Rail-Volution 2006: A Summary of My Experience Pt1
The 2006 Rail-Volution conference was exciting but exhausting. I did the math, I spent 23 hours in sessions between Sunday afternoon and Wednesday afternoon. The conference was quite intense.
The Conference:
This years conference was the 12th annual and it boosted over 1,000 attendees from something like 7 countries. St. Louis’ Citizens for Modern Transit (CMT) was among the sponsoring organizations of the conference and director Tom Shrout was a presenter. Other from St. Louis included a board member from CMT, a staff person from the St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC) and Clayton’s Director of Public Works, Paul L. Wojciechowski (Paul is both an engineer and a certified Planner). As a side note, we had a discussion about scooter parking in Clayton which I think we will get some attention along with more bicycle parking.
The 2007 Rail-Volution conference will be held in Miami next November. I’m not much of a beach person but the wealth of information from this conference makes it worth the effort. Although, I spent most of my time in really ugly conference rooms so I don’t know that it matters where the conference is held.
Streetcars:
Streetcars were the big thing at the conference with a number of sessions on them. Seems municipalities around the country are realizing their light rail systems are great for moving large quantities of people across the region (say far suburbs to downtown) but that they do very little to spur quality urban development along their routes. The streetcar, however, can step in to fill in the gaps. Systems across the country are doing just that.
Streetcar advocates are the first to say they are slower than light rail, but that speed is not the point. These systems are often less than 5 miles in total length. The streetcars function as a development tool first, transportation second. Pro-streetcar developers from Portland say they never would have taken the risks they did in the Pearl District based on a bus line that could have easily gone away. Thanks in part to the streetcar, this former warehouse area has gone from zoning of 15 dwelling units per acre (dua) to over 125 dua. Reduced parking requirements thanks to the transit has lowered development costs. The streetcar connects to downtown Portland where residents can then take bus or light rail to other parts of the region for work or shopping. So in addition to prompting billions in development, the remainder of the transit system has also shown increased ridership.
Both Portland and Kenosha WI placed the streetcar in vacant areas with zero ridership! The transit choice combined with new zoning has created outstanding development opportunities which is why the private property owners in Portland were willing to contribute to the capital and operational costs of their system. In Kenosha, the city owned all the land in question and were able to plan for its development.
I believe taking a streetcar from the Union Station MetroLink stop through the western edge of downtown and up to the Pruitt-Igoe site, vacant for over 30 years now, would help create a new neighborhood where one once existed prior to failed urban renewal policies. If done right, it could be dense and vibrant. Similar efforts could be used to bring development near other MetroLink stops such as the new Manchester Rd. stop in Maplewood (an old inner-ring suburb), the St. Charles Rock Road stop with the link extending through Wellston in the county to the city along MLK. Run the line for 2-3 miles and extend toward downtown over the next 5-10 years.
To all the critics that say streetcars are just for tourists and it is just a nostalgia thing are ignoring the facts — streetcars have a proven track record of spurring private development at high returns on the capital investment. The same cannot be said of the light rail systems costing 4-6 times as much per mile as streetcars. The regional light rail system approach was fine when started in the 1970s and 80s when people were still fleeing to the suburbs — the rail was used to get them back downtown. Well, things are different today with families comprising a smaller and smaller percentage of U.S. households and more singles and empty nesters moving back toward walkable communities. Regions that don’t embrace streetcars will stagnate while those that connect people on the micro level will prosper.
Take the current planning on the North & South routes for St. Louis. The assumption is light rail in the street. But, to keep speeds up the service will only stop roughly every mile. Should one happen to live relatively close to an infrequent stop and seek to get downtown quickly that is great. But what if you live between two stops — a half mile walk either way. And then your destination is a mile from your house, between the next two stops. In this case the costly light rail system that speeds right by you does nothing to help you get a mile down the road. You see, light rail is not intended to serve local needs — its greatest strength is moving people long distances such as downtown to the airport. Strong pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods are not built around light rail or bus service — they are built around streetcars.
