Well I know this is leading off topic (please no rude comments about it...) but that 7-11 is no more shady than any other place in this city, I go there all the time and see nothing wrong with it. There is a heavy police presence like many other city gas/food shops and always feels safe. It actually is what I expect in this area, a little gritty but fits the neighborhood well. The BP maybe is a little rough, but only cause of the cramped feeling in there, just needs some remodeling (and cheaper gas... youre right about that), but its the city. And there is nothing special about that Walgreens, not nearly as nice as the one on Gasconade/Bway. And bringing it back on topic... that sounds a lot like a reason someone in the county wouldn't want metrolink in the first place, shadiness, etc.... Those kinds of places exist in every urban environment.
- 5,433
kustramo wrote:Those kinds of places exist in every urban environment.
True enough. And if those kind of places scared me, I wouldn't be living here. I guess I'm just a bit overanxious to see a better and higher use of this intersection, and I know we're still many years away from that even though the overall area is just fine.
As for the "better and higher" use goal I just mentioned, I cannot think of a better catalyst for the area than a Metrolink station. I'll keep my fingers crossed.
It's depressing that I'll probably be 40 before the North Side-South Side extension is in operation.
- 1,054
Transit Oriented Development 101: Building Livable Communities in St. Louis with Light Rail Seminar
Oct 11, 3-6PM, Missouri Historical Society,
"Also, there will be a presentation by the SLU School of Urban Planning on a soon-to-be published study of the effect Metrolink has had on property values near stations."
Some please attend and inform the forum.
Oct 11, 3-6PM, Missouri Historical Society,
"Also, there will be a presentation by the SLU School of Urban Planning on a soon-to-be published study of the effect Metrolink has had on property values near stations."
Some please attend and inform the forum.
Anybody go to the unveiling of the plans yesterday? I would love to see the southside route proposal.
- 284
TGE-ATW wrote:Anybody go to the unveiling of the plans yesterday? I would love to see the southside route proposal.
I went. It was pretty interesting. They seem leaning towards the line down Jefferson, hooking up with I-55 around Carondelet Park. No final recommendation yet, though.
- 11K
TGE-ATW wrote:Anybody go to the unveiling of the plans yesterday? I would love to see the southside route proposal.
I stopped in but didn't stay for the whole presentation. It seemed as though they were simply going through slides of everything that was already displayed (maybe there were some tidbits I missed). Here's what I saw: The only northside option that is going to be further studied is the 14th St. to Natural Bridge and then west route. The downtown route that will studied further is the north/south 9th and 10th? (or is it 8th?) loop instead of the one that included Chestnut and was oriented east/west. This is partially because the east/west alignment somehow conflicted with the existing metrolink tunnels or other existing metrolink infastructure. Two south side lines will continue to be studied - Chouteau to the Union Pacific line, through the Hill and on to Carondelet Park and the Chouteau-Jefferson-I-55 line. It seems the Jefferson line will prevail namely because Union Pacific requires (or maybe it's a government regulation?) a 50-foot clear buffer between existing lines/freight trains and commuter rail, thus the line would require the taking of a number of homes and businesses. The down side of the Jefferson line is that development potential would be limited where the line would follow the I-55 right of way.
IMO - it's interesting to hear how some of these decisions were made. The buffer needed to share train lines is one. In Italy I don't believe there's any such buffer - making it exponentially easier to expand commuter rail and reach people who will use it. I'm sure there's a safety issue somewhere, but regulations such as this (and existing infastructure) dictates large projects as much or more as the creative vision of planners and the political considerations of our civic leadership.
Yes, but in Italy, the railroads are essentially owned by the state, so they can do whatever they please. St. Louis, meanwhile, has to deal with Union Pacific and anybody who's ridden Amtrak to KC or Chicago knows what that's like.Grover wrote:The buffer needed to share train lines is one. In Italy I don't believe there's any such buffer - making it exponentially easier to expand commuter rail and reach people who will use it. I'm sure there's a safety issue somewhere, but regulations such as this (and existing infastructure) dictates large projects as much or more as the creative vision of planners and the political considerations of our civic leadership.
I asked about what would happen in south county given the Metro South and Southside lines converge on the same point and will use different vehicles. We may end up with 400' platforms on the south end, 200' high platform followed by a 200' low platform, ala Cleveland.
