urbanSTL

To build Cross County, Metro bought the entire CMT right-of-way, which ran from the TRRA line just north of Olive and I-170 south to Maplewood near I-44 and the BNSF line, but only the portions south of Forest Park Parkway have been used for Cross County. IOW, the abandonned RR ROW may continue north to St. Charles Rock Road or even further north (I think maybe to Boeing), however BSDA (dba Metro) only owns the portion south of the TRRA line between Olive and Page, or ending near the northern city limits of University City.



As for the abandonned rail line following Deer Creek from Maplewood to Creve Coeur via Ladue, this line was actually evaluated as an alternative during the 1999/2000 Daniel Boone MTIA. However, this Deer Creek rail line lacked density worse than the alternative down Highway 40, which also failed to become the preferred extension to West County. As many know, the preferred extension west ended up being along CMT's sold ROW along I-170 from Clayton northwest to UP's Rock Island line to Page Avenue (MoDOT ROW) west of Lindbergh to Westport at I-270.



Unfortunately, density and activity centers are not always immediately along interstates and railroads. As such, just because a ROW may be physically feasible or even cheaper to build, doesn't mean it necessarily makes a good candidate for attracting riders.

southslider wrote:just because a ROW may be physically feasible or even cheaper to build, doesn't mean it necessarily makes a good candidate for attracting riders.

Yeah i know that, as seen in the origonal line and the complaints of the Grand station and others, but it is more important to get these stations near people than to say "we can't them right next to them so lets not do it" I as most of you know - i am VERY against putting metro down the middle of a perfectly good road..... so if subways aren't reasonable, maybe we should not look north city/south city, but we should look to where we can afford to put the next extension easily.

Trouble is that our region is running out of abandonned railroads, directly challenging how our region has built out its transit system to-date. Additionally troublesome is the realization that any active railroad, even if light traffic today on its rails, now requires tougher negotiations with protective RR corporations, whether seeking to outright wholly purchase or just subdivide their ROW for parallel tracks.



Thinking ahead, Madison County fortunately has railbanked many abandonned railroads as trails with the understanding that such ROW could convert someday to MetroLink. But in St. Louis City and County, most abandonned railroads have reverted to adjoining owners, or have become or are planned to become trails under organizations independent of Metro. As such, you're talking about buying land back from adjoining owners or fighting with trail organizations that don't wish to see their new greenways altered.



Yet, despite scattered abandonned rail lines in St. Louis City and County, regional maps showing MetroLink expansion north, south and west all seek to follow active RR ROW in each corridor. And when you're working with an active railroad, even if light freight traffic today, you're forced to negotiate with major corporations that now wish to preserve their ROW in case of future capacity needs. As such, buying land from a RR company and/or addressing their higher design standards (BNSF required significant vertical separation in Metro South; it's not yet known what UP will require of Southside) adds even more cost per mile.



In all, it would appear that outside of Madison County, all future MetroLink extensions will now have to consider running in streets, when there aren't any abandonned RR lines left in the right places. And unless you want excessive cost per mile for grade separation, that also means seriously looking at street-running operations.



As for the alleged mentality of "we can't get right next to them, so let's not do it," that's hardly ever been the case as evident in the original line's Grand station to now Cross County's Richmond Heights station, where the most feasible ROW was still located some distance from the ultimate destination. But you still don't jump to build a line just because it's physically feasible to build as an exclusive ROW. The CMT ROW used in Cross County was close-enough to major destinations, but many other abandonned rail lines like that along Deer Creek aren't close to any transit-supportive activities.

If that is truely the case - which i am fairly sure it is... i would say no expansion for the time being south and north. lets concentrate on places where we can do it for a reasonable cost, but not in the street. Going to the streets would RUIN the Metro System in the long run.

^But even westward expansion to Westport used UP's Rock Island line. Although this RR line sees very little traffic, its owner, Union Pacific, like all major RR corporations, may not wish to sell or subdivide their ROW. So then, where does a line west of Clayton head once it reaches the northwestern end of the CMT ROW along I-170 (now owned by Metro)? If the line must remain in exclusive ROW, you face serious constraints. However, why not then consider street-running in Page Avenue, for example?



The Daniel Boone line was already within MODOT ROW west of Lindbergh. Could it not take Page all the way to 170? Are people that afraid of signalized intersections with trains? As Cross County has proven, it will cost us serious cash to always build fully grade-separated extensions, where we lack abandonned RR ROW.

I think I have made clear I don't think the train should go down the middle of any streets if at all possible, or even travel parallel next to any street for a significant distance. By definition - these routes along major routes are already served by an mode of transportation that is expensive to maintain - Buses. Why would we eliminate the bus service, just to incur large building costs, construction hassles/delays and POSSIBLE problems with traffic in the future... for no real gain. Like I said before - other than expanding the system



"So then, where does a line west of Clayton head once it reaches the northwestern end of the CMT ROW along I-170 (now owned by Metro)?" Then we don’t expand Metro there. Maybe if its so darn expensive to expand the system properly we shouldn't expand it more.



