urbanSTL

From what I read this morning, it is the same old thing. Lots of money for highways and just a nod to transit. Please correct me if I am wrong! I hope I am wrong. They brought home from Washington 31 Million for Page Avenue Extension, money to upgrade and partially relocate Hwy 141. 15.7 million to relocate and rebuild HWY MM in Jeffco, new interchanges on 255, etc. Two Metrolink lines have been authorized, but UNFUNDED??? They have funds available for transit projects in other cities. Endless funds for highways and bridges across the nation. So, what have they really done for Metrolink. I am getting impatient with these people and still withholding my applause.

thanks, expat, for saying that. it's the same old thing- way, way too much for hwy and way too little for transit.

it's unfortunate how the public transportation is so greatly looked down upon in our country. Our state i particular. I read some where that kansas city has more highway mileage per capita than any other country in the world. SOOOO shortsided if metrolink doesn't recieve decent expansion funding

In light Xing's own made MetroLink map, did anyone see the "Think BIG" full-page color advertisement in April's St. Louis Business Journal. Evidently, it was a map of the region showing MetroLink lines all over the place. Does anyone still have a copy of the April issue?



And who is behind these? A Google search makes it look like Metropolis is connected with ad work by Waylon.



The ads run every month about the third week of each month.



March had a 2012 NCAA bracket with SLU and Mizzou going all the way, thus "St. Louis" and "Missouri."



April had a web of MetroLink lines.



May had a multi-lane highway 40 at Forest Park. Not sure if this was commentary about the New I-64 or Forest Park. If 40, those are a lot of highway lanes shown in the ad. If the Park, the highway takes away from the picture's intended statement.



June had a giant pencil erasing the city-county line.



July should have just come out in last week's edition, but haven't seen it yet.



So, what is it with these mysterious ads? All they read is Think BIG, not any organization or any other hints to their backers, purpose or advocacy intentions.

I love this ad campaign, hopefully it will get more people in St. Louis, especially business leaders to think outside of the box. The rest of you...please don't take it too seriously.

The tracks have been put down this week on the section that runs through Hanley Industrial Ct and then past Best Buy. That's what I've seen so I'm sure they've done a lot further than that.

Southslider, if you are around? According to your comments on the referendum thread, the next likely line would be the Metro South Line. Would that be the light blue line shown on the map posted at the beginning of this thread? Looks like an extension of the Cross County Extension. I wonder why this would have higher priority than a Cross City line - South or North Side?

Metro South is the furthest along in planning, but the Northside and Southside corridors (at least the portions within the City) will be catching up to higher level planning as well. Thus, these three corridors are moving closer to be ready for implementation, but it will be up to regional leaders, and ultimately voters, if any of them advance to implementation in the near-future. Daniel Boone and Madison have increasing civic support, but their planning is not as advanced as Metro South, Northside or Southside.



Ultimately, the huge hurdle of financing is facing all corridors. The current local quarter-cent sales tax in the City and County is obligated to the debt financing of Cross-County construction to Shrewsbury. Any line beyond that or elsewhere in Missouri would require a tax levy, of which a full cent is now authorized. The City and County both passed the initial quarter-cent in 1994, following the popular opening of the first line in 1993. Then in 1997, an additional quarter-cent failed in the County but passed in the City. However, since failing in the County, the City tax did not go into effect. Most would say the tax failed the second increase then because the expansion plan wasn't clear to voters, and thus, we face the same problem today for a future tax increase.



So, why plan lines, you might ask, if we don't have the money to build them? The planning money for Metro South, Northside and Southside did not come out of any budget for other planning purposes or projects. So, in essence, it would be a missed opportunity to have not used available funding tied to specific corridors.



Metro South was paid for out of an earmark secured by former Congressman Gephardt to plan an extension beyond Shrewsbury to South County.



The money for Northside-Southside is the most creative. Developer Craig Heller earned Transportation Tax Credits from creating significant development within an eligible distressed community (his loft projects in the City of St. Louis). With such investments in close proximity to the downtown loop shared by Northside/Southside, his $2.9 million tax credits were philanthropically transfered to East-West Gateway for the eligible study of transit corridors, in which Heller's developments fell. The $2.5 million earned from the tax credit sale will now finance further planning of the Northside-Southside extensions, but only covers the cost of the lines between I-70 and I-55, the very urban core of the extensions. The study could be expanded if more money were found to study other portions mostly in St. Louis County, or even Daniel Boone extension as well.



