On Our Block
I really don't understand house prices and how they are recorded.
Sometimes, searching on CitiMortgage's free but login required Home Price Check service gets you very different results than what displays on either Geo St. Louis or the City Assessor's Database.
For example, there's one two-family down the street from ours, that's 14-square-feet smaller than ours and has no garage. Here are some recent alleged sale prices for that property:
10/2003: $98,500
12/2004: $105,000
02/2006: $89,811
05/2006: $68,000
The only building permit I can find for it is from 06/06/06 (hmmmm), completed 08/30/06. It says "Interior Alterations (Drywall) per plans." Estimated Cost: $100.00.
This property (located, of course, in 63118) is owned by somebody with a 63116 ZIP code, the area generally west of Grand, east of Kingshighway, and south of Arsenal.
But some of the property owners on our block are even more remote.
Next door to our house, the owners live in Florissant. Up the other way on opposite sides of the street, you'll find several South County owners, and one from Kirkwood. Head back the other way, and you'll find owner addresses in Atlanta, and Orlando (VA, a sadly recent foreclosure). Ther are even a few property owners who live elsewhere in 63118, 63104, and (believe it or not) 63106.
Throw in a church and a mid-block commercial complex, and our block consists of a couple dozen parcels with a couple dozen owners, less than half of whom actually live there. Still, that's better than some nearby blocks loaded with four-families with little to no owner-occupancy. And at least most of the buildings are occupied (right now, anyway).
The best thing about our block really is how heavily two-family it is. There's only two four-families on the block. That keeps the density at a moderate level. And since several of the two-families are now effectively single-families, it offers an affordable way to get a little more square-footage.
Some property owners, of course, do not provide legitimate addresses, simply claiming they reside at the property. If you just match up the owner address with the property address, it may appear there's a pretty high owner-occupancy rate. But that's not quite accurate.
At the same time, you may miss some whose postal address and property record address do not match up 100%. Ours would fall in that category, as for a while I was insistent on putting "2nd Fl" on all mail, to make sure our mail was placed in the upstairs mailbox. Even if we used just "A" for the unit number though, that would make it appear (again, just doing a simple matching exercise) our house was not owner-occupied.
In some ways, this represents a microcosm of the property ownership data problems that occur citywide. And these problems can stymie economic and community development, not to mention urban planning efforts.
In relatively new suburbs, where the vast majority of homes are single-family, one-building-per-lot, and owner-occupied, these challenges are much less daunting.
In a big, complex city, with many layers of historical development and even more layers of historical property ownership, these difficulties can seem insurmountable.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Friday, October 20, 2006
How I Voted on November 7, 2006
How I Voted on November 7, 2006
Yes, there's some cognitive dissonance in that headline!
More accurately, I should say I voted absentee-in-person today in the 11/07/06 General Election. It was about 1:15 PM, so there's was nobody else in the Absentee Voting office (located on the 2nd floor at 300 N. Tucker).
I noticed they had cheesy little ES&S pen/paperclip promotionals for folks to fill out their paper absentee ballot application forms. It's kinda funny, since they did not pick ES&S for their contract, but Diebold Election Systems instead.
I voted absentee because I again plan to work for the Election Board as a Technical Specialist that day, hopefully at the same place I worked in August: Froebel Elementary School in the 20th ward. My usual polling place is Lutheran Church of Our Redeemer, also in the 20th ward.
Here's how I voted. Most of it is unsurprising, but a few deserve explanations:
US Senate: Claire McCaskill
State Auditor: Susan Montee
US Rep Dist 3: Russ Carnahan
MO Rep Dist 59: Jeanette Mott Oxford
Collector of Revenue: Gregg Daly
License Collector: Mike McMillan
Recorder of Deeds: Sharon Quigley Carpenter
Circuit Clerk: Mariano Favazza
Judges: YES to all (The only ones who might be marginal are Circuit Judge Joan Moriarty and Associate Circuit Judge Barbara Peebles, whose ratings by the lawyers groups are below 70% to retain. But, I noticed systematically lower ratings for women, so I'd take these ratings with a grain of salt.)
