Hidden Jewels of North St. Louis: Capturing the Beauty Beyond the Delmar Divide

My friend, filmmaker Phillip Johnson, has begun an interesting new project:

Hidden Jewels of North St. Louis is a photo book/video project telling the story of North St. Louis through the lens of homeowners living north of the “Delmar Divide” it is also a book that explores the reasons behind the Delmar Divide and projects a vision of a new North Side.

Here’s the video to kickoff the fundraising effort:

To contribute to this project go to gofundme.com/HiddenJewelsofSTL

— Steve Patterson

Reading: Roads Were Not Built for Cars: How Cyclists were the First to Push for Good Roads & Became the Pioneers of Motoring by Carlton Reid

When I had my stroke in February 2008 I owned 5-6 bicycles, the oldest was a very original 1950s Huffy. I kept my bright orange Kronan, a reproduction of a single-speed WWII Swedish Army bike, as art. I love all things bicycle.

My library includes a few coffee table books on bicycles and their history. Those books briefly touch on early dirt roads and how cyclists pushed for better roads on which to ride, but they quickly get into the various bike designs, mechanicals, etc. A new book just out focuses not on bicycles, but on the early cyclist’s push for better roads. In ‘Roads Were Not Built for Cars: How Cyclists were the First to Push for Good Roads & Became the Pioneers of Motoring’ author Carlton Reid goes into great detail, from publisher Island Press:

In Roads Were Not Built for Cars, Carlton Reid reveals the pivotal—and largely unrecognized—role that bicyclists played in the development of modern roadways. Reid introduces readers to cycling personalities, such as Henry Ford, and the cycling advocacy groups that influenced early road improvements, literally paving the way for the motor car. When the bicycle morphed from the vehicle of rich transport progressives in the 1890s to the “poor man’s transport” in the 1920s, some cyclists became ardent motorists and were all too happy to forget their cycling roots. But, Reid explains, many motor pioneers continued cycling, celebrating the shared links between transport modes that are now seen as worlds apart. In this engaging and meticulously researched book, Carlton Reid encourages us all to celebrate those links once again.

The book is available in paperback and iPad formats. See roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com for more information.

I love bikes…I just can’t ride one anymore.

— Steve Patterson

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Research Trip To Cleveland

Regular readers know I’ve long been a supporter of modern streetcars, such as those in Portland & Seattle, but I’d like to know more about Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). I’ve experienced Kansas City’s MAX line a few of times — but it is best described as “enhanced bus service”  — not true BRT.

Starting with Metro’s BRT studies last year, I’ve been reading up on BRT, the results are both positive and negative. First, the negative:

Delhi’s six-year-old BRT project has run into numerous snags, including the incursion of cars and other vehicles into the BRT lanes — a development that can defeat the purpose of a system designed to be faster than general traffic. City officials once hoped to create 14 additional BRT corridors, but the system has not expanded beyond its inaugural 3.6-mile stretch. (In New Delhi, A Rough Road For Bus Rapid Transit Systems)

Closer to home, Los Angeles:

The Orange Line BRT runs on its own busway: basically a bus-only street built on former railroad right-of-way. The busway runs generally east-west and, at signalized intersections, crosses numerous north-south streets. In its first few months of operation, the Orange Line ran faster than it does today. There were a handful of car-bus collisions on the route, reportedly due to drivers failing to obey traffic signals. The excuse that has been repeated is that the drivers were not used to seeing any traffic on that long-abandoned right-of-way.

After these collisions, Orange Line bus speeds were reduced. Today Orange Line buses slow to 10 mph when crossing intersections. (Orange Line BRT Speed Improvements Caught In Inter-Agency Delays)

Depart these failures, positive examples exist:

“Both BRT and LRT can leverage many times more development investment than they cost. Now we can say that for sure,” according to the institute’s director for the U.S. and Africa, Annie Weinstock, who previewed the findings at a Metropolitan Planning Council Roundtable in Chicago last week.

