Study Suggests Steps to Humanize Lindell Blvd

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook243Share on Reddit23Share on LinkedIn0Print this pageEmail this to someone

For the past twenty years, Lindell Blvd has been my own private freeway. I work on one edge of the park and live on another. Often I feel like mine is the only car on that super-wide expanse of asphalt along the northern edge of Forest Park. That stretch of Lindell easily could function as a fourth runway for Lambert Field — if it didn’t already have a spare. For you newcomers, that’s St. Louis Lambert International Airport.

As a matter of confession, my Mini Cooper desperately wants to drive that stretch of city street at about 60 miles per hour — just like the larger cars with bigger engines that fly past mine. Add cyclists and pedestrians, and it’s like a video game. Lindell is designed to handle 30,000 cars per day, but it averages just 8,000 cars. Signs along Lindell state 35 MPH, sometimes with a second sign below that one that seems to promote intolerance. Sometimes they say 25 MPH and ban trucks. I assume that’s the No Tolerance part — truckers. It’s a very chic street. But even in a car, it takes incredible restraint to drive that street slowly. Typically, I take the parkway just to avoid the temptation. On those days, Lindell averages 7,998 cars.

All of that could change based on initial concepts proposed at Forest Park Forever’s open house Thursday at the Forest Park Visitor Center. This meeting is just one of many meetings in a lengthy Forest Park Great Streets Study process. There were a lot of fantastic ideas on display Thursday, from protected bike lanes on the Tamm overpass to year round event space and programming at the Steinberg Rink. But the best ideas involved humanizing Lindell Blvd.

One proposal is to reduce Lindell to two traffic lanes from four to allow for a protected bike lane along the street’s northern edge. Planners heard from commuting cyclists who try to navigate the bike lane inside the park when it is shared with strollers, runners and rollerbladers. A protected path would be separated from traffic by low profile planters or other physical barrier and not the white vertical pipes seen nearby on Union Blvd. With a low profile, a bike lane will do nothing to detract from the grandeur of the boulevard. Indeed, fewer lanes of cars can only improve the look of the street.

Other proposals include pedestrian bumpouts at crosswalks to slow traffic and reduce the distance pedestrians must cross. Pedestrian islands would further slow traffic at major intersections and make for safer crossings.

Another concept involves placement of a roundabout — really more of a traffic circle — at the intersection of Lindell and Union. The current bridge beneath that intersection, which covers Forest Park Parkway and the Metrolink tracks, is in an advanced state of disrepair. The study suggests replacing that cover with a larger one so as to allow for the roundabout. A roundabout will reduce backups and time idling at traffic lights, reduce injuries from collision by an average of 76% and improve pedestrian and bicycle access. The result will greatly enhance park access from the north. The design would include high visibility crosswalks and will allow vehicle access to and from the parkway in all four directions. Current access is only to and from the east.

Though just a concept at this stage, the large roundabout would revolve as an oval around a park-like center. Think traffic cicles in Washington, DC or Paris, not the dinky (though functional) roundabouts that often pop up in the St. Louis region. While not in the concept, the concrete balustrades around the intersection could be replicated if desired. The current concept instead replicates a move made famous by Baron Haussman in his nineteenth century design for the boulevards of Paris. The concept suggests placement of a large sculpture or other installation at the center of the oval, a placement on axis with both Lindell and Union. The schematic follows Beaux Arts principles seen in park-like traffic circles elsewhere. (The Angel de la Independencia in Mexico City is a very fine historic example.) Both Union and Lindell Boulevards would therefore frame the element, whether it be a classical monument, fountain or large scale modern art. (I’m cool with anything not made of large slabs of corten steel. I have nothing against such slabs. I just think St. Louis already has its fair share.)

To the south, another roundabout would provide for a grand entrance into Forest Park.

According to Forest Park Forever, a goal of the study was to “improve how pedestrians and cyclists can safely enter and exit the Park across … major perimeter streets.” While the study is not yet finalized and they are seeking perspective from residents and other stakeholders, the study so far shows how a humanized, more sustainable Lindell Blvd might look. It shows a northern edge to Forest Park where pedestrians, cyclists and drivers all enjoy traveling through a place of safety and beauty. I know my Cooper will be eager to cooperate with a street that’s actually designed for 35 MPH.

(Visited 4,079 times, 68 visits today)
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook243Share on Reddit23Share on LinkedIn0Print this pageEmail this to someone
  • Robert Barquero

    Love the ideas

  • Tom of the Missouri

    The place where they really need a large Parisian or NY Columbus Circle type roundbout is at Lindell and Skinker. Imagine how great It would look great in front of the new Wash U campus museum and underground garage work and most importantly it would clear up a huge traffic bottleneck. It would also not be nearly as complicated as the project on Union and Lindell since there is no underground railway and freeway at this location. The union site also needs little if any improvement in traffic flow, since Union, which has been converted from a six lane into a 2 lane due to two large mostly unused bake lanes, has little traffic anymore. It of course leads to North St. Louis which last time I visited has been mostly vacated of human habitation and consist of mostly empty lots,.

