1,054
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,054

PostOct 21, 2006#351

Brentwood's online comprehensive plan does call for mixed-use and intensive development around the Metro station. It even includes an additional future station. However, a town center is supposed to develop where the current city hall is located and not the transit station.



It appears that Brentwood is on the right track if politicians will follow their approved plan.



It seems that we need a marketing campaign about encouraging communities to hop on the bandwagon for TOD. The easiest way to do this or an initial step is coordination among planners in St. Louis through the STL APA chapter, secondly through the St. Louis County Economic Council, third, County Executive Charlie Dooley talking it up along with his spiel about STL County being the economic engine for the state, fourth, through the County hosting a forum for the benefits of TOD to the municipalities, aldermen, county council, etc.

320
Full MemberFull Member
320

PostFeb 25, 2007#352

Metro for the Grove: a Metrolink stop at Sarah.



I made a quick distance measurement tonight, which is that a Metrolink stop at Sarah (near the grain elevator) is actually less than .5 miles to the front door of the After diner, and .5 miles to Lindel.



Click for map: http://www.google.com/maps?f=l&hl=en&q= ... 6,0.014462



Anyone think that there is a future likelyhood of squeezing a Metrolink platform at or near Sarah or Boyle? Or has such a stop been rejected for some legitimate reason?



(As a comparison, a walk from a future-Sarah station to the 'After' diner would be the same distance as a walk from the Delmar station to the Delmar Grill at Eastgate.)

2,076
Life MemberLife Member
2,076

PostFeb 25, 2007#353

Take the 57 or 93 bus. One drops you off at the door, and the other runs <1/4 mile from the diner. Are you really wondering if the metrolink stop has been formally proposed and rejected?

752
Super MemberSuper Member
752

PostFeb 26, 2007#354

http://westcountyjournal.stltoday.com/a ... er.ii1.txt

From West County Journal:
OPINION SHAPER: Why not run a MetroLink line along Highway 40?

By Ruth Rangel

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 4:59 PM CST





There I was in the middle of the night at a meeting where they were discussing the imminent construction on Highway 40. I could feel my heart racing as they prepared to test the subsoil, looking for a stable foundation upon which to start a much needed new interchange for Interstate 170.



"Wait! Stop!" I interrupted. "It's not too late to save ourselves from missing a great opportunity."



I had trouble getting people's attention until I shouted, "Now is the time to build a light rail on, above, below, or adjacent to the present route of Highway 40. While we're figuring out ways to move the people during the construction, why don't we do it right and put MetroLink all the way out to the Missouri River and into St. Charles Country?"



At this point someone called for order and warned that further outbursts would result in my being removed from the public meeting. But I kept on raving, even louder, "Build stations and multi-storied parking garages for commuters along the route." I was just getting warmed up. When I got to "Acquire the property on Mason Road which Troop C of the Missouri Highway Patrol is vacating and build there a MetroLink station and a tall garage," I was already being escorted out of the room.



As I was leaving, I heard voices saying, "Not feasible, not feasible." Then I took a ride in a squad car and spent the night in jail for disturbing the peace.



Have you ever had a nightmare in which you were frantically trying to summon help and you couldn't elicit the sound of your voice? The experience I recounted above was, indeed, a nightmare, the same nightmare I've been having since the costly, discomforting and fragmentary plans for Highway 40 (Interstate 64) were first announced.



Like everyone else in these parts, I drive Highway 40 almost every day. Like everyone else, I'm in love with and addicted to my automobile. But adding another lane of concrete to accommodate more cars will only lead to more congestion on the highway, as more and more drivers fill up the new space. In his State of the Union address, President Bush called for a 20 percent reduction in our consumption of gasoline during the next 10 years.



I think we have to devise long-range, futuristic methods of moving people efficiently now, before the day comes when gasoline shortages, pollution and other factors leave us no other choice.



I had occasion to ride the MetroLink recently from Clayton's Forsyth station to Shrewsbury. For some distance the rails parallel the lanes of I-170 going south to I-64. If only we could lay rails west from here, I thought. From Shrewsbury I then rode all the way to downtown St. Louis, across the Mississippi River, and into Illinois. The MetroLink cars, not crowded at mid-day but far from empty, were bright, meticulously clean and afforded me a quiet, smooth, comfortable ride and a very pleasant early afternoon.



