urbanSTL

MODOT will clean up some of the stuff on their system at 64/market/FP but it’s on the city to bring FP and Grand to grade and that ain’t happening in 2 or 5 or 7 years. Maybe mid 30s

That just seems crazy to me. That intersection is extremely dangerous for pedestrians most of which are SLU students. I don’t understand why SLU isn’t screaming for this update.

^I'm curious why everyone seems to believe making it at grade will make it safer. Forest Park is approximately eight lanes wide, more or less, at the intersection. As it is presently configured you can walk above four of them and you only have to cross two at a time. The thing needs help. The sidewalks are way too narrow, and they could use protection from high speed traffic on Grand. Grand is a disaster and needs a diet. But how does removing the bridge fix any of that?

Every drawing I've seen has pedestrians crossing more lanes, not fewer. Sure, it would slow down the through lanes of Forest Park, but those are the lanes you don't have to cross right now anyway. You're on a bridge over those. Put them through at grade and you'll have even more interactions, so more potential for crashes of every sort. More conflicts with pedestrians and vehicles both.

I really just cannot support any "at grade" rendering I've seen, and I have a hard time envisioning how one would be a decent pedestrian experience. The only way I can even imagine to improve this intersection is to stick a traffic circle on the bridge and give Grand a road diet.

The freeway-like off ramps encourage speeds well in excess of what is safe into a right on red intersection that drivers frequently speed through without stopping. The entire design suggests to drivers “Hey, your basically on an interstate, anything under 80 is ok”. That’s my take as someone who uses that intersection frequently.

And although it may not have involved pedestrians, one of the more devastating accidents in recent memory occurred at this intersection last year or two years ago.

You literally had a driver kill a bunch of kids a year or so ago because he hit them so hard that their car went over the freeway-like ramps and onto the street below. 

That doesn't ever happen again if you update that intersection. 

^Having a larger, wider piece of asphalt is going to do absolutely nothing to slow drivers down. The ramps aren't the problem. They're not why people drive fast. If they were you'd have people driving off every overpass at every highway off ramp, and you don't. The ramps in question are comparatively narrow. Sacrificing pedestrian safety to prevent one idiot from driving off a bridge isn't the answer. The problem is narrow sidewalks, wide roads, and a poorly built guardrail. I'm not saying you shouldn't redesign the intersection. I'm saying the at grade intersection plans I've seen are, if anything, even worse than what we've got. And maybe, just maybe, a well designed bridge can be a part of the solution.

Forcing everyone on FPP to go through a lighted intersection will absolutely decrease average speeds.

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Sep 16, 2024

^Having a larger, wider piece of asphalt is going to do absolutely nothing to slow drivers down. The ramps aren't the problem. They're not why people drive fast. If they were you'd have people driving off every overpass at every highway off ramp, and you don't. The ramps in question are comparatively narrow. Sacrificing pedestrian safety to prevent one idiot from driving off a bridge isn't the answer. The problem is narrow sidewalks, wide roads, and a poorly built guardrail. I'm not saying you shouldn't redesign the intersection. I'm saying the at grade intersection plans I've seen are, if anything, even worse than what we've got. And maybe, just maybe, a well designed bridge can be a part of the solution.

I'm with you. I like the underpass but the whole intersection needs a redesign. Right now FPP has two lanes going straight and two lanes on either side for exit and merging. I think they need to change it so there are two lanes going through then ONE lane on either side. That way you have one lane to turn left or right onto Grand. It would shrink the width that pedestrians have to cross.

In regard to the various comments.   I think the reality of the situation, and for which I don't have the traffic counts & studies to show to back up, is that the whole FPP, Market street and the corresponding interchange configuration was designed for a lot more commuters and traffic going in and out of the city core downtown and as an alternate/compliment to Hwy 40 to move more cars quicker.  That is over in my opinion unless someone can can confirm I'm clueless about traffic counts and simply the whole mess in my opinion needs a new vision..   On top of the fact that if you want to go quicker you literally have an interstate a couple of blocks over.  

So the question, what should city leadership accept and push for as a new vision for FPP and Market?  I see no reason why it shouldn't be a continuous blvd from downtown to Kingshighway, no more than 2 lanes in each direction withe left turn lanes at respective interchanges, no reason why you could not line trees down the middle and absolutely get an at grade Grand Ave intersection involving a lot less lanes.      

dredger wrote: ↑

Sep 17, 2024

In regard to the various comments.   I think the reality of the situation, and for which I don't have the traffic counts & studies to show to back up, is that the whole FPP, Market street and the corresponding interchange configuration was designed for a lot more commuters and traffic going in and out of the city core downtown and as an alternate/compliment to Hwy 40 to move more cars quicker.  That is over in my opinion unless someone can can confirm I'm clueless about traffic counts and simply the whole mess in my opinion needs a new vision..   On top of the fact that if you want to go quicker you literally have an interstate a couple of blocks over.  

