urbanSTL

doug wrote:The modal split in St. Louis is vastly in favor of cars. Most people do want to be stuck using transit, especially a system today which sorry sucks for a great number of reasons. Most firms are used to this model of doing business. It wont change unless we have significant increases in the price of gasoline, new ways of financing capital improvements, as well as a regional authority able to mandate TOD. Metro and EW-Gateway can draw up whatever plans they desire, but they also have the lower level of government and the business community to deal with. They go into that negotiation without a stick or a carrot. So maybe in 20 years St. Louis will have several real suburban TOD nodes. I would concentrate on writing letters about Forest Park station instead.

This is why we need the City to re-enter the county seat. Then we could have a county government that has say over the city and county (as they stand today), assuming we developed a department or agency to oversee such matters.

North Saint Louis City has excellent potential for solid TOD with a well-planned BRT or light-rail line. Also, a TIGER grant ap was submitted for a smallish mixed-use TOD project across from the FP/Debalivere stop. It didn't win, and I am not sure where the project now stands.

zun1026 wrote:

doug wrote:The modal split in St. Louis is vastly in favor of cars. Most people do want to be stuck using transit, especially a system today which sorry sucks for a great number of reasons. Most firms are used to this model of doing business. It wont change unless we have significant increases in the price of gasoline, new ways of financing capital improvements, as well as a regional authority able to mandate TOD. Metro and EW-Gateway can draw up whatever plans they desire, but they also have the lower level of government and the business community to deal with. They go into that negotiation without a stick or a carrot. So maybe in 20 years St. Louis will have several real suburban TOD nodes. I would concentrate on writing letters about Forest Park station instead.

This is why we need the City to re-enter the county seat. Then we could have a county government that has say over the city and county (as they stand today), assuming we developed a department or agency to oversee such matters.

I don't think the city re entering the county would have any direct impact in this regard. However, I agree a lot with what Doug has to say about it. E-W Gateway Council, The regional oversite board establish as required for federal funding for the metro region, has no real governing authority to dictate and even lacks veto power over local zoning laws that go counter to regional planning. I can't give a lot of details, but I look at the regional organization governing Minneapolis/St. Paul, as an example, as a much stronger model.
.

DaronDierkes wrote:...but would be horrified to see a building disappear and be replaced by a concrete wasteland. I'd much rather see a downtown transfer loop created than more drive-through bunkers. Imagine if we didn't need a downtown circulator because every MetroBus served the trolley's route. That'd mean you could get almost anywhere from most of downtown. It'd also mean you could catch all those buses from several different MetroLink stations, not just one. Bus stop transfers are cheaper, less destructive, and to me more effective than the terminals that currently sit like big gray monsters next to our train stations.

Up to the point to where you mentioned the above excerpted passages, I was thoroughly convinced that you and I were not at all talking about the same subject, yet were still somehow debating. OK. I will repeat what I said earlier (which was meant as a friendly poke, and not a disparagement) in that I'm not certain that you and I have the same understanding of what a TOD is. A commuter lot is not a TOD. It is a commuter lot. I don't know that my definition of TOD is strictly in line with that of the Congress for the New Urbanism, chiefly because of scale, but I'll tell you that I would never propose removing the FP Hospital for a commuter lot or some other apocalyptic vision of a concrete bunker with gassy fumes and Vin Diesel with a machine gut and a slut.

DaronDierkes wrote:I wish Delmar station could rebuild the steps up to the old station and have people enter the station through a shop or tourist information booth on the street. The building is there, but is Metro the owner? It'd be a good place for a public bathroom too.

I've heard a rumor, not sure from where, that Joe Edwards owns the old Wabash Terminal perched above the Delmar station, and that he eventually plans to put a restaurant there. Can anyone confirm?

rbeedee wrote:

DaronDierkes wrote:I wish Delmar station could rebuild the steps up to the old station and have people enter the station through a shop or tourist information booth on the street. The building is there, but is Metro the owner? It'd be a good place for a public bathroom too.