Amendment Two: YES
(While it has problems, it seems like the best way to keep the rightwing religious zealots at bay on the stem cell issue. It's not creating a "constitutional right" to anything -- in fact, state constitutions are MUCH more detailed than the US Constitution, and are amended all the time with specific provisions like this. Some idiot compared it to Dred Scott, which makes no sense whatsoever. Dred Scott lost his case in Missouri, and there was never any state constitutional amendment made in his favor. Not even close!)
Amendment Three: YES
(While it also has problems, and tobacco taxes can be seen as regressive, it does offer the potential for restoring the cuts made into Medicaid by the Blunt administration.)
Amendment Six: YES
(Why not exempt the VFW and American Legion from property taxes? I thought they already were.)
Amendment Seven: YES
(Again, I assumed it was already usually the case that when you got convicted of a crime related to your office, you lost your pension. I guess not.)
Prop B: YES
(I wholeheartedly support a higher minimum wage for Missouri, in line with that already in place in Illinois.)
Prop P: NO
(Sales taxes are a fundamentally flawed, regressive way to fund anything. Don't get me wrong -- I'd love to see renovation and repairs made to the existing city recreation centers and swimming pools. But building a new suburban-style facility that costs a lot to use in Carondelet Park would not really service the low-income communities that need such facilities, and would undermine the viability of the historic Carondelet YMCA. Indeed, the Carondelet YWCA on S. Kingshighway has already closed their swimming pool.)
Prop R: YES
(Of course, this proposition is too little, too late, because: 1) the cops and the civilian employees have already gotten their residency rule changed, and 2) it's a non-binding referendum just like the one done in the mid 1990s. Still, I'm happy to register my voice that yes indeed, I want City police to live in the City!)
Prop 1: YES
(It comes up every few years, yet people keep voting it down. However, increasing the maximum fines the city can levy is one way to crack down on problem properties and the absentee landlords that manipulate the system ad infinitum.)
Prop 2: NO
(I just don't see why we should expand the number of jobs available for mayoral patronage. What's wrong with having the mayor's secretarial staff being civil service? Even with this change, outgoing mayors will still find ways to 'slide' their 'excepted' position staff and department heads into civil service positions before the next mayor is inaugurated. It's a time-honored tradition that no rule can break.)
Prop 3: YES
Prop 4: YES
(Both Props 3 and 4 will retain the civil service selection system, but provide a little more flexibility in selecting from among the applicant pool. Prop 3 broadens the traditional "rule of three" to the "rule of six" -- meaning the person who gets the job can come from among the top 6 candidates, not just the rather narrowly defined top 3.
Prop 4 says that city employees do not get automatic promotions to other positions in a different job classification; they have to compete with outside applicants when the position is posted publicly. Right now, some folks work for years in the street department because they really want to become firefighters. Then when firefighter applications time opens up, they move to the top of the list. This seems unfair to qualified outside applicants. So, both proposals seem like wise steps.)
Yes, there's some cognitive dissonance in that headline!
More accurately, I should say I voted absentee-in-person today in the 11/07/06 General Election. It was about 1:15 PM, so there's was nobody else in the Absentee Voting office (located on the 2nd floor at 300 N. Tucker).
I noticed they had cheesy little ES&S pen/paperclip promotionals for folks to fill out their paper absentee ballot application forms. It's kinda funny, since they did not pick ES&S for their contract, but Diebold Election Systems instead.
I voted absentee because I again plan to work for the Election Board as a Technical Specialist that day, hopefully at the same place I worked in August: Froebel Elementary School in the 20th ward. My usual polling place is Lutheran Church of Our Redeemer, also in the 20th ward.
Here's how I voted. Most of it is unsurprising, but a few deserve explanations:
(While it has problems, it seems like the best way to keep the rightwing religious zealots at bay on the stem cell issue. It's not creating a "constitutional right" to anything -- in fact, state constitutions are MUCH more detailed than the US Constitution, and are amended all the time with specific provisions like this. Some idiot compared it to Dred Scott, which makes no sense whatsoever. Dred Scott lost his case in Missouri, and there was never any state constitutional amendment made in his favor. Not even close!)
