Whatever gets built, no park'n ride lots in the City!!!!Alex Ihnen wrote:For the city, a line that runs in the street w/ north terminus along Natural Bridge, and south terminus at Jefferson/55 (fine, put in a park-n-ride), both well within the city limits, could be best. It's shorter and could actually be built as streetcar, with a focus on spurring development along the line.
- 516
^I think park-n-ride can make sense in the City. Of its 4 park-n-ride stations I think Grand, Delmar and Shrewdbury are better with park-n-ride than without. Forest Park-Debaliviere I'd rather see developed than remain a surface lot.
- 2,430
The City proceeding with a starter N/S project that can be extended into the County when it is ready seems logical. And my bet is on County coming around before too long for the simple fact that the other three lines are pretty much non-starters unless County wants to go ahead without federal support and a lot of internal dissension. (And I think Stenger is a one-termer.)
- 516
I'll grant you that Shrewsbury and Delmar lots are not the worst things in the world, although they are basically at the City limits (and the Delmar lot also provides needed overflow parking for the Pagent and other East Loop businesses) - but a park'n ride lot in the Benton Park area (or other semi-dense S. City neighborhood) would be a big waste of space and not likely to be heavily utilized until downtown parking rates quadruple.wabash wrote:^I think park-n-ride can make sense in the City. Of its 4 park-n-ride stations I think Grand, Delmar and Shrewdbury are better with park-n-ride than without. Forest Park-Debaliviere I'd rather see developed than remain a surface lot.
I'm at a loss why this idea of N-S having to be a hybrid between what is a street car route/parameters for the city and a true light rail in the county. I think you pretty much lose what county residents desire as the running times slowdown considerably once you hit the city limits & the multiple stops. It is even uglier to get from S County/S City to get through Jeff Ave & downtown stops to the NGIA which will be truly one of the few employment centers and or institutions to attract northbound riders.STLrainbow wrote:The City proceeding with a starter N/S project that can be extended into the County when it is ready seems logical. And my bet is on County coming around before too long for the simple fact that the other three lines are pretty much non-starters unvless County wants to go ahead without federal support and a lot of internal dissension. (And I think Stenger is a one-termer.)
First, Leadership across the board has to embrace the political reality that a starter N-S in the city using Prop A funds will not happen. Metrolink expansion is coming to the county first. That war was already won a long time ago. At the same time, it is going to be cost prohibitive even to build a N-S starter to light rail standards, the heavier rail, the heavier cars, etc. in addition to metrolink expansion in the county. A separate bond/tax measure will be needed.
Second, I think Alex approach of N-S starter line which would be better off as streetcar IMO with Wabash correction of NO park-n-rides is the path to go. Heck, somehow a streetcar is being built for the loop on pretty much on one man's mission. A N-S streetcar for the city that connects S City via Jeff Ave to downtown via Choteau Ave/14th to NGIA/near north city on alternate route is doable within the city and can be independent of Bi-state but still compliment existing bus service and metrolink. Heck, I would argue that N-S Streetcar for city could be built with City bond measure (city residents voting for what city residents want) & federal transit start funds while finding the financial resources or create the tax district to have no fare box once it is up and running.
In other words, what so bad about embracing a city streetcar system and a future alternate N-S plan. I would argue that South County and Downtown be better served if you had metrolink that embraces the I-55 RoW and the UPRR/Desoto RoW in the city which can easily tie into the existing metrolink spine line - same system, same track & equipment as well as making a lot more sense for Shrewsbury to tie into I-55.
North County is trickier but may be an expanded streetcar system for Old North&MLK with BRT coming into downtown from North County. I would also argue that North City rebuilding and development would be better served by expanding upon the N-S streetcar that still provides a south city connection. As N-S is currently envision it is already a stand alone system. So why try to make it two different things to different parts of the metro area.
- 1,868
Forget Metrolink, why not pair a city streetcar/BRT with commuter rail?
For South City, I have long preferred a street running option Tucker to Gravois.
- 2,430
^^^ dredger, I'm not following your reply very well, especially on this hybrid stuff: the point I'm trying to make is that I don't think the County is going to move forward on any of those other corridors before N/S and if they dilly-dally on N/S I think it makes sense as others have suggested for the City to move forward with a plan that makes sense for it with the hope that the County eventually comes around, which I think it will. I believe it is more likely that the City would approve an additional tax to execute whatever that plan is before the County moves forward on anything other than N/S.