    Wash U , who seems to have hundreds of millions to waste, could also use some of their spare change to pay for it and not miss the funds.

    The only downside I can see is that the city would likely have to give up the lucrative “no right turn on red camera’ fine revenue for right turns into the park from Skinker north to east on Lindell. That of course would likely be a deal killer for the city.

    Here are visualizations of my thoughts:

    http://www.boomsbeat.com/articles/1570/20140325/a-must-see-place-in-new-york-city-columbus-circle-photos.htm

    and

    https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5PCQ7_roundabout-larc-de-triomphe?guid=5c09daea-940f-427f-befe-1461ffa0cbe8

    If done right it would become another symbol of St. Louis along with the Arch and the statue of St. Louis at the SLAM.

  • John Warren

    This is a major east-west arterial road that goes across the northern side of one of the largest, if not the largest, urban park in the country. It does not need a “road diet”. It needs to remain a four lane Boulevard. The speed limit should also be raised back to 30 or 35. 25 MPH is completely absurd for a street of its size. If the residents there don’t like that speed, they should move to a cul-de-sac in Chesterfield. I’m all for additional bike markers in the lanes and share-the-road signs, but this street should remain as-is. Perhaps focus on continuing the bike path in the park just east of Union to Lindell would be helpful.

    • Nick

      If people want to fly past the park, they can always take the Parkway. I drive it twice a day, both at morning and evening rush hour, and the Parkway virtually never backs up. On a similar note, the only time traffic ever backed up on Lindell was when the Parkway was closed. Far less traffic now travels on Lindell at peak times. I’m often critical of similar projects, but this is one example of how the city can improve pedestrian and biking infrastructure in an area with high demand for it, without negatively impacting vehicle traffic.

      • HawkSTL

        Nick – Union is going to be a nightmare if they get their way. The City already made Union worse, and Lindell backs up now at that stoplight too. Major streets still must exist. Hwy. 40, Kingshighway and FPP can’t handle everything. This will make everything, including hospital access, worse.

        • Nick

          I disagree

          • John Warren

            What’s really great is that it saves money by just leaving it as-is! No one needs to “fly” down Lindell, 30-35 MPH is a safe speed for a four lane major city street.

          • northstar

            At 20 mph, the risk of severe to fatal injury for a pedestrian is somewhere between 10% and 25%, with fatalities being somewhere on the order of 10%. At 30mph, the risk increases to between 25% and 67%, with fatalities on the order of 25%. At 35mph, injury will be about 67% and fatalities are about 35%. And at 40mph+ the risk is 83% with fatalities 55%. I wouldn’t call 30-35mph a “safe speed” for a city street that is directly adjacent to the region’s biggest park. That’s extrapolated from a 2011 AAA study on pedestrial risks by the way.

          • John Warren

            This is a good argument to remove all cars entirely! Let’s make interstate highways 25 MPH.. that’ll help too! I’m all for additional safety measures/lights at crosswalks, etc, but this street should be 30-35 MPH.

          • Adam

            northstar made a case using actual data and your response was to take it to an unreasonable extreme. no, it’s not “a good argument to remove all cars entirely”. it’s a good argument for finding balance between driver convenience and pedestrian safety next to the most popular park in the region. this has nothing to do with highways since pedestrians aren’t allowed on highways. i’m actually fine with 30 mph on Lindell (it’s not like any driver in this city actually obeys speed limits anyway), but don’t pretend like “this street should be 30-35 mph” is a given or a mandate from the sky ghost.

          • John Warren

            I’m all for pedestrian safety. Let’s address it but keep this road four lanes or two with events at certain times. I would also suggest adding a bike path east of Union directly to Lindell. I love the sky ghost reference. I prefer- Space Daddy!

          • HawkSTL

            Do you drive it daily?

          • Nick

            I interchange between Lindell and FPP on my daily commute to keep things interesting. Just drove down Lindell from the CWE to DeBaliviere yesterday at morning rush hour. Got stopped at the Union intersection, like always. After two minutes at the light, there were about 10 cars lined up to go. Far from what I would call a busy road.

          • HawkSTL

            Union is busy. Lindell is semi-busy. FPP off ramp is busy in p.m. Counts reflect that.

          • Nick

            I know. We’ve been through this already. Let’s just agree to disagree.

    • Whipple

      They have 141 in West county if you love such roads, feel free to move out there

      • John Warren

        Lindell is not a residential street/ neighborhood. It is a major city boulevard. 30-35 MPH is a good speed for this stretch of road. Wydown is even 30… If you want 20-25 MPH, move to the suburbs. Lindell was designed to be a major city Boulevard, not a residential private street for residents that live along Lindell.

    • Jim Dwyer

      Agreed….especially the comment regarding the current speed limit of 25 MPH. Arbitrary and inappropriate for that stretch of Lindell. 30 seems about right, with enforcement over 35.

