Forest Park Parkway at Kingshighway Project to Get Underway Next Month

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook226Share on Reddit14Share on LinkedIn0Print this pageEmail this to someone

Kingshighway closure_1

Last last year, nextSTL was first to report on plans to bring the Forest Park Parkway and Kingshighway intersection to-grade. Now we have further detailed plans, and an unofficial start date for the project early next month.

Plans call for all north-south lanes on Kingshighway to remain open during the day, with limited lane closures overnight. The submerged east-west Forest Park Parkway lanes will be closed, with one lane in each direction remaining open on adjacent Forest Park Avenue.

Plans show a landscaped median on Forest Park both east and west of Kingshighway. A 20′ wide multi-use path within Forest Park passes under Forest Park Parkway, terminating at Laclede Avenue and Parkview Place. The underpass design mirrors that of the one at Hampton within the park. Initially the path may have little practical use, but it designed to incorporate a future multi-use path extension along Kingshighway.

FPP_Kingshighway detail_1FPP_Kingshighway detail_2

FPP_Kingshighway detail_3The transformation is part of the BJC Healthcare campus transformation project, a more than $1B investment in renovation and new construction on the expansive Central West End medical campus. Funding for the $10M project includes $5M from BJC, $2.5M from the Washington University School of Medicine. An additional $2.5M has been allocated via East-West Gateway and Surface Transportation Program (STP) and On-System Bridge Program (BRM) funds to replace the bridge carrying Forest Park Parkway over MetroLink tracks.

Final plan approval from the Forest Park Forever advisory board is expected later this month. Construction, including the closure of Forest Park Parkway could begin as early as July, with substantial completion and re-opened streets 12 months later in July of 2017.

While the restoration of a more traditional intersection will create better access once completed, the closure is sure to cause some headaches. Detour plans call for east-west traffic to be routed along Skinker Boulevard to I-64/40 and Boyle or Tower Grove access to the east. Many will likely use Lindell Boulevard instead.

Over the past decade, Lindell has seen increased traffic from the closure of Forest Park Parkway, and then I-64/40. The street was recently signed at 25MPH, reduced from 35MPH. Long-range plans call for a cycle track and lane reduction. Today, the design speed of Lindell is likely in excess of 35MPH.

The closure of Forest Park Parkway for the coming year is an opportunity to introduce traffic calming measures to Lindell. The changes also present an opportunity for residents of private Westmoreland and Portland place to utilize the existing signalized intersection at Westmoreland/Maryland to access their neighborhood. The additional three neighborhood gates appear functional as well.

Recently, as Kingshighway was closed for the replacement of a viaduct just south of I-44, although Vandeventer Avenue has been the main detour route, Tower Grove Avenue was expected to see increased traffic. Nascent plans for a bike lane on Tower Grove was smartly implemented prior to the Kingshighway closure. The change from four traffic lanes to two has effectively maintained Tower Grove as a neighborhood street.

The plan for the dramatic change at one of the city’s busiest intersections has proceeded without much information. There have been no public input meetings, no online comment forms, and limited communication with adjacent residents and businesses. As is often the case, when money is found for a project, things happen quickly.

The $7.5M investment by BJC and WUSM follows the cost sharing effort by MoDOT and BJC to fund a new I-64/40 interchange at Tower Grove Avenue. BJC contributed at least $8M to that $23M project completed in 2014. A new MetroLink station at Boyle Avenue in Cortex recently broke ground and is funded by a $10.3M federal TIGER grant.

In February of last year, a comprehensive bike share implementation study was completed for St. Louis. The study concluded that a two-phase implementation growing to 810 bikes and 90 stations would require $8.5-$10.5M in support beyond revenue to cover the first five years of operation. In Cincinnati, RedBike is sponsored by the UC Health, while the Kansas City’s B-Cycle, established in 2012, is supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield.

