South County Connector Revisited, Open House 3pm-7pm Today 12/9/2010
A “Public Open House” will be held today, December 9, 2010, from  3:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. to get feedback on the latest proposal for a South County Connector:
“St. Louis County has interviewed several consultant teams for conducting the Location Study and Environmental Document for the South County Connector. Negotiations will begin shortly with the selected team, and the study will begin in early 2010.
The South County Connector facilitates access between the central core of St. Louis County and South County and South City. The multi-modal aspect of the South County Connector corridor promotes the joint Livable Communities initiative of the U.S. DOT, HUD, U.S. EPA and other Federal agencies. It will help citizens gain better access to affordable housing, more transportation options and healthier communities and will promote sustainable development and economic growth.”
The open house will be held at the  Affton White-Rodgers Community Center located at 9801 Mackenzie Road St. Louis, Mo. 63123.
– Steve Patterson
I'll be there. I did find it interesting that the meeting location is well outside the study area boundaries. Perhaps they're trying to reduce the number of NIMBY comments and maximize the number of “we need this” comments? 😉
It is not *well outside*, that is still Affton which basically touches the RDP blvd. Affton's community center just happens to be located on the opposite side of the RDP boundary. I'll see you there.
The map above shows the primary study area; the community center is well off the map, much closer to I-55 than to I-44.
From the fact sheet: “The general study area includes Maplewood, Webster Groves, Shrewsbury, and southern/southwestern portions of the City of St. Louis. The SCC could also impact travel to and from additional areas, including Brentwood, Richmond Heights, and Clayton.” (Affton is not mentioned.)
From the County's website: “In very general terms, the “South County Connector†is a proposed major new roadway linking South County to central St. Louis County, as well as to interstates 55, 44, 64/40 and I-170. A specific route has NOT been selected. However, the road would be built within an area bounded by Manchester Road to the north; Hanley and Laclede Station to the west; Murdoch and Watson to the south and River Des Peres and Big Bend to the east.” (Affton is not inside these boundaries.)
http://www.stlouisco.com/index…
And from the County's Talking Points:
•North project limits start at approximate end of current Hanley Road and Manchester Road intersection project.
•South project limits are approximately at northern end of River Des Peres Blvd., in the vicinity of Lansdowne.
(Affton is nowhere near here.)
http://www.stlouisco.com/hwywe…
Reading between the lines, and looking at previous studies, it's pretty apparent that the goal is to create a new interchange on I-44 and connect directly to River Des Peres Drive, to reduce congestion at the Laclede Station interchange in Webster Groves. As a city resident, I have serious concerns with this, since there will be little benefit to city residents by trying to move county traffic more efficiently on a city parkway! The real need is to “fix”/rebuild the existing interchange, not divert traffic into the city!
No it is not inside the road connector, they used this term loosely 3 or 4 years ago for the proposed connector of METRO down River Des Peres Blvd.; I see they are now talking the road connector not the Metro extension, sorry. This meeting should be held in SHREWSBURY. For some reason Affton had the strongest opposition of running Metro down RDP to I-55, akin to St. Chas Co nixing it. They have always wanted an Eastbound entrance ramp closer to the Laclede Sta/Old Orchard intersection, it effects the City very little and Affton only remotely.
FYI: An earlier open house was held in the Holly Hills area.
Not that most will be confused, but your caption on the map says that Hanley Rd. is in the “upper right”, but it is instead in the upper left. I lived in this exact area for five years (Cambridge Avenue at Big Bend), and can personally attest to the lack of a strong connection to the northern entrance to RDB. It's this very lack of strong, clear and convenient connection that allows the greenway to remain a greenway and not a highway. As a parkway, it seems to carry the traffic volume well.
I asked a couple of County workers at the meeting today how closely they were working with Metro on this to make an overall plan for traffic movement between I-44 and I-55 (bike/ped/metro-train/auto/etc) and they said they were not. They would eventually share with Metro the ideas in 2012 just so the new roadway would not hinder a Metro bridge for West or South expansion. All I can say is it seems a bit disjointed, typical STL city/county ideology, just like what happened with the truncation of I-170 southward.
A few questions to think about…
Why do this now? If the project has been on the drawing board since the 1950s and never done, why is it a priority today?
How does a project like this promote neighborhood preservation in Shrewsbury, Webster Groves, Maplewood, and St. Louis?
If it costs $100,000,000 to do this project (more or less), what other projects might be completed with the same money to increase the quality of life within the study area?
What will be the impacts on neighborhoods fronting River Des Peres Boulevard as a result of increased traffic volume along this connector?
The area impacted by this project is among the most desirable in the region now. Will this project make the area more or less desirable after it is constructed?
What are the positions of the Webster Groves, Kirkwood, Shrewsbury, Maplewood and St. Louis Boards of Aldermen on this project?
Who is pushing this forward and what is the budget for the planning process?
To your last question, the lead entity is St. Louis County, along with MoDOT and the FHWA. Conspicuous by their absence are the impacted cities, St. Louis City, Shrewsbury, Webster Groves and Maplewood. Nothing like having “outsiders” deciding what's best for your 'hood, in the apparent interest of the “greater good” . . .
