Lindell Blvd Road Diet

jsbru · PostNov 12, 2013#12013-11-12T19:00+00:00

Are there any plans to give Lindell Bd., especially the stretch between SLU and Forest Park, a road diet? This is one of the most poorly-managed stretches of road I've ever encountered. The right-hand traffic lane is jammed up against the parking lane, making getting in and out of your car very dangerous. The speed limit is supposedly 25 mph, but people routinely barrel down the road at 40. The stoplights are poorly timed, so that you have to stop at each block, reducing miles per gallon in cars traveling along the road. There's no space for bikes.

I've nearly been run over multiple times on this road getting out of or into my car. There's no reason why it can't be reduced to one lane in each direction. This would slow down traffic and give a buffer zone between parked cars that could be filled with a bike lane and maybe later a street car. If the stoplights were properly timed, this wouldn't reduce travel time at all.

wabash · PostNov 12, 2013#22013-11-12T19:22+00:00

Hopefully in a decade there's a streetcar running down the median, and the construction/existence of the streetcar is accompanied by new cross-walks, bike lanes, curb bumps, and other traffic taming devices.

framer · PostNov 12, 2013#32013-11-12T19:28+00:00

The problem with Lindell is that it's very narrow; no room for error. Of course, since all of the parallel streets are blocked to through traffic, Lindell pays the price. Due to its heavy volume, I doubt that the city would consider reducing the number of lanes. Definitely a challenging street.

flipz · PostNov 12, 2013#42013-11-12T19:47+00:00

With the exception of poorly timed lights, which make me avoid it, I don't see too much of a problem with Lindell. They re-striped and added the middle turning lane fairly recently so I think they thought it through. Even with the narrow lanes and heavy traffic, I don't recall the last time I saw an accident there.

jsbru · PostNov 13, 2013#52013-11-13T01:27+00:00

flipz wrote:With the exception of poorly timed lights, which make me avoid it, I don't see too much of a problem with Lindell. They re-striped and added the middle turning lane fairly recently so I think they thought it through. Even with the narrow lanes and heavy traffic, I don't recall the last time I saw an accident there.

I've seen more than one accident. I've also seen many rear view mirrors of parked cars, including mine, clipped off because traffic is forced to careen just inches from the parked cars. I also got honked at for getting a bag out of my back seat while one of the lights was red, but then it turned green and sent a car barreling toward me and my open door.

The road is just far too wide to expect traffic to really travel at 25 mph. They installed all those new stoplights and ADA compliant corners, and that was supposed to bring about timed stoplights, according to MDOT. But the stoplights are still as poorly-timed as ever. Even just timing them so that going 30 mph would make you hit all the greens would work wonders, although I'm sure there would still be clowns going 45 to the next light and then stopping at each one.

Anglophile · PostNov 13, 2013#62013-11-13T01:42+00:00

Sometimes I find myself physically sucking my breath in to save space on the stretch by SLU between Vandy and Grand. But, like others have said, Lindell is too busy for the city to give it a road diet. Unlike the South Grand road diet, there is no cohesive commercial strip on Lindell to justify it.

mill204 · PostNov 13, 2013#72013-11-13T05:57+00:00

Have to say that I find it rather bizarre that so many of you are saying that Lindell has so much traffic that it must keep all of its lanes. The stretch between Kingshighway and Newstead has a fair amount of traffic, but east of Newstead it's clear sailing (well, if the lights were timed better).

One of the things I liked best about the Lindell/Olive streetcar feasibility study is the way parts of it seemed to hint at options they were considering for future studies. The 11th slide of this presentation (pdf), for example, shows the current traffic volumes along the entire stretch of Lindell/Olive. What it clearly shows is that traffic volumes become steadily lighter the further east you go. But even better is the table in the upper left corner titled "General Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Capacity for Urban Arterial Segments". The table then mentions that 2-lane arterials have a capacity of 15,000 vehicles/day; 3-lane arterials, 17,000 vehicles/day. The volume of traffic currently on Lindell just east of Taylor, 16,500 vehicles/day.

In other words, dedicated streetcar lanes down a 2 or 3 lane Lindell/Olive are a very real possibility.

Presbyterian · PostNov 13, 2013#82013-11-13T18:18+00:00

Lindell is a video game. Except you just get one life.

I'd be happy with two lanes and syncronized lights.

dweebe · PostNov 13, 2013#92013-11-13T18:50+00:00

Presbyterian wrote:I'd be happy with two lanes and syncronized lights.