All this is not to say we should not build any more light rail in the region, indeed we should. I think we can push more into North County from the current alignment near the airport — going up I-170 perhaps. Similarly, we can get to South County from the terminus of the newest alignment at Shrewsbury. The employment center of Westport can be served by connecting into the current system near Page or by a line coming north from Clayton along I-170. The reality is St. Louis city doesn’t have the tax base to “go it alone” on transit so we need county voters to help foot the bill. I’m fine with the county getting more costly and more longer to build light rail while the city would get less expensive but more development friendly streetcar lines.
In the various sessions at the conference focus was paid to funding streetcar systems. Congressman Earl Blumenauer of Oregon spoke before the election on Tuesday about the intent behind the various funding programs. Preceding him at the podium were James Simpson, newly appointed Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration and his boss Mary E. Peters, Bush’s new U.S. Secretary of Transportation. Both promised improvements to the approval process for transit projects going through the Federal “New Starts” and “Small Starts” programs. Lobbying groups such as the New Starts Working Group are seeking improvements in the funding of projects not solely based on the speed at which systems move people but on the impact they will have on communities. Following the elections on Tuesday the mood was quite upbeat with many communities passing efforts to fund new transit projects. Pro-transit Congressman Earl Blumenauer will become the chair of the house committee on transportation. He will be pushing for changes at the FTA to look at criteria other than transit time reduction so that streetcars have a chance of getting some federal funding. One group gave away 200 copies of their new and highly detailed new book: Street Smart: Streetcars and Cities in the 21st Century.
Among the issues raised by streetcar advocates is the federal process for funding approval. Besides taking years too long, something Administrator Simpson recognized as costing projects millions in delays, they favor Bus Rapid Transit or Light Rail. The focus is on a reduction in travel time — commuter time. But, studies show commuting accounts for only 16% of household trips with the bulk of our trips being shorter runs to get groceries, do shopping, drop off the kids, or run errands. FTA guidelines currently look narrowly at reducing them time to get from A to B in a car which often leads to costly transit systems of little use for the bulk of our daily household trips. “Trips not counted” was an often heard phrase at the conference because the federal formulas simply do not account for the ‘trips not taken’ because of those living in compact urban environments thanks to streetcars — the trips taken on foot. The computer models for transit ridership also seem to not understand streetcars and often project ridership 30% or more below what actually ends up being the case. Getting the feds to accept more accurate modeling that accounts for many trips now being taken by foot or shorter trips taken by the streetcar is work that must still be done.
Further Reading/Resources:
• APTA: American Public Transit Association (director William Millar is a great speaker, very direct).
• Center for Transportation Excellent
• Reconnecting America (publisher of the Street Smart streetcar book).
Zoning
During many of the sessions I attended you wouldn’t know it that I was attending a rail transit conference. Much of the discussion was on zoning matters. The zoning discussions focused on areas I mention frequently: urban form and density. One session was entirely on form-based codes.
One speaker from Denver talked about their new Main Street Zoning overlay. This new zoning code is being used in the Colfax area of Denver with great success. Denver recognized their zoning, much like St. Louis’, made the urban buildings we love illegal “non-conforming” and the auto-centric buildings we attempt to tolerate quite permissible. The new zoning overlay can be optionally adopted by property owners, and most have. This allows them to, when they are ready, to build a more urban form without having to jump through many layers of political hoops with elected officials holding out their hands asking for “donations.” By reducing parking requirements developers can get more on a parcel of land. By making parking optional, this reduces costs and makes places more affordable.
Throughout all the sessions it was stressed that transit alone would not do the trick to revitalizing communities. The key was modern zoning that helps create density and high-quality pedestrian environments.
TOD/TDD/TND
Speakers from the mothership, Portland, talked about their streetcar project and how it came about. Speakers included folks from the city, the originally reluctant transit agency, and from the developer community. Together they forged a relationship that is mutually beneficial. They pointed out the high-density urban neighborhood that The Pearl District has become benefits even those that don’t use the streetcar — by having a walkable environment many are finding they can do many trips by foot. This brought up the benefits of walking, something many of us (me especially) need to do more of. They continued to street that the funding going into the streetcar was not just about moving people from point to point, the overall affect was much deeper. As housing costs near transit is often very costly Portland officials made 30% affordable housing part of the deal as well as mandating a percentage of rental and for sale units be under 700sf.