So the question, what should city leadership accept and push for as a new vision for FPP and Market?  I see no reason why it shouldn't be a continuous blvd from downtown to Kingshighway, no more than 2 lanes in each direction withe left turn lanes at respective interchanges, no reason why you could not line trees down the middle and absolutely get an at grade Grand Ave intersection involving a lot less lanes.      

I'd think with the MDOT piece coming first we'll see the connection of Market and FPP happen east of Compton and south of Grand before the Grand FPP intersection is revised.  Interested to see how the bridge at the Compton Market St. intersection is dealt with when ramps are removed. 

flipz wrote: ↑

Sep 17, 2024

I'm with you. I like the underpass but the whole intersection needs a redesign. Right now FPP has two lanes going straight and two lanes on either side for exit and merging. I think they need to change it so there are two lanes going through then ONE lane on either side. That way you have one lane to turn left or right onto Grand. It would shrink the width that pedestrians have to cross.

I can get down with that. Reducing the number of lanes on the ramps makes good sense. And make them a bit less straight. The truth is, it actually is a signalized, at grade intersection now. Just one with some lanes bypassing it underneath. But those aren't the lanes causing problems. So what we have to do is reduce the number of lanes going through the signals. Narrow them down, add some curvature to point cars away from the bridge railings. Make the sidewalks wider. Add protected bike lanes to both Grand and Forest Park where in exchange for one to two traffic lanes on each. Add a raised median to the middle with a pedestrian refuge. Like Grand across the viaduct, but with crosswalks. We can do this and make it sensible, but not if we let either MODoT or the USDoT lead us astray again. It's past time we start ignoring that nonsense and simply adopting some decent foreign guidelines whole cloth, and as far as road design goes I suspect the best answer is just mirroring the UK. (It is honestly a much more pleasant experience to drive over there than here. Even in a full size sedan. And we won't even discuss walking.) Rumor has it Dutch design standards for bike and pedestrian infrastructure are pretty good too.

I really really like the line of red brick in the path for the small part of the greenway in front of CITYPARK. As LRA continues to demo buildings and some inevitably fall or catch fire on their own, could Great Rivers Greenway possibly get those bricks and repurpose and integrate the bricks into the greenway? They would make for nice touches for the middle brick line I mention above, path borders, landscaping, plazas, sculptures, planters, any other needed small structures. It would really add to the character of the greenway as a historic and cultural trail and scream St. Louis. After all, it is named the Brickline Greenway. They are still in the design phase for most of it, so ff anybody has a good word with their team, throw this out there to them please. 

You know, it might be nice if they used some salvaged glazed brick, or other colors. Show off the variety. Mind you, I don't know that wall brick works terribly well as pavers, but . . . maybe?

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Sep 26, 2024

You know, it might be nice if they used some salvaged glazed brick, or other colors. Show off the variety. Mind you, I don't know that wall brick works terribly well as pavers, but . . . maybe?

Yes, I think any salvaged brick from St. Louis buildings would be a great addition to the place making of the path and promote the trails connection to the city. I’m sure they have the materials down for the pavers for functionality of the path but the existing greenway has a small touch of red brick in the middle and I think more of it would look great. My creative juices are telling me to use them to frame small brick columns around bollards (giving StL its own bollard style). I’m sure an artist could create some cool small sculptures too. For instance, the mass of Lemp bricks that fell a couple years ago and St. Liborius are beautiful and this would make a good use.  We can never have many of these buildings back but we can retain at least some pieces. At least for me, I take more pride in the StL brick about more than anything else. It really can’t be found anywhere else.

Does anyone know where the bricks go from LRA demos and fire clean ups go? I just believe this greenway would be a fantastic reuse.

Videos like this are will make you smile and we should take do everything possible to keep our brick alive: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C-BHJ3my ... xndHE5OQ==

Paver bricks are generally different than wall bricks. The historic brick that makes up our wonderful collection of structures around here doesn't make great pavers, but they would be great for any of the various above ground structures involved in the project as suggested.

The demolition contractor generally gets the brick from buildings to sell. That defrays the cost of demolition for the City or private owners. Unfortunately, beyond the small amount that is used locally to repair buildings and occasionally veneer a new building, most of the salvage brick gets loaded on trucks and shipped mostly south where people pay good money to use it on new construction houses.

MattnSTL wrote: ↑

Sep 26, 2024

Paver bricks are generally different than wall bricks. The historic brick that makes up our wonderful collection of structures around here doesn't make great pavers, but they would be great for any of the various above ground structures involved in the project as suggested.

