Updated: Funding Approved for First Calm Street Project in St. Louis City

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook1.1kShare on Reddit40Print this pageEmail this to someone

The East West Gateway Council of Governments (EWG) Board of Directors will voted this week to approve Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) grant funding to the St. Louis region which includes the top rated project, and only project within the city limits: nearly $1-million to design and construct St. Louis’ first Calm Street along Louisiana Avenue from Gravois to Meramec, connecting Benton Park West, Gravois Park, and Dutchtown.

Calm Streets are streets with low motorized traffic volumes and speed, that provide safe and accessible routes for walking and biking. These routes are important to the City of St. Louis as we continue to promote a robust multimodal transportation system that supports users of all abilities and ages. There are direct benefits associated with promoting walking and biking, and further developing the Calm Streets vision and network buildout ensures St. Louis can grow from these benefits, while supporting economically vibrant, safe and sustainable communities.

The Louisiana Calm Streets project implements a variety of traffic calming strategies. The conceptual plans call for speed humps, enhanced crosswalks, unique signage and branding, bumpouts, and neighborhood traffic circles at entrances to both Gravois and Marquette Park. Traffic calming features will incorporate sustainable design where feasible, and decorative plantings and enhanced signage where appropriate. In addition to slowing traffic and creating a comfortable environment that prioritizes pedestrians and bicyclists, the traffic calming features will provide a sustainable design that enhances the sense of place along the corridor.

An exciting project for St. Louis and the region, the Louisiana Calm Streets project implements a ‘new’ type of street in a St. Louis neighborhood ready for new development and re-investment. Nationally, Calm Streets projects have been catalysts for economic growth, neighborhood revitalization, and stronger community connections.

 

The Calm Streets project started in 2014 with an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant, obtained by Trailnet, to further develop the project vision and potential for implementation in St. Louis. Together, with the City of St. Louis, a working group of partners was formed to evaluate a Calm Streets network within the City, as well as identify possible locations for project implementation. Stakeholders identified areas where these facilities may be feasible, as well as routes for network buildout. Based on many factors including proximity to community goods and services, location relative to existing Bike St. Louis network, community buy-in, and neighborhood diversity, Louisiana Street was selected as the ideal candidate for the initial phase of design and implementation of Calm Streets for the City of St. Louis.

 

In 2016, multiple City of St. Louis Aldermen, along with the Missouri Department of Conservation, partnered with Trailnet and the City of St. Louis to engage a consultant to further the Calm Streets Plan. The goal of this project was to develop a concept plan for Louisiana, as well as a Calm Streets toolbox, based on national best practices and that can be used for further implementation of a Calm Streets network.

 

Louisiana Avenue is the first Calm Street project in the City of St. Louis, and can serve as a model for building safer streets for users of all ages and abilities. Using the framework from this project will help the entire region plan streets that prioritize pedestrians and bicyclists. With more ‘eyes on the street’, the Louisiana project has the opportunity to be a transformative corridor in these South St. Louis neighborhoods.

The Louisiana Calm Streets project intersects three neighborhoods: Benton Park West, Gravois Park, and Dutchtown, and will better connect residents to community goods and services, enhanced access to transit routes with connections to employment centers, and better connections to school and recreation. In addition to functionally providing a safer roadway due to slower speeds and traffic calming features, the enhanced sense of place because of the high-level facility will promote economic development and community revitalization in an area that is a priority for the City of St. Louis.

Gravois Park and Dutchtown are two of fifteen neighborhoods highlighted in the City’s PIER (prevention, intervention, education, retention) plan, that addresses priority areas outlined in the City’s ‘holistic approach to reducing crime…to build a safer, and more sustainable City for people to live, work and play.’ By promoting walking, biking and better access to community goods and services, more eyes on the street will help with increasing visibility within the neighborhood, and assist with impeding crime and violent activities.

