Gas Station Replaced Rock Hill Church Built By Slaves

For more than a century a modest stone church stood in what later became the City of Rock Hill. Built by slaves in the 19th century, it couldn’t compete with a gas station + convenience store in the 21st century.

I’ve been told the church was “fully integrated” because the Marshall family required their slaves to attend the church they built. A little feel-good revisionist history?

There’s nothing to feel good about on this site. This is now a sprawl corner like thousands of others in St. Louis County. What once made a positive contribution to the sidewalk experience has been reduced to a monument few will read as that would require exiting their car and actually walking a bit.

— Steve Patterson

Asphalt Accessibility

Recently I defended the city’s planned use of asphalt to bridge the gap between a sidewalk that sank next to a water main lid (see post).  One comment started an interesting side thread: “Then let’s do this at every intersection that lacks a curb ramp!”

So today I’m going to show you uses of asphalt that are both acceptable & unacceptable, and try to explain the difference.

Acceptable

In both cases it looks like a half-ass fix, because they are. When you have very little money you must often make due. These weren’t ADA-compliant before and they still aren’t now. In both cases though, I can now get through where I couldn’t before.

Unacceptable

This case is like the step at Park Pacific across the street, a major project with new concrete that ended up non-compliant. Not only was this poured inches above the street level, it is pointing into the intersection. This corner should’ve had one directional ramp for 14th and another for Olive. The other ramps around the library have similar problems.

If I had to chose between non-ADA compliant where I had to pick another route or non-ADA compliant where I (and others) can still get through I’ll always pick the latter. Just as I’ll always expect new work to be done correctly.

— Steve Patterson

Readers Want MetroLink in St. Louis County, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Presentations This Week

In the poll last week readers made it clear they want to see St. Louis County use Prop A funds to expand MetroLink. I’ll show the results later in this post but I want to share information on BRT informational meetings this week, starting today:

Public meetings will be held in September 2013 to gather public input on two final, recommended projects to be advanced into competition for Federal funding. The same meeting will be repeated at three locations along the proposed routes.

September 10, 2013
11a-1pm, open house with presentation at noon
City of St. Louis City Hall, 2nd floor
1200 Market Street, St. Louis, MO 63103

September 11, 2013
5:30-7:30 p.m., open house with presentation at 6:30 p.m.
The Heights (City of Richmond Heights Community Center)
8001 Dale Avenue, Richmond Heights, MO 63117

September 12, 2013
5:30-7:30 p.m., open house with presentation at 6:30 p.m.
St. Louis Community College – Florissant Valley Campus, Student Services Center, Multipurpose Room
3400 Pershall Road, Ferguson, MO 63135

Here’s a summary:

The study is now in the alternatives analysis phase. Four alternatives have been identified:

• Halls-Ferry Riverview BRT
• West Florissant-Natural Bridge BRT
• Page Avenue BRT
• I-64 Highway BRT

These four potential BRT routes are options for improving transit connections between St. Louis County and the City of St. Louis. One of the study’s main goals is to address the need for quick, direct travel from neighborhoods north and south of Downtown St. Louis to employers located in north and west St. Louis County. The “Central Corridor” stretching from Downtown St. Louis to the Central West End and Clayton still holds the region’s largest concentration of jobs, but the largest job growth is occurring in places like Chesterfield, Earth City, and St. Charles – areas easily accessible by highway, but currently not by public transit. The type of BRT service currently being studied is intended to expand access and improve travel time to those job opportunities – of particular importance to reverse commuters traveling to major job centers in suburban areas – while also providing a premium transit alternative for car commuters. The Rapid Transit Connector Study will identify candidates for Metro’s first two BRT routes; Metro will continue to work with the region to identify future BRT routes. Other transit options identified in Moving Transit Forward, such as expansions of the MetroLink System, are intended to meet other long-term goals such as strengthening neighborhoods and encouraging transit-oriented development.

More information on the four routes at MovingTransitForward.org.

