Decades ago books on cities talked about razing buildings, clearing away the old to make way for the new, segregating uses & people, etc. These days the subjects are sustainability, health of the inhabitants & the city, regionalism, etc. This shift requires new ways of thinking about old problems. Enter People Habitat: 25 Ways to Think About Greener, Healthier Cities by F. Kaid Benfield:
With over 80 percent of Americans now living in cities and suburbs, getting our communities right has never been more important, more complicated, or more fascinating. Longtime sustainability leader Kaid Benfield shares 25 enlightening and entertaining essays about the wondrous ecology of human settlement, and how to make it better for both people and the planet.
People Habitat explores topics as diverse as “green” housing developments that are no such thing, the tricky matter of gentrifying inner cities, why people don’t walk much anymore, and the relationship between cities and religion. Written with intellect, insight, and from-the-heart candor, each real-world story in People Habitat will make you see our communities in a new light. (Island Press)
You can view the table of contents and read excerpts at peoplehabitat.com. People Habitat: 25 Ways to Think About Greener, Healthier Cities by F. Kaid Benfield is available locally through Left Bank Books.
Last weekend my fiancé and I went to Chicago for a 3-day weekend. I’ve been numerous times since my stroke 6+ years ago, including last August, but each of those visits was by car with me as passenger or driver. This trip we took Amtrak so I could use my wheelchair since our primary reason for going was to see the Chicago Auto Show. I know here in St. Louis my chair can easily get stuck in just a tiny amount of snow so I was nervous about going to Chicago where they had lots more snow. As soon as we exited Chicago’s Union Station I realized how much Chicago values all modes of travel: auto, bike, bus, foot, chair.
Sidewalks, roads, ADA ramps connecting sidewalks and crosswalks were all cleared. This photo taken at Harrison & Wabash, click for map.A protected bike lane on S. Dearborn was cleared of snow.All the bus stops/shelters had been cleared as well allowing us the use various CTA bus lines
You might be thinking “Sure, in the Loop. What about in the neighborhoods?” Friends picked us up for dinner Saturday night, driving us for Lebanese at Semiramis, located miles away from downtown at 4639 N Kedzie Ave. The sidewalks, ramps & crosswalks were also cleared there.
In September readers picked the I-64 BRT route between downtown and Chesterfield as their favorite of four bus rapid transit (BRT) routes being studied by the Transportation Corridor Improvement Group (TCIG), which “consists of staff from Metro, EWGCOG, the City of St. Louis, St. Louis County, and MoDOT”.
“None” was 2nd in the poll, but the next actual route favored was the West Florissant – Natural Bridge BRT option. On Tuesday the TCIG recommended two locally preferred alternative routes to Metro’s Operations Committee:
After careful consideration and analysis of the transportation corridors, the TCIG recommended as the locally-preferred alternative two BRT projects: I-64 between Chesterfield and Downtown St. Louis, and a north-south route connecting North St. Louis County to Downtown St. Louis primarily via West Florissant Avenue and Natural Bridge Avenue.
The 1-64 BRT corridor spans 23 miles between the City of Chesterfield and Downtown St. Louis. It would serve a limited number of park-and-ride stations along I-64 between Chesterfield Mall and the Central West End. From the Central West End it would travel along Forest Park Avenue into Downtown St. Louis, making a loop through Downtown before ending at the Civic Center Station. As currently proposed, its service frequencies would match MetroLink, and transit prioritization strategies would be implemented along the corridor to speed transit travel.
The I-64 BRT would serve a Central Corridor that hosts 55,000 people and 115,500 jobs within one half-mile, outside of Downtown St. Louis. The addition of this high-performance service to the Metro System would provide the region’s first rail-like transit option in West St. Louis County, offering the first opportunity for all-day, single-seat service between Chesterfield and Downtown St. Louis, and reducing transfers from other areas by half. Along with reducing transfers, it would improve transit travel time within the corridor by 30%, making it a much more attractive alternative to the personal automobile. Ridership projections from EWGCOG’s regional travel demand model show a potential ridership market of 5,100 weekday riders, 2,100 (41%) of whom would be new “choice” riders. That market is projected to grow to 6,800 weekday riders by 2040.
