urbanSTL

I've certainly seen it go both ways; St. Louisans that were angry about the 1985 World Series, even though Kansas City went on to win two games after the bad call. (Sure, it was clearly a bad call, but the Royals played quite well. We could have overcome that call . . . and we did not.) I've heard St. Louisans complain about Kansas City's museums, which are genuinely first class, about Kansas City's food, about neighborhoods, architecture, who's building is tallest . . . it's all a little silly. And I've been part of it. I'm an unashamed St. Louis booster if you put me with outsiders. Even with insiders. I genuinely think this is a great town. And folks from KC have every right to feel the same way. The trouble comes when you get into comparisons, which is maybe inevitable. If we say St. Louis is bigger we're taking something away from KC. Sure, it's true. But that doesn't change that we're taking something away, or at least trying to. And as the slightly smaller and younger city KC has to put up with a lot of that. So yes, we need to work on the urban rural divide. And doing so might mean being a little tolerant of KC's . . . mistakes. Or at least gentle about it when we try to correct them. Like a good older brother and not the one that I was, say. Mhmm. (Yeah, sorry bro.) Anyway . . . here's to hoping that KC streetcar is indeed a great success. And that we can build on that and do something similar. (The Loop Streetcar is almost the same length. Let's see how it works out. And when it works . . . let's build more.)

symphonicpoet wrote:I've certainly seen it go both ways; St. Louisans that were angry about the 1985 World Series, even though Kansas City went on to win two games after the bad call. (Sure, it was clearly a bad call, but the Royals played quite well. We could have overcome that call . . . and we did not.) I've heard St. Louisans complain about Kansas City's museums, which are genuinely first class, about Kansas City's food, about neighborhoods, architecture, who's building is tallest . . . it's all a little silly. And I've been part of it. I'm an unashamed St. Louis booster if you put me with outsiders. Even with insiders. I genuinely think this is a great town. And folks from KC have every right to feel the same way. The trouble comes when you get into comparisons, which is maybe inevitable. If we say St. Louis is bigger we're taking something away from KC. Sure, it's true. But that doesn't change that we're taking something away, or at least trying to. And as the slightly smaller and younger city KC has to put up with a lot of that. So yes, we need to work on the urban rural divide. And doing so might mean being a little tolerant of KC's . . . mistakes. Or at least gentle about it when we try to correct them. Like a good older brother and not the one that I was, say. Mhmm. (Yeah, sorry bro.) Anyway . . . here's to hoping that KC streetcar is indeed a great success. And that we can build on that and do something similar. (The Loop Streetcar is almost the same length. Let's see how it works out. And when it works . . . let's build more.)

Never got the rivalry between the cities. Several of my friends have moved to KC from STL so maybe I never see the hate because they all love both cities. I thought Kansas City's downtown was impressive and the streetcar would be something I would love to see downtown here. I think streetcars might open up more people to trying transit in the future

Glad to see an elected official talking no compromise on N-S Metrolink. The more I hear this, the more I'm confident that the city will find a way to get this built. It might end up just being the St. Louis Streetcar within the city limits, but it could end up being a phase 1 of a larger regional system. It's great to know that the city is looking at creative financing options. I have no doubt that the city could secure federal financing for a MOS that goes from Cherokee Street to Kingshighway. I also have little doubt that city residents would vote for a tax increase to fund it. Maybe in the long run we get N-S Metrolink in the City and Westport in the County, wouldn't be such a bad outcome, but you got to admit that it would be ideal to get regional buy in and the whole system built out.

link: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/no ... 49f66.html

What are people's thoughts on the routing of the line in the near northside?

The new option to more directly serve the NGA is to bring it up 14th street to Cass and then on Cass to Jefferson before moving up Jefferson/Parnell to Natural Bridge. The original routing was to go up 14th street to N Florissant and to continue on N Florissant to Palm/Natural Bridge.

I would prefer that they keep the original routing so as to provide service to Old North and Hyde Park and it would still be just 6ish blocks from the NGA anyway.

I think it should go straight up Jefferson with a new Metrolink station at Jefferson. No zig-zag into part of downtown and back out. It'll be faster, easier to understand for transit riders, and a little cheaper.

^ I've thought about that, too... if you have a convenient transfer to existing metrolink could well be worth it and serve as anchor for 22nd Street redevelopment.

As for Peter's question, I think I prefer the original but am open.

"Specifically, we need to invest far more than we already do in public safety, infrastructure, and transit. It would be great if the region joined us and I expect they will, but the City will not wait.

I will be bringing legislation raising funds on each front to the Board of Aldermen when they come back into session. The proposals will include new bonds, new fees, and new taxes on things like parking.

While I believe that most residents of the City will support well explained investment, I am cognizant of the danger of over-taxation, and I welcome a dialogue on the best ways to make these critical investments."

link: https://www.mayorslay.com/from-fgs/right-arm-st-louis

I prefer 2 n-s alignments: on down Jefferson, that does jut down olive to tucker and then back to Jefferson at chouteau; and the other down kingshighway, possibly jutting over to Hampton. Both lines meet with one another in both north and south county


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe N/S is the biggest project this area will have in the next 20 years. N/S expansion reaches those that use public transit as a main form of transportation. Many of the buses on the North City/County routes are constantly crowded.