  • Dahmen Piotraschke

    Blahhh, so over this, Lindell is overrun with too much car traffic, and since the houses on this street are so adored and coveted, build the dang roundabout…it will help the future of this magnificent Boulevard of the stars and cars.

  • STLEnginerd

    Protected. Bike lanes on Lindell are probably unnecessary. Of course I say this about half the bike lanes they propose for the city, but this time there is an easy alternative path for the less seasoned rider. Faster riders should feel comfortable riding with the moderate traffic on Lindell, slower more casual rider can easily take the trails through the park.

    Not sure I like the idea of going down to only one lane I realize it’s an urbanists tenant of traffic calming but I think visually the width is appealing as you drive by mansion row. I wouldn’t mind them widening Lindell to including permanent marked parking along its length though (at least on the south side) so that you don’t get the random car blocking a lane of traffic any more.

    Roundabout idea has grown on me though I think

    • Whipple

      There are no protected bike lanes in st Louis (that joke downtown doesn’t count)

    • Doraldeen

      We need protected bike lanes on every street. Cars can have one lane for now, but we need barriers and need to have them on each and every street. If the state would tax gasoline heavily like in Europe, and make gas $40 a gallon, more people would bike.

      • jhoff1257

        What? $40 a gallon? The price of a liter of gas in European countries isn’t anywhere close to that, it averages about 1.25 or so euros per liter (there are about 4.5 liters in an imperial gallon of gas). $40 a gallon? My Honda Accord has a 15 gallon gas tank and because my job requires me to travel all over the Great Plains I fill up about 7 or 8 times a month. That’s $600 dollars per fill and roughly $4,200 per month. You’d literally price just about everyone out of their car. What about the person who lives in North City and works at an outlet mall in Chesterfield? You really expect them to bike that? I’m all for raising the gas tax but Jesus Christ.

        http://autotraveler.ru/en/spravka/fuel-price-in-europe.html#.WfFyO0zMyRs

        This has to be a joke account…

        • Doraldeen

          We need people to stop driving or the planet will be dead in a few years! I don’t think people should drive at all. There are such things as intercity buses you can take or you can get a different job.

          • jhoff1257

            Nah, I like my job. I love the people I work with and it pays me over 6 figures. Much better than working in retail…

          • Doraldeen

            Then, you can more than afford my proposal for $40 per gallon.

          • jhoff1257

            Actually no. Even for someone that makes six figures, $40 a gallon, which again translates into nearly $4,200 per month (based on my gas usage) is not possible. What about food and housing costs? Have you ever even taken an economics class lol?

          • Doraldeen

            My area of specialty has been women’s and gender studies with an emphasis on critical race theory.

          • Adam

            Well… we all really do need to drive less. That said, I’m pretty sure “Doraldeen” is a fake account. Let’s stop feeding it.

  • HawkSTL

    The 8,000 car traffic count on Lindell is fiction. It is double to triple that. The proponents of this plan picked the number to support the roundabout proposal. But, the actual traffic count is 21,000. The proponents have literally picked a number out of thin air.

    • jhoff1257

      “All of that could change based on initial concepts proposed at Forest Park Forever’s open house Thursday at the Forest Park Visitor Center. This meeting is just one of many meetings in a lengthy Forest Park Great Streets Study process.”

      You’re getting awfully worked up over something that is just a conceptual design. Go to the future meetings and make your voice heard. None of this is final.

      • HawkSTL

        You are making erroneous assumptions there. Who says no one was in attendance or didn’t submit comments that were critical? The Lindell people have been working at this for years. There’s a reason why there are no alternatives being evaluated. The people pushing this don’t want there to be alternatives. They are fudging numbers. Ask yourself why proponents would not present any alternatives (departing from SOP) and use false assumptions.

        • jhoff1257

          I don’t need to ask myself anything, I like it.

          • HawkSTL

            I like pretty pictures too. But, don’t you think that this requires a bit more than that?

          • jhoff1257

            Based on what’ve I read this is only the beginning of the planning process. If you have some information that says this is absolutely the final plan and will be implemented as seen here, then do us all a favor and share it. If not, then there isn’t anything more to say. I look forward to seeing the inevitable revisions and public comments.

    • Dahmen Piotraschke

      It has obviously eased up in numbers due to the complete FPP/Kings intersection. Now its time for FPP to be widened and made as a real thoroughfare with new ramps above the Wash U. intersections, so the Parkway can be an alternative to Clayton and 170, as 64 is ridiculous from Kings highway to 170.

      • HawkSTL

        No – Lindell is still high in volume b/c the new FPP/Kingshighway stoplight backs up. Still faster to take Lindell.

        • Dahmen Piotraschke

          Not for me, coming from the south, it moves along and the 2 lane turn goes directly to FPP, not having to wait again to get on FPP, but to each his own time and place. Its the idiots who cannot figure the changes out and go slow like there on Mars. I drive to left and if I hit green I’m gone.