(While it also has problems, and tobacco taxes can be seen as regressive, it does offer the potential for restoring the cuts made into Medicaid by the Blunt administration.)
(Why not exempt the VFW and American Legion from property taxes? I thought they already were.)
(Again, I assumed it was already usually the case that when you got convicted of a crime related to your office, you lost your pension. I guess not.)
(I wholeheartedly support a higher minimum wage for Missouri, in line with that already in place in Illinois.)
(Sales taxes are a fundamentally flawed, regressive way to fund anything. Don't get me wrong -- I'd love to see renovation and repairs made to the existing city recreation centers and swimming pools. But building a new suburban-style facility that costs a lot to use in Carondelet Park would not really service the low-income communities that need such facilities, and would undermine the viability of the historic Carondelet YMCA. Indeed, the Carondelet YWCA on S. Kingshighway has already closed their swimming pool.)
(Of course, this proposition is too little, too late, because: 1) the cops and the civilian employees have already gotten their residency rule changed, and 2) it's a non-binding referendum just like the one done in the mid 1990s. Still, I'm happy to register my voice that yes indeed, I want City police to live in the City!)
(It comes up every few years, yet people keep voting it down. However, increasing the maximum fines the city can levy is one way to crack down on problem properties and the absentee landlords that manipulate the system ad infinitum.)
(I just don't see why we should expand the number of jobs available for mayoral patronage. What's wrong with having the mayor's secretarial staff being civil service? Even with this change, outgoing mayors will still find ways to 'slide' their 'excepted' position staff and department heads into civil service positions before the next mayor is inaugurated. It's a time-honored tradition that no rule can break.)
(Both Props 3 and 4 will retain the civil service selection system, but provide a little more flexibility in selecting from among the applicant pool. Prop 3 broadens the traditional "rule of three" to the "rule of six" -- meaning the person who gets the job can come from among the top 6 candidates, not just the rather narrowly defined top 3.
Prop 4 says that city employees do not get automatic promotions to other positions in a different job classification; they have to compete with outside applicants when the position is posted publicly. Right now, some folks work for years in the street department because they really want to become firefighters. Then when firefighter applications time opens up, they move to the top of the list. This seems unfair to qualified outside applicants. So, both proposals seem like wise steps.)
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Could the Future of MetroLink be on Jefferson and on River des Peres?
Could the Future of MetroLink be on Jefferson and on River des Peres?
A couple years back, East-West Gateway finished the Metro South Study, basically the study to lay groundwork for a plan for extending the now-open Cross County line southward into deep South St. Louis County. It came out with several ideas, but no final Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).
Now, the Northside-Southside Study is underway, to plan for major transit investments in the City of St. Louis, including a possible (mostly) on-street, at-grade crosstown MetroLink route through downtown St. Louis.
While I love the new MetroLink line service to WashU, Clayton, Galleria, Brentwood, Maplewood, and Shrewsbury, I am concerned this places the inner-ring suburbs and the central corridor at a bit of an advantage relative to the traditional residential parts of the City: the northside and the southside.
At the same time, both the proposed BNSF corridor for Metro South and the UP ("Route of the Eagle") corridor for Southside, have a problem: they are both active heavy-rail corridors. As such, both freight carriers would require a minimum distance between their active trackage, and any light-rail trackage. This might require demolition of many houses and businesses.
While a few houses and businesses have been lost to the construction of MetroLink to-date, that's been kept to a minimum by relying mostly on existing, abandoned railroad right-of-way. Even Forest Park Parkway is, itself, built on the former Rock Island r-o-w; but after 60+ years, people forgot about that. So we got this strange, up-and-down route where part of the tracks are in a fenced-off open cut, sometimes only a few feet below grade (i.e., where passing over the River des Peres tunnel under Des Peres Avenue) and the stations (along with the entire segment of track between Big Bend and Forsyth stations) are underground.
