CU should proceed with bus transfer station

Putting a bus transfer station on East Elm Street is probably the fourth-best idea in terms of a location.

But we believe City Utilities should proceed, with a few caveats.

First, we would like assurances from CU that there will be more than adequate buses and routes to serve those of our community needing to reach state offices downtown. These are among the bus system's primary destinations, according to the latest consultant's feasibility study. Our city's bus service is largely based on the need to serve some of the most stressed members of our community. The new site will be too far, especially during bad weather, for some to walk to needed services as they can now.

The need for a larger facility hasn't been questioned. We've seen the bus ridership fluctuate with gas prices as some residents simply can't afford to keep the gas tank filled. Past comments by those involved in the system lead us to believe that key destinations such as medical facilities and libraries bring on more riders. Improving as well as maintaining public transportation benefits a number of our neighbors who have no other good option to reach essential services.

Second, in the event the Elm Street site is not used, we would like to see City Council review its opposition to the use of eminent domain, and we believe the CU board should state its position on a preferred site from the many considered.

Other sites

The existing site built in 1984 is "functional" and "utilitarian," according to the recent and third consultant's report, but a new facility is expected to have advantages for passengers and employees, be more efficient, allow room for growth and get the planned larger buses away from the now congested streets west of Park Central Square. In 2005, federal funding of $1.65 million was provided — with a three-year use it or lose it requirement — for a new transfer station. This is the seed money for the project being discussed. The money at risk now is $3.1 million though CU efforts have kept the money available.

From the outset the public parking lot on the west side of North Boonville Avenue between Olive and Water streets appears to have been the preferred site for the new facility. There was also discussion of including a multilevel parking garage with the bus station on the lowest level. But that site was removed from consideration after several council members objected to the location. Buildings near the lot are being privately developed.

In April of 2009 the City Utilities board voted to use eminent domain for a site at East St. Louis Street and Benton Avenue. In May of that year we stated our support for the use of eminent domain in this case. But by June the utility reversed course in the face of council opposition. Portions of this site remain undeveloped. We reiterate now that CU was acting responsibly and in the common good.

East Elm Street site

The East Elm Street at South Kimbrough Avenue site now being considered is perhaps the fourth best site considered. In our opinion both the Boonville and St. Louis locations would have been better. A site at West College Street and Main Avenue should be considered based on the consultant's report, except once again there is a property owner unwilling to sell. But while mentioning that the "Walnut Street Historical Society may have issues with development," it appears the consultant underestimated opposition by the Historic Walnut Street Association. And, CU has already changed its plan for how buses would enter and exit the transfer station to placate the Landmarks Preservation Board. The buses would now primarily be going west on Elm and then Kimbrough with little additional traffic on Walnut.

Today, the city waits for the Federal Transit Administration to give its blessing to the East Elm site. A Missouri State University official has said the school would not be opposed to the location, though there has been no clear statement of support or a final decision on selling. If FTA rejects the site or MSU decides it is not in its best interests, what then?

In its opposition in this case to using government power for the good of the community, and in particular those with the least voice, council has closed off CU's better solutions and put its means of paying at risk. It didn't have to be this way. But the goals of a more efficient transfer station and greener buses, plus the lack of a better alternative acceptable to council members inclines us to support the Elm Street site.