Metrolink Blue Shrewsbury Line

zezuz · PostSep 28, 2006#5262006-09-28T22:46+00:00

shadrach wrote:My functionality gripes with MetroLink:

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.

Yeah, I agree. And maybe I'm just unlucky, but I always end up waiting 20+ minutes for a west-bound train at the CWE stop, even around 6-7pm. So, unless I'm going more than 3-4 stops, I usually just opt for the bus.

jeff707 · PostSep 28, 2006#5272006-09-28T22:47+00:00

In re: accessiblity and design issues such as access to deibergs, etc:

TOD will occur. Not all of it will necessarily be great. The ones that are well-designed will prosper and land values will increase. As in any (quasi-) free market system, there is an element of trial and error and successively better developments. In Dallas, the train line was similar to ours in that in follow old tracks and went to nowhere of immediate significance (although it was essentially built parallel to a freeway). TOD has popped up everywhere along it's line.

cwe63108 · PostSep 28, 2006#5282006-09-28T22:48+00:00

Jeff707 wrote:cwe - You still haven't suggested how to deal with design problems now. Pressure? What do you propose the substance of the pressure be? "Change it"? That's helpful.

Let's start with something very very very simple; relative to the rest at least.

How about making the Brentwood I-64 stop more accesible to Dierbergs?

http://stlouismetrolinkcomments.blogspo ... lkway.html

Pictures of the problem area.

Let me go down the following two pages of argument:

A: Cant be done because of Dierbergs

B: Why not?

A: Because Dierbergs is anti MetroLink.

B: Why is that?

A: Because this is St. Louis and Dierbergs doesnt want Park and Ride

B: So, if the new Park and Ride building is built, that should solve it?

A: No. Dierbergs will still be against it.

B. Okay. I guess you still have to walk half a mile to move 50 feet.

QED - everything will stay the way it is. The problem will still be there.

Did I just save a ton of bandwidth?

shadrach · PostSep 28, 2006#5292006-09-28T22:51+00:00

Urban Elitist wrote: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.

I'm aware of that (was in high school when the system was proposed in the early 80s and wanted to be an urban planner) and at the time I think the notion was to connect DT to Lambert and all the other stops being a 'lucky strike' extra. I just hope from here on out we can be more mindful (I like the 55 extension/Butler Hill transit center concept.)

Regarding Lambert--a covered pedestrian bridge over the tracks that takes you to the drop off lane right in front of the terminal. At the station you are on the same level as the terminal but have to go down three levels then

back up. It feels like an afterthought.

cwe63108 · PostSep 28, 2006#5302006-09-28T22:54+00:00

Jeff707 wrote:In re: accessiblity and design issues such as access to deibergs, etc:

TOD will occur. Not all of it will necessarily be great. The ones that are well-designed will prosper and land values will increase. As in any (quasi-) free market system, there is an element of trial and error and successively better developments. In Dallas, the train line was similar to ours in that in follow old tracks and went to nowhere of immediate significance (although it was essentially built parallel to a freeway). TOD has popped up everywhere along it's line.

Yeah. Right.

The Sunnen TOD site. There isnt even an RFP out on it, and this is a project that Citizens for Modern Transit and Maplewood were invovled in from 2003. There are no active plans for TOD.

The new condos on Hanley could have been partly TOD, but apparently would have had to pay for their own station. Too bad.

The TIF financed WalMart, Sams, etc was never folded into the system.

TOD in St. Louis is a long long long time away.

stlmike · PostSep 28, 2006#5312006-09-28T22:54+00:00

This is getting retarded.

I think everyone agrees that the system is not perfect. I think everyone agrees that there are many accessability problems and inferiorities when compared to other systems. We all essentially have the same position, we just have different opinions on what matters as a significant problem.

By now what we are actually arguing about is how much/in what form/whether or not we have the right to be b!tching about it.

=One really dumb argument.

jeff707 · PostSep 28, 2006#5322006-09-28T22:55+00:00

QED? please explain.

Also, I think everyone on here agrees that the Dierberg's situation is sh*tty. I think we can all agree on how that problem could be solved. You have complained about MUCH more than that (actually, you primarily just say that Metro is incompetent).

How do you propose the "platforms should be able to be viewed from one spot" issue be resolved?

How do you propose they implement the turnstyles?

How do you propose they design and fund the smartcard system you are so fond of?