Speakers from Seattle talked about their new streetcar system that will open in 2007 as part of the South Lake Union re-development area. This area until the last year or two was basically low density warehouses between downtown Seattle and Lake Union. It had almost no residents and very little justification for increased bus service. But, with the streetcar and a good transit oriented development plan this overlooked area in Seattle is bustling with new high-density development — before the streetcar takes in its first paying customer!
I’ll have more in a future post on additional sessions from the conference, including a panel session on the future of cities — looking at changing demographics in our urbanized regions.
So…Where does the progress stand with St. Louis’ streetcar? Is Joe Edwards still pushing to run a streetcar line from the History Museum to Delmar thru the loop?
I attended the Railvolution conference that was held several years ago in Denver and found it to be both informative and interesting. I also agree with most of the observations you made, with the exception that “. . . streetcars have a proven track record of spurring private development at high returns on the capital investment.” Streetcars are a component that can help spur development, but in and of themselves, they are not a “magic bullet”. The last time I was in Kenosha, there wasn’t much obvious progress along their trolley line. The same goes for the line in Tampa. The synergies present in Portland were and are both unique and local – there is (was?) a finite amount of available land in the Portland, due to an urban growth boundary.
A streetcar line between Union Station and downtown has the potential to succeed – there’s enough demand in the area for new construction that something likely will be built. A line between downtown and Pruitt-Igoe is much more in the realm of wishful thinking – it may happen, but probably not for at least twenty years. Do we invest in the transit now or do we just acquire property and land-bank it? Remember, public transit (which a streetcar is/would be) needs a certain level of ridership to be successful – building it thru block after block of vacant land without concentrated density on both ends is a recipe for bankruptcy UNLESS there are concrete and iminent plans to generate projects that will create new riders.
Portland’s system is anchored by a major hospital at one end, a large state employement area on the other end, with downtown in the middle – there’s a lot of reasons (and riders) to ride all day long. 80% of their stops are inside a free-fare zone, so most passengers aren’t paying to ride (or directly supporting its operation, although they do indirectly, thru taxes). Yes, Riverplace wouldn’t be what it is without the streetcar, and yes, redevelopment IS occurring elsewhere along the line. But without an existing base of riders, a favorable fare structure (as in free!) and a fair amount of density along at least half of its original line, the streetcar line itself would not have succeeded.
The worst thing we can do here is succomb to some romantic vision of “build it and they will come” and build a first line in the wrong place and fail. Plus we need to figure out a better, more-robust funding solution for Metro as a whole before we start to tackle any new projects . . .
A back and forth track connecting Union Station and downtown seems sort of pointless. Besides Metro(link) already does that.
What about a square line, that follows Jefferson, Market, Broadway, and Washington?
“MetroLink does a great job of moving people but it has failed to attract good, dense, urban development around its stations.”
I would lay the blame for this with those approving the projects, not MetroLink per se. Cities need to demand more of the developers. We will see how the developments near the Forsyth Station turn out where the city did reduce parking requirements and paid attention to pedestrian issues and higher densities.
As for the streetcar project on Delmar, the project was awarded a $1.5 million grant to further the planning and engineering of the project so that federal small start funding could be sought. However, the $300,000 local match that is required has not been identified. A transportation development district may be formed to help with the local match. A vote on the district could happen as early as this spring.
“Strong pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods are not built around light rail…”
I think your favorite modern streetcar City of Portland would also be the best example of pedestrian-friendly development built around light-rail (Tri-Met’s MAX) stations. As such, it takes supportive land use policies to attract better urban form, not localized service or frequent stations.
And as for station-spacing on a new north-south light-rail line, maps shared recently at public workshops showed less than even half-mile spacing in many neighborhoods outside of Downtown. So I think your assertion that “the service will only stop roughly every mile” is completely wrong, especially when looking at where the proposed alternatives run on City streets (North Florissant, Natural Bridge, Gravois, Jefferson, etc).
