Skeptics of a massive taxpayer-subsidized redevelopment project in University City were right to trust their guts. While the City’s website says that “The City will not use eminent domain under the tax-increment financing (TIF) law to condemn owner-occupied residential property,” now it sounds as if that might be an option. In a recent interview, City Manager Gregory Rose said “there may be an option that the developer says ‘we understand what council’s position has been regarding the use of eminent domain but we’d like you to take a look at this’ . . . and so the council will end up making that decision at that time.”

Why might eminent domain be on the table now? Well, my gut is telling me this: City officials have a lot to gain (in terms of sales tax revenue) from the development going through, and now, given that some homeowners don’t want to sell for the price being offered to them by the developer, city officials might be starting to worry. And if they have convinced themselves that this development must happen, no matter the cost to taxpayers, then kicking property owners out of their homes might be a price they are willing to pay.

This is worrisome for several reasons. First, the economic renaissance promised by development proponents, which is the main justification for the project, is unlikely to occur. Unfortunately, TIF—the subsidy mechanism the development most heavily relies on—just hasn’t been shown to increase surrounding property values. Trust me, a part of me wishes TIF did this, as I live just a few minutes from the redevelopment area. Unfortunately as the economic research suggests, TIF projects don’t make the neighborhoods surrounding them more valuable. If the ends justifying a blunt tool like eminent domain aren’t likely to materialize, we might not want to incur the costs of using that tool.

Second and most important is the fact that property owners—especially owner-occupied residential property owners—simply shouldn’t be forced out of their homes for the benefit of a private developer. Perhaps certain public projects, such as interstates and railroads, can justify the coercive removal of property owners from their property, but it is far from clear that homeowners should be ousted from their homes so that a politically-favored big-box store can make a nice profit. We’ve seen how these things can go.

But if you wonder why you, perhaps someone living far away from University City, should care about this, just keep in mind that your local government body is populated by the same sorts of people that populate University City government. If we are to learn anything from public choice theory, it’s that institutions—such as local governments—have values and goals of their own, and that the people behind local institutions are as fallible and greedy as everyone else. This isn’t to cast a blanket of doubt on all institutions, but rather to make clear that the violation of property rights in some areas of Missouri is a threat to the property rights everyone in the state.

In the end, University City officials should get over their infatuation with the I-170 & Olive redevelopment and abandon their apparent “any means necessary” strategy for ensuring its materialization. The threat of use of eminent domain is politically and morally disturbing, and would signal to University City residents and others that their homes and lives are for sale, so long as city hall thinks that the price is right. 

The post Is U City Considering Eminent Domain After All? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The University City Council unanimously approved a measure to use tax-increment financing (TIF) to fund a private development at the intersection of I-170 and Olive Boulevard. The developer now gets $70.5 million for a $190 million project.

This vote comes after more than a year of controversy and scrutiny. One concern is that the project would force out dozens of low-income families, several small businesses, and even a Korean church. And earlier this year, University City was criticized for its lack of transparency and closed-door negotiations. The city also underestimated the projected tax revenues of the project by $27 million.

And what do the residents of U City get in return? The city promised the project would bring 150 to 250 “livable wage” jobs to residents, but the agreement does not guarantee any particular number of jobs nor does it require that the developer mandate that its tenants hire locally. The developer must merely request that tenants hire locally. And there is nothing that guarantees that the development won’t be abandoned after the 23-year life of the TIF, once the tax breaks are gone.

Nevertheless, TIF advocates almost always seem to prevail. As  Show-Me Institute researchers have pointed out countless times before, development subsidies primarily just boost revenue figures for favored businesses and pad sales tax revenue for cities. There is no conclusive evidence that TIFs do anything to increase jobs, and they deprive local taxing districts of millions of dollars in foregone property tax revenue.

The 3rd Ward of University City may well become the next case study on why TIFs are ineffective.

The post TIF Tyranny Claims Another City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A recent UCPL survey asked some University City residents how they felt about a potential property tax hike to bolster the library’s budget. The increase mentioned would raise library tax rates from 28 cents per $100 of assessed value to 40 cents per $100 of assessed value. So, for example, a home with an appraised value of $100,000 would pay an additional $23 or so per year in property taxes if such a rate increase were to occur.

