urbanSTL

Excellent, thanks for the map BM (ooooh, unfortunate initials ).

while in the city, it's obviously an urban transit system. This is , in some great sense, what makes the entire system so special.

You see, I don't think that it really is an effective urban transit system. For example. I live in the city, but I have absolutely no reason to use metrolink, except for the occasional trip to the airport. Metrolink is too difficult to access from South City. Why would I drive down under the Grand Ave bridge, park my car in a scary, improvised parking lot among decaying and largely vacant industrial buildings, and wait for a train to take me four miles to downtown or the CWE? I know it works for some people, but having lived in cities with real urban transit systems, I do not consider metrolink effective. I know these things take time, but I worry that the city is underserved (and will continue to be underserved) at the expense of far-flung commuter lines.

^But even if MetroLink expanded to South City, only some neighborhoods would be served "at the expense," as TGE says, of others. I personally like a Jefferson/I-55 alignment better than the Chouteau/UPRR alignment shown in b&m's map, but either Southside MetroLink route still misses multiple neighborhoods.



Problem is you can't connect Soulard, Lafayette Square, Benton Park, Cherokee, Dutchtown, South Grand, Tower Grove, The Hill, Southampton, Bevo, Holly Hills and Carondelet all with a single new MetroLink line going from Downtown to South County. For the same cost of one MetroLink line that will miss many neighborhoods, you could build multiple streetcar lines serving a larger area of South City.



So again, should the City be part of regional corridors headed out to the County, solidifying Downtown as a regional transportation hub, or should the City focus more on localized transportation needs, connecting more neighborhoods?

The southside line is important, but its been said that you can't hit all the neighborhoods. So why doesn't the city embrace the idea of multiple streetcar lines to connect the dots?



I'm very much in the same boat as TGE. I live on the Southside, and I would love to use Mass Transit, but it's very impractical for me to do so. The reason is because it's not connected anywhere near me.



I just bought a new car, brand new 07. When I would have much rather been able to rely on public transit, save in gas money for the monthly fee. But where I work, it would now take me at least an hour to travel, over an hour if I wanted to take Metrolink. And seeing as how I get to work at 6:30, that's a long travel time.



I'm not saying that Metro needs to build a system so I can use it. Just that it needs to find a way to make the city more connectible, particularly in the more dense areas of the city.

TGE-ATW wrote:Excellent, thanks for the map BM (ooooh, unfortunate initials ).

Well actually Xing posted it first way back on page one, I just have been around this board too long.



FYI, B&M looks much better

Rumor has it that the County Executive has decided to propose a February 2008 (Presidential Primary) Prop M tax for public transit. Further it is rumored that this tax will be 1/2 cent tax permitting some expansion of Metrolink (in the County).



There will be opposition since any new tax or any sort isn't popular. Tom Sullivan attends every Metro board meeting. He will be given status by the press...even as one man band....as the voice of the opposition. He isn't attending as a supporter.



I hope we can motivate the many voices of large and small business, labor, churches, neighborhoods, Republicans and Democrats who can see this as a unique chance to broaden the market for an expanded alternative transportation system. If the network expands including improved bus service, it benefits everyone along the system...not just those who live along that extension. If this referendum fails, the result will damage public transit for several generations ---I fear.



Note the Post Dispatch article that describes developer, business and commuter interest in the Metrolink system all over the region (North near N. Hanley Station), around Richmond Heights, Clayton, and Brentwood, in Illinois and in the City. Its this broader transit network that potentially lifts all boats that may result in the political-economic consensus see real improvement across the region.



I think the time is now to get moving. Hopefully we will not eat our young fighting among ourselves politically because the system isn't perfect.

like the cliche, "the whole is greater than it's parts," this is how I feel about metrolink. The more places that are connected by it, the exponentially greater it will be for the region.

This probably will not be a popular opinion, but even as a supporter of public transit I'm against further Metrolink expansion at this time, mostly due to the cost. I've seen figures of $1 billion for the CC extension alone after all the bonds are paid back. I think it's nice to have Downtown, Clayton and the Airport connected, but I'd rather see the city/region look at BRT and/or streetcars both of which would be much cheaper (and with streetcars you still get the development benefit). Metrolink seems like it acts more as a commuter system to me, and while the development benefit for places like Hanley station are great, the stations often represent small islands of pedestrianism within the sea of auto-oriented devlelopment, limiting the TOD potential. Not so with streetcars, which could spur development along the length of their lines.