- 9,566
Unless the city is 100% funding the NS local portion with a new funding source i cant see it moving forward without portions going into the county at close to the same amount of mileage as the city.
I have not read or heard anything from county elected officials that they would have N-S above the others. Just the opposite. N-S is a non-starter when it comes to Prop A funds. The support for N-S is EW Gateway making it Tier 1. But that is their job and they can only dictate flow of federal funds. The reality is the region already built one metrolink extension without federal funds. Nothing says it can't happen again even if the wisdom behind that has proven to be a big mistake.STLrainbow wrote:^^^ dredger, I'm not following your reply very well, especially on this hybrid stuff: the point I'm trying to make is that I don't think the County is going to move forward on any of those other corridors before N/S and if they dilly-dally on N/S I think it makes sense as others have suggested for the City to move forward with a plan that makes sense for it with the hope that the County eventually comes around, which I think it will. I believe it is more likely that the City would approve an additional tax to execute whatever that plan is before the County moves forward on anything other than N/S.
I think it also makes sense for city to move forward with what makes sense for the city. To me that is North-South oriented street car connecting south city, downtown with north city & the future NGIA. It would still accommodate and compliment existing transit, be built at a lower cost, expanded to support central corridor and could be paid in large by city residents while as you state, leadership on regional level dilly-dally.
- 2,430
^ I agree streetcar (or sold BRT) could be an alternative to light rail and should be studied
As for the County, as soon as any word gets out that Stenger indeed is prepared to endorse a particular proposal other than N/S the opposition within the county is going to be strong. On the one hand, there are going to be the fierce critics that point out this totally goes against the Ferguson-related initiatives and on the other hand there are going to be the opponents that don't even want it going into their towns.
Reaching a consensus within the county on which non N/S line to move forward on (and again all but certain to be without federal funds) is going to be terribly difficult. And that is assuming no extra funds are needed to pay for it beyond Prop A; I think it would be practically impossible for County voters to support more metrolink funds if it's not going to go through the heart of North County where the voter support is strongest and need is highest.
As for the County, as soon as any word gets out that Stenger indeed is prepared to endorse a particular proposal other than N/S the opposition within the county is going to be strong. On the one hand, there are going to be the fierce critics that point out this totally goes against the Ferguson-related initiatives and on the other hand there are going to be the opponents that don't even want it going into their towns.
Reaching a consensus within the county on which non N/S line to move forward on (and again all but certain to be without federal funds) is going to be terribly difficult. And that is assuming no extra funds are needed to pay for it beyond Prop A; I think it would be practically impossible for County voters to support more metrolink funds if it's not going to go through the heart of North County where the voter support is strongest and need is highest.
What the Paris Trams Can Teach U.S. Cities
http://transitcenter.org/2016/07/07/par ... yper-cool/
http://transitcenter.org/2016/07/07/par ... yper-cool/
- 11K
It seems that there needs to be some basic agreed upon premises for any rail project, such as:
> a streetcar/street running rail line can't effectively connect places 20 miles apart
> any rail project must be accompanied by adjacent land use reform
> transit must connect dense residential nodes to dense job centers
> any transit project must seek to serve transit dependent populations
In my opinion, these are quite basic. Any STL City/County dispute needn't be political. If we consider how transit works, we can put together a good project that creates a better St. Louis.
> a streetcar/street running rail line can't effectively connect places 20 miles apart
> any rail project must be accompanied by adjacent land use reform
> transit must connect dense residential nodes to dense job centers
> any transit project must seek to serve transit dependent populations
In my opinion, these are quite basic. Any STL City/County dispute needn't be political. If we consider how transit works, we can put together a good project that creates a better St. Louis.
If you look at it and overlay population and job density. Also factoring in speed and ROW costs. A light rail line using the I-55 and I-70 ROW would be best in my opinion.Alex Ihnen wrote:It seems that there needs to be some basic agreed upon premises for any rail project, such as:
> a streetcar/street running rail line can't effectively connect places 20 miles apart
> any rail project must be accompanied by adjacent land use reform
> transit must connect dense residential nodes to dense job centers
> any transit project must seek to serve transit dependent populations
In my opinion, these are quite basic. Any STL City/County dispute needn't be political. If we consider how transit works, we can put together a good project that creates a better St. Louis.
