Metrolink and I-64/US 40

jmedwick · PostSep 06, 2006#12006-09-06T02:45+00:00

What's popular is not always right. What's right is not always popular.

I think we have all heard that quote used many times, but when thinking about the numerous comments about a metrolink line down US 40, I think it bears remembering.

I have read the reports on the East-West Gateway website and seen the many comments by knowledgable posters on why the best metro line to west county goes north toward westport rathern than down 40. The logic makes plenty of sense. From a transit planning perspective, looking at the density, job centers, demand for transit, and need for transit, such an alingment is the right choice. But from the many many comments, I think we can guess that the alingment is not a popular one. Well, at least not as popular as one down 40.

This leaves the question: Should METRO reconsider this decission?

The reason I ask is that with the funding shortage MODOT faces for the project and the clear need by METRO to establish support for future tax increases, maybe METRO could have an opertunity to help gain support and work with MODOT to get the 40 rebuild done.

What do I have in mind? Maybe a combined regional tax increase that will result in the funding needed to cover the MODOT shortfall for the 40 rebuild (likely something many voters would support) combined with a larger tax increase for METRO that could include financial support for 2 or 3 new lines (depending on cost and distance), one of which would be the popular 40 line and one would could be a much more needed METROSOUTH, Northside, or a line north from clayton past the airport. Idealy for METRO, steping up to help MODOT fill the funding gap, the state would step up with some operating support.

The 2000 MTIA found that a 40 line to Chesterfield would cost over $600 million, but half of that cost was to build west of 270, so by only doing a line to 270, the cost could be closer to $300 million. Never mind any possible new-starts funding the expansions could recive, allowing the local funds to go farther.

I am sure there are many reasons why this plan can't work (the most obvious is asking two of the most derided local agencies to work together), but I think if well executed, it could be a political coup for a METRO organization that could use a few victories.

mcarril · PostSep 06, 2006#22006-09-06T04:17+00:00

I think the 64/40 line is something Metro should explore especially as you said support for this line will be high and with the highway rebuild it would be the right time. Logistically though I'm not sure how a 64/40 line would connect into the rest of the system. Would it continue down 64/40 into downtown? or would it jump to the main line around Chouteau thus severely impacting headways on the rest of the system. Another problem is once you get past the Brentwood/Galleria area (which is already served by the Cross County Extension) it would largely be a commuter line if it ended at say Ballas and 270 and East of Forest Park it would duplicate the existing mainline service. Would commuters drive from Chesterfield, Ballwin, Wildwood St Charles, etc to Ballas and 270 just to change out to train. Is the reward at that point really that great? Once you've made it that far in your car is it really worth it to park and wait for a train?

But then again, maybe Metro needs to take a risk. Maybe a short line from Ballas and 270 running down 64/40 to the current Brentwood/64 if built for a reasonable cost could restore the publics faith in Metro's ability. (although hopefully Cross County can do that.) Another factor would be reverse commuters, especially those working retail jobs in the Chesterfield Valley area. Would a train ride to Ballas and 270 and then transfer to a bus help their commute or would it just add another transefer layer on to it?

Ultimately I think this line could work, but I'm not sure how it would tie into the greater system.

migueltejada · PostSep 06, 2006#32006-09-06T12:21+00:00

mcarril -

I think you're spot on in running the line down 40 to ballas 270 and having it intersect with the existing bus transfer. If a new metrolink line terminates there, it has a good station for visibility, and it's right next to two major job centers in St. John's & Mo Bap hospital and the upcoming downtown creve coeur. Also extended along 40/64 you hit the lindbergh/clayton intersection (plaza frontenac...though I can't imagine many would use metrolink to shop there but still), but also the county library headquarters and many other retail shops, and also ladue high school and jr high not too far away, which would cut down on the amount of buses needing to be used (the school could just give out metro vouchers to the students).

If you had a metro stop at the same location there's currently a highway interchange, the design and build would be much simpler and easier than doing separate stops. So, the stops as I would see it (and what their purpose) would be:

McKnight - large commuter station, 500 parking spaces

Warson - Small commuter lot, 100 spaces, Ladue HS/JS, Clayton Rd Shops East

Lindbergh/Plaza Frontenac - Medium commuter lot, 250 spaces

Ballas/270 - Major commuter terminus, St. Johns, Missouri Baptist hospitals, connecting bus services to Downtown Creve Coeur and other nearby areas (clayton/ballas intersection), 1,000 spaces

The only major fights I see would be from the people of Plaza Frontenac who are wary of a train and the resulting gobbling of parking spaces it would take. However, I think the Hilton and nearby shops next door would love to have a train, since it'll allow the hotel guests more freedom and for the shops more exposure.

