Upsetting the Bike Community By Speaking Up About Sprawl Makers

Last night I resigned my position on the board of the St. Louis Regional Bike Federation. At issue was THF Realty, the builder of sprawling big box projects such as Maplewood Commons on Hanley.

Why would a developer be an issue to a bike group?

Simple, someone over at THF Realty likes bicycling so they give money each year to various local groups, including the St. Louis Regional Bike Federation. Because of this I’m supposed to show good judgement by not speaking out against them.

In a recent interview for Point to Point Cycling News I was asked the following question:

Resolve this conundrum: THF Realty is responsible for some of the most anti-pedestrian developments in St. Louis and elsewhere. Yet, they are also the biggest financial supporter, by far, of cycling events and teams in the area. Is this just a big PR stunt. Should cyclists be a bit more critical of this support?

Here was my response:

Thank you for asking this question. I’d love to see the entire cycling community refuse money from THF. THF is wreaking havoc on the planet and accepting their money is an endorsement of how they gained the money. While we are working to make the built environment more connected and friendly to pedestrians and bicyclists they are profiting while creating anti-bike and anti-pedestrian sprawl.

For the full interview click here (PDF, see page 18).

THF Realty’s chairman is Stan Kroenke, #164 of the Forbes list of 400 Richest Americans with a net worth of $1.8 Billion. Kroenke’s wife is an heir to the Walton Family of Wal-Mart fame.

A few thousand dollars is sofa change to them yet it manages to keep otherwise vocal transportation advocates silent. This is hush money in my book. It seems to be effective. You get a group used to some money and pretty soon they come to expect it. Once they expect it they become dependent on it and fear the loss of the money. Wait, we’ve heard this before haven’t we? From the Post-Dispatch:

If Belleville turned down the tax incentives, would Wal-Mart look for a site elsewhere? “Oh yes, I’m sure we would,” Bornstein [of THF Realty] said.

And that lies at the center of the debate over TIFs. Cities feel as though they must give them. The existing Wal-Mart, about a mile away, is the largest producer of sales tax revenue in Belleville. That store, by the way, was expanded in 1993 with another TIF.

If Belleville won’t play ball, THF could buy land a half-mile away in Shiloh. Belleville would be left with nothing.

So the local bike community is in the same boat as Belleville; dependent upon on money from the big box and afraid to do anything about it. It really is sad that an organization that purports to improve the region for bicyclists is afraid to speak out against a company that is arguably one of the worst offenders in the St. Louis region — topping even Desco. Any individual, group or municipality that is in such a position is compromised beyond the point of being impartial. They’ve been bought. Credibility goes in the trash once you’ve been bought. Just ask Metropolis. [Note: see the comment below on Metropolis & my reply; 11/9 @ 4:20pm]

I will continue to push for bike racks throughout the city and a downtown bike station, just not as a board member of the St. Louis Regional Bike Federation.

– Steve

[UPDATE 11/9 @ 9:15am – I want to make it clear that I fully support the mission and work of the St. Louis Regional Bike Federation. I have been friends with a number of board members for years. For me personally I cannot sit quiet while the THF’s of the world run amuck. I will support programs of the Bike Fed (such as pushing for more bike parking), just not as a board member. I wish them all the best of luck. – SLP]

Four Flavors for the St. Louis Riverfront

Tuesday night St. Louisans got a first glimpse at four concepts for remaking the drab riverfront. It was a long meeting with much information to take in. My first plan was to run home and write a late night post. Instead, i decided to see if my initial reactions would still hold true after thinking about them for a couple of days. Most did.

The design team has posted a 7.9mb PDF version of Tuesday’s presentation. Throughout this post I will make references to page numbers in this doccument. Before getting into the specific proposals I want to discuss some background and basic assumptions of the design team. First is a prior post of mine from July – click here to read my earlier thoughts.

The National Park Service owns the Arch and grounds and is not open to changes. This leaves Lenore K. Sullivan Blvd at the base of the grounds and the cobblestone bank as areas open for redesign. The peaceful beauty of the Arch and its grounds is a big draw — roughly 4 million visitors per year. Yet the lack of anything either contemplative or dynamic on the actual riverfront means the area remains dead unless a special event is planned such as Fair St. Louis on the 4th of July weekend.

The four concepts are (p52):

… Continue Reading

Light Rail, Streetcars and Transit Time

I’m still having a hard time justifying the time and expense of MetroLink light rail over streetcars.