Kingshighway closure_2Kingshighway closure_4 Kingshighway closure_3

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook226Share on Reddit14Share on LinkedIn0Print this pageEmail this to someone
  • Pingback: Not All Grade Separated Intersections Are Bad: An Idea for Kingshighway and Forest Park Parkway – Gateway Streets()

  • Leo ;)

    I don’t like the idea. The new stoplight between Forest Park and Kingshighway will take forever to turn green. Very Bad idea.

    • Nick

      Agreed it is stupid

  • Pingback: Forest Park Connectivity and Mobility Study Envisions Bike Share, Fixed-Route Transit, Remote Parking, and Much More - nextSTL()

  • JDub94

    FPP is open again after being closed for 3 weeks. When does it close for a year? I was just getting used to it …

  • Greg

    The issue to lindell Blvd residents is the noise and a proposed stop light at Lindell and Lake. Westmoreland and Portland use Lake for their entering and exiting. They feel that their will be more traffic with the shut down of FPP. The residents of Lindell do not want a stoplight or stop sign at this intersection due to the traffic stoppage will prevent us form entering and exiting our driveways. The trustees of Westmoreland and Portland are pushing the alderman-ward 28- for some type of solution. They have in the past open the gates to Kingshighway and Union so this a short term solution.

    We on Lindell do not have that type of solution to enter our driveways. The lower speed on Lindell has helped us get in and out of our driveways. These homes are an investment but also a treasure of St Louis. It is unique in its history and its architectural beauty. Lindell is part of the park, and is extension of it beauty and care.

    As for the speed limit the metro buses that exceed 45 mph will shake these 100 year old homes. Lowering the speed limit is a safty concern for people entering and exiting the park.

    • ben

      Or just open up the streets?!?!??! It doesn’t have to be this complicated.

      • HawkSTL

        Those streets–yes, literally the streets and pavements themselves–are private property. Not going to happen.

    • Riggle

      Can I get a framed copy of this? Dated 1985?

      • HawkSTL

        Let me know when you have the $1.5-2.5 million to buy Greg’s home. Greg’s property taxes subsidize everything you want to do in the City, Riggle. Once you have the $1.5-2.5 million and buy property in a private place, you will have the standing to gripe. Then, your neighbors (who also have $1.5-2.5 million worth of skin in the game) will roll their eyes and laugh at you. Sounds productive, doesn’t it?

        • Adam

          So infrastructure needs should be dictated by the haves? How medieval.

          • HawkSTL

            No, Adam, it’s called democracy. When the people like Greg who actually live in the neighborhood decide what is best, that is how our system is supposed to work. After all, they are the ones who are affected. What would be medieval is what you’re suggesting: person or small group, who don’t live in the neighborhood and are not affected, are the one(s) that arbitrarily decide what is best for you and your world view. The Revolutionary War was fought over that basic principle. So, what you are saying actually is: “Let them eat cake!”

          • Adam

            No, when the wealthy decide what a city’s infrastructure priorities should be that is called an oligarchy. In a democracy, such priorities would be decided by the entire city population, most of which is not wealthy. And I’m so sorry, but you should go read a bit about the structure of feudal (medieval) societies– nobility and peasants and all that–because your attempt to turn it around is hilarious. “Let them eat cake” refers to the nobility being completely out of touch and unconcerned with the plight of the commoner.

          • HawkSTL

            In your scenario, you are the king. Do you live in the CWE? No. You are not part of the commoner group then. It’s that simple.

          • Adam

            Okay. I’m satisfied with my comments and yours.

        • Riggle

          I should need more like 5 million, the reason I don’t is that people like you make bad decisions, and the City is made less attractive, thats why st louis is so cheap

          • HawkSTL

            Without “us,” you have no tax base. But go for it.

          • Nick

            It’s best just to ignore Riggle

  • Darrin

    I am a resident living off of the Union/Lindell exit. Will the redesign of the KH/FPP/FPA intersection change the traffic patterning on the lights at Union/Lindell/FPP during construction? Currently turning onto Union to head south is already quite difficult, given the idiotic unused bike lane that reduced traffic to one lane, and now a further impediment of all the FPP traffic turning left in an already too short left turn lane. Has any consideration been given that there will be no need for anything but a 4 way standard intersection light pattern?