Agreed as the timing along Lindell is downright horrible at times. We're talking "stopping at every single light because it's red" bad.

inTheGrove · PostNov 14, 2013#102013-11-14T15:23+00:00

Anglophile wrote:Sometimes I find myself physically sucking my breath in to save space on the stretch by SLU between Vandy and Grand. But, like others have said, Lindell is too busy for the city to give it a road diet. Unlike the South Grand road diet, there is no cohesive commercial strip on Lindell to justify it.

Those sidewalks they chose after redoing part of grand are just horrible, that ugly compressed crap.

gone corporate · PostNov 14, 2013#112013-11-14T20:07+00:00

Guys, Olive/Lindell is an urban street, a great urban street, a major arterial passing through Broadway in Downtown up to Saint Francis Xavier at Grand, onward through the prestigious Central West End down the length of Forest Park, all the way to its terminus at Brookings Hall at Washington University. At its most dense, Lindell has high-rise residentials along a tight grid, offices, retail, and a university, along with arguably the City's most marquee hotel at the Chase. Of course it's going to have traffic! It always has. Yeah, it can suck having to drive it; but what makes it different from any other major urban street in a major urban city? Is it just that we live here? You just gotta learn to work the side roads, avoid it in peak hours, things like that.

Take a step back and re-read this thread so far... Without sounding too harsh, at times it reads like urbanist NIMBYs calling for cars to be outlawed because I want more peace on the busy street that I moved to. It almost sounds like an argument to bring in the peace of driving in St. Peters or somewhere way out away, antithetical, from a mindset defined by there being 10+ story buildings along the stretch. "Ooh, can you imagine how much worse it would be if that San Luis Hotel was still there? All those people; I'm glad it's gone."

Lindell is one of our best streets and serves tens of thousands of people daily. We mustn't mess with it unless to increase its utility (streetcar). Instead, I'd recommend some of us start parking along Olive near SLU or along Pine in the CWE.

dweebe · PostNov 14, 2013#122013-11-14T20:52+00:00

gone corporate wrote:Guys, Olive/Lindell is an urban street, a great urban street, a major arterial passing through Broadway in Downtown up to Saint Francis Xavier at Grand, onward through the prestigious Central West End down the length of Forest Park, all the way to its terminus at Brookings Hall at Washington University. At its most dense, Lindell has high-rise residentials along a tight grid, offices, retail, and a university, along with arguably the City's most marquee hotel at the Chase. Of course it's going to have traffic! It always has. Yeah, it can suck having to drive it; but what makes it different from any other major urban street in a major urban city? Is it just that we live here? You just gotta learn to work the side roads, avoid it in peak hours, things like that.

Take a step back and re-read this thread so far... Without sounding too harsh, at times it reads like urbanist NIMBYs calling for cars to be outlawed because I want more peace on the busy street that I moved to. It almost sounds like an argument to bring in the peace of driving in St. Peters or somewhere way out away, antithetical, from a mindset defined by there being 10+ story buildings along the stretch. "Ooh, can you imagine how much worse it would be if that San Luis Hotel was still there? All those people; I'm glad it's gone."

Lindell is one of our best streets and serves tens of thousands of people daily. We mustn't mess with it unless to increase its utility (streetcar). Instead, I'd recommend some of us start parking along Olive near SLU or along Pine in the CWE.

I don't have a problem with Lindell except for the horrible stop light timing encourages a lot of stupid driving.

framer · PostNov 15, 2013#132013-11-15T03:07+00:00

Yeah, I don't think anyone here is complaining that Lindell is too busy; just wondering how to improve its efficiency.

I wonder if the continued (and future) growth of the Urban Core will ever lead the City to re-open Olive, West Pine, and Laclede to through traffic all the way from Kingshighway to Vandeventer?

dweebe · PostNov 15, 2013#142013-11-15T08:33+00:00

framer wrote:I wonder if the continued (and future) growth of the Urban Core will ever lead the City to re-open Olive, West Pine, and Laclede to through traffic all the way from Kingshighway to Vandeventer?