      • jhoff1257

        There is absolutely no need to turn FPP into a freeway type thoroughfare. No offense, but that is quite literally the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. You would get a torrent of opposition from the thousands of people that actually have to live along and near FPP. You obviously don’t. Get on the train if you want to go from Downtown or the CWE to Clayton.

        • Dahmen Piotraschke

          Oh plz. FPP has been a thoroughfare for a century. Before hwy. 40 was even made. And the reason Lindell was increasingly used was for the hardship driver’s had getting on FPP, so Lindell became the easy route to get onto FPP. The damn parkway was an original loop, interbelt from Midtown and 40 onto Clayton and 170…This with the larger city population and automobile explosion crowding and navigating through it . 60 years ago.

          • jhoff1257

            None of what you just said makes any sense. Not to mention the subway stations under those intersections you speak of. What about those? What about the trenches that carry Metro trains directly next to FPP? You’re going to push all that into the private property that backs up to FPP and the Metro system? I’m sure they’ll love that. You want to rebuild all those stations? What’s the point of making a $600 million+ investment in the Blue line (of which a large portion runs along and under FPP) if we’re only going to rip it all out and build another highway. This is just as stupid as the South County Connecter, if not worse.

          • Dahmen Piotraschke

            oh I wasn’t aware you were illiterate, what?..do you just read what words stick out and jumble them back together?…I never said to to even touch the blue line along the Parkway. And I was saying the pavement and as well as the stretches past your precious ugly brick houses and their ugly front lawns…I’m speaking of the real , nice stone mason mansions up near Kingshighway…also, overpass ramps for cars or for peds.. at the Wash U. and Metrolink inersections…would be safer for all and less congested..but kick rocks dude, you are delusional. Piss off, close-minded ass. Its not your op/ed , I know u wish it all was.!

          • jhoff1257

            lol

          • Dahmen Piotraschke

            u walk past a mirror naked? Check your ego, its sadly sociopathic.

          • Adam

            Dahmen, you suggested above that FPP should be widened. He pointed out that you CAN’T widen FPP without moving the Blue Line. Nothing to do with Lindell.

          • Dahmen Piotraschke

            I know , but its not fully true, because the blue line is above ground on one side (north) and below ground at the busy intersections at Wash U. Yes.. 4 lanes is wide enough, I agree..and, meant that resurfacing… better (wider) bike routes alongside the 2 lanes, on the south side of the parkway is open for improvement.. That’s all. FPP has many potholes and filler bumps, Lindell is newer.

        • Dahmen Piotraschke

          It already is , too late…plus it ends at 170, and is not some inter-county thoroughfare. I love taking it over 64 if I can help it.

        • John Warren

          “There is absolutely no need to turn FPP into a freeway type thoroughfare.” But that is exactly what Forest Park PARKWAY is and what it was built to be. It is not a regular city street west of Kingshighway. It was built to be a minor freeway/ PARKWAY.

          • jhoff1257

            Yeah, if you bothered to read any of my other comments you’d know that I was taking issue with the idiotic suggestion that we add additional lanes to FPP and add ramps and under/over passes at the Washington University intersections. My complaints had nothing to do with the current configuration of FPP (which for what it’s worth is nothing like a freeway).

    • Whipple

      Actually its only 4-5 thousand

  • Doraldeen

    With as many streets in the city in complete disrepair, I think this is a waste of resources. How about using such money to reconstruct curbs, sidewalks and streets, which are 3rd world in nature?

    • HawkSTL

      You’re absolutely right. However, a handful of households on Lindell are donating money to Forest Park Forever and others to get this done. Why? Those donations are cheaper than changing Lindell into a private street and then paying for the upkeep indefinitely. City taxpayers and non-Lindell donors to Forest Park Forever should be incensed by this. I’m one of them.

      • Doraldeen

        Yes, I’m all for private donations from the locals to get it done. I just don’t think it should be a priority for the city as a whole, given the lack of upkeep for the rest of the streets.

        • HawkSTL

          Ask the Lindell owners whether they will be willing to pay for it. You’ll hear crickets.

          • Doraldeen

            What we need to do is raise the property taxes on those people, so we can pay for upgrades throughout the city.

          • HawkSTL

            You’ve lost me there. Those Lindell Blvd. homes pay up to $25,000 per year in real estate taxes. Let that sink in–that is per year. How much is enough for you?

          • Doraldeen

            They probably make millions, so $25k isn’t that much in the grand scheme. Those mansions sitting there on prime real estate in the heart of the cty would be better put to use if they were divided up as housing for immigrants.

          • HawkSTL

            Millions? Most of them don’t make that much or close to it. Do they do well? Yes. Are they paying disproportionately for your services already? Yes. Bilking them for more, so that they move to Ladue? Again, you’ve lost me there. Be happy that they’re contributing disproportionately for your services. But, I do draw the line in them getting something for nothing here with the proposed Lindell changes.

          • Doraldeen

            If they were to decide to move,the city can take the homes and turn them into affordable housing for immigrants. That part of the city needs more diversity.

