Using red and green identification of the lines would only help, if the green were shown as continuing east of Forest Park to Emerson Park. Too many people falsely believe that this new extension is a separate branch shuttle, when all trains will continue downtown and to East St. Louis. A color map showing a green line from Shrewsbury-I-44 to Emerson Park, a red line from Airport-Main to Shiloh-Scott, and thus a split red/green line from Forest Park to Emerson Park would help clear up the confusion.
As it is now, I think St. Louis Metro's map poorly conveys the service coverage of "green" trains. On the St. Louis system map, there are red and blue flags indicating service, but most other systems use color-lines to better show how service overlaps. From DC, here is an example of a map showing how color-coding quickly conveys where trains overlap.
bprop wrote:...and Fox 2 had *nothing* about it on the 5 oclock news yesterday!
But they had something on the 9pm and it wasn't very good. They spent most of the piece focusing on how confusing the overlay of the two lines will be. They also focused on how people who start from east of Emerson Park and head west will be forced to change trains at Forest Park.
Obviously they did mention the cost overrun and being almost one year behind schedule.
They did talk about how nice the Skinker and Big Bend stations will be but other than that it was a lot of negativity.
BTW: I was just looking at my Cards schedule. No game on the 28th but there is a home series (against Florida) starting on the 29th. That will be an interesting night when the game ends.
KTRS (550) was discussing metrolink this morning. The host - can;t remeber his name - can only remeber that he often strikes me as a moron - was railing against the entire system. He argued that metro from the airport to downtown made sense because out of towners woudl use it - but said that buses would be more efficient for everythign else. Basically, "why spend 800 million on 8 milesof track" when you could get a fleet of buses for the same price.
Some one bneeds to call in and tout the benefits of FIXED rail. Its permanence brings development - true, urban development - whereas buses do nto because they can change course at a moments notice
by the way - I shoulldn;t call him a moron - was a bit harsh. Its just that he seems to spout opinions without having researched them - but that's sort of his format. Its a "talk show."
If you are talking about before 9 am - it is George Woods - a new personality from Kansas City. If it was after 9:00 am it was former KMOXer McGraw Milhaven, who pretty much is anti-STL everything IMO.
As for the new system and transfers etc... METRO is new at this and so is everyone else. The problem here is that METRO should of put some public input into the whole transfer and line operations - maybe they did - who knows... but, they originally said that the system would be color coded ( see here: http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t=1178 )
and now they didn't do this... I understand they were probably "under pressure" from many that wanted "downtown direct" trains off the "green" line from Shrewsburry/I-44 - no transfers... this could have been done, however, with "express trains" during morn and afternoon rush (IMO). However, I think they felt there had to be direct - nostop service- feeding from downtown St. Louis to downtown Clayton at all hours because of business... so they opted to provide continuous serive from Shrewsbury/I-44 direct to Emerson Park - nonstop all hours (and vice versa). THE problem now is for people traveling to any points west from Emerson Park (especially downtown's busy subway stations) WILL NOW have to watch it the trains are going Shrewsbury/I-44 direct or Airport Main direct. Or they will have to transfer at Forest Park to the correct trains. Those traveling from Shiloh will have to transfer at Forest Park to take a Shrewsbury/I-44 train onto the "green" line and points west/south. Eastbound travelers (going east of Emerson park) from points east of Forest Park will have to make sure they take a Shiloh train (not Emerson park train (which is a green line train)... ??!!Comprende??!!
You know it isn't that hard --- but this is all new for St. Louisans and METRO.
I look at it like this ... St. Louisans love METRO and they ride the rails with passion since 1993... but now as the system gets a whole new line, they will be an adjustment here ... not weeks, not months, but over the next years as everyone rides more. Think about it, it took awhile for St. Louis to get use to the rail transit system... now they are getting a bigger one with a bit of more thought into riding. Before... a train headed West was going west and a train heading East was headed east... and passengers were irritated if (God forbid) they should have to transfer to the next train if the last service stop on their original train was Emerson Park or Union Station (because it was going out of service there) and it was REALLY THEIR OWN FAULT for not reading the trains Head signs in the first place before getting on.... The key is for St. Louisans to READ those head signs and make sure they understand what train is going where. This happens in NYC and Chicago all the time... many lines doubling up on the same track and stations... READ the signs! METRO would be smart by putting up new signs on all platforms that say just that "READ THE TRAINS HEADSIGNS!"... they also need to outfit the originalline (at least the stations from Forest Park through downtown) with the audio and digital signage to tell passengers what the next train is - departure and where it is going... the new line and St. Clair line already have these. It helps because St. Louisan's are stuck in their way of just getting on any train that pulls into the station on their side of the platform.
