CBD Traffic Study Becomes Downtown Transportation Plan

From the Downtown St. Louis Partnership:

I have several thoughts:

Two-Way Streets and On-Street Parking

I’m really eager to see how changing a street from one-way with on-street parking to two-way will mean we have to lose the parking and loading zones. I know some of the city buses have trouble with some corners and some bus routes might need to be rerouted. Fire engines likely have the same trouble. We are probably going to hear a bunch of BS from traffic engineers about traffic counts and how on-street parking impedes flow. I’m fully expecting the worst in convoluted logic.

Traffic Flow vs. Pedestrian-Friendly

Anything would be better than what we have now. Some blocks don’t have pedestrian signals at all. Other blocks simply turn off the pedestrian signal because they aren’t programmed to deal with things such as right turn only lanes. Most blocks take so long to change that people cross against the signal. I’ve been at lights on my bike/scooter/car and waited and waited for the light to change when no other cars are even around.

By the way, are you all aware that it is not legal to make a left from a one-way street onto another one-way street. I was one of the people that thought it was legal to do so. I didn’t get a ticket, just heard it at a meeting at East-West Gateway Council of Governments.

One-Way vs. Two-Way Streets:

We need to eliminate every one-way street in the city of St. Louis. An exception might be a few really narrow streets — those that are under 30ft wide. Otherwise they should all be two-way. Two-way streets are more intuitive when you are unfamiliar with an area. And let’s face it, for downtown to continue the rate of prosperity we need more and more folks that haven’t been downtown in a while to stop by. We don’t need lots of confused suburbanites in SUV’s going the wrong way on one-way streets.

Two-way streets are just psychologically friendlier to pedestrians. With traffic going in two different directions it adds a layer of visual interest beyond one-way streets. With one-way traffic the pedestrian is either walking the entire way against traffic or with traffic. Either way it is boring. When walking with one-way traffic you feel like you are not getting anywhere fast because all the traffic is moving in the same direction much faster. Walking against traffic you feel overwhelmed by all the traffic going in the opposite direction, as if you are going to the wrong way. With two-way traffic these forces cancel each other out.
A Study becomes a Plan

A few months ago this was a study and all of a sudden we’ve got a “Downtown Transportation Plan.” This is the first time I’ve heard this called a Transportation Plan. All prior announcements were simply talking about survey, study and updating signals. I’m not so opposed to a plan but I’m wondering how it became a plan from just a study. Did they finally realize just how messed up the current system is and needs a more comprehensive approach? Let’s hope so.

Downtown Now! vs. Downtown St. Louis Partnership

Yes, they really are two separate organizations. Never mind that each executive director is on the board of the other organization. In a continuing tag-team approach the Partnership continues to announce the study which was funded in part by Downtown Now! Sometimes I think they are deliberately trying to blur the lines between them so they both seem relevant.

Sharing Information:

My last thought has nothing to do with the above quote but how I obtained it. First, a regular reader shared the above as a comment today on a prior post on the topic. It seemed more worthwhile than being simply a comment on an old post. So I went to the Downtown Partnership website to verify the information. It is how the Downtown Partnership shares information that I find so…uh….interesting.

Many choices exist for sharing information on the internet, some better than others. I like information sites that incorporate blog technology to have the most recent updates on the top of the page. These news updates can also be sent out via RSS/XML feeds to people like me that like to monitor hundreds of sources. Other choices include updating the web page, perhaps linking to a page with latest news. PDF documents are certainly popular. When sending emails placing the text in the body of an email is popular as is a more deluxe email in HTML format. Attaching a PDF to an email is also common. What isn’t common, however, is the practice of using a fully editable Word document.

Yes, the Downtown Partnership sends out a weekly email with an attached Word document. If you go to their website and seek information such as their weekly notice or even a list of board members you immediately get a Word document downloaded to your hard drive. I happen to have Word and use my own computer so it really isn’t a big deal for me but I have friends that use the computer at the library or other such places where you can’t save documents to a drive or where Word isn’t an available application. The beauty of PDF documents is that a reader is free and is widely available. Does Bill Gates pay the Partnership to keep Word alive? If the Partnership’s website had this information as a PDF document then more people would be able to read the file. Plus, it would not be editable the way their current Word document is.

