urbanSTL

No, CWE, St. Louis' Metro does not compare favorably to DC's, but then again, we don't have the deep pockets and the, uh, power of persuasion the federal government has. And, as Expat pointed out, the system evolved over time. Realisticly, we're a mid-sized Midwestern rust belt city looking forward to a better future. I think our Metro has done a damn good job providing us with a light rail system in light of the circumstances. But, in a sense, your criticism is good. It keeps people on their toes, and encourages us to strive for excellence.



I'm reminded of a thread I read on another city's forum about the new ballpark a few months ago. Someone had seen a game there, and said something like "downtown ballparks are bogus--St. Louis just built one, and there's like no bars or activity down there." That's partly true, I thought, but it JUST FREAKIN' OPENED. Patience is a virtue.

Doug wrote:How is the system not useful?



Please tell me how 140,000k Bi-State riders must be wasting their time and not getting to where they need to go????



Where should this expansion have gone Mr. Planner?

There is no way he can answer that question better than Metro who did YEARS of reasearch before they built the new line. I'm sure he'll post some more unsupported opinion on when the new line should be however.

Doug wrote:How is the system not useful?



Please tell me how 140,000k Bi-State riders must be wasting their time and not getting to where they need to go????



Where should this expansion have gone Mr. Planner?

Look - it should be 140,000 and ONE riders (me).



I'm just writing out the factors that make me not a rider...



The Bus system is different from the Rail system and should be thought of seperately in terms of administration.



There are VERY GOOD examples of excellent rail system administration. We should copy them to the extent possible.

Well, I'll give CWE this. I've always been a little frustrated too with the placement of some of the stations on the main line. I always thought that, after Union Station, it should have gone underground and north to Lindell, with underground stations at Grand, Newstead, Euclid, DeBaliviere, and Skinker, thence up to Delmar somewhere around Blueberry Hill, and then out to. . . wherever. I thought that would have been so cool, and more practical.



But really, the stops aren't all that bad. Grand is something of a disaster. Although it is centrally located between SLU's med and main campus, and allows a place for a lot of people to catch the bus. Now that I actually ride Metro daily--thanks to the new extension, cough, cough--I've realized that the CWE stop is arguably the most heavily used. A LOT of BJC and Wash U med students use that stop. And the walk to Lindell isn't that bad, and will get even better as the southern half of Euclid sees ever more attention. And, wow, the Delmar station--who would have seen that coming in 1993? Went from a long, scary walk to the Loop, to now being basically in it. Just a few thoughts anyway.

cwe63108 wrote:
I want to have an excellent public transit system in St. Loius and would be more than happy to ride along with someone to either have them point out to me features that I would not have known about or for me to show them problems I percieve on the system.



And you're right. REALISTICALLY we're going to have a third rate system; that's just who and where we are.



This is St. Louis. What do you expect?



Right?

And there we go. Good job completely throwing logic out of the window and conceding the debate.

steve wrote:Well, I'll give CWE this. I've always been a little frustrated too with the placement of some of the stations on the main line. I always thought that, after Union Station, it should have gone underground and north to Lindell, with underground stations at Grand, Newstead, Euclid, DeBaliviere, and Skinker, thence up to Delmar somewhere around Blueberry Hill, and then out to. . . wherever. I thought that would have been so cool, and more practical.



But really, the stops aren't all that bad. Grand is something of a disaster. Although it is centrally located between SLU's med and main campus, and allows a place for a lot of people to catch the bus. Now that I actually ride Metro daily--thanks to the new extension, cough, cough--I've realized that the CWE stop is arguably the most heavily used. A LOT of BJC and Wash U med students use that stop. And the walk to Lindell isn't that bad, and will get even better as the southern half of Euclid sees ever more attention. And, wow, the Delmar station--who would have seen that coming in 1993? Went from a long, scary walk to the Loop, to now being basically in it. Just a few thoughts anyway.

I too am amazed at the number of people who get on and off the CWE station: most wearing badges for Barnes, Jewish or Childrens hosptials. I'm suprised since there's so many parking garages that parking would be an issue there.



And the walk to the rest of the CWE restaurants/bars is not that bad.

cwe63108 wrote:It's a bit of sarcasm but not by much.



That's essentially what everyone else is saying on this board.



About how developers dont know. How localities done care.



It's all true. No doubt. But why defend it? Why not call it for it is - a really crummy system that most people in St. Louis usually dont use?



It CAN be much more useful. It SHOULD be much more useful. It ISNT.



Metro really doesnt have 20 years. They dont have that kind of time to sit around to wait for developement to happen.



