Lol, Missouri is not constructing highways either. But Gas prices are less in Missouri, a whole 1$ less in Missouri than Illinois. Guess that answers why they spend the extra gas money into transit.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Apr 18, 2022funded by the state of IL, which spends >500x more on public transit than MO. if you want more Metrolink on the MO side then talk to your MO representatives and tell them spend less on highways.harstec888 wrote: ↑Apr 18, 2022Then construct metrolink.
I’m all in for complete public transportation like NYC
I see metrolink progress (already being constructed) on Illinois side connecting to BLV airport which is great and makes that airport & Allegiant services more accessible to St. Louis.
https://mopublictransit.org/2020/12/03/4542/
- 23
Sad they removed a lane and made it 25 mph road, based on current traffic numbers second bridge straight on to river des peres blvd would be infeasible.STLinCHI wrote: ↑Apr 18, 2022The move to drop a lane and reduce speed limits on Ellendale/Wabash south of Arsenal has also caused the McCausland route to be less efficient. A very nice walking and bike path was added, but I have never once seen anyone on it. I'm guessing the work was done more to make the BNSF facility more truck friendly by reducing turning radius. Now if you get behind a truck you can't pass.
Why is it sad? It's a residential area, traffic along there doesn't justify higher speeds and more lanes, and there are multiple parallel alternative options. I think it's a good move and if I were living nearby I'd probably think it's a great move.harstec888 wrote: ↑Apr 18, 2022Sad they removed a lane and made it 25 mph road, based on current traffic numbers second bridge straight on to river des peres blvd would be infeasible.STLinCHI wrote: ↑Apr 18, 2022The move to drop a lane and reduce speed limits on Ellendale/Wabash south of Arsenal has also caused the McCausland route to be less efficient. A very nice walking and bike path was added, but I have never once seen anyone on it. I'm guessing the work was done more to make the BNSF facility more truck friendly by reducing turning radius. Now if you get behind a truck you can't pass.
- 3,762
um, yes it is, in addition to maintaining the 7th largest system in the US for the 16th largest population using the 3rd lowest revenue per mile:harstec888 wrote: ↑Apr 18, 2022Lol, Missouri is not constructing highways either.
https://www.modot.org/sites/default/fil ... cial_6.pdf
https://www.modot.org/citizens-guide-tr ... g-missouri
https://oa.mo.gov/sites/default/files/F ... equest.pdf
that's generally how it works. you have to pay for infrastructure somehow. if you want both roads and transit, you have to pay for both roads and transit. Missourians want to drive everywhere but not pay for anything, and also complain about how if only transit would pick them up at their front doors out in the suburbs they would use it so somebody should totes pay for that while i complain about MO having the lowest gas prices in the world and about how my car commute takes 30 seconds longer than i want it to.harstec888 wrote:But Gas prices are less in Missouri, a whole 1$ less in Missouri than Illinois. Guess that answers why they spend the extra gas money into transit.
And may I also add that the violence of urban highways doesn’t just manifest in the clear cutting of human-scaled communities.
There’s noise, vibrations and fumes from your precious commute that is externalized to others who live in communities along these corridors (not to go into health and environmental impacts)
I doubt anyone who advocates for highway expansion would dain to live next to one. There’s inequity and hypocrisy here. The system is cruel and even fatal.
So no the answer absolutely is not more of the same. No amount of excuses will justify expansion of a system already bloated beyond reason.
#tellmehowyoureallyfeel.
There’s noise, vibrations and fumes from your precious commute that is externalized to others who live in communities along these corridors (not to go into health and environmental impacts)
I doubt anyone who advocates for highway expansion would dain to live next to one. There’s inequity and hypocrisy here. The system is cruel and even fatal.
So no the answer absolutely is not more of the same. No amount of excuses will justify expansion of a system already bloated beyond reason.
#tellmehowyoureallyfeel.
