Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Calming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves two speed‑hump measures after debate over Blair and High Park
Summary
The St. Louis City Public Infrastructure and Utilities Committee advanced two board bills to add speed humps after members discussed petition support, recent crashes and a last‑minute amendment to add locations in the High Park area.
Alderman Aldridge presented Board Bill 70 and an amendment to add additional speed humps in the High Park area and on Blair, saying the measures target a stretch where “there’s a lot of speeding that happens between Blair and Angel Rock going all the way up to Salisbury.”
The committee approved Aldridge’s amendment and then voted to pass Board Bill 70 out of committee with a due‑pass recommendation. The committee also advanced Board Bill 61, a one‑block speed‑hump petition with strong neighborhood support.
Why it matters: the two measures move small, targeted traffic‑calming projects closer to implementation. Committee members said the actions respond to petitions or crash reports and can be implemented more quickly than major road redesigns.
Aldridge told the committee that amendment number one to Board Bill 70 “is just adding some more additional speed humps that we had left out in the High Park area.” He described a cluster of proposed locations near Blair and Branch where he said there had been several recent crashes and where a stop sign configuration creates a “weird triangle.” He said the speed humps are intended “to slow people down before another accident hopefully does not happen.”
Board Bill 70: amendment and committee action - What committee heard: Aldridge asked the committee to adopt Amendment 1, which adds several proposed humps left out of the original list and focuses on locations along Blair between Angel Rock and Salisbury, including a site near Branch that has seen recent crashes. Aldridge said the locations are close together. - Committee questions: members asked no substantive technical questions during the committee roll‑call; several thanked Aldridge for moving the measures. - Vote/Outcome: the committee adopted the amendment, and later voted to advance Board Bill 70 as amended with a due‑pass recommendation. The clerk recorded five “aye” votes and the minutes state the bill “is passed out of committee with a due pass recommendation.”
Board Bill 61: single‑block petition - What committee heard: a second bill, Board Bill 61, was presented as a single‑block speed‑hump petition. The presenter said petition canvassing returned 20 of 21 occupied properties in favor on the block (20 of 21 occupied properties signed the petition). - Vote/Outcome: committee members moved and seconded a due‑pass recommendation; no objection was recorded and the bill was advanced out of committee with a due‑pass recommendation.
What the committee did not do: the committee did not adopt any new citywide speed‑hump policy or change funding; both actions were limited to the two board bills on the agenda.
What’s next: both board bills proceed out of committee with due‑pass recommendations to the full Board. Implementation details (scheduling, contractor selection, exact construction dates) were not set during the committee meeting.
Ending note: committee members repeatedly framed the measures as responses to petitions and crash reports and emphasized that the locations were targeted rather than part of a larger program of street redesign.