What’s notable is not that a public institution is asking for more cash, but that officials seem to be testing the waters as a massive TIF-funded development is being debated. For the proposed I-170 and Olive development,  taxpayers are being asked to part with $70.5 million over the next 20 or so years. Much of that $70.5M would come from property taxes that would otherwise go to schools, libraries, and other jurisdictions. So, in short, if the development goes through as proposed, the library (and school and other districts) would miss out on millions in revenue.

Now, I’m not claiming that UCPL is considering a tax hike because of the I-170 and Olive development, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a connection between the two. This would hardly be the first time a library or library district had to go to voters for additional funding because of loose tax subsidy policies. It was just in 2016 that, after years of losing out on millions in revenues because of tax giveaways, the Mid-Continent Public Library in Kansas City asked voters to approve a tax hike. At the time, my colleague Patrick Tuohey aptly dubbed the tax hike the “TIF Tax.”

UCPL and those it serves would likely benefit greatly from extra funding. UCPL has a modest staff of 16 employees and spends around $1.6-1.8 million a year (see pp. 165-171). Besides some pension liabilities somewhat out of their control, UCPL officials appear to be good stewards of the taxpayer funding they’re given. It’s just a shame that libraries and other districts are impacted so much by misguided economic development programs like TIF, and it’s an even bigger shame that taxpayers are often left holding the bag.

The post The More They Give, the More They Take appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Developers and officials in University City are pushing for a $70.5 million subsidy to help fund a $190-million development at Olive Blvd. and Interstate 170. The project is slated to include a Costco, apartments, restaurants and retail space. The taxpayer money would come via tax-increment financing (TIF), which captures increased sales, property and other taxes generated by a development to cover some of its costs. In this case, taxpayers would cover nearly 40 percent of the project’s costs!

The controversial project has raised a number of concerns. Some worry about gentrification, neighborhood and cultural disruption and the possible use of eminent domain to force out longstanding businesses. These topics are serious and ought to be debated at the June 22 public hearing on the potential development. But a fundamental problem with the project deserves more attention: the fact TIF is unnecessary and fails to deliver on its proponents’ promises.

First, TIF was intended to encourage development in areas where no one wants to invest money, which hardly describes the area under consideration. The developer’s proposal cites (see pp. 6–10) conditions such as cracked sidewalks, overgrown grass and overflowing dumpsters as evidence that the area is “blighted.” These conditions, though less than ideal, surely don’t make development so unappealing as to require $70.5 million in taxpayer assistance. The area surrounds a busy interstate interchange and is flanked by Olivette, Ladue, and Clayton—there’s a reason current businesses don’t want to leave!

More importantly, proponents are promising the public higher property values, increased tax revenue for city services, and a bustling, inclusive neighborhood should the subsidy be approved, but decades of research shows these promises are rarely kept. It was just in 2016 that the City of St. Louis released a mammoth report detailing the near-total failure of its incentive programs. From 2000 to 2014, St. Louis lost out on more than $700 million in revenue because of TIF and related programs for naught. “[W]hile there may be disagreement about the value of some [incentive] packages,” the report concluded, “it is clear that the City gains no net benefit from an extremely costly program with no real economic development impact” (p. 6).

The study also failed to find a significant connection between TIF and job creation or increased property values outside parcels directly benefiting from subsidies. “[T]here is little evidence of significance [sic] spillover effects around incentivized parcels after the use of incentives. Across most project types,” the report continues, “there is no significant change in the trajectory of assessed value, permit investments or jobs” (p. 5). Economists from across the country have found almost exactly the same thing. In short, there is little evidence to support claims that handing out taxpayer cash will usher in an urban renaissance in University City, or anywhere else for that matter.

If officials and residents want to invest in University City’s third ward (where the proposed development would be located), there are other, more prudent ways to scratch cash together. Businesses and residents could form a community improvement district to collect property taxes—authorized by a public vote—to fund improvements. The “blight” designation assigned to the area as part of the TIF application would mean that those revenues could even be used to help fix up private residences. Before officials needlessly forego tens of millions in revenue over the next two decades, they owe it to University City residents to consider other options for improving the third ward.

The post Taxpayer Largesse Unnecessary, Wasteful in U City Development appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This development, Phase II of The Boulevard development, was set to take place years ago, but plans were put on hold due in part to the recession. Now the land is being sold to another investor, and tax increment financing (TIF) is on the table. The Boulevard’s prime location—across the street from the Galleria and at the intersection of I-170 and I-64—is one reason for the developer’s high expectations. Another reason is the average household income of $92,581 within three miles of its location. Residents of Richmond Heights might well ask why a project with a prime location in an affluent area needs to be subsidized by taxpayers.