I've heard a rumor, not sure from where, that Joe Edwards owns the old Wabash Terminal perched above the Delmar station, and that he eventually plans to put a restaurant there. Can anyone confirm?

From the West End Word back in December 2005:

http://www.westendword.com/NC/0/904.html

The funding for the public improvement project would be helped by $6 million in tax increment financing, provided by tax revenue from projects such as Washington University’s north campus and developments at the Wabash Station and former Delmar High School.

The station and the former school belong to Edwards, who is also developing retail space in a building across the street from the high school. Edwards has no final plans for either the station or the high school but said he’d like to see an upscale restaurant in the Wabash Station.

Plus, there's this map of the loop from http://www.ucityloop.com/ that has the station labeled as "Wabash Station (Future Restaurant)"

-RBB

It's a great Beaux Arts building of the era, and it's positioning above the tracks, as it would have most naturally served that rail line, makes it by default a TOD if it has actual interaction with the stop, and not just an upscale restaurant.

If that commercial activity SERVED the transit users, then it would be a slam dunk. If it's just and upscale restaurant with the novelty of spanning a metrolink rail line (like the McDonald's outside of Joplin, Missouri on I-44 that spans the interstate), then it would be a disappointment, I believe.

john w. wrote:I suppose one could argue that the novelty itself would be a draw, and it would, but without a DIRECT relationship to the stop (i.e. not a bunch of transit riders standing outside at the platform, being fishbowled by the fine diners looking out the windows, and vice versa) I believe it would fail to meet my definition of a successful TOD.

I think it would be a failed use of its full potential as a kick ass metrolink stop. That being said, an eatery is probably the second best option that I can think of for this space, which is not a lot of space. However, how does it fail to meet your definition of a successful TOD?

An eateray would be commercial activity that would in part rely on foot traffic and traffic from Metrolink due to its proximity for its success. Space of significant historical importance to the area but not of the size to realistically support more then one tenant in my mind.

For Delmar Station it has been dissappointing that mixed use infill has not come to frutition on the property next to but off Delmar Ave itself. Failure of TOD to me would be a new strip mall or single use building with more parking near the station.

My definition is that a TOD (of my ideal scale, which is small and not the scale defined by the CNU) must have direct relationship to the stop, and not simply proximity. Most typical stops on the San Jose light rail system (which is akin to streetcars or trams) are in the actual street corridor right where the storefronts and cafe seating occur. One deboards the train directly into the commercial activity, and not simply near it. I realize the purity of this direct relationship and its prohibitiveness in an awful lot of situations, but that's my definition, and I acknowledge that it is not the definition shared by others. TOD may not always be possible, and TAD is certainly better than reckless sprawl, but insisting on such a pure definition ensures that the concept is not taken for granted, and then watered down to the sort of amorphous collection of 'things' that are kind of 'near' a metro stop. If allowed to be only loosely defined, then just about anything could be argued to be a TOD and we'd have planners and designers congratulating themselves for achieving what they really haven't achieved. Some strict standard must be aspired to, or we're really not making much improvement on the integration of transit into our human-friendly built environment.

john w. wrote:My definition is that a TOD (of my ideal scale, which is small and not the scale defined by the CNU) must have direct relationship to the stop, and not simply proximity. Most typical stops on the San Jose light rail system (which is akin to streetcars or trams) are in the actual street corridor right where the storefronts and cafe seating occur. One deboards the train directly into the commercial activity, and not simply near it. I realize the purity of this direct relationship and its prohibitiveness in an awful lot of situations, but that's my definition, and I acknowledge that it is not the definition shared by others.

yeah, you almost have a definition of TOD as something like a DTD or Direct Transit Development (a fictitious label I just made) whereas most people see TOD as a development that is proximateand comfortably walkable to transit and which is planned with a significant focus/relationship with transit users in mind. In the end though I think we all agree that what is quite important is that we don't prop up TAD as something that should called TOD.

