Home » South City »Transportation » Currently Reading:

St. Louis’ Grand Experiment is the Norm in Chicago

September 21, 2009 South City, Transportation 12 Comments

The norm in the St. Louis region is for roads to have lots of lanes and no on-street parking.  On-street parking slows motorists and the traffic engineers will have none of that, it is all about speed for them.  But multiple lanes of speeding cars are bad for cyclists and pedestrians alike.

While the South Grand retail district (Arsenal to Utah) has always had on-street parking it has also had our lanes for through traffic.  Currently an experiment is being tested — reducing a six block section to three lanes (two plus center turn).  Have to see if these new radical ideas will work you know.

Anyone that has ever driven a car or ridden a bicycle in Chicago knows the configuration will work wonders.  Chicago has 120% more population density per square mile than St. Louis (12,649 vs 5,725).  They have lots of people, cars and bike.  Yet many of their major streets have the same basic configuration — two parking lanes, two travel lanes and a center turn lane.

Above is a view of this configuration on North Halsted.  On the right is Home Depot.  As you can see the travel lane is wide enough to accommodate motorists and cyclists.    New construction is built up to the sidewalk, in part, because streets have on-street parking.

In spaces you have a hole in the urban fabric (left above) with a parking lot here and there.  But they don’t toss out their urban principals and declare the area an auto-centric zone.

The above is a good distance from downtown Chicago.  The newish building on the right, with retail at grade and residential above, can relate to the street because it only has two lanes of traffic and because of the on-street parking.  But go out further into the inner ring suburbs and the pattern continues.

This section of Roosevelt is well outside the City of Chicago and many miles from downtown yet the street pattern is the same with only two travel lanes and on-street parking to support street oriented buildings.  Without the on-street parking you’d get standard sprawl — buildings isolated in their own parking lots.

Further out in the suburbs the two travel lanes become four but the on-street parking remains.  This ensures buildings will be built up to the street.

There is no need to test the 2 travel + turn lane configuration on South Grand.  It works and works well.

I believe if our streets were more like Chicago’s (fewer lanes, on-street parking, urban in-fill) we’d be in a position to re-urbanize & re-populate our city.  We need to extend this throughout the entire city as well as the first ring of suburbs.  Hampton, Kingshighway, Natural Bridge, Market — every street in town.  After a couple of decades we’ll see the change taking root.  If we can’t do it on six blocks of Grand I’m afraid we’ll never get to where I think we should be.

– Steve Patterson

 

Currently there are "12 comments" on this Article:

  1. anon says:

    If the big streets were slower and more pedestrian friendly, what would that do to the secondaries?

    [slp — where the grid remains in tact all the streets can handle the volume we have. Unfortunately for the last 50 years traffic engineers have trained us to think we must gravitate to bigger and bigger roads. Many local trips can and should be done off the main street/highways.]

     
  2. Chris says:

    Chicago’s crash rates for bicyclists is huge–one estimate is 40% a year. It’s not all peaches and cream in the Windy City.

    [slp — 40% of what? I’ve biked Chicago as well as St. Louis and I’d say as a trained cycling instructor by the League of American Bicyclists the conditions in Chicago are far more favorable to cyclists than those found in St. Louis.]

     
  3. Bill says:

    There is too much congestion with only 2 lanes and a center lane…especially with all of the buses that are constantly stopping on Grand and backing up traffic. And it is almost impossible to turn onto Grand from one of the cross streets with so much traffic during Rush hour. Go back to 4 lanes!

     
  4. Dennis says:

    If it doesn’t work here it’s because people are too impatient here. If there’s any back up at all at a stop light people think they are in some kind of major traffic jam. Chicago folks laugh at what we call congestion. Bill, why don’t you get out of your car and RIDE one of the buses if they are always in your way?

     
  5. John Regenbogen says:

    South Grand won’t be a Great Street until we get some form of light rail on it, but the three lane alternative will be an improvement. Hopefully three lanes will eventually get taken on down to S. Grand/Gravois for consistency.

     
  6. matt says:

    If we can’t get Grand down to 3 lanes we have worse problems than I imagined. I imagine some posters would be shocked at what kind of vibrant streets in Chicago or gasp, Lawrence, KS have the 2-3 lane configuration. Shocked.

     
  7. Jimmy Z says:

    This is going to sound pretty esoteric, but here goes – congestion and on-street parking don’t create urbanity (they’re more of a symptom, indicator or marker), but a lack of congestion and on-street parking does pretty much define suburbia. Congestion and density happen because people want to be there. And no, buildings aren’t built up to the street in Chicago because of on-street parking, they’re built up to the street because land is valuable and their zoning allows it!

    Whether it’s here, on Grand, the Delmar loop, downtown Maplewood or downtown Kirkwood, congestion and building great streets are only a part of the equation, If it were the only answer, the Wellston loop, downtown East St. Louis and the blocks further south on Grand would all be thriving, and they’re not. Adding more parking now isn’t their “solution”, fixing the fundamental economic and crime issues is! (Conversely, Manchester west of 270 is chronically congested, and it’s by no means urban.)

    [slp — land value is impacted by land use regulations. Chicago’s policies, such as having on-street parking, helps values. Conversely, our policies, lower land values.]

     
  8. Jimmy Z says:

    I may be missing something, but the changes along Grand have not changed the number of on-street parking spaces. And what I was trying to reference is that we already DO have on-street parking available in many parts of the city, we just don’t have enough occupied buildings or viable businesses (in too many places) to put many of the spaces to use. It’s not that we don’t have enough street “friction”, we just don’t have enough density, in businesses or residents. Yes, it’s a chicken-or-egg problem, and no, we shouldn’t be eliminating on-street parking, but it doesn’t matter if it’s an urban storefront, a strip mall, a big box or a general store in the country, if it’s vacant, the surrounding area will be dead (see today’s article in the P-D about retail at Winghaven), and the more vacancies there are, the deader it’ll be, no matter what kind of parking is available! Trust me, there are parts of Chicago that are just as bad as parts of St. Louis.

     
  9. Rick Delaney says:

    A bit off topic for this post, but Matthew Yglesias is in Germany, and has nice pics of bike lanes.
    He’s often on the transit/pedestrian beat from DC.

    http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/09/bike-lanes-in-saxony.php

    I’ve been reading you for years. Live in Austin, TX, but grew up in suburban STL and lived in South STL City after college, w/o a car! in the early 90s.

    Rick

     
  10. Jp says:

    Grand may work, but kingshighway and Hampton would not. I don’t see any strip of these two even benefiting from downsizing the lanes really. If so, where?

     
  11. Adam says:

    so i’m streaming the latest collateral damage/topic A on http://www.kdhx.org and low and behold i hear barroom bob b*tching about the s. grand experiment (at the very end of collateral damage). he claimed it demonstrates that the city doesn’t give a sh*t about small businesses (huh?), called bicyclists and their sympathizers “hippies”, and ENCOURAGED PEOPLE TO MOVE TO THE COUNTY in protest!!! wtf, bob? how the HELL do you reason that making s. grand more pedestrian friendly demonstrates disdain for small businesses? if it was sarcasm, he did his best to make it sound sincere. out of touch much, BRB?

    [slp — I usually ignore him.]

     

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe