urbanSTL

If you could have dedicated BRT lanes that would be a cheap and effective option, but there is still the bus "stigma".

When I speak to non transit users living in St. Louis County, they almost unanimously indicate that they want fast, frequent, service and convenient park ride. While people will almost unanimously say they want Metrolink, those people who have a bus that does meet those standards will patronize it. There is a "rail bias" to be sure, but BRT could be just as fast, just as frequent, and just as on time as light rail if built with BRT standards.



I believe that BRT investments on our major interstates (not inexpensive BRT but less expensive than rail), would do a lot to change the percentage of transit users in St. Louis. BRT would need as much exclusive ROW as possible (using shoulders) and we would also need to build highway stations like the Denver where the bus doesn't have to leave the highway to pickup and drop off passengers.



One final point, I ride an express bus and Metrolink every day to and from work. The express route is perhaps the best one in the region, but when you use the bus, the bus becomes a community. When you take Metrolink, its much more less friendly. It doesn't have that community feeling. Its another intangible reason people use transit.



I suspect BRT will never reach the status that many of the rail supporters on this forum require, but it might happen throughout the region a lot faster than trying to build lots of Metrolink. (The street cars will not be fast enough, in my opinion, to meet County residents needs for fast transportation.)



One other point. BRT requires road construction, pedestrian crossings and park ride lots. I don't think the Missouri constitution prevents MDOT from financially participating in that sort of investment. They wouldn't buy the vehicles, but nearly everything else is a "road".

Should future Metrolink lines be oriented towards the suburban commuter from West County or a mix of suburban commuter and urbanized inner suburbs?

The inner suburbs are losing population while St. Charles County is growing and StL City is stable/growing. I think the county should invest in light rail/transit. Only be being proactive with services will the County stem the loss of population. Perhaps this threat will lead to more cooperation (mergers [-o< ) of the tiny municipalities.

Good article about the rise of Metro link....

"We don't think you can talk in the county about support without talking about expansion," said Jones. "The opportunity to expand is critical to the support of the existing system."

1/2 way down the page is the Question of the day is "Where should MetroLink go next?"



MetroLink hits target fast, figures show

By Elisa Crouch

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

03/22/2007



http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument

Looking at the current poll results, West County and South County are leading. Granted, it's unscientific and probably more telling of STLtoday.com's visitors than potential transit markets, but I find it interesting how high South County is compared to West, especially when the County leadership is currently rumored to be thinking of West and North County as their next two priorities. Perhaps too, people perceive the Lambert branch as already serving North County. But then again, I bet a lot of County folks also think of the exiting system between Downtown and Forest Park as already serving the City.

Magnatron wrote:Even then, you MUST check out the pictures of Houston's flooded light rail tracks!

This looks like the solution I was proposing for Chouteau Lake a while back. Put the train tracks at water level (or even slightly below water level) and only allow the trains to run at night.



Or better yet, put the tracks at this level in Chouteou Lake, raise the water level just over the tracks in the daytime, and lower the water level slightly at night to expose the tracks. Then allow train travel only from 11 PM to 6 AM.

That is fantastik. We need a street of water.

wow - that would make my dream of having an oxford style rowing contest on the lake all the more interesting. They could either race the train (parallel) or race across the tracks in an effort to avoid it.



rowing does need a little extra excitement. a full blown collision with a freight train would definitely spice it up - bring in the nascar fans

If we had tracks on Chouteau Lake, wouldn't that keep boats from crossing the tracks? Though, it would be cool to see a train cross on water.

you're right .... dammit .... I suppose the collision fantasy is off. They could still race along with the train though......



or we could make the tracks into a "hazard" ... they would have to get out - pick the boat up and plop it back down on the other side .... before the train smacked into them. Would make a great survivor challenge ....



hmmm .... survivor St. Louis. Possible events: negotiating city bus routes / scaling the arch / cross Mississippi swim / reconciling Mo and Ill on the bridge / governing the city schools ... it would be terrifying

I think this has been mentioned in the C Lake thread, but the new multi-modal station would extend into the projected lake. I think the tracks could still be submerged as long as the run along the lake and not across it. It could be a pretty cool effect.

Thinking about the I-64 project has really led me to think that Metro should build a south and then north extension before going west. The question is whether Metro's mission to best serve the interests of the region in the future (added density) or to serve those who are furthest away in West County. If the city were well served by Metro it would be poised for more significant population gain. Places like Carondolet (which is doing well) would become hot and the CBD would be more and more attractive for new businesses. This would be a nice moment to have some urban planning leadership in the region. If only we had someone with urban planning experience in a progressive, maybe even international, environment . . . has anyone seen THIS man?

^ Ideally, we could just vote on the entire system at once (like Denver), then each line wouldn't become a political football and we wouldn't have to have silly conversations like "should we run a line to West County now just to get support for future, more needed, extensions in the region?



