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.
Is this right?
In 1994, both the City and the County approved sales taxes to support mass transit.
In 1996, St. Charles County votes twice defeated mass transit sales taxes.
In 1997, the City approved and the County defeated mass transit sales taxes.
In 1998, the County approved the Page Ave. extension.
^As someone who earned his right to vote the day of the 1996 presidential election, I'm fairly sure those are the correct years. Since earning my right, I have voted in every single election until recently, specifically three elections where apathy ran highest (Slay's primary re-election, the last school board, and Reed's primary election).
In the last two votes listed by PE, I was still then a consistent County voter but on the losing side of both campaigns (voting for Prop M-2, but against Page). St. Charles voted twice in 1996, because after the August 1996 defeat, proponents thought a November presidential election would have better turnout to carry transit, but ironically then failed by a larger margin.
Following the 1996 votes in St. Charles County, the bridge planned to carry MetroLink across the Missouri River between Bridgeton and old St. Charles (then west to Mid-Rivers) was demolished. Today, if any extension were to ever head west across the Missouri River, the bridge carrying Page (364) would be the most likely candidate. Still, as tbspqr notes, many St. Charles County residents would still use an extension ending at Westport, likely in higher proportion than today's North Hanley park-ride station, despite the likelihood of St. Charles County still not taxing themselves for regional transit.
a while back, someone on SSP (midwest thread) had posted some renderings of a metrolink expansion that was running at grade on the street. These were some really nice renderings that showed a typ. station and some other views (maybe three images total). I'm assuming it was for the Northside/Southside expansion. I haven't seen these images anywhere else and can no longer find them on SSP. Anyone else know what I'm talking about and might be able to point me to them??
whoever worked on that did a great job. I remember seeing that on skyscraperpage and drooling then, which I did again just now. Does anyone know how much of that proposal is just imagination or may we see something similar in the next...10... maybe 20 years?
yeah, they are great renderings except the earlier ones on page 2 (the ones with the not as nice looking trains)
Those must have been quick and dirty photoshop jobs, because whoever did them used buildings in KC for the potential TOD infill! My old office in Westport (the KC Westport) is in one of them! I truly hope that with Democratic leadership in the state & national level that we see some more funding for transit. Especially at the state level in MO after what I've been reading on here about the discrepancies between MO & IL on MetroLink funding. It'd be great if this expansion becomes a reality sooner than later. Seems South City could use more than one line... there are so many great neighborhoods that could be connected!
^Since the north-south line, as studied, is primarily within the City, yet the County is the primary funding source for Metro, it seems the project may have been politically doomed from the start. And with public pressure building when Cross County completed and New I-64 starting, the County may have the momentum to pass a sales tax levy for more MetroLink, but with the promise extensions head further into the County to appeal to its voters.
The line as studied does have terminal stations within or on the edge of the County, the north terminus at the Jennings city limits (Goodfellow I-70) and the south terminus within Lemay (Bayless I-55). And the bulk of ridership at such park-ride stations would be County residents. However, St. Louis being fairly parochial, I don't see the County allowing this project to be the next Missouri extension. But even if there were local funding available, the project would still be at least ten years out from operation.
As for local funding being available, the County Executive's Office is seriously considering a ballot proposal for Metro as early as this November, but will likely only do so, if politically promised the next extension(s). The latest extensions being discussed between the County and Metro are Daniel Boone (Clayton to Westport) and Metro North (North Hanley to Florissant). These extensions west and north would conceptually branch off the existing system (respectively at I-170/FPP and I-70/170) and use high-floor LRVs on exclusive-running rights-of-way, just like today's MetroLink system.
I have to admit, being an outsider I'm not all that familiar with the local political workings. Can the City and County not work together? What about a ballot proposal that lumps multiple extensions? You'd have your County extension "spikes" off the existing lines and your inter-City N & S expansion (which like you mentioned does extend into the County as well). Why not? Dream big while the momentum and public awareness is there! I suppose between DT Clayton, Barnes Hospital/CWE & DT StL the biggest job centers are already serviced which I would think would most interest County residents. But don't they like to come to South City for unique shopping & entertainment as well?