- 1,610
^In such situation, I'm sure South County commuters could learn to wait on the low-platform for Downtown or the high-platform for Clayton.
The 50-foot horizontal separation from track-center to track-center is a UPRR requirement. FRA only suggests 25-foot separation between light-rail and freight-rail tracks.
The 50-foot horizontal separation from track-center to track-center is a UPRR requirement. FRA only suggests 25-foot separation between light-rail and freight-rail tracks.
- 11K
southslider wrote:^In such situation, I'm sure South County commuters could learn to wait on the low-platform for Downtown or the high-platform for Clayton.
The 50-foot horizontal separation from track-center to track-center is a UPRR requirement. FRA only suggests 25-foot separation between light-rail and freight-rail tracks.
It seems that this is something that could be negotiated with UPRR - especially at the benefit of saving homes and businesses from demolition.
- 2,005
^It's pretty much impossible to deal with railroads. You pretty much take what they give you. I know from my line of work. Also, I believe that UP is trying to keep some extra ground in case they ever add an extra track.
- 1,610
- 1,054
Summary for Locally Preferred Alternative
$971 million
16.73 miles
$53 million (cost per mile)
Total Estimated Riders Per Day
Northside 3,680
Downtown 1,060
Southside 7,980
Total: 12,720
Those numbers almost say it is not worth the nearly $1 billion, but we all know that large sections of the routes are in need of development (14th, Natural Bridge, Jefferson). Thus, TOD will dramatically change ridership in the future and this Metrolink line will contribute enormously to the urban migration pattern with Baby Boomers, Singles, young professionals.
I do believe that the estimated ridership sounds lower than it really will be such as the Shrewsbury line has already added 27,000+ I believe to daily figures.
To Metro:
If the 1/2 cent tax is for expansion in St. Louis County, what about financing for this line in the City? Will we seek money from the Feds? There is immense competition for Federal money with so many cities planning on LRT lines. We are no longer one of ten but one of 30+.
I imagine this line will take some smart financing with everything from local taxes, local bond issue, federal funds (isn't 400million+ already allocated for the line by either Bond or formerly Talent?), private financing.
Another financing tool could be to acquire land around stations and sell to private companies or long-term lease them the land to build on.
$971 million
16.73 miles
$53 million (cost per mile)
Total Estimated Riders Per Day
Northside 3,680
Downtown 1,060
Southside 7,980
Total: 12,720
Those numbers almost say it is not worth the nearly $1 billion, but we all know that large sections of the routes are in need of development (14th, Natural Bridge, Jefferson). Thus, TOD will dramatically change ridership in the future and this Metrolink line will contribute enormously to the urban migration pattern with Baby Boomers, Singles, young professionals.
I do believe that the estimated ridership sounds lower than it really will be such as the Shrewsbury line has already added 27,000+ I believe to daily figures.
To Metro:
If the 1/2 cent tax is for expansion in St. Louis County, what about financing for this line in the City? Will we seek money from the Feds? There is immense competition for Federal money with so many cities planning on LRT lines. We are no longer one of ten but one of 30+.
I imagine this line will take some smart financing with everything from local taxes, local bond issue, federal funds (isn't 400million+ already allocated for the line by either Bond or formerly Talent?), private financing.
Another financing tool could be to acquire land around stations and sell to private companies or long-term lease them the land to build on.
Per the open house last week, we will be seeking federal funding as soon as ewgateway commits to going forward with the project. Federal funding requires performing an EIS. Hope to get 50% of the project cost from the feds. At this time, you can't expect to get anything more than that. And there are either 38 or 48 cities competing for funds from the FTA.SMSPlanstu wrote:To Metro:
If the 1/2 cent tax is for expansion in St. Louis County, what about financing for this line in the City? Will we seek money from the Feds? There is immense competition for Federal money with so many cities planning on LRT lines. We are no longer one of ten but one of 30+.
http://www.northsouthstudy.org/OH907/s3p4LG.gif
This Jefferson/Natural Bridge alignment would add 26 stations to the current total of 37. I think having more stops per mile would create more continuity in development along the line, and be more useful for the pedestrian user (as opposed to park and ride). Downtown, Benton Park, Fox Park, Lafayette Square, Cherokee, Chouteau, and Old North St. Louis would feel the greatest immediate benefits, with other neighborhoods to follow. This is all great, but the price tag is hard to swallow.