Madison County recently started its planning process with the early stage of a feasibility study due to Madison County Transit District paying for the study. However, more funding would be needed, such as a Madison County sales tax, to complete more advanced planning (refined alternatives analysis, environmental impact statement, financial plan, conceptual engineering) as well as implementation (design and construction).



All the lines face the question of local funding, and within Missouri somewhat, state funding. But voters in Missouri aren't about to blindly vote for more taxes not knowing the prioritization of lines, and Madison County voters are just as parochial as City and County voters with their own Alton vs. Edwardsville concern.



East-West Gateway and Metro staff aren't in the business of pushing one corridor over the other, but instead objectively evaluate alternatives within a corridor by accepted performance measures. However, the boards of these agencies are comprised of regional leaders, many elected chief executive officials of major jurisdictions or appointees of elected officials. If folks want a publicly transparent strategic plan for MetroLink expansion, they really should force public discussion with their representatives. After all, if we elect them, they work for us. And with the planners working under our elected officials' direction, the planners work for us as well. But striking a balance between what is popular and what is cost-effective is as much of a struggle as convincing voters to pay for something that many might feel doesn't directly benefit them.

I am glad they have some of this planning in place so they will be ready when the funding falls into place. Not too long ago, the feds made a big fuss about approving Metrolink expansion (with no funds attached while funding highways and bridges) - could something be in the pike? Of course, Katrina threatens some of those dollars anyway. This is all very frustrating. I guess they didn't build Rome in a day.

Southslider--your depth of knowledge regarding these topics is amazing. Thanks for the info.

My pseudonym, by the way refers, to a slang term for South City White Castle burgers, not a preference for the Southside extension. All the corridors have their pros and cons. Here's a simplified take:



Metro South:

most complete in planning but no final alternative selected due to the unexpected cost of running along BNSF (a River Des Peres alignment to I-55 then a competitive alternative); but if ignoring its virtually complete planning, on its own merit, this corridor attracts the most new riders, yet only modest ridership overall due to its lower density, auto-oriented land uses



Northside:

will be next most complete in planning (along with Southside but each only in the City), has the most development potential, serves the most transit-dependent population (essentially existing riders), but without robust concurrent development about the line and stations, it mostly moves existing bus ridership to the new line



Southside:

will be next most complete in planning (like Northside), lines up well for a hybrid line with past Metro South work (if using I-55 past River Des Peres), has the densest residential population, a mix of existing and new riders, has a dense amount of Prop M supporters, but faces public scrutiny for not serving more of South City (Soulard, Benton Park, South Grand, etc.)



Daniel Boone:

no funding yet secured to finalize planning, has the densest employment, serves both reverse commuters and new park'n'ride riders, but the ridership is more so there when connecting with Clayton, while the political leadership is more so pushing a Northside-Daniel Boone hybrid from North City out to Westport



Madison:

Illinois provides more funding than Missouri, but Madison County hasn't yet passed any sales tax; folks are parochially divided in Illinois as whether the line will more so serve the bluffs or the riverbend communities (the Alton vs. Edwardsville debate; Granite City seems to win in either route, albeit to the loss of Collinsville)

The short blurbs are nie Southslider. Although it makes sense that the political leadership would support the north west combo line, I wonder if such a line would get support from the voters, as often the back room deals struck do not notice what people will vote for. I wonder how many west county residetns want to go through north city to get downtown for a Cardinal game? You have already pointed out that a northern alingment not through Clayton reduces ridership. If fewer people will ride it, fewer people will support the extension.

Since you seem to have intiment knowlege of the Metro plans, do you see any long term parallel development in downtown and clayton (ie centeral loops to serve both downtowns off of which many of the lines come off)? In some ways the new CC extension's routing through CLayton seems to be well placed for a future triangular loop around clayton.

