Possible Modern Streetcar Routes for St. Louis

It is no secret I want modern streetcars in St. Louis. For those not familiar with the concept of modern streetcars, they are new high-tech vehicles quite similar to light rail vehicles. They have a low-floor design which allows for easy entry/exit from a curb. Unlike light rail systems, the modern streetcar runs in “mixed-traffic” with cars. Where vintage trolley/streetcar systems are more nostalgic than functional, the modern streetcar is highly function for local transit while The only example in North America is in Portland although a number of cities, such as Tucson, are considering such a system.

I’ve been reading up on Porland’s system, now a few years old, and they’ve had an amazing amount of development around their line. This is largely due to development being the initial goal, the line was designed to connect two vacant (or nearly vacant) industrial brownfield sites. Zoning was changed to require minimum density. Developers have been able to get a good return on their investment. From the Development Report dated January 2006:

The Portland Development Commission (PDC) negotiated a Master Development Agreement with Hoyt Street Properties, owners of a 40-acre brownfield in the heart of the River District. The Agreement tied development densities to public improvements with the minimum required housing density increased incrementally from 15 to 87 units per acre when the Lovejoy Viaduct was deconstructed, to 109 units/acre when the streetcar construction commenced and 131 units/acre when the first neighborhood park was built. The developer has stated that without the Streetcar and the accessibility it provides, these densities would not have been possible. The agreement was a unique and essential piece of the public/private partnership that catalyzed development of the River District and serves as a model for the agreement established for in South Waterfront.

Those are some serious densities. The kind of density that makes a neighborhood vibrant and a transit system that is highly viable. With the idea of placing transit where it could be coupled with new development I have prepared a few possible modern streetcar routes. I have intentionally placed the routes so they intersect or come close to the existing MetroLink line.

Basic Assumptions for all Concepts:

Streetcar line would be modeled on the Portland Streetcar with modern low-floor vehicles (not “vintage” or “heritage” vehicles). Streetcars would operate in mixed-traffic but would be given signal preference over cross-street traffic. Lines would run in the outside travel lane (not center) and would stop at curb bulb outs every 1/5 of a mile or so.

Eminent domain (or even threat) should not be used to assemble land for development within streetcar zone.

Form-bsaed zoning overlay should be enacted for the area served by the streetcar (three city blocks on each side of line). Zoning overlay should set out minimum units per acre (gradually increasing at certain benchmarks) and maximum parking spaces.

… Continue Reading

ULI Competition Finalists Selected, Posted Online

ULI has announced the finalists in their national competition. Here is a look at each of the four final teams:

Columbia

Jury Summary:
Team 2105’s proposal introduces a skywalk system that connects Saint Louis University’s Frost campus with its health sciences center. The skywalk allows pedestrians to move from one end of the university campus to the other without interfering with vehicular and freight traffic, and draws student activities into the project area, where they can be shared by the academic and medical communities. At the landscape level, environmental strategies create open and green spaces, and site edges blend discreetly into the surrounding community.

I had to check my calendar after seeing this project, making sure it was not 1960. I also had recollections of the tragic I.M. Pei plan to “modernize” my hometown of Oklahoma City — razing old buildings, creating large “super blocks” and putting pedestrians in underground tunnels or in tubes over the sidewalks. In short, everything a city is not.

If pedestrians cannot walk along the street then change the conditions of the street. Safety must be a concern and removing people from the watchful eye of others is just foolish. The SLU campus already creates a situation where outsiders are not welcomed, we don’t need to create more of that. The Columbia project serves best as an example of what we should not do to this area. How it got to be a finalist is beyond me.

Harvard #1015

Jury Summary:
“Bridging Innovation at Grand Crossing” leverages the east-west intracity connections made possible by Chouteau Greenway by creating a north-south “academic spine” along Grand Boulevard bridge. An urban northern edge and a biotech-oriented southern edge unites the Saint Louis University campus around a mixed-use node where academics, biotechnology, transit, recreation, commercial, and residential activities can concentrate.

Like so many of the proposals, this concept shortens the length of the Grand viaduct and adds buildings up to the sidewalk. Who was it that suggested this a month ago? Oh yeah, that would be me. It is nice to see others came to the same conclusion I did about the importance of urbanizing Grand.

This team left the Del Taco & Union Council Plaza buildings with a note, “streetscape to be improved.” I don’t think enough patterned sidewalk or landscaping will make this area urban enough. I’ve been known to spin through Del Taco’s drive-thru late at night (ok, early morning) but I think it needs to go.

Harvard #4110

Jury Summary:
“Aurora” creates a biotech research, development, and entrepreneurial center that represents Saint Louis University’s interface with the local biotech industry. It accepts the commercial corridors of Grand Boulevard, Chouteau Avenue, and Forest Park Boulevard, fills the interior of the blocks with appropriate uses, and establishes a symbiotic relationship with the Greenway.