MetroLink plans future corridors going north to I-270 and south to I-55. What about due west?



Three weeks ago, Citizens for Modern Transit hosted a seminar on transit-oriented development, which was about creating improved and more interesting, attractive, functional - not to mention commercially profitable - vicinage around light-rail stations, so that the immediate environs of the stations themselves would be a destination for some riders. Multipurpose land use - such as residential, retail, entertainment, offices, storage and open landscaped spaces - would replace some of the rather barren, abandoned former industrial sites along which MetroLink already has stations.



Transit-oriented development would require, among a host of other things, mixed-use zoning from numerous local governments. However, after listening to architects, developers, municipal officials, real estate professionals and transit advocates, I'm convinced there are exciting possibilities for creating neighborhoods in these spaces. People in Clayton, University City, Wellston and Shrewsbury already are exploring the potential benefits of transit-oriented development.



As I see it, expanding the role of MetroLink in our region, both in building new routes and in developing the areas around some existing stations, depends on two important factors: money and politics, and not necessarily in that order. Politics, in the broadest sense of the word, will require people and their leaders to take something which is clearly "not feasible" and make it possible, in the public interest.



Ruth Rangel of Chesterfield is one of 17 West County area Opinion Shapers. Opinion Shapers are guest writers who submit a column three times a year on areas of interest to them. Rangel is a retired high school teacher of history and German.

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostFeb 26, 2007#355

^ It is feasible. It's just not smart (for reasons covered many months ago on this forum).

1,448
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
1,448

PostFeb 26, 2007#356

I enjoyed her comments about needing a "futuristic" solution to efficiently moving people about an urban area.



Rail mass transit has been around for over a hundred years, but it is always good to hear more people wanting rail mass transit.

1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostFeb 26, 2007#357

When last studied in 1999/2000, a scientific survey at that time showed St. Louisans supporting a MetroLink extension along 40 by 2:1 over the option selected to Westport. Planners love it when the rational choice matches public opinion, but it ain't always so.



Concerned about the immediate financial dilemma facing our transit system's future, it's tempting to flirt with the idea of a popular 40-line in order to generate more support for a regional tax increase. But such short-term gain (funding support) would still lead to long-term loss (a poorly performing system). Thus, another reason to not justify the means by the end, for one's "end" is often short-sighted.



Besides, the issue truly closed when the design-build group was awarded the highway-only project. Maybe more of the public will see this often debated question truly closed when reconstruction finally gets more underway this year. It appears Ms. Rangel can sense that door closing, which is likely why she would want to shout "wait" with such urgency, like an eleventh-hour plea.



Although it is certainly late to change things, a public discussion remains healthy. If Metro and the County are to negotiate a political promise of the next extension being west in exchange for a half-cent levy this November, the majority of County voters are going to need to discuss and understand why such extension isn't along 40. Otherwise, uninformed and confused voters, in addition to those already disagreeing, could easily vote no.

1,026
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,026

PostFeb 27, 2007#358

would it work if you ran it along the side of 40 and had the stations at normal intersections on the street grid -

63
New MemberNew Member
63

PostFeb 27, 2007#359

^Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm rehashing what I read from others on this forum but I think the issue isn't where the stations would be along the 40 route but just the amount of commuters is not as much as the Westport route.



I recall a great post someone made earlier about the typical state of mind: Why don't THEY build it along 40? Why are THEY asking for more money, these things should pay for themselves?



I think this is bi state/metro's oppurtunity to explain why the 40 route isn't feasible etc but more importantly that the THEY the public should be mad at is MODOT which according to the state's constitution cannot be the same as bi state....ie now is our chance to highlight what a rip the state has been not only to public transit but the st. louis area in general as the average person currently has NO IDEA. If vote rich st. louis is educated about this in light of thr 40 reconstruction and lack of adequate transit to supplement the western half of it, by the time the next governor's race comes around we might see some changes.



