urbanSTL

LArchitecture wrote: ↑

Dec 29, 2022

dweebe wrote:

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Dec 29, 2022

There will be no tunneling. GRG is asking for Fed $ to continue a feasibility study for a crossing but don’t expect a solution in place for a decade +

I’m not talking about burying 64 all the way under the Mississippi and over in to Illinois: just the Kingshighway to Compton stretch.

As DB said there will be no tunneling. All the mechanical ventilation required to do a tunnel would kill it immediately due to cost. Your better off getting land bridges at the maximum distance that doesn’t require mechanical ventilation. I believe that distance is between 200 and 300 feet as it was done in Tulsa recently. Even then you’d better have the topographic ability to do it with ease as earthwork is also not cheap.

Basically again as DB said. Tunneling is a cost prohibitive dream. Let’s fix it with real solutions.

So other cities can bury their interstates, but it’s a dumb, undoable idea that shouldn’t be brought up in St. Louis?

Things never change.

_nomad_ wrote: ↑

Jan 11, 2023

bwcrow1s wrote: ↑

Jan 11, 2023

Is there a reason why they can't just skip the cloverleaf on 64E to Grand exit and just bring it right up to Grand? I suppose you'd want to bring Bernard up to grade as well then, though. Reconnecting Theresa seems like a great idea.

At any rate simplifying all of those ramps for Market/FPP and bringing FPP up to grade would be huge wins.

Would bringing FPP up to Grand be a win if they do it like this? Widening both streets? It looks like they're proposing a 7 lane grade crossing, who is going to feel safe walking across that? The bus lanes are nice in theory, I guess, but what's to keep drivers out of them and will having a visually wider road speed up cars even more?

FPP/Grand would be up to a "local agency" to build but yes, 7-8 lanes is what has been proposed in their alternatives. 

Spectacular.  Someone finally put what I have wanted to see here on paper.  The biggest thing I would add would tweak would be to extend Bernard intersection as a 4-way across Grand toward Armory.  This would improve the long-term viability of that development by a lot.

Other than that
-I think the shared use path is probably of limited value versus a basic sidewalk.  I would prefer the mix use path cross on a viaduct at Spring connecting Iron Hill, the Armory & the Foundry.  Bicycles would divert around the intersection via the adjacent the Metrolink underpass on Scott Ave.  The goal for Bernard should be a new urban district not a bike trail.  These things aren't mutually exclusive but in this case i think it warrants priritizing the roads and sidewalks versus trails.
-Would like to see how these new properties might be developed.  I would think the billboards and some of the light industrial would naturally relocate as the area develops but it'd be nice to see how a developer might envision it.  I guess since this is MoDOT that's not really their department so more to come there, I guess.  From that perspective and given the balance they have to strike between livability and moving people via highways, its near to perfect IMHO.
-To my view residential or hotel development would be a natural fit built at grade with Grand for all four corners of Benard and Grand.  parking would be at grade with Scott Ave. so no need to excavate for it.  Not sure how much street facing retail makes sense.  Parking for Armory would be a rub as they currently have an expansive surface lot which i am sure they would be loath to give up.  Naturally there would be some details to work out there which may well result in something less exciting on that corner.
-What makes the most sense at the new lots opened up on Theresa.  Not very accessible to pedestrians but VERY visible from Highways.  Hotel? Something Corporate...?  I Dunno, but whatever it is its worth waiting for the right project there.
-Will agree this looks a little too wide but ultimately, bringing FPP to grade with Grand is still an improvement worth making.
-Would like to see a public art installation on the small parcel north of the traffic circle.  Not sure what but that feels like the place to put something like that.
-In the long run a vision extending Bernard all the way to Vandeventer should be the goal with midrise development on both the north and south side.  That section when developed would be a more natural fit for street facing retail than the intersection on Grand.

chriss752 wrote: ↑

Jan 11, 2023

Note that Grand & Forest Park is at-grade in these images. The three alternatives to be presented are mostly unified on this front but vary on other aspects. Freeing up land on the east for development and a simplification of the roads is great stuff.

The process started with something like 13 alternatives. Those of us there pushing for a more urban viewpoint were successful in selecting out the few options that showed FFA and Grand at grade. Freeing up of developable land by sticking to simpler ( and more affordable in the long term) designs was also intentional.
Definitely comment next week and continue to nudge towards more bike and ped infrastructure. Also groves of trees, storm water management and native plantings wherever possible.

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Jan 12, 2023

I'm with _nomad_. The at grade Forest Park/Grand intersection looks like a sea of concrete. I don't think it's worth it at all. I've thought for a while now it'd be better to narrow Grand to one lane each direction about there, put in an island that prevents left turns, and put traffic circles at Forest Park and Lindell. That'll get rid of the brutal shuffling that presently happens between there and Olive, where the road is already one lane each way anyway. But highway engineers still want to pave the world, so there will be concrete.

The traffic engineers insisted that their rush hour models were backing up onto the highway ramps when they reduced the lanes at Grand/FPA so they had to increase them for the proposal to pass MODOT’s traffic standards () but it was also said in the meeting that the City would have a lot to say in the final configuration of that intersection w.r.t. the number of lanes/pedestrian refuge islands and other traffic safety measures.

I brought up the landscaped median that was added for student safety on grand at SLU and how that somehow did not lead to the end of the world. I’m glad you all are already zeroing in on the obvious.

Another question I brought up was lane width. It makes a difference if we go with 9 ft or 11 ft (imagine x7). Was told it was too early in the process to get into those details.

For FPP and Grand, could they simply use ped bridges, ones that can handle biycles?  This is how vegas moves people over their giant boulevards and I think it's a reasonable solution when faced with 7 lanes of traffic.  Maybe SLU can chip in so they have synergy with their campus aesthetic? 

Alternatively, you would need a median / ped islands like FPP by BJC.