Interesting article from the Times of Skinker DeBaliviere October 1983
"For the past four years, a proposal to provide a mass transportation system in St. Louis has been in the study and debate stages. At the end of this month, the EastWest Gateway Coordinating Council will release its report, the "Environmental Impact Statement" (EIS), and the time for action will have arrived. Most St. Louisans are no doubt aware of: (1) the desirability of having a viable mass transit system if St. Louis is to reach its full potential as a great city, (2) the relative cheapness of utilizing existing rail track instead of building a completely new subway-type system, and (3) our unique possession of an existing track/tunnel system, a built-in factor which gives St. Louis an edge in the competition among cities for federal transportation funding. Naturally, there has to be a snag in such a reasonable-sounding plan, and, naturally, it managed to occur right in the lap of Skinker-DeBaliviere: the so-called "Clayton Spur." The controversial spur, which we will detail later, does not in any substantive way affect the overall plan, which consists of these basics: — The train is not a streetcar; nor is it truly a "rapid" transit car. It is an eightyfoot-long vehicle hinged in the middle, resembling a large bus or modern train. In length, it is about twice as long as the current Bi-State bus. It runs on electricity from an overhead wiring system, requires 28-30 feet of right-of-way, and runs on rail track, at grade level, overhead or underground. — The planned route begins in East St. Louis, crosses the Mississippi on Eads Bridge, and goes underground through downtown, using an existing tunnel system that emerges near Eighth and Spruce. Another existing tunnel can be utilized to provide access to Union Station and a new Amtrak station. Stations being considered downtown are Laclede's Landing, St. Louis Centre, Old Post Office, Gateway Mall, Busch Stadium, 15th and Clark (the City Government Center), Union Station, 21st and Clark, a proposed new Amtrak terminal. After leaving downtown, the system runs west on existing rail right-of-way with probable stops at Grand, Kingshighway (Barnes Hospital Complex), DeBaliviere (at Forest Park Parkway), Delmar Station. Leaving the Delmar Station, it would cross and stop at Page (at Skinker, accessing University City's Cunningham Industrial Park, possibly for parking), St. Charles Rock Road, and UMSL. — New track would be necessary on Natural Bridge itself, going overhead at Hanley Road and stopping at 1-70, Laclede Business Park, Brown Road, at McDonnell Blvd. near the interchange of 1-170 and 1-70, on north to termination at Lambert Airport. The light rail system as proposed clearly does not replace the current bus system, j although it could be linked with it at several important points. For example, riders from south city could join at Grand, at Barnes on Kingshigh way, and at DeBaliviere, via the Hampton line. South and West County residents would be accessed by the linking highways, 1-70, 1-170 (the Inner Belt), and Highway 40. The overall system, depending as it does chiefly on existing rail track, does, however, leave out the core of St. Louis County government -- and employment — in Clayton. This omission explains the roots of the current controversy, the "Clayton Spur." As the name suggests, the "Clayton Spur" is a separate track branching off from the through system, in order to link Clayton to the system. The desirability of the spur depends on the assumption that a high percentage of riders will need to get to or from Clayton, to work or for governmental needs. Other high employment centers, such as downtown, McDonnell Douglas, and the airport are covered under the plan. The problems begin at the point where the Norfolk and Western tracks start northwest at DeBaliviere. After this point, new track is necessary to lead to Clayton. The alternatives which have been recently suggested and proposed are as follows: — Alternative 1: This one puts new track on Millbrook/Forest Park all the way to Pershing and Hanley, going south to Central Ave. via a tunnel, ending at Forsyth and Central (County Government Cen ter). — Alternative 2: This is basically the same, except the tunnel is longer, beginning right at Pershing and Millbrook. Both of these alternatives would, of course, require extensive tunnel construction and would require the use of Millbrook west of Skinker in some manner. The important question is: Is there room for these new tracks in the existing rightof-way, or would it be necessary for homes to be demolished? This is, without doubt, the crucial question for Parkview residents on Pershing Avenue — and affects the owners of homes and apartment houses on Pershing east of Skinker as well. The answer, according to Rosemary Covington, spokesperson for the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, is that there is ample room in the current right-of-way, that "at least five feet between the system and currently existing fences" will be possible. She says, further, that "no houses will be demolished under any of the alternatives." —Alternative 3: Follows Forest Park Parkway all the way to Central Ave., but would be elevated on concrete piers west of Pershing along the Parkway onto Central Ave. Note that the elevated section is over the Parkway proper, and there is no suggestion of elevated trains within the residential parts of our area. —Alternative 4: Follows Delmar from the Wabash Station, south on Melville (the old streetcar line) to Millbrook. The section from Millbrook and Pershing into the Central Avenue station would be elevated. — Alternative 5: West on Delmar to Hanley, south on Hanley to end at Forsyth, all at grade. Another question: How will the train cross Skinker? The answer: again, according to Covington, the system will cross Skinker at grade, with the traffic signals — whether at Forest Park Parkway or at Delmar. One should not write of the proposed alternatives without mentioning that there is organized and vocal opposition, which has already forced some changes in the alternatives being debated. The group is called "Neighborhoods United Against the University City-Clayton Light Rail Spur, Inc.," consisting of 11 neighborhood groups. Closer to home, the Parkview Agents passed a resolution in July stating that the spur "would create safety, visual, noise, parking and accessibility problems damaging to the environment of the neighborhood." One suggested compromise is an improved bus service for the Clayton-U. City area, connecting to a light rail system at the Wabash Station. The Skinker-DeBaliviere Community Council will take up the issue at its October meeting, Oct. 10, and persons desiring to express an opinion should contact their Council representative. The Council has been asked to join the debate and state the position of the neighborhood in this controversy. Whatever the outcome of the Clayton Spur question, and if light rail becomes a reality, Skinker-DeBaliviere will be serviced. What are the other alternatives East-West Gateway is considering? (1) A "busway" — at grade, separated, exclusive right-of-way along Forest Park Parkway, mixing with traffic downtown and along the Forsyth Bypass, and a single lane facility adjacent to the Inner Belt near Page, using the Inner Belt and Natural Bridge in mixed traffic to the airport. Existing transit service in East St. Louis and elsewhere in the city and county would be coordinated with the "busway." (2) A combination of light rail and "enhanced" bus service — an especially attractive alternative to the foes of the Clayton Spur, this would tie Clayton to the light rail system by shuttle bus. (3) Transportation system management — presumably, better and more extensive bus service. (4) No action. The various alternatives will be expound. ed upon and a choice of systems reported on when the EIS is released, at the end of October. Hopefully, by that time, individuals and neighborhood groups will have an opportunity to participate in the debate and move into the next century with a mass transit system acceptable to a constituency which prides itself on being adaptive, urban, and intelligent — and strong-minded.