I-64 BRT CONSUMER BENEFIT
End-to-end transit travel time reduced from 76 minutes to 53 minutes
– Compared to auto travel time of 25 minutes
– Offers motorists option of comfortable, affordable, productive commute
Corridor ridership projected to increase 357% from 1,115 to 5,100 weekday riders opening year; 6,800 in 2040
– 2,100 (41%) new “choice” riders opening year
Enhanced service
– BRT option provides single-seat service not currently available
– Reduce transfers by 50%
– End-to-end service available all day, rather than only peak
– Create additional hubs to make local bus service more efficient
This route makes a lot of sense to me. It gets a higher level of transit service on this corridor without the enormous infrastructure expense that would be required for light rail. It would run down Forest Park Ave & Boyle, running right past the proposed IKEA and connecting with the proposed new CORTEX MetroLink station. Transit time would be reduced from three times driving to twice driving. For some that’s still a non-starter, but for others it would allow them to avoid driving/parking headaches while being able to be productive. It doesn’t need to get every driver out of their cars to be a success.
The other transit project included in the LPA is an arterial-based BRT route connecting North St. Louis County to Downtown St. Louis. This service would operate out of the new North County Transit Center, running 16 miles to Downtown via West Florissant Avenue, Lucas and Hunt Road, and Natural Bridge Avenue. As currently proposed, its service frequencies would match MetroLink; stations with a high level of customer amenities would be spaced a minimum of one mile apart; and transit prioritization strategies would be implemented to speed travel.
The combined West Florissant-Natural Bridge corridor hosts 70,000 people and 18,000 jobs within a half-mile, not counting Downtown St. Louis. Supplementing the local bus network in this strong and proven transit market will give residents of North St. Louis City and near-North County their first high-performance, rail-like transit option. It will reduce transit travel time and any required transfers by half. It would also greatly improve access and travel time between some of the region’s most disadvantaged areas and major jobs centers in Downtown and the Central Corridor, particularly if paired with the I-64 BRT option. Ridership projections from EWGCOG’s travel demand model show a potential ridership market of 3,200 weekday riders, 600 (19%) of whom would be new “choice” riders.
W. FLORISSANT–NATURAL BRIDGE BRT CONSUMER BENEFIT
End-to-end transit travel time reduced from 85 minutes to 42 minutes
Corridor ridership projected to increase 23% from 2,610 to 3,200 opening year and 2040 (Natural Bridge)
600 (19%) new “choice” riders
Enhanced service
BRT option supports fast single-seat ride to Downtown St. Louis
If paired with I-64 BRT, travel from North County to CWE and West County would require only 1 transfer between 2 high-speed routes; currently requires multiple transfers and 2-3 local routes
Unlike going to Chesterfield, reaching downtown from North St. Louis County isn’t very direct via car or transit. This will help reduce travel time for existing transit users and is expected to attract new riders. The streetscape improvements along the route will benefit everyone in the area.
Additional information
Travel speeds competitive with MetroLink
Avg MO MetroBus speed = 16.02 mph
Avg MO MetroLink speed = 25.63 mph
I-64 BRT speed = 26.04 mph
WFNB BRT speed = 25.71 mph
The report has very detailed cost projections, here’s the summary:
I-64 BRT: $37.9M capital; $4M net operating
West Florissant – Natural Bridge BRT: $39.1M capital; $2.6M net operating
Additional operational revenue would be necessary for this additional service.
Next Steps
Metro’s board is expected to vote to approve these two locally preferred routes at their March 28th meeting. If approved it goes to East-West Gateway Council of Governments, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the St. Louis region. Once part of our 2040 transportation plan we can seek capital funding through the Federal Transit Administration’s Small Starts program.
