<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Gateway Streets</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.gatewaystreets.org/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.gatewaystreets.org</link>
	<description>Transportation issues in the Gateway City</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 05:28:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Renumbering the Region&#8217;s Interstates by NYYPhil777</title>
		<link>http://www.gatewaystreets.org/2012/renumbering-the-regions-interstates/#comment-860</link>
		<dc:creator>NYYPhil777</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 05:28:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gatewaystreets.org/?p=249#comment-860</guid>
		<description>I-24 runs from I-57 to I-75 as a bypass intended to have St. Louis traffic go to Nashville and Atlanta. Therefore, it would be totally dumb to renumber I-770 as I-24.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I-24 runs from I-57 to I-75 as a bypass intended to have St. Louis traffic go to Nashville and Atlanta. Therefore, it would be totally dumb to renumber I-770 as I-24.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on BJC Looks to Push Central West End Metrolink Station to Kingshighway, Again by PhilS</title>
		<link>http://www.gatewaystreets.org/2012/bjc-looks-to-push-central-west-end-metrolink-station-to-kingshighway-again/#comment-841</link>
		<dc:creator>PhilS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:54:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gatewaystreets.org/?p=278#comment-841</guid>
		<description>You wrote: &quot;BJC must also recognize that thanks to all the improvements they’ve made along Euclid, that their “back yard” has become their “front yard”. In almost every way, the environment of the BJC campus is better on Euclid than it is on Kingshighway.&quot;

In fairness, many of the improvements along Euclid have been due to the efforts of the Washington University School of Medicine. While WUSM and BJC try to work together on campus planning they are separate corporate entities sometimes with less than complimentary motivations and intentions. Make no mistake, the BJC Institute of Health building with its Maya Lin fountain and Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates landscaping would not have happened as it did without the planning and efforts of the WUSM. And despite the naming rights, the BJC Institute building is the property of Washington University. With the exception of the St. Louis College of Pharmacy, WUSM owns practically all of the property along Euclid between FFP and Barnes-Jewish Hospital Plaza.

Perhaps BJC is jealous of how the plaza turned out and thinks by moving the CWE metrolink station it can have streetscape vibrancy at its front door. Unfortunately, the existing Kingshighway frontage and location isn&#039;t conducive to the success of that.

More realistically, I think both WUSM and BJC realize the CWE station will need some repairs and expansion in the near future. The CWE platform and infrastructure is aging more rapidly than the rest of the original 1993 stations, in my opinion. I&#039;m pretty sure it was not designed for the number of riders it actually accommodates. It has been one of the great successes and assets of the Metrolink development.

If the medical school had a design completion on how to &quot;beautify&quot; the view from the CWE platform (though I, as a regular rider from that station since 1993, truly love the industrialness of the setting) it&#039;s clear the medical school expects to work with the station at that site, not relocate it.

I would venture it&#039;s more of one hand saying &quot;what if&quot; and the other hand not really caring for the moment. When it gets down to it, it will be quickly clear that moving the station west along the tracks to where it passes underneath Kingshighway (placing the station underneath the WUSM&#039;s Northwest Tower and SLCH Parking Garage) is not really going to happen. It&#039;s more likely to expand a bit further east, closer to Taylor Avenue if anything.

But, as always in this town, you never know what people are thinking. It&#039;s good to keep an eye on it.