- 23
Haha, travel on laclede in peak hours. I didn't say for 30 seconds you need highways. lol. No one said i want front door access. Improved seamless connectivity from north to south is the criteria. Ellendale could be 40 mph. but it is 25 mph. Look at the peak hour traffic through Murdoch ave, Landsdown ave, imagine children playing in those streets ,Peak traffic going through residential neighborhoods? who wants that? I'm rational. This city has the most potholes ever compared to any other city i lived in.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Apr 18, 2022um, yes it is, in addition to maintaining the 7th largest system in the US for the 16th largest population using the 3rd lowest revenue per mile:harstec888 wrote: ↑Apr 18, 2022Lol, Missouri is not constructing highways either.
https://www.modot.org/sites/default/fil ... cial_6.pdf
https://www.modot.org/citizens-guide-tr ... g-missouri
https://oa.mo.gov/sites/default/files/F ... equest.pdf
that's generally how it works. you have to pay for infrastructure somehow. if you want both roads and transit, you have to pay for both roads and transit. Missourians want to drive everywhere but not pay for anything, and also complain about how if only transit would pick them up at their front doors out in the suburbs they would use it so somebody should totes pay for that while i complain about MO having the lowest gas prices in the world and about how my car commute takes 30 seconds longer than i want it to.harstec888 wrote:But Gas prices are less in Missouri, a whole 1$ less in Missouri than Illinois. Guess that answers why they spend the extra gas money into transit.
yes it's residential area, why choking the residential areas of Shrewsbury (landsdowne ave, murdoch ave) with passing traffic? anyways, nothing will change in inner roads. nothing will happen. for the population, owing to geography, st. louis already has lot of highways. population pattern is showing a decline. so no need for any new infrastructure. Existing infra itself is tough to maintain. This ain't Austin or influx destination for Californians._nomad_ wrote: ↑Apr 18, 2022Why is it sad? It's a residential area, traffic along there doesn't justify higher speeds and more lanes, and there are multiple parallel alternative options. I think it's a good move and if I were living nearby I'd probably think it's a great move.harstec888 wrote: ↑Apr 18, 2022Sad they removed a lane and made it 25 mph road, based on current traffic numbers second bridge straight on to river des peres blvd would be infeasible.STLinCHI wrote: ↑Apr 18, 2022The move to drop a lane and reduce speed limits on Ellendale/Wabash south of Arsenal has also caused the McCausland route to be less efficient. A very nice walking and bike path was added, but I have never once seen anyone on it. I'm guessing the work was done more to make the BNSF facility more truck friendly by reducing turning radius. Now if you get behind a truck you can't pass.
- 1,794
Expanding the metrolink south would alleviate a lot of this pressure for far less money
- 23
When is it happening?JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Apr 19, 2022Expanding the metrolink south would alleviate a lot of this pressure for far less money
- 991
As many people have pointed out already (myself included), it's not something that will happen in the immediate future. Really feels like you're trying to move goal posts or use some circular logic to try and justify building the South County Connector just because Metrolink expansion isn't something that's imminent. Which is all a moot point because that project is dead as a doorknob too.
This thread:
This thread:
Let's examine hartsec's demand for a N-S connector.
At Eager and this new N/S Connector, what do you do? Run the new parkway east of the metro tracks and take out the Best Buy and the massive Metro parking garage? Or go on the west side and take out the the Petco/Home Goods and the Dierbergs?
![]()
If you go on the west side of the tracks you'll mess with the loading docks and rear entrances to the office park.
![]()
If you go on the east side you'll also be taking out Home Depot, the new Towneplace Suites hotel and other businesses. Plus you're messing with massive high power lines. Where do you move those?
Plus I'm guessing this will be a real tough place to put in four lanes.
![]()
![]()
So pick the red pill or the blue pill. Even on raised pillars you're going to have to either take out a great number of business and one option a decently large apartment complex.
![]()
At Eager and this new N/S Connector, what do you do? Run the new parkway east of the metro tracks and take out the Best Buy and the massive Metro parking garage? Or go on the west side and take out the the Petco/Home Goods and the Dierbergs?
