Home » St. Louis County » Recent Articles:

Poll: How should St. Louis County invest Prop A funds to expand public transit infrastructure?

Please vote in the poll, located in the right sidebar
Please vote in the poll, located in the right sidebar

In April 2010 voters in St. Louis County approved a transit sales tax, Prop A:

The sales tax is expected to generate about $75 million a year in St. Louis County, which will be used to restore lost service and expand MetroLink and bus rapid transit. Metro officials said passage of the measure also would trigger collection of a transit sales tax that voters in the city of St. Louis approved in 1997. (stltoday.com)

I’m not sure how much St. Louis County is putting toward operations versus holding back for future transit infrastructure. Regardless of the exact amount, having a discussion about where & how to expand transit is beneficial.

Light rail? Bus Rapid Transit? More regular bus routes?

The poll is in the right sidebar.

— Steve Patterson

 

Poll: Thoughts on Government (EPA/MO-DNR) Regulation/Oversight at the Bridgeton & Westlake Landfills

Two landfills in St. Louis County ceased accepting trash after 12/31/2004.

Bridgeton Sanitary Landfill, from here forward referred to as Bridgeton, is currently owned by Bridgeton Landfill LLC, and is a subsidiary of Republic Services Inc., from here forward referred to as Republic. The landfill waste mass encompasses approximately 52 acres with approximately 240 feet below the ground’s surface and a total waste thickness of 320 feet. The waste is located in two distinct areas known as the North and South Quarries. Bridgeton was initially permitted on Nov. 18, 1985 and ceased accepting waste on Dec. 31, 2004. (DNR)

Bridgeton Landfill, August 2013. Source: Missouri Department of Natural Resources, click to view
Bridgeton Landfill, August 2013. Source: Missouri Department of Natural Resources, click to view

The West Lake Landfill site is on a parcel of approximately 200 acres in Bridgeton, Missouri. The site consists of the Bridgeton Sanitary Landfill, which stopped receiving waste on Dec. 31, 2004, and several old inactive areas with municipal solid waste and demolition debris. The site is divided into two Operable Units, or OUs. OU-1 consists of radiological areas and OU-2 consists of the other landfill areas, which did not receive any radiologically contaminated soil. In 1990, West Lake Landfill was listed on the National Priorities List making it a Superfund site. In May 2008 a Record of Decision was signed for OU-1, which describes the Selected Remedy to contain the radiological contamination using a modified solid waste landfill cover. EPA is the lead agency for this site. (DNR)

Both now have issues, including a smoldering underground fire at one that some fear will reach radioactive material buried in the other. How did this happen? Could government (federal, state, or local) have done more? Were the companies over regulated? Maybe you think the government response was just right? The poll in the right sidebar is where you vote, the answers are presented in random order.

— Steve Patterson

 

W1W May Payoff Someday

I haven’t spent much time around the airport since the latest runway opened in 2006. Planned years earlier, it opened as flights at Lambert had been dropping. By 2008 the thought was get cargo flights:

The RCGA’s Susan Strauder, vice president for infrastructure and public policy, said the $1 billion W1W runway, considered a boondoggle by some in light of the drop in passengers, offers increased opportunities for the airport for expanded service. (stlbeacon)

But that hasn’t materialized either.

Lambert airport's 1 billion dollar runway opened over 7 years ago
Lambert airport’s 1 billion dollar runway opened over 7 years ago

Last week at lunch at India Palace overlooking the airport I saw one small jet take off on the new runway. A few larger jets, mostly Southwest Airlines, took off from an older runway. Sad to have all that concrete without the flights.

Also, old streets in the area no longer connect. I compared 1958 to 2007 on HistoricAerials.com, massive changes. In 10-20 years we’ll know if the $1 billion dollar W1W runway was a good investment, right now it doesn’t look like it was.

— Steve Patterson

 

Readers: Don’t Build South County Connector

A majority of readers favor Trailnet’s suggestions to focus on transit, biking, and walking efforts to reduce automobile congestion:

South Hanley ducks under railroad tracks.
South Hanley ducks under railroad tracks.