Roger Wyoming wrote:

john w. wrote:My definition is that a TOD (of my ideal scale, which is small and not the scale defined by the CNU) must have direct relationship to the stop, and not simply proximity. Most typical stops on the San Jose light rail system (which is akin to streetcars or trams) are in the actual street corridor right where the storefronts and cafe seating occur. One deboards the train directly into the commercial activity, and not simply near it. I realize the purity of this direct relationship and its prohibitiveness in an awful lot of situations, but that's my definition, and I acknowledge that it is not the definition shared by others.

yeah, you almost have a definition of TOD as something like a DTD or Direct Transit Development (a fictitious label I just made) whereas most people see TOD as a development that is proximate and comfortably walkable to transit and which is planned with a significant focus/relationship with transit users in mind. In the end though I think we all agree that what is quite important is that we don't prop up TAD as something that should called TOD.

I think the purists would side with john W.'s definition. The masses always water down an idea after they get on board. Its just like going green. The people that coined the idea had a great deal of higher aspirations. To go "green" is a holistic concept, but today, for most companies and consumers, its all about greenwashing...e.i. performing one green act and claiming the company is green, while still not being all that green due to other anti-green practices.

A real TOD makes transit and pedestrian movement the primary modes of transportation. It builds up the desire to use transit lines and move freely without automobiles by every demographic... not just the poor, elderly or disabled (the people that have no other option). In this process the TOD allows people to break free from the unfortunate circumstance that occur as a result of automobile dependence.

When I use to take the Metro from FP to downtown as a means to get to work, I actually noticed an increase in my well-being. Both my physical and mental health improved in the process, all while decreasing my transportation costs and only having to leave my house five minutes earlier. Had I lived in a TOD at the station I used, I would have been even better off, because I would not had to rely on the park n'ride as a means to commute.

I am of the opinion, that should we develop actual TODs and make a transit system high in connectivity, that many more people would ride transit in STL. Denver and Portland have already seen a significant jump in the number of people utilizing transit compared to the auto. These people are not just those who have no other choice but to ride, the demographic is quite varied and as a result the system has gained more and more support due to an increasingly positive image of the transit system.

Yep. I know my definition is not for everyone, and that's fine. I just really insist that the effort be made to integrate to this level of directness whenever possible. It's just too easy to call everything under the sun a TOD otherwise.

zun1026 wrote: I think the purists would side with john W.'s definition. The masses always water down an idea after they get on board. Its just like going green. The people that coined the idea had a great deal of higher aspirations. To go "green" is a holistic concept, but today, for most companies and consumers, its all about greenwashing...e.i. performing one green act and claiming the company is green, while still not being all that green due to other anti-green practices.

OT again. The main reason companies don't go green is cost. All consumers want it, but very few are willing to pay for it.
My company was one of the VERY FIRST adopters of the Ameren's Wind Power program. For years, our entire70k sq ft manufacturing plant was powered by green energy credits and we also offered a plethera of green products.
Everyone wanted the green products, but few were willing to pay for it. Maybe we'll try again after the great recession.

goat314 wrote:I think the St. Louis area has real potential for TOD.
Am I the only one that has been paying attention to the HUD sustainability planning grant?
E-W Gateway is making a regional plan with a bunch groups including Metro, City of St. Louis, St. Louis County, and Trailnet.
There has been a bunch of serious talks about Transit Oriented Development.

http://ewgateway.com/HUDGrant/hudgrant.htm

A lot to respond to as I just read over this thread and I'm not sure how to do multi quote:

My original point was that transit can shape where growth occurs rather than force it. A multi family development that adds 400 HH's along a stop on the South Side alignment or North Side alignment influences where growth occurs, obviously there has to be a demand for the supply. Planning for the lightrail to extend into South County or where in St. Claire county will influence and consequently shape growth. Doing this on a regional scale and doing it correctly on a regional scale can help add efficiency to our infrastructure whether that be highways, sewer, schools, or employment.

What is the status of the HUD grant? What steps has EW Gateway taken to encourage cooperation among municipalities and various other planning departments whether that be MODOT, Metro, or City Hall?

