I love rail transit, but a problem with our MetroLink light rail system is getting from the stations to your destination. Last week I attended a meeting hosted by Trailnet at Shrewsbury City Hall, a mile from the station. I could’ve caught a bus that would’ve dropped me off at Murdoch & Shrewsbury Ave but I still would’ve had 4/10ths of a mile to reach city hall. It was decent out and my power chair had a full charge so I decided to “walk” the mile.
But first a little background information.
The Shrewsbury MetroLink station opened with the blue line extension on August 26, 2006. Click image to view video of the arrival of the first train pictured above.
The Shrewsbury MetroLink station is located in the City of St. Louis, but the Shrewsbury city limits is the western edge of the commuter parking lot. The station has been open neatly 7 years now so there’s been time to better connect the surrounding neighborhoods to transit.
Okay, let’s head to Shrewsbury City Hall located one mile away at 5200 Shrewsbury Ave.
My planned route Lansdowne, Murdoch Cut-Off, Murdoch, Shrewsbury Ave, click map to view in Google MapsFrom the station platform I could see the direction I needed to go to reach the Shrewsbury City Hall.Looks like many walk up/down this hillOthers walk here, but I’d better find a sidewalk I can use.Now I’m headed down toward Lansdowne Ave, sandwiched between the retaining wall on the left and the auto driveway on the right. Not a friendly environment!At Lansdowne Ave I see pedestrians crossing the street without a crosswalk. I couldn’t cross here even if I wanted to because of the numerous curbs.More pedestrians risking getting hit by carsI stick to the north side of Lansdowne Ave and head west under the railroad tracks, the Shrewsbury city limit.I want to cross Lansdowne Ave here but there is no curb cut or crosswalk to allow me to do so.I’m able to use this crosswalk to reach the other side of Murdoch Cut-OffBut there’s no sidewalk on this side of Murdoch Cut-OffSo I returned to the intersection to cross Murdoch Cut-Off to reach the point I originally wanted to reach but couldn’tAfter passing the gas station I discover there’s no sidewalk on this side of Murdoch Cut-Off either. It looks like many pedestrians walk in the narrow dirt path, I had to use the narrow shoulder. This point is about 400 feet from where I left the station property.Looking back from where I’d just traveled you can see a bus stop encouraging pedestrian use of this area.As Murdoch Cut-Off approaches Murdoch a sidewalk does exist.But the sidewalk doesn’t continue, it turns and heads back east. This is about 1/8th of a mile from the station.I head south on St. Vincent Ave, this view is looking back north from Notttingham. Only the west side of St. Vincent Ave has a narrow sidewalk.The streets intersecting with St. Vincent don’t have sidewalks for the first block to Danbury Ave., I cautiously proceed in the street.Once past Danbury Ave sidewalks are availableThat doesn’t mean the sidewalks weren’t blocked at times. This owner had more room on their driveway before their garage door, more than enough to keep the sidewalk clear.After I reached Shrewsbury Ave I went north to Murdoch to see where sou;d’ve been dropped off had I taken a bus. This point is about a third of a mile from the corner of the transit station property.Looking east on Murdoch, the direction I originally thought I’d take. No sidewalk, only shoulder.The north side of Murdoch has a sidewalk next to the apartment buildings only.This is the bus stop heading back toward the MetroLink station, I caught a bus here a couples of hours later to return downtown.Heading back south toward city hall I passed charming houses and the route was paved and easy to navigate. The distance was over a half mile but it was fine, the worst part of the journey was closest to the transit station.Getting closer to city hall and the adjacent Wehner ParkNewer houses mix well with older houses.Almost there!The sidewalk just ends, dumping me into the street. No crosswalk or visible sidewalk into the Shrewsbury City Center complex grounds, just a sidewalk going east & west.No way in on the east side of the auto drive.No pedestrian route on the west side either, so I had no choice but to use the auto drivewayA pedestrian route along the east side of the auto driveway would be a direct path to the main entrance of the Shrewsbury City Center complex. Voters approved a bond in 1991 to pay for the renovations to city hall, the work was completed in 1993 — both after The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.Leaving at night via the auto driveway. I’d imagine many neighbors drive here from just blocks away because that’s the message the design suggests.My only other time here was Saturday June 17,2006 for a charrette on connecting St. Louis & Shrewsbury to the open MetroLink line, attended by residents, businesses and elected officials. I drove on that visit.
Given the substantial capital investment made in the MetroLink expansion and the commitment of sales taxes to help fund Metro I find it unacceptable that nothing has been done in nearly 7 years. Well, the sidewalk along one side of St. Vincent looks like it was done in that time frame, but nothing else looks different. Employees & customers should be able to walk from the MetroLink station to the businesses along Murdoch & Murdock Cut-Off. Shrewsbury residents living within a 1/4 mile of the station should have a easy walk, but they don’t.
