sharing our vision of Manchester as a pedestrian-oriented entertainment and commercial district.”



The original $2 million Manchester streetscape plan calls for new sidewalks, trees, street furniture and crosswalks – and thanks to the grant, lighting will now be included. Funded through a federal grant plus funds from the city of St. Louis and Washington University Medical Center, the project is scheduled to begin in 2010, after completion of the I-64/Highway 40 construction project.

link: http://www.17thwardstl.com/getFileFromD ... tentID=375



[edit] It appears that there will no longer be four lanes of traffic plus parking, but instead two lanes of traffic plus parallel parking and two lanes of traffic with a left turn lane at intersections. This will give corner restaurants a fantastic amount of space for outdoor dining! WooHoo - can't wait.



[edit] and for those who just don't want to click . . .

The city, per requests from Grove businesses, is pushing to add angled parking along Manchester. But so far MoDOT won't budge on the issue.

^ On the surface this seems like a good idea, but angled parking adds very little capacity. How long until there's a new building with a couple levels of parking for the Grove?

^ Yep, if they're not wide enough they're not much good. Then again, I say don't put bike lanes on there at all.

JCity wrote:maybe i'm outdated, but I really think they should promote this area as more of a "gay district". ala Chicago boystown. This city needs to promote its diversity at every angle. how about some cool lighting like chicago has? make this more of a destination.

The problem I see with this is that some straight people will then avoid it because of that. I know straight people that avoid it now because it unofficially is the gay district.

Why does it have to be the official anything? I hate labels. If the market makes it into the gay district then it will be the gay district. I think it is a good mix right now. All I care about is that the people who live there fix up the properties and the people that own the businesses run a quality establishment.

Do you have images from your double check? I knew the images were a bit dated and now with the additional funds things are likely to be modified a bit again.

I am working on getting revised plans. I heard today the bike lanes were removed.

^ I really think that this is a positive step (probably suitable for another thread), but I am now looking forward to riding my bike down Manchester.

Grover wrote:^ I really think that this is a positive step (probably suitable for another thread), but I am now looking forward to riding my bike down Manchester.

I'm confused.

Painted bike lanes increase the danger for cyclists.



A painted bicycle lane instructs motorists and cyclists that the bike lane is the only place they should ride. This gives a false sense of security as vehicles assume a bike will not leave the bike lane and a cyclist assumes a car will not enter the bike lane. Inevitably painted bike lanes are immediately next to parallel parked cars, increasing the chance for a collision with an opening car door or vehicle entering/exiting a parking spot. Cars give cyclists LESS room when passing where there is a painted bike lane. The bike lanes cause confusion when a cyclist intends to turn left: cars expect cyclists to remain in bike lanes when they are present, but to turn left a cyclist should be positioned in the left side of the traffic lane (or in the left turn lane when present). The overwhelming number of bicycle/vehicle collisions are not from a vehicle passing a cyclists, but from confusion at intersections and openning car doors at the roadside.



Even with a 5ft wide bike lane, cyclists riding in the middle of the lane are within reach of an opening car door. Of course cyclists are told not to ride within range of an opening door, but bike lanes, and especially 3.5ft bike lanes as seen in the drawing above tell a cyclist to ride extactly there. For example, the open doorr of a 1999 Chevy Cavalier extends 45" from the car. Not to mention that cyclists ride closer to parked cars when a painted bike lane exists. I would hope to see a painted logo/symbol and signs showing that Manchester is a bicyle route.

Grover wrote:Painted bike lanes increase the danger for cyclists.



A painted bicycle lane instructs motorists and cyclists that the bike lane is the only place they should ride. This gives a false sense of security as vehicles assume a bike will not leave the bike lane and a cyclist assumes a car will not enter the bike lane. Inevitably painted bike lanes are immediately next to parallel parked cars, increasing the chance for a collision with an opening car door or vehicle entering/exiting a parking spot. Cars give cyclists LESS room when passing where there is a painted bike lane. The bike lanes cause confusion when a cyclist intends to turn left: cars expect cyclists to remain in bike lanes when they are present, but to turn left a cyclist should be positioned in the left side of the traffic lane (or in the left turn lane when present). The overwhelming number of bicycle/vehicle collisions are not from a vehicle passing a cyclists, but from confusion at intersections and openning car doors at the roadside.