Hey Steve, I have to disagree with this: “…Kenosha WI placed the streetcar in vacant areas with zero ridership! The transit choice combined with new zoning has created outstanding development opportunities which is why the private property owners in Portland were willing to contribute to the capital and operational costs of their system. In Kenosha, the city owned all the land in question and were able to plan for its development.”
If the mention of Kenosha WI refers to the Harborpark development, then the statement that “[the placement of streetcars in vacant areas… combined with new zoning has created outstanding development opportunities]” is inaccurate and misleading.
A decade of visioning preceded the Harborpark development and its concurrent construction of the streetcar line. Your statement suggests a causal relationship between the establishment of the trolley line in the old American Motors site and the Harborpark development, when in fact, the trolley line was proposed in conjunction with the development.
Nor was the trolley line a leading feature of the development. According to the Master Plan, the orientation to Lake Michigan, the creation of public gathering spaces, concentration of civic uses to create a destination, mixed-use and water-oriented residential development, are all major goals for the development. The trolley line is provisioned in a supportive role to these goals.
A more compelling example of your “development follows transit” argument might (or might not) be found in work now being done by people in the SLU UPRED program to measure development around Metrolink stations.
I agree that our current Northside-Southside study is on the wrong track (bad pun, I know), apparently picking both an alignment and stops based more on politics and available right-of-way instead of on sound or progressive urban or transit planning, but it also has no funding, so it’s going to be another one of those studies that ends up gathering dust on a shelf. Especially on the north side and through downtown, a streetcar would be a more appropriate technology to replace a bus route. Unfortunately, there aren’t any significant increases in ridership that can be anticipated from replacing the existing #4 bus route with a streetcar outside of the downtown area, so, to both justify its capital investment costs and its ultimate success, it either needs to be extended, constructed, marketed and operated to attract suburban riders (at the expense of frequent stops along Natural Bridge in the city) or it needs to be just a downtown circulator reaching only into the nearest neighborhoods. You can run light rail with stops every two or three blocks, but why would you want to? A bus or a streetcar is a better option.
As for the proposed Delmar line, it doesn’t really make much sense, except from a nostalgic point of view. The western third would be trying to shoehorn itself into an already highly-congested area, but would provide a circulator service to the existing Delmar Metrolink station. The eastern two-thirds would connect two Metrolink stations (and replicate their service) and possibly help spur redevelopment along Delmar bewtween Hodiamont and DeBaliaviere, but wouldn’t offer any significant increase in actual transit service since Metro already offers adequate bus service on the route. For $300,000, you can substantially increase bus service along Delmar without tearing up the street or worsening congestion!
It’s the classic chicken or egg problem – without the development, you can’t justify the transit investment, without the transit investment, (you say) you can’t justify the real estate investment. Unfortunately, the further north you go out of downtown (inside the city), the harder it is to make the numbers work on either side. Plus, any bus route that is generating sustained ridership will be retained and expanded – it’s the ones that aren’t (be they bus, streetcar or light rail) that ARE susceptible to cutbacks in service and ultimate elimination! (You can blame the conspiracy of outside forces for the loss of St. Louis’ original streetcar system, but the reality was declining ridership [thanks to easier access to autos after WW II] combined with a serious need to reinvest in aging infrastructure – buses were a much more cost-effective answer, and in many cases remain the best answer today.)
The fundamental problem throughout the region here is not a lack of investment in infrastructure, it’s a lack of investment in frequency. When buses or trains run only every 30 minutes (or less frequently), you’re held hostage by the schedule. When they run every 15 minutes, you may choose to become a regular rider. It’s only when they run every 2, 4, 6, 8 or 10 minutes do they become a viable alternative to a single-occupant vehicle. It doesn’t matter what kind of wheels they have – Metro’s buses are just as clean as their trains. Putting in a streetcar and running it every 15-20 minutes and not before 11 am (as Tampa does) is not a viable transit alternative – it’s a tourist attraction! Before we can justify investing a lot of money in a lot of fixed rail projects, we need to change both the general attitude toward transit and change our planning practices to create higher densities. Density concentrates potential riders and frequency makes public transit an attractive option – it takes more than cute and warm and fuzzy!
