Suburban Sprawl Descends Into Uncomfortable Middle Age

Most would agree that West St. Louis County is the poster child for urban sprawl. Over many decades, St. Louis development has crept westward through St. Louis County and into St. Charles County, the current epicenter of unrestrained sprawl. As time has passed, much of central and western St. Louis County have begun the inevitable cycle of aging and renewal that is associated with older urban areas.

My focus of interest is primarily on what urban planners refer to as the “second-ring western suburbs” of St. Louis. They are a microcosm of multiple older rural communities from the mid-to-late 1800s that have been folded into larger, newer cities over the past 50 years. They are all facing the need for urban redevelopment in the face of overwhelming evidence that many of the ideas embraced by the original suburban developers have not turned out so well.

In my city, Maryland Heights, this means a city without a town center. If asked, most people would cite either the Dorsett-McKelvey Road commercial district or Westport as our gathering places. One is a basic commercial crossroads and the other is an aging mixed -use development. Both are modestly successful and neither one represents a true central nexus for residents.

Part of the problem is that Maryland Heights is an anomaly in suburban development: it hosts over 80,000 workers during the day and houses only 26,000 residents at night. The reverse of a bedroom community, it often finds itself beholden to business and commercial interests at the cost of the residents.

This was clearly present in the 2008 fight that residents waged against development in the Howard Bend area of Maryland Heights. This area contains the flood plain around Creve Coeur Park and land on either side of the Maryland Heights Expressway from I-70 to the Page Avenue extension. Residents didn’t want to see a massive development (initially arranged around a proposed Walmart) that would back up against Creve Coeur Park. Maryland Park, as the proposed development was called, was set to build a bland suburban mixed-use project that was fully oriented toward cars.

The City of Maryland Heights has spent 20 years working on a comprehensive plan for Howard Bend that is the embodiment of urban sprawl focused on building commercial warehouses and one (or more) large-scale developments for big-box stores and retail. During the Howard Bend fight, residents became fully aware of what was contained in the comprehensive plan. While the process was public, the lack of effective public engagement by the city over 20 years had the unfortunate outcome of surprised residents visibly upset about the Howard Bend development plan. In fairness, residents also neglected their responsibilities by failing to interact with city government and make their wishes known.

Citizens who fail to monitor and influence their city governments are likely to be surprised and angry when the businesses who do engage with the city are given top priority. To combat this usual state of affairs, a group of concerned citizens originally organized under the flag of SaveCreveCoeur.com has developed into a more permanent organization called Maryland Heights Residents for Responsible Growth. As part of the steering committee, we have launched a new website for the community development organization at MarylandHeightsResidents.com

In the future, I will be contributing posts about the more universal aspects of the issues facing second-ring, western St. Louis County suburbs. Issues I intend to cover include:

• Cities without town centers
• Stagnant population growth
• Diminishing open spaces
• Flood plain development
• Aging apartment complexes and housing stock
• Public-engagement successes and failures
• Community-development issues and specific projects being pursued
• The role of residents in guiding city development

I look forward to hearing from you. Please use the comments section below or email me directly with topics you’d like to see addressed in future posts.

– Deborah Moulton

Readers Prefer Boulevard Over Tunnel

A large majority of those voting in the poll last week support the idea of removing a section of highway downtown and building a boulevard as a pleasant way to move vehicles through the area.  The total number of votes was 162.

The highway is now marked as I-70 but once the new Mississippi River bridge is opened I-70 will cross over into Illinois rather than pass by the Arch.  The tunnel proposal solves only a 3-4 block section of getting past the highway lanes.  The boulevard would help mend over a mile long zone for half the cost.

It has been suggested just closing Memorial Drive.  That still leaves the exposed highway North of Washington Ave as well as creating a huge dead zone  — vast pedestrian mall at the foot of the Gateway Arch.  Bad idea.

– Steve Patterson

A Grand Test

A few days ago a big change was made to a small section of South Grand, Arsenal (link) to Utah. What had been four lanes (2 per direction) was now 2 with a center turn lane.  No, the streetscape was not done overnight.  Paint and Jersey barriers are the visible techniques in this short-term test:

GREAT STREETS TEST PROJECT ON SOUTH GRAND
St. Louis, MO, September 8, 2009 — On Tuesday, September 8, 2009, East-West Gateway Council of Governments and the City of St. Louis will begin a 30-day test on South Grand from Arsenal to Utah. The test, part of the South Grand Great Streets project, will change the timing of traffic signals, reduce the number of traffic lanes from four to three, simulate curb extensions at intersections, and close the two alleys on the west side of Grand between Arsenal and Juniata. The purpose is to test the viability of these proposed changes under real traffic conditions for 30 days before committing to a final preferred alternative for the corridor.
At a series of public meetings in August, members of the public and business community favored an option to reconfigure South Grand from Arsenal to Utah from four through lanes to two through lanes and a center turn lane. If the 30-day test shows that the lane reduction will not handle the traffic volumes adequately, the project will keep the existing four-lane configuration and focus on retiming signals and adding curb extensions.
The goals of the South Grand Great Streets project are to improve pedestrian safety while maintaining traffic flow; enhance the appearance and functionality of the corridor through lighting, signage, and landscaping; and provide opportunities for continued economic development. Approximately $2.7 million for design and construction have been secured through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) by East-West Gateway Council of Governments.
For additional information on the 30-day test, please contact (314) 776-2423. For more information on the South Grand Great Streets project, visit http://www.ewgateway.org/GreatStreets/greatstreets.htm.