The Louisiana Avenue Calm Streets project is a collaborative effort that will enhance the quality of life for citizens in priority areas, as well as help move forward similar projects within the region.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook1.1kShare on Reddit40Print this pageEmail this to someone
  • Robert Barquero

    interesting – hopefully it will launch the revival of Dutchtown/States streets …man that area needs it…maybe some of the restaurants will get a boost from the workers. Arkansas, Tennessee and a few others still have brick streets around gravois park…

  • Mike F

    Having lived on this stretch of Louisiana Avenue since 2003, I can say that, among other things, IT’S ABOUT BLOODY TIME. (oh, no, I’m shouting; boo-hoo)

    And here’s why it is needed:

    For a significant span of its length, Louisiana parallels Grand Avenue, and as such it sometimes tends to act as an alternate route for those trying to get N/S. Perfectly natural, and as the grid was built to accommodate such detours, among other reasons, that is a perfectly acceptable use of the route. So the volume isn’t really the problem. The problem is the speed at which many drivers decide to take this route, and of course the absolute refusal of many of them to exercise caution in negotiating intersections (Stop signs, what stop sign? Bicyclists? Pedestrians? Get a car, you hippie losers!). I have seen, on at least three occasions, the result of this behavior at the the intersection of Louisiana and Meramec Avenue, wherein one car meets another car, and the next thing you know, CRUNCH. Hell, I was almost a victim of one of these miscreants (they were being chased by the STLPD, so it’s all good, right?)

    In addition to its close proximity to Grand, Louisiana has sightlines which allow the driver to see multiple blocks ahead of them. Such as the stretch from Chippewa to Meramec. Or Potomac to Chippewa. Or Gravois nearly to Arsenal. This has a rather peculiar psychological influence (in my opinion) on the motorist, leading them to believe that the way is completely clear ahead, and that any concerns regarding other motorists, buses, cyclists or pedestrians are so slight as to be irrelevant. As well, on the stretches leading Louisiana next to Marquette Park and Uncle Louie Park (Gravois), because of the lack of houses on those sides (east) of the street, it seems to give the illusion that the street is wider at those points, ergo, again, greater speeds, and more frequent instances of motorists disregarding prudent operation of their Death Machines. I have also witnessed drivers completely ignore the one-way signs on the stretch SB next to Uncle Louie. I believe–or rather, it is my hope–that the strategies laid down in these plans have a positive impact on speeds and behavior on Louisiana. Although I would add one more innovation to the project: installing chicanes on the stretches through Marquette Park and Uncle Louie, which I believer will further reduce the possibility of drivers attempting to gun it through those sections. Ironically, the frequent use of stops signs seems to encourage the practice of flooring it between intersections. Ooops!

    Another unintended consequence of stupidity on the part of the City was paving over the brick streets. According to a neighbor, who has lived on the same block as my wife and I for the better part of three decades, speeds along Louisiana Avenue increased significantly, by about 10-15 mph by her observation, when the City decided to pave over the brick with asphalt. How ’bout them apples? Decreasing average speeds, yet maintaining a smooth flow of traffic, is an absolutely necessary and achievable goal of this project. If some feel as if it “forces” them into driving habits which aid in increasing safe conditions for ALL users of our roadways, then I feel that you don’t really understand the structure and purpose of a constitutional, pluralistic, democratic republic. Your needs alone–the automobile user–do not constitute a will which can or should be imposed upon others. The needs of those poorly represented in our society (and let’s face it, that includes nearly every constituency which isn’t a supranational corporation) hold just as much value as the needs of those who are the loudest, or have the most money to spend as bribes–er, I mean campaign contributions–on our representatives in office. This little project–and believe me, at 1millionUSD, it is a small project–will not bring down capitalism, or subvert the will of the people, nor will it sabotage the Sacred Merkin Free Market, Dog Bless America. It is merely one small push against the last century of development and roadway infrastructure planning which benefited solely the automobile, and in most cases to the detriment–many times fatally–of those proceeding down our streets either of foot or mounted on a bike.

    Untwist your knickers, and drive safely.

    • Whipple

      But in this region %99.9 drive %100 of the time and it will always be that way, cars only, duh

  • Adam

    Great news. I’ll be using this to bike to work every day.

    The “don’t force your personal choices” disconnect makes me fucking laugh. Forcing everyone to own a car to get around because the roads are too dangerous and alternate transportation is virtually nonexistent: totes cool. Asking drivers to drive a little slower on a handful of roads so people can *choose* to bike or walk safely: COMMUNISM!

    Whatever. It’s happening and I’ll be using it. B*tch away. I won’t be reading and you won’t be doing anything about it.

