Awesome stats. I guess I'm aiming very high, as I feel like a fully functioning (like D.C. - NOT Denver) metro rail system would really become a catalyst to taking St. Louis back up to that next level of cities. We are improving vastly, but we still need a LOT of key work to make this system what it needs to be. (Citywide expansion, and West and South bound expansions)
newstl2020 wrote: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 city and county of Denver has 566,974 in an area of 153.3 square miles.
The City of St. Louis has 356,837 in an area of 61.9 square miles.
St. Louis has more than half the population of Denver in less than half the area. One could make the argument that Denver is a smaller city by virtue of the fact that it does not have the density of St. Louis.
^Not to take the thread off topic, but I am always amazed how many cities St. Louis is denser than despite loosing 500,000 people.
- 11K
One could make the argument that Denver is a smaller city by virtue of the fact that it does not have the density of St. Louis.
One could, but you would have it redefine "smaller". Denver's bigger is population and bigger in number of residents . . .[/url]
St Louis is actually a pretty dense in certain portions. Other large, empty portions of the north side bring the average down a lot. I would argue that the two most important parts of population with regard to mass transit are metro population and density. City population is mostly based on arbitrary and incomparable boundaries.
Also, according to wikipedia, Denver's metro population is 2,408,750 as of 2006 which is smaller than St Louis'. I find it hard to believe that they had a 20% increase in metro population in one year. Something is off.
Also, according to wikipedia, Denver's metro population is 2,408,750 as of 2006 which is smaller than St Louis'. I find it hard to believe that they had a 20% increase in metro population in one year. Something is off.
The Denver MSA was rejiggered in 2005 (+4 counties, and although I didn't look, I bet they're high-growth) to become the "Denver-Aurora MSA."
Hey, I had to split this thread once already. The exact population of Denver can be discussed elsewhere. Please 
.
.I'm sorry, mods, but I have to disagree. I think it was relevant because it was a basis for comparing the Denver Light Rail system and the St Louis Metrolink. In order to discuss certain things, you often have to get side tracked. The key is whether or not it we lose sight of the original aim or if we can keep it brief and successfully bring what we've learned from the side track back into the conversation. The point that I was trying to make was that Denver and St Louis are at least comparable in population size, our city being more dense. I think our density should lend itself more to making more Metrolink stops in the city (certainly as densely as Denver's stops are compacted) in addition to sweeping gestures across the metropolitan region.
stlmike, no big deal really. The important points were made and I just wanted to nip it in the bud. When other cities get involved, these threads tend to take off and get lost.
Now, back to Metrolink Expansion.....
Now, back to Metrolink Expansion.....
- 2,386
Haha funny how things can get on a roll like that huh? Sorry for originating a pop. debate. As said above, the St. Louis metro is less dense in the North. Im not quite possitive of the number (have no idea) but by the feel of it, it seems as though the majority of the city population is located to the South and the West. Two areas badly in need of much more connection to the metrolink. I feel as though the majority of the metrolink still serves the North-East side even after the shrewsbury - Clayton expansion. I'd say the South side should be granted a new line asap, they are missing out on a large amount of possible riders who don't want to attempt to get to the nearest station at either FOPO or Shrewsbury. Ideas?
While I hate to unbury such an old thread, I thought this was too important not to bring up.southslider wrote:Mill204 wrote:
I believe St. Louis, whenever we get around to expanding Metrolink, would try to put up the new Cross County line as the local "match" to secure funding for the next line. We already got lucky once putting up the land for the original line as the local "match"; I think we'll have to get lucky a second time to have any hope of seeing Metro North or Metro South in the near future.
Unfortunately, Cross County cannot count towards the local match of any future extension. Metro South and Metro North used to be called Cross County Two and Cross County Three, but the new names of Metro South and North came about when the Federal Transit Administration ruled that Cross County was an entirely independent, locally built extension.
While this move unfortunately means future extensions, even where using federal New Starts funding, will now be more expensive, the ruling likely saved the Cross County extension from going to federal courts. And such move indirectly stopped wealthy, sue-happy folks living on Lindell, in Parkview and Clayton wanting to throw every legal hurdle available up against this already costly project.