That fight was intense and perhaps unnecessary.
I would like to see our next several iterations of MetroLink extension -- whenever that will actually happen -- be a bit less contentious.
Also, I would like to see downtown St. Louis become the focal point of the system.
There are HUGE fiscal and legal obstacles to this.
Here are some ideas:
1) Convince St. Louis County voters to support the Prop. M sales tax they voted down almost 10 years ago. City voters already passed it, but we cannot collect the tax until the County passes it.
2) Get St. Louis County to allocate an additional $10 million per year to Metro from its existing transportation sales tax. This should be do-able, if some planned road and bridge fund projects are either deferred or funded out of county general revenue.
3) Fast-track City Street Department/BPS and MODOT approvals for right-of-way assignment to Metro within city streets and state 'highways' like Natural Bridge.
4) Given the railroads' reservations and their inevitable importance to our regional economy, abandon any thoughts of private right-of-way operation parallel to heavy freight operations. After all, it's not particularly pleasant, clean, or safe down at the Grand station, although I think watching the trains go by is cool.
5) Aggressively seek federal funds.
While these are certainly easier said than done, any one of these would help represent a stronger regional commitment to quality public transit.
As far as routing, this is what I'd love to see happen:
1) By 2012, begin construction on the Northside-Southside on-street line, using the only Northside alternative being seriously considered (I-70@Goodfellow - Goodfellow - Natural Bridge - North Florissant), then the Downtown couplet (along N. 14th - Convention Plaza - 10th (SB) and 9th (NB) - Clark - S. 14th), and finally the Southside alternative via Chouteau - S. Jefferson - S. Broadway.
I would deviate from the proposal to enter I-55 at Gasconade/Piedmont (behind Walgreens), and instead stay on-street within S. Broadway as far south as Bellerive Boulevard, then swing up onto a replacement for the existing Bellerive Boulevard structure over S. Broadway (taking a chunk of the hillside in Bellerive Park), and use the overly-wide Bellerive to enter the I-55 berm.
This may or may not be a cheaper alternative, but would maximize the use of on-street in the city rather than Interstate highway r-o-w. From there, it would run alongside I-55, probably on the eastern side, to a temporary terminus around the Loughborough Avenue exit.
I think it's important the Northside-Southside line be constructed as a single unit, a crosstown operation. And except for a few miles alongside I-55 on the south end, it would be an on-street operation. You couldn't go further south than Bellerive on S. Broadway, because you enter the 500-year flood plain. It would have to be on structure south of there. Similarly, south of Loughborough along I-55, it would have to be on structure, so I think that's a sensible interim terminus for the 'on-street' operations component. This is particularly a concern since those would need to be low-floor vehicles more like those used in Portland, OR and very different from the current MetroLink LRVs.
2) Around 2015, begin construction on the Metro South extension, which would operate along the River des Peres corridor south from the Shrewsbury-Lansdowne I-44 station. Yeah, probably a few houses would be lost on this corridor, as well as the Steak N Shake on Gravois and Germania; but most of the corridor would be in city parkland. Alternatively, perhaps the transit center could be relocated to the corner of Gravois and River des Peres. This would probably be on a dedicated right-of-way, possibly elevated due to flooding concerns, and using the same LRVs as the current Cross County line.
Once construction commenced on this line, making the connection to the Southside line would be critical and challenging. It would happen somewhere around the I-55 exits at Germania / Carondelet Blvd. Also by this time, Carondelet Blvd. may be carrying much more traffic, because it will be extended into a new road serving the new casino complex in Lemay. There may even be outer roads crossing River des Peres connecting Carondelet and Germania on- and off-ramps adjacent to I-55: something that should have been included in the original construction of the interstate anyway.
2a) The segment of the Metro South line south of the City limits is still very much up in the air to my way of thinking. It would be great, but probably unrealistic, for it to serve the new Lemay casino. More likely, it will operate using the same LRVs as the now-existing system, along I-55 r-o-w south from Weber Road exit to Butler Hill Road exit, maybe with a slight deviation for the South County Mall area.
