urbanSTL

cwe63108 wrote:

TIABstl wrote:Now If they decide to build any new lines from scratch, ie: North-South city that don't feed into the current system, perhaps that should be considered for future installation.

Hm...A new line build. Hm....sounds kind of familiar to me.

Jeff707 wrote:Do you realize that you come across as incredibly spoiled and immature? It's an honest question only slightly meant to bait. But serisouly, go back 15 pages or so and re-read all of your posts. I'd swear you just cut and paste.

And do you realize that you sound like a defender of a poor system when you say that?







OF COURSE I GAVE A LINK TO METRO IN TEXAS!



WE DONT HAVE TRANSIT POLICE IN ST. LOUIS!

Trying to change the subject isn't working slick willie.

When threads just become a series of attempts to prove the intent of a someone elses or one's own previous post, accusations, insults, and other ad hominem attacks, endless series of clarifacations, misreadings, and "straw man" arguments, is when they get really, really stupid.

Quote:

Ihnen - what rail transit systems have you ridden besides MetroLink?



Minneapolis/St. Paul, Chicago, NYC, D.C., Seattle, Oslo, Melbourne, Boston and Rome.



And how do you think Metro compares? Which systems did you like, which not?



I've never ridden Melbourne but am thinking about going there - any advice?

Seattle: The Sounder is really for longer-distance commuters and the monorail doesn't go anywhere. They are adding to the system currently (FYI - 1.7 miles to the airport for $225M)



Minneapolis: single line similar to St. Louis. It was clean and easy, but more expensive than StL I believe. They also use the 'honor system'.



Chicago: I always feel like I'm entering a guarded compound walking through the 10ft high steel turnstiles.



NYC: here it's a state of mind (completely different experience than elsewhere) - I'll take a cab.



D.C.: I've ridden this the most and love it - stations are clean, maps are intuitive - but mostly I like that it's always crowded and when you exit a station in D.C. there's usually a coffee shop nearby.



Oslo: It's expensive - the stations are very similar to our new Big Bend and Skinker stations. The streetcars are more fun. (also on the 'honor system')



Boston: The "T" is alright, but I'll admit that I've been confused by the inward-bound, outward-bound designations they use.



Rome: I'd rather be pick-pocketed above ground.



Melbourne: check out http://www.metlinkmelbourne.com.au. The streetcars are great because of the number of stops/access. Flinder's Street Station is AWESOME (what Union Station could be?). Melbourne has almost 4million people so this is a big system. The part I travelled was pretty easy. (send a PM to migueltejada - he's in Melbourne now)





I also thought the following is interesting:

Beijing will spend $7.78 BILLION to add 94 miles of rail in preparation for the Olympics (anyone want to guess the extent of their use of imminent domain?)



And from Wikipedia:

Boston:

Socially-conscious Bostonians seem to want their subway to function as an all-purpose transit solution, similar to the extensive systems in place in New York or Madrid. But without increased ridership and additional government spending, this is simply an infeasable expectation.



Melbourne:

The State Government's high investment in road infrastructure and the rapid growth of new suburbs lacking adequate public transport infrastructure has increased the dependency on private cars for transport, despite no home in Melbourne being more than 400 m from a bus route. There is a major campaign that hopes to bring about government change in transport planning.

If they decide to build any new lines from scratch, ie: North-South city that don't feed into the current system . . .

If this happens I'll be right there with CWE.

Ihnen wrote:

Quote:

Ihnen - what rail transit systems have you ridden besides MetroLink?



Minneapolis/St. Paul, Chicago, NYC, D.C., Seattle, Oslo, Melbourne, Boston and Rome.



And how do you think Metro compares? Which systems did you like, which not?



I've never ridden Melbourne but am thinking about going there - any advice?

Seattle: The Sounder is really for longer-distance commuters and the monorail doesn't go anywhere. They are adding to the system currently (FYI - 1.7 miles to the airport for $225M)



Minneapolis: single line similar to St. Louis. It was clean and easy, but more expensive than StL I believe. They also use the 'honor system'.