          • HawkSTL

            You apparently are unfamiliar with that street. I suggest that you look at the demographics of the people who own and live there. You will be surprised . . .

          • SpawnofLeeHarvey

            “Doraldeen” simply cannot be a real person. It’s someone doing a deadpan comedy take on SJWs.

            I’m impressed.

          • Doraldeen

            I don’t appreciate the insults. I am a proud social justice warrior and I will gladly accept the title! I have spent a decade and a half working on my two BAs in gender studies and women’s studies as well as my MA in critical race theory and now, because our evil society doesn’t value such great work, I’m forced to work retail. I’m up to my eyeballs in debt because our society doesn’t provide free education and I just have to hope the Republicans don’t take away my healthcare, because I would be in real trouble!

          • WhoseStreets?

            Over time, the “old guard” will eventually die and give way to a younger generation that has fresh ideas and novel problem solving approaches, like yourself. Thinking “outside of the box” is an excellent, creative skill for the future. Don’t listen to your naysayers.

            You have to consider the fact that St. Louis is a selfish, white baby boomer controlled city, trying to fight/cling for their own relevance by knocking down “the other” and even “the ethnic other”, if you know what I mean. Through purposeful exclusion, a city built on racism, segregation, shunning, whatever is a city destined to fail in the future. If there is no “us” or “we”, it’s a city ready to implode or die out as a ghost town. Old ways of doing things can’t survive change and it does not bring change.

            The benefit of high debt of the younger generation is that they won’t be in a position to buying homes owned by the baby boomers. Selfish baby boomers will get what they gave. They gave poverty to the younger generations by not creating a jobs pipeline for them and so they will reap the consequences–difficulty to find buyers that can afford their homes, namely their largest asset. Karma is indeed a bitch. See book on selfish baby boomers.

            http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/03/08/bruce-gibney-sociopaths-baby-boomers

            I work in retail as a side job and it is very hard work for the few hours that I work. If everybody worked retail, they would gain better insight into human nature and to experience different kinds of people from all walks of life. Very good diversity experiences come through university (local public/state colleges), military, prison, public transportation, and jobs like retail. If more people would come into contact with people not like themselves or their neighbors, how might their attitudes change?

          • HawkSTL

            Yes – it is definitely mom’s and dad’s fault that you have high debt and have to work retail.

          • Dahmen Piotraschke

            No Doraldeen, property is too lucrative, and immigrants and the poor like me find old , yet decent apartments in South City. Bosnians are down Gravois… Mexicans have claimed Meramec…and the Vietnamese , South Grand.

          • pkh

            Seriously? That is just what we need to do, give people with some disposable income an incentive to move out of the city. Don’t we have enough disincentives already?

          • Doraldeen

            Think of how many immigrants can be housed in those mansions.

          • Dahmen Piotraschke

            The houses are way past their prime, and are going to be neglected after the owners die soon enough. (say 10 years)… I’d build new affordable housing and flats for younger and more fit park visitors, this would be a great location. If I had enough to buy those dank houses , I would make a fortune on any return. Rich get richer.

          • HawkSTL

            Those houses have been there over 100 yrs and are across the street from one of the greatest parks in the country. Good luck with that.

          • Dahmen Piotraschke

            not the guilded mansions!! Or the houses on Union and Pershing etc…I mean the small row of brick homes leading up to DeBaliviere, even the Miami Vice house looks crappy.

          • jhoff1257

            Rows of small brick houses have survived for over a century in this city. Many of them in areas that aren’t nearly as prosperous as this area. What makes you think just because the owners die these houses fall in to disrepair?

          • Dahmen Piotraschke

            The.. market for buying a house on that stretch will probably be low and a difficult sell. Just look at the closed dark windows
            and curtains, plus the landscaping could be improved. They are a good size and surely have great square footage…I meant that the owners may have lived there for a lifetime, and unless the kids move in, the Parkside city location and their large backyards are the top selling points…Sorry if I offended you regarding death.

          • jhoff1257

            Think of how much immigrant housing we could build on the massive swaths of vacant land and in the thousands of vacant homes spread all over the city. This should be your focus, in fact there are several organizations within the city that are currently building and renovating homes for immigrants and other disadvantaged residents. Why not work with them? Subdividing large occupied houses into immigrant homes would be erroneously expensive. Besides, what makes you think those immigrants can afford the property taxes in this area? You really think it makes financial sense for a cash strapped city to suddenly start abating properties that have been a reliable income generator for a hundred or so years? Your heart’s in the right place but you’re ignoring the economics.

          • Doraldeen

            We need to take in these immigrants and give them housing and feed them. This needs to be our priority now!

          • jhoff1257

            So you only support housing immigrants if it means kicking existing homeowners out of their homes? My suggestion that we rehab the thousands of vacant homes in this city into affordable housing, not only for immigrants, but for others too, isn’t a good idea? Is that what you’re saying? Thank god you’re in no position to affect policy in this city.

          • Doraldeen

            The rich have no right to live like that.

