urbanSTL

Open houses on June 7 and 9.

http://southcountyconnector.com/

TUESDAY, June 7, 2011
Time: 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Where: Affton White-Rodgers Community Center

THURSDAY, June 9, 2011
Time: 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Where: Shrewsbury City Center

Looking at any overhead map, it seems to be a no brainer where this road should go IF it should be built at all (no build is an option and, IMO, a good one).

Deer Creek Center, the industrial area just across big bend, skirting the Laclede Gas property, and over I-44 near the Metro tracks, connecting to River des Peres drive is the least disruptive to stable, well-built, residential areas.

I know that Shrewsbury aldermen and the mayor are quite concerned about some of the alternatives slicing the city in half (again, re: I-44). I have not yet seen or heard what the alternatives are. The site gives a shaded representation of the impacted area.

Most of the comments from the previous hearings seem to echo these sentiments.

If you look at the numerous traffic choke points they've cited, almost all of the congestion they seek to ease is from two places - South County and along the I-44 corridor - and it's all going to the Clayton vicinity in the AM rush and back in the evening. It's not just Hanley; it's Big Bend, the I-44 exist ramp going N on Laclede Station (morning rush), and the Murdoch/Lansdowne/River des Peres going South during evening rush.

Even if St. Chas residents would take this unlikely route to S County, it would be going against traffic. This is really St. Louis co and possibly Jeffco traffic going North to Clayton and then back home.

the kicker to all this is that the project planning is getting funding through the feds Livable Communities Initiative and is supposed to coordinate with housing and transit, etc. This project though from the counties perspective, I think is pretty clear, is a congestion mitigation one and may just be using the livable communities as window dressing. Seems like no build is the best option.

There are definite painpoints in this area. The Murdock offramp on I-44 is a dangerous place during rush hour, and the onramp to WB I-44 causes congestion on Big Bend, Murdock and Laclede Station. Rectifying that mess of an interchange is one worth pursuing, IMO.

The rest is more debatable. It's true that there's no easy way for people to travel from RDP or Watson to Hanley/Laclede Station. There's actually a fairly steady stream of traffic cuting through the Deer Creek Shopping center parking lot because the light at Marshall (nee Shrewsbury) and Laclede is long, there are no turn lanes on WB Marshall, and the 25 MPH speed limit is perceived to be slow. Many people use that path going between South County and I-170, Brentwood, Clayton, Webster Groves, etc.

That said, I don't believe there's a safety issue there. Is the cost in dollars and uprooted residents/businesses worth the (IMO significant) added convenience to commuters? I think both sides of the argument have merit, and I take it as a good sign that it's being debated rather than blindly pushed through with little input.

-RBB

No Build! This feels like a "well we have to spend some money somewhere" which is quite strange considering the tight budgets and numerous needs elsewhere. Where is the momentum for this coming from?

How about completing the I-44 interchanges in the area so one can get on and off in every direction? Or ramps from I-44 straight into the Metrolink parking lot?

quincunx wrote:No Build! This feels like a "well we have to spend some money somewhere" which is quite strange considering the tight budgets and numerous needs elsewhere. Where is the momentum for this coming from?

How about completing the I-44 interchanges in the area so one can get on and off in every direction? Or ramps from I-44 straight into the Metrolink parking lot?

Don't feel it is we have to spend money somewhere but more of a long term wish for county planners who saw a chance to snag a grant as Roger notes. The reality on the money end is that MoDOT had a new Shrewsbury interchange in their long term plan for ages even when they had a little money and county is still trying find money to rebuild the Hanley/Manchester interchange. However, I do give agencies some credit on trying to look long term.

Roger Wyoming wrote:the kicker to all this is that the project planning is getting funding through the feds Livable Communities Initiative and is supposed to coordinate with housing and transit, etc. This project though from the counties perspective, I think is pretty clear, is a congestion mitigation one and may just be using the livable communities as window dressing. Seems like no build is the best option.

Have to agree along with the statement that it is being pursued for traffic between Affton/Lemay to Clayton/Clayton Central Business District, etc. That being said, the study is being pursued and think it is a better idea if the study could be expanded to include at least the following
1) Ideas on how to encourage any dislocated businesses to relocate to the immediate metrolink stations.
2) Greenway connection between River Des Peres and Deer Creek Trail
3) Instead of destroying residential areas. How can a plan like this encourage or open up additional housing. In other words, at least a no build option on existing residentaial areas. Shrewsbury is already a community of disconnected to neighborhoods even though it has a great transit asset
4) Finally, any South Connector should incorporate metrolink extension south along River Des Peres to I 55 at a minimu.