The Grand Bus (#70) averages about 11,000 riders per weekday on a 9 mile route. I don't know how its costs stack up, but would imagine they shy in comparison to the $1B price of this 16.3 mile alignment which estimates 12,720 daily ridership.
With that in mind, do the development, transit, and psychological benefits of this line warrant a $1B investment?
I think so, but only if we get to spend $500m of Washington 's pork. Yummy.
This Jefferson/Natural Bridge alignment would add 26 stations to the current total of 37. I think having more stops per mile would create more continuity in development along the line, and be more useful for the pedestrian user (as opposed to park and ride). Downtown, Benton Park, Fox Park, Lafayette Square, Cherokee, Chouteau, and Old North St. Louis would feel the greatest immediate benefits, with other neighborhoods to follow. This is all great, but the price tag is hard to swallow.
The Grand Bus (#70) averages about 11,000 riders per weekday on a 9 mile route. I don't know how its costs stack up, but would imagine they shy in comparison to the $1B price of this 16.3 mile alignment which estimates 12,720 daily ridership.
With that in mind, do the development, transit, and psychological benefits of this line warrant a $1B investment?
I think so, but only if we get to spend $500m of Washington 's pork. Yummy.
- 1,054
There are enough proposed stations. Metrolink is a unites two functions into one: local and commuter
The spacing between stations as depicted on the locally preferred alternative is adequate for the milage which exceeds in both directions (north and south) the longest subway route in New York City (7 miles).
In the future a separate subway could be built if demand is high enough, but neither the southside nor northside is built to the scale of Manhattan to justify stations every 4-8 blocks unless feeder buses are close like Kingshighway and Union.
The spacing between stations as depicted on the locally preferred alternative is adequate for the milage which exceeds in both directions (north and south) the longest subway route in New York City (7 miles).
In the future a separate subway could be built if demand is high enough, but neither the southside nor northside is built to the scale of Manhattan to justify stations every 4-8 blocks unless feeder buses are close like Kingshighway and Union.
^ Or unless the lines are constructed to allow local and express service, which would make the price tag even higher.
I am pretty surprised at the low level of expected ridership. Are the estimates provided from this study those used to compete for federal funding? If so, I have to think the probability of getting funding would be pretty low because of the low ridership estimates. I know part of the low estimates is that, as Busdad and others have explained, special event ridership is a major component of St. Louis ridership, but such ridership cannot be considered when making the official projections.
Does anyone know why the estimates are so low, other than the special even ridership issue?
Did the study take into account the likely bus service changes that would accompany the line?
Would/ could the expected ridership be higher if endpoints in the County were farther out (ie. out to 270)?
I am pretty surprised at the low level of expected ridership. Are the estimates provided from this study those used to compete for federal funding? If so, I have to think the probability of getting funding would be pretty low because of the low ridership estimates. I know part of the low estimates is that, as Busdad and others have explained, special event ridership is a major component of St. Louis ridership, but such ridership cannot be considered when making the official projections.
Does anyone know why the estimates are so low, other than the special even ridership issue?
Did the study take into account the likely bus service changes that would accompany the line?
Would/ could the expected ridership be higher if endpoints in the County were farther out (ie. out to 270)?
- 1,610
^The ridership is low partly because the model depends highly on park-and-ride stations attracting riders from further distances. That is, park-and-ride stations have a larger buffer due to motorist accessibility. On the Northside-Southside alternatives, most stations do not have park-and-ride, limiting them to walk-access buffers, or the model having a bias against bus feeders.
This model dependency also explains why the Chouteau-UPRR alternative, which has a park-and-ride at both Shaw/I-44 and Bayless/I-55 picked up more riders, due to greater motorist accessibility from two interstates (44 and 55), while the Jefferson alternative picked up just motorist accessibility from 55, albeit at two different stations (South Broadway, Bayless).
Finally, notice that the ridership on the Southside was more than double than that modeled for the Northside. Of course, both are likely below actual ridership due to the model's bias against bus-feeders, but I imagine that such disparity would still be likely until resulting development narrowed the gap between an empty Northside and denser Southside.
Of course, study planners knew from day-one that politically both corridors had to be considered together, since a Southside-only line was political suicide, while a Northside-only line was a technical non-starter. But as JMed points out, adding Northside's very low ridership per mile may very well kill federal prospects for a combined North-South project.
This model dependency also explains why the Chouteau-UPRR alternative, which has a park-and-ride at both Shaw/I-44 and Bayless/I-55 picked up more riders, due to greater motorist accessibility from two interstates (44 and 55), while the Jefferson alternative picked up just motorist accessibility from 55, albeit at two different stations (South Broadway, Bayless).
Finally, notice that the ridership on the Southside was more than double than that modeled for the Northside. Of course, both are likely below actual ridership due to the model's bias against bus-feeders, but I imagine that such disparity would still be likely until resulting development narrowed the gap between an empty Northside and denser Southside.
Of course, study planners knew from day-one that politically both corridors had to be considered together, since a Southside-only line was political suicide, while a Northside-only line was a technical non-starter. But as JMed points out, adding Northside's very low ridership per mile may very well kill federal prospects for a combined North-South project.
For ease of discussion, this is the main result of the study:
![]()
- 120
Thanks for the image.
How come they are not looking to have anything go by the Tower Grove/Botanical Garden area? I would love to have something go there (for one it being close to me), but also because it seems like the goal of metro is to be able to take the rider to the big landmarks, and I would think the Botanical Garden would be one of them.
How come they are not looking to have anything go by the Tower Grove/Botanical Garden area? I would love to have something go there (for one it being close to me), but also because it seems like the goal of metro is to be able to take the rider to the big landmarks, and I would think the Botanical Garden would be one of them.
- 11K
^ All you answers are in this thread and the study website. See comparison of UPR right-of-way and Jefferson alignment.
I wish I had a couple million to bet on the Benton Park area - if Metrolink goes down Jefferson that area will be hot (I'm aware it's on its way, but this would have a very significant impact - IMO)
I wish I had a couple million to bet on the Benton Park area - if Metrolink goes down Jefferson that area will be hot (I'm aware it's on its way, but this would have a very significant impact - IMO)
- 2,093
^ I agree. A line along I-44 would be ideal. That would serve Lafayette Square, South Grand (would be a hike to the restaurant district though) Botanical Gardens, the Hill, and could connect at the Shrewsbury station.
The particularly sad part of this is that with all the development occurring already throughout the length of this line, if the City were taking a proactive stance by changing zoning to reflect the desire for light rail in these areas, the City could currently be capturing funds through development fees (ie. paying a fee to the LRT project rather than providing a given number of parking spaces) that could be used to increase the local level of funding for this project. Alas, the biggest growth spurt experienced by the City in more than 50 years is being wasted.
As a side note, while expanding the proposed route further into the county (ie. out to 270) would no doubt raise the cost of the line, I also think that it would add important park and ride stations to the mix that might boost total ridership and make the project far more attractive:
A. When competing for federal dollars
B. petitioning County voters to approve tax increases that would fund part of the line's construction.
Given that Minneapolis and St. Paul are worried that their billion dollar plus Central Corridor Project (running west to east from downtown Minneapolis, past the U of M and then into downtown St. Paul) will not compete well for federal funding on terms of cost-effectiveness even though estimates put ridership at more than 38,000 per day by 2020, i fail to see how a 1 billion dollar line with 12,000 riders a day has any chance of getting approval?
Would the federal authorities look positively on the regions aggressive construction of the Cross-County line without the use of federal matching dollars and give the region a benefit because of this when reviewing the Northside-Southside line?
As a side note, while expanding the proposed route further into the county (ie. out to 270) would no doubt raise the cost of the line, I also think that it would add important park and ride stations to the mix that might boost total ridership and make the project far more attractive:
A. When competing for federal dollars
B. petitioning County voters to approve tax increases that would fund part of the line's construction.
Given that Minneapolis and St. Paul are worried that their billion dollar plus Central Corridor Project (running west to east from downtown Minneapolis, past the U of M and then into downtown St. Paul) will not compete well for federal funding on terms of cost-effectiveness even though estimates put ridership at more than 38,000 per day by 2020, i fail to see how a 1 billion dollar line with 12,000 riders a day has any chance of getting approval?
Would the federal authorities look positively on the regions aggressive construction of the Cross-County line without the use of federal matching dollars and give the region a benefit because of this when reviewing the Northside-Southside line?
- 710
this would be good for dutchtown.... benton park west...in general the giant slab of classic south city urbanity we call the state streets. this alone is a good enough reason for me. maybe we could have our own little wicker park-esque nabe. bring it on!