I wonder what percentage or workers along the Westport line live to the west or north?
Agreed...associating mass transit with only low income workers is a perception that needs to change in STL
Origin of Home-Based Work Trips to Westport (from the Moving Transit Forward Appendix, 1 dot = 10 trips)
![]()
I think this is a very good question when considering expansion.quincunx wrote:I wonder what percentage or workers along the Westport line live to the west or north?
I don't think the county is necessarily dying to get people to Westport itself. I think it's more about getting people in to Clayton, connecting Clayton, and making it the center of the county and the region. It also helps that most of the right-of-way already exists, making it one of the cheaper expansion options. In all likelihood, Westport would be one of the busiest stations in the system because of Park & Ride. It's location at Page & 270 would make it convenient for much of southern St. Charles County via the Page Avenue Extension, and it will be the closest station to Bridgeton, Maryland Heights, Creve Couer, Town and County, and Chesterfield. Obviously a lot of the people in those areas are not transit users, but it's such a big area that it should be pretty busy (especially considering some west county bus routes would be rerouted to connect with the station). In this regard it will be similar to the North Hanley station which serves much of North County via bus connections and park & ride.
My main concern with this line is the stations in between Clayton and Westport. Dielman and Scheutz look comparable to Sunnen, Delmar and Olive look comparable to Maplewood, and Maryland will be similar to Forsyth. Each of those stations is in the bottom 25% of ridership on the system.
So, the Daniel Boone extension would continue to position Metrolink as more of a suburban commuter rail system, and it will also boost the arguments of people who say it is a wasteful expense that "doesn't go anywhere". It would increase system-wide ridership, but bring down riders per station and riders per mile.
It's also worth mentioning that the Daniel Boone Extension would be beneficial for downtown and Metrolink ridership in general. Perhaps not as much as a North/South line, but it would still make the system stronger and give people who live pretty far west a cheap and efficient means of travel into the city and CBD, and it could help people who commute to jobs in West County get there quicker.
My main concern with this line is the stations in between Clayton and Westport. Dielman and Scheutz look comparable to Sunnen, Delmar and Olive look comparable to Maplewood, and Maryland will be similar to Forsyth. Each of those stations is in the bottom 25% of ridership on the system.
So, the Daniel Boone extension would continue to position Metrolink as more of a suburban commuter rail system, and it will also boost the arguments of people who say it is a wasteful expense that "doesn't go anywhere". It would increase system-wide ridership, but bring down riders per station and riders per mile.
It's also worth mentioning that the Daniel Boone Extension would be beneficial for downtown and Metrolink ridership in general. Perhaps not as much as a North/South line, but it would still make the system stronger and give people who live pretty far west a cheap and efficient means of travel into the city and CBD, and it could help people who commute to jobs in West County get there quicker.
Almost forgot about this map. Job density in the St. Louis region (2008).
![]()
Wabash, you have very good points. My main concern with a Westport line has always been the dispersed low-density nature of the areas surrounding each of the potential stations.
Wabash, you have very good points. My main concern with a Westport line has always been the dispersed low-density nature of the areas surrounding each of the potential stations.
The more I think about it, the more I think that STL should look at streetcars being their primary inner city transportation instead of light rail. You could hit more neighborhood centers and make a southside loop hooking up with the downtown streetcar line (that hopefully happens))
It seems like southside expansion totally bypasses soulard. It would be great to take metrolink from downtown to soulard which could be implemented at some point.
____________________________
rail construction companies
____________________________
rail construction companies
- 1,792
It would be great but alignment selection is a difficult process. Three South sideline alternatives were on the table. Tucker and Gravois, Jefferson and I55, and the old Union Pacific Rail.
This is my assesment of the selection process
Gravois would give one Soulard stop, a South Grand stop, and a Bevo stop, but its county commuter component would overlap more with the Shrewsbury line and probably also not be convienient for Botancal Gardens, Lafayette Square, The Grove.
A Jefferson line misses South Grand Botanical Gardenas The Grove and Bevo, and is inconvienient for Soulard but is better for Lafayette Square and AB as well as commuters from south county.
The UPac Alignments is more covienient for Bot Gardens, The Grove. But completely misses Soulard and Lafayette Square.
Personally I think two southside lines are necessary too truely cover the southside. Gravois line and a Jefferson line but i think even most people concede that is a minimum 20 years out if ever. I still hold out hope for a first southside alignment to start in the next 5 years (call me a dreamer). Everything I read seems to point to that being the Jefferson alignment but most of those documents are 5 years old or more so it could change.