Thoughts/concerns?

tysalpha · PostSep 06, 2006#42006-09-06T14:23+00:00

The problem I see with a line that runs along 64/40 is that the only major populus center on the route past 270 is at Chesterfield mall. Additional stops could be made at say 141, Mason, and Ballas, but other than the immediate suburuban office park-type buildings, whom would this route serve? It wouldn't even (directly) serve St. John's. The page expansion running past westport and then down through Olive/141 towards chesterfield mall would hit areas of denser population.

I'm also not convinced that Chesterfield and Wildwood residents would patronize the metro. It would have to stop very close to their places of employment as well, or else they wouldn't give up the car. But in reality, such a route would be more about getting resturant, yard service and housekeeping workers out to their rich clients than it would be about bringing the west countians in.

Alex Ihnen · PostSep 06, 2006#52006-09-06T14:54+00:00

I can see the short term benefits. A line down 40 would be highly visible and everyone stuck in traffic could wistfully watch metro-goers wiz by in comfort! Or they could watch empty trains. The downside is that a metro line that serves commercial centers is doomed to fail. Mass transit needs to serve people, not places. Building anywhere other than to the greatest residential densities doesn't make much sense. In urban centers where there is real density, mass transit is necessary - I would argue that St. Louis is just on the bubble of needed density. If mass transit is to be affordable/successful I think we have to avoid "popular" expansion. Or more to the point, we need to do a better job making the "right" decisions also the "popular" decisions. There could be nothing worse for the future of metro in St. Louis than a failed line.

tysalpha · PostSep 06, 2006#62006-09-06T17:25+00:00

Ihnen wrote:I can see the short term benefits. A line down 40 would be highly visible and everyone stuck in traffic could wistfully watch metro-goers wiz by in comfort! Or they could watch empty trains. The downside is that a metro line that serves commercial centers is doomed to fail. Mass transit needs to serve people, not places. Building anywhere other than to the greatest residential densities doesn't make much sense. In urban centers where there is real density, mass transit is necessary - I would argue that St. Louis is just on the bubble of needed density. If mass transit is to be affordable/successful I think we have to avoid "popular" expansion. Or more to the point, we need to do a better job making the "right" decisions also the "popular" decisions. There could be nothing worse for the future of metro in St. Louis than a failed line.

A good point, Ihnen. I've always thought that the metro system should develop radially, serving the core neighborhoods first before extending out to St. Charles county or far west county. In fact, I'd like to see the area bordered by Lindbergn on the west, 270 on the north, the Mississippi river, and then 270/255 on the south served before talking about lines running further.

tbspqr · PostSep 06, 2006#72006-09-06T17:44+00:00

Do North and South cities (as subways or exclusive ROW)... build up Alton/SIUE. Go to Westport. 25 years from now we can begin to start to think about considering going to Creve Coeur/chesterfield via the westport expansion. Plus the next lines on the Missouri side should be new lines that converge on downtown... such as North City, relieve the existing line.... not add to the congestion downtown at peak points.

The ONLY thing (I can see that is) attractive about this is the prospect that "we could do most of this while 40 is under construction" but METRO can't really afford to keep its buses going now, much less add to the complication of an already questionable project. And the benefits are minimal at best. I just dont see a I-64 route ever working in STL....

dweebe · PostSep 06, 2006#82006-09-06T17:45+00:00

Tysalpha wrote:
Ihnen wrote:I can see the short term benefits. A line down 40 would be highly visible and everyone stuck in traffic could wistfully watch metro-goers wiz by in comfort! Or they could watch empty trains. The downside is that a metro line that serves commercial centers is doomed to fail. Mass transit needs to serve people, not places. Building anywhere other than to the greatest residential densities doesn't make much sense. In urban centers where there is real density, mass transit is necessary - I would argue that St. Louis is just on the bubble of needed density. If mass transit is to be affordable/successful I think we have to avoid "popular" expansion. Or more to the point, we need to do a better job making the "right" decisions also the "popular" decisions. There could be nothing worse for the future of metro in St. Louis than a failed line.