But here's another option: instead of continuing the Cross County route south, requiring city patrons to transfer at (say), Germania Station, you could extend the Southside line southward on-street deep into South County. My thought is that you'd terminate the Metro South traditional LRV elevated line at Morganford Road instead of at I-55. That would save some money.
Further savings could be realized by, instead of running Southside alongside I-55, continuing it on-street west along Bellerive Blvd. It would tunnel under the I-55 berm, continue west in the super-wide Bellerive Blvd. median (yeah, this might be a really unpopular idea, but no houses would be taken!), all the way to Grand. West of Grand, Bellerive is much narrower, so the line would turn south onto S. Grand Blvd. OK, that turn might cost a few houses.
S. Grand is a bit narrower here, but the traffic is also much less than segments further north. At Carondelet Park, the route would either 1) go west on Holly Hills, or 2) south through the park then west on Loughborough. I think there's enough room for either option.
Then, you'd enter the really wide Morganford Road. Is there really enough traffic here to justify its width? The beauty of Morganford is it's a wide street, surrounded by residences, all the way south until it turns into Union Road in South County. And Union Road continues south as a really (unnecessarily) wide road, roughly parallel to I-55, as far as S. Lindbergh Blvd. and South County Mall. If ever there was a suburban candidate for on-street operation, this is one.
It's a county arterial road, not a state highway, so getting the County approval would be essential (and maybe difficult). Also, I think the segment of Union near Grant's Trail is in the Gravois Creek floodway, so an elevated structure would be necessary, maybe just adjacent to I-55, from (south of) Reavis Barracks to (about) Will Avenue. Then maybe the on-street would not work. And obviously you couldn't have on-street operation on Lindbergh, so there would need to be dedicated right-of-way somewhere around South County Mall.
I'm a bit skeptical of the value of the leg to Butler Hill Road. I would just terminate the route at South County Mall, but I guess the idea is to build a big park-ride lot to attract Jefferson County riders. But I figure if they're willing to drive across the Meramec, they'll come up as far as I-270. Building out those extra few miles would be costly, and only necessary if a future line to Jeffco is part of the motivation.
3) The so-called Daniel Boone corridor would be great to have in place, as it would provide a direct link from transit-dependent North City to tons of jobs in far West County. But, here again the proposal calls for using part of an (active?) heavy rail corridor. If it turns out this rail corridor (the old Rock Island line roughly parallel to Page Avenue) is out-of-service, it would be ideal. Otherwise, perhaps this is another candidate for partial on-street operation.
3a) I'm less clear on the specifics, but I recall some thought of a link-up via the Terminal Railroad tracks between the Northside line and the existing Airport line. That link would only be a few miles long, from about 5600 Natural Bridge through Hillsdale and Wellston, to a very isolated transfer point behind Bethany Cemetery. Or, via an existing connector r-o-w, you could integrate the two lines, having some trains depart Wellston station and end up at Goodfellow and I-70. Maybe that would work. I guess a station at Kienlen and St. Louis Avenue would be possible on this connector.
A much-longer on-street alternative would be via Goodfellow and MLK Drive, ending at Rock Road station. That would reconnect the Wellston Loop to transit, which could help development in that area.
A couple years back, East-West Gateway finished the Metro South Study, basically the study to lay groundwork for a plan for extending the now-open Cross County line southward into deep South St. Louis County. It came out with several ideas, but no final Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).
Now, the Northside-Southside Study is underway, to plan for major transit investments in the City of St. Louis, including a possible (mostly) on-street, at-grade crosstown MetroLink route through downtown St. Louis.
While I love the new MetroLink line service to WashU, Clayton, Galleria, Brentwood, Maplewood, and Shrewsbury, I am concerned this places the inner-ring suburbs and the central corridor at a bit of an advantage relative to the traditional residential parts of the City: the northside and the southside.