Q: How should St. Louis County reduce auto congestion between Hanley & Watson?

  1. Focus on transit, bicycling and walking solutions 60 [57.14%]
  2. Build proposed “South County Connector” partially-elevated roadway 25 [23.81%]
  3. Do nothing 16 [15.24%]
  4. Unsure/no opinion 4 [3.81%]

The pro-Trailnet crowd combined with the “do nothing” group total a whopping 72.38% that didn’t select the built it option.

A public meeting will be held Thursday May 30th.

The South County Connector Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be available for public review and comment from Friday, May 3, 2013 to July 19, 2013. During the review period, the St. Louis County Department of Highways and Traffic will host a public hearing for the Draft EIS on Thursday, May 30, 2013 from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Shrewsbury City Center (located at 5200 Shrewsbury Avenue, Shrewsbury, Missouri 63119).

The public hearing is an opportunity for interested persons to give testimony concerning the Draft EIS, including potential social, economic, and environmental impacts of the proposed roadway alternatives. Representatives of the South County Connector Study Team will also be available to provide information and answer questions about the Draft EIS at an open house meeting held at the same time as the public hearing. No formal presentation will be made. Display boards and copies of the Draft EIS will be available for review at the open house meeting. (South County Connector)

If you are among those who don’t think this project should move forward please contact all of the following:

We’ve invested millions in transit, now is the time to double-down on transit to get a return on our existing infrastructure investment.

— Steve Patterson

 

 

Proposed Rebuild of Kenrick Plaza in Shrewsbury, MO Ignores Walkability & ADA (UPDATED)

I’m not a fan of Walmart, but this post isn’t an attack on the Walmart business model. Instead the purpose of this post is to show how the redevelopment of Kenrick Plaza (map), proposed by G. J. Grewe, as presented, will not meet the minimum requirements of the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 (ADA).

First let’s take a quick look at the area:

Sign for Kenrick Plaza at Watson Rd and Trianomn Parkway Drive
Sign for Kenrick Plaza at Watson Rd and Trianon Parkway Drive, looking east
West side
Sign at Trianon Parkway Drive, looking west
b
b
The now-closed Kenrick Cinema is located on the west side of Trianon Parkway.
The now-closed Kenrick Cinema is located on the west side of Trianon Parkway.

A report prepared by PGAV details how Kenrick Plaza is in bad physical condition, the layout doesn’t work well (former Burger King blocks views of retail space behind, etc.) and it doesn’t work for people with disabilities.

Here’s the proposed site plan, which includes cutting off public access to Watson Rd for many houses, leaving one entrance off of Laclede Station as the sole way in and out, with an exception for cutting through the private “lower Kenrick Plaza” area.

Site plan
Proposed site plan, click image to view larger version on Scribd.

The same report talks about the new proposal…

COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shrewsbury (the “Comprehensive Plan”) dated March 1970, designates the land use for the Area to be commercial. The Comprehensive Plan, drafted as the Kenrick Seminary lands became open for development, envisioned the land uses immediately adjacent to Watson Road as a commercial corridor that would bring the City’s percentage of commercial land up to 10.4% from a meager 3%. The City was heavily dominated by residential and institutional uses and lacked significant commercial acreage.

The Comprehensive Plan was followed in the original construction of Kenrick Plaza as a commercial district supporting the surrounding residential development that largely lacked retail, entertainment, and restaurant options within close proximity. Also accommodated in the Comprehensive Plan was the construction of one or more television towers. This redevelopment plan maintains the Area as commercial land use consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and accommodates the existing television tower. The map depicting future land use included in the Comprehensive Plan specifically and clearly designates the Area for commercial land use.

Oh good, it complies with the 1970 “Comprehensive Plan”! Apparently nothing in Shrewsbury has changed in the last 43 years. I want to point out a few big red flags about this proposal:

A sidewalk along Watson Rd with "decorative lighting" every 75 feet but you must walk in the auto driveways if you want to shop.
A sidewalk along Watson Rd with “decorative lighting” every 75 feet but you must walk in the auto driveways if you want to shop.
Residents used to driving/walking to Watson Rd will no longer be able to do so, nor can they or their kids/grandkids walk to the store to get bread & milk.
Residents used to driving/walking to Watson Rd will no longer be able to do so, nor can they or their kids/grandkids walk to the store to get bread & milk.
View looking south toward Watson along Trianon Parkway from the last side side street before access to be cut off.
View looking south toward Watson along Trianon Parkway from the last side side street before access to be cut off.