The number of unbanked citizens in St. Louis is high, but according to the unscientific poll last week readers of this blog aren’t among them:
Q: Not everyone uses all available financial tools, which of the following do you use? (check all that apply)
Debit card(s) 56 [14.58%]
Retirement account through employer 43 [11.2%]
Credit card(s) paid each month 43 [11.2%]
Checking account at brick & mortar bank 42 [10.94%]
Investment portfolio 39 [10.16%]
Checking account online 38 [9.9%]
Savings account online 35 [9.11%]
Savings account at brick & mortar bank 28 [7.29%]
Savings account at brick & mortar credit union 20 [5.21%]
Credit card(s) with a balance each month 20 [5.21%]
Checking account at brick & mortar credit union 18 [4.69%]
Other: 2 [0.52%]
dwolla (for online payments)
checking with interest at credit union
None: no checking, savings, debit, credit, portfolio 0 [0%]
I was a little surprised to see online checking/saving ranked higher than credit unions. However, we just recently opened an online savings account separate from our credit union checking & savings accounts, it’s very user friendly. We both had bank accounts for years but a few years ago I switched to a credit union. I never ordered physical checks since bills can be paid online, with debit card, or via bill pay online. I never liked paper checks — all that processing:
On a normal day, about $6 billion was literally up in the air as checks flew to their destination. That amount grew to $47 billion after the FAA grounded planes in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
That spurred passage of the Check 21 Act, which allowed banks to use electronic images of checks instead of paper. (Business Insider)
But to the unbanked out there financial life isn’t as easy. Apparently many have their income, often social security, sent to check cashing places. They go in monthly to get their money in cash, less enormous fees. Then they end up buying money orders to pay bills. Meager incomes made even worse by the costs of being unbanked. Prior experience with bank overdraft fees and closed bank accounts have left many thinking cash is their only option. Businesses like check cashing places, tax refund lenders, title lenders, etc prey on the less financially literate in our community.
Here’s more on who is unbanked:
Among common demographics (income, education, age, race and family structure), several vulnerable groups emerged:
Households with incomes less than $15,000 were unbanked at a rate of 31.4 percent.
African-Americans were unbanked at a rate of 26.5 percent.
Households headed by single mothers had unbanked rates of approximately 23.5 percent.
Individuals with no high school degree lacked transactions accounts at a rate of 24.5 percent.
A comparison of the at-risk groups with the District average (9.5 percent) is stark: They were two to three times more likely to be unbanked. (Federal Reserve of St. Louis)
This problem is a community problem. I don’t know the solution for reducing the number of unbanked in St. Louis, but organizations like Justin PETERSEN are working on the problem.
The #99 Downtown Trolley, regular buses with a cartoon wrap, have been on the streets since July 2010. People laugh at the wrap but it’s effective.
The original Downtown Trolley used a short bus with steps & wheelchair lift. This is me exiting the trolley at the July 2010 debut. Photo by Jim Merkel, Suburban Journals
The one problem with the original is the wrap made it impossible to see out the side windows. Tourists & locals unable to see the city….no good. Recently the original trolley buses were replaced by new Gillig low-floor buses.
The wrap on the new buses looks very similar the original, with one major difference…The new wrap allows passengers inside to see out, this is looking north on 7th from Market
I love the new Gillig low-floor buses, so much quicker & easier to board/unboard, but the ability to see out is a huge improvement, a very pleasant surprise! The wrap is licensed from a company that holds the rights to use a trolley likeness.
AARP Livibility Index
The Livability Index scores neighborhoods and communities across the U.S. for the services and amenities that impact your life the most
Built St. Louis
historic architecture of St. Louis, Missouri – mourning the losses, celebrating the survivors.
Geo St. Louis
a guide to geospatial data about the City of St. Louis