Since the City and County must provide all of the funding to build and operate any service expansion in Missouri (No state funding) , the North South City idea needs a City leader to push for the project and suggest a funding mechanism. Asking St. Louis County to fund the North South lines doesn't make much sense. Only the County seems to be providing any leadership in suggesting any sort of funding stream for a major expansion.
Even the County ideas seem to be "Metrolink" only. A BRT type expansion using I-64 or I-44 or I-55 or even to Westport to Clayton that transfers to Metrolink aren't being discussed. This sort of approach might result in a major expansion of the system benefiting a much larger number of communities.
The City might be "really interested" in the north south, but that means nothing unless there is City political leadership willing to suggest a funding stream.
1. If County residents even want direct downtown access via lightrail from North County and South County, the County will eventualy ponny up for north and south city lines. The question is how low of a priority is that? I wonder if this is what many City leaders are counting on.
2. On this site a number of potential City funding sources have been thrown around, two of which are particuarly intriguing. The first through the City working to reduce its dependence on the earings tax (whether that be through spending cuts, increased property and sales taxes, or a City-County union) and using the difference to fund light rail construction. The second option would be new zoning that offers the contribution to a transit construction fund for the City's main commerical corridors/ corridors for light rail construction and then using those funds to in turn pay for construction.
Either option would take leaders who think boldly. I am not sure if Slay is capable of that.
The only way the North South line will get built is if nearly all the funding comes directly for that from the Feds... there is no way this is a high enough priority on either the County or Cities agenda to dump ? $1.5 Billion ? into it. I think (and nearly everyone here… mass transit advocate or not... probably agrees in their heart of hearts) there are a lot better ways the city could spend that amount money at THIS time... I bet the next 3 or 4 "major" expansions will be where you can get lots of miles/high profile stations in for cheap... elevated down the middle of existing interstates, using existing right of way to Westport or taking it thru farm country in Illinois (to Alton/Edwardsville).... Unless Uncle Sam ponies up... I don’t see NorthSouth happening within the next couple decades – I hope I am wrong but it is just too expensive per mile – and after Clayton expansion – they are going to want to play it “safe”
Is it just me or does anyone else think a 4 car lightrail train at street level with no seperation between car and train is a bad idea? Maybe it's because I am naive about this subject matter. I think it looks really cool. But I can just see it now, "Car broadsides metrolink train. Streets shut down...." I could be wrong... Are there other cities have this style of rail transit?
Other cities do have light rail at street level w/o separation and they've got the car / train accidents as well. Houston comes to mind. I remember reading several times about left-turning cars either trying to race and beat a train and losing, or turning in front of them as the train approached from behind. The articles mentioned this as a problem and it stopped the service temporarily, obviously. Sorry this is all off memory and I can't link to any online reporting of this...
Magnatron wrote:Is it just me or does anyone else think a 4 car lightrail train at street level with no seperation between car and train is a bad idea? Maybe it's because I am naive about this subject matter. I think it looks really cool. But I can just see it now, "Car broadsides metrolink train. Streets shut down...." I could be wrong... Are there other cities have this style of rail transit?
Houston's METRORail is rather infamous for the number of crashes in which it has been involved with 129 of them since it's 2004 opening. This embarrasing factoid has been used as proof that Houston has the worst drivers. The wikipedia article has some alright information on the subject. Even then, you MUST check out the pictures of Houston's flooded light rail tracks!
Should future Metrolink lines be oriented towards the suburban commuter from West County or a mix of suburban commuter and urbanized inner suburbs?
Will these low-cost railway lines be oriented towards park/ride or spurring densification/mixed-use?
Light Rail Problem:
Low-cost, less TOD, more commuter (all railroad)
or
Moderate-cost, several major TOD centers, less commuter (mix)
or
High-cost, all TOD centers, few suburban commuter < subway under Olive
The CC or Clayton-Shrewsberry line shows that a mix will cause much more TOD than the original Metrolink railway line. Mix between hitting urban centers and railway line.
I propose the same for the Westport line to draw West County commuters while promoting mixed-use and denser redevelopment in Olivette and University City into more urban centers. I feel Overland would not be able to develop an urban center unless a Metrolink line follows Midland and stops in downtown Overland at Woodson. (possible streetcar!)
Route
Why not Clayton to Delmar to McKnight to Olive Boulevard to Monsanto to Lindbergh to Page/railroad corridor to Westport.