Thank you very much for pointing it out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You wrote: &#8220;BJC must also recognize that thanks to all the improvements they’ve made along Euclid, that their “back yard” has become their “front yard”. In almost every way, the environment of the BJC campus is better on Euclid than it is on Kingshighway.&#8221;</p>
<p>In fairness, many of the improvements along Euclid have been due to the efforts of the Washington University School of Medicine. While WUSM and BJC try to work together on campus planning they are separate corporate entities sometimes with less than complimentary motivations and intentions. Make no mistake, the BJC Institute of Health building with its Maya Lin fountain and Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates landscaping would not have happened as it did without the planning and efforts of the WUSM. And despite the naming rights, the BJC Institute building is the property of Washington University. With the exception of the St. Louis College of Pharmacy, WUSM owns practically all of the property along Euclid between FFP and Barnes-Jewish Hospital Plaza.</p>
<p>Perhaps BJC is jealous of how the plaza turned out and thinks by moving the CWE metrolink station it can have streetscape vibrancy at its front door. Unfortunately, the existing Kingshighway frontage and location isn&#8217;t conducive to the success of that.</p>
<p>More realistically, I think both WUSM and BJC realize the CWE station will need some repairs and expansion in the near future. The CWE platform and infrastructure is aging more rapidly than the rest of the original 1993 stations, in my opinion. I&#8217;m pretty sure it was not designed for the number of riders it actually accommodates. It has been one of the great successes and assets of the Metrolink development.</p>
<p>If the medical school had a design completion on how to &#8220;beautify&#8221; the view from the CWE platform (though I, as a regular rider from that station since 1993, truly love the industrialness of the setting) it&#8217;s clear the medical school expects to work with the station at that site, not relocate it.</p>
<p>I would venture it&#8217;s more of one hand saying &#8220;what if&#8221; and the other hand not really caring for the moment. When it gets down to it, it will be quickly clear that moving the station west along the tracks to where it passes underneath Kingshighway (placing the station underneath the WUSM&#8217;s Northwest Tower and SLCH Parking Garage) is not really going to happen. It&#8217;s more likely to expand a bit further east, closer to Taylor Avenue if anything.</p>
<p>But, as always in this town, you never know what people are thinking. It&#8217;s good to keep an eye on it.</p>
<p>Thank you very much for pointing it out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on BJC-CORTEX Monorail! by BJC Looks to Push Central West End Metrolink Station to Kingshighway, Again &#171; Gateway Streets</title>
		<link>http://www.gatewaystreets.org/2011/bjc-cortex-monorail/#comment-839</link>
		<dc:creator>BJC Looks to Push Central West End Metrolink Station to Kingshighway, Again &#171; Gateway Streets</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:13:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://archstreet.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/bjc-cortex-monorail#comment-839</guid>
		<description>[...] anyways, if the station were relocated to Kingshighway, how would the monorail ever reach it?   Source: MetroLink [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] anyways, if the station were relocated to Kingshighway, how would the monorail ever reach it?   Source: MetroLink [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Cincinnati Is Better Connected to Its Riverfront Than St. Louis by Gview</title>
		<link>http://www.gatewaystreets.org/2012/cincinnati-is-better-connected-to-its-riverfront-than-st-louis/#comment-773</link>
		<dc:creator>Gview</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:26:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gatewaystreets.org/?p=265#comment-773</guid>
		<description>Other than a superficial aerial resemblance of the two projects, this is like comparing apples and oranges. That is not to say the Cincinnati project is not to be commended...a somewhat closer look at what&#039;s involved via the Small Riverfront Park web site (recommended) shows some very attractive features. In Cincinnati, they seek to compare their project with Chicago&#039;s Millennium Park, again an apples and oranges exercise. Best we celebrate each city&#039;s answer to their respective and unique circumstances, rather than to seek to mimic one after another.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Other than a superficial aerial resemblance of the two projects, this is like comparing apples and oranges. That is not to say the Cincinnati project is not to be commended&#8230;a somewhat closer look at what&#8217;s involved via the Small Riverfront Park web site (recommended) shows some very attractive features. In Cincinnati, they seek to compare their project with Chicago&#8217;s Millennium Park, again an apples and oranges exercise. Best we celebrate each city&#8217;s answer to their respective and unique circumstances, rather than to seek to mimic one after another.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Cincinnati Is Better Connected to Its Riverfront Than St. Louis by Herbie Markwort</title>
		<link>http://www.gatewaystreets.org/2012/cincinnati-is-better-connected-to-its-riverfront-than-st-louis/#comment-751</link>
		<dc:creator>Herbie Markwort</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 06:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gatewaystreets.org/?p=265#comment-751</guid>
		<description>Ben, as can be seen in &lt;a href=&quot;http://imgur.com/A4kjW&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this aerial from 1993&lt;/a&gt;, Cincinnati&#039;s riverfront was awful. It appears that it was just as &quot;accessible&quot; as it is today, but why would you ever go there? When it was first built, Fort Washington Way had more entrance and exit ramps per mile than any highway in the country.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ben, as can be seen in <a href="http://imgur.com/A4kjW" rel="nofollow">this aerial from 1993</a>, Cincinnati&#8217;s riverfront was awful. It appears that it was just as &#8220;accessible&#8221; as it is today, but why would you ever go there? When it was first built, Fort Washington Way had more entrance and exit ramps per mile than any highway in the country.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Cincinnati Is Better Connected to Its Riverfront Than St. Louis by Ben</title>
		<link>http://www.gatewaystreets.org/2012/cincinnati-is-better-connected-to-its-riverfront-than-st-louis/#comment-728</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:45:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gatewaystreets.org/?p=265#comment-728</guid>
		<description>Wonder if there are any aerials before the 2000 reconstruction? What&#039;d the area look like then</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wonder if there are any aerials before the 2000 reconstruction? What&#8217;d the area look like then</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Quick Notes by Stlplanr</title>
		<link>http://www.gatewaystreets.org/2012/quick-notes/#comment-690</link>
		<dc:creator>Stlplanr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:06:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gatewaystreets.org/?p=257#comment-690</guid>
		<description>The County should know that freeway lanes (I-270 near I-44) will not stop population loss.  If anything, it will speed it up.  Just ask the City from experience.