If you go on the west side of the tracks you'll mess with the loading docks and rear entrances to the office park.
If you go on the east side you'll also be taking out Home Depot, the new Towneplace Suites hotel and other businesses. Plus you're messing with massive high power lines. Where do you move those?
Plus I'm guessing this will be a real tough place to put in four lanes.
So pick the red pill or the blue pill. Even on raised pillars you're going to have to either take out a great number of business and one option a decently large apartment complex.
You mention multiple times now that we can't maintain our existing overbuilt infrastructure, and population trends are not favorable, yet you continue to insist building more expensive infrastructure is a good idea. This is truly insanity.harstec888 wrote: ↑Apr 19, 2022population pattern is showing a decline. so no need for any new infrastructure. Existing infra itself is tough to maintain. This ain't Austin or influx destination for Californians.
- 23
This is tough. I dropped that initial idea as it doesn’t make sense. But how about hanley/oxford to river des pes blvd? There’s a industrial emulsions center, (no homes at all) , guess it’s tough to lay single pillar in it too.dweebe wrote: ↑Apr 19, 2022Let's examine hartsec's demand for a N-S connector.
At Eager and this new N/S Connector, what do you do? Run the new parkway east of the metro tracks and take out the Best Buy and the massive Metro parking garage? Or go on the west side and take out the the Petco/Home Goods and the Dierbergs?
If you go on the west side of the tracks you'll mess with the loading docks and rear entrances to the office park.
If you go on the east side you'll also be taking out Home Depot, the new Towneplace Suites hotel and other businesses. Plus you're messing with massive high power lines. Where do you move those?
Plus I'm guessing this will be a real tough place to put in four lanes.
So pick the red pill or the blue pill. Even on raised pillars you're going to have to either take out a great number of business and one option a decently large apartment complex.
Nothing will be built. The end. Call these dreams or contemplations or sim city or whatever.MattnSTL wrote: ↑Apr 19, 2022You mention multiple times now that we can't maintain our existing overbuilt infrastructure, and population trends are not favorable, yet you continue to insist building more expensive infrastructure is a good idea. This is truly insanity.harstec888 wrote: ↑Apr 19, 2022population pattern is showing a decline. so no need for any new infrastructure. Existing infra itself is tough to maintain. This ain't Austin or influx destination for Californians.
- 1,794
For some commuters (including myself), simply connecting 55 and 40 in DT would alleviate some of the pressure during rush hour in Shrewsbury.
I do understand the frustration for people in far south city and inner ring of SoCo who need who workin in Clayton, Richmond Heights, Brentwood, etc. but building g more freeways is not the answer.. the answer is a concerted effort among regional leaders to move the jobs back downtown.
I do understand the frustration for people in far south city and inner ring of SoCo who need who workin in Clayton, Richmond Heights, Brentwood, etc. but building g more freeways is not the answer.. the answer is a concerted effort among regional leaders to move the jobs back downtown.
So above the parking for Deer Creek Plaza? Then how do you connect to Big Bend?harstec888 wrote: ↑Apr 19, 2022This is tough. I dropped that initial idea as it doesn’t make sense. But how about hanley/oxford to river des pes blvd? There’s a industrial emulsions center, (no homes at all) , guess it’s tough to lay single pillar in it too.
-I don't think Maplewood would like losing those businesses and houses.
-I doubt Webster would be happy about the noise.
Even if you do expedite traffic with this bypass, you're still looking at even bigger rush hour jams at Hanley & Manchester and Hanley & 40/64.
And this is (one of) the major problem with highways, they are built for people who do not use the spaces that they run through. No one should be asked to sacrifice their home or business for the convenience of outsiders just passing through.dweebe wrote: ↑Apr 19, 2022So above the parking for Deer Creek Plaza? Then how do you connect to Big Bend?harstec888 wrote: ↑Apr 19, 2022This is tough. I dropped that initial idea as it doesn’t make sense. But how about hanley/oxford to river des pes blvd? There’s a industrial emulsions center, (no homes at all) , guess it’s tough to lay single pillar in it too.
