urbanSTL

I personally think that the Brentwood I-64 station is located too far north; it should have been located 400-500 ft south of its current location, or at the very least with it's northern end on the southside of Dale. By fully utilizing both ends of the Metrolink station (something most stations fail to do), its influence could be as large as Best Buy and Dierberg's all the way to Hanley Station; alas, it only seems to go as far as Home Depot.



And as far as Maplewood Commons is concerned, if there were a station to be built on or near the Hanley overpass, I could easily imagine people complaining Walmart and Lowes being too far away to walk.

I think there is some confusion about who actually pays for and designs a public infrastructure project, like roads and transit lines.



You, me and other taxpayers all end up paying. Even if roads are paid out of a TIF/TDD, it's the taxes on your purchases helping foot the bill. In fact, a quarter-cent sales tax, though levied county-wide, is similar to a district-specific sales tax (TIF, TDD, etc.), so that both Prop-M-financed Cross County and TIF/TDD-financed South Hanley improvements are each paid for by sales taxes. So again, why couldn't Maplewood Commons pay for a MetroLink station? An economist would say that they're already paying for it, since also paying the same quarter-cent sales tax levied county-wide. But since potentially getting a targeted benefit back in a station, why not pay for such targeted benefit not received county-wide, out of a more district-specific source?



As for design, though largely under transit planners and engineers, you, me and our neighbors also had a hand in that too. It was residents and local businesses who wanted to limit, not expand the access to MetroLink stations. Unfortunately, while many, including most posters in this forum, value transit, there were numerous NIMBY's surrounding Cross County, from the residents south of the Clayton station to the commercial owners west of the Brentwood station, who actually feared having direct access. Would you rather Metro be a "big-brother" and just do whatever it wants to maximize transit, despite any community opposition?



But the best quote was "(THF) knows how to build roads. METRO should know how and where to build MetroLink stations." I find it interesting that a party independent of public works or a highway department, such as a commercial developer like THF, is assumed to have automatic intuition about accommodating the automobile, but a transit agency is entirely and solely responsible for rail transit's know-how. Well, evidently not, if you're complaining.



After all, just as we're all amateur traffic engineers for driving our well-known paths or amateur land use planners for living amidst development, so then we must also all be amateur transit planners, perhaps for just being pedestrians, even if such arm-chair critics have their excuses for never (or hardly ever) taking transit.

Sometimes we all fail to remember that rail investments (as well as highway investments) are long term investments as far as land use changes are considered.



The N. Hanley MetroLink Station has been in operation since 1993 and its has only recently become interesting to developers. The Express Scripts project, where the owners were very interested in the proximity of their building to a Metrolink Station, will be completed 14 years after Metrolink began operation. The developers of the huge project just north of N. Hanley and surrounding Springdale are only now talking with Metro regarding the possibility of access to our N. Hanley Station or the construction of a new Springdale Station. The developers say it will take another 15 years to fully built out their vision for the area north of the N. Hanley Station.



Interesting enough the developers of the Meridian, who are building Metro's parking garage at the Brentwood Garage, see the Metrolink Station as a tool to help them maximize their investment in the land surrounding the Station. They now have BJC's IT group in the office space adjacent to the Sports Authority and Best Buy. They have discussed constructing another office tower on adjacent surface parking if their current investments work out well. They want to put retail in the ground floor of the parking garage with the thought that it will work well with the commuter crowd using the Metrolink Station.



Richmond Heights would like to develop the Hadley Heights area. They dream about office development along Hanley Rd and some mixed use development down Dale Avenue. If this occurs, which will undoubtedly take many years, will the Brentwood Station location be so bad?



Think about the Richmond Heights Station. Sure the Galleria is just over 1/4 mile from the Station. If you were using the CTA in Chicago or even the MTA in New York, you wouldn't complain about walking a 1/4 mile from a rail station. Today we have the developing Boulevard of Richmond Heights which become a very attractive mixed use development.Its going to be expanded as well and this development is certainly a very short walk. Many people shopping at the Galleriia are already walking across Brentwood Boulevard frm the Galleria to shop because they don't want to move their car to drive across the street.



