Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dardenne Prairie debate over Bates Road design funding stalls after resident pushback
Summary
The Board of Aldermen declined to advance a Surface Transportation Block Grant agreement to design Bates Road after residents warned removing the center turn lane and adding bike lanes would create safety problems; officials said advancing the grant would fund design only and the board could reject any later design.
The Dardenne Prairie Board of Aldermen considered a Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) agreement to fund design work on Bates Road but a motion to proceed failed after residents and several aldermen voiced safety concerns.
Residents who live on or near Bates Road told the board the center turn lane is essential. “That is not a left turn lane for the people of Providence. It’s a safety lane,” said a resident who identified himself during public comment as Bud Old Danny, describing frequent left‑turn backups, delivery vehicles and service crews that rely on the lane. Tom Stanton and Deborah Fowler offered similar observations about peak‑hour backups and the danger of removing the lane without an adequate alternative.
City staff and aldermen said the measure before the board (Bill 2,542) would authorize the city administrator to execute an STBG program agreement with the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission to advance the project to design (STBG 5407662). The mayor and other speakers told the board this would be a design‑phase step and the board would still have final approval over any specific design. “This is for advancement to the design of the road,” the mayor said, emphasizing the board would retain later authority.
Officials discussed the funding terms in broad figures during the meeting. One speaker referred to “about $1,000,000 of federal funding,” while another cited a $1,200,000 grant figure; a city representative said the local match was expected to be small (around 4%, which was described in the meeting as roughly $80,000). Those numbers were discussed as estimates during deliberations.
Several aldermen expressed reluctance to remove the center lane without guarantees in the design. Alderman Detwiler and others said they could not in good conscience support eliminating the turn lane based on current assurances. Alderman Johnson moved for a roll‑call vote to advance the agreement; the motion failed on the floor.
The board did not adopt the STBG agreement at this meeting. Board members and staff noted the design step remains an option at a future meeting and that public hearings and additional design work would follow should the board choose to pursue the federal funding route.
The meeting record shows the broader debate will continue: residents pressed for retention of the center turn lane and warned of traffic impacts if it were removed, while city leaders framed the action as a way to secure federal design dollars and preserve the city’s ability to influence final plans.