Others have made good arguments in favor of light rail, including the ability to move large numbers of people at high speeds which results in substantially lower travel time.

While I have some interest in MetroLink making its way into various parts of the county surround the City of St. Louis it is here in the city where I’m mostly concerned. I assume we still have the greatest population density of the region and we can certainly handle an increase in population. I see an excellent in-city transit system as a means of attracting more city residents. Transit as a means of shuttling suburbanites the 20 miles from their split-level ranch to downtown is a lesser priority for me. Yes, I know that if we get them on rail it is one less car (or SUV) they’ll drive into the city.

But I want a first class transit system in the City of St. Louis. And first class doesn’t include buses. The Northside and Southside MetroLink routes currently being planned include much of their route at grade — that is in dedicated medians in the center of streets such as Chouteau and Natural Bridge. These routes will also make a loop around downtown at grade.

Here is a good opportunity to look at what would happen if we substituted streetcars on the route exactly as planned. First myth we have to dispel is that streetcars run in the street and have to compete with traffic. Not true. Look at New Orleans and you’ll see a couple of routes that run mostly on dedicated medians but running in the street as needed. The same is true of San Francisco with their streetcar lines. Ditto for Portland.

Portland’s streetcars have a modern look — not retro lines as in New Orleans and San Francisco. On the surface you’d be hard pressed to tell the difference between Portland’s streetcars and light rail. But when you look closer it becomes more apparent:

Size is a big factor in that streetcars are narrower and shorter than a typical light rail train. This allows for them to maneuver through the streets. Metrolink’s planned loop through downtown at grade certainly means they’ll have to pick a different car stock than our current system. The narrower and shorter trains also mean fewer passengers per run (but still greater than a bus).

At this point an in-median streetcar system and in-median light rail look very similar. Both are operating on a dedicated right of way and are most likely similar in size to each other. I’m far from an expert on these systems so at this point I’m speculating but rail type and speed are probably the main differences. Portland brags about how its system required little in the way of construction but light rail is certainly a bigger undertaking because of the speeds. The bed for the rail is more massive and crossings require gates. Money aside, fewer crossings for light rail verses streetcars means those walking or bicycling will have fewer places to cross the lines. This is a net reduction in our interconnectedness.

My problem with in-street MetroLink is that it not friendly to other modes of transportation. The cost of street crossings is high enough that pedestrians, bicyclists, scooterists and auto drivers will all have to make right turns coming from side streets until they get to the next crossing. With streetcars in the same median you could have crossings not necessarily every block but certainly more often. The downside is a slowing of transit time. Compared with bus service on the street and stopping every block, streetcars are a good middle solution between buses and light rail.

The number of stops affects transit time but also convenience. In particular the Northside route has the potential to renew interest in a long-neglected part of the city. The number of proposed stops along Natural Bridge is more frequent than our current system, ranging between 0.4 miles to 0.9 miles. I’d argue that the in-street/median portions of these routes should be designed more like the streetcar lines in New Orleans and San Francisco where they are easily crossed by pedestrian, bike or car. When they get into the old rail right-of-way let them pick up speed there. Think of it has a hybrid streetcar/light rail system.

– Steve

St. Louis: More Light Rail vs. Streetcars vs. Bus Service

Few topics raise so much debate as public mass transit. Some, mostly wealthy suburbanites that profit from sprawl, suggest we shouldn’t subsidize mass transit (leaving money to subsidize their sprawl). Others strongly advocate expensive light rail systems including our own MetroLink. Still others advocate an expansion in bus service as a means of reaching more people, in particular those that can’t afford private cars. And finally you have streetcar advocates looking to use their retro charm to invigorate areas while providing transportation.

In July Post-Dispatch reporters Shane Graber and Elisa Crouch questioned the $550 million being spent on eight more miles of MetroLink:

Graber and Crouch continue their argument with some interesting math:

So for $550 million, here’s how many more buses Metro could have put on the road every day of the year for 16 hours a day: 241 new bus routes for five years; 120 bus routes for 10 years; 80 bus routes for 15 years; or 60 for 20 years.

That is a lot of buses. Perhaps too many? But their point is well made. Light rail is very expensive and doesn’t always serve the population that needs it most.

I’ve been utilizing our bus service in combination with my bike quite a bit over the last few months. I’ve been very impressed with the cleanliness of the buses, their on-time rate and the friendliness of my fellow riders. The economic difference between riders on the bus and light rail is pretty apparent but in the end not a deterrent. But the stigmatism of the bus is alive in many people’s mind.

