Metrolink Expansion?

RockChalkSTL · PostJul 29, 2022#11262022-07-29T14:28+00:00

I'm not sure all of the stations would be placed exactly where you would want them, but I think they're placed close enough to make this corridor a really intriguing option for the future.

To add to what you've listed, I think a Metrolink line running through Carondelet Park would be pretty incredible. You could basically have the station be at the Rec Center/YMCA.

Edit: I also think Metrolink taking I-55 from Carondelet Park down to South County Center could be intriguing.

symphonicpoet · PostJul 30, 2022#11272022-07-30T04:07+00:00

^If you want the full-blown fantasy you could use it as regional rail, which could harmonize with freight, reactivate the Carondelet branch, and run regional rail along both out to Kirkwood, Valley Park, Eureka, Pacific, and Washington. But to make that useful trains would have to be frequent and they'd have to connect with a healthy system in the city. Ideally using the same ticketing system. (Can you tell I've been playing NIMBY rails again?)

RockChalkSTL · PostJul 30, 2022#11282022-07-30T12:12+00:00

I haven't been playing any games, but recently I've been trying to learn a lot more about Metrolink and rail in the St. Louis area.

I'd enjoy seeing rail out to Washington, and I actually think it could be successful. As much as I think you would see people from all around West County going to Kirkwood to utilize that station, I think you'd see mid-Missourians at the Washington station - and I think they'd sometimes drive an hour or two, or longer, to go to it.

And I actually think Washington is a neat little town. The downtown area is small, but it's well done and I think you could easily spend a day out there. Granted, I don't know how much day-tourism or b&b tourism this might bring Washington from St. Louis and St. Louis County, but I don't think it'd be an insignificant amount. It might be quite a lot. I suspect it might be.

And yet who knows how many people in Washington would come out of the woodwork to say that they don't want the dang thing anywhere near my property!

It also sucks that the state would never give us the funds for something like this.

PeterXCV · PostJul 30, 2022#11292022-07-30T12:29+00:00

^You do realize there's already Amtrak service to Washington, right?

RockChalkSTL · PostJul 30, 2022#11302022-07-30T13:11+00:00

I do. And that Kirkwood has it too.

But it's not commuter rail. It's inconvenient for daily trips. You'd never do it consistently for work.

I know this stuff would never happen. It's just fun to kind of look at maps and dream.

Sent from my SM-F711U using Tapatalk

symphonicpoet · PostJul 31, 2022#11312022-07-31T05:19+00:00

^Is it now?

So here's a sample of my dream map. Complete with commentary.

RockChalkSTL · PostAug 01, 2022#11322022-08-01T17:49+00:00

Just watched this. Good stuff! NIMBY Rails looks like a really fun game and I'm wondering if I shouldn't be playing, considering how much time and thought I've been putting into Metrolink expansion in St. Louis and Metro East.

I like the added stations on your train line, and I like the speed at which it travels across the state, even with the extra stops. Ridership in real life would be much higher if we could get trip durations on the Missouri River Runner to be closer to what I watched in your simulation.

That said, I truly believe that the Missouri River Runner would have a different path if we were designing the route in 2022. I'm almost certain the route would run through Columbia instead of Jefferson City, so you'd probably either see St. Louis-Chesterfield-Wentzville, or St. Louis-Maryland Heights-St. Charles-Wentzville, or something like that, over here in eastern Missouri. Maybe Warrenton would be involved. On the other side of the state, the rail might go through towns like Booneville, Higginsville, or Marshall before heading into Lee's Summit, Independence, and Kansas City.

Ultimately, the route that we do have isn't too bad, but I do wish there was better connection with Columbia.

symphonicpoet · PostAug 02, 2022#11332022-08-02T05:24+00:00

For what it's worth, I think the Wabash line is probably the best suited to actual high speed rail since it's relatively flat, relatively straight, and far less flood prone. I think there are also many fewer grade crossings, and those that are there could be dealt with more easily. That's probably the line I would select. Have one train operate St. Louis to Columbia direct. Another St. Louis to Kansas City. It does mean that if you want to travel to Kansas City from Columbia you have to transfer, but I suspect there's somewhat less traffic that direction. Alternately, you could have a third train running KC to CoMO direct. The only downside is that apart from Columbia, the line is otherwise more sparsely populated, but I've built that one out to and I'm currently working on how to untangle commuter traffic and the express trains in the St. Louis area. (I run suburban trains out to Warrenton behind F40-PHs. They tend to really slow down the cross state traffic in the metro area, but getting one train to pass another in game is . . . tricky.) I'm halfway tempted to see if anyone wanted to do a semi-regular transportation podcast using NIMBY rails as a backdrop. I don't pretend it's an accurate simulation, but it's a good visual reference. (And while the costs are pure fantasy, the timings might not be too far off. Mind you . . . there are no freight trains on the line in the game. That's a critical issue. But many of those RoWs are sufficient to handle many more tracks than are currently on them.)