And I just had an idea(ah the things one thinks of when i need to study for tomorrow). I was looking at Amtrak's website and the fare to go from kirkwood to the stl station is $7, comparable to the $8 NJ transit fare to commute into Manhattan. Currently there are only 2 trains a day eastbound from kirkwood into stl(taking about 40 min) but they are not at commuting times. If we could somehow get amtrak to put one in the morning say leaving kirkwood at 730 and arriving stl 810 or something like that and of course a corresponding westbound train in the evening. i've read here illinois wants increased service between stl and chicago, maybe a morning route could start in kirkwood. Parking would be a problem around the kirkwood station but if lots nearby with shuttles could be rented i'm sure companies might help during the construction....just an idea.

137
Junior MemberJunior Member
137

PostFeb 27, 2007#360

I don't think the problem is necessarily running a line along a highway, it's just that most people don't realise that 40 is not the best choice.



Once your past McKnight going west, you are smack in the Louis Vuitton belt which is LOW density, has very little retail, and the few employment centers like the hospitals are stretched over a long distance. If people really want a line down a highway, I think 44 would be the best option. It's plenty wide and runs through a built up area.

~~

The distance from Three Mile Island in Chesterfield to downtown is about 22 miles by car along 40. If you follow the proposed Metro routes, it would be around 25-27 miles depending on what (if ever) gets built. If they really want a full-blown Metro line out past 270, they can sit on the train for a few more minutes.



But it's also this distance which makes you wonder if it's worth it. I love and support public transport, but it's this distance and area that might be served better by different options like commuter rail or diesel light rail, DLR.

766
Super MemberSuper Member
766

PostFeb 27, 2007#361

Exactly. The problem with 40 is that it's too low density. Until you get out to Chesterfield Mall, there are no shopping centers or major attractions on the road, except maybe at 40 and Lindbergh. Try looking for even a gas station or bank along 40 past 170--it truly is just a backyard for rich people.



Manchester or Olive would be much better choices, if you had to build Metro along an existing westbound street route. The 40 route would be great for bringing in the Wildwood crowd for Cardinals and Rams games (the same way a lot of Florissant residents park at N. Hanley now), but that's about all it would do.

PostFeb 27, 2007#362

Chris_on_Kingsbury wrote:Anyone think that there is a future likelyhood of squeezing a Metrolink platform at or near Sarah or Boyle? Or has such a stop been rejected for some legitimate reason?


Actually, adding a Sarah stop is proposed--and it would just about split the distance between the Barnes and Grand stops. I think Metro is waiting on this until the area is a bit more residential-commercial / less industrial.

237
Junior MemberJunior Member
237

PostMar 03, 2007#363

i just came back from the Galleria mall today, and was surprised to see the large amount of foot traffic from the new metro station to the mall. hope it keeps building up.

247
Junior MemberJunior Member
247

PostMar 10, 2007#364

Looks like the next Metrolink capital improvements will be the following:



A pocket track at Fairview Heights completed by August 2008. This will allow St. Clair to extend at least peak hour trips currently turning at Emerson to Fairview. Based upon todays schedule, that means five minute frequency west of Fairview.





The second expansion will be to push east to Mid America. I did not think that would happen or at least anytime soon. State and local officials have recently decided that they will proceed with this as an economic development strategy using 100 % State and Local funds.



Meanwhile Missouri can't get out of its own way. Funding prospects are very tenuous.

995
Super MemberSuper Member
995

PostMar 10, 2007#365

Meanwhile Missouri can't get out of its own way. Funding prospects are very tenuous


You mean, having paid already for an expansion-and-a-half and gotten just one, Missourians are still a little skeptical?

247
Junior MemberJunior Member
247

PostMar 10, 2007#366

You may have missed my point.



St. Louis City and County are paying for the Shrewsbury extension. The Feds paid for the first extension. Missouri...as in the State of Missouri....hasn't paid for anything of significance.



The State of Illinois provides capital funding for buses, garages, and Metrolink and about $25 million annually between St. Clair and Madison County in operating assistance.



Missouri provides about $1 million annually to Metro and takes it back in fuel taxes. Illinois exempts fuel taxes for transit for the most part.



Unfortunately since Missouri as elected not to fund public transit, St.Louis City and County will have to find a way to fund about $50 million more annually or the billion dollars in invested public transit infrastructure will begin to be cut back.