My only wish is that I would like the expansion to be underground start at 8th & Pine Station in Downtown St. Louis going North and South; or have elevated lines. And yes, I know that would cost more.

An elevated line would be fine with me. Down 14th or tucker. Honestly Broadway would be pretty cool

Edit: Broadway line would be great south to the ab brewery

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stenger proposes studying MetroLink expansion through Ferguson

A new MetroLink line that would run through Ferguson, connecting two other routes already up for consideration, should be studied as the region decides where light rail should next expand, County Executive Steve Stenger said Tuesday.

"I am not unilaterally declaring this is the route we should invest our transportation dollars in," he said. "I'm saying it’s worthy of study and and our region will benefit from the discussion."

St. Louis County already has pledged $3 million from the Proposition A sales tax fund to pay for studying three new routes in the county. Stenger said that money could be stretched to include studying the new line through Ferguson, as well as the portion of the proposed Northside-Southside route that extends into north St. Louis County.


link: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... f280f.html

^ This was actually something I was thinking about some time ago. Since some of the proposed routes got rather close to each other in the Ferguson area. Also there are some railroad right of ways used and unused that are in the area Which could be utilized. (for exacmple, there is a converted rail to trail path between UMSL and Ferguson along with a few rail corridors which if they could be shared with Metrolink could be some nice routings) Since looking at aerials and maps there is some potential using Ferguson and a corridor between routes since its between them and also it could also tie into the areas near the east and north sides of the airport that are being redeveloped into various logistical facilities, which would tie in more job centers to the system.

Is he talking about running it west along I-270?

This place isn't productive enough to pay for the roads, other infrastructure, or municipal government, why run high-capacity transit there? It's completely incompatible.

This Stenger fella . Why do we need to keep studying lines? Like the Mayor's office said in that article, we should be looking at how to build this entire system, not which gets built first. Stop wasting our time studying on which one. Build them all. I think most people in St. Louis City and County want them all built. Concentrate on that and stop wasting money, time, and effort on studies.

^ In a partial defense of Stenger Administration, this is where I honestly think Dooley admin screwed supporters and voters like me who voted yes on Prop A. The studies in the county whether it be Daniel Boone line, MetroSouth/Shrewsbury extension should have been done years ago. As noted by Stenger, they are being paid for with Prop A funds. How long has it been since the vote on Prop A? 8 years? My family has been in California for over six years now and finally getting around to doing the study on extending metrolink that is three blocks from my house in Shrewsbury at a cost that could have easily been covered in first year of when Prop A tax collections went into effect....

I also believe as part of the N-S study being updated is consideration for the new NGIA which might or could mean even a better outcome in terms of securing federal funding in the future.. I think that is something that has to be followed through with. Assumed we got the political olive branch extended with agreement on funding to update N-S study

dredger wrote:^ In a partial defense of Stenger Administration, this is where I honestly think Dooley admin screwed supporters and voters like me who voted yes on Prop A. The studies in the county whether it be Daniel Boone line, MetroSouth/Shrewsbury extension should have been done years ago. As noted by Stenger, they are being paid for with Prop A funds. How long has it been since the vote on Prop A? 8 years? My family has been in California for over six years now and finally getting around to doing the study on extending metrolink that is three blocks from my house in Shrewsbury at a cost that could have easily been covered in first year of when Prop A tax collections went into effect....

I also believe as part of the N-S study being updated is consideration for the new NGIA which might or could mean even a better outcome in terms of securing federal funding in the future.. I think that is something that has to be followed through with. Assumed we got the political olive branch extended with agreement on funding to update N-S study

I'm curious are there just Prop A funds that are growing every year or is it being used in the general metro fund?

I thought they were going to service Cross County debt along with operational expenses (i.e. How service was returned/expanded mostly I the County after Prop A passed).

^^ like Wabash noted, believe prop A funds are essentially servicing cross county debt. St Louis County made a loan to Bi-State to pay off the Cross County extension bond holders. The county is covering the loan in part with sales tax collections under Prop A. Someone please clarify if I'm wrong. But that is how understand it.

I believe Prop A funds are just going towards Metro's operating budget. Part of that includes paying debt service for new bonds they issued in 2013 to pay back the bonds for the Cross County Ext. Looking at their financials, there is no cash accruing (that I can see) for capital projects, its mostly restricted cash tied to either debt service or insurance.

I may be misunderstanding something, but looking at Metro's operating budget, they still run a loss every year. So I can't imagine they are saving money somewhere for future projects. I believe they break even by covering their losses with grants/assistance.

See page 137 of pdf...

http://www.metrostlouis.org/Libraries/A ... Report.pdf

That loan was never explained clearly.