I suggest the following action steps:
Metro, St. Louis, Shrewsbury, Trailnet, etc. begin to examine ways to improve the pedestrian experience to/from the Shrewsbury MetroLink/MetroBus station.
Shrewsbury begin to evaluate multiple routes from the station to destinations with Shrewsbury, starting with a walking audit. I’d be happy to participate. Dan Burden from the Walkable & Livable Communities Institute would be an outstanding facilitator.
Shrewsbury work to add an ADA-compliant accessible route to the main accessible entrance of the Shrewsbury City Center complex.
I’m emailing various officials at Shrewsbury & St. Louis this morning to try to raise awareness and get some action.
— Steve Patterson
Currently there are "36 comments" on this Article:
This is a microcosm of the many issues that define suburban pedestrian access these days, and not just in Shrewsbury. They include (poor?) choices on where to locate public facilities, the impact of not requiring public sidewalks when communities were being developed in the middle of the 20th century and, in the case of the Metrolink station, designing and constructing sidewalks that meet the letter of the ADAAG, but don’t work well for the bulk of the riders who simply want to take the shortest route to their destination. You say you want “some action”. Based on your influence, I expect that you will get some, as in a few curb ramps and maybe a new sidewalk on the city hall site. But that won’t go very far in solving the overall problem, that there are many, many, many missing links, everything from curb ramps and marked crosswalks to a complete lack of sidewalks and residents who think nothing of blocking what sidewalks there are with their vehicles. And if you want to see/experience even more of this, head south along MacKenzie, from Watson to Gravois (and beyond) and you’ll see a raised, paved shoulder that can’t decide if it’s a sidewalk or a parking strip (or both?). You’re fighting a mindset that people don’t walk (very far), they drive! Until that changes, any “action” is going to be scatter shot, since the missing links will continue to frustrate you and everyone else . . . .
The mindset in much of STL county is that all “decent” people will drive. If you’re walking, you’re suspect as a social deviant or dismissed as probably just too poor to afford a car.
The current mayor of Shrewsbury, when she first ran for Board of Alderman, claimed that the TOD charette was part of a secret plan to promote development around MetroLink station, which would “bring crime into our community”. I think that is a great example of the suspicion that many in the county have towards public transporation. That is why Shrewsbury and Maplewood have done nothing to incorporate and connect the areas around MetroLink stations with the stations. They prefer to have them cordoned off, using the excuse that they are protecting the residents from crime, litter, and “shortcutting” pedestrians.
That’s the same reason why a Metrolink expansion hasn’t been built out to St. Charles. The unspoken idea is that when driving is required to get around an area then you’re only allowing people in your area who have at least enough wealth to afford a car (or two), maintenance for that car and gasoline.
I agree with much of your assessment, but really, most of the area around the Shrewsbury Metrolink – and certainly the most “developable” area, is in the City. Connectivity to Shrewsbury is limited by the BNSF railroad tracks which run along the border.
I completely agree. Just look at that stop on Google Maps, it has a Wal*Mart sized parking lot next to it and–as you showed–only token & incomplete pedestrian access. This was definitely intended as a park-and-ride station. Pedestrians didn’t even get a second thought. This is what happens when people who think everyone drives (or should drive) everywhere design a light rail station. Shrewsbury is almost completely car-oriented and suburban. It has no core. There are dozens of tiny municipalities like this in the STL metro that make little or no sense as independent cities. In an ideal world, the city council would encourage the development of a TOD city center at Landsdowne and Murdoch. The American Legion building + lot is the ideal spot for development if they every leave. At the very least Shrewsbury should just merge into Webster Groves and eliminate yet another redundant city government.
Yes, it has “Wal*Mart sized parking lot”. The (other?) unfortunate thing here is that it is rarely, if ever, full. In other cities, park-and-ride lots, especially at end-of-line stations, are bigger and used by many more commuters every day. The question then becomes why? Poor access? Poor service? If we’re going to invest in light rail people need to ride it! In contrast, here’s the end-of-line station for the southwest light rail line in Denver. Pedestrian access isn’t very good here, either, but people ARE driving to the train: http://goo.gl/maps/Xewbd
I think the time is right for a mass shaming ritual focused on all the suburban communities along the Shrewsbury line. The Sunnen Station debacle is still the most incredible example – given that Maplewood literally spent millions of dollars to CLOSE OFF access to the Metrolink station for an entire residential neighborhood, a shopping complex, and a public park/bike path. I’ve walked the path from Shrewsbury Station to Webster University many times, though, and I agree with Steve that it’s an outrage. Webster now provides Metro passes free of charge to students and staff and really wants to promote connections to their campus (another half mile up the Murdoch connector). We also happen to be dedicating our “Year in Human Rights” in the next academic year to disability rights. With that in mind, I would hope we can get the university to help pressure these communities to do something. In the meantime, people should flood city governments with emails pointing out the situation.