This is my assesment of the selection process
Gravois would give one Soulard stop, a South Grand stop, and a Bevo stop, but its county commuter component would overlap more with the Shrewsbury line and probably also not be convienient for Botancal Gardens, Lafayette Square, The Grove.
A Jefferson line misses South Grand Botanical Gardenas The Grove and Bevo, and is inconvienient for Soulard but is better for Lafayette Square and AB as well as commuters from south county.
The UPac Alignments is more covienient for Bot Gardens, The Grove. But completely misses Soulard and Lafayette Square.
Personally I think two southside lines are necessary too truely cover the southside. Gravois line and a Jefferson line but i think even most people concede that is a minimum 20 years out if ever. I still hold out hope for a first southside alignment to start in the next 5 years (call me a dreamer). Everything I read seems to point to that being the Jefferson alignment but most of those documents are 5 years old or more so it could change.
Prepare for disappointment when the county insists the next expansion is in the county since they're paying for it. Of course it would help if the city were in the county.
^ Only way I would accept that stupid Westport line is if it forced the county to adopt form based code in a 1/2 mile radius around stations. I think Metro should also have to commit to alternative transit in the city like (BRT, streetcar).
What about Riverport / Earth City? I live in South St Louis and dumbly thought that I could Metrolink it out to the Airport and catch a bus from there. As it is, I have to get a bus from the N. Hanley station that loops through Earth City and then over to Riverport. It would be nice to have a Maryland Blight Express line that starts at the Airport Metrolink stop.
I think it's a downer that the Blanchette Bridge is half down and the rebuild makes no assumption that light rail could cross over it.
Other note - Riverport's office park is entirely devoid of sidewalks. It's probably the most pedestrian unfriendly office park in STL. The bus stops are one sign planted in the grass next to the road. There are no shelters either. If you transit out there and the weather is bad it sucks.
I can only hope that the burning landfill stank out there prompts some companies to move out. Preferably to Ballpark Village.
I think it's a downer that the Blanchette Bridge is half down and the rebuild makes no assumption that light rail could cross over it.
Other note - Riverport's office park is entirely devoid of sidewalks. It's probably the most pedestrian unfriendly office park in STL. The bus stops are one sign planted in the grass next to the road. There are no shelters either. If you transit out there and the weather is bad it sucks.
I can only hope that the burning landfill stank out there prompts some companies to move out. Preferably to Ballpark Village.
- 549
I've always been fond of creating a loop instead of sticking with one line. There are real benefits to tying together Wash Ave, Cherokee, Meramac, AND the various nodes up and down Grand. Toss the standard walking radii around the likely stops, and a huge percentage of the city is immediately connected. Yes, it's very city-centric, but in the future, spokes could easily be added to this loop that extend out into the county. These multiple lines would overlap on this loop, increasing the frequency of streetcars in the urban core.
![]()
[/url]
[/url]About the "Yes, it's very city-centric" part:urbanpioneer wrote: Yes, it's very city-centric, but in the future, spokes could easily be added to this loop that extend out into the county. These multiple lines would overlap on this loop, increasing the frequency of streetcars in the urban core.
[/url]
I'm all for city-centric -- we need more of it. It seems every project that goes up to vote now requires the blessing (and the tax dollars) of St. Louis County or St. Charles. As much as we all go on about unification, it can't happen unless the City is coming from a position of strength, and it can show that strength by getting its own house in order...or at least part of it.
You're seeing that a bit now with local-control, aldermanic reduction and the push for renewed accreditation for City schools. Not to mention the expanding participation/voice the people are finding in issues of public policy.
But as it relates to new mass transit, I'd love to see the City recognize its value and take the sole lead on it. Build it right up to the County line on the City side and do it all on our own.
Otherwise, we'll always be seen as a struggling urban center looking for a hand from Counties.
The City pays for it too (and the Feds paid for the bulk of the infrastructure). IMO before the county gets more light rail it needs to show it'll know what to do with it. Leveling immediately-adjacent apartments for an auto dealer and intentionally limiting access to nearby extant retail shows me that at least some municipalities either don't want it or don't know how to properly utilize the light rail stations. Show me strong county-wide (and city-wide too, if that's what it takes) zoning mandating the types of development that can and cannot be built around light rail stations and I'd be much more likely to support an east-west line. Until then, keep the lines in the city where the population density and built environment can best take advantage of it.quincunx wrote:Prepare for disappointment when the county insists the next expansion is in the county since they're paying for it. Of course it would help if the city were in the county.