A good point, Ihnen. I've always thought that the metro system should develop radially, serving the core neighborhoods first before extending out to St. Charles county or far west county. In fact, I'd like to see the area bordered by Lindbergn on the west, 270 on the north, the Mississippi river, and then 270/255 on the south served before talking about lines running further.

St. Charles County will probably never get Metrolink out there. Not after the smackdown they gave in the vote back in the mid 90's where 60% to 70% of residents voted against a tax for an extension.

moorlander · PostSep 06, 2006#92006-09-06T18:14+00:00

dweebe wrote:
Tysalpha wrote:
Ihnen wrote:I can see the short term benefits. A line down 40 would be highly visible and everyone stuck in traffic could wistfully watch metro-goers wiz by in comfort! Or they could watch empty trains. The downside is that a metro line that serves commercial centers is doomed to fail. Mass transit needs to serve people, not places. Building anywhere other than to the greatest residential densities doesn't make much sense. In urban centers where there is real density, mass transit is necessary - I would argue that St. Louis is just on the bubble of needed density. If mass transit is to be affordable/successful I think we have to avoid "popular" expansion. Or more to the point, we need to do a better job making the "right" decisions also the "popular" decisions. There could be nothing worse for the future of metro in St. Louis than a failed line.

A good point, Ihnen. I've always thought that the metro system should develop radially, serving the core neighborhoods first before extending out to St. Charles county or far west county. In fact, I'd like to see the area bordered by Lindbergn on the west, 270 on the north, the Mississippi river, and then 270/255 on the south served before talking about lines running further.

St. Charles County will probably never get Metrolink out there. Not after the smackdown they gave in the vote back in the mid 90's where 60% to 70% of residents voted against a tax for an extension.

Who cares about St. Charles right now... IMO Lets focus on the north south city expansion...and a downtown loop...those are my priorities... Although i would support a western line out to 270 or even chesterfield... it really would cut costs if we were wanting a line to run out 40 to do it now while it's already gonna be torn up.

jmedwick · PostSep 07, 2006#102006-09-07T00:29+00:00

A few comments:

1. Stops: We are getting ahead of ourselves talking about stops, but I would argue that a McKnight stop is a bad idea. Lots of ED use would be nessisary and site aquisition costs would be high, when a good stop at 40 and Clayton would be just as effective.

2. Concerns about the development around potential stops west of 270 are valid, but I would ask how much development is around many of the other park and ride developments that have been used for the main and new alingments. But you are correct, going west of 270 you face the dual problem of brining the route close enough that folks see the value in switching from car to train and the lack of high density centers.

3. Many on here point again to the northside and southside lines. YOu are right, METRO would be best if downtown were the center. But sadly the city is in no position to bargin and get these lines built. It doesn't have the tax base to pay for either line and must rely on county support. Therefore, while many would just as soon say screw the county, you can't if you want to get funding.

4. Someone above said it might be worse building a failed line. Looking at the 2000 projections by east west gateway, either west county line would likely create 13,000 new daily transit boardings, with the 40 alingment creating 13,000 and the westport alingment brining in 13,200. So while the westport alingment is clearly supieror for many reasons, the gap between the lines is not a huge one in terms of riders. So i would say the likelyhood of a 'failed line' is pretty similar (and small) no matter which you choose.

As for the effects of making the line only to 270, the 2000 report indicated that 2/3rds of the 40 alingment ridership comes from east of 270, while 80% of the westport line comes from east of 270. Therefore, you must wonder about the effect of shorting a 40 alingment to 270 on expansion ridership, but I would imagine that taking the line to say Mason would probably address much of that difference.

This brings us back to the orginal argument that METRO needs a victory and public support. If METRO got a tax increase passed that funded a 40 alingment AND a Northside or Southside alingment, wouldn't that be a win-win for all sides, brining in greater public support and providing a much needed line into the city's core?

No matter how you cut it, METRO must make METROLINK atractive to the county or no tax increase will pass. What other option does METRO have if the goal is expasion than to try and strike the best political deal it can to get funding?

digitalcaffeine · PostSep 07, 2006#112006-09-07T13:13+00:00

dweebe wrote:St. Charles County will probably never get Metrolink out there. Not after the smackdown they gave in the vote back in the mid 90's where 60% to 70% of residents voted against a tax for an extension.

Actually, I believe there was less than a 5% spread between No and Yes on the prop. That being said, I think it is far more useful at this point to get Metro where the greatest number of people could benefit from it. But St. Louis county has to get on board and the money they're holding back from Metro is only going to keep hurting Metro.