As silly as it sounds...would a 3 lane, one-way road be a feasible idea? In the morning, it would be northbound only, close down for an hour or two to make sure the road is clear and then turn into a southbound roadway on the evening return trip. Would save on ~50% of the cost of building and be somewhat less devastating to the areas it would run through. Just brainstorming to keep everyone happy...

ricke002 wrote:As silly as it sounds...would a 3 lane, one-way road be a feasible idea? In the morning, it would be northbound only, close down for an hour or two to make sure the road is clear and then turn into a southbound roadway on the evening return trip. Would save on ~50% of the cost of building and be somewhat less devastating to the areas it would run through. Just brainstorming to keep everyone happy...

One of the alternatives is to use one way roads...but not a reversible road (Laclede Sta. would actually become one way for a distance).

Altogether, I'm opposed to the idea. It says loudly, "This neighborhood is dedicated to the rapid processing of cars."

bprop wrote:Altogether, I'm opposed to the idea. It says loudly, "This neighborhood is dedicated to the rapid processing of cars."

But this neighborhood is already dedicated to the processing of cars, just not in a rapid fashion. It may be adjacent to the city and to Metro, but the neighborhood is wholly suburban in nature and the people of this and surrounding counties are very auto-centric.

Should we encourage a wholesale rethink of transport in the area? Absolutely. But that's a very idealistic goal and IMO not practical to the area in the near term.

They absolutely should work in TOD development or at least prep for future such development if at all possible. And we certainly don't want to be tearing down buildings and homes of architectural merit and blasting through a six-lane mini-highway without regard to the neighborhood. But there's a need to do something and an opportunity to grab funds to make it happen. Do it, but make sure it's done in a way the ensures the safety and efficiency of commuters while at the same time encouraging as many as possible to abandon their cars for the transit options in the area.

-RBB

rbb wrote:

bprop wrote:Altogether, I'm opposed to the idea. It says loudly, "This neighborhood is dedicated to the rapid processing of cars."

But this neighborhood is already dedicated to the processing of cars, just not in a rapid fashion. It may be adjacent to the city and to Metro, but the neighborhood is wholly suburban in nature and the people of this and surrounding counties are very auto-centric.
-RBB

What neighborhood?

stlhistory wrote:Even if the neighborhoods of Shrewsbury near I-44 are auto-dependent now (I would hesitate to say auto-centric), it doesn't mean we should encourage that further. I concur that the majority of the push for the connector is to reduce traffic time from Clayton to Affton/Lemay. That's why the first open house was held in Affton, even though it's pretty far from the residential/commercial zones that would be affected by the construction.

I'd say the neighborhoods are no more auto-centric than those of St. Louis Hills or Lindenwood Park. What about a one-way on Nottingham and then have Eichelberger be one way in the other direction? It makes about as much sense.







Some of the "auto-dependent" homes you see would be razed with the local roads alternatives.

bprop wrote:

rbb wrote:

bprop wrote:Altogether, I'm opposed to the idea. It says loudly, "This neighborhood is dedicated to the rapid processing of cars."

But this neighborhood is already dedicated to the processing of cars, just not in a rapid fashion. It may be adjacent to the city and to Metro, but the neighborhood is wholly suburban in nature and the people of this and surrounding counties are very auto-centric.
-RBB

What neighborhood?

I was speaking of the general area - both those neighborhoods directly affected by the connector alternatives and those that drive through the neighborhood now on their way elsewhere. Foot traffic is virtually nonexistent aside from the trail in RDP park. Most of the main roads have sidewalks but are hardly pedestrian friendly. Many of the side roads have no sidewalks at all. Even the MetroLink station is a park-and-ride lot; a terminus to which many people drive to catch the train.

You can't live in the area and depend solely on public transportation - at least not in its current state. That's not to say that it's useless, but its function is to compliment personal transportation, not to replace it. That's not going to change unless Metro's reach is vastly expanded and you can convince a majority of a populace who are a 2nd or 3rd generation of drivers that it's better to give to up their vehicles for buses and trains.