Even with a 5ft wide bike lane, cyclists riding in the middle of the lane are within reach of an opening car door. Of course cyclists are told not to ride within range of an opening door, but bike lanes, and especially 3.5ft bike lanes as seen in the drawing above tell a cyclist to ride extactly there. For example, the open doorr of a 1999 Chevy Cavalier extends 45" from the car. Not to mention that cyclists ride closer to parked cars when a painted bike lane exists. I would hope to see a painted logo/symbol and signs showing that Manchester is a bicyle route.

Noting your concerns over standards for bikes, reach out to Bike Works, who are actually having a fundraiser at Atomic Cowboy tonight. Noting subject and event location, the topic sure is prescient.

Grover wrote:Painted bike lanes increase the danger for cyclists.



A painted bicycle lane instructs motorists and cyclists that the bike lane is the only place they should ride. This gives a false sense of security as vehicles assume a bike will not leave the bike lane and a cyclist assumes a car will not enter the bike lane. Inevitably painted bike lanes are immediately next to parallel parked cars, increasing the chance for a collision with an opening car door or vehicle entering/exiting a parking spot. Cars give cyclists LESS room when passing where there is a painted bike lane. The bike lanes cause confusion when a cyclist intends to turn left: cars expect cyclists to remain in bike lanes when they are present, but to turn left a cyclist should be positioned in the left side of the traffic lane (or in the left turn lane when present). The overwhelming number of bicycle/vehicle collisions are not from a vehicle passing a cyclists, but from confusion at intersections and openning car doors at the roadside.



Even with a 5ft wide bike lane, cyclists riding in the middle of the lane are within reach of an opening car door. Of course cyclists are told not to ride within range of an opening door, but bike lanes, and especially 3.5ft bike lanes as seen in the drawing above tell a cyclist to ride extactly there. For example, the open doorr of a 1999 Chevy Cavalier extends 45" from the car. Not to mention that cyclists ride closer to parked cars when a painted bike lane exists. I would hope to see a painted logo/symbol and signs showing that Manchester is a bicyle route.

I have looked a bit at the detrimental effects of improper bank lanes, too. This is a nice post summary. I didn't understand how you were happy to see a supposed bicycle amenity disappear and that made you want to ride your bike.

^ It does seem a bit contrary, but many studies have shown increased traffic safety BECAUSE of fewer signs/markings. For instance - it's safer for a pedestrian to use an unmarked crosswalk than a painted crosswalk for many of the same reasons stated above: pedestrians assume a car won't enter the crosswalk, cars assume a pedestrian won't leave the crosswalk etc. There is absolutely no universal rule, but the general dictum is that by adding uncertainty and introducing conflict everyone is safer. (It's also very interesting that the third brake light introduced on cars in the late 1980's, and more recently anti-lock brakes (these especially have been shown to cause drivers to drive MORE recklessly), have failed to make any real impact on traffic accidents. Ultimately one is not made safer because of a design feature or technology, but by the decisions made while walking/riding/driving and by calming measures they are forced to interact with. This is why tabletop intersections, narrower traffic lanes and bump-outs are intersections increase safety.

brickandmortar wrote:There are a couple schools in the bicycle world. Some believe that separated paths are necessary for safety, while others believe that bicylists have the same rights to use a lane as automobiles. Really, it's a matter of perception. I think if the lanes are wide enough that bicycles and cars can coexist on this stretch of Manchester. It doesn't have the large volumes as Manchester does farther west.

You are correct, but those who believe that painted bike paths are antithetical to safety have a number of studies on their side. The other school of though is (IMO) misguided by "perceived" safety.

Again, I heard the bike path has been removed from the Manchester streetscape plan in favor of encouraging cyclists to use Chouteau. I hope to get my hands on updated drawings soon.

^OK. I just hope that bike lanes aren't painted on Chouteau for all of the above reasons.

I have confirmation that the latest plans are for a 14-foot lane shared traffic lane in each direction plus parallel parking on each side.