The real estate market has gone bust - developement is going to take a LONG time to happen unless it's already in the pipeline (the new Condos on Hanley, the Opus tower); there isnt real appetite for anything besides retail developement. And there's worrying indications that retail too is close to topping out.



So. Here are my questions -



1. Why do I walk half a mile to go to Dierbergs?



2. Why can I not walk to Walmart from a MetroLink stop?



3. Why does Metro think that Smart Cards are "new"?

Sigh...

1. That question has been answered pages ago, I won't answer it again. An issue with Dierbergs not wanting to have easy acces to Metro due to park and ride issues is a major part of it.

2. Since when is any Walmart ever been transit oriented?

3. They don't think they're new, they are however new to STL. STL is behind the cure on a lot of things and we are working hard to change that.



Like steve, I've lost patience with you as well. All you are doing is complaing about the same issues, that aren't even primarily Metro's fault, over and over again. "Why can't STL just all work together and make transit viable?" Easier said than done cwe61308. Take your incessant whining to your blog. It has no place here.

As today's talk doesn't deserve anything more that a quick blurb...



Atlanta's Breeze card is costing MARTA $200 million to implement! And really, how hard is it to stick $2 into the machine for a ticket (fare skipping arguments prohibited).



And we've now had 2 pages of lopsided debate because one person is upset that neither Dierberg's nor Walmart wants their money and is afraid of the boogieman.

Doug wrote:CWE you are a douchebag.



Please move to DC because you have nothing but criticism and no solutions.



Your mom really shouldn't let you use a computer.

LOL. Not quite how I would have phrased it, but the spirit of your post is correct.

Ron Burgundy: Boy, that escalated quickly... I mean, that really got out of hand fast.

Champ Kind: It jumped up a notch.

Ron Burgundy: It did, didn't it?

Brick Tamland: Yeah, I stabbed a man in the heart.

Ron Burgundy: I saw that. Brick killed a guy. Did you throw a trident?

Brick Tamland: Yeah, there were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident.

Ron Burgundy: Brick, I've been meaning to talk to you about that. You should find yourself a safehouse or a relative close by. Lay low for a while, because you're probably wanted for murder.

I don't know why, but this quote reminded me of the last few pages of this thread.

Not to be the peacemaker but if these rants or similar discussions are going to continue can you guys private message each other. I'm waiting on more facts and neat information from Busdad as I ponder about the 1971 Rapid Transit studies that suggested 100miles of subway for the

St. Louis region as a first phase.



Gosh, we had some visionaries then didn't we who exhaustively researched all possible lines?



Busdad,

Can you write about how the Rapid Transit studies are used or

reflected on in Metro? I'd love to hear the history or possibilities

surrounding those lines, maybe future extensions will mirror them?



Can you shed light on the political, government layers, and citizen

organizational interactions that took place to make the

Shrewsberry line possible because I want to be an informed

citizen so that I can make the case for Metro to my family,

friends, and aquaintances such as the tubular people I meet at the

National APA conferences where we really learn the news of

other cities and regions.



Sorry for the length of questioning, but educate us for we desire knowledge.

SMS, the 1971 "Plan" (feasibilty study) for a Rapid Transit System very much mirrors the System Plan in place today for recent and future MetroLink expansion.



In 1971, there were seven lines proposed. Today, there are 3 lines (functioning as 2 overlapping lines) built, with another 8 new lines (resulting system, including existing pieces, could operate as only 6 lines) still proposed for the long-term future. To learn more about the system plan guiding MetroLink planning, visit E-W Gateway's website on planning MetroLink. Unfortunately, the 1971 study is not available electronically or on-line.



Here's my attempt to match up 1971 rapid transit corridors proposed with today's existing MetroLink lines and planned corridors.



Original MetroLink from Lambert to East St. Louis: Two 1971 corridors went from Downtown to Lambert. The one most mirroring today's line followed the central corridor to Clayton then along "Metro North" (along I-170, see Cross County below) to the airport. The other went via North City.



St. Clair Extension to Shiloh-Scott: One 1971 corridor followed State Street to only Fairview Heights.



Cross County Extension: One 1971 corridor went between Downtown and Clayton, another 1971 corridor running from Florissant to Affton (via Lambert and Clayton) parallels much of today's line, where between Clayton and I-44. The name "Cross County" actually comes from the larger corridor studied from Florissant to Mehlville, or North County to South County. The leftover sections north of Clayton and south of Shrewsbury, are respectively called "Metro North" and "Metro South" today in MetroLink planning.



