urbanSTL

Jeff707 wrote:Trust me, the couple thousand dollars it would take is nothing compared to their other expenses.

Billboards and full-page P-D ads are probably a bit more than a "couple thousand dollars". And there's still the issue of the image that portrays. I still think it's the job of CMT, even though their mission statement is more focused on Metrolink, they acknowledge the integrated system as being important.



Metro's information is quite accessible without marginally expensive full-page PD ads ; the one thing they need to do IMO is have each bus carry its own schedules -- e.g. make sure the #10 has #10 schedules, and not #32 or #11 or whatever. And add signs to the new metrolink stations

I think what this says is that people are apathetic or indifferent about Metro. Look, there's no way Metro could educate every single St. Louisan about where the link goes. People are aware that Metro exists, there has been significant media hype, and yes, they do advertise, albeit not like Pepsi. My point is that at some point people are just going to have to do a little digging for themselves. Metro does have a website, and anyone can access the internet these days through the library.



It probably wouldn't make a difference anyway. Hell, people's sense of geography is just plain poor. Most people live in their own bubble world, aware of only the path to school, work, home, and shopping. We're all aware of the fact that, to a lot of people, the entire city is "downtown."



Blaming this on Metro is just bs.

Billboards and full-page P-D ads are probably a bit more than a "couple thousand dollars". And there's still the issue of the image that portrays. I still think it's the job of CMT, even though their mission statement is more focused on Metrolink, they acknowledge the integrated system as being important.



Metro's information is quite accessible without marginally expensive full-page PD ads ; the one thing they need to do IMO is have each bus carry its own schedules -- e.g. make sure the #10 has #10 schedules, and not #32 or #11 or whatever. And add signs to the new metrolink stations Smile

CMT is a not for profit advocacy group. There's no way they could ever afford any sort of advertising or pr campaign.



Advertising locally is not very expensive. I would estimate a budget of $1M to $2M per quarter Metro could execute well-planned advertisign and PR campaign and generate a good return.



I think they should target people that live within 1 mile of their alignment through posters, billboards, SIGNAGE (duh), reaching out major employers and offering their employees discounts on transit, advertising in the local free suburban journal, west end word, ect. This would be a small investment which over time would really boost ticket sales and increase revenue.



I think radio advertising is a good idea because its cheap, hits people when they are in their car and thinking about transportation. It also spreads the word around the region. However, people in St. Charles really don't need to know about metrolink UNTIL a propsition is about to go on the ballot. Then they should blast the airwaves with radio.



It would be great if the local NPR or tv news did a story following someone who's recently switched to public transportation and what they like/dislike about it.

Bizarre. The advocacy group shouldn't be the advocate?



I personally feel that Metro would not be a good steward of my tax and fare money if they spent eight million dollars a year on billboards and colorful ads.

212 wrote:It would be great if the local NPR or tv news did a story following someone who's recently switched to public transportation and what they like/dislike about it.

I agree.



Does anyone know someone at KWMU? Or KETC?



Hopefully they're ahead of us and are working on it already.

212 wrote:I think radio advertising is a good idea because its cheap, hits people when they are in their car and thinking about transportation. It also spreads the word around the region.

I ask people why they dont use the MetroLink system



Here a question:



Do you really think that Metro's problem is the lack of people knowing about it?

Busdad wrote:With adequate funding we could have done a lot of things.

What would this have meant, besides the two car/three car difference?



Also - how much of the new projects flaws can be attributed to lack of adequate funding?



Was the system really "meant" to be a 'world class' system, or was it meant to be something like what it is?

As soon as "normal" (rich) people will ride the train in comfort and ease; that is the day when we will see major impacts of transit on land values.



For now; I dont see it. I wont hold my breath for it either.



I don't understand this logic at all. I think people from many different backgrounds ride the Metro. I've seen plenty of yuppies park and ride at Delmar to go downtown. No, we're not New York where almost EVERYONE rides it, but I would say there's a good cross section of society that rides it. Now, the CEO living in Ladue, probably isn't going to ride it because he wouldn't take mass transit, no matter what city he resided in.