It's probably a question for a different group, but is there even enough density in the St. Louis metro area to support a commuter rail feeding into the Metro system? Say up the 55 corridor, 44 corridor, etc?

migueltejada · PostSep 07, 2006#122006-09-07T23:44+00:00

Of course, now that we've all said so much, what it really comes down to is the outcome of feasibility studies and Cost-Benefit analyses. If EW gets result back saying westport line is more cost-effective than 40/64 line, then that's what gets built. Current funding and all the other goodies end up in these studies, so if they get more funding, a feasibility study would be positively impacted by this. Everything we say is pretty much conjecture unless one of us is working for EW, Metro, or one of their consultants (in which case you're breaking confidentiality agreements!!!

)

urban elitist · PostSep 08, 2006#132006-09-08T00:09+00:00

migueltejada wrote:Of course, now that we've all said so much, what it really comes down to is the outcome of feasibility studies and Cost-Benefit analyses. If EW gets result back saying westport line is more cost-effective than 40/64 line, then that's what gets built. Current funding and all the other goodies end up in these studies, so if they get more funding, a feasibility study would be positively impacted by this. Everything we say is pretty much conjecture unless one of us is working for EW, Metro, or one of their consultants (in which case you're breaking confidentiality agreements!!! )

These studies have been done for years, and we've long since known that the Westport line is highly feasible while a 64/40 line is basically suicide. I think the purpose of this thread was to discuss wheather we should throw said studies to the wind since a 64/40 line would be more popular than a Wespot line. I vote he11 no. If we're going to expand it need to be done the proper way, not the "popular" way.

mill204 · PostSep 08, 2006#142006-09-08T00:35+00:00

Link to EW Gateway's MTIA study update #3 from June 2000. Contains very brief info on all conceptual alternatives and locally preferred alternatives for northside, southside, and Daniel Boone study areas.

http://www.ewgateway.org/pdffiles/newsl ... ter4v2.pdf (PDF 3.1MB)

jmedwick · PostSep 08, 2006#152006-09-08T01:39+00:00

These studies have been done for years, and we've long since known that the Westport line is highly feasible while a 64/40 line is basically suicide.

I think you might be overstating the issue a bit. If you follow this Link you can read the 2000 MTIA. In there you can see the stats used for comparison. While the westport is the ideal for many reasons, I am not sure it supports you finding that the 40 would be suicide.

smsplanstu · PostSep 08, 2006#162006-09-08T03:54+00:00

Doesn't the Westport line include Overland and comes through North St. Louis to Downtown? If the stations are well placed and not overly saturated than if can benefit northern West County drivers, struggling but dense Overland (around 4,500 people per square mile), and begin development in Northside.

Denser North County and South County should be made a priority before a 40/64 line. Plus the Shrewberry line should run north to Hanley and the touted 12,000 job Kinloch redevelopment project.

tysalpha · PostSep 08, 2006#172006-09-08T14:31+00:00

SMSPlanstu wrote:Denser North County and South County should be made a priority before a 40/64 line. Plus the Shrewberry line should run north to Hanley and the touted 12,000 job Kinloch redevelopment project.

The Shrewsbury line could easily run north from Clayton because of the abandoned railroad ROW along 170, but I'm not sure how many people it would serve. Then again -- it could go north of 70, past the Boeing plant, and then terminate near 270 at the south edge of Florissant.

jmedwick · PostSep 08, 2006#182006-09-08T15:07+00:00

All excelent points SMS, but... will the public vote for a such a plan?

tbspqr · PostSep 08, 2006#192006-09-08T15:29+00:00

Tysalpha wrote: and then terminate near 270 at the south edge of Florissant.

I thought the plan of most new north city line proposals would have them terminate at a Park/Ride lot on the STLCC Flo Valley Campus....

migueltejada · PostSep 08, 2006#202006-09-08T18:28+00:00

I think this subject also brings up the interesting issue of which comes first, the demand or the train? All these studies can show demand to be at a certain level, but how often are these results wrong or miscalculated? As a consultant I know every projection is wrong by definition, it's the degree that matters. What may be determined to be a low demand line (40) vs a high demand (westport) could be wrong once the line actually gets built. Human behaviour can never be fully predicted.

Of course, if a line running down 40 becomes the 'line no one uses', it becomes a joke, boondoggle, and ruins public support.

