urbanSTL

JMedwick wrote:

Mill204 wrote: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.

I was thinking more along the line of a MetroLink line parallel to a highway thus depressing its ridership be reduced access to stations and likely faster travel by driving.



But your point is valid as well.



And I'm all for a 70 Grand streetcar from N Broadway to Carondelet. Just when is that bridge across the Mill Creek valley going to be rebuilt?

Mill204 wrote:So it seems MoDOT wants to sell property along the potential Westport MetroLink alignment instead of preserving it for future use. At the same time, Olivette wants to plop a development project right on top of the same property and alignment despite city planning documents that recommend the city should plan developments with MetroLink in mind. Makes me wonder if anybody, aside from Metro, is actually serious about public transit in this region.

I wouldn't say that the whole "region" is not serious about transit. I think that St. Louis City, Mid and North St. Louis County, and Metro East are probably the most serious about transit for obvious reasons.

These are my opinions about further Metrolink Extensions.

1) The N-S line should have priority. How many times do we have to build suburban commuter lines in the county before we take urban transit seriously?
2) The Westport line just isn't viable right now and I don't think it will be until certain zoning changes are made. (can you say not in my backyard?)
3) Why doesn't the E-W gateway make it mandatory that municipalities that want transit make the necessary zoning changes? Where are our urban transit villages, real TOD requirements, and better access around stations? Planning and light rail have to run hand and hand if you want a light rail system to be successful.

NO MORE METROLINK EXTENSIONS UNTIL WE GET SOME REAL ZONING CHANGES!

I understand Metro is not responsible for choosing were the next lines will be and I assume that Metro would make better planning and expansion decisions than E-W Gateway. I just don't like such a huge taxpayer investment being made, because of political pressure and not practicality.

I share your frustration frequently, guys. Remember, though, that all these little municipalities don't necessarily hire urban planning types. It's our job - Metro, planners, urban enthusiasts, political leaders who "get it" - to explain why regional, long-range planning is important. We have to educate people re: the benefits of TOD, mixed-use, dense developments, sidewalks, etc. If the culture needs to be changed, someone needs to take responsibility for changing it. I think that's us, here on this board. We need to enlist the people who understand & agree, we need to put the tools out there, and be the experts people can rely on to credibly present the costs/benefits of smart planning, new zoning, etc. And we need to remember that St. Louis doesn't need to be Portland, it just needs to be the best St. Louis we can build.

or is that a little too shiny-eyed?

Jennifer I agree wholeheartedly. This will not change until people understand and are on board with these policies and beliefs. There has to be a diverse group of people who have differing perspectives to show why this is needed.

Jennifer, do you know if their has been any serious consideration or thoughts on what it would take to extend Metrolink past Lambert? Even if it is a mile or two you provide a pretty good transit link to the north/south Lindbergh bus route (A BRT opportunity for North County in line with what Grand BRT would be to the city) as well as a station opportunity at I-70/Maryland Heights interchange which in itself leads to a rather nice circular bus route connecting Riverport/Harrah's/Verizon amphitheater/CC Park & Lake/Earth City Industrial park.

The Plus side is you could probably have the alignment exclusively on Airport proprerty and within I-70 right of way. Build out could be under design build contract wiht opportunities to incorporate FAA funding grants to help pay for station rebuilds at the terminals (both houses have passed two year FAA bills if I'm not mistaken). Governtment entities owning the property already, no eminiment domain or multiple private properties, a rather minimal environemntal impact to deal with as well as a proven ridership records on an existing line for federal funding grants. Do you even need to justify ridership levels on a small extension? Heck, the local entitiy just passed a fixed revenue stream to support its match and very little would needed in terms of additional plant and personal to operate relative to a new line altogher.

The other plus side is that Lambert's Metrolink stations could be part of the airport instead of the add on feel as an after thought to our tranpsortation network. In other words, why shouldn't we try to find a better way to make Lambert's terminals multimodal. I think its a concept lost on almost every American Airport.

Otherwise, Goat314 and I will keep arguing pros and cons of the Daniel Boone Line.

I'm not sure where to post this but two of my co-workers are convinced that Metro Link is or was "owned" by some out of state entity based in Texas possibly.

Any one heard this or have a clue where it might have come from?

I've heard that before, actually. Because so many cities operate their transit agency under the name "Metro," people often get the mistaken impression that when Metro began operating using the "Metro" name that it was bought/taken over by some kind of national or international corporation. But that's not true. Metro is the Bi-State Development Agency just doing business as "Metro" because it's an instantly recognizable trade name.

Check out this poster of transit logos from around the world, and you'll see what I mean.
http://www.doobybrain.com/2008/07/28/tr ... the-world/

jennifer wrote:I've heard that before, actually. Because so many cities operate their transit agency under the name "Metro," people often get the mistaken impression that when Metro began operating using the "Metro" name that it was bought/taken over by some kind of national or international corporation. But that's not true. Metro is the Bi-State Development Agency just doing business as "Metro" because it's an instantly recognizable trade name.