“Per dollar of transit investment, and under similar conditions, BRT can leverage more (development) investment than LRT or streetcars.”

For example, Cleveland’s Healthline, a BRT project completed on Cleveland’s Euclid Avenue in 2008, has generated $5.8 billion in development —$114 for each transit dollar invested. Portland’s Blue Line, a light rail project completed in 1986, generated $3.74 per dollar invested. (Bus Rapid Transit Spurs Development Better Than Light Rail Or Streetcars: Study)

Despite successful examples, BRT isn’t always embraced. Take Chicago’s planned Ashland BRT:

Some candidates for local office and others in Chicago have raised reasonable concerns about a proposed rapid-transit bus line on Ashland Avenue. They wonder how limiting left-hand turns would affect car traffic and whether paying for the new line would divert money from the many other CTA improvements needed.

But let’s not lose sight of why Chicago needs its first rapid-transit line — bus or L — that doesn’t go downtown, one that connects west side communities and CTA’s Orange, Blue, Brown and Green lines: it’s because not everyone works downtown or is going downtown, which is the outdated premise behind the CTA’s hub-and-spoke system. (Why Chicago needs bus rapid transit on Ashland)

As with so many things, there’a no substitute for personal experience. There are numerous BRT lines in North America, but one of the highest rated is Cleveland’s HealthLine — which operates 24 hours a day!  Over the years I’ve driven through Ohio a few times, I think I went through Cleveland on a 2006 Greyhound trip to Toronto. I want to visit Cleveland to experience their transit system: light rail, bus, BRT, and trolley.

Here are just some of the questions I hope to answer:

1. Why do they have four different modes?
2. How did they decide to use one mode at a location rather than another?
3. With respect to public transit, what are the similarities & differences between St. Louis & Cleveland?
4. Would their BRT better serve the public had they done the things to earn a higher ranking?
5. How does Cleveland’s State Line BRT compare to their HealthLine BRT? How much development has it generated?
6. How much of the new development is because of the HealthLine, how much is because it operates 24/7?
7. Why didn’t they build either BRT line as light rail? In retrospect, would BRT have been a better choice?

In October my husband and I will be vacationing in Chicago for a week, so I’d like to take a few days of that time to go to Cleveland for two nights to use & observe their transit system. Over the weekend we purchased the roundtrip tickets on Megabus, fares are lowest the more lead time you have.  We’ll leave Chicago on a Thursday morning, arriving in Cleveland 7+ hours later at 3:35pm.  Our return bus leaves at  5:45pm on Saturday, getting back to Chicago just past midnight. I’m asking for readers to help with the costs, so this research trip is possible.

Here is the budget:

• Megabus: $36.50
• Hotel (2 nights): $300+
• Local transit fares: $25
• Misc: $13.50
• TOTAL $375+

Most of the budget is hotel, I want to stay right on the HealthLine to facilitate riding the 24-hour BRT at various times. I’m still researching hotels, but none are cheap. Rates do very though, I just need to see which ones have rooms available with a “roll-in shower” on the two nights we’d be there.

If you can donate it would be greatly appreciated.

— Steve Patterson

Yellow Curb Isn’t Visible Enough To Keep Motorists From Parking In Bus Stops

One of my pet peeves is blocked bus stops, people thinking they’re entitled to park in them. To be fair, many drivers who do so may just be oblivious to the fact that buses need to pull up next to the curb so some of us can board/deboard. The response of some is “call the police” or “tow them away.”  Yes, enforcement is part of the solution — but the St. Louis Police really have more important things to do. I don’t think Metro’s Police have jurisdiction on city streets.

Besides, the police can be just as guilty.

When you’re on the bus and need to get off at a blocked stop you can’t expect it to wait a couple of hours for a tow truck to remove the offending car, or when you need to get on the bus you don’t have time for enforcement to work. Ticketing the car still doesn’t get you on the bus.