Via The Overhead Wire, it seems that as long as you have the power to write the law, you can get credit for state and local funds already spent on other transportation projects. In other words, if some Missouri lawmaker manages to write a pass a certain law, St. Louis may be able to claim the $600 million it spent on Cross-County as its "local match" for future MetroLink line.
Hello Westport MetroLink at a cost of $0 to the St. Louis region.
^^^ I personally think it would be tragic if we used our reimbursement funds on the wesport extension when the county has show its unwillingness to support metro. If I were head of the e-w gateway, I would award the funds to N-S Metro in the city. Who knows when the city would be able to afford such a project. The N-S line would spark a ridiculous amount of investment in the city and would definitely get more riders than a westport line.
- 44
I personally think it would be tragic if we used our reimbursement funds on the wesport extension when the county has show its unwillingness to support metro. If I were head of the e-w gateway, I would award the funds to N-S Metro in the city. Who knows when the city would be able to afford such a project. The N-S line would spark a ridiculous amount of investment in the city and would definitely get more riders than a westport line.
Tom Delay did just that for Houston.
it seems that as long as you have the power to write the law, you can get credit for state and local funds already spent on other transportation projects. In other words, if some Missouri lawmaker manages to write a pass a certain law, St. Louis may be able to claim the $600 million it spent on Cross-County as its "local match" for future MetroLink line.
Sorry, wrong quote in previous post about Delay
Goat314, I would disagree that the city should put its bet on a N-S metrolink line nor do I think it would spur a tremendous amount of development. For that kind of money the city can do a whole host of projects such as a new 22nd street interchange (that puts back the street grid) and complete the New Mississippi River bridge to N. Tucker Ave. (both will offer tremendous opportunities), replace I-70 with an at grade blvd to finally connect downtown with the Arch grounds, put a streetcar line on some select N-S arterials starting with Grand Ave and a downtown loop to tie in the various draws (from the Arch grounds, to lofts, to casinos, city museum, Scottrade/Opera house). That doesn't even touch the backlog of street, sidewalks and bridges that need to be rebuilt in the city nor the 100 yr old combined sewer/storm. I just don't see the city winning by putting a huge amount of money into one fixed system.
On the other hand. Daniel Boone expansion gives the county two good corridors for TOD development as well as tie in to existing jobs in Page Ave blvd industrial parks and Westport (I can even picture further growth of the Asian community on Olive with the west boundary anchored by a metrolink station). The price will be considerably less since most of the right of way is already there and it will be above ground system (very different situation then cross county).
While not everybody supports metrolink in West County or the unincorporated areas. Their is plenty of support within the I-270 beltway which is the areas you want to serve with light rail to begin with. I fear that with an N-S line first we will continue to get more stand alone suburban office buildings with more surface lots in the county and an underutilized light rail line in the city that is surrounding by crumbling infrastructure.
On the other hand. Daniel Boone expansion gives the county two good corridors for TOD development as well as tie in to existing jobs in Page Ave blvd industrial parks and Westport (I can even picture further growth of the Asian community on Olive with the west boundary anchored by a metrolink station). The price will be considerably less since most of the right of way is already there and it will be above ground system (very different situation then cross county).
While not everybody supports metrolink in West County or the unincorporated areas. Their is plenty of support within the I-270 beltway which is the areas you want to serve with light rail to begin with. I fear that with an N-S line first we will continue to get more stand alone suburban office buildings with more surface lots in the county and an underutilized light rail line in the city that is surrounding by crumbling infrastructure.
Dredger wrote:While not everybody supports metrolink in West County or the unincorporated areas. Their is plenty of support within the I-270 beltway which is the areas you want to serve with light rail to begin with. I fear that with an N-S line first we will continue to get more stand alone suburban office buildings with more surface lots in the county and an underutilized light rail line in the city that is surrounding by crumbling infrastructure.
I'm sorry, but this seems horrendously misguided. County residents had a chance to show "plenty of support" at the ballot box last November. We all know how that went. Show me any transit route, especially MetroLink, that is "underutilized" in the city. Also, I'd be interested to know exactly where the suburban parts of MetroLink have reduced the number of "stand alone suburban office buildings with more surface lots".
