Kingshighway Closure a Test for St. Louis City Commitment to Cycling

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Reddit0Share on LinkedIn6Print this pageEmail this to someone

{Tower Grove Avenue is lovely to ride. Cars take the left lane and cyclists take the right next to the Botanical Gardens. This safe and enjoyable arrangement helps make this road a key St. Louis bicycle corridor.}

In the Fall of 2014 a section of Kingshighway Boulevard – a major St. Louis arterial – will close for a year and a half to rebuild a bridge, and a lot of cars will need to find alternative routes. What will happen to cyclists on Tower Grove Avenue, a principal north/south cycling corridor a half mile to the east? The City has in its hands plans to build bike lanes which would preserve bicycle safety on this route, but those plans are being scrapped to maximize traffic flow – no matter the cost to the road’s cyclists, pedestrians, and neighborhoods.

Tower Grove Avenue next to the Botanical Gardens is a jewel of a road, with wide right lanes and no intersections. Cars usually drive in the left lane and cyclists on the right, with plenty of clearance from parked cars, making the right lane feel like a bike lane. With no viable alternative routes for cyclists, Tower Grove Avenue serves as a critical north/south bicycle corridor. Its relative safety and convenience are a big reason Tower Grove Avenue is the busiest cycling route in St. Louis.

{Tower Grove Avenue. The road, mapped above with colored lines, runs north from Tower Grove Park to the Cortex District and the Central West End. The South Kingshighway Viaduct, highlighted in red, is being rebuilt. In this post we are focusing on southern Tower Grove Avenue (blue and green sections above) when Kingshighway closes. (Click map for details)}

Still, there are a number of hazards cyclists face daily. During heavy traffic cars will sometimes drive in the right lane, and this “bike lane” arrangement breaks down (see photo below). Such driving is often aggressive, and is very alarming and intimidating to cyclists. Cars driving in the right lane are especially dangerous when both the driver and cyclist approach parked cars.

Another problem occurs on certain summer weekends, when cars park at 45-degrees on the southbound lane of Tower Grove Avenue for events at the Missouri Botanical Gardens (see photo below). This increases the parking along Tower Grove Avenue but causes major problems for riders. Cyclists must ride in the left lane with car traffic, which is intimidating to many riders. Worse, drivers pulling out cannot see cyclists until they’ve completely blocked their path, a real hazard for all cyclists.

Heavy traffic, right-lane driving, and angled parking pose a constant danger to cyclists on this generally safe and popular cycling route. Unfortunately, things are about to get worse.

{bicycle hazards on Tower Grove Avenue – In heavy traffic cars will sometimes drive on the right. Such aggressive driving is intimidating and dangerous, particularly near parked cars.}

{bicycle hazards on Tower Grove Avenue. Cars pull in diagonally in the southbound lane of Tower Grove Avenue to park for occasional Botanical Gardens events. As they back out, drivers don’t see cyclists until they’ve fully blocked their path, creating a real hazard for all cyclists.}

The aging South Kingshighway Viaduct was built in 1936 and is crumbling. The city has plans to replace it, with construction scheduled to start in the Fall of 2014. Kingshighway will close for a year and a half as a new bridge is built, and during this time traffic will divert to alternative routes. The heaviest traffic will flow to nearby arterials, but car volume will increase significantly along Tower Grove Avenue along its entire stretch. What impact this will have on cyclists will depend on what bicycle infrastructure is in place.

{Kingshighway is closing – The Kingshighway Viaduct between Vandeventer and Shaw is in poor shape and will be torn down sometime around Fall 2014.}

The good news is that Tower Grove Avenue is slated to get buffered bike lanes as part of the Bike St. Louis Phase 3 project (PDF). Buffered bike lanes are an improvement over the standard bike lane, with a three-foot-wide buffer between the bike lane and parked cars, as well as a single driving lane (see photo below). They are safer for cyclists than regular lanes, and the new buffered lanes on Arsenal have been getting rave reviews. If the installation goes according to schedule, Tower Grove Avenue will be striped for such lanes this fall.

Buffered bike lanes aren’t great just for cyclists, but are also a real benefit to the residents of the neighborhoods around Tower Grove Avenue. Because they limit car traffic to only one lane, they calm traffic and reduce noise and pollution. A single driving lane on Tower Grove Avenue would encourage drivers from distant neighborhoods to stay on the designated detours, which are arterial roads like Grand and Hampton that are designed to handle such traffic.