    • Nick

      I agree with you to the extent that in certain areas of the city, projects like this are a great idea. Why not make a street that’s not even a major thoroughfare more accommodating to pedestrians and bikers? However, I disagree that accommodating many, if not most, StL city and county streets to cars vs. bikers/pedestrians is always and everywhere a bad thing. I also think some of us tend to get up in arms when we’re called things like car slaves simply because we live in a metro area where, for the vast majority of people, a car makes much more sense to get around than public transportation. I could either drive for 30 minutes from my house in the city to my job in the county, or I could take several hours on a bus. Sorry, but there is no option there. Even if we doubled or tripled bus routes to cut down on commute time, I would rather sit in my own car vs. a bus for 30 mins. And that’s the case for the vast majority of people in this city. And barring some population shift of Biblical proportions back into city limits over the coming decades, we will always and forever be a car town, simply by necessity. It only makes sense that most of our infrastructure supports people’s commuting habits.

      • Whipple

        Got it, you want me to give up and move to a real City. Good riddance, enjoy your decline into irrelevancy.

        • Nick

          Don’t you have a bridge to protect somewhere?

    • HawkSTL

      Swearing makes you hip and cool and does not at all take away from your positions.

  • Pingback: St. Louis Aims for Network of “Calm Streets” | Amrank Real Estate()

  • Pingback: Public Schools Shouldn’t Undermine Walkability | Restaurants in New York City()

  • Pingback: Public Schools Shouldn’t Undermine Walkability | Amrank Real Estate()

  • Pingback: Public Schools Shouldn’t Undermine Walkability – Streetsblog USA ⋆ New York city blog()

  • rgbose

    Will they stamp the street names in the sidewalks at the intersections? Hope so.

  • Pingback: Public Schools Shouldn’t Undermine Walkability | Holiday in New York City()

  • Pingback: Public Schools Shouldn’t Undermine Walkability – Streetsblog USA()

  • Whipple

    I guess they are doing this in the trap because no one will complain. The car slaves in stl hills would never go for something like this, but it’s sad that the city is too scared to even try something like this in the supposedly progressive bastions of the near south side. Not much political clout south of Gravois. Why aren’t places like Lafayette Square and Tower Grove East demanding this type of action (spoiler, they drive to the County for everything, they don’t want to be slowed down reaching precious highway 40)?

    • jhoff1257

      Lafayette Square just recently completed a traffic calming project on Park Avenue in the business district area. New bump outs, crosswalks, stop signs, planters, etc. It wasn’t done to the extent that this project is but as someone who walks Lafayette Square pretty frequently I’d say it’s been a pretty nice improvement. They did some similar work on Lafayette Avenue (though they did close off 18th and Lafayette which I don’t agree with).

      Also, did you used to go by Riggle?

      • kjohnson04

        I’m not in favor of street closures. They usually cause irate drivers, and irate drivers are a danger to other drivers, peds, and cyclists. Closures cause an unneeded Timbuktu effect. That’s why many city residents find suburbs infuriating.

        • HawkSTL

          Too many closed streets are a bad thing for the reason you say. On the other hand, it is both perplexing and laughable how many cars blow through conspicuous No Thru Traffic and Dead End signs.

          • kjohnson04

            Agreed.

    • Yung_Chilli_Bean

      Or maybe there is a need for a connection between the neighborhoods and districts. Cherokee is great for the pedestrian, sidewalk life is lively and active at different times of the day; Chippewa i swear to god has the most potential and is very underutilized, i hope in a few years it can become another district such as Cherokee, then mereamac is another great commercial corridor as well. I think this is great.
      PS, why would investment such as this be a bad thing for the “trap”? investment of public funds should be going to underserved areas or those that are not doing as well as TGE, Laf Sq, etc.

      • Whipple

        I guess it’s good for the hood, but that isn’t the reason its being done there. Cars are king amongst our glorious leaders, so you won’t see this kind of thing being done where our betters actually go (Hampton village and brentwood).

        • Nick

          “Cars are king amongst our glorious leaders”

          You’re talking about a metro area where 88% of the residents live outside StL city limits (and growing). Complaints about too many cars in St. Louis is like complaining about too many umbrellas in Seattle or too many surfers in LA. We will always be auto-centric here, end of story. I wish you people would get a different schtick already and discuss something productive for once.

          • Whipple

            Eww

          • Chicagoan

            It doesn’t have to be that way.

          • Nick

            It will always be that way until we figure out how to get people to move in from the Metro East, St. Charles and StL County first.

          • Whipple

            Lets bulldoze the City and rebuild in suburban form! Then everyone will move in!

          • Nick

            If it works for certain neighborhoods, let’s do it. The Cortex District, which is largely built in suburban form, is the biggest success story St. Louis has experienced in a generation. I’ll take more of that any day.

          • HawkSTL

            Right, because no one drives in Chicago.