I live in Affton. I try to take Metro to Rams/Cards/Blues games, but if I'm going in a group it's cheaper and (more important to me) far faster drive downtown and split a $10-15 parking spot than to drive to the Metro station, wait up to 15 minutes for a train that takes 45 minutes to get downtown. I've never considered using Metro to go to Clayton or to Richmond Heights - it's just not convenient enough. I might view things differently if I worked in Clayton, but my company bolted from the suburbs to the exburbs years ago. We've looked into using Metro to go to the airport - it's considerably cheaper than paying long-team parking - but it's not an option if my flight leaves earlier 8:45 AM because Metro doesn't start the 45-50 minute trek up there until 6 AM. And while the Shrewsbury bus station is well-lit and well guarded, I've been uncomfortable waiting at the Hampton & Gravois bus station, and have been accosted (yes, hands on) by the homeless there on more than one occasion and threatened once. And I'm pro-transit; I'm in the minority in my neighborhood who'd even consider using the train or a bus.

So yeah. Most if not all people here use cars. The circumstances that conspire to promote vehicle use will continue to exist for the foreseeable future, even when viewed through the most optimistic urbanist lens. So to that end, it does make sense to fix the streets. An efficient commute means less wasted time and gas. People stopped in the right lane of I-44 because the Murdoch intersection is a clustered mess is a safety hazard. And the public transit in place is inward looking and doesn't do enough to discourage people from driving to or around it. There's an opportunity to address all of that with this project.

Does a more efficient road system mean few people will consider public transportation? Probably, but in this area relatively few people were. I doubt that more than a handful of those currently taking buses or driving to the Shrewsbury Metrolink stop will all of the sudden start driving. OTOH, this could be an opportunity to make those stops more accessible at the same time, perhaps lessening the burden on both the new connector and the residential side streets currently bearing the burden of being a main artery.

As I said before, this project shouldn't be accepted at face value. It may prove that there's no need to do anything as extensive as any of the alternatives currently proposed. But IMO there is a need to do something.

-RBB

I was speaking of the general area - both those neighborhoods directly affected by the connector alternatives and those that drive through the neighborhood now on their way elsewhere. Foot traffic is virtually nonexistent aside from the trail in RDP park.

Maybe on the through streets that you're driving on, I guess? I live in the neighborhoods and we have some of the most walkable streets anywhere. I'm thinking your drive from Affton up RdP is not giving you a very good view of the proposed corridor for some of the local streets alternatives. It's as heavily trafficked by walkers and runners as any street in the city or county.

Most of the main roads have sidewalks but are hardly pedestrian friendly. Many of the side roads have no sidewalks at all.

Again, I have no idea where you're talking about. Shrewsbury in particular has sidewalks on both sides of almost every street. See my pics above. When I think of the local roads alternatives, in fact, I can't think of a single one of the potential affected roads that doesn't have sidewalks.

You can't live in the area and depend solely on public transportation - at least not in its current state.

I can catch the train and seven bus routes within a 10 minute walk from my house. Can I depend solely on transit? Well, maybe not comfortably, but that's about as close as you can get in the area.

I'll make the same argument I did earlier. You can't depend solely on public transit in St. Louis Hills or Southampton or Lindenwood Park either. Or let's be frank - anywhere in the St. Louis area beyond a very few enclaves, and even there it's not exactly convenient. That doesn't make them candidates for destroying 70-year old homes in order to make someone's auto commute a bit faster. I can not imagine a single person on this forum, urbanist or not, advocating demolishing homes on Delor Street and cutting straight through Francis Park as an acceptable alternative should someone suggest improving east-west congestion between Jamieson and Kingshighway.

So yeah. Most if not all people here use cars. The circumstances that conspire to promote vehicle use will continue to exist for the foreseeable future, even when viewed through the most optimistic urbanist lens. So to that end, it does make sense to fix the streets.

The streets aren't exactly broken, particularly when viewed through an "urbanist lens." I made the comment on another site that even the most congested area they showed during the public hearings is one or maybe (rarely) two light cycles during rush hour. That is not congestion.

Plus, the laws of traffic convergence state that the congestion that does exist, exists because people are willing to put up with it. It's at an equilibrium. If people were truly intolerant of the inefficiencies caused by congestion, they'd change their route, the time, or the mode they use in this very narrow rush hour window we have. If you widen the road and increase its capacity, people are going to seek that same equilibrium. This goes back to the old old argument that traffic is made worse by widening roads and making it go faster; you simply induce traffic by the very changes you think are going to relieve it.