Possible TOD areas
-University City-
1. Delmar and McKnight (Comprehensive Plan calls for redevelopment and more mixed-use intensity)
2. McKnight and Olive (International area)
-Olivette-
3. Olive and Warson (Life Sciences center: Monsanto, Nidus, Danforth, commercial wet lab buildings & mass transit means anchored companies
4. Olive and Dielman?
-Maryland Heights-
5. West Port
I propose this idea instead of the cheaper railroad right-of-way because
1. Attract standard commuters from northern Chesterfield, southeastern St. Charles County, Maryland Heights/Overland or Northwest County and Mid-County (Olivette, University City).
+
2. Anchor high potential real estate that would be more likely to develop into TOD than industrial sites located along railways and separated from higher real estate on arterials
+
3. Cause a higher tax revenue to the County and state than developing along industrial railways
+
4. Cause redevelopment and intensification of development around stations located on major roads as opposed to less to little development along former railways
+
5. Anchor first suburbs and prevent them from possible spreading decline
+
6. Create more transit dependent/possible zones instead of the isolation of exisiting railways
+
7. Anchor the Life Sciences center around Warson and Olive to create a clustering of jobs in life sciences/bio-technology that are part of the future of the American economy
+
8. Promotes more diversified economy by catering to the growth and development and accessibility of firms to one another instead of catering strictly to suburban commuters
The Daniel Boone extension as planned would hit all those TOD areas listed by SMS except only one or the other on Olive (either east of 170 in U-City or west of 170 in Olivette) and Dielman at the Rock Island RR (instead of at Olive). Employment centers that would lack direct service by the Daniel Boone extension include Monsanto (although bus and bike connections at Page/Lindbergh) and City Place (bus connections via Ballas).
Here is the link to the Daniel Boone study page. Note that the Delmar West and Olive stations aren't shown on the linked map (click on map to enlarge). That's because the Delmar West station was technically located on the Clayton-Florissant Metro North extension (or originally Cross County-Segment III) and the Olive station would only be built if Olivette supported building town-center-like development just west of I-170.
But as for Busdad comments on BRT (Bus Rapid Transit), I completely agree. Both the City and the County are missing the opportunity to build more for less with BRT akin to Kansas City's extremely cost-effective MAX line, not busway-type BRT running on exclusive rights-of-way as once proposed in the Southside MTIA along the UPRR.
BRT works as limited-stop, bi-directional, frequent service with branded buses and stylized shelters with technology sharing when the next bus will arrive. Ideally, BRT would work best in our region as service between MetroBus transfer centers, MetroLink, and employment centers located off MetroLink. Best of all, BRT can be built sooner for less money, improving our accessibility sooner and to more places for less cost, yet still complement future MetroLink extensions when finally built and operating.
As for street-running LRT, not only has it been done in every other post-1980 American light-rail system (Phoenix currently building the longest stretch of street-running), but it's even coming to Missouri. That is to say, Kansas City's first light-rail line will be street-running, even if it doesn't follow exactly the route passed in their recent citizen-driven referendum.
southslider wrote:As for street-running LRT, not only has it done in every other post-1980 American light-rail system (Phoenix currently building the longest stretch of street-running), but it's even coming to Missouri. That is to say, Kansas City's first light-rail line will be street-running, even if it doesn't follow exactly the route passed in their recent citizen-driven referendum.
Man, I hope that plan goes through, because a station would most likely be about four blocks from my apartment downtown.
The Max is ok, I haven't really had a chance to use it, but I rarely go to the Plaza ($$$$$)
-Draws the most ridership with access to I-270 and Page-364
-Jobs (Anchor jobs > Westport area built up in the 1970s and has the potential to lose these jobs to newer office park areas and thus contributes greatly to the St. Louis County economy)
2. Lindbergh
A station along the railway adjacent to Lindbergh along Baur Blvd.
