^ 100% agreed
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 2,626
I've been saying for years that Tucker would be a perfect spot for a protected two way bike lane that runs all the way to Gravois. That connection to south city has always been terrible for bikers. There is definitely plenty of room.
![]()
- 398
Working downtown and living in south city, Tucker needs to maintain is size, it carries LOT of traffic, and now connects with the new I-70. The reduction in lanes south of Chouteau has caused an increase in my commute.
The only through roads N-S are: 1) 4th / Broadway, 2) Tucker, 3)14th and 4) Jefferson. 4 options for getting through downtown is not a lot
Now if we could just get a sign up where Tucker goes under 40 / 64 that states well in advance the right lane is a right turn only at Chouteau!
^And 18th Street. So in other words 1 through street every 5 blocks which seems like pretty good coverage.
In any event the whole point of a road diet would be to increase your commute, and by doing so make the streetscape and pedestrian experience more appealing.
In any event the whole point of a road diet would be to increase your commute, and by doing so make the streetscape and pedestrian experience more appealing.
As someone who used to drive down Tucker to get to I-44/Lafayette daily, I can say that rush hour traffic exists for a reason and it's not that bad on Tucker. I've been living downtown carless for 2 years now. Tucker is a huge dividing line that discourages residents and workers on one side from visiting businesses on the other. I agree that the lack of viaducts south of downtown is a problem but there's not really anything we can do to fix it. Letting our CBD get cut two blocks short by a 120' wide ROW is unnecessary and will compromise any retail that goes into Jefferson Arms.
This is one of the biggest struggles we have in St. Louis. We've built such a commuters haven in this region that anything that runs counter to that feels like a huge deal and a negative to drivers.
In reality, most cities of an enviable liveliness and size have long commutes and traffic because making the efficiency of moving car traffic secondary to instability for pedestrian traffic is what leads to a lively city.
Tucker could definitely stand to lose a lane in each direction.
A big problem in downtown and in general St. Louis. The roads are built to get people in and out and not for the people who have to live there.
I like this idea. Tucker moves a lot of traffic but it all bottlenecks at Washington going north anyway. You might as well reduce the entire thing south of Washington so it flows better all the way thru.GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2017I've been saying for years that Tucker would be a perfect spot for a protected two way bike lane that runs all the way to Gravois. That connection to south city has always been terrible for bikers. There is definitely plenty of room.
![]()
- 121
AC is a Marriott brand. We have mentioned Jefferson Arms project would be a Marriott AC product. Mix use, 220 hotel rooms + 240 residential units, plus some retail and collaborative office component.
Thank you.
I agree with your observation. Furthermore, many roads were built when City of St. Louis had 900,000 residents. Now it has only 300,000. It is a problem.
Mike Sarimsakci
This looks great.GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2017I've been saying for years that Tucker would be a perfect spot for a protected two way bike lane that runs all the way to Gravois. That connection to south city has always been terrible for bikers. There is definitely plenty of room.
![]()
I agree. If St Louis residents would like to see a vibrant, walkable, livable city some sacrifices needs to be made. These decisions needs to be spearheaded by the St Louis residents. Having said that I think more bike lanes is a must, especially on Tucker.jstriebel wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2017This is one of the biggest struggles we have in St. Louis. We've built such a commuters haven in this region that anything that runs counter to that feels like a huge deal and a negative to drivers.
In reality, most cities of an enviable liveliness and size have long commutes and traffic because making the efficiency of moving car traffic secondary to instability for pedestrian traffic is what leads to a lively city.
Tucker could definitely stand to lose a lane in each direction.
- 3,762
^ Can you tell that to our mayor and board of aldermen? You might be the first businessman ever to suggest such a thing in St. Louis! 
Interesting discussion. I think one way to look at it or from a different view point is that the streets were not built to accommodate people coming and going out of the city. That is truly a discussion for the freeways as its what 4-6 blocks to get to a freeway at most and a rebuilt 22nd street will give a full interchange for Jefferson/West downtown.
The reality is that the streets for the most part were there as is when the city had a much bigger population of people living and working within the city decades ago. Instead, my perspective is that the streets were built to accommodate multimodal transportation that included an extensive streetcar system among automobiles, pedestrians and cyclists when transportation costs took a much higher percentage of income out of folks pockets. For the city, asphalt had been a cheap replacement when the streetcar went away. So their is precedence for city leaders embracing the streets beyond an automobile as being discussed and the city would benefit much more from that mentality of a truly intermodal approach to its streets & being an urban environment for the region.
The reality is that the streets for the most part were there as is when the city had a much bigger population of people living and working within the city decades ago. Instead, my perspective is that the streets were built to accommodate multimodal transportation that included an extensive streetcar system among automobiles, pedestrians and cyclists when transportation costs took a much higher percentage of income out of folks pockets. For the city, asphalt had been a cheap replacement when the streetcar went away. So their is precedence for city leaders embracing the streets beyond an automobile as being discussed and the city would benefit much more from that mentality of a truly intermodal approach to its streets & being an urban environment for the region.
- 1,044
I believe Tucker at some point in the past had a market in the center which is one of the reasons it is so wide.
Interesting - I had no idea. Seems that it was called Lucas Market (STL Today post http://bit.ly/2iTHdqr) Mentioned as being at Tucker and Olive, all the way back in 1870.southcitygent wrote: ↑Nov 25, 2017I believe Tucker at some point in the past had a market in the center which is one of the reasons it is so wide.
- 121
Hello Urban STL community
I am happy to announce that we have submitted our construction permit set to the City Of St. Louis as of Dec 15th, Friday.
Thank you.
Mike Sarimsakci
I am happy to announce that we have submitted our construction permit set to the City Of St. Louis as of Dec 15th, Friday.
Thank you.
Mike Sarimsakci
- 403
Congrats and thank you for helping revitalizing St.Louis and being apart of a true renaissance
Wow, what difference this corner will make downtown.AlterraMike wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2017Hello Urban STL community
I am happy to announce that we have submitted our construction permit set to the City Of St. Louis as of Dec 15th, Friday.
Thank you.
Mike Sarimsakci
- 2,386
Awesome! Well done, Mike. Extremely excited to see this building re-activated.
Believe Biz Journals has write up but behind paywall if anyone can share, thanks
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... rward.html
Officials behind both projects have said they expect to start construction on the developments in early 2018.
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... rward.html
Officials behind both projects have said they expect to start construction on the developments in early 2018.