{Buffered bike lanes along Arsenal are the solution. The road has been restriped with a 7′ parking lane, 3′ buffer, 5′ bike lane, and 10′ travel lane. The exact same arrangement has been proposed for Tower Grove Avenue between Magnolia and Vandeventer as part of the Bike St. Louis Phase 3 project. However, traffic engineers instead want to remove parking and send two lanes of cars each way on Tower Grove Avenue while Kingshighway is closed.}

Yet this scenario is in doubt. We’ve recently learned that traffic engineers are insisting on opening up two lanes for cars in each direction along Tower Grove Avenue to maximize the volume of traffic which can flow through it. They are looking to get rid of on-street parking and to delay any bike infrastructure projects until after the Kingshighway bridge is complete in Fall 2016 or later. We have heard from people closely involved in the project that Phase 3 buffered bike lanes are on hold indefinitely on Tower Grove Avenue.

If the buffered bike lanes are scuttled and two driving lanes go in, Tower Grove Avenue will become unrecognizable, an entirely different place to ride, walk, and live near. The wide open lanes will encourage fast driving and invite more cars to detour through this route. Rather than ease traffic, two lanes will encourage more of it – this is induced demand, which guarantees that if you build it, they will come. As a result, Tower Grove Avenue between Magnolia and Shaw will look a lot more like Kingshighway, a loud river of cars which is scary to ride and a real burden to cross. Worse still, since Tower Grove Avenue narrows to one lane heading north to the I-64 interchange, at peak traffic both lanes will become parking lots as two lanes try to funnel into one. Creating two lanes for just a short stretch of a road will create congestion but won’t improve the flow of traffic.

The evolving plans for Tower Grove Avenue illustrate in a nutshell how driver convenience is reflexively prioritized over cyclist safety. Yet it is not just cyclists harmed by this approach: the entire neighborhood will suffer from the noise and exhaust of traffic, and pedestrians will have a much harder time crossing. Up the road, the developing Cortex District has committed itself to the idea that being more accessible to cyclists and pedestrians is critical to being competitive on the national and international stage. Delaying bike lanes to speed traffic subverts all of this.

{Your voice counts. Public officials are sensitive to the concerns of their constituents, particularly during an election year. Here, Alderman Conway demonstrates his commitment to pedestrian safety by helping to paint decorative crosswalks on Tower Grove Avenue at Magnolia.}

Buffered bike lanes are the only way to keep Tower Grove Avenue the jewel of a road that it is today. They will keep things essentially the way they are now: a single lane used mostly by drivers from nearby neighborhoods at reasonable speeds, on-street parallel parking on both sides for residents as well as Garden visitors, and a safe and convenient corridor for cyclists of all ages and abilities.

If this is something you care about, please share your thoughts with Alderman Conway (314-622-3287), Mayor Slay (314-622-3201), the Streets Department (314-647-3111), and your alderman (more details here). The next few months will be a real test of this City’s commitment to cycling, and your voice is critical.

UPDATE 9/8:

We are pleased to have heard back from Emma Klues, Communications Director for Great Rivers Greenway regarding the story above. Emma wrote the following on behalf of Bike St. Louis partners Great Rivers Greenway and the City of St. Louis:

A road diet and buffered bike lanes on Tower Grove Avenue from Magnolia to Shaw are part of Phase III of Bike St. Louis and all partners are committed to executing that plan, available at http://bit.ly/BikeSTLPhaseIII. When the Kingshighway bridge construction begins in early 2015, a couple things will happen:

1) There will be a temporary bikeable route between Magnolia and Shaw on Tower Grove Ave;

2) Traffic levels will be monitored to see how patterns are emerging to ensure that there are appropriate alternatives for all modes of transportation;

3) Alternate routes for cyclists will include creating a biking and walking-friendly renovation of the Thurman Underpass.

We will install the full Phase III Bike St. Louis improvements along Tower Grove Ave as quickly as possible after monitoring how the closure is affecting all forms of traffic. We look forward to implementing this project and many more to make City of St. Louis streets better for bicycles!

In short, the current plan is that no new bicycle facilities will be placed on Tower Grove Avenue before the start of construction, and after that the City will conduct traffic studies. The Thurman Underpass will create a partial detour for cyclists, allowing them to ride on a residential street 1/3 mile west of Tower Grove Avenue.