Wow, this was exhausting...
St. Louisan's just need to be more attentive on the system now. AND METRO must educate the public NOW in order to provide swift and accurate service without any animosity.
it was macgraw millhaven - and he does appear to be pretty much anti-st. louis / pro-suburban .... he also makes some interesting comments ..... I once heard him excliam in wonder that "some people consider film to be art" .... and other such comments that make you wonder is he has any functioning brain matter
A color-coded system is something Metro should do with more lines. However, I think that once other lines are built, this line (the original and cross county) will be considered the same color with two different branches. When a new line is built with a new color, Metro probably does not want to have to change the color of an existing line.
As an example, look at Boston's system (specifically the Green and Red Lines). On the Green Line, going west, there are four different branches. Each branch has a letter associated with it. If you're at a station east of the breakoffs for each of the branches, you get on the westbound platform and wait for the correct letter. This system works extremely well in extremely complex systems such as New York (where you have different branches as well as express trains and limited service trains). For a smaller, less complex line, such as Boston's Red Line, they don't even use letters. People just have to read the destination of the train. People in St. Louis are not dumb people. They'll get used to a more complex light rail system (provided there is proper signage).
I LOVE this debate about the train operation and the colors. It's like it came off a college entrance exam! (If a train leaves Phoenix at 4 pm and another train is leaving Boston at 10 am going 50 mph....)
Some of busdad's comments may be over my head in his jargon, but why can't the trains SIMPLY be color coded with the POSSIBILITY of transfers at FoPark? Leaving the stadium, as I understand this would result in:
Trains leaving the stadium more often.
Fewer confused passengers.
Plenty of time on the train to announce transfer options. "This train terminates at Hanley...you may board a train to Shrewsbury at the Forest Park station." or vice versa.
I'm pretty sure this is how life goes on other cities' trains where there are shared rail lengths.
Metro printed 50,000 "Bus Books" that also include an abbreviated Metrolink Schedule. If you are riding the buses you wiil see the list of locations where they are being given away on the modesty panel behind the driver. The book, priced at $3.00 will be handed out free at key spots for the next several weeks, or purchased from the MetroRide Store. Over 5,000 have been handed out at N. Hanley and CWE Stations in the past two days. They seem popular.
The original "cross county" design was a Green line between Emerson Park and Shrewsbury and a Red line between Lambert and Shiloh. They were always overlapping lines. Based upon the current max loads, you could not handle the peak hour load "feeding" Green line passengers into the Red Line unless you increased the Red line frequency. If you do that, why not give a direct trip to downtown. A shuttle only approach would not attract as many passengers as our current plan. One of the contingency "doomsday" transit cut scenarios that will be presented will include a shuttle approach to the stations on the Shrewsbury line.
Metro dropped the Green Line Red Line names less than a year ago when St. Clair County Transit asked Metro to reverse the line ends to allow Shiloh trips to be connected to Shrewsbury. SCCTD's theory was that the passengers going west on the Lambert Line primarily come from East St.Louis and people living east of Emerson are more likely to work in Clayton.
Metro planning presented data showing that there is a substantial OD connection between stations east of Emerson to the Stations west of Forest Park on the Lambert Branch. In fact something like 1,800 daily boardiings from east of Emerson ended up west of Forest Park.
A study of the work sites of St.Clair County residents showed a slightly higher number of passengers around the Shrewsbury stations than around the Lambert line stations.
Metro also identified a very strong Airport connection from stations east of Emerson and the impact of transferring with bags was perceived to impact ridership more negatively than transferring with a brief case.
Metro's Board decided to listen to Metro Planning for two years. At that point Metro would evaluate the relative strength of each branch vis a vis St.Clair County passengers to make a final decision of the line ends. Once that decision is made, we would give the "winning" lines colors.
The cost of creating the original Red-Green line signage at all stations would be very significant and the Board wanted to make the change once -- not twice.
SCCTD has asked Metro to design and build a Fairview Heights pocket track to permit Metro to shift the peak hour turn back location of the Green line to Fairview Heights. This will not be done for two years.
All of the issues that have been discussed on this site are valid criticisms and were discussed endlessly at Metro. The current Blue-Red colored trips were designed to create something approximately two colored lines at least on the timetable. Creating the line delineation recommended by southslider was not acceptable to the Metro Board and SCCTD until we make a final decision of the scheduling pattern.
