Episode 7: Scott Ogilvie – The Future Great City podcast by nextSTL

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook9Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

It’s nextSTL.com in a podcast! In this episode we speak with Scott Ogilvie, 24th Ward alderman in the City of St. Louis. Twice elected from the neighborhoods south of Forest Park, Scott has become known for asking difficult policy questions of the city and his colleagues, while pushing for political reform and good governance.

Ogilvie has won support and earned critics by being one of the few alderman with an outspoken vision for the city as a whole. We speak to Scott about the upcoming every-five-years challenge at the ballot box to the city’s 1% earnings tax, the failed effort to keep the NFL Rams in St. Louis, and much more. You can find Scott on Twitter @ward24stl and check out his website at ward24stl.com.

[Future Great City podcast on iTunes]

[Podcast RSS feed from nextSTL]

[The nextSTL podcast page]

Sponsorship of this podcast is available, click here to learn more.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook9Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone
  • Mitch Boggeman

    I very much agree that the city needs a North Side/South Side Metrolink!

    • Kevin

      $1.5b-2b project for not many new projected daily riders. That’s a tough one. Also based on lack of development around existing metrolink lines, even that card can’t be played and I would say if you are going to spend $1.5b-2b to encourage development there are better and more effective ways than metrolink. Also instead of these silver bullet projects let’s focus on 2 of our biggest issues first; crime and it’s crippling perception and schools

      • matimal

        Does transportation cause development, or does development cause transportation? Hint…there IS an right answer….

        • Mitch Boggeman

          According to Jeff Speck(author of Walkable City), transportation promotes development. But Kevin does well to point out the lack of development around the existing Metrolink lines.

          • matimal

            Kevin misses the point that metrolink represents a small share of total transportation spending. Investors look at ALL transportation spending and capacity. If road users had to pay the true cost of the roads they use as individual users, a trip from chesterfileld to the CWE would cost $8 dollars and chesterfield would be cornfields and floodplains. Increasing transportation capacity of any kind creates the context for development. No I-64, no chesterfield.

          • Alex Ihnen

            The lack of development at MetroLink stations is particularly problematic in the County, where municipalities haven’t embraced it. In the city, you see more, though depending on the station it can be a challenge since the line follows a heavy rail corridor (think Grand station).

          • Mitch Boggeman

            Your reference to the Grand station is a good example of why I think there needs to be a rail going through South City.

            The Tower Grove/Shaw area, A decently populated area in which Grand is the nearest station, is still too far away to be able to walk to. I suppose those who use the Metrolink out of necessity will take the bus, etc., but if you want citizens to opt out of driving their cars, you have to make the rail accessible.

            People use the Metrolink because they can’t or don’t want to drive. If you have to drive your car to get to the link, why not just drive to where you are headed?

          • John R

            Yup; if transit brought one to the Grand metrolink station from South or North City in a more rapid fashion it wouldn’t be so bad but by the time it takes to catch the 70, go down to the station platform, and catch the train you most likely are well on your way or already at your metrolink-accessible destination by car. Having a more rapid transit option to the station would help immensely, otherwise it’s too darn easy to drive in this town.