St. Louis County is pursuing a road project called “The South County Connector” which would partially be constructed in the City of St. Louis and require federal funding. (In fact, none of the project is actually in ‘South County’ as most of us understand that term) As part of an Environment Impact Statement process, they solicited responses to their Draft EIS Report. Below is a summary of my response. You can view my complete comments here. You can view more information on the project here: and submit your own comments via the website until July 19th. A response from the Mayor of Maplewood is .
The following is a response to a request for comment made by the St. Louis County Department of Highways and Traffic to the office of Alderman Scott Ogilvie, ward 24, City of St. Louis. It is our conclusion that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the South County Connector project is based on faulty, substantially inaccurate assumptions and that it fails to address or acknowledge essential statutory questions for the section of the proposed roadway constructed inside the City of St. Louis. The Draft EIS also substantially understates the negative externalities of constructing the road. Therefore, this office stridently opposes the construction of the roadway and requests that the Draft EIS be rejected.
Below are components of the Draft EIS which are incomplete or inaccurate:
1.) The Draft EIS uses inaccurate or outdated information to predict future traffic levels and justify the project.
2.) The Draft EIS fails to mention or acknowledge an important component of the Charter of the City of St. Louis. Namely, Article 26, the ‘Parks Protection Act’.
3.) The Draft EIS fails to mention or acknowledge current law in the City of St. Louis. Namely, the ‘Complete Streets’ policy codified in Chapter 3.110.065
4.) The Draft EIS substantially understates or fails to address the negative externalities of the project, including increased noise levels to adjacent properties and destruction of revenue and employment producing parcels and businesses.
5.) The Draft EIS does not adequately document the proposed interchange with Interstate 44.
6.) The Draft EIS does not address negative impacts to existing transportation assets, including the MetroLink Blue Line which terminates in the study area, and two existing greenway trails.
7.) The Draft EIS ignores less quantifiable, but still tangible quality of life aspects for residents in the study area.