The Widening of Delor Street
Delor Street winds through South St. Louis, from East of Grand to the River Des Peres.  The block of Delor Street West of the Bevo Mill area (map) is know for cute but modest houses and for a very narrow roadway:
Delor Street, above, has been so narrow that cars had to go very slow. Now the city is in the process of widening the curb to curb width. The South curb line (right, above) is being moved a few feet over. I have mixed feelings about this work. The narrow width helped slow traffic. But I would not want to try to get in/out of my car on the narrow street.
When I drove down Delor Street recently I saw the construction in progress. One thing is clear is the narrow tree lawn was being eliminated in order to move the curb line. Mark Groth has observations and a couple of construction pics on his blog, St. Louis City Talk (link to post). From his pics I can see curb bulbs and islands. Once construction is complete I’ll return, walk this block as part of my therapy and get photos.
– Steve Patterson
Same thing happened to Hanley Rd between Manchester and Forsyth. The problems to come were kicked into high gear with WalMart-Sam’s Club as you documented years ago. Now Centene headquarters are being constructed at Forsyth and the tree lawn area along Hanley in Clayton has been totally removed. Life for pedestrians remains in the hands of speeding drivers distracted by cell phones and texting in rushing to work. At least Delor looks forward to having traffic calming devices, Hanley has none.
– –
The problems for Hanley will be ultra ugly when MoDOT finishes the New 64 designs for the area. And of course the Hadley Township debacle at Dale-Hanley continues. How low can we go?
This stretch of Delor addressed in the photo really IS narrower than the portions east of Gravois. It is the only stretch where two cars cannot pass at the same time when cars are parked on the street, and it’s a dense, busy street. A must to avoid.
So, widening it is a good, practical idea. Losing the tree lawns won’t be a great tragedy because there is a sad minimum of trees in them anyway.
A couple of observations, questions.
How much did the City pay each homeowner to acquire the right of way to widen the street? Was this carried out through friendly negotiations, or was eminent domain involved.
This street has been like this for over 75 years. Cars today are smaller on average than there were over the last 75 years. Yet today, we need to widen the road. Did neighbors organize to request this change? Did the city take action in response to frequent accidents? Why the change now? Are there any anti-Bosnian hotrodding issues in the subtext?
The block in question is very long. There are bump outs being built at each end, but that appears to be it in terms of traffic calming. My prediction is that with the new wider street, regardless of the bumpouts, traffic will speed much faster than it did before.
If that happens, what will the city do then? Were there considerations made up front in anticipation of that possible outcome?
The city of St. Louis has many narrow two way streets. Is the plan to widen more of them? If so, we can expect to see more speeding down neighborhood streets.
SLN – My guess would be nothing – the city right-of-way usually runs from sidewalk to sidewalk, with the tree lawn already being city property.
This is an interesting “priority”, especially in a city with multiple other infrastructure needs. If I were cynical, I’d chalk it up to an alderman looking for a way to spend money in their ward. Taking a more pragmatic view, it could be a very real need to improve access and response times from the firehouse on Kingshighway, to points east, and/or be tied into needed drainage work/curb replacement.
My guess is if I lived on one of these blocks, I wouldn’t be happy (more traffic and/or higher speeds), and if I drove this way on a regular basis, I’d be pleased. Since I’m neither, I just question the priority/the need to do it now (stimulus money, perhaps)?
It seems like a simpler solution would be to only allow parking on one side of the street. Steve I am sure you don’t agree with that but it would be cheaper and preserve the trees along the street. Another very narrow street is Ivanhoe in southwest city. Trying to have two cars go past at the same time is similar to a game of chicken or Russian roulette.
http://blog.pps.org/what-can-we-learn-from-the-dutch-self-explaining-roads/
We moved off of a double length block with scarce street trees, one-way traffic, and constant headaches from speeders to a two way traffic block with full grown street trees and total shade canopy. Traffic speeds on our current block are much slower. We will never live on a one-way street again.
When two cars approach each other on our current block, one must pull over and wait for the other to pass before proceeding. The net result is much slower overall traffic.
Comparing our former block to our current one, both streets are of equal width, yet one is two way and the other one way. There is no indication that the city would ever turn our old block into a two way street, yet property values are higher and cars move slower on our current block with two way traffic and mature street trees.