Here's my issues with a line down the highway - the stations are in the middle of the highway. no room for TOD or really integrated community/station design. sure there might be some commercial develop around the parking lots, but it's not as attractive as I think it should be. Over here, not a single commuter line runs down a highway (it has it's own ROW) and the stations are fairly large and well integrated into an activity center.

I've seen how the Metro in LA (a VASTLY underrated system in my opinion) runs down the highway, and I was stunned by how few people were on the platforms at 8am on a tuesday. This may be more indicative of LA transit riders than peoples aversion to highway locations, but I remember few people lining up on Chicago's highway platforms as well. I just don't think people find it appealing, not compared to a dedicated station.

Personally, after rethinking my earlier decision, I don't think it should run down 40, regardless of costs or demands. However - has anyone thought about rolling metro down 40 until warson, then running it along clayton? I realize this wouldn't be popular with area landowners, but I think it would more intimate, and at street level, provide a great access to an area that certainly could use more. I still think it should be run to the ballas bus station, with dedicated transfers to the nearby hospitals and downtown creve coeur. The bus transfer station is fantastic, why not use it for a better purpose?

jeff707 · PostSep 08, 2006#212006-09-08T18:34+00:00

It will never be run down Clayton, through Ladue and Frontenac. If anything, the density wouldn't call for it. It might as well be int eh middle of the highway.

jmedwick · PostSep 08, 2006#222006-09-08T18:47+00:00

^ Also, all fine points. I think we can all agree that a line down Clayton Road would be a looser. Much of the strech is only 2 lanes (not 4) and would therefore require many takings, not to mention the many many auto-train conflicts. The travel times would be horrendus.

But again, why assume the line must be down the center? Could you not build a line that runs along the northern or southern edge of the highway rather than in the middle? I know it would make creating offramps more difficult, but it would address many of the problems noted by miquel. For example, running the line along the northern edge of the highway would make for convient stops at the downtown ladue shopping area, the Ballas transfer center, the Galleria, and use of the old State police station at Mason. Running it down the southside of the highway would make convienent stations for the Brentwood Commons, Ladue/Clayton Schnucks or the Hyatt/ the small frenchy village, and Missouri Baptist.

I will post this on another metro thread because the interview is about the whole system, but Charlie Brennan did an interview with larry Salci and he touched on a line down 40 because a caller called in and asked why not do the line. Salci's answer was a ROW concer, noting that the new I-64 was not adding lanes and that to build Metro in the ROW would take 2 lanes at least. He said there simply isn't enough room.

bastiat · PostSep 08, 2006#232006-09-08T19:31+00:00

In the old days, the private companies who built the rails were also land speculators. The lines often went to places that had no residences whatsoever, but the owners were entreprenuers. Shaker Heights, Ohio was built this way as was Davis Place in Clayton (created by the owners of the Wydown trolley line).

Government is unable to perform this entreprenueral function and its lines are only planned where there is already enough density that some people would almost have to ride it.

Hopefully, we'll see the Delmar trolley campaign turn for-profit, with the people heavily invested in the area such as Joe Edwards pushing the trolley through. Maybe the route will change to all the way down Delmar if the Roberts brothers (who pretty much own the intersection of Kingshighway and Delmar) through some investment money into it. That way the neighborhood and the trolley line are bound financially together. I'd like to see something similar on Grand from the water tower all the way south to the Melba.

Alex Ihnen · PostSep 08, 2006#242006-09-08T20:09+00:00

Yes, but in the old days, government gave right-of-way and additional land to anyone willing to build a railway. We may not think of it in the same vein as imminent domain today, but Native Americans and others might.

smsplanstu · PostSep 08, 2006#252006-09-08T21:35+00:00

If anyone is even considering I-64 you might as well exchange Olive Boulevard instead and end at City Place in Creve Coeur where jobs exist in relatively close proximity compared to Earth City or Chesterfield. Yes, City Place has sidewalks, & a mix of lifestyle center shopping and semi-urbanist condo building (newer)

+ Unicorporated Creve Coeur has a great concentration of elderly in condos between Lindbergh and G....

+ Monsanto, jobs

+ Danforth Plant Science Center, research, university connections, jobs

+ Nidus Center for Emerging Technology, life sciences incubator, jobs

+ Life Sciences Post-Incubator Wetlab/Office Building, new jobs

Jobs! & not the extreme office building set in a sea of parking like most of Chesterfield, Earth City, & Westport {Monsanto could rebuild their buildings or create a shuttle}