FPP at Kingshighway Intersection

All the ways we move people and things: trains, planes, automobiles, biking, walking, etc.
I think I'm the only one who hates the new FFP/Kingshighway at-grade project.
shadrach wrote:
I think I'm the only one who hates the new FFP/Kingshighway at-grade project.


There is one other ......... Tishuara Jones :wink:
I'm pretty sure shortly after it's completed, FFP/KHWY intersection will have it's own thread.
shadrach wrote:
I think I'm the only one who hates the new FFP/Kingshighway at-grade project.


Not at all, Shadrach. I don't see what the advantage of it is. That intersection works. It's really quite busy. Making it at grade will reduce its ability to move traffic in all directions. It strikes me as a fairly bad idea. It irks me to no end that this happened with no public input whatsoever.
^There's a lot of positives due to the FPP-Kingshighway project.
1) Before, if you were going north on Kingshighway, to then go west to Clayton you would take Lindell versus FPP. This meant that Lindell, which is not meant to be a high-speed through corridor, was having high speeds and accidents. FPP on the other hand, which IS designed as a high-speed through-corridor to Clayton, was underutilized. The FPP at-grade project means that a Lindell Boulevard redesign will happen to introduce cycling lanes and traffic calming.
2) The BJC complex has become increasingly isolated from Forest Park, which is a big draw for medical personnel, patients, and their families. By doing FPP at grade, you improve the connectivity to the park.
The intersection of Forest Park Parkway and Kingshighway will be converted to an at-grade one.

https://nextstl.com/2016/06/forest-park ... gshighway/
I find it strange that this intersection is being redone before the FPP-Grand intersection, which is a thousand times more confusing, dangerous and in serious disrepair.
Money makes the world go round. BJC and WashU paid a good chunk of the cost for the project.
I don't see this connecting Barnes to the park in any meaningful way. Forest Park Parkway is almost entirely isolated from the park. This doesn't appear to add any new bridge across Metrolink. Maybe creating a left turn there will help traffic in a way I'm not anticipating, but I'm guessing most of the folks traveling from that stretch of Kingshighway to Clayton are coming from Barnes and already know how to get on Forest Park. I've never found traffic on Lindell to be troublesome, even at rush hour. Traffic on FPP, however . . . or on Kingshighway. Those are completely different stories. Has anyone done a real traffic study or has Barnes simply declared it to be so? I suppose it's a little silly debating it at this point, seeing as it's already been decided by the high and mighty.
I'm not too up on the specifics... but if motorists can access FPP westbound from Kingshighway as well as Kingshighway north from FPP eastbound I think that will generate some benefits. Depending upon the quality of the treatments. bike/ped access could be made better or worse from current conditions.
STLrainbow wrote:
I'm not too up on the specifics... but if motorists can access FPP westbound from Kingshighway as well as Kingshighway north from FPP eastbound I think that will generate some benefits. Depending upon the quality of the treatments. bike/ped access could be made better or worse from current conditions.



They are adding a tunnel underneath FPP on the Forest Park side for a future trail. In the future it'll definitely be a overall benefit to the area
I'm glad you feel that way. I hope you're right. It would have been really nice if residents had had a say. Can you imagine the hue and cry had Centene attempted something similar in Clayton without public comment? Even if this will be a future benefit to most or all of us, and I am somewhat skeptical of that, something that affects the commons so dramatically should require public input. There shouldn't even be any question about that.
Fwiw, this was brought up a few times at 28th ward meetings. That being said, what's the best way to gather public input?
That's a very good question you ask here. If it were up to me I'd like to see the studies and design options behind a change like this made public. In an ideal world there should be at least one hearing followed by a public comment period wherein one could enter opinions into the public record and or contact ones representatives. After that the relevant representatives should vote publicly and face the consequences. They have, of course, the right to vote their conscience. None of the public comments should be binding. So in the end, it's all essentially a large and somewhat unscientific survey. (A careful, scientific survey would be something that could be optionally included, actually.) CoMO did something like this when there was discussion of what to do with parks money. (They haven't done this when development was on the table, generally. Which has led to some interesting conflicts when opinion was sufficiently anti-development to get ballot initiatives passed.) At minimum I'd like to see a hearing and a robust public comment period. (Maybe as much as a month or two if the point is contentious. If it's not controversial a week or so might suffice.) I'm only suggesting this for things which require a board hearing, mind. Things that require changes of existing law. Simple permitting stuff shouldn't need to be subject to such rigorous debate. But things that substantially alter the commons . . . That's another matter. Just my opinion.
Does anyone know when work on this is set to begin? Thought I heard August, but looks like that isn't going happen.
SouthCityJR wrote:
Does anyone know when work on this is set to begin? Thought I heard August, but looks like that isn't going happen.