As someone said earlier in the thread look at what Denver has done in planning their light rail. This was because their MPO, Denver Regional Council of Govnts (DRCOG) 20 years ago outlined a firm plan working with the various muni's and counties to plan for the light rail corridors and imposing voluntary growth limits (which give's the muni's plenty, plenty of room). They did not have land use authority but did a good job getting everyone into the room and explaining why cooperation was key. The MPO and Mayor of Denver basically said "Hi Region, you know that if our Urban Core suffers- you suffer too, so let's figure out how to make this work." They showed leadership, vision, and the ability to prove they could get things done. Now look at Denver, they are the envy of most other cities (specifically inland cities). I've worked with some people from their transit authority and only until 5 years ago did they have anything to do with TOD and have any TOD staff. They were under strict state statutes that limited their authority to purchase or sell land. Today their today staff is less than 5 although they changed their focus from Transit to assisting in making Development happen to their capacity. This is because they've had the benefit of population growth, employment growth and all that good stuff but also because they had a strong plan from a MPO that wasn't afraid to act and be decisive. Through the MOP and strong Mayoral leadership, were able to convince the taxpayers that the investment in transit and sustainable growth strategies would serve them well in the long run and limit themselves from soaring infrastructure costs that result from sprawl.

The whole light rail versus BRT thing is certainly a good debate. But as far as catalytic projects go its not even close. Permanent infrastructure = commitment which ideally stimulates development. I do believe that BRT has utility and especially when you consider costs/benefits.

As for the definition of TOD my theory is they are all right and their is no true definition. Transit Oriented Development and Transit Proximal Development... the most important aspect is that many TOD's are created and located where they are because of the Transit. The affordable housing options and correct retail mixes are simply accessories in this conversation.

Cars are good and no one is saying take them away. Living in Denver I took the light rail everyday Downtown because it was faster then driving and I didn't have to pay for parking. It took me 25 minutes door to door. Drove 8 minutes to the stop 1.5 miles away, 14 minute ride Downtown, and then a short walk. Take away the convenience of quickness and give me free parking and I'll probably drive with gas at current prices... but in 3 years when it hits $4 a gallon maybe I'll reconsider.

I had a phone call from a friend yesterday; a "West County bubble" girl, who shocked me when she said she was moving to Downtown... she said that's where the excitement is. If you knew her you'd understand more but the fact that she, smart but extremely sheltered, made the decision on her own gave me hope after really being depressed by the census.

So now this thread could go in a million more ways but my hope is someone can tell me what's up the the HUD grant? Also, please outline how we get EW Gateway to grow some teeth and get everyone into a room, lock the door, and start knocking through a regional growth plan that encourages sustainable growth patterns and recognizes that the urban core needs to be our strongest asset.

To take it a step further that phone call and the fact that she is moving Downtown really encouraged me about the next wave of leadership for the City. The young guys doing the Botanical development-- a "holistic" development and reintegrating lost urban fabric back into the community really gave me hope. Now is the time for the young guns to lead without the influence of the jaded and stubborn old guard. It's time to let go of our past and misconceptions about our limitations and embrace the potential of the future.

...end of rant.

urban fox wrote:

goat314 wrote:I think the St. Louis area has real potential for TOD.
Am I the only one that has been paying attention to the HUD sustainability planning grant?
E-W Gateway is making a regional plan with a bunch groups including Metro, City of St. Louis, St. Louis County, and Trailnet.
There has been a bunch of serious talks about Transit Oriented Development.

http://ewgateway.com/HUDGrant/hudgrant.htm

A lot to respond to as I just read over this thread and I'm not sure how to do multi quote:

My original point was that transit can shape where growth occurs rather than force it. A multi family development that adds 400 HH's along a stop on the South Side alignment or North Side alignment influences where growth occurs, obviously there has to be a demand for the supply. Planning for the lightrail to extend into South County or where in St. Claire county will influence and consequently shape growth. Doing this on a regional scale and doing it correctly on a regional scale can help add efficiency to our infrastructure whether that be highways, sewer, schools, or employment.

