The Blog Page

News, commentary and humor about bicycling and other topics of the day

 

Some thoughts on our region's highways

In the days after the St. Louis Post-Dispatch asked the question "How will the area handle life without 40?" the message board of the St. Louis Regional Bicycle Federation was going nuts. What concerned them most was an item in an accompanying graphic about alternative east-west routes to Highway 40 (Interstate 64/U.S. Route 40). The offending item?

Clayton Road: Bicyclists use this road west of Brentwood Boulevard for both morning and evening rides. They’re just as entitled to the road — for now — but motorists complain that the bicycles slow traffic. This road around Brentwood and the Galleria is already pretty well saturated. Plus, it stops south at Skinker Boulevard. Further west is a good shot to Interstate 270.

The reaction from some members of the STLBikeFed has appeared something like this:

• "What's up with that "for now" stuff? Sounds like biased and outright wrong reporting, and comments like this could easily lead to confrontations on the road."
  
  
• "Looks like a letter to the editor or some phone calls are in order to 'wake up' this Shane Graber person (the reporter who wrote the story) and anyone else who needs to have a clue that cyclists don't just ride this road or many others for recreation. We use these road for transportation just the same as they do. I could see this causing problems like you said about motorists some how doing us a "favor" for letting us survive on Clayton Road. But now that They need it due to the poor planning on the part of people who let this highway and the whole transportation system go to pot now bicyclists are the 'Fall Guys / Gals.'"
  
  
• "I am disturbed by the language used in the sidebar on alternative east-west routes in the 6 Nov 2005 article on handling life without Highway 40, specifically the following on Clayton Road, 'Bicyclists use this road west of Brentwood Blvd. for both morning and evening rides. They're just as entitled to the road--for now--but motorists complain that the bicycles slow traffic.' What does "for now" mean, exactly? Bicycles are vehicles with all rights and responsibilities afforded to road-going vehicles. The language used implies that use of the road might be some sort of temporary favor granted by motorists, which is patently untrue. The notion that bicycles slow traffic is absurd; consider what happens when too many cars get on the road! The "for now" language is little more than editorialization placed in the context of news. The bit would have lost none of its informative nature by sticking to facts, e.g., "Bicycles are entitled to use this and any other road, but there are motorist complain that bicycles slow traffic along this route."

With all due respect to the folks at STLBikeFed, who do a lot to fight for the rights of cyclists in the St. Louis region, I think the suggestions that reporter Shane Gruber is biased are far-fetched. While I've taken the Post-Dispatch to task for its reportage of the "controversy" between cyclists and residents of Jersey and Calhoun counties in Illinois, I don't think the criticism is warranted here.

While closing Clayton Road to bicyclists is a slim possibility, it is a possibility. If more cars are forced onto Clayton Road because of road or lane closures on Highway 40, motorists could indeed pressure communities along the road to bar bicycles. Instead of searching for bias, STLBikeFed members should channel that energy to make sure the road stays open to bicyclists and to improve the roads of the region to make sure they are safe for both cars and bicyclists.

While we're on the topics of highways, the Missouri Department of Transportation should scrap its asinine proposal to charge tolls on the new Mississippi River bridge. The Belleville News-Democrat reported last week that results of a preliminary study by St. Louis engineering consulting firm URS Corp., show that a $1 toll each way would generate $220 million to $240 million per year if an average of 66,000 vehicles cross the new bridge each day. The study, which also evaluates the impact of charging tolls up to $3, will not be available until early next year.

I completely agree with St. Clair County Board Chairman Mark Kern, who said, "It's clear that tolling is unacceptable, we already pay a hefty gas tax, and our population should not have to pay $2 per day when the state of Illinois has agreed to come to the table and fund its share of the project."

The article quoted STLBikeFed member Steve Patterson, 38, a real estate agent from South St. Louis who bikes and rides a scooter, as saying a new bridge will only encourage more suburban sprawl in the metro-east. He'd rather see the states commit the funding to improve public transportation in the region.

"Why should we who aren't going to use this bridge subsidize those big sports utility vehicles?" he said.

When I first read Steve's remarks, my back bristled. I don't think Steve intended this, but it sure did sound like the stereotypical statements many Missourians make about Illinoisans, in which they lump us all together as a bunch of rednecks or ghetto dwellers.

While we don't have the great restaurants or cultural amenities the Missouri side of the river has, not all of us fit into that stereotype. And Steve should keep in mind that St. Clair County -- unlike St. Charles County, Mo. -- did approve a tax hike several years ago to extend MetroLink and reduce the burden on the Poplar Street Bridge. Steve also should keep in mind that Madison County has a huge network of bicycle trails that connect the communities.

A toll bridge also doesn't make sense because highways that go through St. Louis are major trucking arteries for the nation. It also would make sense for industries on the city's North Side to have better highway access so their trucks don't have to deal with the Poplar Street Bridge bottlenecks. The last thing these companies need is a toll to increase their costs of doing business.

Roger 1 comments 12:11 PM

Comments:

Steve,

You make some good points here about the tolls. I don't have problems paying tolls on bridges that have high construction and maintenance costs, such as the Mackinac Bridge. I don't have problems paying a toll for a road that makes it easier to get around congested cities like Chicago. I even don't have problems with toll roads in states such as Oklahoma or Kansas that may need all the revenue they can get to maintain roads.

I will acknowledge a toll on a new Mississippi bridge probably would fit into the bypass category.

But for many Illinois residents, the toll reinforces the perception many of us have about the Missouri view of the St. Louis metropolitan area: Economic development is great, as long as it's on the Missouri side of the river.

As for the MetroLink concerns, I'm not sure whether we need a law to require development around the stations. There are proposals on the drawing book for retail and/or residential projects near the Memorial Hospital, Belleville, College and Shiloh/Scott stations. A large residential project was built near the Emerson Park station in East St. Louis, although it would be better if more retail establishments would open there.

I do agree more needs to be done to improve mass transit, car pooling and alternative transportation options in the region.

# posted by  Roger : 2:33 PM

 

Post a Comment