1,054
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,054

PostMar 11, 2007#367

Can't we add St. Charles County into paying for Metrolink since they generate many work-trips and will much more if a line to Westport happens?

or

Must a line be extended into St. Charles County itself?

or

Shall a commuter line take over or share an existing railway into the County?

1,099
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,099

PostMar 11, 2007#368

Mid-America?! Wouldn't an extension to Granite City or Collinsville be a much more economical and beneficial use of Illinois funds?

476
Full MemberFull Member
476

PostMar 12, 2007#369

I know. With all the package transport deals the airport has been getting isnt it sort of moving away from passenger airlines? I mean, hardly anyone uses the airport now, do they think that a metrolink line will increase their passenger totals??

247
Junior MemberJunior Member
247

PostMar 12, 2007#370

Mid America would cost something like $140 million. Going to Granite City and Collinsville would probably cost a lot more.



Remember that I mentioned that St.Clair is going to build a turnback at Fairview Hts. Their plan is to extend all of the rush hour trips that currently terminate at Emerson to Fairview.



Madison will be pretty much eliminated from any alignment that uses the Eads Bridge since there won't be any trains to extend to Madison...unless you extent the alignment north from Fairview Hts.



St. Clair had a vision to invest in Metrolink and extend it all the way to Mid American. It wouldn't be my investment, but it is what the county wants evidently.

1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostMar 12, 2007#371

As studied in 2005, a Madison County extension would in fact use the Eads Bridge, branching off the existing system east of East Riverfront, 5th/Missouri or Emerson Park stations to either Alton or Edwardsville via Granite City. The summary of that 2005 feasibility study is linked here.



A key point of that study was to look at starting small, like a minimum build to the Tri-Cities area (Madison-Granite-Pontoon) before deciding whether to ultimately head for Alton or Edwardsville. Such action would solve the political problem of passing a half-cent tax county-wide if Alton or Edwardsville voters felt they were not getting the extension. But most importantly, such initial branch extension would be comparatively cheap to build, in the range of $150-165 million in construction ($1.5mil/yr operations). Compared to $140 million for extending Shiloh-Scott to Mid-America, I think a Madison branch would add a lot of more ridership (good mix of transit-dependents and park-ride commuters), albeit at higher operational cost than Mid-America. But if Madison County could pass a similar funding mechanism as St. Clair County, then Metro wouldn't be at any financial loss to extend MetroLink to Madison County.

69
New MemberNew Member
69

PostMar 12, 2007#372

SMSPlanstu wrote:Must a line be extended into St. Charles County itself?


Can someone confirm this, but I thought St. Charles voted down an expansion of the Metro Link when they voted for the Page extension?

1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostMar 12, 2007#373

^It was actually St. Louis County voters who voted for the Page extension. Opponents to the extension collected enough signatures back in 1998 to place a referendum on the ballot, but voters still supported the new roadway. This St. Louis County vote followed two 1996 elections, where St. Charles County voters twice defeated sales tax proposals for transit.

69
New MemberNew Member
69

PostMar 12, 2007#374

Thanks, good memory!

752
Super MemberSuper Member
752

PostMar 12, 2007#375

Matthew/E36 wrote:
SMSPlanstu wrote:Must a line be extended into St. Charles County itself?


Can someone confirm this, but I thought St. Charles voted down an expansion of the Metro Link when they voted for the Page extension?


I think that SMSPlanstu's question was not "can we send one to St. Chuck" (leading to the whole “it was defeated in 1996” comments) but more "do we have to send one to St. Chuck to make them pay for it with taxes". In other words ... they use it -- it is an asset to the entire region - not just STL County / City. They should pay taxes to it just the same as a Eureka person should (Heck the people in the City of St Charles are much closer to a station than anyone in Eureka or Wildwood and yet St. Chuckites don’t pay for it)... Example.... the discussed Westport extension would directly benefit St Charles residents (take page extension - get on Metrolink and come downtown or to Clayton) even though it is not within St Charles county limits. Since that development is geared toward them - shouldn't they pay for it?

Read more posts (953 remaining)