The sales tax is expected to generate about $75 million a year in St. Louis County, which will be used to restore lost service and expand MetroLink and bus rapid transit. Metro officials said passage of the measure also would trigger collection of a transit sales tax that voters in the city of St. Louis approved in 1997.
For reference, City generates $9.5 million with a 1/4 cent sales tax
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.
I've looked up just about every US light rail system that I could think of. In my research, segments of light-rail or streetcars that travel in dedicated lanes in a roadway's median have an average service speed of 15 mph, though there are one or two segments capable of 18 mph. Completely segregated right-of-way like MetroLink seems to be the only way to exceed 18 mph (and usually results in average service speeds of 22-30 mph).
^ I actually think San Jose would be a good model for N-S Metrolink. The trains they use look similar to Metrolink and it can be better integrated into the current system. Streets like North Jefferson are also wide enough to accommodate that kind of set up. Boston and Dallas also have street running LRT that uses trains similar to Metrolink. If we could run Metrolink up North Jefferson in a buffered and landscaped like the following: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3655923 ... 56!6m1!1e1
It would turn Jefferson into something like a limited access parkway, but would allow Metrolink to break off and go west on I-70 instead of Natural Bridge and potentially even use abandoned ROW in the county to connect points of interest.
I've looked up just about every US light rail system that I could think of. In my research, segments of light-rail or streetcars that travel in dedicated lanes in a roadway's median have an average service speed of 15 mph, though there are one or two segments capable of 18 mph. Completely segregated right-of-way like MetroLink seems to be the only way to exceed 18 mph (and usually results in average service speeds of 22-30 mph).
Does this MPH number include station stops? Do yo know if any of the light rail systems you've looked up have stop light control?
So lets say we build both the North Metro and North/South Metro...how would that work? Would they both just meet and turn around? Would the Metro North just be another line that ran the entire length of the red? I'm just curious how a system with a small end (red line to airport) and "circle" would operate?
It's hard to believe that both MetroNorth and Northside would be completed in less than 50 years, given our expansion pace so far, so why even propose a connection, much less study it?
^ If you're going to build parallel lines that close together I guess it makes sense to close the "loop" so to speak. However, I seriously question the viability of building rail (especially street-running light rail) in an area with that kind of sparse land use and zero walkability.
Also to me the Blue Line in Chicago is super depressing where it runs down the median of I-90. It may be cheap and easy to use interstate highway ROW, but it's really ugly and inhumane. Especially if they're using light rail or streetcar vehicles.
The short metronorth stub just seems like a terrible idea that I wish would die.
I think the county/city would be better off in long term coming to a joint port authority agreement on Lambert, knock down & build a consolidated rental facility once and for all and maybe as a broader vision you could build a new enclosed metrolink airport station that allows for westerly extension of current line to Bridgeton/Earth city with an automated people mover connecting the metrolink airport station with Terminal 1, Terminal 2, future consolidated rental facility. You could extend the automated people mover to Boeing Campus/north commuter parking lot/bus station on one end and Lindbergh Ave/hotel on the other end.
To me a automated people mover could accomplish a lot more for the airport and immediate area as well as compliment metrolink just as could do with well placed/planned streetcars in the city limits. The metronorth stub seems like a poor add on that will not attract the added ridership.
Metronorth stub seems like it wouldn't add much. Also I wondered if the northside line instead of going up W. Florissant to continue along the rail ROW towards Boeing? Or to use that instead of metronorth + connector, and then the peoplemover idea connecting the line from Boeing to the Airport. This could also be useful depending on where an airport consolidated car rental facility might go along with possible needs for more airport parking if some has to be placed on the north side of the airport.
MO
Bi-State Development Agency (Metro)
The Bi-State Development Agency (Metro) will receive funding to plan for ways that diverse populations can benefit from a proposed 17-mile, 28-station Metro Link light rail line that will connect downtown St. Louis with the city’s northern and southern limits. A significant portion of the corridor, particularly on the north side of St. Louis, is economically distressed and requires careful planning and incentives to attract development. Partners in the effort include the City of St. Louis, the East-West Gateway Council of Governments and the St. Louis Development Corporation. Final outcomes will include station-area multimodal access plans, land use and zoning policies, financial tools and incentives to implement TOD, and a citywide TOD implementation commission and program.
$374,278
After giving Iran 1.7 billion in CASH on wooden pallets like its no big deal whatsoever it's nice to see them throw us a few peanuts to try and do something for our own people here in St. Louis, USA.
After giving Iran 1.7 billion in CASH on wooden pallets like its no big deal whatsoever it's nice to see them throw us a few peanuts to try and do something for our own people here in St. Louis, USA.
Maybe they'll be as generous to us if we win an arbitration claim stating that the federal government owes us $1.7bil.
After giving Iran 1.7 billion in CASH on wooden pallets like its no big deal whatsoever it's nice to see them throw us a few peanuts to try and do something for our own people here in St. Louis, USA.
If I gave you $400 for a car in 1969 and you never gave me the car....fast forward to 2016, I took you to court and asked for $10,000 and it looked like i had a easy case, would you settle for $1,700?
And the St.Louis region gets about $300,000,000 a year from Feds for Transportation.
I am under the impression that there is very little fed money these days for these type of projects, so I am not sure what kind help they could actually provide.
^ if N/S is selected for federal New Starts funding it will be for quite a bit; it's just a very competitive program. San Diego I believe recently received a big haul -- $1B.
Adding: and we're a long way from getting to the point where we'd even be considered... a lot more planning is needed as well as a local commitment for funds
NS study done May 2018
Everyone looks at it for 8-10 months
Now we are into early 2019
Region decides to move forward
Late 2019 vote for a sales tax to fund the $200m project development (9% of construction cost)
2021 apply for new starts
Get new starts in 2025-2026ish
NS open 2030
This all hinges on New Starts being around. Can't imagine it will in the Trump admin
We aren't even close to this step
And I don't know how we cross the "adopting into the fiscally constrained long range plan" when the current long range plan shows metro being $2billion short in just operating current system over next 30 years
1) FTA approval: Project Development
Complete environmental review process including developing and reviewing alternatives, selecting locally preferred alternative (LPA), and adopting it into the fiscally constrained long range transportation plan
2) FTA evaluation, rating, and approval: Engineering
Gain commitments of all non-5309 funding
Complete sufficient engineering and design
3) FTA evaluation, rating, and approval: Full Funding Grant Agreement
^ N/S Metrolink is definitely a heavy lift and will take major regional cooperation. I almost wonder if it would be better to pursue a modern streetcar for the city portion, with a BRT overlay into the county. Wouldn't that be a much cheaper and faster proposition? I'm all for the N-S Metrolink line and think it is a "must-have" if St. Louis hopes to remain competitive. I'm just always amazed how long it takes for these projects to get completed. 15 years from now is crazy. I know there was talks of streamlining the federal process a few years back, because that time frame is utterly ridiculous.