This is a very nice proposal, with Grand getting a shorter bridge and urban makeover. This concept includes an intersection at Papin (the block north of Chouteau), as well as a new intersection, called Campus Drive, just south of the highway. A new bridge at Theresa Street will help connect areas on each side of the valley.

On the negative side their building massing is rather blocky. I would have liked to have seen more street grid between Grand and Spring on both the north & south areas. They also seemed to simply delete on & off ramps from I-64, something I wouldn’t mind so much but in realty not very practical.

But, I love that Grand from Chouteau to Forest Park is faced with a variety of buildings.

UC Berkeley

Jury Summary:
“Weave” proposes an urban prototype for St. Louis that rejects the creation of a specific-use redevelopment district and instead introduces explicit north-south connections throughout the site that weaves it into the communities to its north and south. While the Greenway is the major east-west cross-weave, smaller strips of green space weave through the site, eventually connecting with the Greenway. Reinforcing the vision of a community developed around transit and other urban amenities is a magnet school in close proximity to SLU and the Armory, redeveloped as a performing arts center.

The University of California at Berkeley project impresses me on multiple levels. In addition to making Grand a proper urban street they are seeking to “weave” areas together with four additional north-south bridges over Mill Creek Valley! More street grid is a good thing, especially in this case.

Like other finalists, this team created an intersection south of I-64. Unlike other teams, this one provided on & off ramps at Grand. Between the shorter bridge and Chouteau this team has two intersections.

Their proposal includes a large variety of building sizes, including a number of small scale buildings unseen on other proposals. This is especially important along Grand where they are using a number of smaller buildings to create an intimate walking environment.

I liked part of the text from their presentation on the urban form:

“Create strong north-south connections, explicitly rejecting current redevelopment plans (CORTEX EAST) in order to use bio-tech/university influx as a catalyst for weaving and knitting communities.“

This is one smart team, rejecting the big CORTEX generic redevelopment plan and creating a pedestrian-friendly street grid. For my money this team from Berkeley should get first place.

Seven teams received honorable mentions. A team from Texas included a streetcar line along Grand to connect the theatre district near the Fox to the SLU medical campus — a good idea that can be expanded north and south. I also liked some of the housing they showed on their proposal.

Representatives from each of the four finalists will be in town on the 10th to actually view the site, they will be given a chance to revise their proposals. The winner will be announced on March 31st. I’m rooting for the team from Berkeley.

– Steve

St. Louis Requires Kiddie Flags on Some 49cc Scooters

NOTE: I’ve revised the headline and the last paragraph since first posting a few hours ago.

Last year the City’s Board of Aldermen passed a new ordinance which is raising some red flags. Well, actually, red or orange flags. Before I get to the latest issue I need to give you some background.

During my campaign last year the issue of the annoying micro bikes came up. At a public meeting attended by Aldermen Dorothy Kirner, Schmid and Ortmann the particulars of the 2001 scooter law sponsored by the late Ald. Daniel Kirner as to how they relate to the new breed of miniature motorcycles.

On February 19, 2005 I pointed out, on my campaign site, that the city’s law regarding these toys had become obsolete (see report). Basically the 2001 law outlawed the motorized skateboard type scooters on city streets but did not address any sort of sit down type micro bike (see ordinance).

At that meeting a year ago Ald. Ortmann was one of the people that thought the 2001 covered these micro bikes. Apparently he set to work to correct the situation by introducing Board Bill #24 for a first reading on April 29, 2005.

Here is some text from the final ordinance which took affect on June 6, 2005:

17.02.315 Motorized bicycle.

“Motorized bicycle” shall mean any two- or three-wheeled device having an automatic transmission and a motor with a cylinder capacity of not more than fifty cubic centimeters, which produces less than three gross brake horsepower, and is capable of propelling the device at a maximum speed of not more than thirty miles per hour on level ground, except those devices used by persons with disabilities for the purpose of mobility.

17.18.060 Equipment for motorcycle or motorized bicycle riders.

B. No person shall operate or ride upon a motorized bicycle unless such motorized bicycle is equipped with a red or orange flag measuring not less than twelve inches by twelve inches. Such flag shall extend not less than forty-eight inches in height above that portion of the seat occupied by the operator.

Yes, the law says I need to have a 12×12 flag at least 48 inches above the seat of my 49cc scooter (aka motorized bicycle). Like I’m going to do that.

In reviewing the history of the legislation it appears the flag language was not in the original bill, nor was it in a committee substitute. The flag language arrived in the form of a ‘floor substitute” which most likely means a last minute amendment on the floor of the Board of Aldermen.

So we now have the 2001 ordinance defining “motorized scooters” as the stand-up stake board type and an ordinance which defines motorized bicycles (a revision of an earlier ordinance which is too old to be online) that requires tall red flags. As someone that often gets on and off the scooter by throwing my leg over the week I’d find the flag a nuisance and a potential safety hazard. Like my bicycle, the riding position is quite upright and is highly visible.

