DeBaliviere wrote:
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.
Actually, there already is a park over the River des Peres.
why can't (St. Louis) claim (Cross County) as part of the local match?
Because you then federalize a project that didn't go through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Granted, much impact analysis was done on Cross County, much of the work even done to a higher level than required in an Environmental Impact Study (EIS).
However, affluent residents along the Parkway were such adamant NIMBY's, they already tried to claim that just branching off the original, federally funded line involved federal action. When a federal action is involved, opponents can tie up a project in court, challenging the findings of a study, like noise, vibration or property impacts. Fortunately, Cross County, since funded entirely locally, was found to not be a federal action.
As a result, even supplemental projects along Cross County have not used federal funds. The Maplewood bus loop is being built through state tax credits. The Brentwood parking garage is being built through a public-private partnership with The Meridian's developers. In the future, any extension south of Shrewsbury (which isn't the next likely extension to be built anyway) or even a branch extension west of Clayton to Westport (which does have strong political support but lacks final planning) would likely not count Cross County as a local match.
St. Louis is very fortunate to have had its first line paid entirely out of federal funds, when existing infrastructure (tunnels, bridge, ROW) was counted as local match. Although Cross County was very expensive per mile, the cumulative system only averages around $30 million a mile. In the future, it would be more strategic for us to find ways to keep costs down, like less grade-separation, instead of thinking of more tricks to not pay any local match. And keeping costs down is increasingly important now that local match for major transit projects can easily be more than half the total project cost, unlike highways still with only 20% local.
NEPA, a keyword I had forgotten about (I do remember EIS, EA, FONSI). And don't worry, southslider, I understood your point before you first said it. I just find the whole thing frustrating. That, and I couldn't find any mention of any environmental studies performed for the Red line in Portland; and though I still can't find them, with you reminding me of NEPA, I've now found mentions of them which will satify my curiosity for now.
I just read a whole chapter on Environmental Planning and wondered if this chapter was a waste because it was all about government regulating government. I guess I didn't think how it hit home until you mentioned the first Metrolink line.
Good point about the lawsuits when using federal monies and the chapter noted that most environmental cases are between government agencies or government organizations.
Has anyone seen this map of Metrolink before? It was in my Business Journal last week, and it looks pretty interesting. I went ahead and took a picture of it with my digital camera. It looks like it would be a pain for those living in Creve Coeur, but I really liked the southside "yellow" and "blue" lines.
It's an RCGA advertisment I believe. They have a different one every week, of how St Louis can "Think Big" I doubt it has any anctual connection to Metro. This is at least the second time this ad has been used. One of my first posts was asking if anyone could post a scan of it. It only took about two years for someone to hook me up.
It looks like the ad didn't cover many of the older stations on the map. It's not a real vision, but much of it is plausible, even it is simply a fantasy.
stlmike wrote:It looks like the ad didn't cover many of the older stations on the map. It's not a real vision, but much of it is plausible, even it is simply a fantasy.
I think certain lines are plausible, but a complete system of that size would require a population 3 times the current metro area currently has.
Okay so the MoDOT people said that they do not have the power to spend more than 1% on public transit in St. Louis for Metrolink and others and that the only solution is legislative.
In other words: Write your Missouri representatives and form an interest group if you want more Metrolink expansion because laws are what dictate the spending responsibilities of MoDOT.
^So long as MODOT's "legislative" comment didn't refer to the full-cent sales tax already authorized in state law for St. Louis City and County (of which only one-quarter is currently collected). I suppose many in Jefferson City think they're doing right by transit in just allowing us to tax ourselves more locally, rather than spend less state-wide (or even regionally by MODOT district) on highways.
It's the out-state mentality that transit is solely an urban benefit, if not added subsidy for the poor (despite the vast majority of riders being hard-working commuters), while highways benefit everyone (yet ironically have more recreational trips for a lower percentage of work trips). If only more decision-makers in Jeff City would realize that major transit investments can attract and sustain as much economic development dollar-to-dollar as highways, if not more, then we would be growing our region, and thereby our state.
Besides, if MODOT would even just go to 5% transit funding, it's not like St. Louis wouldn't remain largely a donor-region to out-state. You think our rural cousins would realize it's smarter to keep your cash-cow fat and healthy, if you want to milk it for years to come.
Ok, so I know that the difficulties of running Metrolink parallel to active railroad freight corridors have been repeated ad naseum, but I would just like to point out this example: Atlanta. MARTA between downtown and the airport operates in very close proximity to an existing railroad with only a 5 foot? concrete barrier dividing the two operations. Within a 100ft corridor in the space between two road are 5 parallel tracks.
Granted, today's MetroLink comes within less than 25 feet (the FRA guideline) of an active freight railroad (BNSF) at Grand station. However, when Metro (then Bi-State) built the first line, it had acquired the former Wabash right-of-way (ROW). If so, the original line did not run in, or share, another railroad company's ROW, but rather within adjacent ROW, thus less under the control of a separate entity's demands. Likewise, St. Clair and Cross County run mostly within former railroad ROW.
The problems with other extensions is whether the ROW is active (Metro South-BNSF alternative, Northside-Norfolk Southern piece), even lightly active (Southside-UP alternatives), or even if inactive, then still owned by a railroad entity (Daniel Boone-UP/TRRA). Railroad corporations are moving to no longer share any active ROW for two reasons-- liability and capacity. Railroads are concerned about ever having accidents between freight trains and light-rail trains, as it's fairly obvious which train would lose and result in dramatic casualties. Also, railroads, being private property owners, don't want limits on the future use of their property, and thus want to be sure they can expand capacity as needed within the narrow strips of land they own, and thus hopefully not needing to acquire more land, especially expensive in urban areas, elsewhere.
