The Average St. Louis Street is an Unfriendly Environment for Pedestrians
Just going about my life I encounter so many obstacles to making St. Louis a great city for pedestrians, and by extension, transit users and cyclists. Basically anyone other than motorists.
Yes, I own a car so I am, at times, also a motorist. Â But I cover far more area as a transit using pedestrian and the design of our city makes being a pedestrian a challenge. Sure, we have a select few areas where being a pedestrian is a pleasant experience, but the other 98% is downright hostile. Place matters and the design of our place discourages walking and encourages driving. We need a balance.
Yes, I use a power chair but these issues affect all potential pedestrians. We want middle-class families right? But they walk too, including with baby strollers. We must examine all our streets and improve the walkability.
I’ve not yet examined the Great Streets legislation adopted by the city but I doubt it will ever reach this two block stretch of 39th between Shaw & McRee. It will improve a few sections getting major reconstruction but the bulk of the city will remain unfriendly to most pedestrians.
– Steve Patterson
As a new parent, Steve, I fully understand and agree with you. We accept a build environment for pedestrians that we’d never, ever accept for cars. From missing sidewalks to massive bumps, I have to constantly pay attention to where I’m going and carefully progress as I walk with my son. It’s unacceptable to leave our sidewalks in such condition while spending so much on road building and repair.
As a new parent, Steve, I fully understand and agree with you. We accept a build environment for pedestrians that we’d never, ever accept for cars. From missing sidewalks to massive bumps, I have to constantly pay attention to where I’m going and carefully progress as I walk with my son. It’s unacceptable to leave our sidewalks in such condition while spending so much on road building and repair.
 I think you’re going a bit overboard in this case. Fault can be found in everyting. Let a policeman follow your entire car commute home on a given evening, and he’ll have reason to issue at least one traffic violation, I’m sure. If lack of $ were not an issue, you may have reason to gripe. But there is a finite amount to go around, and you know that the City is doing its part, trying to make as many improvements as possible.
I think you’re going a bit overboard in this case. Fault can be found in everyting. Let a policeman follow your entire car commute home on a given evening, and he’ll have reason to issue at least one traffic violation, I’m sure. If lack of $ were not an issue, you may have reason to gripe. But there is a finite amount to go around, and you know that the City is doing its part, trying to make as many improvements as possible.
My point is the city isn’t looking at the big picture, a few blocks of a few streets (Grand, Manchester) get redone, other streets like Taylor get “pedestrian lighting” but the bulk of the streets are ignored entirely. Nobody is saying we need to make our city better for pedestrians — within our budget. No planning guidelines, nothing.
My point is the city isn’t looking at the big picture, a few blocks of a few streets (Grand, Manchester) get redone, other streets like Taylor get “pedestrian lighting” but the bulk of the streets are ignored entirely. Nobody is saying we need to make our city better for pedestrians — within our budget. No planning guidelines, nothing.
While I basically agree, the environment for vehicles ain’t great either. Two points. One, the power pole in the middle of the sidewalk (first picture) is not the fault, per se, of the highway engineers, it’s more likely the fault of Ameren or whoever owns the pole, possibly combined with a limited right-of-way and/or a supervisor not doing their job correctly. In reality, it’s democracy at its finest – there are more cars than peds here, so the cars “win”, combined with our “need” for electricity and data.
And two, “you can’t put lipstick on a pig” – whether it’s the chicken or the egg, sprawl has had and continues to have a HUGE impact on everybody’s experience, pedestrians, cyclists and drivers alike. Putting in a smooth detatched sidewalk, complete with ADA-compliant curb cuts, means little if it’s still “too far” to walk comfortably. My wife, a St. Louis native, was amazed last week when I walked two miles home last week, after I dropped my truck off for service. It was a nice day and involved crossing three busy streets, but it wasn’t difficult or particularily “far”, and I had pretty good sidewalks the whole way – I didn’t see it as any big deal, while she did.Â
Bigger picture, our obsession with minimizing travel times remains the biggest obstacle. In my pretty-typical example, it took me 7 or 8 minutes to drive there, about 40 minutes to walk back, and, according to Google Maps, would have taken 32 minutes by bus, with one transfer, or 12 minutes by bike. Most of us lead busy lives and we all make time/value choices, in both where we live and how we get around every day. Add in our, at many times, less-than-ideal weather and the appeal of a climate-controlled personal travel pod becomes pretty obvious. For simple economic reasons, we have decided that our land is cheap enough that low density is the best choice for accommodating the SOV. In the urban core, we knock down buildings to provide parking for adjacent buildings. In the suburbs, we rarely build over 2 or 3 stories tall, and, even more rarely, invest in structured parking. As a result, our city’s population has dropped from 800,000 to less than 350,000, while our fairly-constant regional population continues to spread out over more and more square miles.
While it’s fashionable to bash the poor state of our sidewalks, especially in urbanist blogs, that old cliche “I have looked in the mirror and I have seen the enemy – it is us” still holds true. We shop in stores with large parking lots. We own SOV’s and we use them. We buy or rent our homes with access to parking. We don’t make spending on pedestrian infrastucture a priority for our politicians. We don’t want to pay higher taxes. Money and actions talk – we get the world we deserve and we support . . . .
