Friday, September 15, 2006

Maplewood/Manchester Stop: Not Walmart, Olive Garden, Sams, Lowes

Lowes peaks across the horizon, but two fences, two tracks, then a long parking lot seperate us.

Maplewood/Manchester stop is NOT a Walmart, Sams, Lowes, Olive Garden, Red Lobster stop.

See also: Brentwood I-64 Stop: Dierberg's Walkway Posted by Picasa

4 Comments:

At 10:41 PM, September 15, 2006, Blogger Todd Plesko said...

There is a pedestrian link from the Maplewood Manchester Station, albeit a complicated one. Again the R-O-W east and west of the station shown in your picture is owned by Sunnen (I believe). This owner was also very concerned about parking encroachment.

The Shrewsbury project was already under pressure for money. Purchasing more land along the alignment to construct a more pedestrian friendly environment would have been necessary.

Actually creating the Station closer to Hanley Rd at the South end of Maplewood Commons might of been a more effective station location.

 
At 11:06 PM, September 15, 2006, Blogger cwe63108 said...

Agree on the station placement issue.

As for the walkway to Retail/Dining - the redevelopement of Hanley probably should have been co-ordinated around Metro, along with the developement between Brentwood and Hanley along I-64. It seems that Metro gets no respect.

The new condos going up along Hanley also seems an ideal canindate for coordination with Metro. Of course, the way it's set up now it makes this logical developement rather impossible.

Developement, especially when TIF money is involved, should be transit compatable. Walmart, Sams, Dierbergs, Target, Galleria, casual dining, would make the system extremely useful.

As it stands now; all of these things are JUST out of reach, or a stretch to reach.

 
At 6:21 PM, September 22, 2006, Blogger Todd Plesko said...

The developer of the condominium did want to construct a station adjacent to their development. While it would have been very close to the Brentwood and Manchester Stations, it is my understanding that the developer and Brentwood could have added this to the project but they would have had to pay for the additional station.

The project arose right at the time Metro was struggling to cut back features of the project. I was in a meeting where all sorts of features were axed to cut a lot of money out of the project. These cuts eliminated the modifications of the turn from the I 170 alignment onto the Forest Park Expressway. It would have allowed Metro to add an extension north of Clayton along I170 sometime in the future. This got cut making a future modification very expensive.

The Forest Park Center platform and pocket track were almost eliminated.

I had to fight to get a parking garage at Brentwood.

In that environment it was just not possible for Metro to add a Station out of Prop M funds. Thus we offered the option of a station if they paid for the design and construction of the new station. It would also impacted the timeline for startup.

 
At 6:29 PM, September 22, 2006, Blogger cwe63108 said...

The 170 issue is going to be like the 2 car issue.

It was a choice made for expedience that has too much permanance.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home