St. Charles: The 1971 study didn't go to St. Charles, but a corridor via Lambert did go to Bridgeton. Back then, Lindbergh was at the edge of exurbia. Today, a St. Charles corridor is dead, following repeated defeats by voters, but lines were thoroughly studied in the 1990s. Today, the route to Earth City, Chesterfield and possibly still even St. Charles would more likely go through today's "Daniel Boone" corridor to Westport, for which there really was no comparison back when most people in the St. Louis region still lived within the 270 beltway (today it's more 50/50, despite being 20/80 in land area for the 8-county region, or even less if MSA).



Northside: The 1971 corridor in North City and County mostly followed Natural Bridge all the way to Bridgeton, passing UMSL and Lambert. Today's Northside study is evaluating a street-running line in wide Natural Bridge between North Florissant and Goodfellow.



Southside: The 1971 corridor in South City and County followed South Broadway to Cherokee to Gravois to Grant's Trail to Crestwood. Despite a 2000 study favoring a line along the Union Pacific Railroad zig-zagging across South City, today's Southside study is evaluating a street-running line on Gravois from Tucker to the UPRR, as well as a line on Jefferson to I-55.



Southwest: The 1971 study suggested commuter rail to Kirkwood. Today, the southwest corridor hasn't been studied beyond systems analysis for light rail or commuter rail feasibility, but today's corridor generally follows I-44 from the City to Fenton.



Madison: The 1971 corridor went from East St. Louis to Pontoon Road in Granite City via Route 3 and Madison Avenue. Today's consolidate Madison/Northeast corridor goes from East St. Louis to Alton or Edwardsville via Granite City and possibly Collinsville (only if going to Edwardsville). A recent feasibility study recommended a three-tiered approach: a minimim build from East St. Louis (branching off either at 5th/Missouri or Emerson Park) to Madison, a moderate build to either 270 (Granite/Route 3) or 255 (Pontoon Beach), or a maximum build to either Alton (via Route 3) or Edwardsville (via MCT's railbanked Nature Trail).

Just got this email from Dierbergs' PR person. They claim that the poor station access to their store is Metro's fault.

Thank you for your comments in regards to the new Metro Link line. Dierbergs is pleased that Metro Link decided to put a stop near Brentwood Pointe, however the Brentwood/I-64 stop was designed without input from Dierbergs. Their station was designed to drop off/pick up riders from the east side of the tracks. They are in the process of building a parking garage on the east side which will accommodate approximately 800 vehicles. The west side of the tracks near our development was apparently a secondary consideration. Metro Link decided on their own to install a sidewalk along the west side retaining wall that leads pedestrians to the rear of our center. It is our opinion that there is insufficient distance between the tracks and the front of our development to allow for a staircase, even if funding were available.



We would recommend that any suggested changes to access be directed to Metro Link. Thank you again for your interest in Dierbergs and public transportation.



Joan R. Brown

Dierbergs Customer Relations

So what option is he saying Metro has? They're claiming that there's no room for a staircase . . . but suggestions should be passed to Metro? That's crap. Thank you Metro for deciding "on your own" that there should be a ramp on the west side - otherwise there would be no access at all!

^BS, it's not Metro's fault. But it's not Dierberg's fault either.



Dierberg's is a tenet within the Brentwood strip mall. Thus, it would be the owner of the commercial development, or the City of Brentwood, who would have the most say over access on private property and public streets not owned by Metro.



I imagine that all the retail tenants would like to have the best of both worlds-- easy auto AND transit access, through BOTH ample parking exclusively for patrons as well as an easier walk to the station. But it remains the fears of these tenants' LANDLORD, the developer/commercial owner, who did not want to make transit access easier. And given that both the station and the development fall within the same City of Brentwood, Dierberg's should be directing complaints to that community's City Hall, not Metro. Besides, if someone followed Dierberg's advice, they will just end up feeling run around, as they only sensible advice likely to be shared by Metro, would be to contact City of Brentwood.

My very own, personalized , response from Dierbergs:

Mr. Ihnen:



Thank you for your comments in regards to the new Metro Link line. Dierbergs is pleased that Metro Link decided to put a stop near Brentwood Pointe, however the Brentwood/I-64 stop was designed without input from Dierbergs. Their station was designed to drop off/pick up riders from the east side of the tracks. They are in the process of building a parking garage on the east side which will accommodate approximately 800 vehicles. The west side of the tracks near our development was apparently a secondary consideration. Metro Link decided on their own to install a sidewalk along the west side retaining wall that leads pedestrians to the rear of our center. It is our opinion that there is insufficient distance between the tracks and the front of our development to allow for a staircase, even if funding were available.



We would recommend that any suggested changes to access be directed to Metro Link. Thank you again for your interest in Dierbergs and public transportation.



Joan R. Brown

Dierbergs Customer Relations

I guess they're at least answering. Who would we contact at the city office for Brentwood?