Metro is a good, successful system that has a lot more riders than they originally anticipated. I swear, I think St. Louisan's B**** more than any other city i've been to. It's almost like they WANT things to fail. In this particular case they want to see the new METRO line/ system fail, even though all evidence points to the contrary.

My mother is taking Amtrak to Chicago. In the past when using Amtrak, she always had someone drive her downtown or took a cab. This time she is taking Metrolink and will catch it at the Hanley Station in Clayton. Her sister and her sister's neighbor, will ride downtown with her to make sure she catches her train. If you see three little old ladies boarding Metrolink in Clayton, be nice, one of them might be my mother.



I didn't prompt her to use the Shrewsbury line. This is entirely her idea. Actually, it my aunt's idea. Since the Shrewsbury line opened up a couple of blocks from her house, she is buying monthly passes. She told me that they used to take streetcars and it is as if they have been waiting 40 years for them to come back.



The point is, provide St. Louisians with a train and they will use it. We need more lines into more residential neighborhoods ASAP.

I owned a condo just two blocks from the new Skinker Metrolink Station and recently sold it for more than three times what I paid for it seven years ago. Metrolink wasn't solely responsible for that increase, but I believe it helped.



I now live in a loft downtown and work in the building right next to it. Although I have underground parking, I've sold my car and rely on Metrolink and my bicycle for transportation. The new Shrewsbury line enables me to reach downtown Clayton, Galleria, Best Buy, Dierberg's, Home Depot, Sam's, Lowe's and many more places I either couldn't reach before or took one or more bus transfers to reach. I'm loving it and to be very honest, I don't miss owning a car.



Those that believe you can't get along without a vehicle in St. Louis are wrong. The problem is that they are unwilling to put themselves in a position to be able to do it. When you're fighting Highway 40 traffic during construction for the next three to ten years, think of me walking out of one door and into the next to get to work and I also can go home for lunch if I choose.



I'm not wealthy, but I am an attorney and draw a good salary. There are many professional like me that ride Metrolink daily and I believe the new Shrewsbury extension will attract many more people like me that will find it a convenient way to get around the metropolitan area.

Can the statements above be an ad for METRO? Do they ever do commercials? Maybe print?

STLgasm wrote:Why don't the new stations have a big "M" so people know that it's a Metro station??? What is taking so long?

Plus a lot of the stations I've been to still have the old maps hanging. They also still say WESTBOUND LAMBERT MAIN and nothing about Shrewsbury.

dweebe wrote:

STLgasm wrote:Why don't the new stations have a big "M" so people know that it's a Metro station??? What is taking so long?

Plus a lot of the stations I've been to still have the old maps hanging. They also still say WESTBOUND LAMBERT MAIN and nothing about Shrewsbury.

Additionally: all the eastbound signs at the stations say "COLLEGE" as the end of line when "SHILOH/SCOTT" is truly the end.

dweebe wrote:

dweebe wrote:

STLgasm wrote:Why don't the new stations have a big "M" so people know that it's a Metro station??? What is taking so long?

Plus a lot of the stations I've been to still have the old maps hanging. They also still say WESTBOUND LAMBERT MAIN and nothing about Shrewsbury.

Additionally: all the eastbound signs at the stations say "COLLEGE" as the end of line when "SHILOH/SCOTT" is truly the end.

But, strictly speaking, the terminus of the "Shrewsbury line" is College.

Transit planners placed stations based on surrounding activities, physical feasibility, street connections and community input. Since the route was finalized in the late 1990s, long before Maplewood Commons was even planned, local elected leaders and land use planners have since continued to fail in seeking more pedestrian-oriented development and walkable connections within their communities. After all, it's each municipality, not Metro, that has more say on land development.