Getting traffic off of all of those side streets would be a definite improvement for the neighborhood. Extend RDP Blvd. north through the industrial area to Big Bend or Hanley.
Which neighborhood?! RDP Blvd. is a city parkway. It's not designed nor intended to be a thoroughfare. Why should it be assumed to be the solution to traffic congestion in the county? Better to extend MacKenzie Road north past Watson, through the MacKenzie Pointe Shopping Center, along the Old Coal Road rail line. Solve county problems with county resources – I'm not hearing a lot of demand in my 'hood (23rd ward) for any new interchanges, the one(s) at Jamieson and Arsenal seem to be working just fine.
The real problems/choke points seem to be at Manchester & Hanley, I-44 & Laclede Station and Watson & Laclede Station. To really improve things, a), extend Metrolink light rail south along the existing rail line to South County Mall or Arnold, b) build the urban interchange, as planned, at Manchester & Hanley, c) build a diverging diamond interchange (like the one just completed at I-270 & Dorsett) where Laclede Station now goes under I-44, abandoning the existing half-interchanges, and d) build either another grade-separated urban interchange or a roundabout at Watson & Laclede Station, to increase that intersection's capacity.
When one chooses suburban living, one should not assume that closer-in neighborhoods will be very accepting of highway “improvements” designed solely to move commuters through their established neighborhoods, any more than you would accept higher traffic volumes on your street or in your backyard. I'll repeat, not having the the impacted cities, St. Louis City, Shrewsbury, Webster Groves and Maplewood, involved as stakeholders is both presumptuous and insulting, and just perpetutuates the fragmentation that marks our regional planning processes.
You've missed the point entirely. There is a ridiculous amount of traffic on Lansdowne and Murdoch to access I-44 that if unfair to the residents on those streets — problems light rail cannot fix. It's presumptuous for you to assume these cities have not already been involved to some degree. Take off your foil hat and come inside where it is warm.
I do agree that there's “a ridiculous amount of traffic on Lansdowne and Murdoch [trying] to access I-44 that [is] unfair to the residents on those streets”. It's not Shrewsbury's or Webster Grove's responsibility to “solve” the problem, but neither is it's the city's responsibility, either. One of the studies I was reading today anticipates that traffic will increase by 25%(!) on RDP Drive if/when it is extended to Big Bend. Will all these new drivers be coming from the city? I doubt it. Yes, the county dropped the ball by not planning for growth (unlike the city), but parks are just as valuable as commercial and residential properties. Take off your blinders – I don't want more traffic on my neighborhood streets any more than want more traffic on yours! Traffic is like water, it finds the path of least resistance. If anything, we should be making it harder to get through all four cities, not easier, since that would encourage all those folks from Affton and Crestwood to find and use other routes, like Lindbergh, I-55 and I-270. NIMBY!
Look, they are NOT going to extend Mackenzie North now where development is already moderate and there is no room to run it next to the train tracks for more than a block or two going eastward anyway, just like they are not going to extend I-170 south because development has already taken control, that horse left the barn years ago and the County did not act. They COULD extend RDP blvd and link it into I-44; but I don't see how they could widen WEIL or LANSDOWN without destroying a fair amount of homes.
So, destroying homes and businesses in the county is off the table? But degrading city parks and taking away parking at the Shrewsbury Metrolink station is OK? Shrewsbury seems to have no problem with demolishing Kenrick Plaza to build a new Walmart, but when it comes to moving traffic, “it's not my job”?!
Look, MacKenzie > Watson > RDP Drive works fairly well already. Whether one turns left or right on Lansdowne is already inequitable – two lanes to the right (thru the the city) or one lane to the left (thru the county / Shrewsbury & WG).
The fundamental issue is that the county dropped the bal when it came to planning and building north-south connections between Manchester (on the north) and Watson (on the south), and between Lindbergh (on the west) and the city limits (on the east). NIMBY rules, even though the vast majority of the traffic is going to and from Clayton. And yes, the city already does a pretty good job further east, with RDP Parkway/Wabash/McCausland/Skinker, Kingshighway, Gravois/Jefferson and Broadway.
Traffic on both Hanley and Brentwood is bad and getting worse because a) they keep building more office space in Clayton, and b) they keep building more retail on both streets, as well as along Eager, neither of which are benefitting the city. Why should the city cooperate in moving any of this traffic?! This is battle between Clayton and Webster Groves, between Maplewood and Shrewsbury, but it's still a COUNTY problem, not a CITY problem – deal with it in the county, even if it means tearing down some existing structures and relocating existing businesses and residents!
JZ71, you state a bigger fundamental problem for the region. Why do we keep building more office space in Clayton over Downtown (Centene vs Ballpark Village being the latest example) and why does more retail keep going up outside the city? You stated it yourself. So far the answer has been to keep pro sports in the city and revive downtown through state supported historic tax credits. Unfortunately, the city will lose out by shear numbers if you want to boil it down to its a county problem not a city problem.
You can argue status quo as you scream that the city gets stuck with solving a county problem or you leverage it to provide a I-44 interchange that functions better then Shrewsbury Ave & Jamison interchanges combinded, a greenway in need of investment and a future metrolink alignment that extends cross county within city limits.