  • DBeganovic

    Some clarifications
    The bridge replacement in the park is separate from the FPE at grade job. Bridge is federally participating and there are still some issues when it comes to getting environmental clearance before that can start. FPE is all locally funded and not in the park, so that will probably move forward later this month

  • rgbose

    Access – Cutting the Cost of Parking Requirements

    “A city can be friendly to people or it can be friendly to cars, but it can’t be both.”

    http://www.accessmagazine.org/articles/spring-2016/cutting-the-cost-of-parking-requirements/

  • HawkSTL

    BTW — Most in the CWE also recognize that the following will not happen: “The changes also present an opportunity for residents of private Westmoreland and Portland place to utilize the existing signalized intersection at Westmoreland/Maryland to access their neighborhood.” Those streets have their own private security that stop you from entering even when on foot. It’s not happening.

    • Alex Ihnen

      Not sure I follow. That security can be present at that intersection. The issue is that the only access currently used is at Lake Avenue, meaning as traffic increases on Lindell, residents will be trying to enter/exit. The suggestion only points out that lights are already in place to use Westmoreland for access.

      • HawkSTL

        They are private streets and have been since their founding in the 1800s. The property owners want the gates closed. Unlike other CWE gated streets, the Westmoreland and Portland Place Associations take the extra step of keeping cars and pedestrians from even entering their streets. It’s the City’s version of Ladue. Opening the gates is not happening.

        • Alex Ihnen

          Yes, their wishes are understood. That private neighborhood’s choice to keep four of five access points closed impacts neighbors and the city as a whole. They may very well believe they live on an island, but that’s not how a city works. Wait until they complain about added traffic on Lindell and ask the city to do something about it.

          • HawkSTL

            Well, if they do complain about traffic, the City will be obligated to do something about it. Lindell west of Kingshighway was Forest Park Terrace and was a private street. Back around the time of the World’s Fair, the residents deeded it to the City with stipulations. Lindell between the Chase and Wash U. is a unique animal . . .

          • Alex Ihnen

            “if they do complain about traffic, the City will be obligated to do something about it”

            Really? Is the city best served by trying to address everyone’s complaint about traffic? Our city has lost 60% of its residents and likely a similar percentage of jobs. And the complaints about traffic continue. I’d venture that a top complaint in Ballwin and Kirkwood is traffic as well. It’s not solvable, we can only throw endless resources at it and continue to hear complaints.

          • HawkSTL

            Please set aside the policy debate for a moment (we actually agree that too many City streets are closed). The City and Westmoreland Place/Portland Place have a special agreement. Lindell has restrictions. If the City does not enforce those restrictions, the residents have an ability to do more than just make an angry phone call.

          • Alex Ihnen

            Please explain.

          • HawkSTL

            The 2 private places from Kingshighway to Skinker owned Lindell until the Wold’s Fair. It was a private street. When Lindell was turned over to the City, there was a deed restriction put in place as part of the deal. The City is obligated to enforce it. The restriction does not allow flow-through traffic on Lindell. That is part of the reason why FPP exists in the first place.

          • Alex Ihnen

            And yet flow-through traffic on Lindell exists. Why is the city not enforcing the deed restriction, and what would that look like? More stop lights? Signage? A cul-de-sac?

          • Framer

            The point is, Portland and Westmoreland Places will never be opened to through traffic. And they shouldn’t be; these streets are unique.

          • Alex Ihnen

            I don’t think anyone has suggested they should or will be. My suggestion was that residents of Portland and Westmoreland Place could use the existing signalized intersection to come and go from their own private streets if traffic increases greatly on Lindell.

          • Framer

            OK, gotcha.

          • HawkSTL

            It is done by periodic strict enforcement, a barrage of tickets when residents get upset and threaten, more roadway signs (there are quite a few more compared to surrounding streets), and letters and legal action given the agreement. Why do you think Lindell has been closed during Fair St. Louis vs. other streets? It’s because Lindell is not an ordinary public street. The residents still have a great degree of control over it.