The Clayton station is on the edge of the business district, instead of its center, because the City of Clayton long ago rejected plans for MetroLink within Carondelet Avenue instead of along Forest Park Parkway. And it was Clayton's leaders who ultimately decided to not have access to the station from the west (Brentwood) or south (residential areas) but only the north (single elevated walkway to Central). Operationally, trains in an exclusive median on the parkway can now run faster than those that would have been street-running in reserved lanes on Carondelet. However, many riders will use up that travel savings on the train walking an added two blocks uphill. And obviously, grade-separated systems cost significantly more to build.



The Richmond Heights station is a hike from the Galleria because the cost of running down Brentwood, an option previously evaluated by transit planners, didn't warrant the extra cost to only get two blocks closer than existing right-of-way, where the station was built. It's now up to the City of Richmond Heights, MODOT, and County Highways to help make the pedestrian link along Galleria Parkway more walkable.



The Brentwood station is where it is to provide a park'n'ride station for I-64 (or Highway 40) commuters. The station can serve much of the area's adjacent retail, and many WashU students are crossing the parking lots, but it's not transit planners who approved auto-oriented strip malls. The City of Brentwood, not Metro, has more control over Dierberg's limiting access to the west. The City of Brentwood could also work to get a pedestrian easement behind Home Depot to connect the future "Hanley Station" development to the Brentwood MetroLink station. Metro even left room for a possible future Hanley station at Strassner that would then serve MLP's development as well as Maplewood Commons, but it is only a third of a mile, or ten-minute walk, to the existing station. East of Hanley, Richmond Heights could learn from the mistakes of Maplewood Commons and seek denser, mixed use development, but instead is learning only that Maplewood is now richer in sales taxes, and thus seeking to level Hadley Heights for more of the asphalt-paved same.



The Maplewood station should ideally be closer to downtown Maplewood, but again the existing right-of-way (former railroad) was west of Big Bend, not east. Fortunately, City of Maplewood has already planned improved sidewalks and lighting between Big Bend and the new station. With the future completion of a bus loop at the Manchester station, Maplewood will gain the former Sutton loop as an area for its business district's southern expansion. Now, if only the Maplewood business district could expand or see comparable zero-lot-line infill to the west, making that land use connection to MetroLink.



The Sunnen station serves very little now, but the area is largely landbanked by its namesake. Hopefully, someday the area, including nearby mostly vacant strip mall and grayfield Deer Creek, will be future large site TODs.



The Shrewsbury station is admittedly an odd location, but it's where the railroad right-of-way crossed I-44. Transit planners searched for a park'n'ride location for I-44 commuters and nearby residents. Though sandwiched between the BNSF railroad and River Des Peres, such isolation also eased its approval by an otherwise largely single-family area both to the east (in the City) and west (County). Stopping short of Chippewa/Watson was done to have less mileage as planners wanted to get just over 44. In the end, greater property acquisition north of Lansdowne was likely easier than along Chippewa/Watson for a major park'n'ride. Although the connections to/from I-44 are rather poor today, MODOT has planned a new full-access interchange that will link River Des Peres Parkway and Big Bend with a new four-lane parkway. Although such roadway will improve the connection from I-44 to the station's park'n'ride lot, it will also improve the driving time to Clayton, when the travel time from Shrewsbury to Clayton (unlike I-44's travel to Downtown) competes well with current roadway options (I-170 never to be extended south).

Unify city/county planning NOW!

But how were transit planners to plan for a station to serve a development like Maplewood Commons that itself wasn't even yet planned? Remember that back in the late 1990s, where Maplewood Commons now is, was then just block after block of stable, attractive, single-family homes. Even Maplewood's comprehensive plan previously called for the area to remain a low-density residential neighborhood.



Thus, Cross County was planned before Maplewood got the idea to have a floating RFP for commercial redevelopment, or opening up the entire city for redevelopment proposals. Of course, commercial developers would pick the corner of the city closest to 40 and Hanley, even though the vast majority of homes under the huge, desired footprint were not even close to being blighted. The average assessed value of homes once standing where Maplewood Commons now is were actually higher than those being targeted by Richmond Heights in the Hadley Heights area, but neither Mid-County area ever came close to being half as blighted as McRee Town.