The City’s approach seems to be to let cyclists fend for themselves during the Kingshighway construction, and the response leaves many critical details unanswered. In thinking about cyclist safety along that route, a number of concerns come to mind. Specifically, we’d like to know:

  • What will be the street configuration on Tower Grove Avenue between Magnolia and Shaw?How many car lanes?  Will there be on-street parking?  What bike infrastructure will be present?  Will there be new lane striping?
  • Is the City committed to maintaining the existing dedicated bike lane between Shaw and Vandeventer? (This is important, because in our conversations, Alderman Conway indicated that he expects that bike lane will serve as a de factodriving lane.)
  • What are the designated detours around the Kingshighway closure?Are parts of Tower Grove Avenue on that list?

The commitment to open up the Thurman underpass beneath I-44 is a welcome, if expected, step forward. That closure has been a key obstacle to a north/south corridor which has the potential to offer a quiet, low-stress alternative route for a significant stretch of Tower Grove Avenue. The Thurman corridor, if implemented well, will complement the connectivity of Tower Grove Avenue and provide a useful alternative for some riders. It will not replace Tower Grove Avenue as a key bike route, however, because it must re-connect with Tower Grove Avenue at its northern end, and the detour may be too far out of the way for some riders.

Other obstacles remain. The cobblestone “rumble strips” at stop signs on Thurman are uncomfortable and potentially dangerous to cyclists. Connectivity to the south through Tower Grove Park is remarkably poor: for instance, riding from Roger to Thurman through the park – a direct north/south connection – requires cyclists to share narrow paths with pedestrians and to dismount to cross curbs several times. Simply opening up the Thurman underpass with no consideration of broader connectivity will do little to make it a viable alternative to Tower Grove Avenue.

Overall, the plans outlined in the City’s reply are consistent with our impression that the primary goal behind the delay of Phase III implementation is to maximize the flow of traffic along Tower Grove Avenue when Kingshighway is closed. No commitments are being made to bicycle infrastructure along Tower Grove Avenue during the closure, and the buffered bike lanes which were to be implemented this fall are on hold.

We appreciate there are no easy solutions here, and that there are conflicting demands for limited road space. But priorities drive decisions which have consequences: more car lanes will attract more cars, and without bike infrastructure more traffic and higher speeds will make cycling more dangerous and less appealing. Adding bike lanes, on the other hand, will make the route more attractive and increase the number of cyclists. Hard choices provide moments of clarity. Installing buffered bike lanes on Tower Grove Avenue before Kingshighway closes will be an excellent opportunity for the City to demonstrate vision, leadership, and commitment to cyclist safety.

*this post first appeared on the excellent SafeTGA blog run by Matthew – the site advocates for bicycle safety along the city’s busiest bicycle corridor and provides a voice for the cyclists who rely on it

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Reddit0Share on LinkedIn6Print this pageEmail this to someone
  • In a perfect world, the viaduct replacement would be going on in concert with a new Metrolink Station at the terminus of Daggett Avenue, activating the commercial potential of that stretch and stitching The Hill into the N-S DeSoto Metrolink line.

    In a perfect world…

  • andpetty

    I would love to see protected intersections considered as an option. I know that I personally find that intersections are where I am most likely to have a dangerous confrontation. This is due to the uncertainty that someone is paying attention and/or actually going to come to a complete stop.

    I have wondered why we can’t try buffering the bike lane with parking. While buffered bike lanes are a good step in the right direction, they still allow for someone to open a car door into a cyclist or push them into traffic to avoid being doored. I would much rather hop over a curb and even land on the sidewalk than get doored into moving traffic. Another thing to consider is that 100% of the time someone has to exit the car on the driver’s side, while (especially given the rate Americans carpool) it is significantly less likely that someone will be exiting from the passengers side.

    My favorite example of good buffering intentions that have gone awry is at that section of buffered pedestrian lane on Chippewa at Meramec that Moe mentions. I understand that this is trying to address the lack of pedestrian infrastructure in this location, but it seems like it wouldn’t have been all that difficult or even cost any different to put the bollard on the other side of the bike lane and protect both the cyclist and the pedestrian.

    See the website below for an example of protected intersections:

    http://www.protectedintersection.com/

    • kjohnson04

      It’s a good idea. Our friends in Sweden have been working hard to minimize car/pedestrian/bicyclist interactions for a while. Unfortunately, because walking, biking, and mass transit are largely an afterthought in the US we end up with bike lanes next to parked cars…a notoriously bad idea.