The top three answers in the poll were for more light rail (MetroLink), not Bus Rapid Transit:

Q: How should St. Louis County invest Prop A funds to expand public transit? (Pick 3)

1. MetroLink (light rail) extension into South County from Shrewsbury station 41 [21.93%]
2. MetroLink (light rail) extension from Clayton to Westport Plaza 37 [19.79%]
3. MetroLink (light rail) extension into North County from North Hanley or airport 33 [17.65%]
4. Apply to operations to increase frequency of current routes 24 [12.83%]
5. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to West County 13 [6.95%]
6. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to South County 11 [5.88%]
7. Other: 11 [5.88%]
8. Add new regular bus routes 10 [5.35%]
9. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to North County 6 [3.21%]
10. Unsure/No Answer 1 [0.53%]

I was delighted to see more funding to operations place 4th, rather than lower. Here are the 11 other answers:

1. Better accomodation for cyclists
2. MetroLink South City
3. Expand metrolink into South city. Add double-buses on busiest lines.
4. BRT to North and South City
5. focus on service, not equpt – demand-responsive service & grid route structure
6. North South Metrolink Roue
7. Metrolink expansion to Chesterfield
8. metrolink from shrews to webster and kirkwood
9. Both North and South County Extensions
10. How is north/south Mettolink not an option. This poll is meaningless.
11. LRt to N County and S County through downtown.

For some reason 7 of these think County voters will let their tax money be spent within the city limits of St. Louis. The north & south light rail planning that took place a number of years ago had the extensions ending in park & ride lots on Goodfellow & Broadway, respectively. They’d never cross out of the city limits. Like Shrewsbury, they’d be built to expand further in the future.

Shrewsbury has been open for 7 years and it doesn’t look like we’ll be expanding south from there anytime soon. Just as well, where would it go?

— Steve Patterson

Cordish & Cardinals Failed To Plan for Pedestrians at Ballpark Village

Last month Alderman Scott Ogilvie called Ballpark Village a “total failure”:

“Taxpayers have earned a better project than they have delivered,” Ogilvie tells us. “The city of St. Louis has been a great home for the Cardinals…and this is a place downtown where we could use a great project…. It’s just maddening to see what I would call the total failure of this project. It is completely unacceptable that the citizens of St. Louis have been asked to subsidize two themed bars [and a parking lot].” (Riverfront Times)

It’s too soon to call it a total failure, large undeveloped areas used for parking is par for the course with a multi-phase development. They should’ve planned the site as a phased project from the start, they’d be further along by now. But it is what it is, we must wait to see about the success of the total project.

In the meantime, I can already say the pedestrian access & circulation is a failure. I got a sense of this back in February when the Phase 1 site plan was released:

No internal pedestrian was shown on the drawing, but I knew the final might be more detailed. Might, but it quickly became clear the released site plan was pretty accurate.  In fact, what’s built so far isn’t even as good.  Let me show you what I mean:

Looking at the above images it may not be obvious to you, but to the various city staff that I emailed in July they quickly knew Cordish would need to redo this corner of BPV. Upon site inspection, one city staffer said; “Everything they’ve done so far is questionable. Many areas are extremely tight. ”

Expect to see these mistakes busted out and corrected. If only Cordish & the Cardinals had taken pedestrian access seriously…

— Steve Patterson

Poll: Should St. Louis City & St. Louis County Reconcile? If So, How?

For decades now there have been efforts to nullify the “Great Divorce of 1876“, when the City of St. Louis removed itself from St. Louis County, becoming an independent city with municipal & county offices. All have failed.

Past failure, however, doesn’t deter some from pushing the idea again. An editorial from last month: Time to go public on mediation talks for the Great Reconciliation. A perfect subject for a poll.

Here are the  options, in order from no change to big change:

1. St. Louis City & St. Louis County should remain completely separate (no change)
2. St. Louis City & St. Louis County should remain separate, but partner more
3. St. Louis City should rejoin St. Louis County as the 91st municipally
4. St. Louis City & St. Louis County (and all its municipalities) should become one government body
5. St. Louis City & St. Louis County (and all its municipalities, schools districts, fire districts, etc) should become one government body

The answers will be presented in random order in the poll, located in the right sidebar. Interestingly, any change would require a statewide vote since the state constitution would need to be amended.

— Steve Patterson