I’m sure they’ll get right on all those sidewalk improvements with all the tax revenue that will be rolling in from Wally world. Ohhhhhhhhhhhh no, I guess they shouldn’t have given it all away.
Who is responsible for street repair and maintenance?
The City’s Public Works Department is responsible for all City street repair and maintenance and striping of City streets. Street sweeping services will be provided throughout the City on an as-needed basis, or at least once a month, weather permitting.
Typically, no. Sidewalks in both residential and commercial areas are usually the responsibility of the adjacent property owner / tenant. And that’s why many owners resist the installation of new sidewalks, especially “after the fact” – they don’t want the liabilities for slip-and-fall claims, snow removal and future repairs . . . .
And if they hadn’t given away millions in tax revenue, they could have developed, at the minimum, a 50/50 program like the City does for maintaining and installing sidewalks. In any case, in the burbs, sidewalk installation will require street improvements as well.
Steve.. excellent job detailing the ridiculous situation surrounding some of these stations. Obviously the people building them never use them. Very sad situation. Metro should take the lead in demanding better in the vicinity of these stations.
Unfortunately, Metro is told where to (and where not to) build their rail lines and stations by the same governments you’re expecting Metro to demand better from. Metro has little leverage or money to influence either planning or construction outside of the property they physically own and control.
What you did not mention is that Metro operates a call a
ride service that if you had chosen to use it would have picked you up at the
door and dropped you off at your destination. You instead chose to take the
train, knowing that the station was some distance from your final destination. I
am not sure why you choose to blame metro for what is a society problem. Mass
transit works best in areas of high density living. The decision to build this
line and where it should run was not made in a vacuum but by the communities
around it. Metro’s charter does not include areas surrounding metro link
stations so it is absurd to place blame on metro. If you think that transportation
within the community of Shrewsbury needs improvement than the city of government
of Shrewsbury should be the one to take your comments to.
I didn’t mention Call-a-Ride because I don’t qualify: “Metro’s Call-A-Ride paratransit service is a curb-to-curb public transportation option offered to both the general public and to persons whose disabilities prevent use of regular, accessible, fixed route transit services.” Furthermore that service requires you to schedule your trips the day before: “This service offers next-day shared rides in modern, wheelchair accessible vehicles in the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County.” See http://www.metrostlouis.org/PlanYourTrip/MapsSchedules/CallARide.aspx
While I can certainly understand your frustration, the facts are that urban sprawl has made it practically impossible and cost prohibitive to provide mass transit to areas lying outside of the city proper. The people in outlying areas have chosen a lifestyle based on driving and it would be impossible for mass transit to operate in such an environment at reasonable cost. The most practical and cost effective solution is to provide feeder routes by rapid transit bus and spur rail lines from less dense outlying areas into the city. It also makes sense that the limited transportation funds available be used as cost effectively as possible, which means concentrating on areas of the city where native population density and visitor needs make transit a more attractive proposition. I know I am not telling you or anyone else that reads
this anything new, but in light of these limitations, why would you even write
something like this? Metro Link already spends a large sum of money to make the rail stations and buses ADA compliant. It is very costly to design a train station so that only a fractional gap exist between the platform and the car to allow wheel chair excess, not to mention elevators at each location, wheel chair ramps and kneel down busses. Now I am not saying that all of these things are not worth having, or that as a society that we can not afford them, but at what point do these things become to costly or to impractical to fund. I would say this is a prime example of something public money should not be spent on.
I also don’t believe that placing the blame on Metro Link is either fair or appropriate. Metro Link is doing what the organization was designed for as best it can given the limited funding and local opposition to extending routes. You of course could advocate for change in the town of Shrewsbury
itself, but they are probably going to tell you the same thing, that it does
not make sense to spend limited funds on something so few people will actually use. In this situation instead of complaining perhaps you should have driven.
Shrewsbury is hardly an “outlying area”, the station is on the border of the city limits and in any other metro area it would be part of “the city”. And to say that people in the suburbs have choosen a lifestlye based on driving is highly simplistic. Does that mean everyone in the city has choosen a lifestlye based on walking and transit? People choose to live in a certain area for a wide variety of reasons, some of them outside of their control. Residents of denser, inner suburbs should still have access to sidewalks, even if they don’t live in “the city”.
My wife and I made a choice to live in the city partly based on the availability of mass transit and excess to amenities, and I believe that if you talked to the majority of people that live downtown, these things entered into their decision. And yes when you choose to live in the suburbs you are making a lifestyle choice, you may not realize it but you are. If you move into an area with limited transit options, and few if any sidewalks, why would you be surprised when it is difficult to get a round without a car. And Shrewsbury is not in the city, it may be close but it is not, it lies in the county. I don’t disagree that residents of our outlying communities should have excess to sidewalks and other amenities that make some place a community, but this is not the function of mass transit. If you want sidewalks and neighborhoods that you can walk in, than you should advocate for
a chance in your cities zoning laws. I don’t disagree with what you are saying, I would like to see Metro Link run to more places in the city proper like Soulard, but there is only a finite amount of funds available to build, maintain, and operate a system and Metro Link can not afford to be all things to all people. It may be someday, that the city grows to the point that it can afford to expand its mass transit system to outlying communities, but I don’t see that happening soon.