  • Emma Klues

    On behalf of the partners behind Bike St. Louis (Great Rivers Greenway & the City of St. Louis), I’d love to clarify a little bit! (I’m also a Shaw resident and use this route quite a bit, it’s absolutely an important one.)

    A road diet and buffered bike lanes on Tower Grove Avenue from Magnolia to Shaw are part of Phase III of Bike St. Louis and all partners are committed to executing that plan, available at http://bit.ly/BikeSTLPhaseIII. When the Kingshighway bridge construction begins in early 2015, a couple things will happen:

    1) There will be a temporary bikeable route between Magnolia and Shaw on Tower Grove Ave;
    2) Traffic levels will be monitored to see how patterns are emerging to ensure that there are appropriate alternatives for all modes of transportation;
    3) Alternate routes for cyclists will include creating a biking and walking-friendly renovation of the Thurman Underpass.

    We will install the full Phase III Bike St. Louis improvements along Tower Grove Ave as quickly as possible after monitoring how the closure is affecting all forms of traffic. We’re looking forward to implementing this project and many more to make City of St. Louis streets better for bicycles.

    • Adam

      Awesome. Thanks, Emma.

    • onecity

      Why isn’t Thurman just open, period? It’s completely moronic that it isn’t. I mean, seriously.

      • Justin

        My assumption is that it was supposed to reduce crime in the area. To prevent criminals from leaving come and going easily. Who Knows if any of that works, but seems to be a common reason for breaking up street grids.

        • moe

          Your assumption is correct Justin…however, that was 2 or 3 decades ago and that entire neighborhood has changed.
          IT IS TIME FOR THE BERRICADES TO COME DOWN.

          • kjohnson04

            I live in the “bad” part of McRee Town. It wasn’t that bad a decade ago…It’s time to reopen Thurman. It’s horrid trying to ride a bike through there, because the street surface is from the 1970s…

    • moe

      If you are speaking on behalf of Bike St. Louis, then please explain the Chippewa/Meramec viaduct fiasco…..since that lane diet, traffic backs up both ways on Chippewa and it is a safety issue exiting Oak Hill going either direction. Then going east the traffic thins to 1 lane at Meramec with only 1 warning sign and the bridge base (sorry, don’t know technical term) is unlit and unpainted…too many cars do not see either the warning sign or the divider and merge over..again..a very bad safety issue. Going west, there is just a barricade that looks like it came from a war zone, the bike lane is next to the traffic and the empty/spare lane on the right is roped off from all by pylons making this lane un-maintainable. At this point it is full of trash and debris because the sweepers can’t even get in to clean. After the light at Meramec, the bike lane just disappears and it’s back to 2 traffic lanes. Then the bike lane reappears after Morganford. 1//2 of TGS is upset with this design not too mention many of the drivers that use Chippewa. Not with the bike lane per se, but because now it’s unsafe for everyone, it’s dirty and not maintained, AND no bikers or pedestrians use said bike lane….because IT”S UNSAFE.

      • Emma Klues

        Moe, I’m investigating that for you, please send me an email so I can get you a thorough response! eklues at grgstl dot org.

        • moe

          Emma….I emailed you on 9-9. I look forward to your response.

        • moe

          Emma….it’s been a week and no response. And yes, I’ve checked my spam box.

        • moe

          Wanted to let folks know that today (9-16) I received a response that Emma is checking with the other players involved and still working on an answer. I appreciate the update.

    • moe

      And wouldn’t it make more sense to wait for implementation of Phase III at this location until AFTER the bridge reconstruction?

      • Emma Klues

        Recognizing that Tower Grove is an incredibly highly-used bike route, we’re wanting to implement the planned work sooner, possibly still on the planned schedule for this spring.

    • Matt Wyczalkowski

      Thanks Emma!

      We respond in detail to your letter here: http://safetga.org/?p=743

      • Emma Klues

        I posted another response to explain further. There will always be bike options on Tower Grove, and our original scheduled work for Spring 2015 may very well stay on schedule.

        • Matt Wyczalkowski

          Thank you for your continued engagement, Emma. You can see Emma’s entire response at the bottom of the comments section here: http://safetga.org/?p=743

  • onecity

    I don’t know, this one’s far out stuff, man, but how about OPEN UP THURMAN (I know, it’s CRAAAAAAYYYYZZZEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!), and build a Thurman-Sarah viaduct so future traffic isn’t all forced onto Khwy or Grand? I know, it’s completely and totally a stupid idea, because why on earth would you want connected streets, amiright?