          • Tim Memos

            Hello, sir. I’ve seen you make similar comments in the past, implying that traffic shouldn’t be a problem because the infrastructure was built for a larger population. Someone on this blog has used the phrase “massively overbuilt.” One thing to keep in mind, though, value judgement aside, is the increase in the rate of car ownership. While it may be true that the total 24/7/365 maximum capacity is greater than 24/7/365 total demand, there are many times when demand peaks traffic grinds to a slow. Unfortunately, your argument implies that traffic is exponentially distributed.

          • Darrin

            I agree with him. The amount of traffic that is viable for some of the roads here should support more volume. While Chicago has clearly more invested in buses and trains for transport, a street like Michigan Avenue is a 3 lane road very similar to Forest Park Ave or Kingshighway and experience far less congestion because they have worked out their traffic patterning more systematically. I think most of St. Louis’s problems are related to the speeds, length of lights, and pattern of the busiest intersections. There is also no reason to have extensive bike lanes within the city limits. Most riders do not use them anyway and they take away a whole lane of traffic. A 4 lane ave with a middle turn lane turned into a 2 lane road with middle turnlane and 2 bike lanes would be far better managed as a 4 lane road with bike lanes. Since when does a bike need a lane the width of a car?

          • Adam

            For the love of god, there AREN’T extensive bike lanes in St. Louis. If there WERE then people would use them, as they do in places that actually HAVE extensive bike lanes. I’m so f*cking tired of people saying “See, nobody’s using this 6-inch-wide bike lane on the side of the highway that leads to nowhere!” Yeah, if the bike lanes are designed to fail then nobody’s going to use them. Morever, the city is the MOST logical place to have extensive bike lanes. The city was not built for your drive-through convenience. The entire f*cking point of a city is efficiency through proximity, which is SUPPOSED to allow for a variety of forms of transportation (and actually does in cities that give a shit about their non-driving citizens). Lastly, bikes don’t need lanes the width of a car, but they need a sufficient buffer so that jackass drivers don’t run them down.

          • Alex Ihnen

            I’d suggest that if we build our infrastructure for peak use, we’ll destroy the city and render our places not worth arriving at. In fact, the widening of city arterials, and construction and expansion of urban Interstates, as well as constructing the parking to accommodate peak use, has already destroyed much of the city and its ability to be financially sustainable.

        • Wayne Burkett

          It always amazes me that people seem to think that a defense of “this is bad because it makes the neighborhood different than it was on the day I moved in” is reasonable. I mean, I totally understand *why* people feel that way. It’s normal to hope that nothing changes. (You bought there for a reason!)

          But it’s emphatically not a reasonable thing to expect other people to care about. I don’t *care* that it’s been that way since the 1800s. And neither should the City. That is simply not how we should be evaluating projects.

          • HawkSTL

            I don’t have over $1 million to spend on a home. But, if you invest that much, you naturally are going to protect your investment. There is a reason that homes on private streets appraise at higher values than public streets. Privacy and control over the streets comes with a premium. If we don’t like it, you and I can choose not to live there. But the residents there do control what happens to a large degree–which is, in part, why the homes are expensive.

          • Wayne Burkett

            It is indeed a natural response. I recognize it as such. I’m still not impressed by it as a defense.

          • HawkSTL

            You and I likely don’t have the $1 million. That changes perspectives.

          • ben

            http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/blog/real_estate/2014/06/dream-homes-2505-e-lake-of-the-isles-parkway.html

            I don’t think opening up the street is going to wreck your investment. Isles Parkway is a public, one way street, adjoining bike and walking paths on L. of the Isles in MPLS. This is a $4.5M home. The private streets have outlived their usefulness.

          • HawkSTL

            Yes, I’ve heard comments from people over the years who don’t live on private streets decrying private streets. It’s easy to criticize when you don’t live with and see the results. If you happen to live on a private City street, go to your neighborhood association and ask for a vote to give the street back to the City. I predict that won’t go over so well. I’ve lived on both public and private City streets. Like it our not, there is a very big difference in traffic, security, and property values.

  • HawkSTL

    I echo Andy’s comments below. Most people in the CWE recognize that this is a terrible idea both during construction and afterward. But, as Alex pointed out, the residents weren’t consulted. You can’t bring 60,000 plus cars a day (I think that is the traffic count) together at grade with a stoplight and not expect a traffic jam. So, once again, we are artificially creating a traffic jam (during construction and in the after condition) in the name of “progress.”

    • Alex Ihnen

      While I can’t support the process, this is a good project. The grade-separation isn’t urban, it excludes entire blocks from being part of the city, it induces traffic by requiring circuitous paths for drivers, and divides Forest Park from the city as it fails to provide a predictable and straightforward pedestrian experience. While we all like to play traffic engineer (me included), there simply no reason that this intersection won’t work. In part, this is because traffic is a social construct and not simply a math problem. But we know this – if we can close FP Parkway, then close I-64/40 for a year at a time, we can return a suburban intersection to an urban one and be OK.

      • HawkSTL

        There are urban intersections at every entrance point to the park, including adjacent to the FPP/Kingshighway intersection: West Pine and Kinshighway and West Pine and Lindell. The whole point of FPP when it was built was to provide a north through-route around the park (Hwy 40 was the south through-route. But in this era, we know evidently know better. Everyone loves more traffic, right?

        • Tim E

          Well, FPP will still be there, traffic counts won’t change with an at grade intersection (might drop if someone decides not to use FPP as a cut through from Midtown/Downtown to Clayton CBD) and FPP obviously has stoplights before and after Kingshighway intersection.

          In following the argument I would argue that is not about more traffic its about how much time and the desire of the immediate neighborhood to have the convenience of a freeway not a major arterial street next door. Of course in 1800’s their was no such freeway and pretty sure it was a at grade intersection so kinda chuckle at that argument.. Then again, 1800’s didn’t have nearly the number of lawyers willing to litigate anything back then either.
          ..
          Certainly can see what they desire but if it is about more traffic they should have been fighting against BJC/Wash U medical expansion, SLCoP expansion, the establishment of CORTEX, and recent developments from Lindell Place to Orion to Koman’s new development among other things.

          • HawkSTL

            FPP was not built in the 1800s. It was built as a modern through-way in the late 1950s (at the same time Hwy. 40 was being planned through the southern end of the park). The City at the time knew that it had to have bypasses around the park as well as urban intersections into the park from the existing public streets. Because BJC is paying for this, the north through-way is now being changed without much thought. The BJC planners don’t live in the neighborhood and don’t understand the issues. It’s as simple as that.

        • Adam

          You’d think we’d have learned by now that “through routes” and highways are a great way to empty out a city, what with our history and all. Too bad St. Louis never learns.

    • Wayne Burkett

      Frankly, if we polled incumbents about progress, then nothing would ever get done. I don’t know about the process in this particular case, but consulting residents about the design of an intersection (while sounding nice) is a terrible idea. What do citizens know about development, anyway?

      The City should adopt a transparent, clear, forward-thinking process with similar development guidelines and then point to it every time somebody says, “but what about parking?” We don’t need input on every single project. Just adopt clear guidelines that make sense and then apply them consistently. That’s it. It’s all you need.

      • HawkSTL

        I’m not sure I follow you. So, in your view, democracy is served by not listening to the neighborhood’s residents, not consulting them, and moving forward against their wishes? That would be a unique campaign tactic for re-election.

        • Alex Ihnen

          It’s only a negative if you need the votes of people who prioritize their own selfish interests above those of the larger city. I’ll admit, that this is the kind of political behavior that is rewarded in the city’s current system. I think the point is that city planning is perhaps not best served by direct democracy.

          • HawkSTL

            Agreed — self interests are rewarded in the current system. That is how the Church demolished the San Luis Apts. in a historic district. And, it is how BJC is making this new intersection at-grade without public comment or input.

        • Wayne Burkett

          Appeals to democracy aside, yes, that is correct. We would be better served by a clear, transparent, straightforward urban development plan that was applied consistently. There is no need to ask residents how they feel about each new project.