I'm sure people will have no problem riding a line through north St. Louis. I rode MetroLink through E. St. Louis for a year and never had any problems nor have I heard of problems occuring along the train or at stations besides the occasion fare jumper. I'm sure there is going to be security personell onboard trains so West Countians don't have to worry about anyone carrying their TVs on board.

JMedwick, I don't really don't understand your question about "Central Loop" between Downtown and Clayton. Please expand on that a little.



Anyway, Downtown to Clayton will have 10-minute headway service at peak times with the new Cross-County extension opening in 2006. Green line trains (serving Cross-County stations) will run every 10 minutes peak between Shrewsbury/I-44 and Emerson Park in East St. Louis, while red line trains will run every 10 minutes peak between Lambert-Main and Shiloh-Scott. Thus, while there will be 10-minute headways west of Forest Park or east of Emerson Park, there will then be 5-minute headways in-between Forest Park and Emerson Park. So, Clayton will not have as frequent trains as Downtown, but the central corridor of the City and East St. Louis will have increased service on the existing line.



Now, if a line were to open between Westport and Clayton, such trains in theory could continue Downtown. However, the combined headways once reaching Forest Park would be too close together (3 minutes at peak time) for current technology. Hopefully, some advance sensor timing devices will be created with reasonable affordability in the future. Otherwise, trains coming from Westport can wye onto the Cross-County extension just west of the Central station but ultimately most turn back on a cross-over track somewhere before reaching Forest Park. If turning back after Skinker, then train service will increase between WashU and Clayton with shared Shrewsbury and Westport bound trains. But someone wishing to travel all the way from Westport to Downtown will have to transfer somewhere in or east of Clayton along the new Cross-County line. Such problem was just studied with funding from the Metro South study to see potential headways and travel times on a fully built system.



The concern for maxed-out capacity between Forest Park and Downtown on the existing line with Cross-County opening is also why Southside cannot tie in Grand, as well as partly why Northside to Westport has practical legs. But Daniel Boone really needs to enter Clayton. So, it's really not so much an either/or option between Clayton or North City from Westport, but more so whether to build a "Northwest Connector" from North City in addition to the Clayton-Westport line.

So confusing , but my faith is in transportation planners.



Clayton is needed because it's a govt. and financial center, but northside to Daniel Boone is needed because that's where West Port workers are from. The Forest Park station may have to be rebult again in the future or allow a subway under Delmar or a slightly northern route that goes through the CWE. That's it!!



Daniel Boone Metroline can take Olive to near the current Delmar station and follow Delmar to the Central West End and head for midtown to Downtown. However, that may be expensive and a short stint would be needed to connect to Clayton. So Confuging! as my old violin teacher would say.

I think the NW connector between the Northside and DB extension would almost for sure use abandoned rail right of way. I think its either Wabash or Terminal Rail. It would run from roughly Natural Bridge at Goodfellow breaking off of the Northside line and connect with the DB line around Overland Plaza near Woodson and 170.



Given the technical limitations regarding the headway on the mainline between Forest Park and ESTL, I think we'll see the DB line built as one line with two branches, one that runs to Clayton and one that runs Downtown along the Northside line. The most cost effective way to set it up would be to have the Clayton branch turn end at the Central station and turn around. While someone at that station would have to get off and transfer to get to downtown, they could have just taken the Northside branch to downtown with no required transfer.



We'll see, that's really just my speculation. The only problem I see is that we may run into headway issues on the downtown loop if there are three lines on it (Southside, Northside and DB downtown Branch.)

From the past plans, it sounds like there would be a transfer from say the soutside or northside lines onto the downtown loop, thereby elminating that problem, but maybe metro will change it to a two track directional system, to eliminate some of those problems. Just so long a 2 tracks does not mean that a street is clossed off to regular street traffic. I say use minneapolis' 5th street as a perfect example. The 2 ways trains leave only one lane for regular car traffic, but people still use that traffic lane.

SOuthslider, what i was attempting to ask is: Since Metro is planning a downtown loop to help the flow from northside and southside lines into and out of downtown, is metro contemplating a similar plan for Clayton. A loop connecting the CC, a northern extension of the CC, and an east west line at street level in Clayton. I know CLayton voted the conecpt of street level tranit in the past, however if Clayton saw it as part of a proposal for additonal northern and western metro traffic into Clayton perhaps they would go for it?

