South County Connector to take 27 homes and businesses down!

So here it is again Maplewood and Brentwood. This project has us more divided and poignant than last November's elections! Here is what I put together on the South County Connector Project, unbiased, and as non-opinionated as possible;

The St. Louis County Department of highways and Traffic, with the Federal Highway Administration and the Missouri Department of Transportation is doing a transportation research study known as the South County Connector to improve transportation connectivity and roadway capacity between south St. Louis County and central St. Louis County. As the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) said, “The project area is generally bounded by Manchester Road to the north, Hanley Road and Laclede Station Road to I-44 to the west, Murdoch Avenue and Watson Road to the south and Big Bend Boulevard and River Des Peres to the east.” Related regions include Maplewood, Webster Groves, Shrewsbury, and southern / southwestern portions of St. Louis City. Brentwood, Richmond Heights, and Clayton will also be influenced accordingly.

This plan is an attempt to improve connection from South St. Louis County to Central St. Louis County, which can be traced back to 1950s. The study also intends to improve access to interstates 44, 64, 55, and 170. EIS developed the purpose and need statement as follows: “improving roadway connectivity; reducing congestion in the study area; increasing roadway capacity; and considering the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians.” However, some of the media, critics and the general public doubt the effectiveness of the purpose and needs as stated in EIS.

The first concern is the cost. The cost of this project is estimated as $110 million, which is regarded as “far too expensive for the limited benefits it would offer” (“Disconnect the South County Connector” 2013). Many citizens complained that the opportunity cost is too high and there are many better projects competing for the budget. Besides, many citizens doubt whether the South County Connector is even necessary. According to a letter to the editors in St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “MetroLink has proven to be an invaluable tool for lessening traffic congestion, improving air quality, and improving connectivity throughout the region,” while the South County Connector is approximately the route of the Metrolink (“St. Louis County needs to rethink South County Connector Project”). Then, this part of the project is actually the duplication of the Metrolink and would not help the traffic capacity. In the letter, the author also mentioned the Cross County Light Rail extension and outdated data that the EIS used, proving the ineffectiveness of the project and its high opportunity cost. According to another article “South County Connector project sparks diverse outcry,” The Metrolink route “that goes from Clayton to Shrewsbury had been designed and promoted as a substitute for a south St. Louis County connector” (Rosenbaum 2013). Ogilvie, in the article “South County Connector project sparks diverse outcry,” even questioned this project ironically: “Do we want to spend $120 million to undermine $700 million investment we made in Metrolink?” (Rosenbaum 2013).

Many local residents are concerned with the negative impact of this project on their local communities and living areas. According to another letter in St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the author is worried about the potential harm to the local communities. As he said, “ the development of this limited access primary conduit may diminish the character of adjacent neighborhoods, reduce their walkability and even harm the small businesses located on the many secondary alternative routes that we all use when traversing the many options available to travel from Shrewsbury to Maplewood” (“South County Connector not worth the small benefit” 2013). Actually, many experts prove that the South County Connector certainly has the potential to harm the walking trails, bicycle trails and some green areas. Susan Trautman, the Great Rivers Greenway executive director, expressed her concern about the negative impact of this project on the River des Peres Greenway trail “beginning near Landsdowne Avenue and continuing to Chippewa Street” and “the Gateway bicycle plan and a proposal to build a ‘River Ring’ of greenways throughout the region” (Rosenbaum 2013). Some critics say that if the project can avoid those areas successfully, it may not a problem.

However, the potential hazard on the River Des Peres Park is more serious. A small part of this park will be taken as part of the plan. Although it is a small part, the plan will feed “all this traffic onto it” and “ultimately require it to have more lanes, which will destroy the park” (Rosenbaum 2013). According to NiNi Harris, the park has just gone through “an extensive renovation including replanting landscaping, as well as adding pedestrian walks, gates, a bridge and ornamental light fixtures” (Rosenbaum 2013). However, her analysis shows that this project, which would add lanes through this park, will destroy this park. Obviously, this park adds values to the local properties due to better living environment. If the park is destroyed by this project, the local communities and properties will lose this part of values.

Besides, the project needs to knock down 8 commercial properties, 19 residential properties (21 properties for the alternative choice) and six acres of parkland. Despite the fact that some firms and residents will have to move out, local citizens will lose part of their communities and walking space. As the result, cyclists and pedestrians are not well considered in this situation as well. The loss of six acres parkland can also generate potential business problems to the local communities. According to Maplewood officials, loss of parking space “would void most of the leases within the shopping center,” especially the Maplewood area (Rosenbaum 2013). The project will cut through the parking lot of the Deer Creek Center, and may cause significant business loss between Deer Creek Center and the businesses operating out of Big Bend Boulevard Court.