I’d like to see the city create as many two way streets as possible throughout St. Louis, not just downtown or based on resident complaints.
To Jimmy Z,
On the block of Delor in question, the sidewalks have been removed to widen the street. Lots are being reduced in depth by probably 8 – 10 feet.
City homeowners own the ground under the sidewalk in front of their house as part of their lot. This is evidenced by the fact that when it comes time to repair/replace sidewalks, the homeowners are charged for this cost. Some relief is possible through the city’s 50/50 sidewalk replacement program.
As the sidewalks have come out on this project, it appears that private property was purchased from these St. Louis neighbors as part of this street widening project.
Should we expect a loss in property value to follow the loss of land area on these lots and increase in speeders down Delor? That would seem the logical result.
Important passages from the link to Forgiving Highways:
The idea that Forgiving Highways (wider and straighter) would reduce crashes on non-freeways took root during the 1966 National Highway Safety hearings. Leading the way was a nationally revered expert on safety: Kenneth Stonex, who during his career at General Motors, oversaw much of the research that created the basis for the Interstate Highway safety standards. Justifiably marveling in the remarkable safety record of the Interstates, Stonex and others sought to apply the Interstate principles to the rest of our roads. “What we must do is to operate the 90% or more of our surface streets just as we do our freeways… [converting] the surface highway and street network to freeway road and roadside conditions,†Stonex testified.
– –
However, as an unintended consequence, vehicular speeds go up. Drivers responded to their environment. Put them on a stretch of road that is wider, flatter, and straighter and they drove faster. While okay on controlled access freeways where there are no adjacent land uses or pedestrians, and where sight distances are near infinite, curves are flat and opposing roadways are separated by wide medians or center barriers, higher speeds caused problems in built up areas. Yet we were so caught up in the paradigm that we never stopped to check to see if we were getting the desired result.
– –
Dumbaugh’s research further shows that a Livable Street concept — bringing life back to the street via trees, streetscaping, building setbacks, etc – leads to 40% fewer midblock crashes and 67% fewer roadside crashes.
– –
From 1978 to 2008, the Dutch have reduced their fatalities from 3200 to 800. If we calculate out the rate per 1000 people, the Dutch fatality rate is 40% of the American rate. This is remarkable, particularly when one considers that in 1975, their fatality rate was 20% higher than the US rate!
If we in American had achieved a similar reduction in fatality rates, our annual fatalities would drop to just under 15,000 a year – 22,000 less deaths than we currently experience.
– –
Robert Nolan’s analysis in “Traffic Fatalities and Injuries: The Effect of Changes in Infrastructure and Other Trends†refutes the hypothesis that infrastructure improvements have been effective at reducing total fatalities and injuries. He further discovered that widening lanes or increasing capacity—conventionally expected to improve safety—actually increases speeds and compromises safety.
http://www.cts.cv.ic.ac.uk/staff/wp22-noland.pdf
– –
No kidding, just look at what has happened to Hanley Rd, and now Dooley wants it to be like highway 141.
What section of Hanley are you talking about? It’s very different along its path. Between 40 and Manchester its already pretty much of an expressway.
From 40 to Clayton, it’s pretty well walled off from its neighbors, with the backs of houses and fences separating it from the subdivisions. Seldom do you see a pedestrian here.
From Clayton to the Metro tracks, it’s a dense urbanized area. I can see Claytonians coming out of the woodwork to oppose any widening there.
Through downtown Clayton, widening would be minimal.
Widening Clayton north to Delmar, there’d be similar outrage.
Widening north of Delmar, across Olive and Page, up to Natural Bridge and then I-70 would probably cause a reduction in property values and the quality of life for residents of these near North County communities.
If we’re so into widening roads, why not widen Big Bend from Laclede Station out to 270? That would certainly reduce traffic congestion and lower accidents there too, right?
SLN – I hate to disagree with you, but even though the city is willing to pay half the cost of replacing a sidewalk (and sticking the adjacent property owner with the other half), the reality is that a public sidewalk is almost always on the public right-of-way. If it were located on your property, you’d have every legal right to prohibit access to the public (“no trespassing”). At least we’re not in Denver – there’s no 50/50 program there (and no maintenance of for trees in the tree lawn, either) and the city is more strict about enforcement.
