Why did the developers choose that location, so far from transit? I think because they thought that they would get enough people coming by car, and that they would be the "right kind of people" (which means something different in Queens than in Buffalo).

Clearly they didn't get enough people coming by car, so they decided to reroute the buses. The fact that the mall is partly owned by the family of the MTA Chairman made that a bit easier than it would have been. Maybe that won't be enough, and they'll have to reactivate passenger service on the Montauk Branch of the LIRR.

Of course, here in New York City we have the opposite dynamic in place. Given the alternative as presented by Buffalo and St. Louis, I think it's a good problem to have.

Case in point: Atlas Park Mall in Glendale, Queens, & the Q45 bus extension.

The mall owner and public officials asked for the bus to be extended to the mall. The MTA proposed an extension to the Q45 bus. The community along the proposed route got into an uproar over "increased traffic" and fought the bus extension, which went through in the end.

See coverage in the Queens Forum and the Queens Chronicle.

This phenomenon of mall owners trying to keep transit - and thus Black people - out is not a recent development, and it cost one young woman her life.

I grew up in St. Louis County and had to drive a car everywhere. Getting around is even harder with Highway 44 under construction for the next 2+ years. I always wished that there were an accessible, safer, cheaper alternative to driving. I'm glad that they expanded the Metrolink and I hope they continue to do so.

I've got news for the lady who was telling me these things today. The area she works isn't all that great (even though the potential is astronomical) and it wouldn't surprise me that most of the crime was local due to the reasons I cite above and have nothing to due with an importation of crime by light rail from the cities.

As for this St Louis case, I propose a simple study. Simply look at the addresses of those who are being arrested for crime at this mall and also see if they own a car. These factors should be enough to prove this case one way or the other.

Then again bias could always rear its ugly head and the police and security could be only catching those of color while overlooking the "innocent looking" white kids who are probably just as guilty.

Complaining that too many of the "wrong type" of people are present is wrong, creepy, classist, and generally un-American. After all, how is Joe-the-Moron going to be cultivated into a consumer if he cannot see all the cool crap that he can buy after Obamahood redistributes the wealth.

"If the incoming President can find the money, there will surely be renewed efforts to expand public transit in a lot of cities.

There are obvious gains: environmental, less road congestion, fewer accidents, etc. But if St. Louis’s experience is at all indicative, there might also be at least one unintended consequence worth thinking about."

etc! You know, those silly accidents and such. Who cares about traffic deaths when mall stores might be losing money (which we can't be bothered to find evidence of), and scariest of all, raggedy youths are at fisticuffs!

YES let us assume it is "at all indicative" (and conveniently validates our most cherished prejudices because that is what sloppy social/science reporting is all about) and head on to "thinking" about this completely speculative "consequence." And let's especially ignore the Richmond Heights prosecutor who "says it's 'half-assed reasoning' to blame the uptick on MetroLink," because that is not the skeptical conclusion we are after, but instead the one that is baselessly Skeptical of Socialist Transportation.

There's more lazy conventional hooey about transportation in the archives:
Why are these stupid charity people making me stop on my favorite "high-speed" highway that is "hill and a bit curvy", which I like to speed on?
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/with-road-safety-like-this-who-needs-drunk-drivers/

And linked by Streetsblog back in August:
Why do these stupid pedestrians keep throwing their pathetic bodies in front of wonderful high-speed cars, is it because THE MOON makes them LOONY?
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/freak-shots-blame-it-on-the-moon/

If Macy's security is not quick enough to catch thieves who have to wait for a train, they must be losing an absolute fortune to thieves with cars. Maybe they should do away with the car park, and plant trees instead? This would have the added benefit of slowing down the "train criminals" who currently have a nice easy jog across the car-park to their waiting getaway train.

I also love how it's called an "increase in crime" when I know that these teens (who while I doubt they are perfect, but no teen is "perfect") are probably getting harassed by the mall staff and rent-a-cops, racially profiled followed etc. So, yeah, if you do that you end up with more arrests. And "more crime." Big shock.

So, the idea is ... I guess... let's not build any public transportation and just keep the poor people isolated.