quincunx · PostDec 22, 2022#11342022-12-22T04:37+00:00

PostDec 22, 2022#11352022-12-22T04:45+00:00

Is this just money? Does it get rid of environmental impact studies? Or other things that slow down delivery? Like NIMBYs?

MarkHaversham · PostDec 22, 2022#11362022-12-22T13:25+00:00

quincunx wrote: ↑
Dec 22, 2022
Is this just money? Does it get rid of environmental impact studies? Or other things that slow down delivery? Like NIMBYs?

Are enviro impact studies inherently that much of a delay, or is it just a convenient way for politicians to claim they're "looking into it" without doing anything that might be criticized?

goat314 · PostDec 22, 2022#11372022-12-22T13:27+00:00

quincunx wrote: ↑
Dec 22, 2022
Is this just money? Does it get rid of environmental impact studies? Or other things that slow down delivery? Like NIMBYs?

Looks like it is two bills. $15B for BRT and $15B for LRT.

https://www.curbed.com/2022/12/cori-bus ... t-brt.html

I would love for this bill to pass, but the midterm elections might work against it. Certainly, a bill like this bodes well for N-S Metrolink expansion, but we'll just have to sit back and wait.

quincunx · PostDec 22, 2022#11382022-12-22T13:58+00:00

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑
Dec 22, 2022
quincunx wrote: ↑
Dec 22, 2022
Is this just money? Does it get rid of environmental impact studies? Or other things that slow down delivery? Like NIMBYs?
Are enviro impact studies inherently that much of a delay, or is it just a convenient way for politicians to claim they're "looking into it" without doing anything that might be criticized?

This is for all Federal actions, not just light rail projects, mind you.
Why are we so slow today?

This runaway page count inflation has also taken a toll on timelines to complete EISs. Conditional on completion, EISs now take an average of 4.5 years to complete, and the right tail of the distribution is long

https://www.thecgo.org/benchmark/why-ar ... low-today/

GoHarvOrGoHome · PostDec 22, 2022#11392022-12-22T15:25+00:00

Definitely looks like one of those things you propose to show that you proposed it while fully knowing it isn't going anywhere

pattimagee · PostFeb 01, 2023#11402023-02-01T20:30+00:00

Some Tweets on the Expansion:

STLEnginerd · PostFeb 01, 2023#11412023-02-01T21:14+00:00

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑
Dec 22, 2022
quincunx wrote: ↑
Dec 22, 2022
Is this just money? Does it get rid of environmental impact studies? Or other things that slow down delivery? Like NIMBYs?
Are enviro impact studies inherently that much of a delay, or is it just a convenient way for politicians to claim they're "looking into it" without doing anything that might be criticized?

I know its an old note, but I would agree EIS are an unnecessary roadblock for light rail. Has an EIS ever come out and actually shown an LRT or BRT installation in an already urbanized area, would have a net negative affect.

An EIS should be part of the finalized product delivered at completion of the project not as a gate to start construction and only because you want to quantify as best you can how much the LRT you just installed will improve the environment.

symphonicpoet · PostFeb 02, 2023#11422023-02-02T10:58+00:00

^Mark me if I'm wrong, but haven't several local projects been changed in response to their EIS? I want to say the Page Avenue Extension originally had some causeway that was eliminated because of flooding concerns and replaced with bridges with different piers, and that even things like the Merchant's Bridge Update made some changes based on similar concerns. The Metrolink alignment doesn't have any river crossings, but it's certainly going to have an impact on stormwater flows, and that's something we maybe want to know in advance. Streamlining the EIS process for projects that make such obvious good sense is one thing. Postponing them until after it's already over, which more or less renders them useless, is quite another.