    • Chaifetz10

      Completely agree about opening up Thurman, however a viaduct would be too much.

      • onecity

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Olav_Sabo_Bridge

        Read this link before you speak – there is no such thing as too much. For the record, I’ve ridden the linked bridge many, many times, and it is an essential part of the Minneapolis cycling infrastructure. Also, opening Thurman doesn’t help without a viaduct, because there’s still a bottleneck at Vandeventer or Tower Grove.

    • STLEnginerd

      Thurman viaduct is intriguing to me but to connect to Sarah seems like it would be a lot of demo…

      maybe Thurman to Boyle instead…? or Thurman through to Park and Park to Boyle…?

  • “. . . and the new buffered lanes on Arsenal have been getting rave reviews.”

    Rave reviews from whom? I’m curious about some evidence to back up this statement.

    The west-bound bike lane on Arsenal is okay-ish because, with Tower Grove Park on the right, there are minimal turning conflicts. Not so with the east-bound bike lane.

    • kjohnson04

      No raving here. It’s only for about three blocks. Then it’s back to trying not be run down by cars, or avoid cars parked on the TGP side of the street.

      • John R

        I believe they will be extending it further west…. not sure if all the way to Kingshighway or not.

  • With parked cars along most of the length, the northbound right travel lane on Tower Grove Ave b/w Magnolia and Shaw is already a bit narrow, if you’re trying to stay 5′ from parked cars (strike zone + startle zone) AND three feet from overtaking traffic on the left. I’m not sure how striping a bike lane would improve this situation, unless parking is removed. I rarely bike this stretch northbound for this reason (southbound, there is usually plenty of room for me to avoid the Door Zone without being overly close to traffic in the left lane).

    If you really want your bike lanes, this section of TG Ave (Magnolia to Shaw) would be an OKAY place for well-engineered bike lanes because there are minimal turning conflicts (since all E/W streets dead-end there). But to really have room to safely operate, I would want to see them remove on-street parking and have one “multi-mode” lane each direction (this is to say that ALL road users could use that lane, if it served their destination) and have the other lane as a dedicated bike lane.

    However, the existing bike lane on Tower Grove Ave (south of Vandeventer) is atrocious, especially in the southbound/downhill direction. Most cyclists are traveling at/near the speed of traffic there, and that is no place for a bike lane.

    • dempster holland

      I think that sounds fair. One lane for the 2 per cent who ride bikes and one
      lane for the 98 per cent who drive cars or take the bus

      • kjohnson04

        Actually, the bus is only vehicle I don’t mind being over on the right side. Could be used as way to keep transit on time.

      • Adam

        more people would ride bikes if there were safe infrastructure in place. again, the problem is that most drivers don’t see it as “one lane for bikes and one lane for cars”. most drivers feel entitled to whichever lane they want whenever they want it, the law be damned.

  • Sean McElligott

    If only we had a N/S rail system to reduce car traffic then we would not need 4 lane roads.

    • Ashley Diaz

      THIS COMMENT IS EVERYTHING.

      • kjohnson04

        Yeah. It would make getting from one end of town to the other much easier particularly during “rail maintenance” which hobbles the system.

  • moe

    These are the same issues various neighborhoods went through when Metro was expanded, when highway 64 was rebuilt, etc. Yes, traffic will get heavier. But it is TEMPORARY. And even though this will affect me every day, I have no problem with this. The bridge NEEDS to be replaced. We’ll get through it. Some days will be a b____h, other days not so. People will adapt.
    As Mr. Cleeland stated already….”No, It depends on how people-cyclist and drivers behave.”
    Drivers AND cyclist will just have to be more courteous and more aware of their surroundings AND SHARE THE ROAD.

    • Adam

      if only it were just a matter of courtesy. there is a huge safety differential even when both parties are behaving. for example, a courteous driver forgets to look over their shoulder before making a right turn through a bike lane and a cyclist dies. as long as roads are designed primarily for the convenience of drivers cyclists are at a life-threatening disadvantage.

    • Ashley Diaz

      Things that are “temporary” for 18 months tend to become “standard.”