Streetcars are basically a bus on a fixed rail. Well, in truth, the bus was a streetcar removed from the rails and given a diesel engine. People universally seem to love streetcars. Even new streetcars that don’t have the retro look. Something about the rail and the overhead wires. Not even the wires so much. Seattle’s buses become electric in the city, connecting to overhead wires. It really comes down to the fixed rail.

You’d think the flexibility of the bus would be more appealing but I believe we all have this secret love of railroads and the rails. The streetcar is the most accessible form of rail transportation. Light rail is superior to streetcars in that one train can hold many more passengers. Each operator carries more passengers a day than would an operator of a streetcar or bus. This is ultimately the big argument in favor of light rail. However, the cost to get those people from place to place is high.

Before people start attacking me let me say that I love our MetroLink system and I’m glad we are expanding it. But I’m wondering about the wisdom of expanding the system further. I’m not suggesting we stop building our mass transit system, just changing from light rail to streetcar.

Part of my reasoning is purely selfish. Where I currently live MetroLink will never be convenient. In about 20 years I might have a stop about a mile West of me that will take me downtown. Twenty years! I’ll be pushing 60 years old by then. Sorry, but I’m not that patient. The #40 Broadway bus is just three blocks to the East and it gets me the six miles to downtown in very short order.

I see the future Northside MetroLink route as being a critical component to repopulating and reinvigorating North St. Louis. But can we afford to wait the 15+ years for it to be finished? As much as I love light rail I think we’d be better off substituting streetcars along the Northside and Southside routes. We can have an efficient system in place years earlier and for millions less. Streetcars offer the lower cost per passenger of buses while increasing ridership through their magical charm.

Ultimately, the sooner we get more mass transit in place the better off we’ll be as a region. Streetcar lines would reach more people in more neighborhoods than light rail. And, after all, that is the goal of mass transit.

– Steve

Suburban Resident: Bicyclists don’t pay to use roads

I could not believe the ignorance behind this letter to the editor:

Letter to the editor: Bicyclists don’t pay to use roads
Wentzville Journal
09/21/2005Bicyclists don’t pay to use roads

In response to Jim Seyer’s letter in the Sept. 11 Journal, you proved Mr. Hepperman’s statement is right.

As Missouri taxpayers who own automobiles, we pay sales tax, fuel tax, personal property tax, and real estate tax to pay for the uses of the roads. Then we stand in line every two years to register our automobiles. We must also have insurance on these vehicles before we are allowed to drive on public roads.

The taxes that you pay don’t give you the right to ride your bike on the roads. If you look on your tax receipt, you will see that personal property includes: passenger cars, trucks, trailer. R/Vs, buses, motorcycles and other motorized vehicles. Do you claim your bicycle on your personal property tax form?

Driving in the State of Missouri is a privilege not a right. If you feel that you have the right to ride your bike, then claim your bike on your taxes, register it to be licensed and have it inspected every year or two. Also follow the laws of the road by riding single file so not to impede traffic. You should have a license plate that is visible.

Mr. Hepperman wasn’t claiming to own the rood, he was trying to help you understand that bicyclists on public roadways are a hazard to everyone, including yourself. But when we try to pass bicyclists on the road — that our taxes pay for – you people act like you own the road.

Patrick Dyer
Lake Saint Louis

Public roads are public rights of way. Without public roads we would have to negotiate with private property owners for their permission to cross to buy a loaf of bread. The use of the public right of way is not a privilege but a right. However, driving a motorized vehicle within the public’s right of way is a privilege!

First, all of Mr. Dyer’s complaints about taxes just doesn’t add up. Does he really think his fuel taxes, registration and personal property tax pay for the roads he uses? Sorry bud, not even close. Who pays for all the interstate highway building and utility infrastructure required to keep suburbia alive? The rest of us. He should be thanking everyone that rides a bike because we are leaving more room in the budget to support his choice of private car.

But if he wants people to pay their fare share I’m all for it. Lets start with public schools. I have no kids nor will I ever. I’ve been paying taxes for over 10 years because parents aren’t paying their fair share of education for their kids. And what if all the fuel taxes generated from the City of St. Louis were to stay only in the City of St. Louis? Same for St. Louis County. St. Charles County would collapse under its own weight.

Mr. Dyer is so wrapped up in the auto centric society he can’t see the folly of his “logic.”

– Steve