urbanSTL

Aldermen never speak on behalf of the city. Most often no one speaks on behalf of the city.

So had some time to stew over this and I have to say I kinda question the outright oposition here. I have always thought that area was a cluster, i have more than once driven south on Hanley or Big Bend with the intent to get south of 44. I remeber one trip to Ted Drewes where i had 6 people crammed into my 4 seat car because they were all in from San Fransisco and had heard Ted Drewes was a must do while here. As always I got completely lost traveling through this area. This new route would make such trips more intuitive. Those familiuar with the area can navigate it but those unfamiliar will tend to avoid it, which is probably partially why Deer Creek has struggled.

The planned connector route looks to have a minimal impact on nearby residential neighborhoods (with the exception of traffic) but it does have a large impact on local businesses. Some of the more industrial businesses would be bought out. Metal Casting and Garage Door installers etc. These are good businesses and it is unfortunate they would be impacted but they could likely find appropriate facilities locally, they might even move to the city. The Deer Creek shopping center would also be impacted. Negatively during construction but after construction the traffic counts would double or triple. Hard to see this as negative for them as they are dependent on the car culture already. They lose some parking but double the amount of potential customer driving directly in front of their store fronts. I think for them this is easily a plus so its hard to see why they would lobby against it. The land that would be bought out could then be sold to developers to subsidize the cost of construction since a human scale highway intersection would likly be attractive for businesses to develop. I could easily see a couple hotels being built here as it is so close to metrolink and easily accesses major arterials. Likely most of it would be suburban style development which is unfortunate but doesn't change the current charachter of the neighborhood which is already suburban in nature. Also proper zoning could manage this issue so a municipality could hardly use that to justify their opposition. Of course expecting proper zoning is one of those ephemeral notions that we have all heard about but not seen.

Potential trails are negatively impacted but most of the nearby natural area is preserved for potential trails. I only say there is a negative impact because of traffic sights smells and noises as I expect the trails would be continuous and not interact with the traffic.

The metro station would be significantly more accessible which is a plus.

The biggest question for me is what kind of an intersection are they planning to build, and can they accommodate all the various roads heavy rail and metrolink without a massive spaghetti intersection.

Another important point is how will the area be zoned after the road is built. This is more a question for the municipality as MODOT could care less.

Lastly I would prefer no more than two lanes in each direction plus a center turn lane. Anymore than that and the intersections become in accecible to pedestrians. Also speeds should be kept at pedestrian freiendly levels.

If they can do all that i would give it my lukewarm support.

This project is really designed to right the poor planning of this area up to the building of 44. The north south connection HAS been broken here ever since. Highways aren't by definition bad. The new bridge is seen as a positive by most of us. The buyouts COULD present an opportunity here if properly approached wisely. Maybe all out opposition is the most impactful stance to take but i for one would be willing to find middle ground.

I think the county needs to slow down now that the Ellendale Bridge is open.

Sorry Scott: but I think the city has brought a lot of this SoCo Connector talk upon itself due to all the road closures in the city that have pushed traffic over to Hanley and created these jams.

In the last 5 years we've had closures that have lasted months (and months and months):
-Ellendale Bridge rebuild
-Arsenal overpass rebuild (MoDOT project)
-Landsdowne Bridge rebuild
-River Des Peres Blvd rebuild over the creek between Watson and Loughborough (why did that take like almost a year?)

Maybe if Ellendale, Landsdowne and River Des Peres would have been done at the same time the traffic on Hanley would be less of an issue? All three of those projects were done separately and lasted 6 to 12 months (if not more).

Now that McCausland/Ellendale/Wabash/Lansdowne/River Des Peres Blvd is back as a major north-south artery, let's see what happens as drivers move from Hanley over to this stretch. Maybe we don't need to rip up the south end of Maplewood and most of Shrewsbury so people can get home 10 minutes faster.

What is the middle ground to find? A less obtrusive mini-highway?

Yes actually. Some might call it a road or boulevard but yeah. No one is swearing about how hurtful Grand Boulevard is because it cuts through neighborhoods and increases traffic.

I think the county needs to slow down...

I'm good with that, not in any rush to make decisions here.

My point was only this, if you look at the route there really isn't a significant negative impact to the area that i can see. Only two things come to mind. One it further improves the connection to Clayton to the possible detriment of downtown. Two it furthers the regions reliance on cars rather than the use of mass transit. Neither one of these topic has been as honestly adjudicated as i think it deserves but to say it is ripping up Maplewood and Shrewsbury strikes me as disingenuous since the vast majority of properties being proposed are hardly residential and largely underutilized. The few business that might be displaced would most likely be well compensated and would probably have little problem finding a new home somewhere in the region. The two closest North South connections are at Lindbergh and at Hampton so the development potential is very large. Done the right this could be a positive for all involved.

That being said i do think being against might be the best stance to make initially if only to drive the project toward the appropriate concessions. Its not that I hope its not built. Its that I hope its built the right way.

STLEnginerd wrote: The few business that might be displaced would most likely be well compensated and would probably have little problem finding a new home somewhere in the region.

What do you say to the city of Maplewood about the loss of tax revenue from the displaced businesses?

My intuition tells me they would come out with a net increase in revenue, as the new traffic would boost the retail at Deer Creek. However before construction begins there should be studies to validate my intuition, and there should be secure financing and a development plan for the area also prior to construction. No need to rush these things.

^My intuition is that any further development around a South County Connector would be mainly gas stations and fast food...

I hear Oakville soon will be getting a lot of sex offenders with cars. Perhaps Maplewood and Shrewesbury should support a higher-speed route so they don't stop on their way to forays into mid county.

^ Please report to the human genome center at WUSTL at 2pm tomorrow. We've made an appointment to have you cloned.

olvidarte wrote:I actually learned a lot by reading your response and it just reinforces my opposition. Thanks again.

It seems more and more like the county is saying "Hey, Maplewood and Shrewsbury: we're going to build a big ol' highway through your towns. We're going to take out a bunch of park space, businesses, homes etc...and you're going to like it. So just relax, lie back, shut up and this will all be over soon enough.

Oh, and City of St. Louis we don't need to hear from you so just STFU."

Let's not forget about the County's desire to expand Hanley Rd to six lanes from I-64 to Flora.

We're currently pursuing the funds necessary to improve traffic flow at the intersection of Hanley and Manchester. We have SOME funding, but not enough. It appears unlikely that a full-scale widening of Hanley - at an estimated price of $75 million - is financially feasible - thus, our more-narrow focus on the intersection.

Bizarrely, the SoCoCon draft EIS says that the intersection of Manchester and Hanley, in the no-build scenario has LOS "A" during the AM period and LOS "C" during the PM period. With construction of the SoCoCon, the LOS degrades only slightly to B/C. How can the County claim that six lanes are needed on Hanley north of Deer Creek when the LOS never exceeds "C"? Perhaps the County is assuming at least $10 million in improvements to the intersection in the no-build scenario?

Also, I want to see more data on traffic volumes for Hanley and Big Bend north of the SoCoCon, data which is almost entirely non-existent.

I want to see LOS attacked at every turn.