      • gmichaud

        I have been looking at planning processes in other cities. London has a Core Strategy which are clear guidelines with flexibility for the developer. London also welcomes comments on all projects, no matter how small
        http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/environment-and-planning/planning/planning-applications/view-planning-applications/Pages/default.aspx.
        Helsinki has a 4 step planning process, 3 steps encourage citizen participation and objections. (Helsinki Planning Review 2016, page 39)
        San Francisco has “eight elements of a great neighborhood” in which they use open public discussions about what already works and what opportunities there are for improvement.
        If public participation is good enough for world class cities, St. Louis needs to look at doing the same.
        Other cities have a willingness to take the time to make sure the project is right. This intersection will be here for 30, 40 years or maybe longer, so a good solution is important. It appears to be a reasonable design, but who knows since the process doesn’t allow for input or scrutiny.
        You are completely wrong about citizen participation though, the lack of some type of inclusive planning process is harming St Louis and is a major factor in its decline.

        • Wayne Burkett

          I don’t know anything about London or Helsinki, but San Francisco is *the* poster for backwards development processes, red tape, NIMBYism and the like. I can’t think of a worse example to emulate. Their approach is an absurd combination of wishful feet-stomping and go-nowhere permitting hell. It’s exactly what you get when you let a small group of very loud voices influence construction at the cost of the public good. That city is thriving *despite* their idiotic planning choices.

          • gmichaud

            I don’t know, San Francisco looks like it has a thorough public participation process, Much more thorough than St Louis.
            Here is a quote from a current project underway concerning Market Street. “The Better Market Street Project includes a robust community involvement process to encourage residents, merchants and the many and diverse groups along the Market Street corridor, from Octavia Boulevard to The Embarcadero, to participate and stay informed via community meetings, surveys, emails, newsletters, website updates and other social media venues.”
            You make some outlandish claims out of thin air, do you have projects you can link me to or the names of planning projects I can look up where public participation is or has been a problem?
            Irregardless of what you may think, citizens have a right to a voice in their government, it is their government after all, and they have a right to have a voice in how their city is built.

          • Wayne Burkett

            You’re begging the question, which is to say that you’re starting from the position that public participation is necessary and good and then concluding that San Francisco is doing it right because they have lots of public participation. I reject the premise.

          • gmichaud

            As I said London, Helsinki and San Francisco are world class cities and all encourage robust public participation. So I guess you reject facts also. In your mind then St Louis does it right by sidelining the citizens and to hell with the consistent mediocre results.
            You have no examples of how public participation has failed in San Francisco, is that correct?

  • Randy

    Crosswalk to be restored/fixed at FP & Euclid?

    • The closure of the crosswalks is supposed to be temporary and only in affect as long as Parkview Pl is closed owing to construction. We’ll see.

  • Andy

    We recently moved out of the CWE and I must say that I feel we dodged a bullet. Driving down Kingshighway in the afternoon was already enough of a challenge but this sounds like a traffic nightmare.

    • Wayne Burkett

      Pretty soon nobody will go to the CWE; it’s too busy!

      • Michael C

        If it’s too busy, that means that everyone wants to go there. And that will continue being the case as more and more people continue to move there and more buildings are built. This means that we seriously need to invest in better mass transportation.

      • HawkSTL

        This is reminding me of the musical The Producers. We’re losing population. So, we’ll create congestion to make it appear that we’re not losing population while simultaneously frustrating the people that do live there. What a plan!

        • Adam

          Well, based on your history of comments, what you see as “artificial congestion” everyone else sees as an environment that’s conducive to being in (outside of a car, even!) rather than just driving though.

          • HawkSTL

            See Andy’s comment above. I don’t think you spend much time in the CWE during rush hour.

          • Adam

            It’s been a few years, but I used to live in Fenton and work at the Med School. I’ve spent all kinds of time on Kingshighway during rush hour. Never once said, “Man, I wish Kingshighway had more lanes, higher speed limits, and fewer stop lights.”

