8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostSep 07, 2013#601

FTA is getting ancy:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 49f12.html

Too bad this $$ couldn't be redirected to something else here if the farting around on the Loop Trolley costs them the federal aid.

215
Junior MemberJunior Member
215

PostSep 07, 2013#602

As much as I would hate the project to lose its funding, I think it's a good move by the FTA to light a fire under their butts. This project was supposed to be off the ground LAST YEAR and we still have nothing. I understand that large projects take a lot of time and collaboration to get moving, but come on. The delays on this one just seem ridiculous.

3,544
Life MemberLife Member
3,544

PostSep 07, 2013#603

There is a strong stench coming from this project. I don't know what or who is holding it back, but we run the risk of the FTA overlooking future transit expansions in the region if we don't get it together. The streetcar should be up and running by now.

4,489
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
4,489

PostSep 07, 2013#604

^I agree. Something doesn't add up.

When residents and property owners along DeBaliviere started complaining, I knew this project would be dragged out. Still, I thought this project was farther along than it is. These types of never-ending bureaucratic nightmares are what sets St. Louis back over-and-over. Where are the voices of Dooley and Slay in support of this project?

And hasn't the public been told all along that this project could be built for $43-million? Now all of sudden they don't know if it can built with that budget? W-T-F!?!?

This statement concerns me,
Blair and Poehler said the biggest remaining unknown is whether the firms bidding on the project could build the streetcar line within the $43 million budget.
Did Edwards and his original team low-ball this project? I hate when St. Louis takes the cheap low-ball route. The 2-mile street car systems in Cincinnati and Kansas City are just north of $100-million. Cincy's is stuck too, but KC's seems to be steadily moving forward despite hiccups and NIMBY obstacles there. Personally, I would like to see a modern streetcar - not a trolley with gross overhead wires, but this has to get going so the new focus can be on the Downtown/Central Corridor Streetcar and MetroLink expansion.

Also, the FTA seems to respect METRO so I doubt they would overlook transit expansions in St. Louis if this project bombs; however, I do see your point because anything is possible.

[GRUNTING]

PostSep 07, 2013#605

And by the way, if this project doesn't move forward, will that also compromise the 1-gig Loop project?

3,544
Life MemberLife Member
3,544

PostSep 07, 2013#606

^ this is a prime example of why St. Louis needs government reform, we need a consolidated regional planning dept. too. It takes waaaaaay too long to get anything off the ground here and I suspect that contributes to our anemic growth, this type of stuff has been happening for years.

8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostSep 07, 2013#607

goat314 wrote:^ this is a prime example of why St. Louis needs government reform, we need a consolidated regional planning dept. too. It takes waaaaaay too long to get anything off the ground here and I suspect that contributes to our anemic growth, this type of stuff has been happening for years.
It appears the main issue here is Metro having to clean up the inadequacy of Loop Trolley Company to do the technical work. If this were a Metro project, I don't think it would have been a problem. I think a key question moving forward and maybe what the FTA wants to know is whether there is reasonable confidence that Loop Trolley can operate this thing or whether Metro is going to have to step in.

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostSep 07, 2013#608

arch city wrote:And by the way, if this project doesn't move forward, will that also compromise the 1-gig Loop project?
Yes, I think so. They're not going to dig up the streets just for the 1 Gb

4,489
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
4,489

PostSep 07, 2013#609

In my opinion, Metro should step in AND run it. Maybe the FTA has hinted that Metro should take it over.

Why not?

If Metro knew better, it would take over the project just because of the reason goat314 cited earlier - they run the risk of being passed over for future grants because of the ineptness of the Loop Trolley Company - although METRO had nothing to do with it for the most part.

But what additional delays and bureaucratic BS would that entail?

PostSep 07, 2013#610

quincunx wrote:
arch city wrote:And by the way, if this project doesn't move forward, will that also compromise the 1-gig Loop project?
Yes, I think so. They're not going to dig up the streets just for the 1 Gb
Not unless they use telephone poles and different rights-of-way including utility poles, conduit and ducts like they are doing in Kansas City with Google Fiber.

It might cost more though and require more permissions.

Burying the cables in the ground as the trolley project was under construction was just an easier way to do it or though it seems.

I hope both move forward as planned.

3,544
Life MemberLife Member
3,544

PostSep 07, 2013#611

Metro should be running these streetcar projects from the beginning. Even the proposed central corridor route.

5,705
Life MemberLife Member
5,705

PostSep 07, 2013#612

^ I share the same sentiment but believe Loop Trolley would not happen if you throw up the arms now and everything was handed over to Metro as is. Metro seems determine to go forward on BRT as the next priority. In other words, I think things are to far along to be willing to give up the grant money and infrastructure build out as well which will put a serious drag on momentum for East Loop development. The key I believe is getting the track infrastructure right. If loop works as stand alone, great. If it doesn't, hand it over to a seasoned transit agency to see what makes sense going forward.

I'm still on the believe that once Loop tracks are layed that planning should look into how to get the Loop through Forest Park into Dogtown. The loop trolley is committed to Forest Park for better or worse. At this point, I can only see an upside of extended fixed transit to Dogtown just as previous posts noted an upside to exted western end in time to Clayton CBD

I do hope that the Central Corridor Streetcar will be handled by METRO from the get go and the priority will be there to make it happen. However, fearful that BRT push will put the downtown streetcar as a secondary. Unless I'm getting the wrong impression or understanding of what is Metro's current priorities.