^ My understanding of Metro's finances is that they were totally screwed by the Cross County expansion. They did not wait for federal funds which cost them BIG down the road. They will probably have to go back to voters in the city and county for another tax increase to fund any kind of Metrolink expansion. That is why I think there is a lot of talk of some sort of regional solution like Denver. I know that a tax would pass in the city and it seems like city is willing to go after a city only solution if the region doesn't fall into place. I expect in the next couple of years we will see a regional ballot initiative to build out a truly regional transit system. I think it will easily pass in the city, 50/50 in the county, and go down in flames in St. Charles, Franklin, and Jefferson Counties. hopefully the Metro East jumps on board because if we can get help from Illinois that would be a plus. Meanwhile, my understanding is that local business leaders and civic progress were disturbed that there were no plans to expand Metrolink in the EWGateway transportation plan. The regional chamber is looking to build at least 2 significant lines in the next 20 years or so. If I had to guess, I would say those two priority lines would be Westport and N/S. Post Ferguson, there is also a desire to reinvest in certain areas of NoCo as the impoverished and transit dependent population is growing in this area. I wouldn't be surprised if the MetroNorth spur is reworked and merged with the NoCo route of the Northside-Southside Metrolink. As I've said in the past, dont be surprised if the final system map looks very different at the end of these studies. Cost-benefit analysis is why we used abandoned rail corridors to build LRT in the first place. Also, if the studies find problems with the streetcar idea, we could be looking at different routes to serve key areas. If the goal is to get light rail from 270N to 270S while also servicing the NGA site and Ferguson, there are a few ways that could happen outside using streetcars. It's really about whether the goal of Metrolink expansion will be to rebuild the urban core or move the transit dependent and commuters as fast as possible through the city and suburbs, hitting key sites, something the current system does well.

pat wrote:I believe Prop A funds are just going towards Metro's operating budget. Part of that includes paying debt service for new bonds they issued in 2013 to pay back the bonds for the Cross County Ext. Looking at their financials, there is no cash accruing (that I can see) for capital projects, its mostly restricted cash tied to either debt service or insurance.

I may be misunderstanding something, but looking at Metro's operating budget, they still run a loss every year. So I can't imagine they are saving money somewhere for future projects. I believe they break even by covering their losses with grants/assistance.

See page 137 of pdf...

http://www.metrostlouis.org/Libraries/A ... Report.pdf

Their was two parts on the ballot for Prop A. Can't recall exactly how it was worded or stipulated on the ballot box but believe a 1/4 cent went to operating budget to restore bus services that were cut and another 1/4 cent for metrolink expansion. Not sure if I go the numbers were right but definitely recall voting on both

I think you would have to delusional to think that Bi-State/County has an escrow account of Prop A funds to date ready for the next expansion.

Like quin noted, I think the loan from county to Bi-State was never explained well or at least not in the papers. My interpretation of between the lines. The only plus side I can think of is the county can essentially charge 0% against the loan which saves Bi-State a few dollars on bond interest that is obviously committed to operating budget based on what Pat looked at.

^ I picture that using streetcars would be a terrible idea for any extended length corridor due to speed issues, since those would work better as possible feeder routes to metrolink lines. Since it would be too time consuming to get to the central corridor from 270 if its a streetcar there if the average speed is say <20mph.

I could see the north city/county proposals become a hybrid of each other. Since there seems to be possible ways of routes out of downtown through north city and then jog west towards Ferguson. Idea I had if you could go along the rail lines running north from downtown in large part which runs through the industrial areas along the river then away from it passing blocks from Halls Ferry Circle through Jennings to Ferguson, then could go a number of directions. Other possibilities could involve converting the I-70 express lanes and use of a rail corridor between the O'Fallon Park area and the existing line near the Wellston Station. Issue could be if right of ways could be shared due to space and rail traffic.

The big hurdle I could see is public opinion on another tax hike and transit in general. Since it could be skeptical of another tax hike after broken promises from the last one. And the other is the possibility of an increase in anti-transit sentiment due to Ferguson aftermath and crime issues (including some high-profile ones involving metrolink)

Their was two parts on the ballot for Prop A. Can't recall exactly how it was worded or stipulated on the ballot box but believe a 1/4 cent went to operating budget to restore bus services that were cut and another 1/4 cent for metrolink expansion. Not sure if I go the numbers were right but definitely recall voting on both

I think you're thinking of the amount of tax passed. I believe the two parts were explaining the county tax and the city tax. County pays a 1/2 cent tax for Prop A. The City pays 1/4 cent tax for Prop A.

I agree that there is no escrow account for Metrolink expansion. There's no money in their budget for something like that. All money from Prop A goes to their general operating budget.

I picture that using streetcars would be a terrible idea for any extended length corridor due to speed issues, since those would work better as possible feeder routes to metrolink lines. Since it would be too time consuming to get to the central corridor from 270 if its a streetcar there if the average speed is say <20mph.

Why? Streetcars can go plenty fast if the ROW is designed to accommodate it. Why can't we have streetcar type cars that travel at slower speeds in the city when on streets and faster when off-street? Give the streetcars their owns lanes on city streets and control of the stop lights when street-running so they don't have to wait. Then they operate like Metrolink out in the county. That would not be a long ride at all IMO.