At the same time, both the proposed BNSF corridor for Metro South and the UP ("Route of the Eagle") corridor for Southside, have a problem: they are both active heavy-rail corridors. As such, both freight carriers would require a minimum distance between their active trackage, and any light-rail trackage. This might require demolition of many houses and businesses.
While a few houses and businesses have been lost to the construction of MetroLink to-date, that's been kept to a minimum by relying mostly on existing, abandoned railroad right-of-way. Even Forest Park Parkway is, itself, built on the former Rock Island r-o-w; but after 60+ years, people forgot about that. So we got this strange, up-and-down route where part of the tracks are in a fenced-off open cut, sometimes only a few feet below grade (i.e., where passing over the River des Peres tunnel under Des Peres Avenue) and the stations (along with the entire segment of track between Big Bend and Forsyth stations) are underground.
That fight was intense and perhaps unnecessary.
I would like to see our next several iterations of MetroLink extension -- whenever that will actually happen -- be a bit less contentious.
Also, I would like to see downtown St. Louis become the focal point of the system.
There are HUGE fiscal and legal obstacles to this.
Here are some ideas:
1) Convince St. Louis County voters to support the Prop. M sales tax they voted down almost 10 years ago. City voters already passed it, but we cannot collect the tax until the County passes it.
2) Get St. Louis County to allocate an additional $10 million per year to Metro from its existing transportation sales tax. This should be do-able, if some planned road and bridge fund projects are either deferred or funded out of county general revenue.
3) Fast-track City Street Department/BPS and MODOT approvals for right-of-way assignment to Metro within city streets and state 'highways' like Natural Bridge.
4) Given the railroads' reservations and their inevitable importance to our regional economy, abandon any thoughts of private right-of-way operation parallel to heavy freight operations. After all, it's not particularly pleasant, clean, or safe down at the Grand station, although I think watching the trains go by is cool.
5) Aggressively seek federal funds.
While these are certainly easier said than done, any one of these would help represent a stronger regional commitment to quality public transit.
As far as routing, this is what I'd love to see happen:
1) By 2012, begin construction on the Northside-Southside on-street line, using the only Northside alternative being seriously considered (I-70@Goodfellow - Goodfellow - Natural Bridge - North Florissant), then the Downtown couplet (along N. 14th - Convention Plaza - 10th (SB) and 9th (NB) - Clark - S. 14th), and finally the Southside alternative via Chouteau - S. Jefferson - S. Broadway.
I would deviate from the proposal to enter I-55 at Gasconade/Piedmont (behind Walgreens), and instead stay on-street within S. Broadway as far south as Bellerive Boulevard, then swing up onto a replacement for the existing Bellerive Boulevard structure over S. Broadway (taking a chunk of the hillside in Bellerive Park), and use the overly-wide Bellerive to enter the I-55 berm.
This may or may not be a cheaper alternative, but would maximize the use of on-street in the city rather than Interstate highway r-o-w. From there, it would run alongside I-55, probably on the eastern side, to a temporary terminus around the Loughborough Avenue exit.
I think it's important the Northside-Southside line be constructed as a single unit, a crosstown operation. And except for a few miles alongside I-55 on the south end, it would be an on-street operation. You couldn't go further south than Bellerive on S. Broadway, because you enter the 500-year flood plain. It would have to be on structure south of there. Similarly, south of Loughborough along I-55, it would have to be on structure, so I think that's a sensible interim terminus for the 'on-street' operations component. This is particularly a concern since those would need to be low-floor vehicles more like those used in Portland, OR and very different from the current MetroLink LRVs.
2) Around 2015, begin construction on the Metro South extension, which would operate along the River des Peres corridor south from the Shrewsbury-Lansdowne I-44 station. Yeah, probably a few houses would be lost on this corridor, as well as the Steak N Shake on Gravois and Germania; but most of the corridor would be in city parkland. Alternatively, perhaps the transit center could be relocated to the corner of Gravois and River des Peres. This would probably be on a dedicated right-of-way, possibly elevated due to flooding concerns, and using the same LRVs as the current Cross County line.