I think that would go a long way towards helping the Lindell "situation".

downtown2007 · PostNov 15, 2013#152013-11-15T14:46+00:00

It's about increasing its efficiency and incorporating different forms of transportation. Implementing a streetcar and lowering speeds would go a long way to making it safer.

jsbru · PostNov 15, 2013#162013-11-15T20:43+00:00

Part of my point was that the extra lane doesn't really do any good given the poor stoplight timing. And given that the extra lane is crammed up against the parking lane, it makes driving in that lane dangerous, and it makes getting in and out of your car dangerous. If it were turned into a 3-lane street with a bike/streetcar lane, and the lights were timed properly, I would bet driving down it with one less lane would be just as convenient and fast, and it could serve almost the same amount of traffic. So maybe instead of "Road Diet," I should have said "Road Reorganization."

beer city · PostNov 15, 2013#172013-11-15T21:19+00:00

framer wrote:Yeah, I don't think anyone here is complaining that Lindell is too busy; just wondering how to improve its efficiency.

I wonder if the continued (and future) growth of the Urban Core will ever lead the City to re-open Olive, West Pine, and Laclede to through traffic all the way from Kingshighway to Vandeventer?

+1 - It is time to reopen those streets

drdrew · PostNov 15, 2013#182013-11-15T23:14+00:00

Lindell is fairly narrow to have two lanes each direction and a turn lane. That's kinda the point though - wide lanes encourage fast driving, narrower lanes, in theory, make people pay a bit more attention to their surroundings. It's a bit like (one of) the reasons why roundabouts are better than regular intersections - you can't just zone out and drive on automatic, you actually have to actively engage with your surroundings.

jsbru · PostNov 16, 2013#192013-11-16T00:00+00:00

drdrew wrote:Lindell is fairly narrow to have two lanes each direction and a turn lane. That's kinda the point though - wide lanes encourage fast driving, narrower lanes, in theory, make people pay a bit more attention to their surroundings. It's a bit like (one of) the reasons why roundabouts are better than regular intersections - you can't just zone out and drive on automatic, you actually have to actively engage with your surroundings.

I don't really think it works, though. Most people just drive in the left lane anyway and go 15 mph over the speed limit. It would be better to just time the lights so that you hit a green at each by going 30 mph.

PostDec 06, 2013#202013-12-06T08:12+00:00

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crim ... RQ.twitter

This is sad. But I can't remember how many times I've crossed this very block and nearly been killed. There's just too much high-speed traffic jammed through this corridor as narrow as it is. Lindell needs to be one lane in each direction with curb abutments helping pedestrians cross, bike lanes, etc. Either that, or have the center lanes be a street car track with a median where pedestrians can board/cross the street.

flipz · PostDec 06, 2013#212013-12-06T14:15+00:00

That is terrible but sounds like it was the woman's fault.

quincunx · PostDec 06, 2013#222013-12-06T15:25+00:00

The article makes it seem that way. We know the woman was crossing in the middle of the block, a bad idea for sure. You still can't run over people in the middle of the block. Was the driver speeding? Was the driver going too fast for conditions? Was the driver distracted by a phone, etc? Did the driver just switch from working nights shifts to days shifts? Was the driver nodding off and caught himself too late? Does anyone care to know? Where's the NTSB?

sc4mayor · PostAug 24, 2021#232021-08-24T19:50+00:00

City plans to cut Lindell Boulevard to two driving lanes, pitting two exclusive neighborhoods against each other
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/met ... op-story-1

Alderman Heather Navarro, 28th Ward, is pushing the proposal, arguing Lindell Boulevard’s current configuration as a four-lane road with Forest Park on one side and large front yards on the other encourages speeding that endangers park patrons, residents and drivers. She hopes the plan, which would add bike lanes and eliminate one driving lane in each direction, would make Lindell Boulevard more like Arsenal Street on the south side of Tower Grove Park.

This should be fun. Already got the accusations of elitism and racism for the City daring to cut down the Lindell Speedway. Personally an Arsenal-like setup along Forest Park sounds damn good to me.

One last addition, I do enjoy the private place residents complaining that their only access from Lake at Lindell would be too much for them to bear. As if the private places don't have other much larger more accessible gates from other major streets lol. Put an electric opener on your Kingshighway gate and use it like a garage door.

addxb2 · PostAug 24, 2021#242021-08-24T20:12+00:00

I have to agree with the last point. There are better ways this money could be spent in the 28th ward to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. This feels too parallel to the parks trail system (yes, it can be crowded) and would leave cyclists stranded at Kingshighway and Lindell.

If there is interest in a cycle track… let’s start at Olive & Tucker then work our way to the park.

quincunx · PostAug 24, 2021#252021-08-24T20:22+00:00

It would be awesome to cut the number of driving lanes to cross at Lindell and DeBaliviere. There is plenty of capacity on FPP and Metrolink.