Maybe simplistic, but accurate. I think that most suburbanites (and many urbanites) don’t give driving a second thought. It is an unconscious act that only arises to consciousness stuck in traffic. Most have to ‘make’ a conscious decision to bike or walk. The dilemma is how does society reverse that: make driving the conscious thought and make biking/walking the unconscious modus operandi.
I’ve contacted StL County a number of times about the lack of sidewalk along the Murdoch Cut-off. No luck. Because of the train tracks and the River des Peres, that is the one and only route to Metrolink for 2/3 of Shrewbury pedestrians, and yet there’s no sidewalk. When it rains, that dirt walkway by the bus stop is a muddy mess, not to mention the need to dodge huge volumes of water getting kicked up from the poorly-drained gutters by cars turning from Murdoch onto Lansdowne.
I’m a little biased, but the pedestrians ‘risking getting hit by cars’ are just making a market decision due to the lack of adequate crossings at that intersection. I voiced my displeasure to any office that would listen when that intersection was getting re-worked with traffic signals. There was no crosswalk put in on that side of Murdoch because the officials in charge of construction felt it would inconvenience people turning left into the gas station from Lansdowne.
Excellent report Steve. If anyone wants to know why transit is not successful in St. Louis they just need to follow your journey. Walking and pedestrians are part of the transit landscape. Speaking of landscapes, the government center appears to be newer. In cities with strong design, art, social ethic it would have been coordinated to make a government center an important part of a major transit stop instead of a mile walk.
What is most striking is the lack of art, of beauty along the walk. It is really funny to see civic leaders tout art in St. Louis yet ignore the basic calculus of art, the city itself.
Finally I think this should kill any idea of a city county merger. The city is already being attacked with too much of this type of crap, why encourage it?
There is no art or design in this rout. Maplewood and Shrewsbury fail to understand how to use transit as a tool in economic development. The City already copies this type of bullshit too much.
McKee’s suburban development on the Northside is probably the next suburban nightmare.
A perfect idea for a city right? Make it more difficult for the pedestrian get around. Great report Steve exposing the complete collapse of walking in society. If the mainstream media had a clue it might not be as bad, but they are too busy reporting on themselves.
I am very leery of a city/county merger, if that is what the county government believes is the value of transit and especially walking then I’m not sure where the governing philosophies coincide. The City certainly does not want to adopt this approach. (Even though they have tried hard in almost every district, the city has not been completely destroyed as of yet).
The truth is none of these governments really care, they are all too busy playing footsie with their friends.
Well on the plus side, this was the first year that 25 to 34 year olds drove less and walked/biked more. I would site the source but all I can remember is I saw it on the nightly news last week.
Moe, I think that is the point, who would want to walk/bike more in the conditions Steve has described? It’s just horrible, there is no other way to describe the conditions for walking surrounding a major transit station and to what should be a center of government and democracy. The lack of accessibility to all is appalling. I’m glad to hear the young can overcome the hurdles, but that should not be the standard.
To be picky, I used the Shrewsbury metrolink station frequently prior to moving because my house which we still own is located nearby, I believe that pedestrian and ADA access is readily available from station itself to Lansdowne and never had issue leaving the station safely and without having to walk around parked cars. So I’m perplexed why you have to show the footpath that has nothing to do with the post other than trying to give a first horribly impression and bring in metrolink to the forefront of the issue at hand.
I also thank you for the legitimate concerns of the Murdoch Cutoff mess along with its intersection with Lansdowne. Even as some one who is young as myself with considerable mobility thinks this intersection is dangerous no matter if I was coming/going to metrolink, making my way to the River Des Peres Greenway trail for my afternoon jog or taking my little boy down to my favorite pit stop for gas/coffee and a donut. Instead, if my family was going to the nearby Shrewsbury park/swimming pool or towards the city center as in your post we would head the opposite direction on Deveonshire and go straight for the sidewalks on Shrewsbury Ave. I believe going straight from Lansdowne to Shrewsbury Ave would have resolved a lot of your issues and be a much better route. But it doesn’t excuse the fact that Murdoch Cutoff is the primary route for that direction.