The demolition contractor generally gets the brick from buildings to sell. That defrays the cost of demolition for the City or private owners. Unfortunately, beyond the small amount that is used locally to repair buildings and occasionally veneer a new building, most of the salvage brick gets loaded on trucks and shipped mostly south where people pay good money to use it on new construction houses.

Yes, I am not suggesting to use as pavers and Great Rivers will do a great job engineering the functionality of the path for cyclists and pedestrians. It will be great for mobility regardless of whether the path is unique to StL. To propel this project to the top, it will need some of those extra details, just like Euclid needs it lamp posts/tulips and Wash Ave needs its planters. The brick features can be that for the greenway.

I’m going to submit a comment and email regarding some of these ideas, as I think they’ve had at least a touch of this type thing thrown around in design. I wish I could create some kind of rendering of the brick framed bollard I mentioned or other brick structures that would fit into the scene.

Selling our bricks to the sun belt suburbs that contributed to the falling of our brick in the first place makes me sick and sad…

Selling our bricks to the sun belt suburbs that contributed to the falling of our brick in the first place makes me sick and sad
Second that
I'm am not even near being an expert on the construction of structures but I see so many buildings being finished off with cheap 'half bricks' and I ask why not use the bricks we have here in St. Louis??
Did I answer my own question? The half bricks used are cheap?

They are cheap-er. Unfortunately in a low demand city like STL, value engineering is the name of the game in most cases

Brickline renderings for N Grand. It is going to be quite the transformation.

We could really run bike paths and trees all over north city pretty cheaply. A lot of streets do not have functional sidewalks and there’s adjacent empty land. This project might finally give North City the draw it needs. It can be transformed into a green urban landscape as we basically can start from scratch.

delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑

Oct 11, 2024

Brickline renderings for N Grand. It is going to be quite the transformation.

We could really run bike paths and trees all over north city pretty cheaply. A lot of streets do not have functional sidewalks and there’s adjacent empty land. This project might finally give North City the draw it needs. It can be transformed into a green urban landscape as we basically can start from scratch.

Looks great. Infrastructure projects are super tranformational. I'm glad to see the region investing in these types of projects. It really makes a difference. 

https://greatriversgreenway.org/brickline-tap/

Technology surgery for Brickine Greenway. Closes the 24th

BJC Health System, Washington University in St. Louis, and Greater St. Louis, Inc. Provide Major Support to Brickline Greenway

https://greatriversgreenway.org/blog/bj ... -greenway/

“Brickline Greenway has garnered just over $58 million in public funds from state and federal sources so far, $18 million of Great Rivers Greenway’s local tax dollars and more than $55 million in private funding. GRG and GSL are working in collaboration to raise the rest of the philanthropic investment by rallying the business community to support the community-centered project…”

https://greatriversgreenway.org/wp-cont ... erings.pdf

- North Grand goes out to bid in February.
- Tower Grove starts construction in 2025.
- Market finishes in 2025.

THE NETWORK IS NETWORKING

Fun to see those renderings for that section. Though does Clayton at Boyle really need to become 6 lanes? Boyle 4? (5?) The greenway/corner park looks nice, but suddenly the intersection itself seems quite unruly!

addxb2 wrote: ↑

Jan 10, 2025

BJC Health System, Washington University in St. Louis, and Greater St. Louis, Inc. Provide Major Support to Brickline Greenway

https://greatriversgreenway.org/blog/bj ... -greenway/

“Brickline Greenway has garnered just over $58 million in public funds from state and federal sources so far, $18 million of Great Rivers Greenway’s local tax dollars and more than $55 million in private funding. GRG and GSL are working in collaboration to raise the rest of the philanthropic investment by rallying the business community to support the community-centered project…”

https://greatriversgreenway.org/wp-cont ... erings.pdf

- North Grand goes out to bid in February.
- Tower Grove starts construction in 2025.
- Market finishes in 2025.

THE NETWORK IS NETWORKING

I get the slip lane is going but umm I hope this amount of street widening isn’t part of this project that has a main goal of enhancing walkability, bikeability and the street experience in StL?

I like the work they are doing with the paths a lot - been a little disappointed in some of the renderings along market, etc where I’m worried car traffic is not being managed to the extent it needs to in order to make this an urban trail that attracts the activity and development around it that we are hoping for. But I trust Great Rivers and am believing in the transformation of the city this is going to do

I think most of that should be expected after what was shown in the MODOT proposal for 64. My previous understanding was that Wash U / BJC was/is very difficult to work with in this project.

I guess we should see it as a good thing. They have a growth mindset.