TIF was designed to reduce the costs of private developers investing in blighted or economically unattractive areas, but the Boulevard development is far from the first instance in which TIF has gone toward a project in an area that would hardly be considered “blighted.” A recent study on incentive use in St. Louis City found that roughly two-thirds of all property tax abatement and TIF has gone toward areas with strong housing markets.

The Boulevard development is representative of the misguided use of incentives in St. Louis during recent years. When well-off neighborhoods are asking taxpayers to subsidize their investments and truly blighted regions are being ignored, it may be time to reevaluate our spending priorities.  

The post TIF Requests in Affluent Areas: The Beat Goes On appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“The Post-Dispatch reports today that the city of Charlack is installing speed cameras along I-170 in near-north St. Louis County. The city is installing the camera on a state-owned bridge to give tickets for speeding on a federal/state highway. . . . The idea that the city will phase out the cameras once people drive more slowly is perhaps the most unbelievable statement I've heard a politician say in a long time. And who cares if they passed a budget that did not count on camera fines? All that means is that they can spend the money however they want once it starts flowing in.”

As of 2014, Charlack collected more than 20% of its total revenue from fines and fees.

But with the passage of SB 5, which caps Saint Louis County municipalities' fine revenue to 12.5% of general revenue, Charlack is in trouble. In fact, the Post-Dispatch recently reported that the city’s police force was on the verge of disbanding. The city council plans to vote on joining the North County Police Cooperative (with Vinita Terrace, Vinita Park, and Wellston).

Charlack is not alone in its predicament. As of 2014, 24 of Saint Louis County’s 90 municipalities collected more than 12.5% of their general revenue from fines and fees. And while some can continue to provide services despite the reduction in fine revenue, many cannot. They will have to combine services such as policing in order to survive.

The good news is that sharing policing and other public services among cities is far from unprecedented in Saint Louis County. An example of pooling services is the aforementioned North County Police Cooperative. But in addition to that group, 17 municipalities contract with Saint Louis County, and a further 16 contract with another city for police, as shown in the map above.

When municipalities combine police services (especially with the County government), they can save money, improve services, and reduce incentives to use policing as a method of generating revenue. Charlack’s move towards disbanding may be long overdue, but it is another sign of the positive impact SB 5’s reforms are having. As the Charlack’s mayor put it:

“With Sentate Bill 5 passing, we knew it was going to be inevitable, and instead of it taking the next six months to figure out, we said, ‘Let’s just do it now and everybody can have a Merry Christmas…’ ”

Let’s hope that other municipalities follow Charlack’s example—because the more, the merrier.

The post Under Pressure from SB 5, Charlack May Disband Police Force appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In the 1990s, private developers partnered with members of the Olivette City Council to endorse the implementation of a $38 million in the area just west of the intersection of I-170 and Olive Blvd. Due to the threat of eminent domain and several years of unresolved negotiations, local homeowners were left in the lurch about the status of their property. Finally, in 2000, Olivette residents voted in a referendum against the project with a margin of 53.5 to 46.5 percent (absolute numbers are 1,656-1,435) to defeat the TIF proposal.

Supporters of the TIF proposal argued that it was the only way for Olivette to compete and generate new tax revenues. At the time, the
Riverfront Times reported on the debate about this tax subsidy. After the TIF was defeated, what happened? Were the TIF supporters correct? Was a taxpayer-subsidized mega-project the only way to save the area?

Not surprisingly, the TIF supporters were completely wrong. By letting the free market have control over real estate development, the area has experienced a period of sustainable economic progress and revitalization. A bustling Chevys Fresh Mex restaurant continues to thrive. A CVS Pharmacy that opened in 2009 was built without public subsidies. Most notably, the area’s previously existing homes are well maintained, and a new, post-TIF, housing development?— The Villas at Hilltop?— offers upscale townhome-style living. 

Rather than enduring the forfeiture of tax revenues, as would have occurred under the TIF proposal, these properties naturally generate income for local government services instead. The Chevys, CVS, and Villas together are appraised for a noteworthy $11,329,300 and paid $212,355.48 in property taxes in 2012. Additionally, between the years of 1993-1995 and 2005-2007, Olivette’s average sales tax receipts increased more than 143 percent ($1,022,382 to $2,487,038) and its total share of the state’s tax receipts largely stayed the same as well, at about 0.5 percent. The private land developers and their allies on the Olivette City Council warned that TIF funding was absolutely necessary in order to stimulate economic growth. But does this area look blighted to you?