A Westport MetroLink line would be a criminal waste of transit resources. The area completely lacks the physical structure to allow for walkable development. The "last mile" problem would be particularly acute. The residents have, to put it mildly, not shown any interest in light rail or urban-style development. There aren't even any destinations out there for out-of-towners or St. Louisans to bother visiting, unless you count the rapidly dying Westport suburban entertainment-plex.
And if you haven't noticed, an awful lot has been and is being done to restore that "crumbling infrastructure" along the proposed N-S route. It's a hell of a lot easier to restore some old buildings and build the occasional infill structure in the city than it would be to turn the whole Page-Olive-Lindbergh disaster area into something livable for creatures other than cars. You'd have to completely build a new street grid, against the wishes of most of the residents, and working with (or against) multiple municipalities.
Oh, and let's not forget the poverty-rot currently settling into places like Olivette - a decline that will never be reversed, unlike the city's, because Olivette doesn't even have nice old buildings that rich people might want to live in someday. You want to talk about "crumbling infrastructure", take a drive down Olive in 10 years - or, hell, Page right now.
Nothing personal, but MetroLink to Westport is just an awful, awful idea from every perspective. We should be putting the trains where the riders are and where they can work with the existing built environment, and Westport fails on both counts.
EDITED: Just to show I'm not completely negative, I do agree that streetcars on Grand and other arterials, as you suggest, would be a huge benefit. I might even support that over the N-S MetroLink route.
jasontoon wrote:Dredger wrote:While not everybody supports metrolink in West County or the unincorporated areas. Their is plenty of support within the I-270 beltway which is the areas you want to serve with light rail to begin with. I fear that with an N-S line first we will continue to get more stand alone suburban office buildings with more surface lots in the county and an underutilized light rail line in the city that is surrounding by crumbling infrastructure.
I'm sorry, but this seems horrendously misguided. County residents had a chance to show "plenty of support" at the ballot box last November. We all know how that went. Show me any transit route, especially MetroLink, that is "underutilized" in the city. Also, I'd be interested to know exactly where the suburban parts of MetroLink have reduced the number of "stand alone suburban office buildings with more surface lots".
A Westport MetroLink line would be a criminal waste of transit resources. The area completely lacks the physical structure to allow for walkable development. The "last mile" problem would be particularly acute. The residents have, to put it mildly, not shown any interest in light rail or urban-style development. There aren't even any destinations out there for out-of-towners or St. Louisans to bother visiting, unless you count the rapidly dying Westport suburban entertainment-plex.
And if you haven't noticed, an awful lot has been and is being done to restore that "crumbling infrastructure" along the proposed N-S route. It's a hell of a lot easier to restore some old buildings and build the occasional infill structure in the city than it would be to turn the whole Page-Olive-Lindbergh disaster area into something livable for creatures other than cars. You'd have to completely build a new street grid, against the wishes of most of the residents, and working with (or against) multiple municipalities.
Oh, and let's not forget the poverty-rot currently settling into places like Olivette - a decline that will never be reversed, unlike the city's, because Olivette doesn't even have nice old buildings that rich people might want to live in someday. You want to talk about "crumbling infrastructure", take a drive down Olive in 10 years - or, hell, Page right now.
Nothing personal, but MetroLink to Westport is just an awful, awful idea from every perspective. We should be putting the trains where the riders are and where they can work with the existing built environment, and Westport fails on both counts.
EDITED: Just to show I'm not completely negative, I do agree that streetcars on Grand and other arterials, as you suggest, would be a huge benefit. I might even support that over the N-S MetroLink route.
Thank You.....I thought I was going crazy for a second. This is why I feel the N-S line would be more deserving of funds like this.
1) Greater potential for truly urban redevelopment/infill/new construction
2) Neighborhood stabilization
3) More transit friendly and dependent populations
4) The city is more strapped for funds, if the county truly wanted it they could build support for it and have it!
5) Focuses on downtown St. Louis as the center of the greater region
6) Better attraction for young people and tourists
Personally I would like to see them both done, but if I had to put them up against each other........It wouldn't be a contest!