KC is doing a great job putting together their downtown streetcar which makes a lot of sense considering that they didn't build out a light rail system. Instead, added BRT and now doing fixed transit on a much smaller scale relative to metrolink.

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostSep 08, 2013#613

goat314 wrote:Metro should be running these streetcar projects from the beginning. Even the proposed central corridor route.
But they won't because they're regional transit and development agency. The city is going to have to find another entity or establish some kind of special arrangement to get lines built in the city.

3,544
Life MemberLife Member
3,544

PostSep 08, 2013#614

Alex Ihnen wrote:
goat314 wrote:Metro should be running these streetcar projects from the beginning. Even the proposed central corridor route.
But they won't because they're regional transit and development agency. The city is going to have to find another entity or establish some kind of special arrangement to get lines built in the city.
And thats a problem, in my humble opinion.

1,099
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,099

PostSep 08, 2013#615

^ [For Metro] It's a huge problem, and perhaps hypocritical.

1,792
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,792

PostSep 09, 2013#616

Not that i am actively opposing this thing but there are SO MANY better places to put METROs transit dollars than this project. No way should METRO fund this over the NS Metrolink or even BRT on a sensible route. As far as streetcars a Grand Ave line makes alot better route than a two mile streetcar that ends at the missouri history museum. If this thing is funded it should be through a taxing district like the Olive proposal.

1,099
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,099

PostSep 09, 2013#617

Loop Trolley Project Budget is $43M (maximum)
• $25 M from Federal grant
• $6 M from other Federal funding
• $3.5 M from TIF monetization
• $3.5 M from New Market Tax Credits • Up to $5 M in private donations

At least this was the plan at the time of the draft environmental impact study. No funds being used that would otherwise have gone to Metro. Nor is Metro providing any operational funding as a Delmar Loop TDD 1% sales tax is supposed to provide the bulk of the operational funding that isn't covered by fares.

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostSep 09, 2013#618

Those at the top of this effort are still confident, but apparently the checklists required with the federal grant have been much more difficult to complete than they anticipated.

3,766
Life MemberLife Member
3,766

PostOct 11, 2013#619

KMOX reported this morning that Joe Edwards is confident that the Loop Trolley Company will meet the 10/31/13 deadline. Ever since they've starting work with Metro's top engineer, things have fallen into place. His only concern is the government shutdown, which could create other issues.
Construction is slated for Feb. 2014, according to Mr. Edwards.

This is very good news. Let's hope they get this together!

PostOct 11, 2013#620


4,553
Life MemberLife Member
4,553

PostOct 29, 2013#621

From the Biz Journal Article on Oct. 11: "Edwards, who’s chairman of the Loop Trolley Transportation Development District, said the project was granted an extension by the Federal Transportation Administration to submit final plans of the project. The deadline is now Oct. 31."

Hopefully we hear something positive on this project very shortly.

3,766
Life MemberLife Member
3,766

PostOct 30, 2013#622

http://www.stltoday.com/news/traffic/al ... c13d0.html

This is not the news we were hoping for. :x

3,544
Life MemberLife Member
3,544

PostOct 30, 2013#623

^ doesn't seem like this will go anywhere, there was plenty of time and opportunity for public input. This is the definition of frivolous lawsuit.

What this does show is that dragging your ass on a project of this importance will give any naysayers/pessimists time to sit down and think of ways to disrupt it. If this gets held up in court any significant amount of time it will likely be the end of this project....sad!

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostOct 30, 2013#624

Guess we can't have nice things, infuriating.

2,929
Life MemberLife Member
2,929

PostOct 30, 2013#625

Frivolous and Zero-Hour. This has personal vendetta all over it.

From the article:
"We have had no input," said former University City Councilwoman Elsie Beck Glickert, one of the four plaintiffs in the suit. "It would be nice if people could vote on it, not just the property owners. It was a very weighted vote. The wealthier you were, the more votes you had."
A former U City Councilwoman is upset she didn't get to have her stamp on it, so she wants to destroy it. Under the guise of the trolley leading to the persecution of the citizenry by the evil landowners of the Loop.

This is the new gold standard for self-interested local muni politicians acting like arseholes.

Also from the article:
The lawsuit also contends that:
•the 2.2-mile Loop Trolley would exceed the original boundaries by extending beyond Kingsland Avenue to the west and crossing over Lindell Boulevard to the History Museum on the eastern end.
The Loop Trolley would cross Lindell Boulevard in violation of a 1909 condition imposed by trustees of the Caitlin Tract subdivision when they deeded land to St. Louis to use as part of Forest Park.
•The 2008 Loop Trolley district election was conducted without the cities of St. Louis and University City passing necessary ordinances, and was in violation of Missouri's Mail Ballot Election Act
Holy Good God.... Never heard of this one before. They want to go back 104 years to find a questionable issue regarding a land use permit from whent his whole area was undeveloped farmland? Are you farking kidding me?

This smells like they just want to destroy this because they didn't personally create it.

Read more posts (1721 remaining)