urbanSTL

migueltejada wrote:^ it's about the perception of safety rather than actually making people safe, we all know that.

But the perception of safety is antithetical to actual safety. People are really much safer when they don't feel safe and pay attention to their surroundings.



The fact that some guy was found with a gun on Amtrak isn't a call for more security. People look at that and focus on the wrong thing. It's not that he had a gun--it's that he was found. With existing security he was found, and probably because people were paying attention.



-asg

Any news as to when Amtrak moves in? Or any pictures of the completed station?

Don't be such a literalist. How could you possibly read that to mean that anyone aware is safer than anyone unaware? It's ridiculous to say "They're aware of their surroundings and still less safe than people in Ladue". The only question is whether they are safer than people who pay less attention in exactly the same situation. Now, if you don't think that's the case, that's fine, but I don't think it's a tenable position.



So, given there's some otherwise fixed level of crime and given the station security does practically nothing (if anything at all--see this article in the forthcoming November Atlantic) people are safer if they don't think they are safe and pay attention to the rapist, the bomber, the pickpocket. If they are led to believe those criminals aren't there, they stop paying attention, but if the criminals are still there because the security is a sham, then what?



Actual initial crime rate is irrelevant to the statement. Perception of safety must be the only variable. It's a simple statistical control. People in East St. Louis who pay attention are safer than people there who don't. People in Ladue who pay attention to their surroundings are also safer than people in Ladue who don't, provided everything else is held constant. The difference is probably not as great for Ladue.



If the station security provided actual safety at the cost of complacency, it might be worth it. But if it's just providing the complacency without providing any actual safety, it's clearly hurting more than it's helping.



Make sense now, or do you want to lob some more baseless insults?



-asg

Yes, you could run. Way one it helps.



You could inform security so they focus on the real threat instead of frisking my grandmother. Way two it helps.



You could make sure you maintain the ability to do either of the above at a later time, should the situation escalate, by establishing a good exit route and keeping your eyes on them. Way three it helps.



And yes, as a failsafe, being able to provide better details after the fact is way four it helps.



You can't seem to extricate being aware of potential criminals from being aware of a crime taking place. Once the crime has started, I doubt any extra vigilance is generally necessary or (with the possible exception of those pickpockets) possible. But why would you rather have them just sneak up on you? So you can go Clint Eastwood on them with plausible deniability of premeditation? Do you think not noticing the criminals means they won't be there, like some deranged adult version of peekaboo? Your argument is premised on the crime being a fait accompli before it's even started--that running and calling for help will fail necessarily, when in fact they have a high success rate. And in any case, the station security is not to prevent robbery, but terrorism, which won't happen at a moment's notice and probably won't happen while you're still in the station, so you have lots of time to inform proper authorities (which don't include the farcical TSA).



It's completely ridiculous that you don't think being aware of your surroundings helps you in (or to prevent) an emergency. Go take some martial arts classes or even driving lessons. No, it won't always help, but the trendline is the important factor; it's helps on average more than nothing. Even if you thought the perception of safety is all vigilance provides* why would you bother submitting to all those security hassles (and paying for them) if it provides nothing more?



-asg



[*- Seeing as you've already stipulated to the reverse causality, I'm not even sure how you can possibly make this claim. You're effectively saying we need station security to make people feel safe so they don't have to be vigilant lest they feel safe. The only way that makes sense is if the two have different meanings, the vigilance makes them feel safe because they are safer, which is my argument. There's a huge difference between the perception of safety because you are safer (due to vigilance) and the fraudulent perception of safety "transportation security" provides. It's logically absurd on your part to claim the increased perception of safety due to vigilance is a bad thing after having derided my claim that increased perception of safety due to station security is a bad thing, unless you acknowledge the difference between accurate and inaccurate perceptions of safety, which proves my argument unless you further argue that station security is any more effective than personal vigilance, which I've already argued against.]

It would be good to see more retail and residential in this corner of downtown to mitigate the ghost-town feel that sets in after 6pm when there isn't a Blues or Cards game.

It will definitely feel more active and alive once Amtrak, Greyhound, Metrolink, and Metro-buses converge on this transit center. I have to think that both residential and office interest in Cupples Station and the immediate area will remain strong (or be the first to recover) when lending and business activity pick back up.

With this in mind I think the design of the proposed Missouri Valley Conference headquarters at Spruce and 15th is too small and suburban for the scale and importance of the transit investment that sits next-door.

Last year ridership on the St. Louis-Chicago Amtrak line went up 14% to over 500,000 , and ridership on the St. Louis-KC line went up 30% to over 150,000. While the design of the Gateway Transit Center may not be to everyone's liking for whatever reason, the consolidation and connection of transportation options and increasing interest and use of rail/public transit will inevitably benefit Cupples Station, Downtown, Metro ridership, and St. Louis in general.

^The problem is that there is no building within two blocks of there that can support retail space, other than the Sheraton and the new city-owned garage, and that is all just bar/restaurant space. Worse, there isn't much opportunity for a new building with such space anytime in the near future. And now, with Union Station pretty much ceasing operations other than the hotel and a couple of restaurants, it really will be a ghosttown. Too bad the city didn't have the foresight to build retail space into the arena parking garage.



But your comment about Blues games brings up an interesting point that I hadn't considered. Imagine being unfamiliar with St. Louis, arriving on Amtrak, and needing to make connections and/or get somewhere, just as a Blues game or huge concert is getting out.