- 11K
Absolutely. The ultimate problem with a line to Westport or elsewhere is that it will never be busy. The anti-public transit voices will loudly declare it a failure due to lack of ridership and enormous cost. And they'd be right. I know the argument, the County is the only group with the potential money to support expansion. Well, maybe we shouldn't expand then! I do disagree a bit about the Metro vote. Voters narrowly defeated the proposal and a lot has happened in the economy since then that may push people towards mass transit.
Grover, Isn't the projected daily ridership for the N-S below 10,000 per day through North City. I believe the best number the could come up with is 8500 in study. This alone make it difficult to be awarded Federal funds. I also question the generalization that more people ride simply because it is in the city limits. The current metrolink system connects two business centers (downtown & Clayton), the biggest employer in Barnes Jewish, three campuses (SLU, Wash U, and UMSL), airports on either end (Lambert, Scotts Air Force Base - another huge job center). I believe the current ridership has a lot more to do with what I listed then anything else. Transit works when it connects jobs and institutions.
I think McKee is right in the fact that we need to build up/develop job centers in order to get sustainable increase in city population and housing. Currently, the population density in North City is not much better or even less then a lot of the areas inside I-270.
I can agree that the best option, if the area got an infusion of infrastructure funds, is not to expand metrolink at moment if they only thing we got out of it is the Daniel Boone. Personally, even as a county resident and user fo metrolink, I think we need to rebuild what we have as well as smaller projects that could make a big impact (remove I-70 downtown is one of them). In my opinion, we can also drop the loop trolley and find a more effective use of those transit funds if they are awarded.
I think McKee is right in the fact that we need to build up/develop job centers in order to get sustainable increase in city population and housing. Currently, the population density in North City is not much better or even less then a lot of the areas inside I-270.
I can agree that the best option, if the area got an infusion of infrastructure funds, is not to expand metrolink at moment if they only thing we got out of it is the Daniel Boone. Personally, even as a county resident and user fo metrolink, I think we need to rebuild what we have as well as smaller projects that could make a big impact (remove I-70 downtown is one of them). In my opinion, we can also drop the loop trolley and find a more effective use of those transit funds if they are awarded.
- 1,517
I would like to see St. Louis transit move away from the multi-modal model that necessarily involves driving to a park-'n'-ride lot.
Why pay for the extra transit infrastructure if people are continuing to use their cars? Is the sole purpose of Metrolink to relieve the stress of parking during events downtown? If so, we better redirect massive transit funding towards a strategic parking plan for downtown.
Yet if we really want to make the extra investment in mass transit infrastructure, it should truly be scaled and intended for pedestrians. Mass transit should do at least these two things and never violate either one:
a) allow the opportunity for those presently commuting with vehicles a convenient and comfortable alternative
and
b) serve a transit dependent population.
Both points assume that the transit service provided takes people where they need to go.
Ideally speaking, targeting a) means that your transit system will have a middle-class buy-in and has the potential for people to move willingly from group a) to b). If there is no potential for this, then just use a cheaper bus service.
The whole parking-friendly system has taken on the character of commuter rail rather than an urban transportation system. To me, the system should be urbanized and, as I said, will only benefit the region if it creates an advantage to city-living, where the infrastructure is much more suited to transit. Otherwise we're paying a ton of money to convenience suburbanites when a bus would be a lot cheaper on taxpayers and would still serve a transit dependent population.
The city/Metro MUST start marketing the sites along any future rail line as very self-conscious TOD sites so people start making the connection about how urban transit systems and walkable services are mutually supportive. The present system does little to demonstrate this. Otherwise, I repeat, what's the point of expensive, fixed rail transit?
Why pay for the extra transit infrastructure if people are continuing to use their cars? Is the sole purpose of Metrolink to relieve the stress of parking during events downtown? If so, we better redirect massive transit funding towards a strategic parking plan for downtown.
Yet if we really want to make the extra investment in mass transit infrastructure, it should truly be scaled and intended for pedestrians. Mass transit should do at least these two things and never violate either one:
a) allow the opportunity for those presently commuting with vehicles a convenient and comfortable alternative
and
b) serve a transit dependent population.
Both points assume that the transit service provided takes people where they need to go.