There’s nothing wrong with tourists, nor catering to them if they’re a major part of your economy. Tampa’s line connects their cruise-ship docks with Ybor City, their version of Laclede’s Landing / Union Station. But the funding for that type of service needs to come from a different pot than the taxes dedicated to providing public transit to local residents: From Rail Transit Online, February 2006 – “The Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART) board of directors has decided it doesnÂ’t want to run the TECOLine streetcar line any longer and has requested Tampa Historic Streetcar, Inc. to seek a new contractor. The HARTline transit agency has operated the 2.3-mi. (3.7 km) line between downtown and Ybor City since it opened in 2002 using revenue from the historic streetcar organizationÂ’s endowment. Several board members who have always opposed the streetcar finally got a majority on their side. “We want to be singularly focused on running a bus service,” said Hillsborough County Commissioner and HART board member Ronda Storms said at a Jan. 10 meeting. “Just get out of it.” Board member and County Commissioner Brian Blair suggested mothballing the line in part because it fails to break even. Others defended the trolley, noting that buses also require a subsidy.”
Kenosha is in the same boat. They’ve lost much of their industrial base and tourism is one of their few viable alternatives at this point in time. Their streetcar “system” (actually a relatively-short loop) is associated with the Seashore Trolley Museum and doesn’t operate before 11 am or at all during January, February or March – I don’t consider that reliable public transit!
“Streetcar – Summer Hours: (April 3rd – December 29th)
Monday through Friday: 11:05 a.m. until 7:05 p.m.
Saturdays and Sundays: 10:05 a.m. until 5:35 p.m.
Fare: 25¢”
I don’t object to developing and maintaining unique tourist attractions – we have a huge one in the Arch and we spend taxes on our stadiums and zoo. I do object to (schemes) shifting funding from needed city services like public transit to pet projects that will negatively impact those needed existing services. Memphis’ second line attracts riders because, much like Portland, it connects two dense employment areas, a hospital and downtown. If you want create a viable streetcar line here, start at AG Edwards, head east through downtown, touch on LacledeÂ’s Landing and the Arch, swing south by the AmerenUE campus and end up at the A-B VisitorsÂ’ Center. This would attract both near-downtown workers and visitors, and would encourage infill development in the “thin” and vacant spaces in between. Taking it further west and south, connecting the two SLU campuses also merits investigation.
Another potentially-viable, albeit seasonal, alternative would be to connect the zoo and Metrolink, either by heading north through Forest Park, to the Forest Park- DeBaliviere station, or by heading south and looping though dogtown and connecting to the CWE station (but wouldnÂ’t be nearly as effective in spurring high-density redevelopment). And Richmond Heights isn’t the one to blame for the non-connection – blame the adjacent grocery store that doesn’t want their private lot used for public parking.
Finally, I think we have a different perception on who rides public transit – “[M]ost trips are not commuter trips — they are running to the store and going out to eat and such.” My experience is that commuters make up the bulk of the daily riders in any system AND are the core group that supports taxes to fund transit. Sure, they sometimes need to make short trips during the day, primarily to grab lunch, but they usually do so as pedestrians, not as transit riders. Their errands get done before or after work, not during the day. About the only people who use transit for “running to the store and going out to eat and such” are the transit-dependent, either by circumstance or choice – most people who are going shopping and have access to a car will take their car – it just makes hauling whatever you buy home a whole lot easier, even if you take transit to work or school every day.
Whether vintage or modern, streetcars operate as short-distance, slow-moving lines. It’s no surprise then, like Jim’s example of a recent change of heart in Tampa or even Portland from the beginning, that REGIONAL transit authorities do not generally build or operate such costly, localized service.