While I basically agree, the environment for vehicles ain’t great either. Two points. One, the power pole in the middle of the sidewalk (first picture) is not the fault, per se, of the highway engineers, it’s more likely the fault of Ameren or whoever owns the pole, possibly combined with a limited right-of-way and/or a supervisor not doing their job correctly. In reality, it’s democracy at its finest – there are more cars than peds here, so the cars “win”, combined with our “need” for electricity and data.
And two, “you can’t put lipstick on a pig” – whether it’s the chicken or the egg, sprawl has had and continues to have a HUGE impact on everybody’s experience, pedestrians, cyclists and drivers alike. Putting in a smooth detatched sidewalk, complete with ADA-compliant curb cuts, means little if it’s still “too far” to walk comfortably. My wife, a St. Louis native, was amazed last week when I walked two miles home last week, after I dropped my truck off for service. It was a nice day and involved crossing three busy streets, but it wasn’t difficult or particularily “far”, and I had pretty good sidewalks the whole way – I didn’t see it as any big deal, while she did.
Bigger picture, our obsession with minimizing travel times remains the biggest obstacle. In my pretty-typical example, it took me 7 or 8 minutes to drive there, about 40 minutes to walk back, and, according to Google Maps, would have taken 32 minutes by bus, with one transfer, or 12 minutes by bike. Most of us lead busy lives and we all make time/value choices, in both where we live and how we get around every day. Add in our, at many times, less-than-ideal weather and the appeal of a climate-controlled personal travel pod becomes pretty obvious. For simple economic reasons, we have decided that our land is cheap enough that low density is the best choice for accommodating the SOV. In the urban core, we knock down buildings to provide parking for adjacent buildings. In the suburbs, we rarely build over 2 or 3 stories tall, and, even more rarely, invest in structured parking. As a result, our city’s population has dropped from 800,000 to less than 350,000, while our fairly-constant regional population continues to spread out over more and more square miles.
While it’s fashionable to bash the poor state of our sidewalks, especially in urbanist blogs, that old cliche “I have looked in the mirror and I have seen the enemy – it is us” still holds true. We shop in stores with large parking lots. We own SOV’s and we use them. We buy or rent our homes with access to parking. We don’t make spending on pedestrian infrastucture a priority for our politicians. We don’t want to pay higher taxes. We don’t hold property owners accountable for the conditions of their sidewalks. We don’t enforce existing ordinances requiring the removal of snow and ice. Money and actions talk – we get the world we deserve and we support . . . .
Who’s this “we” you refer to? I don’t do any of the things you’ve described that “we” do.
We, the majority of the region’s residents. And, you’re a better man than me since you don’t own a car, never bum a ride from a friend, don’t ever shop at Schnuck’s or any other supermarket, don’t ever buy fast food or gasoline and never, ever go into a shopping mall or a big box store. But if you do, it’s like “sort of pregnant” or “almost a virgin” – you either do or you don’t. How many times have you complained to the CSB about the condition of a sidewalk? How many times have you contacted your alderman or the mayor specifically asking that a bigger part of our budget be spent on sidewalks? How often do you shovel the sidewalk when it snows? Actions speak louder than words . . . .
First, you’re creating a false dichotomy – you either support sidewalks or, if you do any of those things you say, once, you’re just like “the rest of them.” It’s a poor way of structuring an argument, especially when you have a good point buried in there. My money and actions, largely, speak for the desire for a walkable neighborhood with adequate sidewalks. Some of the time, yes, I do use a car. Some of the time, I do not.
Stating that sidewalks are in poor condition is neither fashionable nor bashing. It’s stating a fact. Our sidewalks are in poor condition. Second, I’ve contacted my alderman half a dozen times about sidewalks in my neighborhood, specifically, as well as the CSB and streets department. I shovel the sidewalk in front of my house and my two adjoining neighbors houses every time it snows. My wife and I and baby walk frequently to restaurants and stores nearby – including both those with large parking lots and those with virtually no parking (LeGrands).
I was responding to Brad’s absolute statement that “I don’t do any of the things you’ve described that ‘we’ do”. Steve is more forthright – he “admits” to having a car, but he also minimizes his use of it. I also don’t disagree that our sidewalks are far from what they should be. The “good point” that I’m trying to make is that marginal sidewalks are only a symptom of a much larger issue, sprawl and low-density development and redevelopment, driven (pun intended) by our overwhelming (and logical) choice of the single-occupant vehicle as our (most residents’) preferred method of transportation. While we can argue whether investments in highways encourage SOV use or if the majority’s preference for SOV’s drives investment in highways, the reality remains that they and their need for parking ARE shaping our built environment. If we want better walkability (and transit), we need to focus on having more there, there, not just on building better sidewalks. Mixed uses and higher densities are the key, yet there’s very little happening like that anywhere in the area. You and I live in the same part of town. While our sidewalks aren’t perfect, for the most part, there are few missing connections. The nearest structure to me that used to house a corner grocery now houses a chiropractor; the nearest thing approaching a walkable corner grocery is Huck’s on Watson, and I wouldn’t want to try and survive on what they have in stock. Target and Schnuck’s are a mile away. Are they “walkable”? On a good day, yes; on most days, no, the car makes more sense. It’s that whole ¼-mile good walkability standard versus a major interestion every mile standard for traffic engineering, along with 50+ years of NIMBY, that’s killing walkability, not a power pole dropped in the middle of a sidewalk . . . .