What is the status of the HUD grant? What steps has EW Gateway taken to encourage cooperation among municipalities and various other planning departments whether that be MODOT, Metro, or City Hall?

As someone said earlier in the thread look at what Denver has done in planning their light rail. This was because their MPO, Denver Regional Council of Govnts (DRCOG) 20 years ago outlined a firm plan working with the various muni's and counties to plan for the light rail corridors and imposing voluntary growth limits (which give's the muni's plenty, plenty of room). They did not have land use authority but did a good job getting everyone into the room and explaining why cooperation was key. The MPO and Mayor of Denver basically said "Hi Region, you know that if our Urban Core suffers- you suffer too, so let's figure out how to make this work." They showed leadership, vision, and the ability to prove they could get things done. Now look at Denver, they are the envy of most other cities (specifically inland cities). I've worked with some people from their transit authority and only until 5 years ago did they have anything to do with TOD and have any TOD staff. They were under strict state statutes that limited their authority to purchase or sell land. Today their today staff is less than 5 although they changed their focus from Transit to assisting in making Development happen to their capacity. This is because they've had the benefit of population growth, employment growth and all that good stuff but also because they had a strong plan from a MPO that wasn't afraid to act and be decisive. Through the MOP and strong Mayoral leadership, were able to convince the taxpayers that the investment in transit and sustainable growth strategies would serve them well in the long run and limit themselves from soaring infrastructure costs that result from sprawl.

The whole light rail versus BRT thing is certainly a good debate. But as far as catalytic projects go its not even close. Permanent infrastructure = commitment which ideally stimulates development. I do believe that BRT has utility and especially when you consider costs/benefits.

As for the definition of TOD my theory is they are all right and their is no true definition. Transit Oriented Development and Transit Proximal Development... the most important aspect is that many TOD's are created and located where they are because of the Transit. The affordable housing options and correct retail mixes are simply accessories in this conversation.

Cars are good and no one is saying take them away. Living in Denver I took the light rail everyday Downtown because it was faster then driving and I didn't have to pay for parking. It took me 25 minutes door to door. Drove 8 minutes to the stop 1.5 miles away, 14 minute ride Downtown, and then a short walk. Take away the convenience of quickness and give me free parking and I'll probably drive with gas at current prices... but in 3 years when it hits $4 a gallon maybe I'll reconsider.

I had a phone call from a friend yesterday; a "West County bubble" girl, who shocked me when she said she was moving to Downtown... she said that's where the excitement is. If you knew her you'd understand more but the fact that she, smart but extremely sheltered, made the decision on her own gave me hope after really being depressed by the census.

So now this thread could go in a million more ways but my hope is someone can tell me what's up the the HUD grant? Also, please outline how we get EW Gateway to grow some teeth and get everyone into a room, lock the door, and start knocking through a regional growth plan that encourages sustainable growth patterns and recognizes that the urban core needs to be our strongest asset.

To take it a step further that phone call and the fact that she is moving Downtown really encouraged me about the next wave of leadership for the City. The young guys doing the Botanical development-- a "holistic" development and reintegrating lost urban fabric back into the community really gave me hope. Now is the time for the young guns to lead without the influence of the jaded and stubborn old guard. It's time to let go of our past and misconceptions about our limitations and embrace the potential of the future.

...end of rant.

1st- Great point about the light rail fixture as being catalytic, whereas BRT...not so much.

2nd-How do we lead? I have some thoughts,but I would like to hear yours.

zun1026 wrote:

urban fox wrote:

goat314 wrote:I think the St. Louis area has real potential for TOD.
Am I the only one that has been paying attention to the HUD sustainability planning grant?
E-W Gateway is making a regional plan with a bunch groups including Metro, City of St. Louis, St. Louis County, and Trailnet.
There has been a bunch of serious talks about Transit Oriented Development.

http://ewgateway.com/HUDGrant/hudgrant.htm

To take it a step further that phone call and the fact that she is moving Downtown really encouraged me about the next wave of leadership for the City. The young guys doing the Botanical development-- a "holistic" development and reintegrating lost urban fabric back into the community really gave me hope. Now is the time for the young guns to lead without the influence of the jaded and stubborn old guard. It's time to let go of our past and misconceptions about our limitations and embrace the potential of the future.