          • jhoff1257

            Neither do you.

          • Doraldeen

            I don’t like that.

  • HawkSTL

    There are no alternate plans to the roundabout proposal. That is standard procedure, right? Evaluate the alternatives, and choose the best one based on the evaluation. But here, we have the conclusion before the evaluation. That is because a handful of households on Lindell (Katy Thomas below is an example) want to turn Lindell into a private street without paying for it. Name me one CWE parent who will let their kids ride bikes from the History Museum to St. Roch School (north of FPP, which means the kids have to cross FPP also). Give me a break – kids riding bikes to school crossing those streets is absolute rubbish. Lindell residents — if you want a private street, have the City give Lindell back to you and PAY for it (like everyone else on private streets).

    • Dahmen Piotraschke

      Those houses along Lindell… are semi-big, but old and outdated. The property value is their only asset. Also, there adjacency to Forest Park.

      • HawkSTL

        Sure – that’s why most of them sell for well over $1 million.

        • jhoff1257

          Who the hell is this guy?

    • Katy Thomas

      There happens to be several children who bike from the CWE to St. Roch every day safely and cross Forest Park Parkway at that street in-between Debalivere and Skinker. I don’t live on Lindell BTW, however I do use it to go to and from and have to cross it to get into Forest Park. If it were safer for my children to cross into Forest Park or even take Lindell, I might feel more comfortable with them biking as well.

  • Katy Thomas

    As someone who takes Lindell every day from the CWE to St. Roch (my children’s school), I am for these improvements. Half the time in the morning, there is a landscaper, moving van, or something else in the right lanes, taking Lindell from a four lane road to a two lane road anyway. Also, with a safe bike lane, I might actually let the kids bike to school in the morning. Plus, right now, we don’t walk or bike into the park as often today, even though we live across the street, because of how unsafe the intersection at Lindell and Union is for pedestrians…A roundabout makes sense as traffic is often light in at least one direction at various times during the day.

    • Whipple

      Get a bike, stop driving 2 miles

      • HawkSTL

        Sure – I can put my kids on my bike too. You know, to pick them up from school and daycare. Then getting to work downtown on my bike will be a breeze. Everything is awesome!

        • Whipple

          Why can’t you do those things? And I wasn’t talking to you

  • Luftmentsch

    They need a no-turn-on-red sign at Lindell and Skinker! I’ve been begging for this for years, having almost been killed on avg twice per year while entering or exiting the park there

    If powers-that-be really cared about making park more accessible, they’d have done this yesterday. The traffic light is already engineered with that in mind.

  • Dahmen Piotraschke

    I used to fly thru the park to Lindell.. in the morning rush to avoid hwy 40 at Hampton to 170…which is always at a standstill (40).. Traffic going west, ??. Away from downtown, and seeing that nobody works downtown… NOW..the new uplift / infill at Forest Parkway and Kingshighway is easier to get to 170. The lights around Wash U. And the drivers who get claustrophobic passing Clayton is a mystery. Just go!! Its a Parkway/freeway!! The Lindell.. /Union roundabout, is good for the park’s visitors…I would be more worried about the new trollys.. running over clueless (me)..peds and bikers. Are they not the new incredible transport for park people.?

    • Whipple

      Nobody works downtown? Got a source on that?

      • Dahmen Piotraschke

        wow, u need to chill…I was being sarcastic, because in the morning near Hampton and 64…the traffic is treacherous and bumper to bumper, going west, away from downtown!!! And it is abit of a mystery to me. But sure Whipple, I’m sure, nobody works downtown, its been blown up…freak.

        • jhoff1257

          Over 90,000 jobs are still within the Central Business District. Clayton clocks in at about 40,000. Downtown St. Louis is by far and away the regions largest employment center and will be for the foreseeable future. Nearly every comment you’ve made here makes little sense. Turning Forest Park Parkway into a “thoroughfare with ramps at the Wash U intersections” to the World’s Fair and other CWE area houses being worthless after all the owners “die off in 10 years.” Who are you?

          • Dahmen Piotraschke

            Yes, that’s obvious…and the numbers you give are comforting, as you cannot see sarcasm. You really think I meant no one works downtown?… My comment about when STL was one of the largest and most famous US cities, the people living within the city before urban sprawl, horse carriages to the park during the World’s Fair were riding atop FPP from east to west…and as the car overtook these routes, it was still a main thoroughfare from the crowded city to the open air park, hence the Forest Park Parkway…it’s history, I have seen and read my entire life. Now more than ever with the blue line the FPP is lined fully with train terminals, most underground, to not interfere with the busy and evolving “Parkway”. And don’t try and educate me and dismiss my ideas to improve the FPP. I have read nothing from you offering any ideas for progress or foresight. This is an OP/ED page, not a pissy self-righteous cog page.

