urbanSTL

southsidered wrote:

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.

Perception & consolidation amongst the region of the power structure is also very important here.

For those in South County, Downtown is still (perceptively) the center of Saint Louis. It's where Highways 55 and 44 drive towards, versus out of the metro area into the country.

Meanwhile, it's more difficult for South County professionals to get to office buildings in Clayton than Downtown because South County doesn't have a 170 running through 44 and 55. This makes it that much more difficult than otherwise for South County commuters to drive to Clayton, having to traverse Hanley/Laclede Station Road, or River Des Peres/Murdoch/Marshall/Big Bend/Forsyth to get to the County's business district.

So, if you took out some neighborhoods & dropped in a new expressway, it would make Clayton that much easier to commute to at high speeds, for all those coming in from 44 and 55 (who, by the way, aren't taking 270 already). The County has for years wanted a stronger commuter connection to Clayton; that's one of the principal reasons the Cross County Metrolink concludes in Shrewsbury. It's just that the Metrolink hasn't been as big a bump in attracting riders from SoCo to Clayton; so, say the powers-that-be, let's build an expressway instead.

Now, going major doom & gloom here... By having this new construction (feeding the contractors & unions along the way with taxpayer-paid projects), Clayton further centers itself as the regional economic center, easing access for commuters into itself, and doing so at the direct expense of Downtown. Because until we have new businesses establishing themselves in StL, the competition for office space between Downtown and Clayton remains at stasis.

Along the way, everyone will feel the pain, not just the middle class neighborhoods in Webster & Shrewsbury. Other neighborhoods are going to be lost near Richmond Heights and Clayton, with losses sure to be recognized in Hanley Downs and Davis Place, as roadway capacity is that much more increased. We'll see new construction, sure, but in an already consolidated Clayton grid and its arterials; get ready for more traffic through the rest of Mid County.

End result could be that Clayton becomes such a consolidated (congested) centralized business district that Downtown is left further marginalized and ignored, with more companies coming to the County, and the City more isolated than before.

Who wins? Mid County development & building owners, construction outfits, and the County Government, which can assert itself as the most dominant circle of leadership in the region compared to the City, with increased density and serving as a further draw for businesses and daytime restaurant traffic (still limited nighttime traffic, though). While regional power is centered in Clayton already, this would lead to further consolidation of regional influence. Especially, it's the perception from having Clayton become the center of the metro area's principal roadways (64/40-170, 70-170, and 44/55-new expressway), that Mid County is then truly the core, and crux, of the Metro Area.

Who loses? Neighborhoods along the new expressway, and the City of Saint Louis.

Yet another reason to not choose St. Louis. Progressive cities are reurbanizing and investing in functional transit. We're building highways, arterials, and redundant tourism based 'streetcars.' Keep fighting yourself St. Louis while others are competing globally. This is a complete waste along with the Page extension. Saint Louis is hopeless as a region and will continue without the destruction of current leadership and replacement with people who actually look at trends beyond borders and strive to innovate!

^ So you're not moving back?

gary kreie wrote:We just have to decide if we want to become this:
(Ballpark village with gambling)
http://www.currentweek.net/2010/07/sky- ... er-of.html

or this:
(This city was the gateway to Denmark, but then their harbor silted up and all commerce moved to the other side of Denmark -- Copenhagen.)
http://www.visitribe.dk/international/e ... lderby.htm

Both are wonderful. In the Singapore case, that was land created specifically for the purpose of building Singapore Sands - it didn't exist before, as it was harbor/water infill.

Also, Singaporeans love to gamble, so for their society it probably made sense, even with the ~100 SGD entry fee for residents.

To your point though, spot on. What is the 30 year, 50 year, and 100 year vision for St. Louis? Right now, I'm thinking St. Louis in 30 years looks more like Chesterfield - and that's not a positive for me.

^ Putting the road through the strip mall is likely the best option, though hardly the only one being considered. In general, this is going to be expensive and many believe that the funds could be better spend. Second, several options require the taking of homes and businesses. Third, road capacity expansion nearly always enables sprawl and creates more traffic.

As a region, we need to shift priorities to maintenance (and small improvements) of automobile infrastructure, instead of exacting further damage upon ourselves. The St. Louis area is like a "junkie" - just one more hit, man (of that road building project), and the damage continues. It needs to be done with (the new road building), at least for a good while. There is a concensus out there that the road system is overbuilt...you are never going to build out pockets of congestion like they exist, rather you shift them around. When you come across some money for some more "drugs," and you only able to buy "drugs" with that money -- and you can't resist it, then you are an addict.

Regional governmental entities need to get out of the business of being the "drug dealer," pushing damaging things down our throat - and instead act the responsible party of doing what is right, and not doing anything when it's not right to do something. When are we going to get it? When is St. Louis going to have it's intervention? Clearly it should have happened decades ago.

Trailnet is expressing concern with the purpose and need of the South County Connector. In short, they don't think the project should be built. An excerpt of their blog post:

Trailnet is making sure our voice is heard by responding with alternatives to a construction/roadway widening project. We have attached to this blog post a pdf of a letter we sent to St. Louis County just last week; we met the first of a series of deadlines set out by this project – this one having to do with the project's Purpose and Need.

It is Trailnet’s opinion that we are, no pun intended, at a crossroads. A road construction/roadway widening solution to the question of how to connect communities is not a fix, and if it mitigates traffic at all, it will do that temporarily. Trailnet sees this as our golden opportunity to NOT launch an expensive project that tears through established, cohesive communities. We can manage traffic differently. We can respond to traffic in a way that puts communities and people first. We can commit to “Complete Streets.”

And an excerpt from the letter they sent to the St. Louis County Department of Highways and Traffic:

On behalf of the board of directors and staff, Trailnet has serious concerns with the Purpose and Need as stated in the draft. Based on the understanding that a transportation system is only as strong as its weakest link, the assumptions put forth in this draft are heavily slanted towards increased reliance on automobile use and road widening with minimal coordination and investment in multi-modal connectivity and
policy improvements.

Very nice. I love seeing Trailnet take a strong position on this.

One of the main problems here is that this is County project, but will have a very significant impact on the City. For quite a long time the City wasn't engaged in the process - not sure if they didn't try or weren't invited, but they weren't there. Trailnet is involved, as I understand it, because they want this project to be more than just a big new roadway with little to no consideration for bikes and peds. It's absolutely great to see them engaged in something like this.

^ Especially at a projected cost of $110 million. I know money for road projects aren't necessarily available for other transportation-related projects, but just think what better uses the County could use that money for. Building TOD at Shrewesbury and Maplewood stations, bike/ped infrastructure, etc.