-RBB
Correct me if I'm wrong but there was no federal contribution to the cross county line. Also the Prop A 0.5% sales tax that the county passed was half for operations and half for more Metrolink. The passage triggered a 0.25% increase in the city for operations. So unless there's something else the only money piling up for a large capital project is coming from sales tax generated in the county. Of course some of that comes from shoppers who live in the city, not that that matters much politically.
You're right - the initial portion was built with Federal funds, but per the always-accurate Wikipedia:
-RBB
And yes, the county is picking up more of the slack than the city is. That still doesn't change the fact that county municipalities don't always know what to do with a MetroLink line if/when they get one, or that people in the city are (generally speaking) more likely to make use of transit options. Call it a better use of their money. If the county decides to make TOD a priority near ML lines, then it would make more sense to extend lines deeper into the county. That still doesn't change the fact that one (or more) N-S lines in the City would be a logical development to put the system to use most effectively.The recent Cross-County Extension project was funded by a $430 million Metro bond issue.
-RBB
- 1,792
I feel like the county is kind of resigned to the next expansion being in the city or they wouldn't be building a running trail on the Westport Metrolink ROW. Mostly what the more conservative county voters want is for the Metrolink to pay for itself, which it won't, but its got a hell of a lot better chance of doing that in the city than on a Westport line, so i think you see controversy where it doesn't exist.
Even if the county did demand more Metrolink to the county I think the most they would do would be to insist on extending either or both existing lines into the county in conjunction with a new expansion downtown. Or they might insist on the Southside line being built all the way out to south county mall rather than building a shorter version of the North and South line at the same time. There are ways to compromise if the politics require it and the whole of metro area governance could take a few courses in TOD... Sunnen Station is near criminal though.
Even if the county did demand more Metrolink to the county I think the most they would do would be to insist on extending either or both existing lines into the county in conjunction with a new expansion downtown. Or they might insist on the Southside line being built all the way out to south county mall rather than building a shorter version of the North and South line at the same time. There are ways to compromise if the politics require it and the whole of metro area governance could take a few courses in TOD... Sunnen Station is near criminal though.
Agreed on all your points. I hope objective evaluation prevails over politics. If Federal money is involved I think it'll help put it where it'll be used and have the most impact. But if it's all locally funded and most of the money comes form the county some out there will push hard for it to be in the county, I worry.
- 11K
IIRC - there have been a couple land sales that would have been within the Westport MetroLink ROW. That line now seems unlikely. And a small point - I think half the tax revenue was for "expansion" and not necessary "MetroLink", but I could be wrong.
^ I think that included a parcel off Olive/I270 that MoDOT put up for sale the other year. I think every other year or so a proposal is put forward to develop after MoDOT had rebuilt the intersection.
Let the County know which of its three corridors you would like to see studied: MetroLink Corridor Study.
The survey includes them, but this St. Louis County site includes maps of the three alternatives: http://stlouisco.com/MetroLinkCorridorStudy
The survey includes them, but this St. Louis County site includes maps of the three alternatives: http://stlouisco.com/MetroLinkCorridorStudy
- 8,912
Got this response via email
Thank you very much for providing your input for St. Louis County’s on-line MetroLink survey. Your preference for the Daniel Boone alignment will be included in information for the County Executive’s review. Please note that the Northside-Southside alignment in the City of St. Louis has already been studied and will be considered by the East-West Gateway Council of Governments in any future decision-making process. We appreciate your participation in our survey.
Thank you very much for providing your input for St. Louis County’s on-line MetroLink survey. Your preference for the Daniel Boone alignment will be included in information for the County Executive’s review. Please note that the Northside-Southside alignment in the City of St. Louis has already been studied and will be considered by the East-West Gateway Council of Governments in any future decision-making process. We appreciate your participation in our survey.
I got the same one...
Thank you very much for providing your input for St. Louis County’s on-line MetroLink survey. Your preference for the Daniel Boone alignment with its potential for TOD will be included in information for the County Executive’s review. Please note that the Northside-Southside alignment in the City of St. Louis has already been studied and will be considered by the East-West Gateway Council of Governments in any future decision-making process. We appreciate your participation in our survey.
Thomas P. Curran
Senior Policy Advisor
St. Louis County Executive Office
41 So. Central Avenue
Clayton, MO 63105
Thank you very much for providing your input for St. Louis County’s on-line MetroLink survey. Your preference for the Daniel Boone alignment with its potential for TOD will be included in information for the County Executive’s review. Please note that the Northside-Southside alignment in the City of St. Louis has already been studied and will be considered by the East-West Gateway Council of Governments in any future decision-making process. We appreciate your participation in our survey.
Thomas P. Curran
Senior Policy Advisor
St. Louis County Executive Office
41 So. Central Avenue
Clayton, MO 63105