But think of the futureof this station. Today we have a bowling alley just east of the Station. There is no pedestrian access, but I would anticipate that the land housing the bowling alley will at some point become very attractive to a much more intensive development. If this happens, I guarantee that the developer will want Metro Link pedestrian access to the Richmond Heights Station which will open up the land between the bowling alley and Clayton Rd.



So will the Richmond Heights Station be so poorly located then?



There are other examples of long term development changes that are hard to envision now. Today, the Metrobus Center at the the CWE is located 500 feet east of the center of the CWE rail station. While I would have preferred the parcels immediately to the west of the Wash U parking garage, Wash U said that Metro needs to look more into the future when the the center of gravity of this CWE employment base will shift east. The hospital will remain on the west, but much of the future research investments for Wash U will occur to the east of the Station. We are already seeing this occur. It is amazing how many people who work in this area are walking east to Taylor and even Newstead for jobs and a major new building is under construction.



I don't think we are going to see the full ridership or the development effect of the Shrewsbury line for many years. That's why the ridership estimates are always 20 years into the furture. We are just now starting to see substantial growth in the ridership on the Illinois alignment.



Most of St. Louis's local developers are surburban strip mall developers. They do the safe thing that they have done in the past to make money. Build big boxes with a lot of parking in front. No one believes that building sidewalks from neighborhoods and rail stations will bring profits. Its unlikely to change until some of the businesses see they will make money because of their relationship to a rail station. I truly believe that Dierbergs will eventually ask Metro about providing a more convenient entrance. If you watch this station today, you will see people walking over to Dierbergs and walking back with bags of stuff. At some point this will be noticed.





I believe that the visions advocated by many participants in this forum must be promoted in public settings as much as possible. Without someone advocating a new vision its not going to happen. However, we have just added a significant new addition to our public transit system. We aren't going to change these stations and the angst expressed about all the lost opportunities may be wasted energy. Self criticism is helpful if it improves our planning for future additions.



Southsliders insights on the history and reasons for Metro Links alignment and station locations are right on the money. The only point I would add is that all of these decisions often come down to the art of the possible. East West Gateway or Metro can argue all they want for the "perfect location" for a station based upon planning principles. But ultimately you have a budget and have political reality and have to move forward for the best you can achieve. What I am not sure of is whether we can really determine if the current station locations are so bad since we don't have the ability to see today what's going to happen over a 20 year period.

STLgasm wrote:Just by reading the sensible, thought-provoking posts in this thread, it is clear to me that the St. Louis city planning department is in dire need of help. It's obvious that the participants of this forum are more visionary than most in positions of power.

How much power does the planning department in St. Louis City actually have to get their visions become reality? Is the problem that we lack visionary people in our planning department or that their visions are held back by other political forces?

I'm a little confused by your post cwe63108. Are you upset with Metro for the station access or with the property owners? Metro can't knock down Tropicana's or Dierberg's fences and put in a pathway. I think at this point most of the retailers are very nervous about commuters parking in their lots. At the Dierbergs lot there are signs everywhere saying anyone parking over 3 hours will be towed. There wouldn't a connection on the Dierbergs side at all if they had their way. The current walkway is on Brentwood owned land, not Dierbergs owned land. The issue with better pedestrian access for retailers comes down too: Is it more beneficial to make it easier for transit users to get to their stores, or is it more beneficial to make it difficult for commuters to park in their lots and walk to the train. At this point given the lack of retail centers on the initial line, most retailers (Meridian excepted) decided that they wanted to insure their free parking was used by their customers and not by commuters. I too believe that eventually the retailers will open up and realize that many of their shoppers are arriving by train. I often go to the Dierberg's in Brentwood for lunch and I see people walking too and from the station all the time. The individual municipalities need to step up as well to fully take advantage of the Metro stations. It wouldn't take a lot for Richmond Heights to make the walk along Galleria Parkway more pedestrian friendly. And in Brentwood in Hanley Industrial Ct there aren't even sidewalks. I walk to Dierbergs sometimes and you either walk in the grass or you walk in the street. I think Metro's implementation has hardly been inept. I wouldn't even call the retailers’ response inept. They made a decision to favor drivers, and I'm sure that makes a large percentage of their customers, it will just take time for them to realize the benefit of being on the Metro Line. I would like the station connections to be perfect as well, but it's probably going to take time. Look at the Kiel/Savvis/Scottrade Center station. Initially people just walked up the grassy hill, making a bare dirt path. but eventually a paved walkway was put in in response.