Granted, streetcars cost less per mile than light-rail in construction, but they also provide less benefits per mile (and thus lower fare recovery in operations). And since moving slower than a bus, streetcar projects do not compete well for federal dollars. And so, even if the total project of a short streetcar line is less in capital expense, the money still has to come from somewhere.
Unfortunately, the City can’t even afford to put up the necessary local match on its own for a federally funded north-south light-rail line mostly within its limits without the County’s support. Given that financial reality, I can’t imagine the City building a streetcar entirely on its own. At least with light-rail, the City gets twenty-some new stations (existing MetroLink only has six stations in the City ourside of Downtown), albeit on a route direct and fast enough to still attract County riders as well as City riders.
St. Louis needs a comprehensive public transit system that is reliable and thorough enough to serve those who can afford to choose a car. It is no longer a matter of wanting to be like Chicago or NYC. Smaller, newer cities are gaining on, and surpassing St. Louis by leaps and bounds in population growth and quality of life. St. Louis will be left in the dust if they don’t seriously address real urban issues such as public transit.
St. Louis needs to address the real needs of the residents and plan on a comprehensive transit system that will effectively serve most people. Of course it will be built in stages, but there needs to be a strong vision for the metro area. If the desired density is ever reached without public transit, traffic will be a nightmare all hours of the day.
Streetcars are the most economical and time efficient way to build such a system. Streetcars cannot be compared to buses. Buses are not a serious investment in transit the way a streetcar is. The investment of a streetcar sends a strong signal to people, to developers working on large-scale projects or individuals simply buying a house, that a particular area is worth their own investment. It’s worth it because others (including local government) are willing to invest too.
Rather than look at tourist streetcars like the one in Tampa, cities like Vienna, Austria should be considered. Most people use the streetcars there on a regular basis. The lines cover the whole city and the system is efficient. Vienna also has a small light rail line, which is also very nice, but it isn’t extensive enough to serve every single block of the city like their streetcars do. About 5 years ago Vienna upgraded their system to include modern streetcars. They previously had the “vintage” ones they had been using since the 40s. Streetcars are not quaint, they are a practical and efficient from of transit for a modern city.
I think St. Louis needs around 100 – 120 miles of streetcar tracks within the city. This would effectively serve all areas and all people. This is not an extreme amount. St Louis once had more than this before they started tearing them up.
BTW, Tampa should not be considered when looking for good examples of public transit. Tampa survives almost solely on tourist dollars. Catering to the tourist is what it does best. The small vintage streetcar line was never meant to serve the people of the city, and they don’t ride it. Only the tourists do. Tampa is instead spending a billion dollars to improve one intersection of an interstate highway system.
This blog entry isn’t long enough. Please add more words.
Kara,
I would contend that Vienna, Austria is not a good comparison for St. Louis.
Vienna’s population density, 3,931/km2 is much higher than St. Louis’ at 2,198/km2.
In fact, of the 12 districts at the central core, the population densities range from 3,300/km2 all the way up to a staggering 28, 200/km2.
It is precisely this density and urban form that makes streetcars a necessary and attractive solution for Vienna. Not the other way around.
Simply installing 100-120 miles of track as you suggest will not, in turn, create the necessary density to justify its existence.
Densities do matter with transit, at the same time a comprehensive plan that includes rebuilding the urban fabric to attain new densities would in fact make streetcars not only feasible, but desirable. Around 120 miles of streetcar line is a realistic goal for St. Louis.
Consider transportation planning in the region as it now unfolds. It is debatable if the Hwy 40 project should even be built. It is time to stop allowing MODOT, EWGCC and other government entities fracture the community with their piecemeal approach to transportation.
To put 120 miles of streetcar line in perspective, 50 miles of a streetcar line could be built for the cost of the $520 million dollars that is going to be spent on the Highway 40 debacle.
There are serious issues surrounding energy and global warming, not to mention quality of life for the population when discussing transportation and related city planning concerns. The Highway 40 project does nothing to address these issues and if such policies continue, it will cause the demise of America.