Ideally speaking, targeting a) means that your transit system will have a middle-class buy-in and has the potential for people to move willingly from group a) to b). If there is no potential for this, then just use a cheaper bus service.
The whole parking-friendly system has taken on the character of commuter rail rather than an urban transportation system. To me, the system should be urbanized and, as I said, will only benefit the region if it creates an advantage to city-living, where the infrastructure is much more suited to transit. Otherwise we're paying a ton of money to convenience suburbanites when a bus would be a lot cheaper on taxpayers and would still serve a transit dependent population.
The city/Metro MUST start marketing the sites along any future rail line as very self-conscious TOD sites so people start making the connection about how urban transit systems and walkable services are mutually supportive. The present system does little to demonstrate this. Otherwise, I repeat, what's the point of expensive, fixed rail transit?
While I understand the desire to see the North-South City line constructed before any lines in the County, I just do not see it is as particle (or necessarily beneficial).
The City route in total was expected to cost around $1 billion and have ridership of 12,00 per day (and this is without major portions extended into the County to pick up additional riders and costs).
Comparatively, early studies of the Daniel Boone corridor place ridership at close to 9,000 per day east of 270 with a price tag of something around $350 million. Heck, for the cost of the City route you could build out both the Boone and north County extensions.
If the goal is to get federal money for the line, the region stands a far better chance with the County routes than the City route (particularly if the region tries to utilize the CC improvements as the local match). Moreover, the expansion of Metrolink in St. Louis County can and should play a key role in any long term plan for building a solid base of support for transit in the region. The City alone cannot pay for such a system; only with the County can it be developed. Therefore, it is paramount that County voters see extensions come to their area to build support and expand ridership.
The only way that the North-South City line makes sense as a regional first priority is if it is extended further into the County (so the County will kick in cash) and McKee throws support and money behind the project.
The City route in total was expected to cost around $1 billion and have ridership of 12,00 per day (and this is without major portions extended into the County to pick up additional riders and costs).
Comparatively, early studies of the Daniel Boone corridor place ridership at close to 9,000 per day east of 270 with a price tag of something around $350 million. Heck, for the cost of the City route you could build out both the Boone and north County extensions.
If the goal is to get federal money for the line, the region stands a far better chance with the County routes than the City route (particularly if the region tries to utilize the CC improvements as the local match). Moreover, the expansion of Metrolink in St. Louis County can and should play a key role in any long term plan for building a solid base of support for transit in the region. The City alone cannot pay for such a system; only with the County can it be developed. Therefore, it is paramount that County voters see extensions come to their area to build support and expand ridership.
The only way that the North-South City line makes sense as a regional first priority is if it is extended further into the County (so the County will kick in cash) and McKee throws support and money behind the project.
It's much worse than that. Try 3,680 for north city; 12,720 for the entire north-south line.Dredger wrote:Grover, Isn't the projected daily ridership for the N-S below 10,000 per day through North City. I believe the best number the could come up with is 8500 in study.
The anemic ridership is, by far, my primary reason for not advocating the north-south metrolink line. Second of all is the extremely high price ($971 million as of 2007) for what is essentially a 17-mile streetcar, particularly when streetcar construction would be roughly half the cost of light-rail.
The only way my opinion could change is if a developer can come through with a major project along the line, particularly in north city.
McKee has yet to change my opinion. Thus far, the only thing he has presented is a vision. He has yet to present anything tangible. I'm also of the opinion that McKee is only interested in the available "gold" at the MRB and 22nd St interchanges. I am extremely skeptical of his plans for the rest of the city. The MRB and 22nd St interchanges, alone, are not enough to sway my opinion.
Anyways, weren't we talking way back about the inadequacy of the north-south metrolink alignment in its current implementation?
Lastly, I do have new concerns about West County MetroLink after reading the StL region's intentions to turn Page into an expressway from I-270 to Lindbergh.
Lastly, I do have new concerns about West County MetroLink after reading the StL region's intentions to turn Page into an expressway from I-270 to Lindbergh.
Same logic that is pushing the County to dump funds into improving the Hanley corridor after spending millions as a region to build light rail to serve the same population.