What’s needed at some bus stops is highly visible markings so the oblivious drivers see they shouldn’t park there. Those who don’t care will potentially be more embarrassed parking in a visible bus stop than at a yellow curb. It doesn’t need to be complicated, just out of the ordinary.

I’ve said all this before, so why bring it up again? Last Tuesday morning my husband and I visited the St. Louis Zoo, we were there for four hours — great time.  I returned downtown the way I arrived, via public transit in my wheelchair. My husband drove our car, going directly to work. Leaving the Zoo’s North entrance I saw a problem as soon as I started across the street to the bus stop.

I went down to the corner to wave at the bus as it approached. It turned the corner and stopped in the street since it couldn’t get to the curb. All traffic was now stopped. I rolled in the street to reach the bus. After I paid the fare the ramp was folded back into the bus — the #3 Forest Park Trolley. I was inconvenienced, the other passengers were inconvenienced, other motorists were inconvenienced, the bus was delayed so more people were inconvenienced.

My goal is compliance, to ensure people don’t park in the bus stop. Sure, increased enforcement of tickets, booting, & towing might also keep it clear. But at what cost? First the person(s) that would be assigned to increased enforcement wouldn’t be able to serve the public elsewhere in the city or park.  Ticketing, booting,  & towing also isn’t free — and it just server to anger motorists. Yes, they parked at a yellow curb. I suspect many didn’t notice, or didn’t see any harm.

If there is paint on the pavement though, the oblivious excuse goes out the window. Adding the words “NO PARKING”, “BUS STOP, and/or “TOW AWAY ZONE” would convey the message to the driver that parking here isn’t a good idea.

The stop above is served by the #90 (Hampton) and #3 (Forest Park Trolley)

The Metro #3 Forest Park Trolley is a partnership between Forest Park Forever, Bi-State Development Agency/Metro, Missouri History Museum, Saint Louis Art Museum, Saint Louis Science Center, Saint Louis Zoo, and the City of St. Louis. (Forest Park Forever)

This trolley bus operates May through September, largely to mitigate the summer problem of traffic congestion within the park.

I’d like to see these seven partners take action so the bus can reliably be used by everyone. On Twitter I offered to ride the trolley with them so they can see which stops are problematic. I suggested the stops be painted solid so they’re not only visible to motorists but to visitors. The stops could become part of the marketing effort.

I emailed Forest Park Forever President & Executive Director Lesley Hoffarth, who replied, and said they’re working on new striping for the park now, this issue will be taken into consideration. I’m not optimistic it’ll be solved. The new striping work should be done before Fall, I’ll keep trying to influence the work before it’s done.

— Steve Patterson

Sunday Poll: The Taxicab Commission has been fighting with Uber ride sharing service. Which side do you support?

The battle between the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission, which regulates taxicabs in both St. Louis City & St. Louis County, and Uber, the ride sharing app got lots of attention last week:

One day before Uber was slated to begin giving free rides through the holiday weekend, it withdrew the offer. The ride-hailing service said it reversed course after the St. Louis Metropolitan Taxicab Commission ordered its drivers to get temporary permits.

The move came as a surprise to many, because the Uber drivers would not have charged passengers. (Post-Dispatch)

Here’s more specifics:

On Monday, Uber offered to give free rides over the long Fourth of July weekend. On Tuesday, the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission said it was considering the proposal. On Wednesday, the MTC laid out a series of conditions for UberX drivers, like fingerprint background checks and cheek swab drug tests. Thursday, Uber cancelled its plans.

Uber called those requirements “onerous” and said it’s already checked the backgrounds of its drivers. It also accused the MTC of a “charade” to help taxi companies keep out competition. (KMOX)

There is a lot of passion on both sides of this issue, making it a perfect topic for today’s Sunday Poll.

The poll closes at 8pm. Note: This post was updated by moving the poll from the sidebar to within the post, this permits mobile users to vote without having to switch to the desktop layout on their mobile browser.

— Steve Patterson