Hopefully we can all focus on something more relevant that the color of the lines ---like helping to build a strong coalition to provide funding to prevent the massive meltdown now being planned for July 1, 2007.
A fair number of riders do travel from east of Emerson Park to west of Forest Park today. However, I disagree about the brief case-vs-suitcase argument. Although a brief case is lighter to carry than a suitcase, a work trip is made much more frequently than a trip to the airport.
Since the City has a residency requirement for Lambert workers, I imagine most transit-dependents commuting to the airport daily easily live west of Emerson Park. I also imagine the vast majority of UMSL workers and students live in Missouri. However, Clayton is likely the second largest employment destination after Downtown for Metro East commuters.
If Clayton is easily the largest destination west of Forest Park for Metro East commuters, it will be a daily disincentive for MetroLink riders east of Emerson Park to transfer twice daily at Forest Park. Granted, the proposed pocket-track at Fairview Heights could enable added Illinois riders between there and Emerson Park slightly expanded single-ride access to Clayton, but I ultimately see value in St. Clair County Transit District's argument for full Shiloh-Scott service to Shrewsbury-44. And considering that St. Clair County greatly subsidizes MetroLink operations to even the benefit of Missouri operations, I think Metro should more seriously consider their request. Plus, the added ridership in largely new transit-choice commuters living near Metro East park'n'ride stations and working in Clayton could improve MetroLink's fare recovery.
Everyone (especially Metro) is over-analyzing which color of line should go to which terminus and how often people have to transfer. Having ridden mass transit daily in several major cities for many years, I just don't see the problem. In Chicago, for example, if you work downtown and live anywhere on the north or west sides of the city, there is a good chance you are going to transfer trains at least once, either by necessity, or by choice (some trains are faster than others at rush hour, and different trains go around the Loop in different directions). Same in New York and DC. It usually works well, as, at major transfer points at least, the trains are timed to be at the station at roughly the same time. If that train is full, then you know there will be another within 5 minutes. Adding an extra 5 minutes to my commute time to transfer between trains is just not something I ever gave much thought.
I suppose, however, if I had to get off the train and wait in the cold and rain for fifteen minutes, then, no, it would not be acceptable. I haven't really looked yet, but I hope Metro has done everything they can to make the transfer wait as comfortable as possible at the Forest Park Station. That station should have lots of space, benches, extended canopies, overhead electric warmers, vending machines, etc., as well as additional services nearby.
Color coding is useful to make it clear where that particular train terminates, but other than that I don't think most people are going to give it much thought. I really don't think many people are going to say, "the Green Line passes by my house, but doesn't go to the airport. I'll have to transfer. Well dammit, I'm just going to drive instead." The most important thing is not which train goes where, and when, it is effectively communicating the correct information to customers. I'm not sure Metro gets this.
Also, the 93 Midtown route for tourist destinations is a great, but belated step, but to be effective, it needs to have clearly and uniquely marked stops and perhaps color coded buses. A relatively simple and not all that expensive possibility is to have route maps for that particular line posted at all stops on the route, clearly showing the route, major attractions, and transfer points to Metrolink and other bus lines. Since Metro probably doesn't have the funds for this, perhaps the SLCVC and the Danforth Foundation, or someone else, should lead a fundraising drive.
Your assumptions of ridership origin destinations on the Lambert branch are incorrect. The majority of airport employees are not "city" employees. They are employees of the TSA, and of the many different private companies, restaurants and the airlines. They come from all over.
Metro conducted an OD survey of employees boardiing east of Emerson and learned that these people were destined for many many different locations...most of which require an additional transfer to bus. This included many people destined for Earth City, jobs along Olive near I-270, jobs along the Rock Road all the way out to Boulder Industrial Park. At the Airport, many employees worked for the hotels near the airport as well as jobs at the airport.
The people destined for the airport boarding east of Emerson were very much non transit riders often carrying multiple bags.
Metro's Board effectively said that we have an established market along the Lambert branch. We have not developed that market along the new Cross County branch. If after two years of operation, the Shrewsbury branch appears to have a much larger market than the Lambert branch, Metro can make the change with empirical data to support such a change.
Recent employment data withiin the catchment of the Shrewsbury branch versus the same zone on Lambert shows very only a small different in total jobs for St. Clair residents. If you expand the zone to include jobs within 20 minute bus ride, the Lambert employment is larger and shows major potential for growth. (North Park development just north and east of N. Hanley Station.)