But their is a long list of blame on that one with County leading the line but the city not adding anything more when improvements where made to the corner grocery store (sidewalk and separation was added as part of remodel – would have been a great time to extend side walk), metro unable to invest around bus stops on Murdoch (their is or was two bus stops on either side of Murduch Ave itself), to no one demanding anything better out of the veterans group/legions hall who went out of their way to get the short walk sidewalk to the corner memorial built but couldn’t/wouldn’t help extend the sidewalk through their blacktop or improve the immediate corner. I think they fear the loss of parking spots during fish fry season but wonder how many neighbors like myself found it more trouble than it was worth. I certainly can’t imagine how intimidating it must be for my older neighbors who live in the immediate area who want access to the corner gas station/store let alone metro link station.
If I’m correct, Shrewsbury’s “new” “city hall” is actually a converted school, located on what was once part of the Kenrick Seminary property? This choice, for the location of a major public facility, carries with it the related accessibility issues that is the topic of this post. IF the choice had been made to construct / locate it where the police, fire and pool facilities are (on Shrewsbury Avenue near I-44), the accessibility issues would be different, but the distance would be much shorter . . . . the clarity of 20/20 hindsight . . . .
I showed the worn grass to show many pedestrians for years haven’t been satisfied with the placement of the sidewalks and have created their own paths. Pedestrians know the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. I, on the other hand, am forced to use the obscure route the designers planned for all pedestrians.
Hi Steve,
Thanks for pointing out these issues — I would mention that you could perhaps have traveled along the River des Peres Greenway as far south as Weil Avenue. I walk that way regularly as part of my commute (I live 1.5 miles south of the Shrewsbury station just over the line into unincorporated St. Louis County) and I believe it’s a fully accessible route — although I admit I have never tried it in a chair, the grades might be a bit too much in places. The other problem though would be the railroad grade crossing on Weil, that might be a deal-breaker for that option.
Personally, I walk in this area a lot. Not necessarily in Shrewsbury, but along River des Peres and along Watson. I see a lot of people walking to and from the gas station there on Lansdowne — because in addition to a large park-ride lot, the station serves as a main bus transfer point. There are a fair number of transit users and pedestrians in this area, but they’re certainly outnumbered by drivers. And at least there are some sidewalks and pathways, albeit not consistent nor always well-maintained.
There is not a complete sidewalk on the alternate route you mention (Lansdowne to Weil there is, but them up Weil to Shrewsbury there’s not), and someone in a power wheelchair might have to wait at the train tracks on that route. I’ve gone that way as a pedestrian and that can be a very long wait, as the train often stops there, blocking Weil.
AARP Livibility Index
The Livability Index scores neighborhoods and communities across the U.S. for the services and amenities that impact your life the most
Built St. Louis
historic architecture of St. Louis, Missouri – mourning the losses, celebrating the survivors.
Geo St. Louis
a guide to geospatial data about the City of St. Louis
This is a microcosm of the many issues that define suburban pedestrian access these days, and not just in Shrewsbury. They include (poor?) choices on where to locate public facilities, the impact of not requiring public sidewalks when communities were being developed in the middle of the 20th century and, in the case of the Metrolink station, designing and constructing sidewalks that meet the letter of the ADAAG, but don’t work well for the bulk of the riders who simply want to take the shortest route to their destination. You say you want “some action”. Based on your influence, I expect that you will get some, as in a few curb ramps and maybe a new sidewalk on the city hall site. But that won’t go very far in solving the overall problem, that there are many, many, many missing links, everything from curb ramps and marked crosswalks to a complete lack of sidewalks and residents who think nothing of blocking what sidewalks there are with their vehicles. And if you want to see/experience even more of this, head south along MacKenzie, from Watson to Gravois (and beyond) and you’ll see a raised, paved shoulder that can’t decide if it’s a sidewalk or a parking strip (or both?). You’re fighting a mindset that people don’t walk (very far), they drive! Until that changes, any “action” is going to be scatter shot, since the missing links will continue to frustrate you and everyone else . . . .
The mindset in much of STL county is that all “decent” people will drive. If you’re walking, you’re suspect as a social deviant or dismissed as probably just too poor to afford a car.
The current mayor of Shrewsbury, when she first ran for Board of Alderman, claimed that the TOD charette was part of a secret plan to promote development around MetroLink station, which would “bring crime into our community”. I think that is a great example of the suspicion that many in the county have towards public transporation. That is why Shrewsbury and Maplewood have done nothing to incorporate and connect the areas around MetroLink stations with the stations. They prefer to have them cordoned off, using the excuse that they are protecting the residents from crime, litter, and “shortcutting” pedestrians.
That’s the same reason why a Metrolink expansion hasn’t been built out to St. Charles. The unspoken idea is that when driving is required to get around an area then you’re only allowing people in your area who have at least enough wealth to afford a car (or two), maintenance for that car and gasoline.
I agree with much of your assessment, but really, most of the area around the Shrewsbury Metrolink – and certainly the most “developable” area, is in the City. Connectivity to Shrewsbury is limited by the BNSF railroad tracks which run along the border.