I agree, a lot of these issues should have been addressed in the design stages -- and many were -- but due to the nature of a buracracy (sp?), compromises are made. It sucks. But that was then. This is now. You're complaining about the past is unconstructive. What do you propose we do NOW? Not what should have been done THEN.

cwe63108 · PostSep 28, 2006#5332006-09-28T22:56+00:00

shadrach wrote:Regarding Lambert--a covered pedestrian bridge over the tracks that takes you to the drop off lane right in front of the terminal. At the station you are on the same level as the terminal but have to go down three levels then

back up. It feels like an afterthought.

I think St. Louisans and even Metro see MetroLink as "buses on wheels" and therefore assume that consumers of it have little choice.

Frankly, it's the only way to explain why we would build such a poor system and do not take care to design mass transit well, even as we pour tons of local money into the project.

PostSep 28, 2006#5342006-09-28T22:58+00:00

Jeff707 wrote:QED? please explain.

Also, I think everyone on here agrees that the Dierberg's situation is sh*tty. I think we can all agree on how that problem could be solved. You have complained about MUCH more than that (actually, you primarily just say that Metro is incompetent).

How do you propose the "platforms should be able to be viewed from one spot" issue be resolved?

How do you propose they implement the turnstyles?

How do you propose they design and fund the smartcard system you are so fond of?

I agree, a lot of these issues should have been addressed in the design stages -- and many were -- but due to the nature of a buracracy (sp?), compromises are made. It sucks. But that was then. This is now. You're complaining about the past is unconstructive. What do you propose we do NOW? Not what should have been done THEN.

"Mistakes were made"

Yeah...I trusted Metro to give me something good. What I got was really not well thought out. Thank you for acknowledging design flaws.

dweebe · PostSep 28, 2006#5352006-09-28T22:58+00:00

Those that talk about running Metrolink down Lindell: do you ever think for a billion years that Biondi would ever allow Lindell to be torn up?

shadrach wrote:
Urban Elitist wrote: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.

Regarding Lambert--a covered pedestrian bridge over the tracks that takes you to the drop off lane right in front of the terminal. At the station you are on the same level as the terminal but have to go down three levels then

back up. It feels like an afterthought.

East Terminal stop is a total cluster. Then again that whole airport is a cluster-f. Who's got a couple if billion dollars to build a new terminal? And where's the air traffic to support a new terminal?

jeff707 · PostSep 28, 2006#5362006-09-28T23:11+00:00

cwe, you proving many people's point right now. You are not here to suggest anything new or criticize in any sort of constructive manner. I've tried to get something productive out of you for a few posts now, and responses continue to be irrelevant and non-responsive.

It's a good thing I have no interest in doing work right now.

shadrach · PostSep 28, 2006#5372006-09-28T23:18+00:00

dweebe wrote:Those that talk about running Metrolink down Lindell: do you ever think for a billion years that Biondi would ever allow Lindell to be torn up?

Of course not. But MetroLink will be around longer than Biondi.

It's a shame a system -- that will continue on for generations -- suffer at the whims and mercies of individuals, politicians and NIMBYs. (I don't know Biondi so don't jump me. I'm not insinuating anything about anyone's character or motive!)

cwe63108 · PostSep 29, 2006#5382006-09-29T01:08+00:00

Jeff707 wrote:cwe, you proving many people's point right now. You are not here to suggest anything new or criticize in any sort of constructive manner. I've tried to get something productive out of you for a few posts now, and responses continue to be irrelevant and non-responsive.

It's a good thing I have no interest in doing work right now.

Well - The Brentwood I64/Dierbergs thing is probably the first thing on my list in terms of money spent vs. ease of use gained.

Let's start there. The simplest one. Probably the cheapest thing to do. The most logical to do.

If it doesnt get done; it just confirms everything I've been writing. If it does, MetroLink's got other problems they need to work on.

But - first things - and easiest things, FIRST.

Brentwood I-64/Dierbergs outlet has to change.

jeff707 · PostSep 29, 2006#5392006-09-29T01:26+00:00

Good. Everyone can agree on that. It's already been shown that people are looking into it and seeing what cna be done about. Yet you keep yelling at us about it. That's where my spoiled/immature coment came in.

Shall we wait here and put the discussion on hold until it gets done?

cwe63108 · PostSep 29, 2006#5402006-09-29T01:39+00:00

Jeff707 wrote:Good. Everyone can agree on that.

Actually - when I first posted this; some people didnt.

Downtown STL Fan wrote: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.

Or, they brought up valid but still head scratching points.

soutslider wrote: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.