More from the Show-Me Institute on Tax Increment Financing:

• Stokes on KWMU – TIF Hurts Communities
• The Use of Tax Increment Financing in the City of Saint Louis
• Counties, Not Municipalities, Should Determine TIFs

•  (PDF)

The post The Tax Subsidy That Wasn’t appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As if on cue, today’s Post-Dispatch has a story about a disagreement between St. Charles County and MoDOT regarding bicycle restrictions on state roads within St. Charles. One councilman, Joe Brazil (I have had the pleasure of meeting him, and we have praised him here in the past for his stances against annexation and TIF abuse), wants to ban bicyclists from certain state roads in the county. MoDOT is opposed. My purpose here is not to discuss this specific issue, but rather the process. Nonetheless, I don’t support banning bicyclists from any roads other than interstate highways, and I have to point out one comment in favor of the proposal to ban bikes by someone who, understandably, has a personal interest in the matter:

Among supporters was Stephen East of Cottleville, whose 16-year-old daughter was seriously injured in a 2003 accident on DD when the vehicle she was driving topped a hill and encountered a bicyclist in her lane. East said she swerved, ran off the road, hit a tree and was thrown from the car.

“Public safety trumps personal rights,” East said.

No, sir, it doesn’t. And it is exactly this far-too-common belief that our safety is more important than our rights that is causing us to lose our rights to safety zealots via death by a thousand cuts. I give you helmet laws, seat belt laws, closed swimming pools, and the fact that organizations can no longer just have a bake sale or parish pot luck because health regulations forbid food cooked at a home from being sold or given away elsewhere. Because, you know, that’s “dangerous.”

But I digress. MoDOT says St. Charles can’t enforce the ordinance because the Highway Commission won’t approve it. MoDOT says it simply won’t post the signs telling people about the law — making it invalid under state law, which specifies that traffic rules must be properly posted for people to see. So, if St. Charles passes the ban and MoDOT won’t allow the county to enforce it, there will be some sort of court challenge. That might be the only way to answer the question of who has final say about roads — the governmental jurisdiction that owns it or the governmental jurisdiction it passes through.

In my opinion, the final say on traffic laws should belong to the jurisdiction that builds, maintains, and “owns” the road, if for no other reason than consistency. Hopefully, this will be further clarified soon, and hopefully in a way that does not allow cities like Charlack to do whatever they please on state or county roads.

I’d be delighted to see a statewide ban on things such as red light cameras and speed cameras on all roads. As the laws are currently written, though, I don’t think there is any doubt that cities can do whatever they want on city roads. (Thanks to Combest for the link.)

The post More on MoDOT and Local Control of Roads appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Despite criticism that cameras are aimed at generating revenue, [the city’s mayor] said Charlack passed a budget that did not count on camera fines. He said the ultimate goal is to phase out the photo program once motorists regularly drive more slowly through town.

The idea that the city will phase out the cameras once people drive more slowly is perhaps the most unbelieveable statement I’ve heard a politician say in a long time. And who cares if they passed a budget that did not count on camera fines? All that means is that they can spend the money however they want once it starts flowing in.

I have argued that the many small cities in St. Louis County should continue to exist as long as the citizens want them to. Here is the conclusion to my Government in Missouri study:

Missourians have chosen to have a large quantity of smaller government units. They have also chosen to have a large number of elected officials, representing smaller areas than the national average, so that the citizens may be in closer contact with those officials and monitor them more effectively. Economies of scale can be exploited in larger governments, as shown in the graph of per-capita spending for class three counties, but the efficiencies and benefits of larger government are less common and less significant than often supposed. The assumption that larger, less fragmented government is a more capable and efficient provider of services does not stand up to initial analysis and is not supported by the research.

But behavior like installing speed cameras, which is nothing more than a technologically advanced version of St. George–style speed traps, makes me question that once again. I would certainly favor legislation at the state or county level to forbid these types of cameras on the road — at the very least, on state or county roads.

I believe that speed cameras, just like red light cameras, are nothing more than a giant scam. I also believe they violate our rights — most importantly, the right not to be tracked by cameras every moment of your life. I am confident that would have been the Eleventh Amendment included in the Bill of Rights, if cameras had been invented yet.