Besides, the same two buses that connect the Galleria with the Richmond Heights station for those not inclined to walk (though the same distance as the interior length of the mall) also connect Maplewood Commons with the Brentwood I-64 station. Ironically then, if you can't walk what auto-catering land use planners have permitted, you can still always take the buses transit planners have routed.

I agree with the exception of the Galleria. With it's close proximity to the new Boulevard STL development I do not see a problem. It bogles my mind how people drive around a mall parking lot for 20 minutes trying to find the closest parking spot (or in this case, don't want to walk a few extra blocks) and then once inside the mall walk for hours on end. Personally I park in the first space I see, no matter how far it is. It's much quicker that way. If anyone has any idea of why this is please explain it to me, and don't include bad weather, thats a given.

Poor Metro. It's not in an enviable position. It seems that no matter what it does, people will find some reason to knock it.



St. Louis is kind of an awkward city from a transit perspective. Not dense enough for a true subway system, but too dense to rely soley on the auto (which is something we wouldn't want anyway). The "core" of the metro really isn't centrally located, in terms of population. It's also in an awkward phase, where the city and more urban locations are becoming more popular. Even though we on this board are convinced that the city and urbanity are back, I get the feeling that most St. Louisans are taking a "wait and see" approach.



So what to do if you're a Metro planner? Go all subway/dedicated-rights-of-way, and you have people complaing it costs too much. Still others will complain that bus services are cut to fund the costly trains. Still others will say that, hey, this is St. Louis, not Manhattan, we'd like to use the train but where are we to park our cars? If you make concessions for the auto, then another segment will complain that the stations are "too far" from the important places. And then there are funding issues to consider. And politicians, nimbys, nay-sayers, and opportunists. There's the future to consider as well. Should Metro consider itself part of an "urban revolution" and use its position to encourage future urban development? Or should it see itself more as an agency for getting the most people from point A to point B in the most efficient manner as humanly possible.



I guess I could go on and on here. But my point is, it's easy to complain. Not so easy to actually do.

"cwe63108," I was making a joke about the difference between land use planners and transit planners. Professionally, I was more trained as the former, but now work more as the latter, so believe me--- I know and deal regularly with the spatial and policy disconnect.



My point is that your criticism has the wrong target. You can't exactly pick up and move a completed MetroLink alignment (at least not without spending millions more). However, you can now ask communities along MetroLink to make better land use and even public works decisions. Along with land use planning of more pedestrian-oriented development, local public works should concern better sidewalks, lighting, streets and intersections. The vast majority of Metro bus stops fail to meet stringent ADA requirements because these municipally maintained sidewalks are largely inaccessible. If only cities ignored their streets like their sidewalks, can you imagine the public outcry?



MetroLink was indeed tweaked post-planning. The alignment at Strassner changed from at-grade in 1999 plans to elevated as built, as requested by the City of Brentwood. However, such request, among other design changes, also added to the cost of this infamously expensive project. To have built a station over South Hanley or over Strassner would have also added to the project cost. Brentwood I-64 will soon have a parking garage and bus transfer center, which neither a "Strassner" nor a "South Hanley" station (theoretical names based on cross-street) might have had the land to accommodate. The Maplewood-Manchester will also have a bus transfer center in the future. Acquisition of added land for park'n'ride and bus interfaces cost money. Fortunately, in the case of Brentwood and Maplewood, the former is a public-private partnership, while the latter was funded by state tax credits, for which the city qualified.



Despite added costs, the alignment built was engineered to allow room for a future Strassner station at the request of City of Brentwood, pressured by the "Hanley Station" (name of development, not MetroLink station) developer. But since Maplewood Commons paid for South Hanley improvements (widening, new intersections, etc.), isn't it fair to ask why didn't the developer of Maplewood Commons offer to pay for a MetroLink station? Metro has a hard time convincing private developments separated from the streets by large parking lots to even allow bus stops on their property. In addition to the failures of land use planning and public works thinking of cars first and foremost, you can bet that developers, such as those behind Maplewood Commons, think first and foremost of only their auto-bound patrons.