Open house Nov 19 at City Foundry 4-7 pm
Preferred alternative presented at yesterday's public meeting:
https://www.modot.org/future64/public-m ... nformation
https://www.modot.org/future64/public-m ... nformation
All that public commenting for them to just do what they always wanted to do, widen ramps and roads, add more ramps, make highway bigger. I love democracy.
The proposed concept is a joke. Just wider roads, wider ramps, wider intersections, and re-labeling sidewalks as "shared use paths" so they can claim them as bike infrastructure despite the fact that these will be nearly useless if you want to get anywhere on a bike. The proposed concept is worse than what's there now, a complete waste of everyone's time and money.
- 926
Trying the figure out how any valuable research would show any road needs to be widened in St. Louis. We have one of the highest interstate capacities per square mile of any city and have stagnant traffic volume. We have the issue of not enough traffic for our road system, which is encouraging speeding, dangerous driving.
I think they over sold the benefits in the beginning, if definitely falls short of the land bargain they said it would be.
Still, most of it makes sense and I think the circulation improvements in MIDTOWN (not prospect yards) will be beneficial.
It really makes me wonder what about the FPP and Grand intersection is so challenging that MODOT is planning even this large and long term project around the existing conditions. Is the City really not actively working on fixing it?
Still, most of it makes sense and I think the circulation improvements in MIDTOWN (not prospect yards) will be beneficial.
It really makes me wonder what about the FPP and Grand intersection is so challenging that MODOT is planning even this large and long term project around the existing conditions. Is the City really not actively working on fixing it?
Yes in my opinion. The lack of vision from the city is the only reasonable logical explanation I can come too. It seems from outside looking in that city leadership and surrounding stakeholders haven't or worse yet, won't present a vision beyond the status quo so a highway department does what it does best and more of the same freeway. No one should be surprised of the outcome here.addxb2 wrote: ↑Nov 20, 2024It really makes me wonder what about the FPP and Grand intersection is so challenging that MODOT is planning even this large and long term project around the existing conditions. Is the City really not actively working on fixing it?
What I can't put together is why SLU and or Harris Stowe don't see a better outcome or more urban vision. Does SLU see itself as truly a commuter campus first and foremost with visions of the masses coming to & from campus from freeway as priority or somehow a more urban configuration will keep the masses away from a SLU basketball game?. Does Harris Stowe desire to keep the ballfield exactly as is the best outcome? Getting rid of that terrible Market/FPP interchange configuration frees up land, developed land and offer some and only build upon much needed continuity between the respective institutions. Just don't understand the apparent desire to keep status quo from those two institutions.
Market to FPP is begging to be a continuous multimodal blvd to benefit to the community not a has been concept of another freeway for commuter mentality based on the past. But truly the city needs to push a vision instead of hoping on a prayer that DOT will give them a new vision.
- 9,564
SLU doesn’t want it at gradeaddxb2 wrote: ↑Nov 20, 2024I think they over sold the benefits in the beginning, if definitely falls short of the land bargain they said it would be.
Still, most of it makes sense and I think the circulation improvements in MIDTOWN (not prospect yards) will be beneficial.
It really makes me wonder what about the FPP and Grand intersection is so challenging that MODOT is planning even this large and long term project around the existing conditions. Is the City really not actively working on fixing it?
I ***** hate SLU.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2024SLU doesn’t want it at gradeaddxb2 wrote: ↑Nov 20, 2024I think they over sold the benefits in the beginning, if definitely falls short of the land bargain they said it would be.
Still, most of it makes sense and I think the circulation improvements in MIDTOWN (not prospect yards) will be beneficial.
It really makes me wonder what about the FPP and Grand intersection is so challenging that MODOT is planning even this large and long term project around the existing conditions. Is the City really not actively working on fixing it?
Just asking, what/who is the source of that? Have they said that expressly somewhere?dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2024SLU doesn’t want it at gradeaddxb2 wrote: ↑Nov 20, 2024I think they over sold the benefits in the beginning, if definitely falls short of the land bargain they said it would be.
Still, most of it makes sense and I think the circulation improvements in MIDTOWN (not prospect yards) will be beneficial.
It really makes me wonder what about the FPP and Grand intersection is so challenging that MODOT is planning even this large and long term project around the existing conditions. Is the City really not actively working on fixing it?
It'll need to be reconstructed as is then, it's at the end of it's lifespan. I'd think the reconstruct would far exceed cost of bringing the intersection up to grade. Having been in an accident at this intersection and seeing how movements and lights are confusing at best, I'd think there's a high accident count. Pedestrian experience is very poor. If SLU doesn't want it, please enlighten us on why that would be. I can't see any reason as-is would be a preferred choice.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2024SLU doesn’t want it at gradeaddxb2 wrote: ↑Nov 20, 2024I think they over sold the benefits in the beginning, if definitely falls short of the land bargain they said it would be.
Still, most of it makes sense and I think the circulation improvements in MIDTOWN (not prospect yards) will be beneficial.
It really makes me wonder what about the FPP and Grand intersection is so challenging that MODOT is planning even this large and long term project around the existing conditions. Is the City really not actively working on fixing it?