Anytime you do a test you should ideally design the test to create successful outcomes.  But this test was designed with failure in mind.

The blue section of Grand above shows the 6-block test area that for the next month is two lanes with a center turn lane.  The red above and below are four lane sections of Grand and the green at the bottom has been two lanes for a while.  So the first problem is 4-lane section between Utah and Chippewa.  At a minimum the section from Utah to Gravois should have also been tested at 2 + center.  I know the funding for the street improvements is limited to the 6-block area but the bottleneck created for only six blocks is going to turn everyone off.

The second problem is the lack of notice.  Drivers are already upon the change before they are told of the change. The first lighted sign should have been 3-4 blocks prior.

The above is looking South on Grand.  The intersection ahead is Arsenal. You can see the changing in the stripes causing the former right through lane to now be a right turn only lane.  In the right side of the image you see the first sign indicating the change.  Too late!  By the time you see the sign you are already upon the change.  Fail #1.

Heading Northbound you have the same late notice situation.  You can see the sign in the distance but that is after you need to be in the correct lane.  Fail #2.

I’d say someone wants to make sure drivers call the flashing phone number to complain about the change so that after the test ends they can say the reduced lanes were problematic.  The only way I see the Grand district improving is to have only two total through lanes of traffic.

The other failure is the brevity.  Only six blocks.  A branch library is just beyond the end of the test area.  Heading North from Meramec you have a single Northbound lane.  Then you have two.  Then suddenly one again.  The back to two after Arsenal.  Geez.

Pick the number of lanes and stick to it for more than six blocks.  The other failure is the simulated curb bulb outs:

Yikes, ugly.  Who is going to call the number and proclaim, “I love it!”  Nobody.  Well, but me.  And hopefully you.  The goal is to lesson the impact of the traffic. Those that want to get through the area faster will find alternate routes: Kingshighway, Gustine, Compton, Jefferson, or I-55.  I say skip the planned bike lanes and make the sidewalks wider.  Bicyclists seem to prefer Gustine and Compton anyway.  I suspect that will still be the case even if Grand receives bike lanes for these additional six blocks.  Continue the bike lanes past Gravois, Chippewa and Meramec and connect with the bike lanes on Holly Hills at Carondelet Park and then you’ve got something worth considering.  Six blocks?  Not so much.

– Steve Patterson

Tour of Missouri Worth the Expense?

Budgets are tight at all levels of government.  Monday I was part of an estimated 75,000 spectators along the 7.5 mile route of stage 1 of the Tour of Missouri:

The tour came close to not happening this year.  The tour, in its 3rd year, is a project of Republican Lt Governor Peter Kinder.  Governor Jay Nixon wanted to cut the tour to help balance the state budget:

Gov. Jay Nixon has made public the specifics of $60 million in budget cuts he had previously announced in June.

The Department of Social Services took the biggest hit at $16 million.

In June, Nixon vetoed $105 million in spending as he looked to balance a state budget suffering from declining revenue in the wake of the recession. He also held back $325 million in spending on other projects, and directed his department heads to propose additional cuts totalling $60 million.

An early memo suggesting money for the Tour of Missouri be cut touched off a storm of controversy over the proposed cuts. The money for the Tour was saved. So, too, were some of the proposed cuts to the state Water Patrol that would have left parts of the Missouri River and Mississippi river without enforcement coverage.  (Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch 08.20.2009)

I’ve yet to find the cost to the state or the estimated benefits to local governments and the state.

Like the folks hanging out at Citygarden watching the race, above, I really enjoy the tour each year.  But does the tour make fiscal sense?  The prior two years the tour ended in St. Louis.  This year St. Louis was the location of the first stage of the week-long race across the state. Competitors, crew and even TV announcers were hear from all over the world.  Amateur racers in town for the Gateway Cup finished on Monday just before the pros got started.  The synergy  was great.  But that alone doesn’t justify the cost to taxpayers.

All states have a tourism budget.  Some run TV ads in neighboring states to attract nearby visitors.  All seem to have free state maps available. Seldom can you see and feel the direct benefit of a tourism expenditure.  Hopefully in the coming 6-12 months we’ll see some discussion at the state level about any return on our continued investment in the Tour of Missouri.  My suspicion is the partisan battle is mostly centered on the fact the tour is a project of a Republican and a Democrat now occupies the Governor’s Mansion.  It the situation were reversed we’d probably see Republicans opposing the same tour if championed by a Democrat.