I can sort of see the case for Metrolink as a pure commuter line into the North and South suburbs, since I'm guessing these would be street level lines and thus more cost effective. For the western suburbs, it looks like the region is putting its money into highway expansion (new I-64), and so if anything is needed I'd rather see BRT.

jefferson wrote:This probably will not be a popular opinion, but even as a supporter of public transit I'm against further Metrolink expansion at this time, mostly due to the cost. I've seen figures of $1 billion for the CC extension alone after all the bonds are paid back. I think it's nice to have Downtown, Clayton and the Airport connected, but I'd rather see the city/region look at BRT and/or streetcars both of which would be much cheaper (and with streetcars you still get the development benefit). Metrolink seems like it acts more as a commuter system to me, and while the development benefit for places like Hanley station are great, the stations often represent small islands of pedestrianism within the sea of auto-oriented devlelopment, limiting the TOD potential. Not so with streetcars, which could spur development along the length of their lines.



I can sort of see the case for Metrolink as a pure commuter line into the North and South suburbs, since I'm guessing these would be street level lines and thus more cost effective. For the western suburbs, it looks like the region is putting its money into highway expansion (new I-64), and so if anything is needed I'd rather see BRT.

Why not just buses instead of BRT? Passengers typically aren't pulled from their cars to ride buses, no matter how they're dressed up or what they're called (see the Boston "Silver Line"). I'm not dismissing the idea holding off Metrolink expansion, but BRT infrastructure would likely be a waste. As far as cost, if exclusive BRT was built on the same alignment as CC, would it have cost any less? Though no such study was done to my knowledge, it seems to be a no. I do agree with your streetcar ideas in principle, though.

like I said, I can see the logic in connecting a dense area like Clayton into the system (not sure what BRT would've cost there), but for further expansion into less dense areas I'd rather see BRT explored. I think you underestimate the appeal of a well-designed BRT system, Las Vegas has been quite successful with long articulated vehicles that look plenty "cool" to get people out of their cars.

jefferson wrote:like I said, I can see the logic in connecting a dense area like Clayton into the system (not sure what BRT would've cost there), but for further expansion into less dense areas I'd rather see BRT explored. I think you underestimate the appeal of a well-designed BRT system, Las Vegas has been quite successful with long articulated vehicles that look plenty "cool" to get people out of their cars.

Maybe, but my first impression is that Vegas is a tad different as far as ridership demographics and ratios of commuters vs. pleasure-seekers; heck, they have a monorail (as much of a mess as it is).



This is tangentially related but St. Louis gets a lot of ongoing good press at http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_stl.htm. While that pro-LRT site may be preaching to the proverbial choir, it's interesting to read how much they talk up St. Louis's "famed MetroLink semi-metro light rail transit (LRT) system".

bprop wrote:Maybe, but my first impression is that Vegas is a tad different as far as ridership demographics and ratios of commuters vs. pleasure-seekers; heck, they have a monorail (as much of a mess as it is).

well, true it's tough to trust any city with a monorail (that goes for you too Seattle)

This is tangentially related but St. Louis gets a lot of ongoing good press at http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_stl.htm. While that pro-LRT site may be preaching to the proverbial choir, it's interesting to read how much they talk up St. Louis's "famed MetroLink semi-metro light rail transit (LRT) system".

I agree the system up until now has been a success, but that almost proves the point to me that the our areas with the most ridership potential have already been connected (2 biggest business districts and airport). Honestly, I'd rather have seen the new CC line just stop at Clayton, with perhaps a single park-n-ride stop somewhere south (Brentwood?), with future BRT/streetcars feeding into this spine. As a taxpayer it seems to me rather extravagant to be funding further LRT expansion at the same time as highway expansion.

bpe235 wrote:like the cliche, "the whole is greater than it's parts," this is how I feel about metrolink. The more places that are connected by it, the exponentially greater it will be for the region.

Well said. I feel we need at least one more line to complete the LRT system. A North/South City line passing through downtown as soon as possible. We need it to ensure that downtown is the hub and adding value to the near north and near south sides.

why can't every station (bus and metro link) be linked to a system that shows ETA's? (estimated time for arrivals)? Can't all buses and trains be tracked using GPS, then people could have a tangible number in their face of how long the wait would be. I think this would help a lot. I don't think this would DOUBLE the number of riders or anything, but at least more attractive.