An efficient commute means less wasted time and gas.

I would argue that this community doesn't exist to ease anyone's commute; in addition, Shrewsbury at least was already sliced in half to ease commutes fifty years ago. I'm simply saying here that huge swaths of residential property as proposed in some (not all) of the alternatives should not be an option.

People stopped in the right lane of I-44 because the Murdoch intersection is a clustered mess is a safety hazard. And the public transit in place is inward looking and doesn't do enough to discourage people from driving to or around it. There's an opportunity to address all of that with this project.

There are no plans to address public transit with this project, other than a hand-waving "We'll hopefully help transit." The County has no authority to dictate or fund transit with this project, and not a whisper was said about working with Bi-State dba Metro on improving connections, during the open houses. At best, the RdP overpass views Metro's parking lot as an obstacle to paving new roadway. Though, admittedly, that's my preferred alternative to putting a huge gash through our oldest residential areas.

OTOH, this could be an opportunity to make those stops more accessible at the same time, perhaps lessening the burden on both the new connector and the residential side streets currently bearing the burden of being a main artery.

I am specifically speaking of the local roads alternative, but the residential side streets would be relieved of no burden; they'd be bearing additional burden of a thruway with curved intersections designed for high speed travel straight through the middle of the long-established, well-built community.

bprop wrote:

I was speaking of the general area - both those neighborhoods directly affected by the connector alternatives and those that drive through the neighborhood now on their way elsewhere. Foot traffic is virtually nonexistent aside from the trail in RDP park.

Maybe on the through streets that you're driving on, I guess? I live in the neighborhoods and we have some of the most walkable streets anywhere. I'm thinking your drive from Affton up RdP is not giving you a very good view of the proposed corridor for some of the local streets alternatives. It's as heavily trafficked by walkers and runners as any street in the city or county.

I was thinking of Marhall between Laclede and Big Bend moreso than roads in Shrewsbury proper. I do drive up RDP, but also use Weil, Murdoch, Shrewsbury/Marshall, Mackenzie, Chippewa. I do agree that the local streets alternative funneling traffic though the existing residential side streets is the not terribly desirable if it can be avoided.

Most of the main roads have sidewalks but are hardly pedestrian friendly. Many of the side roads have no sidewalks at all.

Again, I have no idea where you're talking about. Shrewsbury in particular has sidewalks on both sides of almost every street. See my pics above. When I think of the local roads alternatives, in fact, I can't think of a single one of the potential affected roads that doesn't have sidewalks.

Yes, I was thinking of neighborhoods further south than Shrewsbury. That's my mistake. But still, not too many people in the area are walking to take the bus or Metro. I know people further south are not, unless maybe they're going into the city.

You can't live in the area and depend solely on public transportation - at least not in its current state.

I can catch the train and seven bus routes within a 10 minute walk from my house. Can I depend solely on transit? Well, maybe not comfortably, but that's about as close as you can get in the area.

I'll make the same argument I did earlier. You can't depend solely on public transit in St. Louis Hills or Southampton or Lindenwood Park either. Or let's be frank - anywhere in the St. Louis area beyond a very few enclaves, and even there it's not exactly convenient. That doesn't make them candidates for destroying 70-year old homes in order to make someone's auto commute a bit faster. I can not imagine a single person on this forum, urbanist or not, advocating demolishing homes on Delor Street and cutting straight through Francis Park as an acceptable alternative should someone suggest improving east-west congestion between Jamieson and Kingshighway.

A major reason Weil, Murdoch, and even Shrewsbury has as much traffic it does is the lack of access to the highway in both directions at either the Murdoch or Shrewsbury access point. I think a better configured access point at either location would serve both areas well.

I said in an earlier post that a connector shouldn't be assumed to be the best option, and especially when it means demolishing homes. But the possibility should be investigated because there are traffic issues, the I-44 offramp and access from Mackenzie/RDP/Chippewa to Laclede Station/Hanley being foremost. Heck, making a portion of the 95% unused Deer Creek Shopping Center parking lot into a connector between Hanley and Big Bend will solve a number of problems. It's used as such already. Maybe a thorough study will show smaller incremental improvements to the street grid will improve traffic sufficiently. If so, great - I'm all for it. I'm merely suggesting that a 'cars = bad! No Build' argument might be as overly simplistic as the 'cars rule! Steamroll anything to save me 10 minutes' argument.