          • jhoff1257

            Know why I’ve offered no “improvement plan” for FPP? Because it doesn’t need one. Full stop. Our efforts should be expanding alternative forms of transit, not building more highways and wide thoroughfares. How have we not learned our lesson on that yet? If you’ve really lived here your whole life you should know full well that highways and wide roads are not the City’s friend. You talk about the city’s glory days before urban sprawl…highways only worsen and exasperate that type of sprawl. Want the City to keep sliding down by the wayside…keep making it easier for people to leave which is exactly what you’re proposing.

            And I can see sarcasm. Yours is just isn’t very good, or very creative.

          • Dahmen Piotraschke

            So ignore all the pot holes and broken curbs on FPP… and on Kingshighway, which has more traffic than Lindell….a speed limit does not exist on South Kingshighway…meaning FPP.. and Kings should get repaved, and have a bit more space on the edges. Not suggesting a billion dollar 4 lane…just basic upkeep!! But the city is still not done with the new bridge!!, but the stupid loop trollies .. we paid for was so critical, please.

          • jhoff1257

            You seem a little bitter today. Calm down and mix yourself a drink for Christ’s sake.

          • Dahmen Piotraschke

            Bitter and self-righteous guys, usually never get sarcasm or creative writing…just grrrrr….I am always right , me such a big man…plz ..lmfao.

          • Dahmen Piotraschke

            I’m all for mass transit and expansion…but everyone wants to drive and we should keep existing streets maintained and safe. I never said build more highways, u just are putting words in my mouth to uphold your lack of any progressive thought, which you never have even spoke of.

  • Whipple

    You should try biking/walking or metro if you live so close to work

    • Dahmen Piotraschke

      who?..me?…I carpool to Hazelwood in the morning rush, but if I have to I take the bus+train. Not close, but STL. Metro gets me there.

      • Whipple

        Not everything is about you

        • Dahmen Piotraschke

          I know, but you sill keep clappin’ back at me. And I keep getting damn emails from Disqus that you or someone is replying to my comment….you ruin little local websites like this.

          • Whipple

            You got another email

          • Dahmen Piotraschke

            loser, but if u wanna be my bitch assistant , that’s cool.

          • Matthew W. Hall

            Take a deep breath and get a grip.

          • Dahmen Piotraschke

            I’m great… go take your meds gramps….mind your own business and go away…!

          • Matthew W. Hall

            You must take your meds everyday, just like that nice lady at the clinic told you.

  • STLEnginerd

    It seems ridiculous to me that they are proposing such a massive change yet they are keeping the ridiculous blocked cut through that is park road. Its literally there for one driveways than could be shifted to Union. If you want to make a change this extreme eliminating that has to be part of it IMHO.

    Other than that my initial thought was I didn’t like it, but I am warming up to it. Adding the on ramp to forest park going west is a nice bonus and the flow to and from they ramps seems to allow access to Union, Lindel, and FPP as well as maybe anything could. Probably will be a absolute crazy mess on big event days, but I think I see the benefits. But the blocked cuthrough has to go.

    • Presbyterian

      The design representative with whom I spoke told me that the remaining strip of “Park Rd” at the northeast corner of Union and Lindell likely would be removed and replaced with a drive for the two houses that need it. I think the rendering doesn’t show that because it wasn’t strictly a part of their study. These are long-term concepts.

  • Pingback: Study Suggests Steps to Humanize Lindell Blvd | Amrank Real Estate()

  • Todd J Thompson

    The Lindell bridge over the parkway and Metrolink is overdue for reconstruction anyway, so it makes good sense to get that part of the design right, as a priority.
    With regard to the comment about the ramp onto FPP no longer being necessary; a differing view is that on/off FPP ramps from the traffic circle would enhance traffic flow by providing two good alternatives for moving traffic out of the CWE toward Clayton. It would also go along with any design changes to reduce traffic on Lindell west of Union.

  • John

    What would be really nice is to make improvements (maybe the ones suggested, maybe other ones… but improvements), and add another infill metrolink station beneath the intersection while reconstructing the bridge. This would provide some convenient access to the metrolink from some high density adjacent housing as well as tie the line closer to forest park (i.e. not needing to walk a full quarter mile from the station to access the park).

    • jhoff1257

      I really like the idea of an LRT station under here. Makes getting to the Central Fields that much easier…but track distance wise, that’s really close to the Forest Park station.

  • JZ71

    I like the idea of one, but the second, mini-me, looks like more trouble than it’s worth . . . or, to put it another way, is the ramp onto FPP no longer necessary, given the new at-grade intersection a couple of blocks away?

  • Nick

    If there’s anywhere a roundabout makes sense on Lindell, it’s at Union. The stoplights at that intersection are so poorly timed, traffic is often bogged down unnecessarily. Plus, with FPP back up and running, this wouldn’t affect auto traffic between Skinker and Kingshighway too dramatically. It would be cool to see this go through.

    • HawkSTL

      Are you kidding me? 21,000 cars per day roll through there (not 8,000 — that is an assumption that the proponents used to help ram this through). You’re talking about creating a massive traffic jam. Local CWE traffic uses Lindell and Union. Through traffic from Clayton, Ladue, and U. City use FPP. FPP can’t handle both local and through traffic either — it is only 4 lanes and is not a highway. So, you’ll have traffic jams on both routes. This is insane.