But PDF documents as a way of distributing news items is really outdated as well. Unless someone saves every week’s file they really can’t search for information reliably. However, as a blog tech site each post has its own unique web address, is searchable and can be found via search engines such as Google. This is not new but is certainly a long way away from the 1996 era of sending out Word documents. Richard Callow — please go over and help bring the Partnership into the 21st Century.

Past Posts and Final Thoughts:

New St. Louis CBD Traffic Study, July 3, 2005

Mayor’s Office Shares Details About the CBD Traffic/Access Study
, July 5, 2005

Downtown Partnership’s Jim Cloar Takes Action to Keep Parking off Washington Avenue, July 15, 2005

What Happened To The CBD Traffic Study?, August 3, 2005

CBD Traffic Survey Limited to Select Few!, August 3, 2005

Given the whole secrecy around the initial survey I’m suspicious about the results. We’ll know more, hopefully, in a few weeks.

– Steve

$1 Billion Mississippi River Bridge – The Numbers Just Don’t Add Up

Tuesday evening last week engineers revealed a new proposal for the Mississippi River Bridge. As expected, it is less costly and far less intrusive into the city compared to the old bridge. At first glance it looks fine. But when you dig below the surface the new design falls short of acceptable in an urban environment. Dig some more and the conclusion we need the bridge is questionable at best.

If you haven’t seen the previous design take a look at a prior post. Before I get into the question of having the bridge at all, let’s look at the revised design.

Again, the new design is far better than the catastrophic design previously proposed. Keep in mind the original concept many years ago was to make a highway loop around the West edge of downtown and connect with I-64/Hwy 40 just to the West of Union Station. Later this was scaled back as the 22nd Street Parkway but lofts and restaurants in the path of the parkway and lack of funds have killed the concept. But the engineers for the new bridge had continued to act as though the parkway was going to happen. In prior bridge concepts they had a massive hole and roadway stretching across the North edge of downtown that would dump cars onto Washington Avenue. Lack of money, not a richness of good sense, prompted the engineers to reconsider the Missouri interchange for the bridge.

Now, instead of dumping cars onto Washington Avenue they are being dumped onto Cass Avenue. The shortened on/off ramps are still being called “parkway” by the engineers simply because of all the open grass land around the them. Open grass land that comes from razing buildings and erasing the street grid. Long high-speed on/off ramps in an area where buildings and streets used to exist but now has some green grass is not a parkway, it is a mistake.

With nearly every downtown building being renovated as lofts and renewed interest in Old North St. Louis through their new in-fill houses we have a very unique opportunity to mend the city. Between downtown and Old North much has been lost and changed. But the street grid is mostly intact as are many of the buildings that make up a starting point for filling in the gaps between these two points. If done successfully someone could enjoy a nice walk from downtown to Crown Candy Kitchen. Filling in these blocks with new loft-like buildings, rowhouses and other building types we could create an even stronger residential base to support the growing number of downtown businesses. Strengthening our neighborhoods and seamlessly connecting them together should be a high priority for revitalizing the city. The new bridge design will make such connections visually challenging and literally difficult by foot, bicycle and even by car if you don’t know which streets are closed.

The revised design calls for the ramps to dump onto Cass Avenue between 10th and 11th Streets. Engineers have four lanes of traffic exiting the bridge at Cass. Two lanes turn left and two right. The assumption is many of the drivers that turn left will make an immediate right to take 10th Street into the central business district (CBD). 10th Street is currently a one-way street heading south, serving as a speedy exit from the current I-70. During the morning rush the street is crowded with folks just passing through. After 9am the street is desolate unless we have some sort of sporting event going on. The street is not there to serve the residents and to build upon but simply a pass through. Ninth Street is the opposite. No, it is not a lively street 24/7 but simply a Northbound version of 10th, a pass through on the way to somewhere else.

… Continue Reading

Busch Stadium: Out With the Old, In With the New

The latest spectator sport in St. Louis is the demolition of the 1960s Busch Stadium designed by Edward Durell Stone. Every day you can see people lining 8th Street taking pictures and watching the demolition. To maintain their tight schedule demolition continues into the evening hours as well.