So yeah. Most if not all people here use cars. The circumstances that conspire to promote vehicle use will continue to exist for the foreseeable future, even when viewed through the most optimistic urbanist lens. So to that end, it does make sense to fix the streets.

The streets aren't exactly broken, particularly when viewed through an "urbanist lens." I made the comment on another site that even the most congested area they showed during the public hearings is one or maybe (rarely) two light cycles during rush hour. That is not congestion.

Plus, the laws of traffic convergence state that the congestion that does exist, exists because people are willing to put up with it. It's at an equilibrium. If people were truly intolerant of the inefficiencies caused by congestion, they'd change their route, the time, or the mode they use in this very narrow rush hour window we have. If you widen the road and increase its capacity, people are going to seek that same equilibrium. This goes back to the old old argument that traffic is made worse by widening roads and making it go faster; you simply induce traffic by the very changes you think are going to relieve it.

Very good points. I've also said earlier that a six lane mini-highway blasted through at any cost isn't necessary. But traffic heading north/south has a circuitous route at best, and people wanting to access the highway are forced to drive through residential neighborhoods to get there today. if there's a way to create a direct route without destroying the neighborhood, and if there are funds available to pay for it, then it's worth considering. It may end up making the side streets in Shrewsbury quieter and more pedestrian-friently as a side effect.

An efficient commute means less wasted time and gas.

I would argue that this community doesn't exist to ease anyone's commute; in addition, Shrewsbury at least was already sliced in half to ease commutes fifty years ago. I'm simply saying here that huge swaths of residential property as proposed in some (not all) of the alternatives should not be an option.

No, but commuters infest the community. Giving one primary option, even an artery like South Grand that's still pedestrian friendly, would ease the burden on the greater community if done correctly. That's a big qualifier, but one that should be considered. And, since commuters will commute in this area regardless, it can be a benefit to them as well. That's why I mentioned counting the costs - to see whether it's worth it to put this through as opposed to what's there today. Again, all I'm saying is not to dismiss it out-of-hand.

People stopped in the right lane of I-44 because the Murdoch intersection is a clustered mess is a safety hazard. And the public transit in place is inward looking and doesn't do enough to discourage people from driving to or around it. There's an opportunity to address all of that with this project.

There are no plans to address public transit with this project, other than a hand-waving "We'll hopefully help transit." The County has no authority to dictate or fund transit with this project, and not a whisper was said about working with Bi-State dba Metro on improving connections, during the open houses. At best, the RdP overpass views Metro's parking lot as an obstacle to paving new roadway. Though, admittedly, that's my preferred alternative to putting a huge gash through our oldest residential areas.

Then that's a deficiency of all of the alternatives. And yes, of the alternatives proposed, that's my preference too.

OTOH, this could be an opportunity to make those stops more accessible at the same time, perhaps lessening the burden on both the new connector and the residential side streets currently bearing the burden of being a main artery.

I am specifically speaking of the local roads alternative, but the residential side streets would be relieved of no burden; they'd be bearing additional burden of a thruway with curved intersections designed for high speed travel straight through the middle of the long-established, well-built community.

[/quote]

I'm not a fan of a local roads alternative that ends up driving more traffic through quieter neighborhoods.

^ That's a relatively quick reply, as I'm short on time. Apologies if I overlooked or gave anything short shrift.

-RBB

They're restless in Webster

WEBSTER GROVES, Mo. (KMOV) – A proposed connector route that is supposed to make getting around Mid and South County a lot easier could come at the cost of an entire neighborhood.

http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Fear-of- ... um=twitter

quincunx wrote:They're restless in Webster

As well they should be.

OK, so the so-called "problem" is that it takes a long time to get from South County to Mid-County, right? (I'm highly skeptical that this whole project is driven by that supposed need and not campaign contributions from contractors, but whatever, I'll accept the flimsy premise for the sake of argument.)

So, the people for whom this is a problem could move closer to work. Or figure out some other way of getting to work. Or find new jobs.

Or, the government could sentence a bunch of people to move unwillingly, for the crime of living between these commuters and their jobs.

That second choice is what has killed the American city. Good on Webster residents for standing in the way.