          • Chicagoan

            Did I strike a nerve? I never mentioned Chicago, we’re talking about St. Louis. You don’t have to accept your built environment, you can create change on an incremental level by simply engaging in a community group.

            The comments section on here has been a bit hostile of late, I suppose I’ll say bye for now.

          • HawkSTL

            Sarcasm does not equal hostility. What you’re seeing in the comments is a reaction to the departure from advocacy (i.e. we should make mass transit more available) in favor of force (i.e. we should take away driving lanes/options to make people ditch their cars). The latter is why you’re drawing objections. Choice is good. Forced behavior is not.

          • Mike F

            Interesting perspective regarding force v advocacy. I’m not certain about the motivations regarding reduction of lanes and other efforts to lower speeds on dangerous roads, but I don’t think that creating a safer environment for everyone–including the motorist, in addition to pedestrians and cyclists–should be considered force. Since the 1920’s, roughly, the US has built roads and roadway infrastructure for one constituency and one constituency only–a machine. (One could also add that that constituency consists of some very large corporate interests, including the automobile industry and oil. Both of which, I might add, have BillionsUSD to spend on bribing political actors to maintain the status quo. Which has also in a way caused us to become addicted to their products. Bicyclists and pedestrians have no such money or power to counter this supranational juggernaut).

            So when a project such as this is initiated, for the life of me I cannot understand the nature of the somewhat violent reaction it creates, considering that it is, comparatively speaking, by many magnitudes a proportionally smaller program as compared to almost any roadway project for which the automobile–a machine–is the only factor which benefits from the expenditure of multi-millions of USD.

          • HawkSTL

            These road changes many times make me grumpy because they’re dumb. They force me on the interstate where traffic is already congested during rush hour for driving 5 miles. Why? Because a handful of people wish to have 25 mph speed limits on 4-6 lane wide roads or bike lanes or speed bumps or something else that is dumb. Slowing traffic down by restricting lane width and lowering speeds? Doesn’t work. More fender benders and people get irate. Adding bike lanes and taking away driving lanes? Doesn’t work. Watch the traffic back up on simple left turns. Watch cars in a hurry drive in the bike lanes and almost t-bone right-turning cars. Watch the cars trying to turn out from a non-signaled side street while the parade of cars on now-2 lane streets block those cars due to traffic. Watch no one using the bike lanes while all of this is happening. Constructing calm streets with speed bumps and humps, roundabouts, and rippled concrete? Doesn’t work. Cars will rip through, and it may even enrage those cars to do something really dangerous (like with the bike lanes). You’ll then need to resort to one lane streets (ala Gaslight Sq.). That then pushes the traffic onto neighboring streets. More congestion and bad driving behavior. The traffic must go somewhere. It always does. But, we still spend needless money for this. All to cater to the few over the many. And the many are grumpy.

          • Whipple

            Knowing I’m slowing people like you down makes it worth it

          • HawkSTL

            Knowing that your time is worth so little makes me sad for you.

          • kjohnson04

            They do, but statistically more use mass transit. I digress, it helps if the transit system actually has some depth or frequency to it. We need to fix that here.

          • HawkSTL

            Agreed.

          • Whipple

            I work for a small company, 6 employees, one drives to work, 3 don’t own cars. You really don’t need one in the City, even if you are a lazy shit, there is uber. You live in the past, no wonder this town is absolute shit.

          • Nick

            Good for the people you work with. Sorry that I value my time and money too much to either spend hours on a bus every day or $70 on an Uber just to not own a car. And I hate to burst your bubble but with the continued growth of the suburbs along with driverless technology cars are very much the future of transportation in this country. Meanwhile, good luck to you living in a city that you seem to hate. Sorry it doesn’t conform to your unrealistic world view.

          • HawkSTL

            Nick is spot on. I’ll add that, until the City has quality public schools, the hoped for regaining of the City population won’t happen (regaining accreditation means that we’re nowhere near there yet). Right now, it is simply a cycle. Young people graduate from college or move out of mom and dad’s house, park in the City for 5-10 years, then move out when family becomes a consideration. No sane person will risk their kids’ futures on the City public schools. You stay in the City only if you can afford private schools. The 3-6 people you mention, if they don’t own cars, are so far off the norm that, statistically, they don’t even register. You can plan all of the calm streets, road diets, and Ubers you want. That caters only to the non-statistically relevant people. It won’t break the cycle and does not appeal to most people. It hasn’t and it won’t without solving the school issue.