There should be no quibbling about matches, portions, 100 million this or 500 million that, local this, federal that. Rules are the distraction used to pretend something is accomplished and at the same time avoids a true in depth look at the soul of the problem and its true cost. It is simply time for a new urban policy for the United States of America.
Here are a few related comments:
1. There is roughly 39 Billion for highways and 10 Billion for all other forms of surface transit including marine allocated on the national level. These numbers should be reversed. A project such as Highway 40 is a result of trying to find ways to spend the excess money allocated to automobiles.
2. An comprehensive energy conservation measure should be passed by Congress to include transit, urbanization, sustainable building and a host of other issues. Forget about alternate energy sources when speaking of the automobile. Energy conservation is the only true, long lasting solution that can benefit my children, their children and generations to follow. Ethanol will fail the first time there is a crop failure.
3. The rebuilding of the city environment should be the number one priority of the region to help secure our energy future. Land developers, highway builders, auto makers and oil companies will use every means necessary to undermine the will of the people
4. Focus on transit in the City of St. Louis first. The city is naturally laid out to accept transit lines and is compact. The per mile cost of operation is cheaper, compared to say, running a bus to Chesterfield. In effect the city subsidizes the transit serving areas of urban sprawl.
5. The City of St. Louis at the same time should develop planning for housing, commercial and industrial to complement new transit. There is a true skill in being able to design adjacent projects so they properly feed transit lines. Right now the design method is called “what the hell”.
6. The creation of public space should be included, there is no such thing as a public square in the city. It is no wonder youth have to hang in malls, the rest of the environment is such a desolate wasteland that it is only possible to ride from venue to venue.
7. Extend and connect public spaces, create vistas, surprises, make the city whole again
8. Artist, architects, urban designers head the projects. Transit and various highway engineers only come in at the end to solve technical problems.
9. Once it is understood how the city can be transformed into a desirable and lovely place to live, without the use of an automobile, such techniques can then also be applied to suburban areas. Many of these areas will need to be reconfigured or abandoned in the coming years to create a more sane and sustainable way of living.
10. Public hearings on any government issue should include the use of real time blogs.
There are many good ideas presented at the Rail-Volution. There are so many issues to be discussed, types of movement systems, frequency of transit, distance of stops, what is located at those stops, yet to me the most fundamental question is the method of implementation.
There is no method to deliver these concepts to reality, only a leadership that bogs everyone down with endless details about goofy programs that donÂ’t solve problems. Until politicians are made to perform their duties for the people instead of corporate interests that buy them off, St. Louis will make little or no progress.
The truth is we, as a people, have the ability and knowledge to transform St. Louis right now. Why canÂ’t it happen? What prevents this transformation from happening?
Rail-volution is a revolution is rail, but until there is a revolution in process, many of these innovative new products and ideas will not be used. America and St. Louis are bogged down, innovation is stopped by process and political inertia.
If nothing changes, Steve Patterson will turn ninety, there will be an addtional two token transit lines somewhere in St. Louis, north St. Louis will be on the ground and we will be debating why Desco should put a mega center with a mega parking lot on MLK. Meanwhile New Orleans, Florida and New York will be building federally funded dikes to avoid going under water.
We'r ed hardy outlet one of the most profession
of the coolest and latest ed hardy apparel, such as
ed hardy tee ,ed hardy bags,
ed hardy bathing suits, ed hardy shoes,
ed hardy board shorts ， don ed hardyt,ed hardy tank tops, ed hardy for women,
ed hardy swimwearand more,
ed hardy clothing. We offers a wide selection of fashion
cheap ed hardyproducts. Welcome to our shop or just enjoy browsing through our stunning collection available wholesale ed hardy in our shop.
our goal is to delight you with our distinctive collection of mindful ed hardy products while providing value and excellent service. Our goal is 100% customer satisfaction and we offer only 100% satisfacted service and ed hardy products. Please feel free to contact us at any time; we are committed to your 100% customer satisfaction. If you're looking for the best service and best selection, stay right where you are and continue shopping at here is your best online choice for the reasonable prices. So why not buy your ed hardy now, I am sure they we won’t let you down.