Transit in the middle of highways is miserable! Spend 19 mins at the Clayton station and imagine worse. Don't be seduced!
It will be interesting to see what shakes out from the County's decision to study all three proposed alternatives. Considering Alex's rather reasonable list of criteria, it seems you'd have maximum job connectivity along a Westport line, maximum transit dependent ridership along the Metro North alignment (although mostly via bus connections), and that the Metro South alignment might run through the most consistently dense areas of the three (Westport and Metro North appear to have large gaps of minimal residential density). So each has its own strength, but none of them seem to encompass very many strengths. I used to think Boeing would strengthen the argument for Metro North, but - at least according to the above map - it doesn't appear to present a very significant employment center.
I agree, but there is a reason many cities still do it.....cost and speed. I think the street running Metrolink line is D.O.A. and if any kind of compromise is made between the city and county, the line we will get will probably look very similar to a highway or abandoned rail ROW alignment. Only way we see street running light rail in STL is if no compromise can be made, the county gives the city the finger, and the city goes the KC streetcar route.quincunx wrote:Transit in the middle of highways is miserable! Spend 19 mins at the Clayton station and imagine worse. Don't be seduced!
- 11K
Yes. And it's miserable because you can't build immediately adjacent to the station. The 1/4-1/2mi walk shed is 1/2 Interstate. Plus, in St. Louis, the trains would almost always run slower than traffic on the highway - offering the bad experience of watching cars fly by as you wait for, or sit on a train. Still, ultimately, Interstate ROW does not directly connect residents to businesses and jobs. Their immediate surroundings are too often devoid of all three. Even the heavy rail alignment of the current MetroLink suffers from this.quincunx wrote:Transit in the middle of highways is miserable! Spend 19 mins at the Clayton station and imagine worse. Don't be seduced!
Indeed it'd be much more useful and value-adding if Metrolink ran on or under FPP or under Lindell and under Forsyth. Yes, it would have cost more.
Shame how our terrible land use give us this predicament
Shame how our terrible land use give us this predicament
- 985
I don't picture there is much interstate ROW available on most corridors to start with unless for example convert the I-70 express lanes. Also isn't it in some way each of lines weaknesses gets covered up if one does the other lines as well to compliment each other?
Also in thinking plus minus on each line, isn't it also of note for example the Westport line that it would be mostly abandoned rail ROW which lowers cost along with the first couple miles is part of other possible lines (the section along 170). Another thing is noticing quite a bit of new development in the Olive/Lindbergh area which isn't too far from a possible line. Another idea I had was supplement it with a trunk bus route that goes along Olive from 170/Olive to Creve Coeur then South on Ballas to the bus terminal at 64/Ballas along with a possible north line to hit the existing Metrolink line using various possible alignments.
I figure good trunk bus routes can compliment any alignment and solve last mile issues. They could also be helpful in improving reliability.
Also in thinking plus minus on each line, isn't it also of note for example the Westport line that it would be mostly abandoned rail ROW which lowers cost along with the first couple miles is part of other possible lines (the section along 170). Another thing is noticing quite a bit of new development in the Olive/Lindbergh area which isn't too far from a possible line. Another idea I had was supplement it with a trunk bus route that goes along Olive from 170/Olive to Creve Coeur then South on Ballas to the bus terminal at 64/Ballas along with a possible north line to hit the existing Metrolink line using various possible alignments.
I figure good trunk bus routes can compliment any alignment and solve last mile issues. They could also be helpful in improving reliability.
- 9,566
Relevant... if GOP gets its way, no more fed $ for transit.
http://www.enr.com/articles/39893-gop-p ... UI8E.email
http://www.enr.com/articles/39893-gop-p ... UI8E.email
- 472
The GOP is going to get swept out of there in November. They're falling apart.dbInSouthCity wrote:Relevant... if GOP gets its way, no more fed $ for transit.
http://www.enr.com/articles/39893-gop-p ... UI8E.email
Too many Senators with to many big cities with too many votes to even consider this. A certain part of the GOP talks about it but transit keeps getting built out and solidly in place whether it is Houston/Dallas/even Orlando in red states or Los Angeles in Blue statesdbInSouthCity wrote:Relevant... if GOP gets its way, no more fed $ for transit.
http://www.enr.com/articles/39893-gop-p ... UI8E.email