I completely agree. Just look at that stop on Google Maps, it has a Wal*Mart sized parking lot next to it and–as you showed–only token & incomplete pedestrian access. This was definitely intended as a park-and-ride station. Pedestrians didn’t even get a second thought. This is what happens when people who think everyone drives (or should drive) everywhere design a light rail station. Shrewsbury is almost completely car-oriented and suburban. It has no core. There are dozens of tiny municipalities like this in the STL metro that make little or no sense as independent cities. In an ideal world, the city council would encourage the development of a TOD city center at Landsdowne and Murdoch. The American Legion building + lot is the ideal spot for development if they every leave. At the very least Shrewsbury should just merge into Webster Groves and eliminate yet another redundant city government.
Yes, it has “Wal*Mart sized parking lot”. The (other?) unfortunate thing here is that it is rarely, if ever, full. In other cities, park-and-ride lots, especially at end-of-line stations, are bigger and used by many more commuters every day. The question then becomes why? Poor access? Poor service? If we’re going to invest in light rail people need to ride it! In contrast, here’s the end-of-line station for the southwest light rail line in Denver. Pedestrian access isn’t very good here, either, but people ARE driving to the train: http://goo.gl/maps/Xewbd
I think the time is right for a mass shaming ritual focused on all the suburban communities along the Shrewsbury line. The Sunnen Station debacle is still the most incredible example – given that Maplewood literally spent millions of dollars to CLOSE OFF access to the Metrolink station for an entire residential neighborhood, a shopping complex, and a public park/bike path. I’ve walked the path from Shrewsbury Station to Webster University many times, though, and I agree with Steve that it’s an outrage. Webster now provides Metro passes free of charge to students and staff and really wants to promote connections to their campus (another half mile up the Murdoch connector). We also happen to be dedicating our “Year in Human Rights” in the next academic year to disability rights. With that in mind, I would hope we can get the university to help pressure these communities to do something. In the meantime, people should flood city governments with emails pointing out the situation.
“Mass shaming”. That phrase makes me smile!
I’m sure they’ll get right on all those sidewalk improvements with all the tax revenue that will be rolling in from Wally world. Ohhhhhhhhhhhh no, I guess they shouldn’t have given it all away.
The roads and sidewalks in question are all maintained – or not – by the County, not Shrewsbury.
From Shrewsbury’s own website:
Who is responsible for street repair and maintenance?
The City’s Public Works Department is responsible for all City street repair and maintenance and striping of City streets. Street sweeping services will be provided throughout the City on an as-needed basis, or at least once a month, weather permitting.
Are sidewalks considered part of the road?
Typically, no. Sidewalks in both residential and commercial areas are usually the responsibility of the adjacent property owner / tenant. And that’s why many owners resist the installation of new sidewalks, especially “after the fact” – they don’t want the liabilities for slip-and-fall claims, snow removal and future repairs . . . .
And if they hadn’t given away millions in tax revenue, they could have developed, at the minimum, a 50/50 program like the City does for maintaining and installing sidewalks. In any case, in the burbs, sidewalk installation will require street improvements as well.
My point is that the streets in question are County roads. The city maintains the sidewalks on city streets, the county on county roads.
http://green.stlouisco.com/Transportation/CountyRoads
(the link to the map of county roads does not work on that page; you can get majorroads.pdf from http://www.stlouisco.com/OnlineServices/MappingandData/DownloadMaps)
Steve.. excellent job detailing the ridiculous situation surrounding some of these stations. Obviously the people building them never use them. Very sad situation. Metro should take the lead in demanding better in the vicinity of these stations.
You would think! Business 101 is to attract customers, not push them away.
Unfortunately, Metro is told where to (and where not to) build their rail lines and stations by the same governments you’re expecting Metro to demand better from. Metro has little leverage or money to influence either planning or construction outside of the property they physically own and control.
Yep, this particular mess is all County.
What you did not mention is that Metro operates a call a
ride service that if you had chosen to use it would have picked you up at the
door and dropped you off at your destination. You instead chose to take the
train, knowing that the station was some distance from your final destination. I
am not sure why you choose to blame metro for what is a society problem. Mass
transit works best in areas of high density living. The decision to build this
line and where it should run was not made in a vacuum but by the communities
around it. Metro’s charter does not include areas surrounding metro link
stations so it is absurd to place blame on metro. If you think that transportation
within the community of Shrewsbury needs improvement than the city of government
of Shrewsbury should be the one to take your comments to.