Several cities use NextBus for GPS and online tracking. But, I don't think that any of them include every line on it. San Francisco has NextMuni. But, they only track the light rail lines, streetcar lines, and the most popular bus lines. My guess is that it's too costly for those cities to put every line on it. I'd love to see Metrolink and the top ten or so Metrobus lines on a system like that.



Seeing the time until the next train or bus makes the wait a lot easier. You can check them using your PDA or cell phone. Someone came up with the idea of using a service like TextMarks to text you the time until the next bus/rail arrival at any stop (i.e. text 21hayesgoughout for the time until the next 21 Outbound bus arrives at Hayes and Gough).

Metro had a number of buses outfitted with similar devices as I recall. They were tied into the LED signs at the front of the bus and displayed upcoming intersections (some, not all) and made a generic pre-recorded announcement, enough to make you check the sign if you were interested. It was similar to Chicago except I believe Chicago's announces darn near every intersection.

Is there going to be a campaigning effort in place for voters regarding MetroLink funding that will be on the ballot February 2008?

Is there going to be a campaigning effort in place for voters regarding MetroLink funding that will be on the ballot February 2008?

Rumor has it that there will be a campaign announcement in beginning of August. Previously I heard this would be announced in July, but now its August.



You might follow up with CMT for more information.

How would people NOT be in favor of expansion? Denver, a SMALLER city, is building FOUR lines at once! STL needs to wake the F up sometimes...

Denver, a SMALLER city, is building FOUR lines at once! STL needs to wake the F up sometimes...

If only St. Louis could continue to build one line at a time...The bottom line is people in St. Louis County must support Metrolink and February 2008 will be an opportunity to demonstrate their support.

A few people have requested this thread be split. Continue discussing Metrolink expansion in this thread. Further discussion on the announcement system, etc. should go under new 'Metrolink Announcement System' thread.



By the way, after going through this entire thread, 'Metrolink Expansion', I am impressed with the interesting and informative discussion.

JCity wrote:How would people NOT be in favor of expansion? Denver, a SMALLER city, is building FOUR lines at once! STL needs to wake the F up sometimes...

Actually, Denver's population is 566,974 in city and 2,869,377 in metro per emporis. Compare to 385-ish in the city and 2,865 in the metro. I think you might have jumped the gun a little bit.



The bottom line is that the metro-link will not be widely used until it serves places widely used by the people in the city. A line west in a MUST in terms of rider usage. In addition, a city wide expansion of the metro link is desperately needed. The metro in the city is not that useful for many of the actual residents of the city. Sure if you have a car you can drive to metro-link stations in forest park, or shrewsbury, but isn't that counter-productive to the actual point of having public transportation? I would be in favor of a MASSIVE project done all at once which would make the entire system more useful to all. Sure it's going to take a boatload of money which most likely isn't available, but imo thats the only way the metro is truly going to gain a good amount of regular commuters. (notwithstanding the announcements that metro is surpassing its own ridership goals, I'm speaking about a truly functioning metro that could be found in cities such as Chicago, Boston, D.C., etc.)

I think some of you have some skewed concepts, numbers and ideals about STL's Metrolink.



Denver's System is nice, but by far is more of a LIGHT RAIL system than St. Louis', in terms of street level running and operations. Metrolink runs completely right of way and in subways - more like a heavy rail system.



Denvers System has shorter lines consisting of more stations closer together and networked connecting bus/raillines.



Denver's The Ride (rail):

Locale Denver-Aurora Metropolitan Area

Transit type Light rail

Began operation 1994

System length 34.9 mi (56.2 km)

No. of lines 6

No. of stations 36

Daily ridership 40,000 (approximate Spring 2007 weekday)

Track gauge 1,435 mm (4 ft 8½ in)

Operator Regional Transportation District



St. Louis Metrolink (Rail):

Locale St. Louis metropolitan area (MO/IL)

Transit type Light rail

Began operation July 1993

System length 46 mi (74 km)

No. of lines 2

No. of stations 37

Daily ridership 81,386 (FY May 2007)

Track gauge 1,435 mm (4 ft 8½ in) (standard gauge)

Operator Bi-State Development Agency dba Metro



2006 Stats on North American LRT Cities.

STL rank in 2007 has jumped 20,000 additional riders since 2006 with the new Shrewsbury/I-44 Line.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un ... _ridership