-I don't think Maplewood would like losing those businesses and houses.
-I doubt Webster would be happy about the noise.
Even if you do expedite traffic with this bypass, you're still looking at even bigger rush hour jams at Hanley & Manchester and Hanley & 40/64.
For those that are interested...here are some of the original alternatives:
![]()
River de Peres Option:
![]()
Laclede Station Option:
![]()
South Outer Option:
![]()
Shrewsbury Option:
![]()
Local Road Option:
![]()
Deer Creek closeup:
![]()
In 2013 this would have cost in the neighborhood of $120 million. Imagine the cost now...would be a total waste for such a short stretch of highway.
River de Peres Option:
Laclede Station Option:
South Outer Option:
Shrewsbury Option:
Local Road Option:
Deer Creek closeup:
In 2013 this would have cost in the neighborhood of $120 million. Imagine the cost now...would be a total waste for such a short stretch of highway.
Also, for the uninitiated, MoDot has plans to rework the I-44/Shrewsbury area in the future, though it's not currently funded.
https://www.modot.org/i-44-shrewsbury-study
Alternative 1:
![]()
Alternative 2:
![]()
Alternative 2A:
![]()
Alternative 5:
![]()
Alternative C1:
![]()
Alternative C2:
![]()
Alternative C3:
![]()
https://www.modot.org/i-44-shrewsbury-study
Alternative 1:
Alternative 2:
Alternative 2A:
Alternative 5:
Alternative C1:
Alternative C2:
Alternative C3:
- 340
Looks like alternative 1 would be pretty simple and the cheapest option. But is there much demand for access to Shrewsbury from the west when you have the Laclede/Murdoch exit right there?
Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk
Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk
Not quite, but many people frequently drive close to 60mph on FPP between Big Bend and I-170. Very few people drive only 40mph down that road.harstec888 wrote: ↑Apr 18, 2022Does people go 65+ on the 2 mile stretch of Clayton elevated parkway? (No Signals from i-170 to Pershing avenue on Forest parkway). It is almost essentially the same length from Hanley/Oxford to River des peres blvd.
FPP needs to be calmed. It does not need to be a 60+mph highway (which it basically is)DTGstl314 wrote: ↑Apr 20, 2022Not quite, but many people frequently drive close to 60mph on FPP between Big Bend and I-170. Very few people drive only 40mph down that road.harstec888 wrote: ↑Apr 18, 2022Does people go 65+ on the 2 mile stretch of Clayton elevated parkway? (No Signals from i-170 to Pershing avenue on Forest parkway). It is almost essentially the same length from Hanley/Oxford to River des peres blvd.
FPP and River Des Peres Boulevard both feel like the freaking Autobahn sometimes. Which is not a good thing.dweebe wrote: ↑Apr 20, 2022FPP needs to be calmed. It does not need to be a 60+mph highway (which it basically is)DTGstl314 wrote: ↑Apr 20, 2022Not quite, but many people frequently drive close to 60mph on FPP between Big Bend and I-170. Very few people drive only 40mph down that road.harstec888 wrote: ↑Apr 18, 2022Does people go 65+ on the 2 mile stretch of Clayton elevated parkway? (No Signals from i-170 to Pershing avenue on Forest parkway). It is almost essentially the same length from Hanley/Oxford to River des peres blvd.
- 1,291
^ Yeah, have definitely had people blow by me at night racing each other at 60+ MPH on RDP, including blowing through that one stop sign between Gravois and Watson.
- 6,119
^^Oh man, River Des Peres is a mess. Yes. I still use it, but driving anything like the speed limit is a recipe to get flashed, honked at, and flipped off. (In spite of which I do try to keep it reasonable. But I enjoy the Schadenfreude of frustrating bad drivers.)