I bought my 49cc Honda Metropolitan scooter on September 4th, 2005. It is generally believed among scooterists in Missouri that a 49cc scooter like mine or a Vespa does not require registration (plates), a motorcycle license or liability insurance. This is a bit of a gray area as various laws talk about engine displacement, transmission types, attainable speed, and total horsepower. Very similar scooters can vary on these criteria.

My scooter is not registered and I do not carry any liability insurance for it. I do, however, have a motorcycle permit and intent to take a motorcycle safety course which will get me my motorcycle license. I will not be installing a square foot flag above the seat height.

One thing I will do, help organize the local scooter groups that are understandably upset about this issue. I will also contact the local dealers and national manufacturers.

UPDATE 3/2/06 @ 8:30pm:

When writing this post earlier today I looked up the specs for my Honda Metropolitan scooter online. Honda’s website does not list the HP for my model. When I got home I found the information listed on the Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin: 4.3HP. So, per the ordinance definition my scooter is not a motorized bicycle as the HP is greater than 3.

So now I am wondering if the City of St. Louis considers my scooter a motorcycle and all that goes with it — motorcycle license, license plates, insurance, etc.. I’m also curious if St. Louis’ definitions are similar to those in neighboring municipalities, St. Louis County and the state of Missouri.

I also feel like I’m going to need to carry a copy of the ordinance and my proof of HP with me as I scoot. I tell you, getting 85+ MPG is getting complicated.

– Steve

39 And Counting

It seems like yesterday when I was a young college graduate moving to St. Louis from Oklahoma City. I was 23 and so excited about St. Louis’ urban potential.

I’m still excited about the potential of the urban fabric and with the progress made so far. However, I’m less enthusiastic for the “system” to change and adapt. The system serves those in the system, so why change.

I’m growing increasingly impatient of the system and those self serving individuals that perpetuate it. I’m especially disappointed by those who claim to be progressive and then get caught up in the system, causing them to do thing just to keep their jobs (you know who you are).

Why am I increasingly impatient? Well, today is my 39th birthday.

As you might expect I’m reflecting on my life to this point and what it means to have my last year in my 30s. And I’m thinking about what life may hold for me in my 40s, 50s, 60s and beyond.

I crave a vibrant urban life and, today at least, I feel like time is running out. I don’t have the luxury of waiting 30-40 years for a complete light rail system in St. Louis and a substantially increased population.

I want it all.

Great urban density. Streetcars. Bike racks on every street. Elected officials unwilling to settle for some suburban drive-thru. A collective vision for St. Louis.

I want it all, now!

At 25 I could be patient. Same for 30 and even 35. My time of patience is over.

I have some goals to accomplish this last year in my 30s. I will push even harder for my vision of an urban St. Louis. I hope to influence the outcome of the 2007 aldermanic race in the even numbered wards. I hope to breakdown the ward machine in St. Louis and open up discussion on planning, design, transportation and such. And hopefully I will begin doing some modern in-fill projects throughout the city.

The more the establishment resists the more determined I will become. The fun thing is the ranks of people who share my views is growing while the numbers wishing to maintain the status quo are dropping.

I’m determined to have an urban existence in St. Louis.

– Steve

Police Ticketing Valet Parking Violators

Walking to The Gelateria tonight I noticed police ticketing vehicles parked on the public street where valet parking signs were posted. This was on the northside of the 1200 block of Washington Avenue, across from places like Wasabi and Lucas Park Grille.

The time was 7:45pm. Of the 17 total spaces eight were empty, coned off to us regular folks. The remaining nine spaces were occupied with four of those having just been ticketed. Keep in mind no evening businesses operate on this side of the street.

If you’ve read my prior posts on this issue you know my view: a business should get two spaces in front of their door for the valet with all cars getting parked on private lots elsewhere. This leaves public spaces to the general public. This is only fair to those businesses that don’t operate valet service.

The city has no ordinance regulating valet parking. It is even questionable if the Street Department has the authority to issue the valet permits they have issued. The Treasury Dept, responsible for parking meters in the city, has indicated they have no policy.

I was tempted to park in one of those eight vacant spaces just so I’d get a ticket. It would give me a good opportunity to challenge the validity of the whole valet thing in court.

But the bigger issue is one of perception. Downtown St. Louis is hoppin’ tonight yet eight public spaces sit empty except for some orange cones. How will people visiting St. Louis from other cities or just from the ‘burbs take the idea of empty spaces but they can’t park there. I think they’ll find it frustrating and it will only compound pre-conceived ideas of downtown parking issues. We are killing ourselves here.

Copia, in the next block east, has wised up a bit. Rather than leave their entire block completely empty, as they have been doing, it looks like they’ve started parking their customer’s cars on the block. Looks much better but I’d still rather see the general downtown visitor get a fair shot at these spaces.

To the “leaders” downtown — I’m not going to drop this topic until it is resolved. Better get busy and earn those big salaries.

– Steve