The post Speed Cameras Are Detestable appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The first Post-Dispatch article is about the efforts of local suburbs to create downtown areas for their communities. The second is specific to the Olive Boulevard area of University City and Olivette, with which I am pretty familiar.

As for the first article, it was excellent reading once I got past my initial, "Are you kidding me? Is this a joke?" response. There is some absurdity in suburban towns that "just decide" (say that like Chris Penn in Reservoir Dogs) to suddenly create an urban environment, with all its inherent hipness, in the middle of suburbia. It’s like Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs sat down and just worked out a compromise over coffee. Tell me what is missing in this statement:

Planners tout Manchester Road in Maplewood, downtown Kirkwood and Washington Avenue in St. Louis as premier examples of vibrant business and residential districts created by refurbishing existing buildings.

What is missing is the acknowledgement that the planners didn’t have anything to do with the success of Washington Avenue, downtown Maplewood, or Kirkwood. I was there on Wash Ave., man — to do my best 1967 Haight-Ashbury impression. Entrepreneurs made Washington Avenue what it is, along with some dedicated urban trailblazers. City government had nothing to do with it, although they almost screwed the whole thing up with a neverending street improvement project. I admit I like the zipper motif in the road, for which we can thank the city, but that’s it.

Downtown Maplewood is the same thing — restaurateurs built that up while the city was tearing down houses for Wal-Mart just to the north. (Side note: It’s a brilliant idea to take advantage of the fact that the city goes 100 yards west of Skinker to put up bars with 3 a.m. licenses on the city line, in what feels like the county. See Delmar Bar and Grill, Cheshire, and Cusumano’s on Manchester as successful examples.)

As for Kirkwood, the downtown area there was popular long before the new loft developments were planned. The hobby shops, diners, neighborhood bars, and markets gave the place a great feel without the new urban hipness everyone apparently wants now, according to this article. If Dardenne Prairie, Manchester, and Chesterfield want to just build downtowns out of thin air, I wish them luck (not really) but feel they are going to have the same results as Wildwood:

In Wildwood’s town center, leaders say some businesses have thrived, though some residents have been disappointed at the pace of the residential development.

"It’s been slower than most people expected," said Joe Vujnich, the city’s park’s and planning director.

Really? So people who want to move to Wildwood aren’t looking for loft living above the new P.F. Chang’s? Really? This surprises you, Mr. Developer and Ms. City Planner?

The University City / St. Louis Loop is one of the greatest areas in our community. I met my wife there and play darts there every week (excluding this summer, because of the birth of my son). Joe Edwards gets all the press, and he deserves every bit of it, but other business owners deserve credit, too, for making the area what it is. Business owners like Joe made the Loop what it is. To its credit, University City government has always responded well to the needs of the business community, and it could serve as a great example to other cities for how to let businesses lead, and how to work with them.

I say all this because if U. City thinks it is going to be able to work with a developer to turn Olive near I-170 into anything resembling the Loop, or any other successful mixed-use area, it ain’t gonna happen.  These things take time, not a horrible new Italian restaurant chain in a city filled with great Italian restaurants. Bob’s Seafood, Nobu’s and Beyer’s Lumber have been in University City for years. As Jane Jacobs argued, those are the types of small businesses that make vibrant areas, not things to be pushed out for some awful, artificial development. I hope U. City and Olivette avoid tax incentives that would give new chains advantages over older, established businesses. If new chains want to move in, fine, but they should do so without the type of government aid that distorts the free market and often fails anyway.

The post The Inherent Fallacy of Central Planning, Local-Style appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I stand here today to praise MoDOT. These are words you do not often hear in Missouri, where attitudes toward our state department of transportation usually align closely with one’s attitude toward the Kansas Jayhawks or Chicago Cubs. The rural areas of our great state have been angry at MoDOT for years, ever since the broken promises of rural road improvements after the tax increases of the early 1990s. Anger toward MoDOT is a more recent development in the Saint Louis area, at least at its present high intensity. Perhaps this is because familiarity breeds contempt, and the people in Saint Louis are becoming very familiar with MoDOT.

All metropolitan areas have road construction to deal with, but MoDOT has been particularly active around Saint Louis recently. As the major I-64 renovations begin, MoDOT remains in heated discussions over a new Mississippi River bridge, and is conducting other major projects throughout our area. In recent years, road construction is to Saint Louisans what the small rain cloud was to unlucky cartoon characters of years past. It follows us everywhere we go, and will continue to go until at least 2010.

