urbanSTL

^Brentwood's Planning and Development office would be a start.

southslider wrote:^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.

But as I understand it the plaza is owned by Dierbergs or some part of their family. Much like many Schucks are in Desco run plazas (same family) and WalMarts are in THF run plazas (same family).

^Well if part owner, Dierberg's should have more say. Yet if only a tenant, you think being THE anchor of a development would still give them say.



Whether or not Dierberg's has much say, however, I still think the City of Brentwood is in the best position to at least negotiate improved access, if not actually implement it themselves.

Thanks Southslider for sharing about the 1971 routes.



Finding this document at the planning library in St. Charles County was one of the highlights of my summer and that St. Charles County applied to the Federal government in the 1960s for mass transit or commuter rail.



How's that for progressive?



urban transportation Act of 1964 (not sure of the accurate name, but it was 1964 for the Act)



Can you talk about more about the population, land ratio, and job divisions?



You mentioned the land ratio as 20/80 (inside 270/outside 270) and population as 50/50; but what about jobs? It is obvious for anyone to point out the job centers, but to measure the aggregate is more difficult or the aggregate of traffic routes. The 1971 Study had a neat diagram of major traffic that branched out from St. Louis City along highways or major arterials into St. Louis County. It was repreented graphically as long bars (think of the Empire State Building with a base, middle section, and spire) that were thickest closest to the City and thinned out the farther into the County they stretched.

SMS, the land area is important because of density, which is what makes transit work. But adding your point about jobs, it's true that inside the beltway (270/255) is much more an employment center than population center. Looking at the density of jobs, jobs inside the beltway are ten times as dense on average as areas outside the beltway (9,256 jobs per square mile vs. 931 jobs/sq mi), when the population density is only about 2.5 times as dense (4,421 persons/sq mi vs. 1,683 persons/sq mi).

I will obtain the details of the original discussions with Dierbergs.



However, I am aware that Metro discussed alternative ramping and stairway idea to get to a more central location vis a vis the Dierbergs development future. However, at the time of the design, Dierbergs did not want any entrance. Metro just installed the walkway to allow people access to the Hanley Industrial Court area.



The grassy strip and roadway were developed by a TIF development district that includes representatives of Brentwood and Dierbergs. I read over the legal description of this district. At present the City of Brentwood is responsible for the roadway and grassy strip.



Because of that agreement, I called the Brentwood City Manager, who has been very helpful to see if they would be willing to pave the opening in the fence. Metro built the ramp, but did not pave or provide a curb cut to the street. At my request about three months ago, the City Manager agreed to install the curb cut and concrete to the street. I thought a hole in the fence leading a grassy strip to the street would be much worse than what we have today.



As soon as the ground was dug out to put in the concrete both Metro's real estate manager and the City of Brentwood received an angry call from the head of the Dierberg's Development District who said we had no right to install the concrete. We mentioned the legal description and Brentwood's right to control this strip. We agreed to put all sort of signs up explaning that commuter parking was not allowed at Brentwood Point. Brentwood went ahead and installed the concrete.



Dierbergs PR person will probably try to say the location was totally Metro's screw up. However, the historical facts and most recent conversation certainly suggest otherwise.

This history is interesting, but I wonder if its worth all the discussion. We are not going to change history.

The grassy strip and roadway were developed by a TIF development district that includes representatives of Brentwood and Dierbergs.

THOSE BASTARDS!



Seriously though - many, many TIF projects go on in the county all the time and this, all-in-all, is a sh*t development. Can the PD do a real story about TIFs? I guess this is why the recent letter in the PD was so needed.

I still say we need to get the term "The Link" to catch on. Referring to the Metrolink as "the Metro" is pretty bland and commonplace.

I like "The Link" more as a reference to the MetroLink itself, and as a friendly nick-name, not an official name. I like Bi-State more to refer to the transit system as a whole.

Since station access has been debated to death, just about, can I complain about something else?