Of course, the one time County voters actually had a chance to stop the sprawl machine (Page Avenue Extension), they didn&#039;t.  Oh well, I&#039;m sure there will be more sound walls to hide all the places no longer growing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The County should know that freeway lanes (I-270 near I-44) will not stop population loss.  If anything, it will speed it up.  Just ask the City from experience.</p>
<p>Of course, the one time County voters actually had a chance to stop the sprawl machine (Page Avenue Extension), they didn&#8217;t.  Oh well, I&#8217;m sure there will be more sound walls to hide all the places no longer growing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Comments for the JNEM EA Pieced Back Together by Herbie Markwort</title>
		<link>http://www.gatewaystreets.org/2012/comments-for-the-jnem-ea-pieced-back-together/#comment-664</link>
		<dc:creator>Herbie Markwort</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:41:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gatewaystreets.org/?p=260#comment-664</guid>
		<description>They were. Click the first link in the post above and pay attention the the categories.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They were. Click the first link in the post above and pay attention the the categories.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Comments for the JNEM EA Pieced Back Together by Stlplanr</title>
		<link>http://www.gatewaystreets.org/2012/comments-for-the-jnem-ea-pieced-back-together/#comment-661</link>
		<dc:creator>Stlplanr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:31:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gatewaystreets.org/?p=260#comment-661</guid>
		<description>So were numerous comments to remove the greatest barrier to the park deemed &quot;outside of scope?&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So were numerous comments to remove the greatest barrier to the park deemed &#8220;outside of scope?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Renumbering the Region&#8217;s Interstates by Stlplanr</title>
		<link>http://www.gatewaystreets.org/2012/renumbering-the-regions-interstates/#comment-620</link>
		<dc:creator>Stlplanr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:50:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gatewaystreets.org/?p=249#comment-620</guid>
		<description>Easier fix for locals-- re-number your I-770 as I-64, so that I-64 could revert to US-40.  Alternatively, re-number your I-770 as I-24.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Easier fix for locals&#8211; re-number your I-770 as I-64, so that I-64 could revert to US-40.  Alternatively, re-number your I-770 as I-24.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