SLU has never really been concerned with integrating with the surrounding area or urbanism, those in charge would much rather have an isolated island that they can dash in and out of to be back to the suburbs as quickly as possible.STLinCHI wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2024It'll need to be reconstructed as is then, it's at the end of it's lifespan. I'd think the reconstruct would far exceed cost of bringing the intersection up to grade. Having been in an accident at this intersection and seeing how movements and lights are confusing at best, I'd think there's a high accident count. Pedestrian experience is very poor. If SLU doesn't want it, please enlighten us on why that would be. I can't see any reason as-is would be a preferred choice.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2024SLU doesn’t want it at gradeaddxb2 wrote: ↑Nov 20, 2024I think they over sold the benefits in the beginning, if definitely falls short of the land bargain they said it would be.
Still, most of it makes sense and I think the circulation improvements in MIDTOWN (not prospect yards) will be beneficial.
It really makes me wonder what about the FPP and Grand intersection is so challenging that MODOT is planning even this large and long term project around the existing conditions. Is the City really not actively working on fixing it?
I know that. But I'm talking about the wanting to keep FPP below grade at Grand._nomad_ wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2024SLU has never really been concerned with integrating with the surrounding area or urbanism, those in charge would much rather have an isolated island that they can dash in and out of to be back to the suburbs as quickly as possible.STLinCHI wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2024It'll need to be reconstructed as is then, it's at the end of it's lifespan. I'd think the reconstruct would far exceed cost of bringing the intersection up to grade. Having been in an accident at this intersection and seeing how movements and lights are confusing at best, I'd think there's a high accident count. Pedestrian experience is very poor. If SLU doesn't want it, please enlighten us on why that would be. I can't see any reason as-is would be a preferred choice.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2024SLU doesn’t want it at grade
Not having a flyover might (be perceived to) slow down car traffic amd that's something SLU is opposed todweebe wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2024I know that. But I'm talking about the wanting to keep FPP below grade at Grand._nomad_ wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2024SLU has never really been concerned with integrating with the surrounding area or urbanism, those in charge would much rather have an isolated island that they can dash in and out of to be back to the suburbs as quickly as possible.STLinCHI wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2024It'll need to be reconstructed as is then, it's at the end of it's lifespan. I'd think the reconstruct would far exceed cost of bringing the intersection up to grade. Having been in an accident at this intersection and seeing how movements and lights are confusing at best, I'd think there's a high accident count. Pedestrian experience is very poor. If SLU doesn't want it, please enlighten us on why that would be. I can't see any reason as-is would be a preferred choice.
It’d be cool if Mayor Jones started wielding that “blight/neglect will no longer be tolerated” against SLU. Do they not realize people look at this intersection and think “yuck”?
I'm not trying to white knight for SLU and I wouldn't put it past them one bit to want to keep their moat for their fortress._nomad_ wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2024Not having a flyover might (be perceived to) slow down car traffic amd that's something SLU is opposed todweebe wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2024I know that. But I'm talking about the wanting to keep FPP below grade at Grand._nomad_ wrote: ↑Nov 21, 2024SLU has never really been concerned with integrating with the surrounding area or urbanism, those in charge would much rather have an isolated island that they can dash in and out of to be back to the suburbs as quickly as possible.
But I'd just never heard someone from the university say they didn't want an at-grade intersection or other option.
Unpopular opinion but I don’t like the ‘at grade’ FPP and Kingshighway.
I don't disagree with this, the intersection is a s***show in dire need of improvement, but if making it at-grade forces pedestrians to walk across more lanes of traffic then I'm not surethat it is the correct solution
^^ I think the issue of at grade Grand & FPP intersection as proposed or rendering is it has way too many lanes, and way too many turn lanes then needed in and itself. Almost like a traffic engineer took some past traffic counts and double the number for a really bad projection.
A good question for all traffic engineers involved in this is why Forest Park Avenue needs to be 6 lanes at all considering the parkway west of Kingshighway does fine with 4. And why its important Forest Park and Lindell bear so much traffic when they parallel 64 (was a small win to see Lindell narrowed to 3 lanes between Vandeveneter & Grand).
PeterXCV wrote: ↑Nov 23, 2024A good question for all traffic engineers involved in this is why Forest Park Avenue needs to be 6 lanes at all considering the parkway west of Kingshighway does fine with 4. And why its important Forest Park and Lindell bear so much traffic when they parallel 64 (was a small win to see Lindell narrowed to 3 lanes between Vandeveneter & Grand).
- 926
AMEN. The 44, 64, FP parkway parallel of dividing interstates…what the **** were we doingPeterXCV wrote: ↑Nov 23, 2024A good question for all traffic engineers involved in this is why Forest Park Avenue needs to be 6 lanes at all considering the parkway west of Kingshighway does fine with 4. And why its important Forest Park and Lindell bear so much traffic when they parallel 64 (was a small win to see Lindell narrowed to 3 lanes between Vandeveneter & Grand).
Car and suburban extremismdelmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑Nov 23, 2024AMEN. The 44, 64, FP parkway parallel of dividing interstates…what the **** were we doingPeterXCV wrote: ↑Nov 23, 2024A good question for all traffic engineers involved in this is why Forest Park Avenue needs to be 6 lanes at all considering the parkway west of Kingshighway does fine with 4. And why its important Forest Park and Lindell bear so much traffic when they parallel 64 (was a small win to see Lindell narrowed to 3 lanes between Vandeveneter & Grand).