Since some of the neighborhood roads will be transformed into highways, according to “Mayor Outlines Pros/Cons of Connector,”  “there is the potential that spillover from the over-crowded connector could stream onto Shrewsbury’s streets” (Hannon 2013). Traffic will come through the communities, “wrapping around our community and overwhelming this area” (Hannon 2013). Therefore, although the South County Connector will improve transportation convenience, too much traffic will disturb the living environment and cause noise pollution to the living areas around the highways. Considering this factor, the value of the residential properties near the would-be-built highways will be negatively influenced.  However, since traffic on local roads would be reduced then, the value of the residential properties in those communities (excluding the properties near the highways) could be positively affected.

The South County Connector may promote the value of the properties in the related areas and the sale price temporarily. Since several commercial properties and residential houses will be torn down according to the project, the inventories of homes and commercial properties will decrease. Besides that, the South County Connector will provide residents with an alternative transportation method, which could be a beneficial factor to attract more potential buyers to those regions who are looking for convenience of transportation. Regional traffic on local roads will be reduced, “making it easier to get to the Shrewsbury Metro station and easing the commute between north and south St. Louis County” (Rosenbaum 2013). As the article analyzed, “if you (exit) the highway at Murdoch/Laclede’s Station Road and then have to go through Shrewsbury through Murdoch Ave. and then ultimately make you way to the station, you would be five, six or seven miles down the road on the interstate […] having an I-44 interchange close to the station would create the possibility of Rapid Bus Transit to the Shrewsbury Station” (Rosenbaum 2013).

Especially, according to the residents who live on Landsdowne, “they don’t feel it’s safe to have their children play in the front yard because traffic is so heavy” (Rosenbaum 2013). Right now, too much traffic on local roads is a probably a potential problem for local residence. The new project then can help reduce the traffic on local roads and promote the property value, if the South County Connector works effectively and does not attract too much traffic from other places to those areas. 

EIS also states other benefits to the local community besides transportation convenience. In the statement, “the multi-modal aspect of the South County Connector promotes the joint Livable Communities Initiative and will help citizens gain better access to housing and jobs, community services, and transportation options, as well as promote sustainable development and economic growth.” The new highway probably will bring new business and customers to related places, but as the officials of Maplewood said, Maplewood would be commercially harmed by this project due to parking space. Therefore, the benefits stated in EIS actually depend on different areas.

The South County Connector would certainly bring value, otherwise the St. Louis County Department of Highways and Traffic would not consider doing this study. However, there are many opponents of this project, considering many issues like opportunity cost, environmental problems, living environment and influence on local properties. The St. Louis County Department of highways and Traffic had better re-evaluate this project and compare the values and costs to decide whether implement this project or not. The department should try to reach a balance between social, economic, and environmental, to promote the quality of life.

Also read The city of St.Louis' thoughts here: http://mayorslay.com/docs/20130713-SCC_DEIS.pdf

1. "Editorial: Disconnect the South County Connector." Stltoday.com. N.p., 23 July

2013. Web. 25 July 2013. < http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-disconnect-the-south-county-connector/article_c1f22a24-42ea-5261-8502-8675fa9522a8.html>.

2. Rosenbaum, Jason. "South County Connector Project Sparks Diverse Outcry." St.

Louis Beacon. N.p., 18 July 2013. Web. 25 July 2013. <https://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/31912/south_county_connector_analysis>.

3. "Environmental Impact Statement." South County Connector. N.p., n.d. Web. 25

July 2013. < http://www.southcountyconnector.com/welcome.html>.

4. "South County Connector Not worth the Small Benefit." Stltoday.com. N.p.,

24 July 2013. Web. 25 July 2013. <http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letters-to-the-editor/south-county-connector-not-worth-....

5. "St. Louis County Needs to Rethink South County Connector

Project." Stltoday.com. N.p., 20 July 2013. Web. 25 July 2013. <http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letters-to-the-editor/st-louis-county-needs-to-rethink-....

6. Hannon, Dennis. "Mayor Outlines Pros/Cons of Connector." Webster-Kirkwood

Times. N.p., 12 July 2013. Web. 25 July 2013.

<http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Articles-Shrewsbury-i-2013-07-12-187566.114137-Mayor-Outlines-Pr....

Coldwell Banker Premier Group
314-448-3247
STLHomeSales@Live.com