      • Alex Ihnen

        Reminds my of FP Ave/Euclid intersection. BJC/City simply say, “hey, it’s temporary – will only be like that for about two years”. It’s a complete disregard for the daily life of the city and its people.

  • Chris Cleeland

    “What impact this will have on cyclists will depend on what bicycle infrastructure is in place.”

    No. It depends on how people–cyclists and drivers–behave. Left alone, Tower Grove will be no more or less dangerous than it is now.

    “Buffered bike lanes are the only way to keep Tower Grove Avenue the jewel of a road that it is today. They will keep things essentially the way they are now.”

    No, they are not the only way, and they will not keep things as they are now. As currently configured, the street configuration can vary dynamically based on needs, and a rider can place herself in an optimal part of the lane. Further, when reaching Shaw on the northbound, striping a bike lane will create conflict for right-turning cars vs. straight-through.

    Striping a buffered lane will put the bike lane over some of the worst pavement on Tower Grove. Moreover, buffered bike lanes as implemented on Arsenal do not provide the universally-accepted MINIMUM 3′ distance from overtaking vehicles.

    “…traffic engineers are insisting on opening up two lanes for cars in each direction along Tower Grove Avenue to maximize the volume of traffic which can flow through it.”

    This must be stopped. While I am intensely opposed to adding bike lanes, I’m equally intensely opposed to creating what will essentially be a residential superhighway.

    • dempster holland

      if traffic is restrcited to one lane, and more cars are attracted to Tower Grove
      and Arsenel when Kingshighway shuts down, the resulting congestion will
      probably induce drivers to take short cuts through neighborhood
      streets

      • Alex Ihnen

        Except there really aren’t ways to cut through the neighborhoods and therefor disperse traffic because we’ve closed our city streets and created suburban traffic patterns.

        • kjohnson04

          This. In places like Manhattan, traffic congestion is abated because of multiple avenues for traffic, bicyclists, and transit to go. We can’t do that here because our street department thinks that cul-de-sac streets are an improvement. The aren’t. They push that traffic onto those streets with shared bike lanes and create the problems they *aren’t* trying solve.

        • onecity

          Every single street in Shaw should be opened up. It’s re-fucking-tarded that there are any closed streets there at all. Every single street in every single STL nabe should be re-opened, because only backwater has-been moron cities actively try to destroy their urbanness. Am I being harsh? You betcha. Am I being too harsh? Hell no.

  • STLEnginerd

    Seems like Vandeventer is the better alternative route for a lot of the arterial traffic. I’m sure Tower Grove will see some increases but it with all the stop signs i doubt it will be preferred by most through traffic.

    • Chris Cleeland

      Agreed vandeventer is a better detour, though that was placed on a road diet as well east/north of kingshighway. Still, if there were a route to convert back to multilane, it would be THAT one.

      I’m not sure where these stop signs are that you are thinking of; Tower Grove Avenue btw. Magnolia and Shaw has no stop signs, and is the stretch about which Matt writes.

      • Alex Ihnen

        Vandeventer east of Kingshighway was reduced to two traffic lanes with a center turn lane a couple years ago, but it has long since been returned to four traffic lanes.

        • Yes, Vandeventer is much nicer for biking now that it is back to four traffic lanes. The lanes are relatively narrow, which makes it easy for a cyclist to control his/her lane.

          • Alex Ihnen

            I don’t disagree, but I’d rather have street parking with bike lanes and two travel lanes. The problem with Vandeventer at two lanes here (with or without bike lanes) is that it’s four lanes west of Kingshighway and north of I-44, making this stretch confusing without other changes.

          • It’s very difficult to have space for truly non-Door Zone bike lanes in areas with street parking. Not that I’m opposed to on-street parking, it just doesn’t mix well with bike lanes.

          • kjohnson04

            As I recall, biking on Vandeventer during the road diet was nice. There was a no parking shoulder of sorts, forcing drivers to stay in a lane. The problem was the colossal back ups during evening rush-hour. At times, cars would be stopped at the light at Shaw up to almost Kingshighway.

      • moe

        Nature finds a way and so will the drivers. Many if not most will take Southwest at Kingshighway east/north to 64 and 40 and yes, Tower Grove Ave and then turn left to head north into Forest Park Southeast. But in any case, shouldn’t the entire stretch be taking into account rather than just these 4 blocks? Traffic..any and all of it…won’t just appear and disappear at the ends of these blocks…Isn’t this just NIMBY to be concerned with just this short section?