I didn’t mention Call-a-Ride because I don’t qualify: “Metro’s Call-A-Ride paratransit service is a curb-to-curb public transportation option offered to both the general public and to persons whose disabilities prevent use of regular, accessible, fixed route transit services.” Furthermore that service requires you to schedule your trips the day before: “This service offers next-day shared rides in modern, wheelchair accessible vehicles in the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County.” See http://www.metrostlouis.org/PlanYourTrip/MapsSchedules/CallARide.aspx
While I can certainly understand your frustration, the facts are that urban sprawl has made it practically impossible and cost prohibitive to provide mass transit to areas lying outside of the city proper. The people in outlying areas have chosen a lifestyle based on driving and it would be impossible for mass transit to operate in such an environment at reasonable cost. The most practical and cost effective solution is to provide feeder routes by rapid transit bus and spur rail lines from less dense outlying areas into the city. It also makes sense that the limited transportation funds available be used as cost effectively as possible, which means concentrating on areas of the city where native population density and visitor needs make transit a more attractive proposition. I know I am not telling you or anyone else that reads
this anything new, but in light of these limitations, why would you even write
something like this? Metro Link already spends a large sum of money to make the rail stations and buses ADA compliant. It is very costly to design a train station so that only a fractional gap exist between the platform and the car to allow wheel chair excess, not to mention elevators at each location, wheel chair ramps and kneel down busses. Now I am not saying that all of these things are not worth having, or that as a society that we can not afford them, but at what point do these things become to costly or to impractical to fund. I would say this is a prime example of something public money should not be spent on.
I also don’t believe that placing the blame on Metro Link is either fair or appropriate. Metro Link is doing what the organization was designed for as best it can given the limited funding and local opposition to extending routes. You of course could advocate for change in the town of Shrewsbury
itself, but they are probably going to tell you the same thing, that it does
not make sense to spend limited funds on something so few people will actually use. In this situation instead of complaining perhaps you should have driven.
Shrewsbury is hardly an “outlying area”, the station is on the border of the city limits and in any other metro area it would be part of “the city”. And to say that people in the suburbs have choosen a lifestlye based on driving is highly simplistic. Does that mean everyone in the city has choosen a lifestlye based on walking and transit? People choose to live in a certain area for a wide variety of reasons, some of them outside of their control. Residents of denser, inner suburbs should still have access to sidewalks, even if they don’t live in “the city”.
My wife and I made a choice to live in the city partly based on the availability of mass transit and excess to amenities, and I believe that if you talked to the majority of people that live downtown, these things entered into their decision. And yes when you choose to live in the suburbs you are making a lifestyle choice, you may not realize it but you are. If you move into an area with limited transit options, and few if any sidewalks, why would you be surprised when it is difficult to get a round without a car. And Shrewsbury is not in the city, it may be close but it is not, it lies in the county. I don’t disagree that residents of our outlying communities should have excess to sidewalks and other amenities that make some place a community, but this is not the function of mass transit. If you want sidewalks and neighborhoods that you can walk in, than you should advocate for
a chance in your cities zoning laws. I don’t disagree with what you are saying, I would like to see Metro Link run to more places in the city proper like Soulard, but there is only a finite amount of funds available to build, maintain, and operate a system and Metro Link can not afford to be all things to all people. It may be someday, that the city grows to the point that it can afford to expand its mass transit system to outlying communities, but I don’t see that happening soon.
Maybe simplistic, but accurate. I think that most suburbanites (and many urbanites) don’t give driving a second thought. It is an unconscious act that only arises to consciousness stuck in traffic. Most have to ‘make’ a conscious decision to bike or walk. The dilemma is how does society reverse that: make driving the conscious thought and make biking/walking the unconscious modus operandi.
I’ve contacted StL County a number of times about the lack of sidewalk along the Murdoch Cut-off. No luck. Because of the train tracks and the River des Peres, that is the one and only route to Metrolink for 2/3 of Shrewbury pedestrians, and yet there’s no sidewalk. When it rains, that dirt walkway by the bus stop is a muddy mess, not to mention the need to dodge huge volumes of water getting kicked up from the poorly-drained gutters by cars turning from Murdoch onto Lansdowne.
I’m a little biased, but the pedestrians ‘risking getting hit by cars’ are just making a market decision due to the lack of adequate crossings at that intersection. I voiced my displeasure to any office that would listen when that intersection was getting re-worked with traffic signals. There was no crosswalk put in on that side of Murdoch because the officials in charge of construction felt it would inconvenience people turning left into the gas station from Lansdowne.
Excellent report Steve. If anyone wants to know why transit is not successful in St. Louis they just need to follow your journey. Walking and pedestrians are part of the transit landscape. Speaking of landscapes, the government center appears to be newer. In cities with strong design, art, social ethic it would have been coordinated to make a government center an important part of a major transit stop instead of a mile walk.
What is most striking is the lack of art, of beauty along the walk. It is really funny to see civic leaders tout art in St. Louis yet ignore the basic calculus of art, the city itself.
Finally I think this should kill any idea of a city county merger. The city is already being attacked with too much of this type of crap, why encourage it?
There is no art or design in this rout. Maplewood and Shrewsbury fail to understand how to use transit as a tool in economic development. The City already copies this type of bullshit too much.