Kenrick is 70% vacant and has been for some time; but I agree they need to step up with some valid ideas here for traffic too. I don't think adding one lane and a better shoulder on RDPB would hurt the park-like setting either. You could also have the (new)road veer West of the station (along the rail line) briefly without taking parking from the station and only losing two commercial buildings and maybe one house.
Not to get too far off topic…but Kenrick's vacancy has happened under the watch of the developer who wants it to be demolished for a wal-mart. It must be nice to let your property rot and then get free public money to fix it up.
Don't have an answer, but how much traffice would this really divert to the south onto RDP? My experience of owning a home on Devonshire Ave in Shrewsbury is that traffic is essentially trying to get to and from I-44 from every direction. Traffic wanting to go south is already finding RDP as it is really the only good road to get to Gravois and its surrounding neighborhoods. My point, the connector would actually take some of the city traffic out of Shrewsbury neighborhoods, not the other way around. For some reason you think that city residents don't drive or commute from the surrounding neighborhoods into suburbs.
As far as RDP itself. Are you serious about RDP being part of the urban fabric and the suburban world is a matter of walking one block to the west (where the cilty limits are located)? You essentially have three bridges crossings between I-44 and I-55 over a huge ditch that connects RDP with the city. If anything, the city should see some opportunity in this by horse trading support for the south connector for additional investment in the RDP greenway.
I wish this area was the most desireable, then maybe I could sell my house for a change instead of having two mortgages in states.
I have to agree that you have a good list of questions. I honestly thinking that this is on the county wishlist at an attempt for long term planning and the easiest and politically possible is to get Hanley tied to River Des Peres.
As this discussion illustrates, the real issue is fragmented planning and decision making in our region – city versus county, Shrewsbury versus Clayton. Some entity has a problem and assumes that another entity should, can and will assume the burden of solving it. Instead of consensus and tradeoffs, we get dictates and NIMBY. There may be a larger vision, but it's way too easy for someone to say no or head off on their own tangent. Create a new destination / revenue generator, but leave the traffic impacts to others to solve.
The discussion here mirrors the discussions and decisions along Manchester in Maplewood and the Grove – is moving traffic the priority or is supporting local businesses and great streets? Do the frustrations of commuters take precedence over the quality of life in a community, any community? Plus, who should bear the burden for prior bad decisions? Hanley/Laclede Station and Big Bend weren't fully connected to I-44 in Webster Groves when the highway was built, and the ad hoc interchanges assumed that most traffic was on the north side of the highway. Murdoch and Lansdowne in Shrewsbury ARE seeing too-large-for-residential-streets traffic volumes because they're the nearest thing to the missing link. MacKenzie dead-ends at Watson. Laclede Station dead-ends at Gravois. The major roads, Manchester, Brentwood, Watson, Gravois, Morganford, Tesson Ferry are all radial, while the north-south connectors are an ad hoc collection of farm-to-market roads.
Building another bypass, which is essentially what is being proposed, is one solution. Back in the day, Big Bend was obviously the main road – just look at the old, human-scale businesses on Big Bend between Murdoch and Lockwood. When that became too congested, Laclede Station was widened to four lanes, and serves as a bypass around that urban core. Now, that is filled up with commuters fro further south and we “need” to build another highway, “add more capacity”. Welcome to Highway Building 101.
What's really needed IS more congestion. The only way to convince people to use public transit is to make commuting by single-occupant vehicle too painful and/or too expensive. If it takes someone an hour every day, each way, to slog through traffic from Green Park or Oakville to Clayton, and it only takes 30 or 40 minutes on an extended Metrolink line (with free parking a couple of miles from home), then guess what, transit starts to look a lot more attractive. Look at any successful American city (NYC, DC, LA, San Francisco, Denver, Dallas, Houston, even Phoenix and Salt Lake), and, sooner or later, people finally realize you can't ever build enough highways to serve every commuter trying to get into dense, urban areas.
I'll repeat, I live in the city, and I think we've done enough already. The “Shrewsbury” Metrolink station is in the city. RDP Drive connects directly to it. Buy a clue, park your car, use the train, and avoid all o the problems with congestion in Shrewsbury and along the Laclede Station / Hanley Road corridor!
Wouldn't River City Casino end up a big winner from this project with a new access to I-44 and I-64 via Hanley? I'm interested to know if they've advocated for it.
No, and I doubt it. North of I-64, it's just as easy to use I-270/I-55 (on the west) or I-70/I-55 (on the east) to get there, and south of I-44, nothing would change. That leaves only the area of the county between Lindbergh and Skinker/McCausland, and between I-64 and I-44, that would see any real benefit. (east of S/M, Hampton, Kingshighway, Gravois, Jefferson & Broadway all already funnel into RDP / River City Parkway.) Plus, north of I-64, both Harrah's and Ameristar are easy to reach, and probably closer, and Lumiere Place and the Casino Queen are a straight shot down I-64. The only real benefit to River City Casino is if RED Drive were renamed River City Drive all the way up to I-44, and I doubt that that'll ever happen.