          • Nick

            couldn’t agree more

          • kjohnson04

            Schools would be better in the City if people would stop throwing up their hands and say “let’s move to Rockwood.” Things don’t improve if nobody puts any skin in the game. Chicago doesn’t have “quality” public schools either, but strangely is growing just fine. LA, too. The schools are the statistically irrelevant issue. If you were talking crime, I could more see your point. I went to the schools and have a degree to prove it. Also, those vaunted suburban schools tend to trail well-oiled City schools.

          • HawkSTL

            k — It is apparent that you don’t have kids. Save for a few exceptions (Mallinckrodt, Kennard), there are no well-oiled city public schools. Name a city neighborhood that is stable or on the rise. Almost all of their kids go to private schools. Where? St. Gabe’s, St. Margaret of Scotland, Forsyth, New City, Soulard, and St. Roch. None of us moved. We’re simply unwilling to risk our children on the City public schools. Just look to where those city private school children matriculate for jr. high, secondary school, high school and college. No comparison to the city public schools. Not even apples vs. oranges. Before you think it, I am a public school person. It served me well. But, if I couldn’t afford private schools, we’d be out in the burbs. Just like everyone else. That’s the reality.

          • Whipple

            Of every city in the country

          • HawkSTL

            Yes, school quality is an urban problem in many cities. But, let’s be honest. It is worse here. Look at the number of city public school closures (many of the redevelopments highlighted on this website are school buildings converted to apts.). People are voting with their feet.

          • Whipple

            Chicago isn’t growing

          • kjohnson04

            Yeah, it is: 2010 – 2,695,598 2016 – 2,704,958

            Source: https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/cf/1.0/en/place/Chicago city, Illinois/POPULATION/PEP_EST

        • HawkSTL

          If you don’t want to drive or own a car, great. Just don’t force your personal choices on the rest of us. This is a democracy (where the majority view is to own and drive cars). It is not the Kingdom of Whipple and anti-automobile nutcases.

          • Whipple

            Don’t force your driving choices on the rest of us, see how that Works? This is a democracy where the democratic process is moving toward alternative forms of transport (see this project). But don’t worry, this is happening in a black neighborhood you don’t go to.

          • HawkSTL

            Put it to a vote if your ideas are so popular. They aren’t, which is why none of this is on the ballot. I didn’t vote for him, but Trump won this state by 19 pts. Your candidate for mayor also lost. So, you aren’t winning. The opposite is happening. And, when you lose people like me who should be allies, that margin will continue to grow. Lastly, black people and other minority families live on my street. Using that card is just dumb. Sorry.

    • Daniel Schmidt

      Your blanket stereotypes of people in entire neighborhoods are really useful in forwarding your point and agenda. /S

      Hey, some people want to drive cars, it is a free country after all. Some people want to use transit. Some folks want to cycle or walk. Is there not room for everyone? The article says this “is the first Calm Street project in the City of St. Louis, and can serve as a model for building safer streets for users of all ages and abilities”. How about we exercise some patience and let’s see what happens throughout the City.

  • Tara

    Great route for this improvement. I wonder what plan they have for evaluation?

  • bradwaldrop

    Every CID including downtown’s should follow a master plan to connect our great city neighborhoods & transit options in this way using 20/80 fed matches. Before long we’d be bragging that you could safely ride from downtown’s Convention & Visitor’s Center to Sump in 15 min. Or from the CWE to Riley’s Pub via safe streets and/or elevated bike/ped. Connecting great neighborhoods makes each neighboring neighborhood an asset to the other, w/o use of a car. Great idea – let’s do more.

    • Whipple

      Riding from the convention center to sump takes 15 min now, it’s pretty safe, Broadway has almost no traffic and a good if not great bike lane for 95% of the trip. Cwe to Rileys has a good bike lane for 90% of the trip (tower grove ave to arsenal, or cut through the park). I’m not sure what you are advocating for, what you are asking for already exists.

  • jhoff1257

    I like this. I’d also like to see the city spend a million bucks or so to replace the Schoemehl pots and Slay balls with some of these traffic circles.

    • kjohnson04

      Darn tootin. I hate those things.

  • Pingback: Funding Approval Expected for First Calm Street Project in St. Louis City | Amrank Real Estate()

  • JZ71

    “Nearly a million dollars”, over less than 20 blocks, seems like a lot of money being spent for not much real gain. The reality is that most non-arterial streets in our grid are already pretty calm. The real issues are both bigger and smaller – damaged sidewalks and missing curb ramps are a problem, citywide, while “missing links”/barriers for pedestrians and cyclists, across arterial streets, freeways, rail lines and waterways, limit access out of and across multiple neighborhoods. Instead of focusing on some trophy project, we’d be far better off with a more diffused and nuanced approach to improving the existing street network!