I always thought this was a little disappointing. I'll certainly grant that "The Bi-State Bus" had grown to sound like the punchline to a really stale joke.

But the thing the "Bi-State" name had going for it was it actually spoke to the area being served -- for example CTA has "Chicago" right there in the name and BART has "Bay Area." "Metro" as a brand just sounds generic.

ben1040 wrote:

jennifer wrote:I've heard that before, actually. Because so many cities operate their transit agency under the name "Metro," people often get the mistaken impression that when Metro began operating using the "Metro" name that it was bought/taken over by some kind of national or international corporation. But that's not true. Metro is the Bi-State Development Agency just doing business as "Metro" because it's an instantly recognizable trade name.

I always thought this was a little disappointing. I'll certainly grant that "The Bi-State Bus" had grown to sound like the punchline to a really stale joke.

But the thing the "Bi-State" name had going for it was it actually spoke to the area being served -- for example CTA has "Chicago" right there in the name and BART has "Bay Area." "Metro" as a brand just sounds generic.

How about Unified Transit (UT)?

That smarts.

shadrach wrote:like MARTA, BART, and DART...

...I've always wanted to push 'St Louis Metro Area Rapid Transit' (SMART)

You can hear all the slogans and taglines—

be smart, it's the smart thing to do, use your smarts, I'm smart and so on....

Then we can make the slogan "Ride smart, Ride S-MART" and get Bruce Campbell as a celebrity pitchman

I preferred Seattle's South Lake Union Trolley for its acronym.

between me and you, I'm not thrilled about the Metro moniker either, solely because it makes brand monitoring ala social media very time-consuming. You know how many Metros there are out there that people complain about on Twitter every day?! Tons.

Mill204 wrote:I personally like Metro and the combinations it allows: MetroLink, MetroBus, MetroTram.

Any love for SCAT on this board?

You might be on the wrong board, sir.

I might be late on this:
What's this I read about LA possibly getting a federal loan to complete 12 transit lines in 10 years instead 30? Its unprecedented but does that bode well for St. Louis? We've passed a sales-tax just like LA. I'm a bit envious/threatened, but maybe I shouldn't be? As the article points out there is no 'Infrastructure Bank' to lend them the billions needed. I would love to strike a deal to accelerate expansion of metrolink.

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010 ... s-transit/

^ I agree we need a national rail expansion and modernization program for high speed passenger, light, heavy, and freight rail. That would have been a great stimulus plan. I know Villaraigosa has the support of the US Mayors and many people at the FTA for the Los Angeles 30/10 plan. I just wish more mayors and regional leaders would get together and push for a rail stimulus in all of our major metropolitan areas.

Nations said his motivation was — and still is — the strong link between public transit and economic development. Now, he is working to expand Metro in St. Louis County through a new bus rapid transit system in the next five years, and expanded light rail lines within the decade...
...We are restoring the bus system. When we put the cuts into effect in spring 2009, the reach of public transportation retreated to inside the I-270 corridor. We will be looking at bringing bus rapid transit into the region, in high-density corridors along the interstates. They would be single or tandem buses with dedicated lanes and loading (areas) to make access easier and quicker. We will be working to plan a light-rail extension.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/prin ... l-are.html

Just saw the graphic on the very first post of this forum showing a proposed Metrolink system that travels thoughout the region...

Wow.

Seems like that map would make a lot of sense. Our current light rail system is clean, efficient and on time...

Why couldn't "Stimulus Money" go for things like this rather than some of the crap congressmen feel they need to bring back to the district...And I think strong and robust intra-metro systems make even more sense to invest in than high speed inter-metro rail systems...I could be wrong, but it seems to me that serious cost ineffiencies in our nations transportation grid are within Chicago, Atlanta, D.C., St. Louis, etc. not getting to these cities from another...

Rail and electricity infrastructure...shoulda spent all the stimulus money on these two things...not propping up car sales for two months or other silly programs that in the end appear to me to be crude attempts at wealth redistribution...Remember that big stiumulus check?

Build our infrastructure, then let Americans study, work and compete for where the wealth ends up...

Moorlander wrote:Nations said his motivation was — and still is — the strong link between public transit and economic development. Now, he is working to expand Metro in St. Louis County through a new bus rapid transit system in the next five years, and expanded light rail lines within the decade...
...We are restoring the bus system. When we put the cuts into effect in spring 2009, the reach of public transportation retreated to inside the I-270 corridor. We will be looking at bringing bus rapid transit into the region, in high-density corridors along the interstates. They would be single or tandem buses with dedicated lanes and loading (areas) to make access easier and quicker. We will be working to plan a light-rail extension.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/prin ... l-are.html

Anymore information on where the next extension might occur? Can you post more of the article?