The sad thing is that when it comes time to fund the next extension, the public will only remember the cost overruns and general clusterf*** that was the Cross County project. Nevermind if they use it to ride from Shrewsbury to every Cardinals game and save on what could be $6 a gallon gas by then; Metro screwed up and that's all that matters.
The Cross-County extension is the last extension to be built entirely locally, financed with bonds backed by the 1/4-cent Prop M sales tax funds in St. Louis City and County. Recently, the Missouri legislature enabled City and County voters to consider a future full one-cent sales tax, or any increment thereof. But given Cross-County's perception among the public, any future tax increase proposal, besides taking place well after Cross-County's Fall 2006 opening, would require a plan of how far the money would go, which lines would be prioritized, and a financial plan that shows operations independent of the tax as well as federal matches for future capital projects.
Most light rail lines as fixed guideway transit systems use federal funding. The original line opening in 1993 used 75 percent federal funding for a total cost of $464 million or about $26 million per mile. The St. Clair extension to College opening in 2001 used 72 percent federal funding for a total cost of $339 million or about $14 million per mile.
The Shiloh-Scott extension beyond College to Scott AFB opening in 2003 was actually the first line, albeit only 3.5 mile and adding one station, to be built without federal funding, but mostly state funds. The St. Clair addition from College to Scott cost $75 million or about $21.5 million per mile. This last opened addition was funded through Illinois FIRST ($60 million) and St. Clair County Transit District ($15 million).
The Cross-County extension to open next year costs almost $700 million or up to $87 million per mile. This cost is being funded entirely locally on Prop M (City of St. Louis and St. Louis County), without any federal or state funding. The cost per mile for Cross-County then is over three times the cost of the original line.
In fact, the anticipated high cost per mile is partly why the project did not seek out federal funding, typically the Federal Transit Administration's New Starts Program. The program has become increasingly competitive since 1996, when the last full funding grant agreement was reached for the St. Clair extension to College.
Following the funding agreement for St. Clair, regional leaders in the late 1990s strategized to finance the Cross-County extension entirely locally (Prop M) to expedite MetroLink service to the largest and densest employment center outside of the City, which is Clayton, as well as new service along the I-64 and I-44 corridors in St. Louis County. In previous posts, I've shared how the originally conceived cost of about $470 million for the 1999 conceptual design went to almost $700 million actual. But given this original estimate, planners knew early on that this latest extension would cost more than double the original line, but the dense ridership of Clayton and mid-county was seen as a priority for MetroLink service.
When Cross-County opens next year, and yes it will do so within less than a year from now, Metro's credibility will be rebuilt. Still, be tough decisions again. Five possible corridors (2 primarily in the City, 2 primarily in the County, and 1 in Madison County) have advanced as the candidates for further expansion. Madison is dependent upon that Illinois county passing its own version of a Prop M, as St. Clair voters did in 1994. But those corridors in the City and County in Missouri will depend upon an increased Prop M.
Though future extensions will seek federal funding, the federal match, once 75 percent for the original line, could be as low as 50 percent for future lines. At least two Missouri extensions could be built by 2020 with a Prop M increase by 2010. More extensions by 2030 could follow using the same funds, without further tax increases. But where we go next and how we pay for it will need to be honestly and openly discussed in the public realm for voters to get on board for more MetroLink beyond 2006.
southslider, when you say there are five candidates for future extensions, you're referring to extensions after the Metro South Expansion, right? I was under the impression from Metro open houses that it was next.
4.) Daniel Boone to Westport (via Clayton and/or Northside)
5.) Madison County
Only Metro South has completed its environment impact analysis to seek federal funding. The portions of Northside and Southside within the City are moving closer to such level of planning as well. Thus, the first three of five listed above are closer to being considered for federal funding, but you still need to find a local match of roughly half of any extension's cost first.
Daniel Boone is still a contender due to past alternatives analysis and political support, but more environmental analysis is still needed. And Madison County has support and independent local funding from the Missouri candidates, but still competes for the same federal funds and still needs extensive planning in both alternatives and environmental analysis.
Metro South was put on hold due to lack of local funding and not having a definite preferred alternative between running along the BNSF railroad or River Des Peres. Thus, in theory, any of the other candidates could advance towards implementation before Metro South. But all alignments face the local funding hurdle-- an additional sales tax levy in St. Louis County and City for Missouri extensions and a new tax in Madison County for its extension.
Daniel Boone is still a contender due to past alternatives analysis and political support, but more environmental analysis is still needed. And Madison County has support and independent local funding from the Missouri candidates, but still competes for the same federal funds and still needs extensive planning in both alternatives and environmental analysis.
Madison County has already done the alternatives, and has had community meetings.
Madison County has preliminary alternatives as Xing's linked map shows. However, no formal alternatives analysis or comparison of the performance and impacts of these various alternatives to Alton or Edwardsville have yet to be evaluated. The preliminary alternatives for Madison County came out of an early feasibility study. That study recommends a range of feasible preliminary alternatives, the range dependent upon financial support: a minimal build to Granite City area, a moderate build to I-270 or I-255, or a full build to Alton or Edwardsville.
Metro South completed its draft environment impact statement this year, while Northside and Southside are about to be studied further within the City for conceptual engineering. Northside, Southside, as well as Daniel Boone have locally preferred alternatives from previous multi-modal studies in 1999-2000, that East-West Gateway called Major Transportation Improvement Analyses (MTIAs).
Metro South completed its planning due to former Congressman Gephardt securing federal planning funds. Northside and Southside are advancing within the City due to loft developer Craig Heller transferring his earned Transportation Development tax credits for distressed communities for the planning of MetroLink within the City. The proximity of Heller's projects downtown to the proposed downtown MetroLink loop made the City segments of the new Northside/Southside planning study eligible for such creative financing.
Citizens for Modern Transit supports planning of an extension to Westport via Northside. An early stage feasibility study explored the "Northwest Connector" linking the Northside and Daniel Boone extensions, but ultimately the previous locally preferred alternatives from 2000 were to Westport from Clayton.
To address Xing's concern, Madison County remains a possible expansion, but its planning is actually less far along than Daniel Boone. Metro South is the only extension that would be able to seek federal funds, but without a local match of fifty percent or a regional decision that such a line should be next, it is at a stand-still. Northside and Southside are advancing in planning to near the level of Metro South but only for those portions within the City between I-70 and I-55.
Clarification: Metro South is the extension for which planning is the most final stage to seek federal funds. All extensions would seek federal funds, but a local match of roughly 50 percent will likely be needed. The law allows as low as a 20 percent local match, but due to competition for federal funding, the reality is closer to 50 percent.
After Metro South, the next most planned or "ready" extensions will be Northside and Southside within the City. The remaining sections of Northside and Southside, as well as Daniel Boone are at a lower stage with past alternatives analysis but no environmental analysis. Madison County is at very early stage with preliminary alternatives but no alternatives or environmental analysis. Still, if Madison County passed a local sales tax akin to St. Clair's 10-plus year-old tax that financed its extension, then Madison County could accelerate in its planning.