      • Nick

        Roundabouts are a very efficient way to move traffic through an intersection and are heavily promoted by traffic engineers when they are a viable option. You have traffic constantly moving as opposed to sitting at a light for 30 seconds when no one is going from any direction. What makes you so certain it would make things worse?

        • HawkSTL

          21,000 cars per day on a single lane roundabout = traffic jam. That’s why they’re trying to use the 8,000 count with no alternate designs. They’re hoping that no one will notice.

          • Nick

            What I’m saying is roundabouts let more traffic flow through an intersection, which is just as true for 21,000 cars as it is for 8,000 cars. They are also safer:

            https://nextstl.com/2013/10/mythbusters-tackles-four-way-stop-v-roundabout-traffic-throughput/
            https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Safety/roundabouts/benefits.htm

          • HawkSTL

            Roundabouts are great when placed properly. I’m all for them. But 21,000 cars per day (on Lindell) on a 2-lane road or single lane roundabout where 3 major roads intersect? No professional in that field will tell you that’s ok. None. We’re not comparing this to a 4-way stop, as that prior nextstl article did. That’s apples and oranges.

          • HawkSTL

            . . . which is why they’re using the fiction of 8,000 cars per day. Make up facts to achieve the desired end.

          • Whipple

            It’s actually 5000

          • Nick

            First of all, FPP would go underneath the roundabout, not enter into it. Second, try Google…there are plenty of traffic professionals who recommend roundabouts, including the authors of the study that is the subject of this article. I don’t know what else to tell you man.

          • HawkSTL

            A study using 2-3 times less than the traffic count as an assumption (not using data that already exists)? No. Sorry, I don’t know what to tell you either.

          • Nick

            Again, I love how you call out them out for using one figure, saying it’s bullsh*t, and then give no source at all for your own number. Neyons that, you still have yet to give any evidence why you think your made up number is too much traffic for a roundabout other than because you say so. Enjoy your day.

          • HawkSTL

            Nick, BJC and the City just studied this area for the new FPP/Kingshighway stoplights. Where the roundabout is planned, it was closed for 9 months due to construction. They’ve counted the cars. Many times.

          • Nick

            Do you have a link or source of any kind that shows BJC and the City found traffic levels to be 21,000 cars on Lindell?

          • HawkSTL

            Sure – I have a research paper handy for you that was planned just for this post. Just ask them.

          • Nick

            Ok, well I’m (and most people are) going to go with the 8,000 car/day quote from a group that actually studies traffic vs. a commenter on NextStl who can’t produce any sources.

          • HawkSTL

            There was a meeting last week. Simply ask them. Or, better yet, see the proposal that says 8,000 is an estimate instead of using an actual count. Or ask the City. Or Sunshine the documents if you’re afraid of asking. If you want to fact check me, go for it. It’s there in plain sight.

          • Nick

            You’re the one making the claim! The burden of proof is on you my friend. I’m not going to fact check your numbers for you.

          • HawkSTL

            Not a claim. Not a journalist. Just informing you and others who apparently blindly support this stuff what is going on. If you’re afraid to ask the questions, I can’t help you.

          • Nick

            I don’t think you understand what the word “claim” means. You don’t have to be a journalist to make a claim…you know what, nevermind…again, have a good day.

          • HawkSTL

            Source is journalism speak, and claim and burden of proof are legal. But you say I don’t understand? That’s an interesting take.

          • Dahmen Piotraschke

            I say put up a toll booth, money and accurate NUMBERS..yeehaw!

          • Dahmen Piotraschke

            he is the numbers guy. ####…believeeeee.

          • Dahmen Piotraschke

            Well the 2 lane turns at FPP/Kings is done…and a roundabout would be great further north…at West Pine and/or Liddell and Kings, especially when the new high -rise is built right there.

        • Dahmen Piotraschke

          Forest Parkway needs to be repaved and widened, with less stops passing Wash U. Maybe a few overpasses at these busy intersections while cars are racing to work…the students would feel safer.

          • jhoff1257

            Yes, widening roads and removing intersections and crosswalks so cars can “race” to work would make students feel safer. Jesus.

          • HawkSTL

            I guess the point is that Wash. U. students are young? They are better able to avoid cars or at least bounce off of them when they’re hit?

          • jhoff1257

            Seriously. This guy takes the cake for worst nextSTL commenter of the decade. These word salad comments are insanity lol.

          • Dahmen Piotraschke

            Ugh!..Jesus!..gosh, whatever..grow up. This is not so serious bro. rofl.

      • Whipple

        You are insane

    • Dahmen Piotraschke

      Plus Kingshighway, and Lindell intersection…it has poor signage, and this was where my first accident occurred at 17 yo…After visiting friends at the old Argyle apartments…25 hrs. ago. wow. I did not see that it was a 2 lane left turn.