SCCDT conducted some focus groups that said that new choice riders don't want to transfer. SCCTD has indicated that they feel transit dependent riders are "used" to transferriing. However, is there a title VI issue in designing the system so "transit dependent" riders must transfer three times, (bus to rail, to rail, to bus)versus rail to rail for choice riders?
Now there are transit dependent riders who will use the Shrewsbury alignnment and we area not sure what the actual demand will be. For that reason, Metro staff recommended maintaining existing travel patterns until a more definitive assessment can be made.
SCCTD is a major fundiing partner, but Metro's board also has five IIinois commissioners. All but one voted in favor of postponing a final decision until more empirical data is available.
So then, the argument is that North Hanley is the most important MetroLink destination for reverse commuters still continuing west via bus, like the Earth City shuttle, not that airport patrons have larger bags than workers.
I agree, from an environmental justice perspective, that having choice customers transfer rail to rail at Forest Park, is more fair than having dependent customers have yet another transfer. However, some reverse commuters will also be accessing the Clayton transfer center to head to jobs out Highway 40 (St. John's, St. Luke's, Chesterfield Valley, etc.). It would be interesting to know how such employment in West County then compares to employment in or near Earth City (Harrah's, Mills, etc.). Ultimately, if Daniel Boone were ever built from Clayton to Westport, then Westport could become the new consolidated bus hub to western employment, replacing both Clayton and North Hanley. So in that scenario, I could see Shrewsbury going to only Forest Park, Lambert to Emerson Park, and Westport to Shiloh-Scott, but that's a moot point for now. But in the mean time, if the impacts on transit-dependent reverse commuters turn out to be comparable between the two branches west of Forest Park, then it may help ridership to also look at benefits for choice commuters.
No one said it will be easy. It's hard because while choice commuters generally only commute to destinations within immediate walking proximity of stations, transit-dependent commute patterns are much harder to analyze, such patrons accessing increasingly dispersed employment via various bus transfers from stations. While there is obvious growth in serving more choice commuters, dependents deserve fair treatment. So I'll agree too that if the data aren't yet fully available, then it does make sense to wait for now, but hopefully, changes will be revisited in the future.
You have made some very insightful points. Hanley has become a monster bus transfer center for a lot of jobs. When we looked at the total number of jobs in West County, Clayton, Richmond Heights, and Brentwood, the total number of jobs was somewhat less than the similar geographic zone around the Lambert Alignment. The Lambert line was a stronger Madison County work destination than a St Clair work destination. St Clair has as stronger work connection to the Central Corridor, Clayton, West County (and South County) although the total number of workers was really only something like 400 workers greater.
Your point about transit dependent workers in Mid and West County is an excellent point. Its harder to get to West County today for St .Clair workers than to the jobs around the Lambert alignment. We may find some interesting changes in work site once the Shrewsbury line starts up.
Your point about a west extension of Metro Link of the Clayton extension is very consistent with Metro's assessment of the strongest new County extension. It offers reverse flow ridership and major new choice rider options on a single line.
Metro believes that future extensions might be best if we could make small (3 to 4 mile extensions) off the existing branches so you don't have to wait twenty years between each new line, A short extension north of the Y west of N. Hanley, so short extension to or toward Westpoint would be attractive to North county voters and the West port extension would be popular with a lot of west county voters.
Building a Hanley Style Metrobus center around a Westport Metrolink would be a very interesting design for the bus network. I like the idea.
I almost wonder if you two work for Metro and if so, why not have intra-organization network forums. Granted as a planning student interested lately in transportation planning it is helpful chat for me.
Have either of you seen or read the Rapid Transit Feasibility Study Long-Range Program from August 1971?
It lays down the first phase rapid transit system with multiple lines. There is the Northwest line or subway under Natural Bridge Road; a Kingshighway line and up to Florissant Valley CC along West Florissant; a Southwest line along Gravois; an Inner Belt line from Gravois to the Ford Plant at Lindbergh and I-270; a Northeast line from East St. Louis to Granite City; and Southeast line from East St. Louis to Edgemont; a Kirkwood railroad line is also considered. In sum, 100.4 miles of track were considered with a daily ridership of 600,000 people out of a projected 1990 population of 3.2 million. This results in 6.5 million trips a year.
It is amazing to see that a Daniel Boone or Westport line would be a new priority since Westport is more Industrial, not walkable grid or sidwalks, and spread out. Maybe a commuter rail could be built along Olive with stations only at Monsanto, City Place, Chesterfield Pkwy circle office core, and ending at the research companies in Weldon Spring.
I believe this study resulted from the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964.
