ST. Louis & Transit Oriented Developemnt (TOD)

zun1026 · PostFeb 07, 2011#12011-02-07T20:22+00:00

I wanted to have a thread just for general TOD discussion in St. Louis. Not sure if this would be better served in the Urban Living section or not, but Mods can move it there if they see fit.

Anyway, I was wondering what people think about the potential of TODs in St. Louis...
Would these work?

Where would they work? Are their sites ripe for TOD development?

Are there sites billed as TODs in St. Louis? Are these really TODs? Do they work?

Do you have examples of successful TODs that you feel could work in STL?

Where should transit lines go in relation to TODs?

The list goes on.

***What I am hoping to get from this thread is a good discussion that possibly sparks the interest of motivated individuals seeking start developing and planning proposals, designs, guidelines and even consider the possibly a citizens group focused on TODs and Transit development.

john w. · PostFeb 07, 2011#22011-02-07T22:59+00:00

zun1026 wrote:I wanted to have a thread just for general TOD discussion in St. Louis. Not sure if this would be better served in the Urban Living section or not, but Mods can move it there if they see fit.

Anyway, I was wondering what people think about the potential of TODs in St. Louis...
Would these work?

Yes. They will work anywhere that there is both a transit node and human traffic volume through said node. Those conditions either do exist here, or can be made to exist here.

PostFeb 07, 2011#32011-02-07T23:15+00:00

zun1026 wrote: Where would they work? Are their sites ripe for TOD development?

They will work where the nexus of transit lines provides commercial opportunity for serving those in transit. One site that could be considered ripe for TOD development is the Deer Creek shopping center.

PostFeb 07, 2011#42011-02-07T23:37+00:00

zun1026 wrote: Are there sites billed as TODs in St. Louis? Are these really TODs? Do they work?

Though I don't have immediately cited sources, I am confident that Boulevard St. Louis (as related to the Richmond Heights station), The concentration of new retail and the mixed-use Hanley Station development (as related to the Brentwood I-64 Metrolink station) in the county were billed as TOD's when planned.

These are some of the weakest examples of TOD that can be offered, but is the usual offering nonetheless. They work if one doesn't mind walking 500 feet to the nearest visible indicator of reachable commercial development, and under a highway overpass while on their way, or climbing out of a ditch, in the rain, to big box heaven meets the definition of 'working', then I would suppose they 'work'. I don't suppose this.

doug · PostFeb 08, 2011#52011-02-08T02:21+00:00

They were billed as TOD but yeah you have to talk under a highway and there's the whole issue about the street you walk next to is full of people speeding to get on that highway. Oh and the sidewalks are too narrow, there's nothing buffering you from the cars, and the buildings themselves do not open onto that street. I would not consider this TOD. It's merely "density" near transit. Though no one lives here at this development and thus the density clears out after operating hours.

Brentwood station is a mess. It's impossible to walk anywhere in comfort given the traffic. These all result from existing autocentric infrastructure and design, hence why it's nearly impossible to urbanize suburbia. Suburbia was designed to be one thing: suburban. Hence restrictive covenants to prevent change.

Really though people do not like density because it's Pruitt Igoe and transit is unamerican. You must be a communist.

Calthorpe and others of that compact city new urbanist utopian ideal work fine with a new green or brownfield community but it's difficult to build transit avenues when you have collectors, arterials, highways, and people who have stigmas against density and fetishize the car as gods gift to humanity. We are in some ways path dependent.

urban fox · PostFeb 08, 2011#62011-02-08T02:32+00:00

I'd like to hear some discussion regarding Metro's long term goals overlaid with the full build out of the light rail. Given correlating public policy, transit has the ability to shape where growth occurs. Growth near transit should encourage higher densities.

Given the full build out of the system are there specific sites which can be identified as larger potential for "town centers" or higher density suburban TODs?

Somebody get me excited about the potential for a progressive TOD in St. Louis!

doug · PostFeb 08, 2011#72011-02-08T02:39+00:00

Metro has no control over land use nor does any regional planning authority. TOD is strictly up to the market and whatever local fiefdom municipality wants. Don't hold your breath for suburban TOD.

We don't even have it at Forest Park Station. Why would you expect it in an environment of lower density and higher car usage?