McKee’s suburban development on the Northside is probably the next suburban nightmare.
A perfect idea for a city right? Make it more difficult for the pedestrian get around. Great report Steve exposing the complete collapse of walking in society. If the mainstream media had a clue it might not be as bad, but they are too busy reporting on themselves.
I am very leery of a city/county merger, if that is what the county government believes is the value of transit and especially walking then I’m not sure where the governing philosophies coincide. The City certainly does not want to adopt this approach. (Even though they have tried hard in almost every district, the city has not been completely destroyed as of yet).
The truth is none of these governments really care, they are all too busy playing footsie with their friends.
Well on the plus side, this was the first year that 25 to 34 year olds drove less and walked/biked more. I would site the source but all I can remember is I saw it on the nightly news last week.
Moe, I think that is the point, who would want to walk/bike more in the conditions Steve has described? It’s just horrible, there is no other way to describe the conditions for walking surrounding a major transit station and to what should be a center of government and democracy. The lack of accessibility to all is appalling. I’m glad to hear the young can overcome the hurdles, but that should not be the standard.
Steve, thanks for the post.
To be picky, I used the Shrewsbury metrolink station frequently prior to moving because my house which we still own is located nearby, I believe that pedestrian and ADA access is readily available from station itself to Lansdowne and never had issue leaving the station safely and without having to walk around parked cars. So I’m perplexed why you have to show the footpath that has nothing to do with the post other than trying to give a first horribly impression and bring in metrolink to the forefront of the issue at hand.
I also thank you for the legitimate concerns of the Murdoch Cutoff mess along with its intersection with Lansdowne. Even as some one who is young as myself with considerable mobility thinks this intersection is dangerous no matter if I was coming/going to metrolink, making my way to the River Des Peres Greenway trail for my afternoon jog or taking my little boy down to my favorite pit stop for gas/coffee and a donut. Instead, if my family was going to the nearby Shrewsbury park/swimming pool or towards the city center as in your post we would head the opposite direction on Deveonshire and go straight for the sidewalks on Shrewsbury Ave. I believe going straight from Lansdowne to Shrewsbury Ave would have resolved a lot of your issues and be a much better route. But it doesn’t excuse the fact that Murdoch Cutoff is the primary route for that direction.
But their is a long list of blame on that one with County leading the line but the city not adding anything more when improvements where made to the corner grocery store (sidewalk and separation was added as part of remodel – would have been a great time to extend side walk), metro unable to invest around bus stops on Murdoch (their is or was two bus stops on either side of Murduch Ave itself), to no one demanding anything better out of the veterans group/legions hall who went out of their way to get the short walk sidewalk to the corner memorial built but couldn’t/wouldn’t help extend the sidewalk through their blacktop or improve the immediate corner. I think they fear the loss of parking spots during fish fry season but wonder how many neighbors like myself found it more trouble than it was worth. I certainly can’t imagine how intimidating it must be for my older neighbors who live in the immediate area who want access to the corner gas station/store let alone metro link station.
If I’m correct, Shrewsbury’s “new” “city hall” is actually a converted school, located on what was once part of the Kenrick Seminary property? This choice, for the location of a major public facility, carries with it the related accessibility issues that is the topic of this post. IF the choice had been made to construct / locate it where the police, fire and pool facilities are (on Shrewsbury Avenue near I-44), the accessibility issues would be different, but the distance would be much shorter . . . . the clarity of 20/20 hindsight . . . .
It is the former Prep South.
I showed the worn grass to show many pedestrians for years haven’t been satisfied with the placement of the sidewalks and have created their own paths. Pedestrians know the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. I, on the other hand, am forced to use the obscure route the designers planned for all pedestrians.
Hi Steve,
Thanks for pointing out these issues — I would mention that you could perhaps have traveled along the River des Peres Greenway as far south as Weil Avenue. I walk that way regularly as part of my commute (I live 1.5 miles south of the Shrewsbury station just over the line into unincorporated St. Louis County) and I believe it’s a fully accessible route — although I admit I have never tried it in a chair, the grades might be a bit too much in places. The other problem though would be the railroad grade crossing on Weil, that might be a deal-breaker for that option.
Personally, I walk in this area a lot. Not necessarily in Shrewsbury, but along River des Peres and along Watson. I see a lot of people walking to and from the gas station there on Lansdowne — because in addition to a large park-ride lot, the station serves as a main bus transfer point. There are a fair number of transit users and pedestrians in this area, but they’re certainly outnumbered by drivers. And at least there are some sidewalks and pathways, albeit not consistent nor always well-maintained.
There is not a complete sidewalk on the alternate route you mention (Lansdowne to Weil there is, but them up Weil to Shrewsbury there’s not), and someone in a power wheelchair might have to wait at the train tracks on that route. I’ve gone that way as a pedestrian and that can be a very long wait, as the train often stops there, blocking Weil.