Think about it - how high above the track is the platform for the Metro Trains? 3 feet? 4 feet? In any case - you would either need to have a hole in the street that deep or a platform that high to have at-grade access to the trains. I see this as not being conducive at all to IN STREET uses. (Imagine a 4 foot high 75 foot long platform down the middle of Page Ave.) If you had a separate street car style light rail system - that was accessible with no platforms etc – it could be done properly and I would support that plan (not that my support is relevant either way). But the metro trains as they are will simply NOT work in that type of environment. THAT IS MY CONCERN.



if we: 1) can't use the current trains in the streets

2) can't modify the existing train stations to work with at grade loading trains



As I see it we must **assuming that we do expand light rail in the region**

1) get a separate system that goes down the streets -OR-

2) come up with some way to use the existing trains in such a way (subway - ROW – in street idea I have yet to hear/think of etc) that is conscience of and conducive toward existing modes of transportation (public, private, and personal)

^^I fail to understand how it is "impossible" to incorporate a light rail line into the middle of a broad avenue such as Page, as mentioned in several previous posts. While we certainly do not have the ridership or the system that Chicago has, they have their trains, both the metra and their light rail/El trains running along side or in the middle of both busy avenues and busy highways. There are many new materials being used in architecture to intelligently skin buildings, especially those with transportation uses, that could be used to "blend" an in-street, at grade station with its surroundings, minimizing the effect that the line would have on the avenue, as well as identifying itself, thus providing a way for drivers to better negotiate the system. (Maybe then Metro could move away from the lackluster, suburban station designs.) Provide elevated walkways for constant use or incorporate existing signals to provide dedicated access to the station via crosswalks and you have a very viable system, especially when you think of a mass transit system as a dynamic modality. Thinking of the metrolink as a static entity, as something that no longer needs to expand with kill the link much quicker that high construction costs or delayed openings. And I also would like to add that thinking of the bus system and metrolink, when running parallel on the same street, as competing modes of transportation is a bit shortsighted. If a line was provided in such a parallel fashion, then is it not possible to redirected/distribute/align the busses to provide a much more pivotal role between the prospective metro riders and their neighborhoods...especially if there are fewer park and ride stations along such a hypothetical line? Besides, running a line in parallel with a current bus line would not simply cater to the wish to expand...the metrolink carries with it the potential (albeit not well established in STL) of bringing some sort of economic development with it, even more possible when you consider a more extensive and comprehensive system that would be the end result of an expanding metrolink. With all of that being said, I would whole heartedly welcome the prospect of researching extensive street car lines as a creative alternative to connecting passengers to the metrolink. This would indeed be less obtrusive to the streets and less expensive to build, not to mention that it would probably be easier for all of the immeasurably impatient drivers out there to deal with.

^The concern over high-platform stations fitting poorly within streets is exactly why the Northside-Southside Study is considering low-floor light-rail vehicles with low-platform stations.



In Downtown, transfers would be possible between existing and new stations within close proximity, or between new at-grade low-platform stations on a North-South line and existing below-grade high-platform stations on existing MetroLink. For example, a new Civic Center station on the North-South line could be at-grade with 14th and Spruce, affording transfers to the existing, open-air, below-grade Civic Center station.



However, if street-running options fail to win public support, then you can be assured that light-rail expansion is not likely to happen within the City. That is because no attractive exclusive ROW exists within the City to build to the same standards as existing MetroLink. Yet no other major American city is building to our standards, but instead having built or building significant street-running segments on their system (San Diego, Portland, Dallas, Denver, Salt Lake City, Hudson-Bergen, Minneapolis, Houston, Seattle, Phoenix).



As for streetcar lines instead, like the Loop Trolley (or Dallas or Portland streetcars), such projects will only cover short distances, lack federal funding, and not be operated by a regional transit authority. In contrast, Bus Rapid Transit (on existing streets like Kansas City, not the Southside UP proposal) could cover longer distances for cheaper costs, be built with federal funds, and operated by Metro. But of course, buses don't attract development like rail.



So in the end, we're left with the dilemma of BRT likely being the best solution for public transit and streetcars being the best solution for economic development. A subway or elevated line could serve both travel and development, but obviously too expensive to build, especially for St. Louis' relative low density. The compromise then, if still desiring rail, ends up being street-running light-rail, like most American cities. Such solution doesn't have the stigma of buses and attracts development like any rail, but still functions as a regional form of transit, unlike localized streetcars.