If what you say is true, how can the city charge St. Louis neighbors for repairing a sidewalk they don’t own?
In the case of sewer line replacement, the city is very clear on who pays for what. If there is a failure in the line between the main and the property line, the city pays for it through the lateral line insurance fund.
On the other hand, when the failure is on your property, it’s the property owner’s expense, 100%. As a result, great care is taken to locate where a break occurs. The thinking behind the insurance program is, most breaks occur in the alley or under the street from the weight and vibrations from heavy trucks (like garbage trucks) and traffic driving over them for decades, loosening connections.
JZ, you might be right re. ownership of the r.o.w. under the sidewalk, but if so, I’d still like to hear the reason why adjacent property owners are responsible for the cost of replacing something they don’t own. I’ll have to have to research some old deeds, surveys…
It’s rare that I drive over those blocks of Delor but on occasion I do. If the residents complained about not being able to get out of their cars and requested this then I’m all for it. Otherwise the city should have just left it alone. I think parking on just one side of the street should have been tried first. And those curb bump-outs at the end of the block are a joke. They will only take away valuable parking spaces. But let us remember: Streets in the city are intended to be conduits for traffic. Not private drives for the residents.
80% of this project is being paid for by FHWA reimbursement. I avoid Delor like the plague because unlike some city streets where it’s just barely wide enough to fit two cars(although most people prefer to hog the whole street), this street is just barely too narrow. I bet this project will cut down on speeding because people won’t be racing to find that next open parking spot so they can cut in and avoid being clobbered by oncoming traffic.
Also, the project limits go from Gravois to Ridgewood so fear not, the stretch from Ridgewood to Christy will still test drivers skills and depth perception.
Parking on one side probably would have not worked. The one fair reason people give for not making streets two way is the number of parked cars. In order for a narrow street to work as two way, there have to be enough breaks in the parked cars for oncoming traffic to find a place to pull over.
If the parking lane is solid with parked cars, there’s nowhere for a car to pull over, and someone has to back up the whole length of the block. That won’t work with cars behind you, so you wind up with a total cluster$&#k. Complicating matters, lots in this section of Delor are narrow, making street parking more dense.
If you remove half the spaces, the problem would be compounded. Single car garages are fairly common in this neighborhood, reducing the options for off-street parking.
My beef is this. I’ve driven this stretch of Delor for 20 years. There have been a few times when there’s been a close shave with an oncoming car, but never has there been a situation where two oncoming vehicles could not pass one another.
Maybe there’s been an increase in the number of parked cars in the area, forcing the widening? This could be a result of population growth in the Bevo neighborhood? If there’s no room for oncoming cars to share the road, then maybe widening was the only alternative.
Unfortunately, the short answer is because they can, they’re the government: “As noted in the 1994 Plan, the City does not have responsibility for maintenance of sidewalks. However, the City sponsors a 50/50 sidewalk repair program, whereby the City matches funds that citizens invest in sidewalk improvement. The City gives approximately 1500 50/50 grants each year.”
It’s not much different from how we’re told that we need to keep our alleys clean: “Property owners are responsible for keeping their half of abutting alleys free of litter, weeds and overgrown trees, as well as in safe and sanitary conditions.”
Whether it’s “fair” or not is a matter of perception. By making maintenance the responsibility of the adjacent property owner, it reduces the city’s cost/budget and eliminates a lot of nuisance calls about minor maintenance issues. It also makes it possible to expect that snow might be removed in a timely manner – the city has limited resources and there’s now way they could shovel every sidewalk in the city.
http://stlouis.missouri.org/tiffany/good.htm
http://stlouis.missouri.org/5yearstrategy-old/draft/chapter3f_side.html
http://stlouis.missouri.org/government/ConsPlan/Eval96/RNeeds1.html
@ Dennis > How do curb bulb-outs take away parking space? You’re not supposed to park that close to a corner anyway..
From the picture Steve selected – assuming this is the same block being widened, it looks plenty wide to me! I think most of the problem here is probably the same as I encounter on many other STL city streets – People just don’t know how @#$% wide their own cars are. I see it all the time with people either pulling over when I pass (why!?) or driving down the center of the frackin street with 4 feet between them and the parked cars. MOVE THE FRACK OVER!!!