Who’s this “we” you refer to? I don’t do any of the things you’ve described that “we” do.
Totally agree. Â And its not just the sidewalks, but the walk signals too. Â Any other big city you have plenty of time to get across the street, but not in STL.
Totally agree. And its not just the sidewalks, but the walk signals too. Any other big city you have plenty of time to get across the street, but not in STL.
Exactly, a good pedestrian environment doesn’t happen by accident. It requires a concerted effort with carrots & sticks to make it happen.
Exactly, a good pedestrian environment doesn’t happen by accident. It requires a concerted effort with carrots & sticks to make it happen.
We, the majority of the region’s residents. And, you’re a better man than me since you don’t own a car, never bum a ride from a friend, don’t ever shop at Schnuck’s or any other supermarket, don’t ever buy fast food or gasoline and never, ever go into a shopping mall or a big box store. But if you do, it’s like “sort of pregnant” or “almost a virgin” – you either do or you don’t. How many times have you complained to the CSB about the condition of a sidewalk? How many times have you contacted your alderman or the mayor specifically asking that a bigger part of our budget be spent on sidewalks? How often do you shovel the sidewalk when it snows? Actions speak louder than words . . . .
First, you’re creating a false dichotomy – you either support sidewalks or, if you do any of those things you say, once, you’re just like “the rest of them.” It’s a poor way of structuring an argument, especially when you have a good point buried in there. My money and actions, largely, speak for the desire for a walkable neighborhood with adequate sidewalks. Some of the time, yes, I do use a car. Some of the time, I do not.Â
Stating that sidewalks are in poor condition is neither fashionable nor bashing. It’s stating a fact. Our sidewalks are in poor condition. Second, I’ve contacted my alderman half a dozen times about sidewalks in my neighborhood, specifically, as well as the CSB and streets department. I shovel the sidewalk in front of my house and my two adjoining neighbors houses every time it snows. My wife and I and baby walk frequently to restaurants and stores nearby – including both those with large parking lots and those with virtually no parking (LeGrands).Â
I was responding to Brad’s absolute statement that “I don’t do any of the things you’ve described that ‘we’ do”. Steve is more forthright – he “admits” to having a car, but he also minimizes his use of it. I also don’t disagree that our sidewalks are far from what they should be. The “good point” that I’m trying to make is that marginal sidewalks are only a symptom of a much larger issue, sprawl and low-density development and redevelopment, driven (pun intended) by our overwhelming (and logical) choice of the single-occupant vehicle as our (most residents’) preferred method of transportation. While we can argue whether investments in highways encourage SOV use or if the majority’s preference for SOV’s drives investment in highways, the reality remains that they and their need for parking ARE shaping our built environment. If we want better walkability (and transit), we need to focus on having more there, there, not just on building better sidewalks. Mixed uses and higher densities are the key, yet there’s very little happening like that anywhere in the area. You and I live in the same part of town. While our sidewalks aren’t perfect, for the most part, there are few missing connections. The nearest structure to me that used to house a corner grocery now houses a chiropractor; the nearest thing approaching a walkable corner grocery is Huck’s on Watson, and I wouldn’t want to try and survive on what they have in stock. Target and Schnuck’s are a mile away. Are they “walkable”? On a good day, yes; on most days, no, the car makes more sense. It’s that whole ¼-mile good walkability standard versus a major interestion every mile standard for traffic engineering, along with 50+ years of NIMBY, that’s killing walkability, not a power pole dropped in the middle of a sidewalk . . . .
Flourishing public schools draw a middle class, not curb cuts. Hyperbole.
Flourishing public schools draw a middle class, not curb cuts. Hyperbole.
Walkable environments are important to many people, as well as schools for those with kids.
Walkable environments are important to many people, as well as schools for those with kids.
It’s not just older sidewalks that are a problem either. The City just spent lots of money and time putting in new curbcuts at Kingshighway and Shenandoah, new sidewalks along Vandeventer, yet managed to have a trash container and light pole in the middle of the NEW sidewalk so that there is no room for a wheelchair ot even a large pedestrian to pass. This is not an either/or situation. There was plenty of money to do it properly, but just no awareness or interest in doing so.
It’s not just older sidewalks that are a problem either. The City just spent lots of money and time putting in new curbcuts at Kingshighway and Shenandoah, new sidewalks along Vandeventer, yet managed to have a trash container and light pole in the middle of the NEW sidewalk so that there is no room for a wheelchair ot even a large pedestrian to pass. This is not an either/or situation. There was plenty of money to do it properly, but just no awareness or interest in doing so.