I scratched my head because it is like saying "Well, it's our rail, but it's your stations"...which...again...this is not best practice.

jivecitystl · PostSep 29, 2006#5412006-09-29T02:31+00:00

I think it's great that we critique our infrastructure and that we desire the best possible design for our transit system. But we can't ignore the fact that we actually did build this thing, and many cities would give their nuts to get anything remotely close. We should be proud that we pulled it off.

trent · PostSep 29, 2006#5422006-09-29T03:55+00:00

metrolinksuxxorz!!!

linxxorZ r0xxze1s!!1!

usuxXorz.1!!

nofumfg!?!

smrtcrdzZ!!!1!

roXxes ch!nA b(*tc3z!!!

<page>

<page>

wuuuuuuuuuaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!! METRO!!!

bluuuuaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!! usuxes,lolz.

^^^^

my summation of the last 15 pages of this thread.

<bow>

mcarril · PostSep 29, 2006#5432006-09-29T03:59+00:00

that looks about right

gerwitz · PostSep 29, 2006#5442006-09-29T13:21+00:00

trent wrote:my summation of the last 15 pages of this thread.

Thank you for validating my decision to ignore most of it.

the central scrutinizer · PostSep 29, 2006#5452006-09-29T13:35+00:00

trent wrote:metrolinksuxxorz!!!

linxxorZ r0xxze1s!!1!

usuxXorz.1!!

nofumfg!?!

smrtcrdzZ!!!1!

roXxes ch!nA b(*tc3z!!!

<page>

<page>

wuuuuuuuuuaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!! METRO!!!

bluuuuaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!! usuxes,lolz.

^^^^

my summation of the last 15 pages of this thread.

<bow>

You misspelled several words.

debaliviere · PostSep 29, 2006#5462006-09-29T14:17+00:00

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
trent wrote:metrolinksuxxorz!!!

linxxorZ r0xxze1s!!1!

usuxXorz.1!!

nofumfg!?!

smrtcrdzZ!!!1!

roXxes ch!nA b(*tc3z!!!

<page>

<page>

wuuuuuuuuuaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!! METRO!!!

bluuuuaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!! usuxes,lolz.

^^^^

my summation of the last 15 pages of this thread.

<bow>

You misspelled several words.

w00t!

shadrach · PostSep 29, 2006#5472006-09-29T14:34+00:00

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
trent wrote:metrolinksuxxorz!!!

linxxorZ r0xxze1s!!1!

usuxXorz.1!!

nofumfg!?!

smrtcrdzZ!!!1!

roXxes ch!nA b(*tc3z!!!

<page>

<page>

wuuuuuuuuuaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!! METRO!!!

bluuuuaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!! usuxes,lolz.

^^^^

my summation of the last 15 pages of this thread.

<bow>

You misspelled several words.

Must be a WGHS graduate.

steve · PostSep 29, 2006#5482006-09-29T14:37+00:00

I like glue!

dweebe · PostSep 29, 2006#5492006-09-29T15:44+00:00

Got off late from work last night so I rode the new extension to the Brentwood station to do some shopping. Some thoughts:

• Pulled into the Big Bend station around 7:30pm. Standing on the eastbound side was a group of about 20 to 25 Wash U. students standing together. Most of them had beers or drinks in hand and I assume they were heading to the Landing.

• About 10 people got off at the Brentwood station and 6 or 7 of them headed up towards Best Buy. 6 people also got off a bus that stopped by the station: 4 walked into Best Buy with us and 2 more went down to Sports Authority. I guarantee that having the bus and train stops are paying off for Best Buy and Sports Authority.

• It would be very easy to put a short set of stairs from the Brentwood station up to the Dierbergs plaza. Just past the validator machine and the storm drain cover a set of stairs could be easily installed. Walking down that long walkway is not as bad as it may seem, but is still annoying and unnecessary.

• Riding back east another 10 to 15 Wash U students got on the train at Big Bend. They had obviously been pre-partying and were heading downtown.

Alex Ihnen · PostSep 29, 2006#5502006-09-29T16:13+00:00

Metro's ridiculous - if they'd just planned for success more people would ride. It's abolutely shameful that the system is completely disfunctional. Even if you can figure out the mensa ticketing system, how is one supposed actually find a store from the platform? And the maps are so bad it's a crapshoot as to whether you're even getting off at the right place! And the trains can be a couple minutes late sometimes! Ridiculous!!!

Wait . . . people were using the Metro to go shopping/get downtown!?!? Wash U. must be an elite university - its intrepid students braved a disfunctional system and unraveled the mysteries of mass transit in StL. What a brave group they must be! Fearless! BRAVO I say, BRAVO.

Metrolink Blue Shrewsbury Line

Choose Display Mode