Greatly serve municipalities
-North (Maryland Heights, Bridgeton, St. Ann, Overland)
-South (Creve Coeur)
-West Unincorporated (Large condo/apartment population between Olive to Schuetz and Lindbergh to Guelbreth Ln) = Old Jewish population around JCCA + new Indian population would be well served
-Arterial Road accesibility
No Dielman since it is neither along Page nor Olive and adds an unnecessary station
3. Price/Olive or McKnight/Olive
Elevate over Olive so as not to hinder traffic flow
-Olivette
-University City
-Location on Olive > Higher potential for TOD
-Ladue school district in Olivette means great possibility for transforming the city with more kid-families
-Arterial road accessibility
4. West Delmar
-Redevelopment > Mixed-use center, redevelop 1940s apt/condo buildings along Delmar and McKnight
-Affordable apt/condo density near Clayton
-I-170 accessibility
-Minor arterial accesibilty
Direct line, direct accesibility, direct development potential
Southslider, I seem to have come around to the Old Rock Island Railroad since you mention BRT for employment centers Monsanto and City Place.
However, I ask for definite West Delmar, Olive station as opposed to Dielman (city center in Olivette is great idea, and this scenario would cause an invigoration into the town), and Lindbergh/Baur.
These four stations along the Rock Island railway would:
Lower commute, spur TOD areas, arterial route accessibility
Bus Rapid Transit
BRT on Olive: Good idea. It could pick up people at the Price/Olive or McKnight/Olive station and go to Monsanto/Life Sciences area to City Place and Creve Coeur future CBD to Chesterfield "urban core"
BRT on Lindbergh is another idea (Hazelwood, Northwest Plaza, Lindbergh/Bauer Metro station, Monsanto, Plaza Frontenac, downtown Kirkwood)
yeah, our MAX "BRT" here is nothing much to brag about. The station shelters are nice and the ETA displays are great, but other than that it's nothing more than a nicer bus. I've found little time saved on the route (from DT to Midtown/Westport) compared to pre-existing regular bus routes. The line is supposed to have dedicated lanes along Main Street in Midtown which are marked, however EVERY single time I'm on Main I see cars still using the lane for parallel parking. Apparently parking rules are not enforced...
Also, it would be more effective with a simple route. MAX's route snakes all over downtown and really kills any efficiency it could have.
What you have with MetroLink (not mixed with auto traffic) is great. If you could have dedicated BRT lanes that would be a cheap and effective option, but there is still the bus "stigma".
kc_visiter wrote:yeah, our MAX "BRT" here is nothing much to brag about. The station shelters are nice and the ETA displays are great, but other than that it's nothing more than a nicer bus. I've found little time saved on the route (from DT to Midtown/Westport) compared to pre-existing regular bus routes. The line is supposed to have dedicated lanes along Main Street in Midtown which are marked, however EVERY single time I'm on Main I see cars still using the lane for parallel parking. Apparently parking rules are not enforced...
Also, it would be more effective with a simple route. MAX's route snakes all over downtown and really kills any efficiency it could have.
What you have with MetroLink (not mixed with auto traffic) is great. If you could have dedicated BRT lanes that would be a cheap and effective option, but there is still the bus "stigma".
Yup, I'm always seeing cars parked from about Davey's Uptown (34th) to Westport rd. I've always wondered if that were legal, even during the night.
^SMS, it would likely be both Dielman and Olive as stations, not one or the other. From an environmental justice perspective, Dielman directly serves an existing pocket of public housing with bus connections to Overland.
Olivette would hopefully maximize the opportunity of an Olive station as a way to create a new town center as supported in Olivette's recent strategic plan. Given how Cross County stations were generally named for their communities, such station would likely be called Olivette, instead of Olive.
As for Delmar West (Delmar at I-170), this station has never been debated. It would be the first stop west of Clayton on the new line; it's been debated instead whether such first stop on a new line should be at Ladue Crossing as well as Delmar West. Anyway, Delmar West serves an area of older apartments, fairly new senior housing, and very new mid-rise condos and apartments. However, you can imagine visitors confusing this station with Delmar Loop, if it were called University City-Delmar, but Delmar West doesn't seem much better. Maybe Delmar I-170, but Interstate stations are usually park-ride, when this station hasn't previously been conceived as park-ride.
I knew their was public housing farther into Overland but not in Industrial and ranch house area Dielman. So, this could cause a McCormick Baron of sorts mixed income housing development to improve on what is exisiting at Dielman?
The mid-rise building south of Delmar and visible from I-170 is called Delcrest but I am not sure how many people know that.