Wow what a dashing figure that guy is. I love the fact that this guy works in St. Louis, but what tangible effect has he had on the city so far, any? I'm not trying to be a d#@*, but I'd like to know how much power he really has to change things...I've seen him give a lot of cool presentations on what should be done.

Ideally, we could just vote on the entire system at once (like Denver)

This would be awesome:

Given general turn-out I predict the following vote count:

StL City - 4,302 yes, 452 no

StL County - 26 yes, 53 no

St. Charles - 3 yes, 12,739 no



Excellent - let's build in the City!!!! Seriously, with the current availability of right-of-way (lack of density), StL City could become a world-class example for urban transit. One example - putting Metro at-grade along Chouteau would be relatively painless, but provide AMAZING TOD potential!

Carondelet is doing well?? Pass me some of that nose candy!



But back to the main topic, going the route ala Denver would be great as we could build multiple lines at one time and that way each region gets its own piece of the Metro pie. I think majority of people in the region support Metro expansion, but everyone has a very different idea of exactly which routes to take and how to fund it. A lot of people who don't, or never have used public transport seem to think it must be self sufficent.



The biggest hurdle that we need to overcome is funding. When most people in Missouri see ANY increase for any tax, they start to panic. Until people in the area start becoming more civic minded, I don't think it will be an easy road ahead.



~~As for Mr Stanley, I think we should put his face on those "Have you seen me?" mailers. I too like a lot of his ideas but there is such a major lack of communication in St Louis and sadly, a lack of will for change.

Grover wrote:

Ideally, we could just vote on the entire system at once (like Denver)

This would be awesome:

Given general turn-out I predict the following vote count:

StL City - 4,302 yes, 452 no

StL County - 26 yes, 53 no

St. Charles - 3 yes, 12,739 no



Excellent - let's build in the City!!!! Seriously, with the current availability of right-of-way (lack of density), StL City could become a world-class example for urban transit. One example - putting Metro at-grade along Chouteau would be relatively painless, but provide AMAZING TOD potential!

Actually, I think you are a little hard on St. Charles. Prop M on the August 1996 lost by a little less than 1.4% of the vote. I think that if the proponents of Prop M had done more voter education rather than just tossing it on Nov 1996 ballot (it lost by a little under 7%) it would have passed. Ironically, a Metrolink ballot proposal in St Louis County in 1997 lost by a little over 8%.

Recent clip of an article showing the importance of Metrolink to Asynchrony's decision to expand their downtown location...





"Most of our clients are out of town, so the ability ride the MetroLink light rail service at the airport and arrive a few blocks from our office is a great benefit provided by our location," said Stephanie Greytak, Asynchrony's director of sales. "The proximity of downtown St. Louis to Scott Air Force Base supports our growing relationship with USTRANSCOM. In our view, downtown is the central heart of the metropolitan area. Most of our employees live in the downtown area or neighboring St. Louis and Illinois suburbs."



http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070411/new006.html?.v=1

Kansas City is trying to map out their light rail plans and they want to hook up the Metro KC area in a transporation grid to help move people around town.



http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/68893.html



From the article:

Chastain’s plan calls for a 27-mile light-rail line from Swope Park to Kansas City International Airport. It includes electric shuttle buses and a gondola tram linking Union Station and Liberty Memorial across Penn Valley Park.

East-West Gateway to give Metro 6 million for operation during highway 40 work...





East-West Gateway Council of Governments will outline plans today to send $12 million to Metro, St. Louis and St. Louis County for Highway 40 (Interstate 64) construction relief.



The money, expected to be approved by Gateway's governing board, would give Metro $6 million to add buses on routes where demand is expected to increase — mostly in west St. Louis County. It also would help keep buses running on time in areas hit hardest by detours, lane closings and more traffic. Advertisement...





http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument

Are we missing a great opportunity by not running metrolink down the middle of hwy40 (from clayton to the chesterfield bus terminal by the highway) during all of this construction?

^ No. This has been covered a number of times, but to paraphrase: there isn't enough residential density to justify a line along 40 and putting a line down a major Instate automatically puts it an extra couple of very uninviting blocks from any housing or retail. I think symbolicly it may be smart (so that drivers can watch the train pass them as they sit in traffic). It's been done in Chicago (and probably other places) but mostly because there were no other alternatives (without wholesale clearance of dense development). For better or worse, StL has quite a number of options for light rail - abandoned railway lines, large boulevards with very little traffic etc. etc.

I use the Blue Line in Chicago (along the highway to O'hare) every morning and, believe me, it is not a plesant experience for many reasons. I would never wish such a horrible decision to be made in the Metrolink expansion.

The reported county preference for Metrolink Expansion is an extension to Westport and one north off the existing Lambert extension.



For you technically and scheduling enlightened train guys, how should the Westport Extension connect to Metrolink?



Should it tie in fully to the existing alignment in Clayton? (Remember Metro did not build the "Y" which will make it more expensive.)



Should it merge into to the Shrewsbury going south to the Richmond Heights Station? This might eliminate the need for a "Y" and you could merge into the 10 minute frequency of the existing downtown trains. You might create a station some place on the western edge of Clayton (if possible) around Ladue, but this would require a transfer for passengers going to most areas of Clayton or anywhere else.