    • STLEnginerd

      I think timing the improvements to coincide with standard repair and replacement of road surfaces and sidewalks is the most logical and cost effective approach. Of course they have to decide what basic improvements they really want to implement as standards, which is hopefully what projects like this are all about.

      Also i agree it amazing how little you get for a million dollars these days, but its the same story everywhere, and in every industry.

    • Mike F

      You obviously have never lived or driven down Louisiana Ave. The problem with that street–or challenge, if you prefer–is that it parallels Grand Avenue. And as such, one can often find that people are prone to use Louisiana instead of Grand as the major N/S route. And since they all seem to be in a hurry, and don’t give a rat’s patoot about anyone but there own time, speeds tend to be rather high.

      As for the price tag, let’s face it, costs for infrastructure improvements are probably more expensive than people think they are, or should be. Not to mention that if this were directed at improving access or ease for the automobile alone, and not as a way to aid in providing a safer environment for cyclists and pedestrian, you wouldn’t criticize the costs involved.

  • John

    Hopefully, the is the first announcement with more to come! Great to learn about this infrastructure investment.

  • Imran

    The drawings are conceptual I guess but I sure hope they don’t skimp on a robust tree-planting component.

  • Mike B

    Great project.

    Does anyone know if there is any movement on a Cultural Trail type of development in St. Louis? I know a group of people went up to Indy a few years back but haven’t heard anything since.

    • Trailnet

      Hey Mike! There’s definitely movement happening on a Cultural Trail type of development for St. Louis! Trailnet has been working with planning committees populated with residents, institutions, and local government members helping to reflect the needs and preferences of our community. To learn more about the Trailnet Vision & the planning process thus far, check out the link below. https://trailnet.org/work/community/vison-and-goals/

      Also, this November we will be hosting our 2017 Gala where we’ll be revealing the network of destinations that our planning committees have determined from our public engagement process this year. Learn more about our upcoming Gala here: https://trailnet.org/movers-shakers-gala-connecting-st-louis/

      • Mike B

        Great! Thanks for all the info!

      • Whipple

        If we are funding GRG why do you exists? Conversely, why is the City funding GRG if they aren’t doing anything in the City. Finally, does any bike organisation in the STL area care about actual bike use for everyday life or is it just contrived trails for going in a circle? Wether it be grg suburban trails or urban “culture” trails (I want to get to work and run errands safely, you know, how the rest of you use your car).

        • jhoff1257

          Who pissed in your cheerios today? GRG owns and maintains the North Riverfront Trail, including the Miss River crossing on the McKinley Bridge, the St. Vincent Greenway, and the River des Peres Greenway. Parts of the Centennial and Mississippi Greenways are within the City limits as well. They just broke ground on the first phase of the Chouteau Greenway, and were/are a partner on the new LKS and Arch Grounds project. The Near North Riverfront redevelopment is being planned and led by them, in addition to other projects like the Trestle. I’m sure they’d happily welcome a check from you to get started on everything you want. Until then they have the City (60ish square miles), St. Louis County (over 520sq/mi) and St. Charles County (593sq/mil) to cover. And guess what? Those residents pay taxes into GRG too.

          The routes you want to use to run errands and go to work (within the City) would largely be striped and maintained by the City of St. Louis in conjunction with the Bike St. Louis master plan.

          Trailnet isn’t a builder either. They are an advocacy group that tries to promote better bike and pedestrian facilities in the region. They work with people like GRG and Bike St. Louis to formulate plans and lobby for funding for these projects. Now, if you want nobody behind the scenes helping to make these projects a reality, then by all means lets get rid of Trailnet. I’m sure that would work wonders for making it easier for you to bike around the city.

  • Michael B

    These types of projects are wonderful. It’s a great way to make our streets safe and accessible to pedestrians, cyclists, and cars, without inconveniencing anyone. I really wish we could get this done to Taylor Ave in The Grove and throughout the hospital complex.

    • Jason Stokes

      I wish this was just the way we did things. That would be keen. I can’t think of a neighborhood or area that this wouldn’t improve. Yes, cars may have to go marginally slower; the savings of 2 minutes just isn’t worth our status quo.