cwe63108: I don't understand the statement about the stations not being secure. Are you wanting 3 or more full-time armed police officers on duty 24/7 at every station?



They have the security guards at each station along with cops riding the trains. Three times this week I've ridden the train with fully armed on-duty city cops, county cops or the new red-shirt Metro cops. What more do you want?



I get the feeling cwe63108 wants a Cadillac for the price of a Chevy.



BTW:

use this link to send comments to Dierbergs about their Brentwood location turning it's back on Metrolink.

http://www.dierbergs.com/dierbergs.com/ ... s+Form.htm

dweebe wrote:I get the feeling cwe63108 wants a Cadillac for the price of a Chevy.

Exactally my sentiments. His posts are coming off as an uninformed someone just wanting to complain and blame Metro for every tiny fault in the system. From Metro's rebuttals posted here, it is clear to any reasonable person that Metro has one everything in its power to make Cross County Extension great.



Cross County Extension has launched without a hitch and I for one want to applaud Metro for a job well done.

cwe63108 wrote:


Would this have ever been an issue in a system that took itself seriously?

Come one. Do you really think Metro does not take Metrolink seriously?



I'd love it, like you, if the system on opening day were 100% integrated into the surrounding areas, but real world situations do not always work that way. Look at the Portland Max, a system most people praise as a model for the rest of the country. One of it's notable developments The Beaverton Round, a benchmark development in the integration of a station with the surrounding area, was not completed until many years after the line actually opened. I think it is just going to take time for the attitudes of the city as whole to change to accept transit as a viable option.

mcarril wrote: I think it is just going to take time for the attitudes of the city as whole to change to accept transit as a viable option.

Exactly.

going out of town to the airport... taking the link... anyone know how much it costs to park at the clayton garage per day..? or more specifically fri-sunday?

cwe63108 wrote: I dont see why anyone is defending such a hard to use, half- hearted system that we spent 700 million bucks on...

Hard to use? That's a stretch.



Half-hearted? I don't know, maybe.



Why are we defending it? Because it's pretty bad*ss, esepcially in light of the considerable obstacles Metro has overcome to see this the Link come to fruition. I'm pretty proud of what we have. KC and Cinci don't even have anything like it--and yes, I realize that that fact alone should not excuse mediocrity, but it is better than the alternative.

If you cant use a two line system, perhaps you should be on the short bus instead of the metro. Sorry.

We do run short trains!

cwe63108 wrote:Steve -

What other rail systems have you ridden?

Metro in DC, NYC's subway, the Tube, and Paris'.



Satisfied? Am I "competent" enough, in your eyes, to contribute to this conversation?



I realize that Metro isn't perfect. My point is, we have a pretty good system for this city--and I'm convinced that it will only get better. Maybe I'm just a fool.

I praise Metro and the Southside line and hope that CWE63108 may come to understand all the complexities of effective government, citizen involvement, and public-private relationships.



This was an amazing web of constraints, organizational overlap, and interactions that took place to make the Shrewberry line more than feasible but built. Planning is long run and the supply of the transportation route needs to create its own demand for urban development along with citizens clamoring for urban design along with the governmental process allowing for these citizen concerns to be heard and their representatives respond.



1. You can make a difference first and foremost by writing city council representatives > they need awareness of the issues