Chicago: I always feel like I'm entering a guarded compound walking through the 10ft high steel turnstiles.



NYC: here it's a state of mind (completely different experience than elsewhere) - I'll take a cab.



D.C.: I've ridden this the most and love it - stations are clean, maps are intuitive - but mostly I like that it's always crowded and when you exit a station in D.C. there's usually a coffee shop nearby.



Oslo: It's expensive - the stations are very similar to our new Big Bend and Skinker stations. The streetcars are more fun. (also on the 'honor system')



Boston: The "T" is alright, but I'll admit that I've been confused by the inward-bound, outward-bound designations they use.



Rome: I'd rather be pick-pocketed above ground.



Melbourne: check out http://www.metlinkmelbourne.com.au. The streetcars are great because of the number of stops/access. Flinder's Street Station is AWESOME (what Union Station could be?). Melbourne has almost 4million people so this is a big system. The part I travelled was pretty easy. (send a PM to migueltejada - he's in Melbourne now)





I also thought the following is interesting:

Beijing will spend $7.78 BILLION to add 94 miles of rail in preparation for the Olympics (anyone want to guess the extent of their use of imminent domain?)



And from Wikipedia:

Boston:

Socially-conscious Bostonians seem to want their subway to function as an all-purpose transit solution, similar to the extensive systems in place in New York or Madrid. But without increased ridership and additional government spending, this is simply an infeasable expectation.



Melbourne:

The State Government's high investment in road infrastructure and the rapid growth of new suburbs lacking adequate public transport infrastructure has increased the dependency on private cars for transport, despite no home in Melbourne being more than 400 m from a bus route. There is a major campaign that hopes to bring about government change in transport planning.

I thought Seattle had spent a couple of hundred million in prep work for monorail extension and then killed it? Aren't they talking about using one of the freight lines that runs right under Safeco Park for football/baseball game days? It's been 10 years since I've been to Seattle.

I just thought I should volunteer that besides Metrolink I've ridden The El in Chicago, The T in Boston, the Hiawatha line in Minneapolis, whatever they call the train in Cleveland and the monorail at Disney World. I hope this experience qualifies me to discuss Metrolink.

No one should have to justify their experience with transit systems, though I do think living with one and using one regularly does give you a great deal of insight.



I have to say to Inhen that if you don't like the MTA, the CTA, and many of those other transit systems, you must have a completely different picture of what a successfull transit system looks like.



I have been taking it for granted that the Chicago El and New York Subway were probably the peak of American mass transit and worthy, if not immediately realistic, ideals. If these aren't systems to emulate (not necessarily copy), then we clearly have different goals and I'd be interested to hear why you think so. I think the CTA and the MTA are functional, useful, serve a high percentage of the region, are easy for tourists to understand, and promote development within their region.

I agree stlmike - there's simply a difference in the systems. The systems you mention are much more functional than stl metro, but mostly due to their size, not their design (I would argue).

Well, please do argue that point, because I really do think that in Chicago if they used the honor system there would be pandemonium. Then again, the stops are in much higher density areas, easier to see and get to on foot, and have so many more trains running through the day that it would be nearly impossible to regulate an honor system policy.

cwe63108 wrote:

Urban Elitist wrote:Stop throwing out examples of what world class cities have and comparing it to STL like they are even remotely related.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EasyRider



"First contactless smartcard in the UK is launched in Nottingham, called BusCard (September 2000)"



I didnt know Nottingham was such a world class city.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andante_ticket



Smart Card - 2002



"Andante is a public transport ticketing system used in Porto, Portugal"



"Porto (in English also Oporto; Portuguese pron. IPA ['po?tu]), population 263,000 in 15 parishes, with 2,000,000 in the Porto Urban Area (continuous urban aglomeration), is Portugal's second city. Porto is a modern cosmopolitan large northern Atlantic city and one of the most industrialised districts of Portugal."



Never heard of Porto. Is that world class?

Urban Elitist wrote: Just because smart cards have existed for a decade, does not mean a system to utilize them on a massive scale like metro wants to has, nor does it mean they have the funds to bring it rapidly to market.