The only problem I see is that we may run into headway issues on the downtown loop if there are three lines on it

Ah, but another hidden beauty of the distributor loop concept for Downtown. While the existing exclusive right-of-way line between Forest Park and Downtown will be essentially maxed out with doubled service after Cross-County opens, the downtown loop could handle more trains because its in-street tracks and sharp turns require slower speeds. Thus with slower speeds in Downtown, trains can run closer together on the loop with shorter headways.



Yet since new MetroLink lines would only be crawling within downtown and have multiple transfer points to the existing line, the loop concept shouldn't significantly add to someone's travel time, whether ending their trip or just transfering trips in Downtown. Those trains operating on the downtown loop on their alignments outside of downtown, especially west of Natural Bridge/Union or Chouteau/39th will be able to match the speeds of current MetroLink trains still providing quick service along their lines.

Don't you wish we were discussing something that was getting ready to be built and not at best case given the current funding 20 years away?

I think how soon these lines get built is simply up to us. If we stick to the old way of doing things, we have to compete with every other region seeking federal funding of their light-rail lines and many using sales taxes for their local match. But if we think outside the box, we could get there sooner.



Jerry Schlichter, an attorney, helped devise the state historic tax credits, seeing the loss of real estate investment following the 1986 federal tax reforms. Today, Missouri leads the nation in historic rehab projects, and St. Louis City is clearly the largest benefactor.



Interesting enough, Schlichter also helped loft developer Craig Heller seek state transportation tax credits from his downtown developments to apply towards the planning of MetroLink within the City (the northside-southside lines and their shared downtown loop). Both Schlicter and Heller are active members in Citizens for Modern Transit, the region's leading advocacy group supportive of MetroLink expansion. Such creativity for historic rehab and now MetroLink planning within the City shouldn't stop now when it comes to thinking about creatively financing MetroLink expansion.



The state of Missouri recently authorized City and County voters to consider a full one-cent sales tax for purposes of MetroLink. But thinking outside the box, the local share of any MetroLink extensions doesn't have to come strictly from dedicated sales taxes, as Cross-County has (indeed a 100% locally financed project). Incremental or district-specific taxes about the corridors could work like TIF, TDD or Transportation Corporations. There are also TIFIA loans, GARVEE bonds, and many more tools in the financial tool box to accelerate MetroLink expansion. Denver and its FasTracks program is likely the best example of creative financing for accelerated system construction.



Of course, though, Denver is growing. So what likely needs to happen is a discussion of how MetroLink offers an economic injection in the arm for our slow-growth out-migration region. Linking development to MetroLink expansion would not only help improve operational solvency, but also catalyze and spur more jobs and housing. The CORTEX sites for a bio-tech corridor at Sarah, Grand/Chouteau, and Shaw/Vandeventer is the perfect example of how MetroLink and economic development can potentially go hand-in-hand.



Downtown is slowly shifting from rehab to new construction. Since new construction won't require historic tax credits, the incremental taxes collected from new development could help partially finance the capital construction of MetroLink lines. North Florissant and Chouteau are also ripe for development, with increasing interest in Old North St. Louis, Lafayette Square building out, and the Chouteau Greenway/Bio-Tech corridor. Natural Bridge hasn't yet quite caught the eye of developers (other than strip-malls) but I think it would be short-sighted to discount its TOD potential.



I think it will take the public weighing in on and accepting a transparent strategic plan of prioritized expansion, leadership from local jurisdictions with land use controls willing to facilitate transit-oriented development, and the private development community forming crucial financial partnerships to have concurrent TOD investments partially finance construction via their incremental improvement of project-area tax base.

Interesting tidbit. With the completion of the Cross County expansion, Metrolink will rank just outside the top 25 urban rail systems by length. It will put St louis just below Milan, Italy and right above Busan, S Korea. The system will measure 74.03 km (or 46 miles to you and me.) This list does not include regional Rail or Commuter rail such as Metra in Chicago or Caltrain in San Francisco. Currently we sit at 33, which really, is way higher than I would have expected.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ur ... _by_length