I found some interesting pictures of that line here Medwick.



http://world.nycsubway.org/us/hudson-bergen/

southslider wrote:^The concern over high-platform stations fitting poorly within streets is exactly why the Northside-Southside Study is considering low-floor light-rail vehicles with low-platform stations.

I am all for this. ALL OVER - if the only proposal is to go down the streets. I still think it takes a DISTANT 4th behind the other possibilities, but seeing we aren't getting any help from do nothing Blunt.... it might have to be that way. Other than spurring development (which is questionable in most cases) I still don’t see why for much cheaper we can't keep the bus system we have...... less maintenance, less (no) construction, less (its here now) time.....



I understand the "need" to expand - but again - ONLY if expanding it give you options you don’t already have. Buses are much more flexible because they don’t ride on rails. The streets are already in place. Its not as desirable - but its a whole lot more sense when our region is so starved for transportation funding.

buses are straight up nasty... i wanna ride on the pretty trains.. (sarcasm but popular opinion.)



I was in vegas this past weekend... The monorail was pretty awesome... Is that just outrageously more expensive? It's elevated and it seems like you could run it just about anywhere...

I would like to see Metro add more express buses. They generally have a relatively more direct route, down major streets, to and from major destinations, and make fewer stops. They also generally are extended buses (whatever you call them, longer with a flexible middle to go around corners). They also seem to be a bit roomier. Every other major city I have visited has these buses. It might help alleviate some of the apprehension about riding buses among commuters and the more genteel folk. (sarcasm)



Just curious, regarding the at-grade entrance streetcars/light rail lines...They use these a lot in Europe and Asia, but since they have stairs, most of the ones I have seen didn't seem to be handicap accessible. Other countries obviously don't have the ADA requirements the U.S. has, so assuming they can make the cars handicap accessible with a lift, or something like the kneeling buses, I would imagine this would add a great deal of time and unpredictability to the schedule vs. an above-grade entrance car. I would also imagine that St. Louis has a higher proportion of disabled riders than many cities. I won't get into why...

^Low-floor LRVs would have the same dwell time at stations as high-floor LRVs, meaning the same predictability in on-time performance. In fact, low-floor LRVs are more disability-friendly, since though both technologies now offer level boarding from a low or high platform, the integration of a low-platform station into the streetscape doesn't require the elevators and ramps of a high-platform station, especially those with grade separation. For example, by current MetroLink using exclusive ROW, disabled patrons are just out of luck when the elevators aren't working at any one of the many grade-separated stations lacking ramps.

Article from the Suburban Journals:

MetroLink station spurs talk of River des Peres rehab

Shawn Clubb

Of the Suburban Journals

Oakville-Mehlville Journal,South City Journal,South County Journal,South Side Journal,Southwest City Journal,Southwest County Journal

07/12/2006



The view from the top failed to live up to the hopes of some Southwest City residents who live near the MetroLink stop that will open near Lansdowne Avenue as part of the Cross County extension.



Neighbors from Southwest City and Shrewsbury recently took part in a meeting to develop ideas for development around the elevated station, which they toured.

Link

River Des Peres is a trainwreck.



Most of the area around it has been developed, how much development can you do?

The Shrewsbury charrette focused on the station parking lot itself as well as the multi-family area south of Lansdowne, both sites being sandwiched between RDP and the BNSF RR and straddling the city limits.



As a public-private partnership, a parking garage could free up some land immediately about the station. But the conversion of nearby apartment complexes south of this station to condos, whether creatively reusing existing buildings or redeveloping the site altogther, would be easy and could happen quickly.

trent wrote:River Des Peres is a trainwreck.



Most of the area around it has been developed, how much development can you do?

Would it be possible to cover/enclose River Des Peres? Its water level always seems to be very low - it might make for a great park if covered.

^^ Complicating plans for the land surrounding the Shrewsbury station are long range plans and studies for improving the interchange on I-44 at Shrewsbury and a general wish to build a new road to connect River Des Peres Blvd to Big Bend Blvd. Long range is sometime 2011-2020.



MODOT's I-44 & Shrewsbury page. Pictured below is a crude map of one of the more expensive options.

recent article from the economist on light rail in the U.S. wasn't sure where else to post it...STL gets a brief mention:





All aboard!

Aug 31st 2006 | PORTLAND

From The Economist print edition



Light rail and buses beckon. But will Americans really abandon their cars?





PORTLAND, Oregon, is a fabulous city, at least when it's not raining. Trees line the streets, the microbrews are full-bodied, cyclists abound. And then there is the 44-mile (71km) MAX light-rail system, started 20 years ago. Over $1.6 billion went into developing the MAX, mostly from local and federal governments. The handsome payoff includes Portland's perpetual reputation as among America's nicest places to live, and some $4 billion-worth of development near the stations. Since 2001 the MAX has even whisked people from the airport to the centre of town in just over half an hour for under $2—the first “train to the plane” on the west coast.