Moreover, this is light rail. You're looking at like 200 people every 15 minutes, that's assuming the car is entirely packed just for your store and it's not. If the Brentwood development demolished its parking garage I doubt the system would have the capacity to provide enough customers. It's far easier to rely upon parking absent a planning regime saying to go in another direction with legal enforcement. If you want TOD then you need to mandate it. High petrol prices would help. This is America not Europe.

john w. · PostFeb 08, 2011#82011-02-08T02:48+00:00

doug wrote: Don't hold your breath for suburban TOD.

Don't hold it for urban TOD either. We'll have to be very patient to wait out transit ridership begetting any sort of development. It really doesn't work that way. It's usually either a planned development, or successful by default as the extant conditions were already appropriate to transit service and the transit stop couldn't avoid being integrated with sustainable activity level.

PostFeb 08, 2011#92011-02-08T03:01+00:00

urban fox wrote:I'd like to hear some discussion regarding Metro's long term goals overlaid with the full build out of the light rail. Given correlating public policy, transit has the ability to shape where growth occurs. Growth near transit should encourage higher densities.

Given the full build out of the system are there specific sites which can be identified as larger potential for "town centers" or higher density suburban TODs?

Somebody get me excited about the potential for a progressive TOD in St. Louis!

I'm certainly not going to discourage your enthusiasm or disillusion you, but I don't see much a full build out of light rail happening very soon. That's not to say that it won't eventually, but perhaps a more logical option for the metro area in the near term is actually BRT and not fixed rail. We're lucky to even have the Metrolink, but it would be nearly impossible to argue that it's existence has has somehow spurred growth. It simply hasn't. I don't expect it to. The conditions are not very favorable, as a lot of the track path was captured existing rail corridor. I'd admit that the portion of the cross county extension that required MUCH new built infrastructure and coordination with existing routes (like the Clayton station in the middle of FP Parkway), it's hard to see much new growth as a result of the location of the stations, or its existence at all. We shouldn't expect the Metrolink to carry this burden of proving worth, because it cannot live up to that expectation.

PostFeb 08, 2011#102011-02-08T03:06+00:00

urban fox wrote:Given the full build out of the system are there specific sites which can be identified as larger potential for "town centers" or higher density suburban TODs?

I'd stay away from the term "town center" as well. TODs (new ones, anyway) cannot easily replicate true town centers, and the focus really should be small developments associated with transit stops that can actually survive. Town Center is too broad, and too vague, and something that doesn't seem like it could be made by throwing some ingredients in a mixing bowl and turning on the oven.

doug · PostFeb 08, 2011#112011-02-08T03:13+00:00

Yeah and Town Centres cannot exist with the preponderance of cars.

Truthfully St. Louis has better priorities than TOD. Like perhaps fixing the abandonment issue in the City and inner ring. The densities and dispersion within most of St. Louis County won't be fixed by TOD because it really cannot exist as we are today. It would be heavily subsidized due to low ridership giving another argument to the anti-transit libertarians. I would rather support something that has a greater chance of working like community development. TOD in an auto driven culture, a geography which has been for several generations without transit, doesn't seem like the most pressing goal.

john w. · PostFeb 08, 2011#122011-02-08T03:18+00:00

doug wrote:Yeah and Town Centres cannot exist with the preponderance of cars.

Truthfully St. Louis has better priorities than TOD. Like perhaps fixing the abandonment issue in the City and inner ring. The densities and dispersion within most of St. Louis County won't be fixed by TOD because it really cannot exist as we are today. It would be heavily subsidized due to low ridership giving another argument to the anti-transit libertarians. I would rather support something that has a greater chance of working like community development. TOD in an auto driven culture, a geography which has been for several generations without transit, doesn't seem like the most pressing goal.

It's hard to argue with that, but we are a city with multi-modal transit, and so the possibility at least exists. I don't believe that there is only one possible successful direction to reinvigorate our city, and if a TOD is small and self-sustaining then I don't see any problem it its pursuit. It's definitely NOT a pressing goal.

doug · PostFeb 08, 2011#132011-02-08T03:23+00:00

We agree John. I suppose I am jaded seeing that TOD has so many barriers even in cities with stronger planning regimes and higher densities. If we had regional planning in St. Louis I would at least be more willing to accept it as a possibility. Right now I don't see if happening. Density does not simply "follow" transit. You have to demolish whatever suburban is there, reconfigure streets, etc., and that costs money and political capital. Some bureaucrats, engineers, planners, politicians, investors, and citizens will probably disagree since they're not used to this model. It's like you're living in 1950 and bringing home a minority girl to meet your conservative parents. People are stuck in the past and don't like change. Moreover, what's outside that small footprint is still dominate by the car so you have a structure which still says to use it. I know you're aware obviously. At least St. Louis has many other amenities.