          • HawkSTL

            See Tim E’s comments regarding the Boyle intersection. BJC and Wash. U. school med employees don’t think traffic is wonderful on the campus (I too have spent a lot of time there). That is why BJC pushed for the new interchange. Which gets us back to FPP. Why would anyone want FPP to be like Kingshsighway? That’s the main point.

          • Adam

            I’m not seeing how the KH/FPP/FPA interchange/intersection remodel makes FP Ave/FP Pkwy like KH. Are we talking about the same thing?

            And honestly, who cares if BJC/Wash U. employees don’t think traffic is great? People are always going to complain about traffic regardless of how “great” things are.

    • Tim E

      But isn’t Kingshighway have stop lights for the southbound left turn onto the ramp for eastbound FPP as well as the ramp going coming off westbound FPP to turn left onto southbound Kingshighway? I believe Kingshighway at FPP is already a controlled intersection.

      Goes back to HawkSTl wanting the FPP to remain thruway but believe FPP has a stoplight at the Euclid Ave a block away (a long block). So I have a tough time believing that congestion magically will appear and or these changes added traffic. Reminds of me of the comments when Hwy 40 was shutdown to upgrade to I64 and the region was going to be at a standstill.
      ..
      Also, it would be interesting to see traffic counts for Kingshighway and FPP before and after the new Boyle I64 ramps. Which in part was also paid for by BJC as a means to provide an alternate ingress/egress for employees. I guess that one involved planners not knowing the neighborhood.

      • HawkSTL

        Interesting that you think the Boyle/Papin St. ramps were put there for the neighborhood. Skinker/DeBaliviere, CWE west of Newstead, and CWE north of Lindell residents (i.e. non-Midtown/SLU/BJC) certainly don’t use them b/c it isn’t that close as compared to Kingshighway and even Skinker. Those ramps were put there so BJC and the med school can expand eastward. Not bad. But not for the residents either.

        • Tim E

          I didn’t state that the ramps were put there for the neighborhood. I stated that Kingshighway already is a controlled intersection/stoplights for some of the traffic flow between Kingshighway and FPP. This in not entirely a free flowing interchange especially on Kingshighway.

          I don’t know squat who drives where and when from the neighborhood but hunch is that a lot of traffic counts and a few traffic studies have been done. I can’t really argue for or against you on who uses these ramps or not.
          ..
          I will agree wholeheartedly that BJC/Wash U Med is the elephant in the room, for better and worse. What else is also clear, like the Boyle street exit/interchange, this would not be happening without them paying for half of it outright. In my opinion, BJC/Wash U med school failed the area for closing off Euclid to car traffic. Grid is even more important now as density, people and jobs come back to part of the city that is thriving. The reality is the city use to have two and half times to three times the people in the area. Imagine the same population with the convenience of the car. 60,000 vehicles a day would be Sunday afternoon during blizzard.

        • rbeedee

          They have been beneficial to FPSE residents, who often complained of BJC/WU employee traffic through the neighborhood to get to the Kingshighway on ramps during evening rush hour. The newish Boyle/Tower Grove ramps allow access to I-64 from the BJC/WU campus without going through smaller neighborhood streets. I don’t know how much of that drove the decision, but I do know that neighborhood residents complained a lot about it, and the new interchange was presented to residents as a partial solution.

          • HawkSTL

            Fair enough — glad the new ramps help the Grove. They just don’t do much for the CWE.

  • How wide is the path tunnel underneath Forest Park Parkway? Will it be narrow and somewhat foreboding like the tunnel under I-64, or will it be wide and inviting like the tunnel underneath Hampton?

    • Alex Ihnen

      Added to story – plan calls for 20′ wide path, modeled after the Hampton underpass.

      • Michael B

        I’m encouraged to see it is part of a broader plan to create a multi-use path along Kingshighway. I would love to be able to ride from Forest Park Southeast over to the Central West End and avoid Euclid altogether. Bicycle-car collisions occur on Euclid at an unfortunate rate despite it being a sharrowed street.

        • Riggle

          Sharrows work so well