...end of rant.

1st- Great point about the light rail fixture as being catalytic, whereas BRT...not so much.

2nd-How do we lead? I have some thoughts,but I would like to hear yours.

Regarding the leadership I may have come off slightly erratic but certainly passionate in my post. To me the answer of "how do we lead" is done through a variety of ways with the common denominator being finding one cause that you are truly passionate about and become a proponent for and working towards achieving that goal until its achieved, whether that occurs through public participation, grassroots organization, business outreach, or simple volunteer work. Urban Futures is an one example of a class organization which has found a cause and worked towards that cause with unwavering commitment. (http://www.urbanfuturestl.org/)

Specifically I'd like to see a greater outreach of businesses/city stakeholders working with the Universities undergraduate students and graduate students on selling them to St. Louis. This doesn't mean that everyone gets hired but to truly make clear to these educated peoples that the barriers to entry in St. Louis are relatively low when compared to other markets. As a young, passionate, educated citizen you then have the potential to jump right in and join organizations that are working to better the region/city and meeting like minded people... which has the potential to lead to more career success. I don't know what the right techniques are but I think it can be better advertised to young professionals (who care) that they have the opportunity to make an immediate impact through volunteer organizations within our city. It's a small community and when you start making these connections, people remember (for better or worse).

But I think we saw the potential of this with the passing of Prop A last spring. I wasn't in St. Louis when it passed but from the news reports and articles I read it appeared as if their was a large contingent of grassroots and young people taking the reins to get this thing passed. (On a volunteer basis not at the Metro level).

Maybe it's because I've been away from St Louis for sometime but I'd love to see the makeup of the Metro staff (specifically those in planning and TOD), their backgrounds and where they came from. I'm optimistic about the hire of Langa who had public sector experience following stints at Jones Lang Lasalle. I saw that he also was an adjunct at SLU in Real Estate/Urban Planning--- any more info?

But in an attempt to shift back to the topic "St. Louis and TOD," my opinion is that it must start from a policy standpoint at the MPO and other regional transit/planning agencies to take a hard look at what has worked and what hasn't. Obviously regional cooperation has to be the priority. These agencies hash out a regional strategy which identifies the urban core as the heart of the region with the other population/employment centers acting as other dependent organs or nodes. The strategy then gets communicated to the public via education and seminars- outlining the objectives, potential costs, but more importantly the alternative of the status quo and that may continue to limit the region.

Regional Plan for Sustainable Development

link: http://ewgateway.org/HUDGrant/hudgrant.htm

goat314 wrote:Regional Plan for Sustainable Development

link: http://ewgateway.org/HUDGrant/hudgrant.htm

Good to see. I will be interested in reviewing it when its finished.

doug wrote:Here's an excellent report on TOD in the US. I recommend everyone read it. I have more stuff on this topic as well.

I don't see TOD coming to St. Louis for a lot of reasons. The biggest problem again I think is zoning and local government fragmentation.

Regarding definitions, there is not one. But for me it cannot be considered TOD unless it includes residential as a component within 1/4 mile of the station (at the far maximum, shouldn't have to walk under a highway along an arterial as with Richmond Heights) and densities of 20-50 dwelling units per acre depending upon type of transit, with limited parking. Retail or a restaurant like Wabash Station near a transit station by itself is not TOD especially within an autocentric environment. Most of those people using that retail store or restaurant are not transit riders and were definitely not induced to do so by a standalone nearby shopping opportunity. In the same manner Express Scripts (or other single use suburban constructions with bad site planning) is definitely not TOD. The point of TOD is mixed use and increasing transit ridership thus getting people out of their cars. Of course this requires a quality regional transit system which I think St. Louis and most cities of its size lack.

http://www.onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepub ... pt_102.pdf

Your link is not working for me.