goat314 · PostFeb 08, 2011#142011-02-08T03:25+00:00

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

doug · PostFeb 08, 2011#152011-02-08T03:27+00:00

A grant to form a plan with no way to enforce it. MPO's do not control land use nor does any other governmental body in our region. Getting money to form a plan means we had a good application or someone is throwing around stimulus funding. It does not indicate we're doing TOD.

goat314 · PostFeb 08, 2011#162011-02-08T03:35+00:00

john w. wrote:
urban fox wrote:I'd like to hear some discussion regarding Metro's long term goals overlaid with the full build out of the light rail. Given correlating public policy, transit has the ability to shape where growth occurs. Growth near transit should encourage higher densities.

Given the full build out of the system are there specific sites which can be identified as larger potential for "town centers" or higher density suburban TODs?

Somebody get me excited about the potential for a progressive TOD in St. Louis!

I'm certainly not going to discourage your enthusiasm or disillusion you, but I don't see much a full build out of light rail happening very soon. That's not to say that it won't eventually, but perhaps a more logical option for the metro area in the near term is actually BRT and not fixed rail. We're lucky to even have the Metrolink, but it would be nearly impossible to argue that it's existence has has somehow spurred growth. It simply hasn't. I don't expect it to. The conditions are not very favorable, as a lot of the track path was captured existing rail corridor. I'd admit that the portion of the cross county extension that required MUCH new built infrastructure and coordination with existing routes (like the Clayton station in the middle of FP Parkway), it's hard to see much new growth as a result of the location of the stations, or its existence at all. We shouldn't expect the Metrolink to carry this burden of proving worth, because it cannot live up to that expectation.

I would argue that St. Louis would be worst off without Metrolink. I also don't think we are "lucky" to have Metrolink. Kansas City, Cincinatti, or Milwaukee would be "lucky" to have Metrolink. Regional leaders, big business, civic institutions and the citizenry did what was necessary to make Metrolink happen. I dont see a full build out in the near future either, but I definitely feel that St. Louis did what was necessary to stay competitive and relative.

PostFeb 08, 2011#172011-02-08T03:40+00:00

doug wrote:A grant to form a plan with no way to enforce it. MPO's do not control land use nor does any other governmental body in our region. Getting money to form a plan means we had a good application or someone is throwing around stimulus funding. It does not indicate we're doing TOD.

Did you read anything? Why so pessimistic?

zun1026 · PostFeb 08, 2011#182011-02-08T04:49+00:00

doug wrote:They were billed as TOD but yeah you have to talk under a highway and there's the whole issue about the street you walk next to is full of people speeding to get on that highway. Oh and the sidewalks are too narrow, there's nothing buffering you from the cars, and the buildings themselves do not open onto that street. I would not consider this TOD. It's merely "density" near transit. Though no one lives here at this development and thus the density clears out after operating hours.

Brentwood station is a mess. It's impossible to walk anywhere in comfort given the traffic. These all result from existing autocentric infrastructure and design, hence why it's nearly impossible to urbanize suburbia. Suburbia was designed to be one thing: suburban. Hence restrictive covenants to prevent change.

Really though people do not like density because it's Pruitt Igoe and transit is unamerican. You must be a communist.

Calthorpe and others of that compact city new urbanist utopian ideal work fine with a new green or brownfield community but it's difficult to build transit avenues when you have collectors, arterials, highways, and people who have stigmas against density and fetishize the car as gods gift to humanity. We are in some ways path dependent.

I agree, but we can retrofit them to work better.

PostFeb 08, 2011#192011-02-08T05:15+00:00

john w. wrote:
urban fox wrote:I'd like to hear some discussion regarding Metro's long term goals overlaid with the full build out of the light rail. Given correlating public policy, transit has the ability to shape where growth occurs. Growth near transit should encourage higher densities.

Given the full build out of the system are there specific sites which can be identified as larger potential for "town centers" or higher density suburban TODs?

Somebody get me excited about the potential for a progressive TOD in St. Louis!