The city has been a light-rail pioneer. Few systems pre-date the MAX, which is now busy expanding deeper into the suburbs. But light rail—small passenger trains that, unlike underground trains or commuter railways, often use an overhead electricity source and may operate in the streets—is suddenly booming across America. Charlotte, Phoenix, and Oceanside, California, are building light-rail lines from scratch. Denver, Dallas, St Louis and many others are racing to extend existing systems, sometimes along old railway tracks. Dozens more cities, from Albuquerque to Atlanta to Louisville, are mulling light rail over. Downtown streetcars are also making a comeback, in Portland and elsewhere.



Congestion is a big reason, especially in bumper-to-bumper Seattle and fast-growing sunbelt cities. Painful petrol prices, already above $3 a gallon, have also sent Americans racing for the rails. Gary Thomas, the executive director of Dallas Area Rapid Transit, reports a “flood” of new riders during the post-Katrina petrol rise a year ago, and thinks about half of them have stayed on. A host of problems ensued, from overcrowded park-and-ride lots to lack of seating on trains. Dallas was far from alone: according to the American Public Transport Association (APTA), user-figures for public transport rose more than 4% in the first quarter of 2006 over a year earlier. Those are strong figures for a sector that typically slugs along at 2%, slightly ahead of population growth. Rider-figures for light rail were up 11.2%, and even buses carried 4.5% more passengers.



Americans have not always embraced public transport. “We had people carrying signs saying ‘Light Rail Kills Babies’,” recalls John Inglish, head of the Utah Transit Authority, which has 19 miles of track around Salt Lake City. Proponents were likened to communists, he says. Now the system has almost too many riders—up 39% in May from a year earlier. Last autumn the crowds were so great that the trains' suspensions dropped, and carriage doors at a few stations in Salt Lake could not close unless half the passengers leaned over to one side. (Siemens, the manufacturer, has since fixed the problem.) The true test of Utahans' enthusiasm will come in November, when voters will decide whether to pay higher property taxes to support an $895m expansion into four new light-rail routes...



Read more

I would think there is a lot of potential to redevelopm these apartments.



Area between Lansdowne and Weil.



No offence if anyone lives there, but I would say given the new Metro line the current apartments are not the highest and best use of that land. I would like to see mixed use midrise buildings built in the area. And the nice thing is with large seperation of the two directions of River Des Peres Blvd, you have a nice distance from the actual river itself.



Also I thought the UP line through South City was abandoned, is that not the case? I have not seen a train use those tracks in about 10 years.

mcarril wrote:Also I thought the UP line through South City was abandoned, is that not the case? I have not seen a train use those tracks in about 10 years.

I'm not sure that it is the UP line you are talking about, but I live on the south edge of the Grand-Oak Hill neighborhood and trains come through about once or twice a week when we're home. Since they don't have decent train signals where the tracks cross over the street (I think maybe Gustine) they have to blow their horn as they approach. Can hear them really well when it is cool enough not to be running the air conditioner and the windows are open.

That line still gets used. not heavily, but used. AMTRAK also runs on it every day.

southslider wrote:Mill204 wrote:

I believe St. Louis, whenever we get around to expanding Metrolink, would try to put up the new Cross County line as the local "match" to secure funding for the next line. We already got lucky once putting up the land for the original line as the local "match"; I think we'll have to get lucky a second time to have any hope of seeing Metro North or Metro South in the near future.

Unfortunately, Cross County cannot count towards the local match of any future extension. Metro South and Metro North used to be called Cross County Two and Cross County Three, but the new names of Metro South and North came about when the Federal Transit Administration ruled that Cross County was an entirely independent, locally built extension.



While this move unfortunately means future extensions, even where using federal New Starts funding, will now be more expensive, the ruling likely saved the Cross County extension from going to federal courts. And such move indirectly stopped wealthy, sue-happy folks living on Lindell, in Parkview and Clayton wanting to throw every legal hurdle available up against this already costly project.

Way back from page 13, this has been annoying me for a while. I mean - Cross County: it's there, it's built, it's working beautifully - why can't we claim it as part of the local match?



Anyways, I was looking at how much Portland has expanded MAX in recent years and saw that they've had 3 failed propositions for increases in MAX funding! So how did they fund their Yellow and Red lines? Well the Red line was funded entirely with local money with 25% provided by a major corporation. The yellow line was then paid for by a combo of creating a special transportation district and putting the Red line up as the local match. In other words, Portland didn't expend one dollar for the yellow line.



Now I haven't done very much research, but I've had difficulties finding any references to environmental studies performed on the Red line. With or without, does Portland's example provide any hope to putting up the Cross County extension as the local match for future Metrolink expansion?