Friday night when I passed by on my scooter I got to see an amazing sight. The wrecking ball just hit a large section of the old stadium and a falling exterior column took out a scissor lift on the site. Ouch, expensive mistake.

Many are upset to see the modern stadium go in favor of the new retro stadium. In a post last month I listed buildings I’d raze before the old Busch. The circular form of the old stadium was one of its best features. The arches were unique and looked great at night. Other than that, I was not so impressed.

The old stadium was not a good urban neighbor. The harsh forms & materials did not invite anyone to look and touch. The building was not pedestrian friendly. The arches, the one redeeming feature, were too far removed from the sidewalk to compensate for the lack of interest otherwise presented to the outsider. The design never mattered much on game day because of all the people, it is those non-game days when empty that it took life away from the area. Sorry all you folks that love the old stadium, I’m not going to miss it.

But what about the new stadium?

Well, I’m over the whole red brick with black metal retro stadium look exemplified by the new Busch and countless other stadiums across the country built in the last 10 years. The whole notion of building something new trying to pass itself off as being from a century earlier makes me noxious nauseous. That having been said, I think the new stadium will accomplish a number of positive things the old stadium could not.

First, by constructing the new stadium closer to the highway it leaves room downtown for the “ballpark village,” a mixed-use development. This should help repair part of downtown torn apart in the 60’s. The new Busch is still bigger than a city block and therefore messes with the street grid. However, it recognizes the grid. Entrances on 8th Street and Broadway are aligned with Spruce, a subtle but important design element.

The new design will also be more inviting on non-game days. Despite what people may think, the inviting aspect will not come from the red brick and retro details. Instead it will come from generally pleasing massing and texture. With the new ballpark village and more activity at Cupples Station, the new stadium will have more activity around it on non-game days.

In time the new stadium will become beloved. Just not the same as the old stadium it replaces. The generic retro look is just too commonplace to set this stadium apart from all the other red brick retro buildings filling our city and others.

– Steve

West End Word Column Available Online

If you missed my column in last week’s West End Word don’t worry, it is now available online. Here is a quote:

The debate over the size of the new fountain for Maryland Plaza was heated, but it pales in comparison to the emotions raised by the proposition of more residential high-rise towers in the Central West End. At the heart of the controversy is the proposed Lindell Condominiums at 4643 Lindell Blvd. at Euclid.

Check it out here and post your thoughts below and/or send your comments to the editor of the West End Word.

– Steve

Hearing To Reopen Praxair Today at 1pm

Lafayette Square has been a “hot” neighborhood since I moved to St. Louis in 1990. And why not; beautiful homes, convenient location and a magnificent urban park.

But in June of this year it got a little hotter than the residents could stand. Rather than exploding home sales you got exploding storage tanks at Praxair on Chouteau.

During the crisis, which lasted for weeks, Praxair company officials talked of relocating and the city made strong statements about making sure they moved away from such a heavy residential area. It all seemed like it would resolve itself.

Now one side is backing away from their original words and thankfully it is not the City. Praxair has requested a permit to renovate and reopen their facility but the city refused. Praxair has appealed. Today is a hearing on Praxair’s appeal. Not surprising, residents are actively opposing Praxair complete with signs, a letter writing campaign and a new website called, appropriately enough, PraxairWatch.com

From the site you can link to local sources for pictures and video of the explosion, fire and aftermath. Sensational images!

I’ve gone back and forth on this issue to a degree. At various times I’ve wondered if the residents were just pampered NIMBY types (not in my back yard). After all, industry has been around the edge of Lafayette Square longer than any of them have lived there.

But, in the end, I’ve separated in my mind “regular” industry from hazardous and explosive materials. That is where I, and clearly the residents, have drawn the line. Lafayette Square has a number of other businesses at the edge such as an overhead door distributor, a truck repair center and small manufacturers and distributors. These types of businesses have co-existed with the residences for decades and it is a nice mix. St. Louis’ is still very much an industrial city. But explosive gasses?

No resident, regardless of affluence or influence, should be subjected to the risk of such explosions. The mere fact the fire department had to keep water on the scene to cool the contents for what seemed like weeks is proof enough this doesn’t belong anywhere but a highly industrial area where the risk to home and life is minimized. Praxair needs to move to another location.

Today’s meeting is at 1pm in room 208 of City Hall.

– Steve