Poll: Thoughts on Bill That Would Require Bike Parking In Some Cases

St. Louis alderman Scott Olgilvie (I-24) has introduced a new bill that, if passed, would modify our zoning code to require bike parking for some major new construction or renovations:

BOARD BILL NO. 258 INTRODUCED BY ALDERMAN SCOTT OGILVIE, ALDERMAN SHANE COHN, PRESIDENT LEWIS REED, ALDERWOMAN JENNIFER FLORIDA An Ordinance recommended by the City of St. Louis Planning Commission, requiring residential and commercial bicycle parking under the Zoning Code for all new construction or renovations equal to or in excess of one million dollars ($1,000,000);ontaining definitions; bicycle rack construction requirement, bicycle rack site requirements, bicycle parking requirements, exemptions, off-street parking reduction, an administrative waiver provision and a severability clause. (BB258)

From Olgilvie’s blog:

On Wednesday the Planning Commission approved an ordinance that will require bike parking be included in new commercial construction and certain renovations. The bill is a collaborative effort between myself and members of the Mayor’s staff. A lot of assistance was provided by the city’s legal and zoning teams to craft an ordinance that will be effective, yet flexible for existing structures. The idea follows the lead of other cities like Cleveland, Minneapolis, and Portland, to provide secure and convenient bike parking where people will use it: at their work and the stores they visit. The specific amount of parking is determined by the size of the structure, or the number of employees for warehouse, hotel, and industrial uses. The goal is to provide adequate bike parking facilities to accommodate up to 5% of trips – a goal which some other cities have already achieved and surpassed. The rules build upon the bike infrastructure progress made in St. Louis over the last decade, including GRG trails and bike St. Louis on-street routes. (ward24stl.com)

Section Two E of the bill:

The total number of vehicle off-street parking spaces required under the Zoning Code shall be reduced at the ratio of one (1) automobile off-street parking space for each one (1) bicycle space provided. The total number of required automobile off-street parking spaces, however, shall not be reduced by more than ten (10) percent for any newly developed or rehabilitated structure.

The following shows bike rack styles, half allowed and half not allowed:

I have some strong opinions on this bill but I’ll reserve those until I post the poll results on Wednesday February 8th.

– Steve Patterson

Cass @ Tucker Won’t Be Good For Pedestrians

Construction isn’t complete where the realigned  Tucker Blvd intersects with Cass Ave and I already see the sidewalks are not going to be great for pedestrians. Tucker is being realigned with the new Mississippi River Bridge that will open in 2014.

Pedestrians walking east & west along Cass Ave get no trees or pedestrian scaled lighting. Nothing to separate them from passing traffic.

The situation along Tucker will be very different, with nice lighting and future street trees. Why so different? The lighting and street trees along Tucker are there for motorists to see and get warm feelings, the benefit to the pedestrian is a secondary concern.

On Cass they don’t care if motorists feel good about the area. The only motorists that count are those coming off the new bridge. It’s a shame too because it wouldn’t have taken much effort to make Cass equally attractive for motorists  & pedestrians.

– Steve Patterson

Poll: Should Missouri Require Seatbelt Use For Back-seat Passengers?

Each new year brings new laws and 2012 was no exception. Residents on the east side of the region now face a stricter seatbelt law:

Illinois is the latest state to require back-seat passengers to buckle up. Twenty-five other states and the District of Columbia require all rear-seat occupants to wear seat belts, according to IIHS. All states except New Hampshire mandate belt use by front-seat occupants. (USA Today)

I’ve long been a seatbelt advocate, always requiring my passengers to buckle up. In the backseat of other’s cars I wear the seatbelt. But not everyone does and now Illinois is the latest state to require backseat passengers to buckle up, the goal to save lives. But some may see this as government going too far.

It was hard to find a good summary of Missouri’s existing seatbelt law, the following pertains to kids:

Missouri car seat safety laws require children under age four and under 40 pounds to ride in a federally approved child car seat that is appropriate for the child’s age and size. Children ages 4 through 7 who weigh more than 40 pounds but less than 80 pounds or are not at least 4’9″ tall must ride in an appropriate child car seat or booster seat. Children ages 8 to 18 must wear a seat belt. Missouri law also prohibits children under age 18 from riding in an unenclosed truck bed. (About.com)

According to Wikipedia Missouri requires people in front seats to wear seat belts. The poll question this week asks if Missouri should require seatbelt use for back-seat passengers.

– Steve Patterson

Hartford Now Two-Way…Briefly

The other day I was driving westbound on Hartford heading to Grand (map) and I noticed the street changed from being one-way westbound to two-way for a short distance east of Grand.

This probably changed months ago but I drive so rarely I hadn’t noticed. But why change such a short distance and not the entire street? Most likely the city didn’t want motorists to be able to avoid the light on Grand at Arsenal to go eastbound on Arsenal. You know, use the street grid as designed.   All over the city we’ve destroyed the grid, forcing drivers to use the main roads, not allowing  the use of the grid. Cars sit and idle at long traffic lights that all traffic must flow through. Hopefully someday we will allow the grid to be opened so traffic isn’t concentrated.

 – Steve Patterson

Approaching the MacArthur Bridge (Updated)

One of the differences I see between urbanists and suburbanites is the love of old vs new, respectively. Urbanists see beauty in old, even decaying, structures whereas others feel more comfortable around new everything. Take the Missouri approach to the MacArthur Bridge over the Mississippi River as an example.

I love the rusting steel structure.

The MacArthur Bridge over the Mississippi River between St. Louis, Missouri and East St. Louis, Illinois is a 647 foot (197 m) long truss bridge. Construction on the bridge was begun in 1909 by the city of St. Louis to break the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis’s monopoly on the area’s railroad traffic. Money ran out before the bridge approaches could be finished, however, and the bridge did not open until 1917, and then only to automobile traffic. Railroad traffic would not use the bridge’s lower deck until 1928. The bridge was initially called the “St. Louis Municipal Bridge” and known popularly as the “Free Bridge.” Tolls were added for auto traffic beginning in 1932. In 1942 the bridge was renamed for Douglas MacArthur. The MacArthur Bridge was one of several bridges in St. Louis which carried U.S. Highway 66 until the completion of the nearby Poplar Street Bridge. At one time U.S. Highway 460 crossed the bridge, terminating on the west side of the bridge. In 1981 the bridge was closed to vehicles because of pavement deterioration and the western ramp approaches were torn out. The bridge is now in use only by railroads.  (Wikipedia)

Sure I love the bridge itself but the approach is…well, approachable. I’m sure most suburbanites don’t see the beauty I see. To them it is an eyesore that should be removed or replaced.

I’ve crossed this bridge once on Amtrak but I prefer seeing the structure from the area around 4th Street & Chouteau. When I’m driving in the area I hope for red lights just to be able to look at the structure longer. When I’m on the bus I get to look at it without worrying about being distracted.

Do you see what I see? Or do you just see rusted steel?

UPDATE:

I need to clarify my suburbanite vs urbanite thesis. Many urban dwellers have rejected New Urbanism because of it’s newness even though it is otherwise well designed and compact. Similarly “newness” is always included a criteria in suburban preference studies. One study in California looking at residents of traditional neighborhoods & suburban neighborhoods found: “Residents in suburban neighborhoods have a higher average score for the safety factor, and among the individual attributes, their average ratings are particularly higher for cul-de-sacs, newness, school quality, parking, and quiet.“ (emphasis added). I’ll dig into all the  large amount of literature and do a followup post.

 – Steve Patterson