– Steve Patterson

Highway Lid Concept is Really a Pricey & Inadequate Tunnel

For over 40 years I-70 has been a major barrier dividing downtown St. Louis from the the Mississippi River.  Isolating Laclede’s Landing.  Hovering over the Missouri side as you exit the historic Eads Bridge:

At the Gateway Arch the freeway dips into what us known as the “depressed lanes.”  Depressing indeed. For years now the political establishment has been talking about the idea of a lid over the sunken highway lanes.  Sounds simple enough, just put a lid over the top.

The problem is, “lid” is the wrong word.  The correct word is tunnel.  A lid implies you might use a crane to set it in place just as the final piece of the adjacent Arch was set.  But for our officials to keep saying lid is misleading.  They want to put the highway into a new tunnel.

The Highway 67/Lindbergh tunnel under the extended runways at Lambert Airport is probably the closest example to what will be required next to the Arch.  Hardly a lid.  The ventilation and security requirements of this tunnel contributed to the billion dollar runway price tag.  Ouch.

The extensive tunneling required for the latest MetroLink expansion drove up the price tag for that project.  Face it, tunnels are expensive.  In many cases, too expensive.

I can’t help but think of the biggest of the big in terms of tunnel projects:

The Big Dig was the most expensive highway project in the U.S. Although the project was estimated in 1985 at $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2006),^[3] over $14.6 billion ($8.08 billion in 1982 dollars) had been spent in federal and state tax dollars as of 2006. A July 17, 2008 article in ^{[update][update]}The Boston Globe stated, “In all, the project will cost an additional $7 billion in interest, bringing the total to a staggering $22 billion, according to a Globe review of hundreds of pages of state documents. It will not be paid off until 2038.”  (Source: Wikipedia)

Estimates of under $3 billion but ending up over $22 billion.  Our tunnel will not have the complexity of Boston’s Big Dig but I think that project serves as a lesson for cost overruns and delays to completion.  Our own Cross County Metrolink expansion is a local lesson on costs and completion deadlines.

At least in Boston the Big Dig addressed how their Central Artery freeway had divided their city.

Above is one of many points where the former elevated freeway divided Boston.  Their expensive tunnel resolved the division issues not for a mere 3 blocks but for more than a mile.

But in St. Louis our tunnel would resolve access to the Arch grounds at the center only.  My solution, first advanced in August 2005, is to remove the freeway lanes once I-70 is routed across the new river bridge currently being planned:

So imagine the existing I-70 removed from the PSB to the new bridge (North of Laclede’s Landing & the proposed Bottle District). In its place a wide and grand boulevard lined with trees and shops. The adjacent street grid is reconnected at every block. Pedestrians can easily cross the boulevard not only at the Arch but anywhere along the distance between the bridges. Eads Bridge and the King Bridge both land cars onto the boulevard and into then dispersed into the street grid. The money it would take to cover I-70 for 3 blocks in front of the Arch can go much further not trying to cover an interstate highway. Joining the riverfront and Laclede’s Landing to the rest of downtown will naturally draw people down Washington Avenue to the riverfront.

In one bold decision we can take back our connection to the river that shaped our city. The decision must be made now. The interchange for the new bridge is being designed now — we’ve only got one chance to get it right. Similarly, the lid project in front of the Arch could shift to a removed I-70 and connecting boulevard design before we are too far along the current path.

We are at a crossroads at this point with three major projects involving billions of dollars and affecting St. Louis for at least the next half century. Removing I-70 would, in twenty years, be seen as a pivotal decision. Will our government leaders have the courage to make such a decision?

In the four years since I wrote those words more people agree.  Some are banding together to sell the concept to the region, moving the idea forward.  Property owners along this section of interstate that will no longer be I-70 favor the idea.  The problem is our leadership is still stuck on the costly lid concept.  They want to address 3 blocks rather than 30 blocks — for 10 times the cost.  Sounds about like St. Louis’ leadership.

The problem is they have….well…tunnel vision.  They see only a problem at the center of the Arch whereas most of us see the access problem along the length of the highway as it slices through downtown. Examples of problems that will not be addressed by a tunnel:

We can fix all of the above with a tree-lined boulevard.  Remember, this 1.5 mile stretch will no longer be I-70.  Those drivers using these lanes as a pass through can still use the boulevard to get North-South.  The choice is simple, repair a large portion of the downtown and near North side where it has been divided by a 1.5 mile long stretch of highway or focus on 3 blocks for at least twice the price.  The solution is a no-brainer to me.

The first thing we must do is get our officials to stop insulting our intelligence with the overly simplistic “lid” idea.  The highway is not a Tupperware container that you can just close up with a simple snap-on lid.  Even if the price tag were the same, the boulevard concept reconnects much more of the city — 1.5 miles vs. 3 blocks.

Unfortunately our officials are all talking the same 3 block tunnel.  Many have a say from the Mayor to MoDOT to the National Park Service.  Getting them to be open to other, more encompassing, solutions will be challenging.

Take this week’s poll in the right sidebar to vote on how to reconnect the city to the river.

– Steve Patterson