StL_Stadtroller, curb bump-outs were proposed in the Southampton neighborhood several years ago. Thank God they didn’t do it. They were going to take the last two parking spaces before the corner on each side of the street. Thats how! I just don’t see how that would help especially on a long stretch like this part of Delor. Sure, cars will have to really slow down – once they get to the corner. But on long blocks like this they will have a clear shot to really get up speed now that it’s widened.
Dedicated parking lanes need only be 7 feet wide, and a travel lane only 10 feet, when your design speed is 35 mph or less. If the City widened any more than 34 feet face-of-curb to face-of-curb, then Delor was widened a bit too much.
Another true test will be if the City paints a center stripe. Not having one will actually keep cars moving slower akin to Dutch “woonerf” principles.
Just because the sidewalk is on your property doesn’t mean you can keep the public off. It is called an easement in gross. If you were to pull the property records, you would find an easment deed for the sidewalk.
W – I agree, when the sidewalk is on private property. But in most residential areas, here and elsewhere around the country, the public sidewalk is usually (not always, but usually) at or near the edge of, and on, the public right of way. One easy way to see this is when a property changes hands and they do a stake survey – check out where the front stakes are. The other way is to go down to the city and check out their maps – many ROW’s, even in residential areas are 60′ or 80′ wide, even when the streets, curb-to-curb, are only 30′-40′ wide.
I have to agree with Jimmy Z; I just bought a house last year, and my front stakes–still visible when I purchased the property–were a good three feet away from my sidewalk. My survey also showed my property line starting the same distance away from the sidewalk.
I believe sidewalk responsibility, either owner abutting the ROW or the city, is dictated by city ordinance. So it varies from community to community. It wouldn’t show up on any deeds nor does it need too if I’m correct. I believe Rock Hill in the last couple of years passed an ordinance transferring responsibility of sidewalk maintenance to its residents as a mean of cost savings for the city. Recall reading it, but not sure of the specifics.
I currently live without a sidewalk in Shrewsbury. Being a father, I would much very much prefer to have a sidewalk. However, that is easy to say without having to actually worry about footing a bill nor do I think my neighbors have any desire to foot the bill for my kids getting that much closer to their front door. In the meantime, viligant when walking on the street.
This is a bike St. Louis route for me and I wonder if they did any considerations for how it will impact cyclists on this route with increased traffic speeds. Although not crazy about this section of the road when I bike it I have found most drivers to be more than courteous and will even move over to the side as I pass them going the opposite way.
Cyclists are typically ignored in the StL region. My major north-south routes include Big Bend, Hanley Rd and Brentwood Blvd. The speed limit on Big Bend is being raised, the plans for Hanley Rd are that it is to become the “new 141” and Brentwood Blvd has been made into an urban highway loaded with numerous stop lights. The major opportunity to create a safer north-south route was destroyed by Metro… the original plans for the Extension had a bike-jogging path alongside.
– –
As reported by the MoBikeFed: The County’s plan… did not include provision of bicycle accommodation on the outside lane or sidewalks on both sides of the road from Litzsinger Road to Laclede Station Road. The Mayor of Richmond Heights… does not support bicycle and pedestrian access along Hanley Road.
– –
As Steve documented years ago, the area along Hanley south of 40 was turned into an urban highway once WalMart-Sam’s tore down the homes, removed the center island and expanded the road to facilitate more auto traffic. The one business that was not forced out was the law firm which I know well. The tree lawn area that use to exist north of Clayton Rd was removed some years ago and recently parking along the curb was eliminated in other areas (so a center lane could be added to facilitate left turns)… so now pedestrians are just inches away from speeding cars and trucks. What use to be a very walkable neighborhood has been destroyed in order to facilitate greater traffic.
And for a quick ride through history to see how it can be done right for all road users, watch and enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOkbz4tm324&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhembrow%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embedded#t=110
We lived in the 4600 block of Delor for 38 years. During this time we tried to get parking on one side only, but there were too many car owners and not enough parking spaces. We asked for the street to be made one way and that didn't happen because it is a major thru street from Grand to Kingshighway. If you notice the light standards on the south side are installed even with the sidewalk so some thought was given to widening the street, but that never happened. After we lost the second car we had our garage enlarged and never parked on the street again. Delor from Gravois to Kingshighway is a race track especially after schools let out.