It'll get pushed back and back. Kingshighway just south of 44 got pushed back like 6 months if I remember correctly before they started
SouthCityJR wrote:
Does anyone know when work on this is set to begin? Thought I heard August, but looks like that isn't going happen.

Some issues with environmental clearance for part of the project that is in the park (bridge over metro) that part is federally funded and MoDOT has to sign off before it can start since the Feds delegate administation of federally funded projects on non state system to the state dot
joelo wrote:
SouthCityJR wrote:
Does anyone know when work on this is set to begin? Thought I heard August, but looks like that isn't going happen.



It'll get pushed back and back. Kingshighway just south of 44 got pushed back like 6 months if I remember correctly before they started

5 years for Kingshighway south of 44. City funded it in 2010.

That said, BJC is paying for a lot of the FPP/Kingshighway rework as part of the campus renewal project. I'm guessing it doesn't experience too many delays.
They're definitely getting ready to start work, in the past week or two there has been some dirt added to the site at the southwest corner.
Maybe they are waiting until after the Greek Festival.
I HATE how wash u added two lights to forest park PARKWAY near their campus. At least they are timed and somewhat fast. What is the deal with turning this PARKWAY into a regular street? This only slows down traffic, and while I'm a huge fan of the street grid (reopen Euclid and city garden at 8th and locust near the federal reserve), I'm also a fan of our only PARKWAY connecting downtown, midtown, cwe and Clayton. Removing the tunnels at kingshighway and grand is extremely shortsighted and will only congest these intersections even more. How in the hell will an at grade at kingshighway make the park "more accessible"?! If anything it adds more cars and traffic backup. I can see the use of an on ramp going westbound here though. And here's another question for the people that live on Lindell, you didn't buy a house on a private residential street, making the speed limit 25!!!(the F?!) on this major thoroughfare is the biggest joke of the last year. Yes people speed on it, but enforce it at 35. Their next move will be to close it entirely for their use only. I honestly wouldn't be surprised.
Forest Park parkway is changing because the city and businesses/people around that area realize it's more beneficial for development along that corridor. By slowing things down on FPP it makes it more for getting to places along the corridor instead of a cut through to interstate 64 and 170. I personally don't think it's a big deal as there are stop lights right after Grand and Kingshighway on FPP including Vandeventer

Also cars on northbound Kingshighway wanting to go west on FPP don't have to use Lindell anymore and westbound FPP wanting to go northbound on Kingshighway don't have to use Lindell. Again it makes it more accessible for everyone. It only bothers those who use it to cut thru the area. I would even say take it a step further and reduce it to 4 lanes total and add protected bike lanes on the road but that'll never happen.


Also after Kingshighway/FPP intersection is done long term plans for Lindell is to reduce to one lane each way to slow down traffic more and add full bike lanes
Also after Kingshighway/FPP intersection is done long term plans for Lindell is to reduce to one lane each way to slow down traffic more and add full bike lanes


Probably the worst idea I've heard in 30 years. How many people are using those bike lanes going north from the park on Union? I'm a huge bike enthusiast, but it's very easy to cruise along Lindell in a non-dedicated bike lane. It's probably easier on Lindell to do that then anywhere else in the region. imagine how backed up this will get at Skinker going westbound in peak traffic. Let's not make it MORE difficult for commuters who live west to get downtown. Already, Downtown tenants b**** and moan about Hwy 64/40 traffic. While cute/hip bike lanes sounds FABULOUS everywhere, let's remember that 98% of people use their cars to get to work in this region, and we don't need to cut off downtown any more than it already is.. :roll:
Downtown is cut off because of the surrounding highways. Not because of bike lanes. I encourage you to read up on lane reductions, especially from 4 to 3. Most 4 to 3 reductions do not adversely affect traffic flow and they create a much safer environment

Bikes are a benefit to some. The bigger benefit is the reduction in car accidents. Its safer for everyone., bikers, pedestrians, and drivers.

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/info_guide/rdig.pdf

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/10053/
Interstate 64 traffic is a suburban sprawl issue and there is no reason smaller streets in the city should have to suffer because of it. Plenty of people in my office commute twice as far using interstate 44/55 in the same amount of time (well 44 not during construction). 4 years ago I almost bought a new construction house off Highway N at I-64 but realized I didn't want to commute at minimum an hour each direction.