STLEnginerd · PostFeb 02, 2023#11432023-02-02T16:10+00:00

Essentially i tend to think there is no environmental impact that could come out of building an LRT line that would outweigh the benefits and most if not all negative impacts will be mitigated through use of civil engineering design best practices, an the potential reduction in road capacity. There would be site survey assessments of both natural and artificial features of the site that inform the design process such as soil composition, water table, runoff, cavities, etc. That still has to be done. But i never understood that to be the purpose of an EIS.

dbInSouthCity · PostFeb 02, 2023#11442023-02-02T16:30+00:00

Just to note…EIS isn’t just about the environment, yeah a light rail isn’t going to make air quality worse. EIS is about many other things as you listed and it is about those just as much

…. for certain actions "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment"

STLEnginerd · PostFeb 02, 2023#11452023-02-02T17:32+00:00

It shows one on the orange line but doesn't show it added to the gray line. I have to assume it will be part of it though because if not that is really dumb.

Regarding the EIS. Civil engineering has to account for the site, that much is understood. But it should be a forgone conclusion is the project will continue roughly as conceived which means you don't need to wait for EIS to be complete to planning & design. The final report is largely irrelevant accept as political cover to justify decisions, and the data presented therein should be captured by the design firm and incorporated into the design regardless. As PEs they can't say oh well that information wasn't in the EIS so we didn't factor it in. PEs are supposed to get what they need to assure a system that meets requirements which includes human health and safety and civil engineering best practices like drainage, flooding, etc. This is a heavily urbanized area not new farmland being tilled under. The likelihood of finding anything that could impact the design should be manageable within a contingency budget. A formalized EIS as a step in the process is just a bureaucratic delay for most projects and meanwhile material & costs and labor cost keep going up while we wait.

I will say for a lot of situations an EIS prior to project starting may makes sense, especially when you get outside an urban core. Things like canals, locks, tunnels, most bridges, greenfield developments, refineries, power plants, other industrial uses. it makes sense. But I seriously question its value for at-grade LRT and/or BRT on an existing road network.

MarkHaversham · PostFeb 03, 2023#11462023-02-03T13:59+00:00

The problem isn't the EIS per se, it's that they're used as a way for politicians to say they're "doing something" by doing an EIS instead of doing anything useful. If we got rid of the EIS the politicians would just find a different stall tactic. The real solution is to hold political parties accountable for results rather than rhetoric, but the average American is so indoctrinated with the idea that government isn't supposed to do anything that accountability for results wouldn't even occur to them.

imperialmog · PostFeb 03, 2023#11472023-02-03T15:13+00:00

The issue often winds up is that there is endless consultation and takes many years if not decades to get something done. The consultants often having connections with elected officials which raises red flags. All the while budgets get out of control. For some reason infrastructure projects in the US are many times what it costs in Europe with less results and is a huge problem that needs addressing.

MattnSTL · PostFeb 03, 2023#11482023-02-03T15:42+00:00

EIS requirements are so extensive in part because people keep screwing things up. That's why we get ever more government regulations for everything. Of course, it gets to the point that it bogs everything down, it's just a way for consultants to make more money, projects continue to grow in cost, and the whole system probably does need to be reworked. But there is a valid series of reasons it got this way.

Don't want to do an EIS? Don't use federal funds. That's not exactly an easy trade-off most of the time.

ldai_phs · PostFeb 03, 2023#11492023-02-03T19:14+00:00

MattnSTL wrote:EIS requirements are so extensive in part because people keep screwing things up. That's why we get ever more government regulations for everything. Of course, it gets to the point that it bogs everything down, it's just a way for consultants to make more money, projects continue to grow in cost, and the whole system probably does need to be reworked. But there is a valid series of reasons it got this way.

Don't want to do an EIS? Don't use federal funds. That's not exactly an easy trade-off most of the time.

The increased cost and time of the federal funds is massive. Omaha is building a streetcar entirely locally funded for this reason.

STLEnginerd · PostFeb 03, 2023#11502023-02-03T19:30+00:00

MattnSTL wrote: ↑
Feb 03, 2023
Don't want to do an EIS? Don't use federal funds. That's not exactly an easy trade-off most of the time.

Fair point, but its a problem the feds don't differentiate the level of scrutiny, when it comes to infrastructure (particularly green infrastructure) in currently built up urban areas where the net impact to the environment is somewhere between negligible and overwhelmingly positive.

Metrolink Expansion?

Choose Display Mode