A) Will there be someplace for people to wait to pick up Amtrak passengers without paying $20 for parking? If so, who will police those parking areas to make sure Scottrade patrons don't take those spots?



B) Will people even be able to get to the station to pick up/drop off passengers if 18th and Clark are backed up with post-event traffic? What about Greyhound and Metro busses? I know the USPS has complained about access to their facilities during Scottrade events. At the very least, there will have to be a traffic officer stationed at 18th and Spring for every event to keep the intersection clear. Metro will have to make sure there is security on the Metro platform as well throughout the event.



C) Does the multimodal center have a taxi stand? And will there be any taxis there if a Blues game is getting out?

jlblues you have an uncanny ability for uncovering negative aspects of progress and development.



But you're right that there is a dearth of retail space and readily developable property around the new transit center. That's a major reason I think the MVC headquarters design is inadequate.



Checketts or someone else should develop the corner of Clark & 14th. It is a great corner for office space considering how well served by transit it is, and between the transit center, Scottrade, Eagleton, City Hall, STLPD Headquarters, and Cupples Station, there should be enough demand to keep a number of storefronts afloat.

Wabash wrote:jlblues you have an uncanny ability for uncovering negative aspects of progress and development.

Thank you!



Anyone that is employed in a profession related to urban real estate development, design, planning, etc., that doesn't consider all potential negative aspects of "progress and development", is not doing their job, and should be fired immediately. And if you don't have the foresight to anticipate all but the most unlikely of unprecedented consequences, you are inexperienced, or perhaps you should find a new line of work. If more people in our region that are in this line of work understood this, maybe we wouldn't constantly be scratching our heads on this forum wondering about the illogical decisions that have been made, and how things got so screwed up.



As far as "progress" goes, the label is overused and misused. Unless you can accurately predict all consequences of a given desired action, you won't know whether or not the action constitutes "progress" until long - sometimes decades - after it has been completed, and therefore applying such a label to that action is irrational.

you won't know whether or not the action constitutes "progress" until long - sometimes decades - after it has been completed, and therefore applying such a label to that action is irrational.

True, although in instances of Amshack replacements the "progress" label is justifiably expedited.

^^That dude in the last photo could be the poster boy for Greyhound passengers.

Thanks for the pictures. Look like Amtrak should be moving in soon, but do we have a definite date?



Also, are there any restaurants inside as previously published.

looks like there will be a pizza hut and some other fast food mini restaurant. open already was a local sandwich place. the signs posted did not have a definite date for amtrak, there were workers out on the track. the tracks do not appear to be finished, but the building looks ready to go.

Awfully yellow on the inside.

DeBaliviere wrote:Awfully yellow on the inside.

it's also quite slanty. Maybe they haven't installed the gravity yet

KFC will be the other fast food place.

$20 million doesn't get you much these days.



A lot of the expense for this project was in the train platform connection to go over the tracks and under the highway.

I really like the center/station. STL really needed this and it looks great.

The rail connection / escalators to platforms etc... was the big bill and they look fantastic too. It looks like Amtrak will beable to have 3-4 trains in station at one time.

I think Greyhound has 15 gates.

Transit hub has it all but flunks on parking



By Matthew Hathaway

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

11/10/2008



Maurice Johnson never imagined that he might someday miss Amshack, the "temporary" train station erected downtown in the late 1970s, or Son of Amshack, which replaced that embarrassment a few years ago with a newer and somewhat cleaner model. It's slated to close soon when the $27 million Gateway Center on 15th Street becomes fully operational.



<snip> He said that when he arrived, he was surprised that the only parking was in a short-term, pre-pay lot that charged $1 per hour, for up to 24 hours. When he asked about long-term parking, an Amtrak employee suggested he park a couple blocks away at Union Station, which charges $1 for every half hour and a flat rate of $16 per day.



<snip> Johnson said an Amtrak employee suggested that he park his car for free at MetroLink parking lot, then take the light-rail train to the station. This sounds like a good idea, if you've never ridden Amtrak before.



<snip> Last week, I dropped by the new station and I made the mistake of driving. Short-term parking is a problem, too.



There is no free parking, which could be a problem for anyone wanting to run inside the station to check on the status of a bus or train. There are a bunch of metered parking spots on 16th Street, but those are reserved for people with special permits. There are metered spots on Clark Avenue, about two blocks from the station, but parking there is illegal after 5 p.m. I headed to the short-term lot, which is maintained by the city.



There are about 50 spots there, and most were empty. The self-service, prepay machine there doesn't take bills, and I didn't have $1 in coins. The machine's credit card scanner is broken, and the station doesn't make change for customers, a guard said. -



Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari said that officials are aware of the parking problems and that they're working on a solution. He said Amtrak has been talking to nearby property owners about setting up a long-term parking lot. Magliari said he was optimistic that the problem could be fixed before the Christmas travel season.

Source

the meters were down the day the reporter shows up... wow breaking news! he doesn't even discuss anything else, I guess he never got inside. you'd think a post reporter would have more experience with parking meters.. everyone knows broken meter = free parking.



^ i would have bolded the last paragraph of that article, i'll give them a chance. there's lots of surface and parking decks nearby.

When the station is finally completed and the old station is no longer used the parking will be increased, including long term parking.