Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Council Clusterf***

Last night’s meeting was long. Most of that can be attributed to a long, drawn-out debate over a St Louis County’s Traffic and Highway proposal for Midland Blvd.

The proposal is being made due to the Hwy 40 construction. St Louis County is estimating that traffic on Midland will increase from 15-20% during the construction. Here is what they proposed:


Burns and Midland:
Remove the stop sign on eastbound Midland at Burns. This will allow for smoother flow of traffic.
Because of the limited sight distance at that intersection, they would like to make Burns one-way between Midland and Holtwood (southbound only). Thus, you could only turn onto Burns from Midland, but won't be able to get to Midland from Burns.

W Milton and Midland
They would like to remove the four-way stop and replace it with a traffic light.


Regarding the latter proposal, I personally believe it would be better if they just made it a two-way stop (for Milton traffic). The four-way stop was a good idea when Legion pool was still up and running. Now, that intersection really shouldn’t be treated any different than the others. Also, Midland is pretty straight there, so sight lines should not be an issue.

Now the other issue (Burns and Midland) is bit more contentious. The owner of Carol’s Corner spoke and thought this might be damaging to her business. Council members questioned if this could be kept two-way but limited to right turn only on Midland (not advisable because of sight concerns).

The council also brought up that they were not happy that this was coming to them at the last minute. However, these changes are minor considering some of the MAJOR changes made to some roads to facilitate the Hwy 40 project.

I am not sure if they thought the one-way was a bad idea (heck it’s good enough for Our Redeemer and All Souls on Sunday) or if they were just punishing the guy because they felt slighted. Whatever their thoughts, it was voted down unanimously.

Empty Schneider said he has to “look out for the residents and businesses” of the community. Doesn’t “looking out” include making travel through the city quick and efficient? Does “looking out” for businesses meaning pandering to one of his buddies (Carol’s Corner)?

I, personally, do not feel that this will hurt any business. Usually businesses are hurt when there is construction directly at the entrance to/from their business (think about the seemingly never-ending Lackland Road project). People will hesitate to drive through construction as it may damage tires and their autos. However, I hardly think people will shun Carol’s Corner because they may have to go around the block to either arrive or leave.

Another concern is how this appears. It makes it look as if Overland is completely uncooperative with other government entities. We have looked fool-hardy enough in the recent past (probably a reason County wasn’t rushing to come over here) and thsi follishness continued with voting this down yesterday.

3 comments:

Nellie Bly said...

In defense of the council, they did ask to see the studies that County used to come up with this idea.

However, you are right in that they seemed like they were not being cooperative at all. And really didn't give a good reason to not accept the one-way reroute of Burns.

ORT Contrarian said...

FineWine,
The county cannot change Burns. However, if they remove the stop at Burns that could create a dangerous situation because of how Midland curves right before Burns.
Thus, they requested Burns be made one-way for ONE BLOCK!!!!

For all the council and Empty's howling about "acting for the residents", by not making Burns one way they risk injury and harm to those same residents.

ORT Contrarian said...

Ol' Fetsch the Felon is back to his identity theft tricks, last seen by:

Posted by UNINCORPRATEDMAN on December 1, 2007, 9:29 am
User logged in as: DANNYINSPECTOR


The first proof was the completely idiotic question. The above just confirms that Jay Fetsch is make to his Felonious actions.