Should both new alignments (Westport and the North alignment) go to the Forest Park Junction only. This would make this station a busy place.



Should it feed into the existing alignment at Wellston create a new station at Page and perhaps get rid of Wellston? Should it be a transfer only or should the trains merge into the downtown alignment?



Should you switch to low floor trains for the Westport alignment and come into Clayton and then loop downtown Clayton on local streets? This would require looping around the transit center to get a close walking transfer.



If you extend north to I-270 around Hanley, should this just be just a feeder to the Hanley Station cutting through the new McEagle North Park or does it merge into the alignment?



The current sytems train control has maximum train separation requirement of 3:45 minutes except between Forest Park and the Central West End where it is 90 seconds. If you added two more branches, you would have train spacing optimally of 2:30 in the core. This gives you only a minute latitude to be off schedule before you conflict with other trains. You would probably have to switch to some sort of fully automatic dynamic switching to handle which trains go through the Forest Park Junction. You might also need a third track in some areas to allow trains to pass other trains and certainly to permit track maintenance.



One other concern is what to do with these trains in Illinois. Illinois is in no position to pay for 2:30 minute service to Emerson Park. If you had two more branches coming into Illinois, you would have to run 10 minute service to Scott, 10 minute service ending at Fairview Heights (creating ) 5 minute service in the peaks from Fairview. You would then have 2:30 minute service from Emerson which means that you would have trains coming into the pocket track every five minutes. (This would require operating emerson as a drop back operation which is complicated.)



Should you have a terminal point in Missouri? (Probably between Civic Center and Stadium)



What you would want is to have one of the new branches go to Madison County so that you would only have 10 minute service pulling into the pocket track.



Anyway, you can see that creating new branches that operate through the core creates financial and operating problems. Other approach might to shift to 20 minute branch end service during the peaks. (That means 20 minute service to Lambert and 20 to Hanley and I-270. You would have 20 minute service from N. Hanley Station. (We might start having more problems with capacity doing that on the Lambert Branch)



You could have a similar frequency from Shrewsbury and Westport. Based upon todays ridership, we could probably handle the loads. However, the wild card would be the demand from St. Charles from the Page Avenue extension.)



All this is pretty complicated. Its for that reason I wonder what you think about future ad ons to Metrolink being feeder services to the existing alignment rather than going all the way to downtown.



If the State legislation passes decoupling the County's Prop M from a county vote for a new 1/2 cent tax, the County will want to promise some "more Metrolink" and west and north is the current discussion preference.



If this is going to happen, the technical problems are going to have to be resolved.

The third track option intrigues me. Since system controls are already upgraded between Forest Park and CWE for tighter spacing, what about building a third track between CWE and Union Station (or from east of Taylor to east of Jefferson)? The right-of-way looks wide enough, including the bridge over Vandeventer and underpasses under Grand, Compton and Jefferson. Another section where third-tracking may work is perhaps between Civic Center and Stadium. But if a third track is more expensive than upgraded system controls, then obviously, upgrading the controls would make more sense.



At a minimum, Shrewsbury trains should switch to direct service to CWE to enable Westport trains to continue to Emerson Park (or rush-hour to Fairview Heights) via Downtown. A new CWE pocket track could be built east of Taylor, if not adding a triple track in its place. A lot of reverse commuter ridership for a line to Westport will depend upon service to CWE, Grand and Civic Center for bus connections. Likewise, more St. Charles and West County commuters will take Westport trains if they have direct service to Downtown. On the other hand, Shrewsbury ridership depends most on access to Clayton, WashU and the CWE, none of which would be affected by switching service from Emerson Park to only the CWE. While transfers would then become necessary to Downtown, Shrewsbury riders would could transfer peak times to another train within less minutes than today's spacing or take direct, single-ride, express-bus service using I-44, which like the 11X Shrewsbury Express already gets Downtown faster today than Shrewsbury trains do (34 minutes to 8th & Pine).



As for new service to North County, trains should continue to at least Forest Park, if not also a new CWE pocket track, as the section of the system from Forest Park to North Hanley seems to be the most stretched in capacity, since the opening of Cross County. That way, train frequency between Forest Park and Clayton as well as to North Hanley could both be increased. Granted, that means an expensive track wye in Clayton, but it also means maintaining today's successful operational philosophy of a system of high-floor vehicles within exclusive-running rights-of-way. With a new Congress, it's wishful thinking, but perhaps our delegation could coerce FTA into considering Cross County as part of our local match towards building a branch extension to Westport, since trains would use Cross County's expensive tunnels to continue Downtown.

If the State legislation passes decoupling the County's Prop M from a county vote for a new 1/2 cent tax, the County will want to promise some "more Metrolink" and west and north is the current discussion preference.

Tell me more about this. Is St. Louis County using its weight to encourage the state legislature to help finance Metrolink? What do you mean by decoupling?