Hm. How about a system that can be used for



Transit, Retail, Vending, Access Control, etc?

http://www.octopuscards.com/consumer/pa ... /index.jsp



Robust enough for Metro. I think so.

Nice way to ignore the part where I said examples from Europe(as well as many other places) are not relevant examples because they have far more funding, i.e. places outside the US value transit far more, and thus mass transit there receives far more support. You aren't reading any responses. You ignore all information that is counter to your point, not to mention you have AGAIN repeated yourself to bring up the smart card issue which IS ALREADY BEING CONSIDERED BY METRO. You are unbelievable. I really need to learn more restraint and stop responding to your trolling.....

cwe63108 wrote:So to boil it down -



We've got the best system we can get, so stop complaining?

That's the forth or fifth time you've misprepresented my position in this fashon. I refuse to explain myself again. Go back and actually read some posts.

shadrach wrote:My functionality gripes with MetroLink:



I imagine an out-of-town tourist would see a list of station stops and think:



Grand: That's right next to the University and Powell Hall!



Central West End: I'll stay at the Chase so I can just walk to the station.



Airport East Terminal: Wow, I get out of the train and I'm right inside the terminal!



and so on.



Utilizing old rail lines takes you close to old, abandoned factories and not the cultural institutions that want to be far away from rail lines.



MetroLink almost takes me to places I want to go, but not quite.



An amount of walking is required (I can deal with that) but often no provisions are made. It's very difficult to get from Airport East Terminal station (with luggage) to the terminal. If we experienced that in another city we'd quickly say their 'systems stinks.'



The lack of pedestrian bridges, connections and tunnels at certain stops is frustrating. Or, as mentioned, it's about design.

I agree.

shadrach wrote:My functionality gripes with MetroLink:



I imagine an out-of-town tourist would see a list of station stops and think:



Grand: That's right next to the University and Powell Hall!



Central West End: I'll stay at the Chase so I can just walk to the station.



Airport East Terminal: Wow, I get out of the train and I'm right inside the terminal!



and so on.



Utilizing old rail lines takes you close to old, abandoned factories and not the cultural institutions that want to be far away from rail lines.



MetroLink almost takes me to places I want to go, but not quite.



An amount of walking is required (I can deal with that) but often no provisions are made. It's very difficult to get from Airport East Terminal station (with luggage) to the terminal. If we experienced that in another city we'd quickly say their 'systems stinks.'



The lack of pedestrian bridges, connections and tunnels at certain stops is frustrating. Or, as mentioned, it's about design.

I agree with the accessibility issues, but it's important to note that had we not used old abandoned rail right of ways, the system would have cost too much to build. So once again, we used the resources we had to the best of our ability at the time the original line was built.

shadrach wrote:My functionality gripes with MetroLink:



I imagine an out-of-town tourist would see a list of station stops and think:



Grand: That's right next to the University and Powell Hall!



Central West End: I'll stay at the Chase so I can just walk to the station.



Airport East Terminal: Wow, I get out of the train and I'm right inside the terminal!



and so on.



Utilizing old rail lines takes you close to old, abandoned factories and not the cultural institutions that want to be far away from rail lines.



MetroLink almost takes me to places I want to go, but not quite.



An amount of walking is required (I can deal with that) but often no provisions are made. It's very difficult to get from Airport East Terminal station (with luggage) to the terminal. If we experienced that in another city we'd quickly say their 'systems stinks.'



The lack of pedestrian bridges, connections and tunnels at certain stops is frustrating. Or, as mentioned, it's about design.

But some big cities also currently have (or recently fixed) airport to rail issues.



Washington DC. Unless they've changed it at Washington National/Reagan you used to have to walk outside, across two parking lots and up a ramp to their station. Sounds almost exactly like ours. Plus you can't get from Dulles via rail.



New York: show me how you can take the subway from JFK or LaGuardia.



Now Chicago got it right and built the orange line out to Midway in the 90's.



Boston just got the MBTA out to Logan in 2005.



The only way to fix the Lambert issues is to wait for a new terminal, and that isn't happening in my lifetime.