Many US cities have looked to expand their transit systems around railroad corridors, given how such alignments have the benefit of speed in moving long-distance commuters. But unless actually sharing the track with heavier commuter rail trains, all transit agencies are learning they have to now look elsewhere, if the line has any, even if very little, freight traffic. Denver, as aggressive as they have been in expanding their system, their first line also adjacent to freight lines, recently was told they can't even be within railroad corridors for the West and Airport lines. St. Louis has only learned thus far that significant vertical or horizontal separation would be required, adding more cost in fill, structure, or acquiring adjacent properties.
Ultimately, since railroads will only keep moving to less sharing of their limited urban properties, and projects take so long to develop as railroad corporations' standards change, St. Louis would likely just be better off to stop planning MetroLink for any active railroad corridors. Only corridors already abandonned like Madison County, where MCT has already railbanked (or landbanked) the corridor will likely work. Other corridors wisely need to look at our region's overlooked asset-- wide, underutilitized arterials.
^ Just to add a note. I belive another factor to consider, from the RR point of view, is that rail properties are often not subject to the property tax, meaning that there is 0 cost to hold onto ROW for long periods of time. RR's just aren't willing to give up their land anymore.
^Yes, MetroLink will have a slower overall average speed on the North-South line. However, it will have extreme range from a crawl on downtown turns to 55 mph along the UPRR or I-55 sections. The average speed on today's MetroLink, despite mostly being exclusive-running, still only averages around 32 mph. While Busdad has complained that this "streetcar" might average as low as 13 mph, hence his "fancy bus" comment, street-running LRVs will easily average over 20 mph, albeit below current MetroLink's 32 mph.
A mostly street-running light-rail line will make up time through access management, reserved lanes/medians, signal prioritization and directness of routes, in addition to more exclusive ROW at the southern end. But even Goodfellow due to its width and limited intersections north of Natural Bridge will enable a faster median at the northern end. Essentially, trains will travel slower as they get closer to downtown or faster as they move away from downtown.
Likewise, stations will be spaced more frequently on slower sections, while spaced further apart on faster sections. Ironically, current Current MetroLink loses speed by pulling into and out of stations, adding as much time to the commute as the actual sitting dwell time at the platform. But hey, you do want full trains (riders from stations), not just fast trains (never stopping). Plus, if you're already traveling slower on Natural Bridge (and by law, trains can't exceed the posted speed for motorists), more stations don't hurt you street-running line's travel time as much as added stations do on an exclusive-running line.
First of all, alleviation of congestion is neither transit's sole nor primary objective. Ideally, transit should be competitive with auto travel, but parking availability and walkability of one's destination are among other factors considered by transit-choice commuters. As a result, the time it takes to ride a rail line from point A to B does not have to be less than what it would be to drive to attract most riders, especially in regions that lack any significant wide-spread congestion.
However, trains from Bayless/I-55 to a new at-grade station near 8th & Pine will very likely have comparable travel times, if not faster, than trains from Shrewsbury/I-44 to 8th & Pine. In fact, it's possible that there will be fewer stations between an I-55 terminus and Downtown than what Cross County has between I-44 and Downtown. Today, Shrewsbury to Downtown (8th & Pine) takes about 35 minutes and that's with exclusive-running ROW. The advantage any Southside extension will have to I-55 commuters is really its directness to Downtown over Cross County. In other words, by taking a more direct route, a Southside extension can handle a lower average travel speed, when traveling less mileage.
Why are you comparing Cross County to a possible Southside line?
I was of the understanding that the Cross County serves the purpose of a never built I-170 to Clayton for (near) South County. I never thought of the Cross County line as a primary South County to Downtown line only secondary route.
My biggest question now is: Will the Southside line extend south of the River Des Peres into Lemay on its first extension or will it stop shy if the river?
Has Metrolink considered communications with St. Louis County and municipalities about initiatives they can take to be proactive and plan ahead for Metrolink extensions? I admire what Atlanta has done with the MARTA with building a 'transit village' and San Francisco's BART with the same. Ideas are assembling land for TOD and the usual parking garage/lot or tax incentives to developers to do TOD. Maryland Heights could create a redevelopment plan for Westport area to intensify and fill in its parking lots with office buildings that would usualy go to Chesterfield.
^ In some ways, the problem maybe that many municipalities don't buy into the "transit village" idea. I mean really, what really high profile TOD developments have occured in Missouri. I know many will complain at me asking the question, but frankly, while the Loop, CWE and other areas have no doubt benefited, there has been no big rush of development following a new line and therefore municipalities have no reason to buy into center based design. If anything, they may see the rehab powers of Metrolink as only applying to failing urban areas.
Maybe if Metrolink and Metro resulted in clearly deffinable TOD projects which added to the local tax base at the same rate as the standard DESCO development, places like Maplewood might want intergrate center based design and planning as part of their local land use code. So maybe the right question is, not why don't TOD's develop in St. Louis, but what municipalities along new lines or extensions give the best posiblities for a high profile high density development?
Traditional centers like Webster Groves, Kirkwood and Frugeson all can fill part of that role, but where else?
Sorry, I'm not "Thinking Big"...