But I am not praising MoDOT because they are crushing lots of rocks or laying miles of new pavement. I am doing so because Missouri finally has a transportation agency that is trying to be innovative and creative in how it addresses the state’s significant transportation needs and goals. I was recently able to attend the Partnerships for Transportation conference in Kansas City. It was exciting to hear how MoDOT is giving consideration to modern funding methods, such as public-private partnerships, to fund its projects. PPPs are not an all-encompassing solution. To paraphrase a MoDOT official, they are a tool to solve a part of Missouri’s transportation problem.

MoDOT’s new usage of the “design-build” project model, including on its I-64 work, is further improving efficiency and saving taxpayers money. They have also been receptive to ideas such as truck-only lanes, as part of the much-needed improvements to our major cross-state highways. While every project is different, and in many cases the traditional financing and construction models will still best serve Missourians, the strong consideration given to new outlooks is exciting.

One of the leaders of the MoDOT bashing effort in Saint Louis has been Bill McClellan, the outstanding Post-Dispatch columnist. McClellan regularly points out, correctly in most regards, that we don’t have much of a traffic problem in Saint Louis. He wonders why we are spending $535 million to close down I-64 for a project we don’t need — and, no doubt, many Saint Louisans would agree with his assertions. The flaw in his argument is that MoDOT has never said that “The New I-64” project is primarily about reducing congestion. The project is about repairing old bridges, improving (or creating) the connection between I-170 and I-64, redoing entrance and exit ramps that are dangerously tight, and adding capacity in some places. Doing all of these things at once will save years of construction time and millions of dollars, even if that will be hard for people to appreciate during the inevitable, serious traffic delays. While the $535 million price tag is enormous, the resulting improvements to the transportation system in Saint Louis will make the project worth the money and effort.

MoDOT deserves even greater flexibility to build and maintain the roads we all use. Amending the state constitution to allow state highway toll roads and high-occupancy vehicle lanes would give MoDOT the ability to implement far-sighted, long-term improvements. Greater partnership by MoDOT with private entities to build and maintain our roads, including the consideration of private toll roads, should be encouraged by legislators and taxpayers. If Missouri is going to meet the transportation demands of the future for our residents and businesses, all options need to be available to MoDOT and local highway departments. This is why I stand in praise of the current version of MoDOT. It is a far cry from the 1990s agency that raised taxes to build roads that never got built. Missourians should support innovative thinking in transportation, even as hardships undoubtedly occur during major construction. I particularly hope Mr. McClellan would support these changes to MoDOT. After all, he’s a Cubs fan.

David Stokes is a policy analyst for the Show-Me Institute.

The post In Praise of MoDOT appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Fleming said she won’t ride MetroLink partly because it consumes too much time. "I’m going to drive through other people’s neighborhoods and depreciate their roads," she said.

This quote is from a Post-Dispatch article on Rep. Scott Muschany’s town hall forum on the coming I-64/40 project.  It is always a good thing when public officials open listen to the taxpayers, so I commend Scott for holding this forum.  But Ms. Fleming’s comments jumped out at me.  As Ms. Fleming attempts to intentionally "depreciate" the roads around mid-county, she is going to quickly run into one very hard fact of transportation in St. Louis.  There are many east-west routes, but not a whole lot of north-south routes for her to choose from.  I have heard MoDOT discuss this in planning meetings.  There are enough east-west routes available that the commuter traffic during 64/40’s closure might not be as terrible as some think (no doubt it is going to be very bad.)  However, the north-south traffic situation might be far worse than people realize during construction.  Just take Downtown Clayton for instance.  There are only two ways to leave downtown Clayton going south without first traveling east or west: Hanley and Brentwood. (I am not counting I-170 as it ends just south of Clayton and will be partly closed anyway.)  Take one of these routes out for construction and the other one is going to be a nightmare.  If you move east or west to avoid it, you’ll be stuck in east-west commuter traffic before you even have the change to go south.  Ms. Fleming can drive through neighborhoods to "Depreciate" the roads all she wants, but sooner or later she is going to have to cross the closed I-64, and she can’t do that via neigborhood roads.  At that point MetroLink might look like a good option for her to get to work at her Church. 

The post This is one bitter commuter… appeared first on Show-Me Institute.