09/30/96 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1679, Minutes September 30, 1996 Page 11 many of the educational, cultural and medical activities in St. Louis, thereby increasing ridership and lowering costs; 2) it will reduce auto traffic on 1-64, reducing travel time, pollution, and accidents; 3) no costly tunneling will be required and it connects existing traffic networks, thereby addressing the is- sues of adequate parking, traffic, and congestion; 4) the 1-64 route does not require transit through existing residential areas; 5) the 1-64 ruute looks to the future of the metropolitan area, since the popula- tion has moved westward. He asked the Council to adopt a resolution endorsing the 1-64 route. Mr. Stephen Littlefield, 7102 Maryland, president of Maryland Terrace Trustees, said the integrity of the historic neighborhood core would be irreparably damaged if the Millbrook route, especially if on- grade, is chosen. He said affected neighborhoods need as much protection regarding noise, traffic, and economic values as any development that comes before the Council. He had six points: 1) it is extremely unusual that there are eight neighborhoods either on the historic register or potentially eligible for it that are adjacent to Millbrook; 2) the Missouri Department of Natural Resources has authorized grant money to provide state protection as well as national status to several additional neighborhoods; 3) at least one structure eligible for inclusion on the national register would have to be demolished for this route; 4) park space will be lost; 5) market viability is required to ensure the long term preservation of the neighborhoods; 6) the group wants the Council to instruct the University City Historic Preservation Commission to work with the Historic Neighborhoods Association to determine the level of the impact on these highly prized and highly assessed neighborhoods before East/West Gateway can make a detrimental recommendation, at which time everyone concerned would have to be in a reactionary position and come up with a new plan. He felt Council should make neighborhood needs known to East/West Gateway in advance of their recommendations. Ms. Suzanne Finney, 7106 Westmoreland, said she was a proponent of the 1-64 route and strongly op- posed the lVlillbrook spur. She asked what University City's economic incentive was for the Millbrook spur--what is the impact on new or existing development; will this route spur new development like office buildings or restaurants; does it provide economic development of established businesses? She noted it had no access to the Central Business District. She suggested even Mayor Adams felt property values would go down initially, and perhaps into the future. Mayor Adams said his statement applied to the construction phase only. She said reduced property values is a no-win situation for all concerned. She asked where the riders will park, noting no land is available for this unless homes are tom down. She said Washingon University supports the Millbrook spur, has agreed to donate property for it, and has hired a lobbyist to influence the decision makers. She said their transit costs will be reduced by 40- 50 million dollars over the next 20 years if the Millbrook spur becomes a reality. She suggested their transit budget was not University City's problem and she did not feel the City should subsidize them. Ms. Lisa Honigfort, 7234 Westmoreland, said she was confused--the Millbrook spur will not serve University City's central business corridor; there is no place for a park and ride lot; and the only benefici- aries are the University and Clayton. She suggested students should pay for their own shuttlebuses. She felt the spur would only burden University City residents without providing any benefits. Ms. Dorothea Bruschke, 7159 Westmoreland, suggested the Millbrook spur was not needed, adding that