Once construction commenced on this line, making the connection to the Southside line would be critical and challenging. It would happen somewhere around the I-55 exits at Germania / Carondelet Blvd. Also by this time, Carondelet Blvd. may be carrying much more traffic, because it will be extended into a new road serving the new casino complex in Lemay. There may even be outer roads crossing River des Peres connecting Carondelet and Germania on- and off-ramps adjacent to I-55: something that should have been included in the original construction of the interstate anyway.
2a) The segment of the Metro South line south of the City limits is still very much up in the air to my way of thinking. It would be great, but probably unrealistic, for it to serve the new Lemay casino. More likely, it will operate using the same LRVs as the now-existing system, along I-55 r-o-w south from Weber Road exit to Butler Hill Road exit, maybe with a slight deviation for the South County Mall area.
But here's another option: instead of continuing the Cross County route south, requiring city patrons to transfer at (say), Germania Station, you could extend the Southside line southward on-street deep into South County. My thought is that you'd terminate the Metro South traditional LRV elevated line at Morganford Road instead of at I-55. That would save some money.
Further savings could be realized by, instead of running Southside alongside I-55, continuing it on-street west along Bellerive Blvd. It would tunnel under the I-55 berm, continue west in the super-wide Bellerive Blvd. median (yeah, this might be a really unpopular idea, but no houses would be taken!), all the way to Grand. West of Grand, Bellerive is much narrower, so the line would turn south onto S. Grand Blvd. OK, that turn might cost a few houses.
S. Grand is a bit narrower here, but the traffic is also much less than segments further north. At Carondelet Park, the route would either 1) go west on Holly Hills, or 2) south through the park then west on Loughborough. I think there's enough room for either option.
Then, you'd enter the really wide Morganford Road. Is there really enough traffic here to justify its width? The beauty of Morganford is it's a wide street, surrounded by residences, all the way south until it turns into Union Road in South County. And Union Road continues south as a really (unnecessarily) wide road, roughly parallel to I-55, as far as S. Lindbergh Blvd. and South County Mall. If ever there was a suburban candidate for on-street operation, this is one.
It's a county arterial road, not a state highway, so getting the County approval would be essential (and maybe difficult). Also, I think the segment of Union near Grant's Trail is in the Gravois Creek floodway, so an elevated structure would be necessary, maybe just adjacent to I-55, from (south of) Reavis Barracks to (about) Will Avenue. Then maybe the on-street would not work. And obviously you couldn't have on-street operation on Lindbergh, so there would need to be dedicated right-of-way somewhere around South County Mall.
I'm a bit skeptical of the value of the leg to Butler Hill Road. I would just terminate the route at South County Mall, but I guess the idea is to build a big park-ride lot to attract Jefferson County riders. But I figure if they're willing to drive across the Meramec, they'll come up as far as I-270. Building out those extra few miles would be costly, and only necessary if a future line to Jeffco is part of the motivation.
3) The so-called Daniel Boone corridor would be great to have in place, as it would provide a direct link from transit-dependent North City to tons of jobs in far West County. But, here again the proposal calls for using part of an (active?) heavy rail corridor. If it turns out this rail corridor (the old Rock Island line roughly parallel to Page Avenue) is out-of-service, it would be ideal. Otherwise, perhaps this is another candidate for partial on-street operation.
3a) I'm less clear on the specifics, but I recall some thought of a link-up via the Terminal Railroad tracks between the Northside line and the existing Airport line. That link would only be a few miles long, from about 5600 Natural Bridge through Hillsdale and Wellston, to a very isolated transfer point behind Bethany Cemetery. Or, via an existing connector r-o-w, you could integrate the two lines, having some trains depart Wellston station and end up at Goodfellow and I-70. Maybe that would work. I guess a station at Kienlen and St. Louis Avenue would be possible on this connector.
A much-longer on-street alternative would be via Goodfellow and MLK Drive, ending at Rock Road station. That would reconnect the Wellston Loop to transit, which could help development in that area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