I'm very familiar with the rapid transit planning of the 1970s and its routes. The routes SMS mentions are contained in the 1971 "St. Louis Metropolitan Area Feasibility Study," ironically drafted by a firm now sued by Metro, as part of the fired Cross-County Collaborative. The 1971 routes were subways and one commuter rail line:
Central: Downtown to Clayton (from existing Wash/8th tunnel to Olive-Lindell-Parkway)
County: Hazelwood to Affton (generally along Innerbelt)
Northside: Downtown to Earth City (generally along Natural Bridge but cutting across The Ville from Cass)
Southside: Downtown to Crestwood (Broadway-Cherokee-Gravois-Grant's Trail)
St. Clair: East St. Louis to Belleville (Missouri Avenue)
Madison: East St. Louis to Granite City (Route 3 and Madison Avenue)
Southwest: Downtown to Kirkwood (commuter rail on existing railroads)
Already by 1978, however, this 1971 study would be thrown out, when a 1978 plan recommended express buses over rail transit. Despite giving up on subways, planners in the late 1970s and early 1980s, seeing Canadian and later San Diego's success with a then-novel technology, started thinking of a light-rail line reutilizing existing railroads for a starter line between Clayton and East St. Louis. By 1984, such planning would produce the plan for the first MetroLink line between Lambert and East St. Louis.
Today, some 35 years after that "subway plan," the bulk of vehicle miles traveled in the St. Louis region are outside the river-to-innerbelt urban core, and transit mode share has dropped dramatically, albeit stabilized by MetroLink (1993 to present). Additionally, as concluded in 1978, and even more so today, subway technology remains too costly for a low-density region like St. Louis.
While the Daniel Boone corridor is largely auto-oriented light-industrial land use, it remains a top Missouri expansion priority for several reasons. From a technical standpoint, a new extension from Clayton to Westport could use Metro's preferred MetroLink technology in exclusive-running light-rail transit, this extension is the shortest (mileage) and cheapest (cost) of all those planned, and the new line would have a strong balance in ridership in both directions, with new riders from West County going to Clayton and Downtown, but also many reverse commuters, some choice commuters to Westport, but mostly transit-dependents, since significantly reducing the travel time of those living east of the Innerbelt but working in western areas of St. Louis County (Hazelwood, Earth City, Maryland Heights, St. Ann, Creve Coeur, Town and Country, Chesterfield).
But to add to these strong technical reasons, Daniel Boone has very strong political support. With the state of Missouri contributing virtually nothing to Metro's operations, Metro depends entirely on local sales taxes from the City and County, which makes the County the primary supporter of Metro. As such, Daniel Boone is seen as a top political priority in order for County voters to back the necessary tax increase. However, City voters would be wise to realize that Daniel Boone, despite being a short extension entirely in the County, would do more than any other extension planned, to increase the number of jobs and services accessible by transit within a 60-minute-or-less commute.
Looks like they started doing the Shrewsbury line beta test this weekend.
I had to go into work this Saturday and parked (as usual) at Delmar and rode the train in. It was unusually full for an early Saturday; almost weekday rush-hour full with people heading to Scott.
When I left work mid afternoon as I walked to the station a train was there with the sign "Forest Park". Hadn't seen that before.
I couldn't catch it in time but only had to wait a few minutes before a train saying "Airport Main" pulled in (once again fuller than usual). When we pulled into the Forest Park station I would say there was a good 50+ waited on the platform waiting to continue north and west to the airport.
I can only assume these people had gotten off the train that was going to continue empty along the cross-county extension. Took a little longer to get everyone on as the train was already pretty full. Some people were grumbling about being "forced" off the train at Forest Park. One man said he couldn't understand why they were forced off the train. I should have chimed in but didn't say anything.
The ride to/from work the last week of August could be interesting.
BTW: does anyone know when the Park and Ride lot at Forest Park will be open?
trent wrote:Driving out to my parents house (shrewsbury), I saw the MetroLink crossing over 44 and my heart skipped a beat.
^Just reading that made my heart skip a beat. "Metrolink crossing over 44" .....can't wait to see it in real life. Or better yet, see 44 as a passenger on Metrolink.
TheWayoftheArch wrote:I saw it running down FPP and in Clayton.
From the Metro Website:
Alert: MetroLink begins simulated Shrewsbury service between JJK and Forest Park Wed., 8/16/06
Details: There will be additional service on MetroLink between JJK and Forest Park Stations beginning August 15, 2006 to simulate Shrewsbury branch service. Customers are welcome to ride these additional trains between JJK and Forest Park Stations.