I'm certainly not going to discourage your enthusiasm or disillusion you, but I don't see much a full build out of light rail happening very soon. That's not to say that it won't eventually, but perhaps a more logical option for the metro area in the near term is actually BRT and not fixed rail. We're lucky to even have the Metrolink, but it would be nearly impossible to argue that it's existence has has somehow spurred growth. It simply hasn't. I don't expect it to. The conditions are not very favorable, as a lot of the track path was captured existing rail corridor. I'd admit that the portion of the cross county extension that required MUCH new built infrastructure and coordination with existing routes (like the Clayton station in the middle of FP Parkway), it's hard to see much new growth as a result of the location of the stations, or its existence at all. We shouldn't expect the Metrolink to carry this burden of proving worth, because it cannot live up to that expectation.

I agree on the BRT v light rail front. There are many reasons to utilize BRT (costs and route flexibility), however my most positive reason for supporting BRT first is that you can see which routes warrant the upgrade to light rail. If a route doesn't work, make the adjustment. If it is highly successful, maybe you can make it more permanent via Metrolink.

I also think you are right about the station location issues. If you look at what Denver is doing, they have a full out system that reaches many areas. Land around these areas is starting to become a bigger commodity.

PostFeb 08, 2011#202011-02-08T05:32+00:00

doug wrote:Yeah and Town Centres cannot exist with the preponderance of cars.

Truthfully St. Louis has better priorities than TOD. Like perhaps fixing the abandonment issue in the City and inner ring. The densities and dispersion within most of St. Louis County won't be fixed by TOD because it really cannot exist as we are today. It would be heavily subsidized due to low ridership giving another argument to the anti-transit libertarians. I would rather support something that has a greater chance of working like community development. TOD in an auto driven culture, a geography which has been for several generations without transit, doesn't seem like the most pressing goal.

Yet some other cities are doing just this with the automobile having been the dominant form of transportation. Also, why can't TODs be part of the solution to the abandonment issue? Why can't suburban areas grow in density with the development of TODs? Just because things are the way they are today, doesn't mean we have to maintain the status quo.

The roads and highways we drive on are also heavily subsidized, as is the fuel we use to fill our cars. That fuel then pollutes our air and facilitates asthma and other health problems. Then factor in the continued decline of hydrocarbon energy. Finally, in future environmental and economic costs of reliance on such systems and energy sources will cause us even greater challenges then we see today. For these reasons, I believe we should be looking to both implement transit and rethink the patterns of our cities. In the process we can incorporate responses to other issues that plague our city.

the count · PostFeb 08, 2011#212011-02-08T20:20+00:00

doug wrote:Brentwood station is a mess. It's impossible to walk anywhere in comfort given the traffic. These all result from existing autocentric infrastructure and design, hence why it's nearly impossible to urbanize suburbia. Suburbia was designed to be one thing: suburban. Hence restrictive covenants to prevent change.

Wasn't this station originally planned with direct access/egress on the westside? I believe it was Dierberg's who helped block that concept.

john w. · PostFeb 08, 2011#222011-02-08T23:04+00:00

the count wrote:Wasn't this station originally planned with direct access/egress on the westside? I believe it was Dierberg's who helped block that concept.

Which is what Doug was alluding to.

doug · PostFeb 09, 2011#232011-02-09T01:54+00:00

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.

john w. · PostFeb 09, 2011#242011-02-09T03:15+00:00

goat314 wrote:I would argue that St. Louis would be worst off without Metrolink. I also don't think we are "lucky" to have Metrolink. Kansas City, Cincinatti, or Milwaukee would be "lucky" to have Metrolink. Regional leaders, big business, civic institutions and the citizenry did what was necessary to make Metrolink happen. I dont see a full build out in the near future either, but I definitely feel that St. Louis did what was necessary to stay competitive and relative.

Fair enough. I love the Metrolink, and support it, ride it, and hope for its future expansion. Sometimes it's hard to convey strong points without leaving the impression with others that it's always this binary 'either-or'. One good solution does not then mutually exclude some other solution in progress. They can coexist.

the count · PostFeb 09, 2011#252011-02-09T14:56+00:00

john w. wrote:
the count wrote:Wasn't this station originally planned with direct access/egress on the westside? I believe it was Dierberg's who helped block that concept.
Which is what Doug was alluding to.

Certainly. Just adding to his premise with an actual example.