The timetables Metro posts at Metrolink stops are boring and somewhat difficult to read. Can't Metro make anything snazzier, like say, the Munich U-Bahn? Type in the first few letters of a station like "Nordfriedhof" into the search box, press return, click on one of the "U6" links, and marvel at one of the spectactular timetables Munich has posted throughout their S-bahn, U-bahn, tram, and bus network. So whatcha think?

They are nice, but what is it you specifically like --- the color template or the European style times?



Personally I don't like that format forf displaying departure times.



Also, how much time and money should we spend on this sort of thing? We used color on the stop cards this time to highlight Lambert (Red) and Shrewsbury (Red) and black for everything within an inconsistent destination.



The program we use to product these is fairly automatic. Fancier formatting would take more time and possibly manpower. And new manpower for overhead will not be approved.

So I took the train (Shrewsbury line) from Brentwood to downtown yesterday and I have some observations, both good and bad:



GOOD: The trains were really crowded. All of them. I particularly love the hustle and bustle of the DeBaliviere station. It feels like a bona fide big city transit system. I think the conductors are absolutely awesome. They just sound cool.



BAD: The signage is lacking in much of the system. A lot of the wording is very small and hard to read. I wonder why Bi-State doesn't use the generic Subway font that most other systems use. They are so easy to read. Also, the signs on the old line have yet to be updated. Some still point to "College" with no indication of where or how to transfer to the Shrewsbury line. None of the downtown stations have any information about Shrewsbury-bound trains. Notta thing.



THE WORST: Those maps on the Information boards at every station are absolutely horrible They are way too cluttered with cartoon pictures of attractions and landmarks. The map is overrun with numbers which correspond with countless points of interest listed at the bottom. Who the hell is ever going to read all of that? It is not user friendly in the least. I HATE THOSE MAPS. It looks like a carnival ride rather than a commuter transit system. SOMEONE AT BI-STATE PLEASE LISTEN. As an urbanite who relies on public transit, it is so much easier to negotiate a system with a more schematic map vis-a-vis the following:







Save the cartoon pictures for the train ride at the Zoo. They are completely usesless as they are now. I suggest they be changed to this:







All in all, I absolutely LOVE taking the train and I found it to be easy and efficient. A few improvements and we'll have a first-class rapid transit system.

To preface my reply, Busdad, my complaint about the station stop timetables is but a minor quibble of mine. System expansion, station accesibility, entrance signs I think are all more important than the timetables; however, I do think they could look much more professional than they do now: to me, despite the programming I'm sure is operating in the background, the timetable almost have the appearance of being whipped up by an intern copying data from the master timetable (I hope I'm not being to harsh there).



I'm had the luxury of going to Europe quite often over the last few years, so I know Munich's timetable designs are about 2 years old coinciding with the introduction of their fantastic new blue trainsets, both metro and tram. The previous timetable design was less sophisticated but had similar formatting. I do like the formatting of the departure times: I feel I can find the relavant departure info quicker and I find it easier to determine at a quick glance how often the trains are running based on how many numbers are in a single row. The line map with subsequent stations and time to destination is also a great touch.



Long comment, but it's only a quibble. What's there now is acceptable for the time being since metro is only a 2 line system (though some will argue 1 with branches). With a larger system, though, I believe a little more sophistation will be in order.



Oh and JivecitySTL, I personally love those maps which you hate and know of a few other people who like them too.

The schedules are pretty convoluted. Anyone in graphic design want to volunteer designs for the schedules? I'm sure someone/some people outside Metro could offer them a simple, efficient design for the schedules if they were able and willing to. If people did relatively small things like this that don't require intensive knowledge of transportation planning or all the intricacies of running an urban transit system, it could go a long way to improving our system (and its perception) and allow Metro to worry about other things. Of course, this would require consistent, dependable, able volunteers and the cooperation of Metro.

JivecitySTL, great job on the map! It is exactly what I'd like to see as well. I frequently travel to DC and use their excellent Metro system each time. Their map is the same type and very easy to follow. I think your version is what is needed to illustrate the two separate lines and their start/end points. The people that I've spoken to about the new Shrewsbury/Emerson Park route don't seem to understand how it relates to the existing route and this does the job perfectly.

how long until our map has as many lines at DC's?