Shrewsbury should be requiring more connections, not fewer.

206 Accessible Routes

206.1 General. Accessible routes shall be provided in accordance with 206 and shall comply with Chapter 4.

206.2 Where Required. Accessible routes shall be provided where required by 206.2.

 206.2.1 Site Arrival Points. At least one accessible route shall be provided within the site from accessible parking spaces and accessible passenger loading zones; public streets and sidewalks; and public transportation stops to the accessible building or facility entrance they serve.

EXCEPTIONS:

1. Where exceptions for alterations to qualified historic buildings or facilities are permitted by 202.5, no more than one accessible route from a site arrival point to an accessible entrance shall be required.

2. An accessible route shall not be required between site arrival points and the building or facility entrance if the only means of access between them is a vehicular way not providing pedestrian access.

 Advisory 206.2.1 Site Arrival Points. Each site arrival point must be connected by an accessible route to the accessible building entrance or entrances served. Where two or more similar site arrival points, such as bus stops, serve the same accessible entrance or entrances, both bus stops must be on accessible routes. In addition, the accessible routes must serve all of the accessible entrances on the site.

Advisory 206.2.1 Site Arrival Points Exception 2. Access from site arrival points may include vehicular ways. Where a vehicular way, or a portion of a vehicular way, is provided for pedestrian trvel, such as within a shopping center or shopping mall parking lot, this exception does not apply.

206.2.2 Within a Site. At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings, accessible facilities, accessible elements, and accessible spaces that are on the same site.

EXCEPTION: An accessible route shall not be required between accessible buildings, accessible facilities, accessible elements, and accessible spaces if the only means of access between them is a vehicular way not providing pedestrian access.

Advisory 206.2.2 Within a Site. An accessible route is required to connect to the boundary of each area of sport activity. Examples of areas of sport activity include: soccer fields, basketball courts, baseball fields, running tracks, skating rinks, and the area surrounding a piece of gymnastic equipment. While the size of an area of sport activity may vary from sport to sport, each includes only the space needed to play. Where multiple sports fields or courts are provided, an accessible route is required to each field or area of sport activity. (2010 ADA Standards)

 

In short this says it is ok to require pedestrians to use an auto drive to a facility like a Starbuck’s but that exception isn’t applicable to a shopping center. Elsewhere in the same link as above, the term “shopping center” is defined as:

(A) A building housing five or more sales or rental establishments; or

(B) A series of buildings on a common site, either under common ownership or common control or developed either as one project or as a series of related projects, housing five or more sales or rental establishments. For purposes of this section, places of public accommodation of the types listed in paragraph (5) of the definition of “place of public accommodation” in section § 36.104 are considered sales or rental establishments. The facility housing a “shopping center or shopping mall” only includes floor levels housing at least one sales or rental establishment, or any floor level designed or intended for use by at least one sales or rental establishment.

 

Developer G. J. Grewe and Architect TRi should be ashamed for submitting such a plan, this isn’t 1970 despite the fact Shrewsbury’s comprehensive plan hasn’t been updated.

As I was finishing this post yesterday I received an email from Shrewsbury Mayor Felicity indicating “accessibility is being addressed with sidewalks from the bus stop to the stores.”  The site plan on the Shrewsbury website is a preliminary concept. I requested an updated copy but I have not received it.

UPDATE 5/22/2013 @ 3:30pm:

At 3pm I received from Shrewsbury Director of Administration, Jonathan Greever, a PDF copy of “of the current special use permit site plan. This document is limited in that it does not address the entire site and its intended use is not for construction. The purpose for this document is different than that of a fully engineered plan. As stated previously, the final engineered plans have not been generated.” You can view it on Scribd here.

— Steve Patterson

 

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe