urbanSTL

Bi-State picks California firm for next round of design work for MetroLink expansion

The Bi-State Development Agency board on Tuesday hired a San Francisco-based engineering firm to handle the next round of design work for the proposed MetroLink expansion that would connect the city’s north and south sides.
PGH Wong Engineering Inc. will be paid up to $18 million for the work on the northside-southside corridor project, which Bi-State recently renamed the Green Line.
According to a briefing paper submitted to the board, PGH Wong was selected over AECOM, a Dallas-based firm which also sought the contract, by a technical evaluation team made up of Bi-State and city officials.

A price was then negotiated with PGH Wong. AECOM has done previous planning for the line.

The roughly 5.6-mile route would run along Jefferson Avenue from Chippewa Street to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency facility under construction northwest of downtown. The line then would go west along Natural Bridge Avenue to North Grand Boulevard. The cost of building the line has been pegged at about $1.1 billion, although Bi-State is trying to reduce the price tag to between $800 million and $850 million via various changes.
Whether the line is built depends on convincing the federal government to commit to covering much of the cost.
The $18 million in design work OK’d Tuesday will be covered by revenue from a city sales tax dedicated to MetroLink expansion and federal COVID relief money received by the city.

The board of the regional East-West Gateway Council of Governments last month endorsed the route over the objections of some suburban leaders who questioned ridership projections and other aspects of the proposal.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/government-politics/bi-state-picks-california-firm-for-next-round-of-design-work-for-metrolink-expansion/article_dc746f2c-e61e-11ee-813d-af9ddb443cd4.html#tracking-source=home-the-latest

They should hire a chinese company instead and get it done for half the cost

The optics would be politically indefensible, but I would be interested in seeing the cost/benefit analysis of using chinese firms to build railed transit far cheaper. IE, if for the same cost we could double the length of the line, would the benefit be economically greater than if we built a shorter one with local jobs and materials?

Again, we would never sniff Federal funding which makes it a non starter, but something to think about maybe.

Someone at AECOM is getting fired for dropping the ball on this, they had done all the previous work to this point and somehow blew this

Hey DB, have trackless trams even been brought up in any of these discussions? Just curious.

^ That $18 million is only part, one phase of the cost plowed into studies, permitting, design and subsurface investigations.  It will cost far more than $18 million before any shovel goes into the ground.  If not mistaken I don't think this design contract is even to 90% design for which you truly start getting into a legit cost estimate.

To me the real cost driver is time, period.   How long will it take from conception, to studies, to outreach, to design to permitting to real estate and utilities.  Then from their you decide if you turn over the right of way, shut things down to give free reign to build and or you try to accomodate every neighborhood concern out there while keep every inch of the right of way open to traffic..      

dredger wrote: ↑

Mar 21, 2024

^ That $18 million is only part, one phase of the cost plowed into studies, permitting, design and subsurface investigations.  It will cost far more than $18 million before any shovel goes into the ground.  If not mistaken I don't think this design contract is even to 90% design for which you truly start getting into a legit cost estimate.

To me the real cost driver is time, period.   How long will it take from conception, to studies, to outreach, to design to permitting to real estate and utilities.  Then from their you decide if you turn over the right of way, shut things down to give free reign to build and or you try to accomodate every neighborhood concern out there while keep every inch of the right of way open to traffic..      

Great explanation of why we cannot have nice things, thanks.

Looks like the firm that will do the design work also based on their portfolio is one that specializes in transit systems. 

Isn't the possibility in reducing costs is related to what they can do with the Ewing Yard in terms of the infill transfer station and maintenance yard? I picture a good amount of the overall cost is in having the support infrastructure for the equipment.

$18M is just a start of design fees, its between 7-9% of construction cost at the end, so it will be $70-90M by the time final design docs are delivered. 

https://www.metrostlouis.org/news-relea ... 30-design/

Virtual open house tonight. Attend and show support to get this done however possible. I’ve been spending time on Jefferson a lot and see all the development potential. I think the project is likely to happen this time but continue to show public support. St. Charles mayor already voicing against it of course

Why does the local media run to Steve Ehlmann every time they want or need an opinion about life in the city? 

^^Went to the in person open house on Jefferson last week. It was a bit depressing to hear some of the comments in person: Where will I park? Will the trains have lidar to prevent collisions? How much noise will this create? How will I get out of my house? I'm sympathetic with people that live directly on Jefferson, as the construction will doubtless have an impact, but I hope people realize how much of a benefit this can be; that it's a big part of creating a true system. We have a solid trunk. Now we need branches. (I did rather like that one fellow along Jefferson was much more supportive of the idea if it gets extended to Loughborough. "Then I can get to Schnucks." Yeah, a train we can use for everyday things, and not just fancy stuff would be great.)

^Was there any discussion of the stations they cut at Russel and Arsenal?

^They show the deleted stations on the maps as "design options," making me think they could add them back in at some point in the future. The presentation says the removal of the stations reduces the footprint of the project and improves transit times. Further, they claim that not building those stations "avoids potential building, business, and property impacts." All of that feels like truisms, really. That which you don't build has no footprint and no impact. They do say they keep spacings to under a mile. The meat of the thing is already on the web on the Green Line site, but the posters went into at least a little more detail, so I'll present them here.

Thanks for posting these, yeah sounds like a whole bunch of word salad to say "we felt like it." It's just really weird to me this whole process where they've been studying this line since like 2007 and these transit stops have always been a part of the plan, with different studies and public comment periods just for them to pull the plug. It's honestly why I probably won't bother to attend any of these presentations, much as I care about this project, I don't think they will listen. Seems like all show for federal funding requirements. 

PeterXCV wrote: ↑

May 01, 2024

Thanks for posting these, yeah sounds like a whole bunch of word salad to say "we felt like it." It's just really weird to me this whole process where they've been studying this line since like 2007 and these transit stops have always been a part of the plan, with different studies and public comment periods just for them to pull the plug. It's honestly why I probably won't bother to attend any of these presentations, much as I care about this project, I don't think they will listen. Seems like all show for federal funding requirements. 

They are maximizing the appeal for funding which I am okay with at this point. Get this thing built then we can always infill stations and expand on the system. From the answers of the presenters, I think they will actually bring that to the table once the project gets off the ground. The natural bridge expansion will likely be phase 2. One more station to the south at I-55 will be considered.

Promising things from the presentation:

1. The upzoning of the corridor. I think they can even go a couple steps up on that. They should zone out gas stations along the corridor (There are way too many on Jefferson as it is). I worry that some of the existing development along Jefferson particularly the stretch on the west side from 44 to 64 will not be conducive to new TOD and density. They also should just eliminate minimum parking all together but it will at least be diminished.
2. The project is a strong candidate for funding because of demographics being served.
3. No costs of eminent domain anticipated.
4. New station at Ewing Yards for transfer sounds like it will be functional and nice.
5. They will reallocate bus service to feed system and provide better intra service in the neighborhoods.

Questions I remember:
Why Jefferson and not Kingshighway or Grand?
How will it affect Jefferson traffic?
How will it affect structures (vibrations)?
What would expansion look like?
What would security be?

The design stage will start to show this project more rounded out. I am very excited as I think it will finally bring some new investment to north city and make the south city neighborhoods very desirable to young people. The Chippewa to 44 stretch on Jefferson will become more dense and stimulate commercial activity in my opinion. There will definitely be new residential mid and high rises built along Jefferson, especially from 64 to MLK when it breaks ground. Bi-State and the City are going all in on this and are pretty adamant about making it happen.

Overall, I feel good.

The catchment area map showing a simple 1/2 mile radius doesn't factor in ease/comfort of crossing the wider stroads and highways. Riders will be more willing to walk further through Lafayette Square, for example, than if they need to cross Gravois or I-44. I think a catchment map that reflected this reality would reflect the benefit of the Arsenal and/or Russell stations.

My walk to a station from the Northern side of Mckinley Heights was about seven minutes to the Russell Station. Now it's 15 minutes to Park Ave assuming I walk along Jefferson the entire way (including under that terrible overpass/onramp complex) or 20 minutes if I walk through Lafayette Park.

We own so we aren't going anywhere, I know I will be using this line a fraction of what I would have with a Russell station. It's also a shame because that intersection has some seriously juicy redevelopment parcels nearby

You have a month to submit that comment, according to what symphonicpoet shared. Do it. 

I think there should be Arsenal and Russell stations, without doubt. 

And to be honest, I'm not sure I love the consolidation of the Washington Ave. and Carr St. stations into the single Dr. MLK Jr. Dr. station.  

delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑

May 01, 2024

They are maximizing the appeal for funding which I am okay with at this point. Get this thing built then we can always infill stations and expand on the system. From the answers of the presenters, I think they will actually bring that to the table once the project gets off the ground. The natural bridge expansion will likely be phase 2. One more station to the south at I-55 will be considered.

Promising things from the presentation:

1. The upzoning of the corridor. I think they can even go a couple steps up on that. They should zone out gas stations along the corridor (There are way too many on Jefferson as it is). I worry that some of the existing development along Jefferson particularly the stretch on the west side from 44 to 64 will not be conducive to new TOD and density. They also should just eliminate minimum parking all together but it will at least be diminished.
2. The project is a strong candidate for funding because of demographics being served.
3. No costs of eminent domain anticipated.
4. New station at Ewing Yards for transfer sounds like it will be functional and nice.
5. They will reallocate bus service to feed system and provide better intra service in the neighborhoods.

Questions I remember:
Why Jefferson and not Kingshighway or Grand?
How will it affect Jefferson traffic?
How will it affect structures (vibrations)?
What would expansion look like?
What would security be?

The design stage will start to show this project more rounded out. I am very excited as I think it will finally bring some new investment to north city and make the south city neighborhoods very desirable to young people. The Chippewa to 44 stretch on Jefferson will become more dense and stimulate commercial activity in my opinion. There will definitely be new residential mid and high rises built along Jefferson, especially from 64 to MLK when it breaks ground. Bi-State and the City are going all in on this and are pretty adamant about making it happen.

Overall, I feel good.

Now that you mention it I remember the comments on Kingshighway/Grand and security. Very good summary.

_nomad_ wrote:The catchment area map showing a simple 1/2 mile radius doesn't factor in ease/comfort of crossing the wider stroads and highways. Riders will be more willing to walk further through Lafayette Square, for example, than if they need to cross Gravois or I-44. I think a catchment map that reflected this reality would reflect the benefit of the Arsenal and/or Russell stations.

They did say that they were looking at improving pedestrian access. I think they were mostly talking about Jefferson itself, but getting across the major thoroughfares near the line is at least on their mind: improving pedestrian safety, reducing accidents. I don't know quite what they have in mind yet, and you're not wrong, things like 44 and Gravois are absolutely a barrier that needs to be perforated.

GoHarvOrGoHome wrote:My walk to a station from the Northern side of Mckinley Heights was about seven minutes to the Russell Station. Now it's 15 minutes to Park Ave assuming I walk along Jefferson the entire way (including under that terrible overpass/onramp complex) or 20 minutes if I walk through Lafayette Park.

We own so we aren't going anywhere, I know I will be using this line a fraction of what I would have with a Russell station. It's also a shame because that intersection has some seriously juicy redevelopment parcels nearby

I won't really be using it at all until (or more accurately if) they extend it south to Loughborough, since I'm nowhere near what they're planning now and it won't really go anyplace I particularly need to go. I'll still just use the 70 Bus to access the rest of the system on those occasions I use it. I understand your frustration. I really do. But as RockChalkSTL says you should submit a comment. (I do think omitting the stations is a mistake.) And even without those stations, and even if they never extent the thing my way I'm still in favor of it. It'll make the system stronger. The better it gets the more likely they are to expand it in the future.

GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑

May 01, 2024

My walk to a station from the Northern side of Mckinley Heights was about seven minutes to the Russell Station. Now it's 15 minutes to Park Ave assuming I walk along Jefferson the entire way (including under that terrible overpass/onramp complex) or 20 minutes if I walk through Lafayette Park.

We own so we aren't going anywhere, I know I will be using this line a fraction of what I would have with a Russell station. It's also a shame because that intersection has some seriously juicy redevelopment parcels nearby

The Russell cut stinks because it might have encouraged them to fix the horrible Russel-Gravois intersection so that it could have served northern parts of Soulard. It does feel like one station between Cherokee and Park Ave is pretty spread out for this type of transit.

I also have preferred keeping the Wash Ave stop. I’ve even dreamed of a street runner going down Wash Ave or Olive to intersect this then down Broadway to Soulard. Alas maybe the MLK stop will get some investment into that blvd because it badly needs it.

Also in the next few years is that the timeline for determining which Phase 2 alignment they will choose? 

After that is there any idea on what the next step will be? Seems like it will depend on the development and political landscape 10 years out.