urbanSTL

This has been a stop/start idea of mine going on 6 months now, but I really am interested in a grassroots effort to spur urban core transit development. A few people chimed in that they were interested before, but there wasn't a ton and I, of course, got busy.

But if any other people are interested in dreaming big, please let me know. It is so frustrating to see people who might have the power to make this happen unable or unwilling to do so, so maybe it's time we take into our own hands. I think simple advocacy isn't enough in the current climate. We need to dream big with concrete ideas and seek out private funding if that's what it takes.

Anybody want to join me in that dream?

pat wrote:

the city could provide a match for a metrolink expansion, yes.
but $1.6B would not get N/S and Westport, just N/S and there is no way of knowing if New Starts Fed program will be still around going forward and its a competitive process. So it would probably have to be locally funded

Well it wouldn't make sense for the City to pay for metrolink anywhere outside the city limits, so you could take the cost of the Westport extension and any north/south past the city limits out.

What I was getting at is if the city could reasonably fund its own transit system outside of Metro. How much do you think the City is capable of bonding to build it's own transit network? It's becoming clearer to me that Metro cannot serve 100% of the City's transit needs. I'm presuming that more rail in the city would lead to more growth and taxes to pay off those bonds in the future based on the amount of growth we've seen in the central corridor.

Pat's exactly on point here. This requirement for "regionalism" as it relates to transportation is an absolute killer to any meaningful growth in the City. With Metro beholden to the County's share, we'll never get the development we need in the City. Expansion in the City is the best way for the whole system to grow as well. And the immediate economic impact is much more enviable that it would be for park-n-rides and office parks in the far-flung county. I would fully support a separate City-only tax whose revenue goes ONLY to City-based transit expansion.

A double-dip, I know, as the Prop A tax would still be in effect and added to the general transportation fund for the region. As Pat said and I mentioned a couple pages back -- why not specific City-only taxes to support City-only efforts? The City, I believe, is within its right to add up to $0.14 cents to the local tobacco tax and could push it even higher via ballot measure. Even as a smoker, I'd support an extra dollar (or more!) on the current tax if I knew it was all going toward transit. There will be those who border-hop to get the cheaper rate, but not so much as to negatively affect the overall funding gain.

If somebody has a link to the per county annual share of transportation funding, I'd love to have it. Also, breakdowns on per County (counting STL) taxes currently collected on tobacco tax (and gas tax, and casino tax, and ZMD tax, etc).

Very frustrating situation this "regionalism" idea has left us with. It's like the "if for the southside, then also for the northside" mindset in City hall. Different area have different needs. And even in the case of shared needs, implementing a project in one area first doesn't mean the other area can't get it a little later. And in many cases, I think it probably helps get the ball rolling more than hindering it.

In this case, yes, I think a built-out southside line is more important than a northside one -- if you can stabilize the southside, sell transit to the middle class and get substantial buy-in there, the connected northside section wouldn't be too far behind at all.

If this thread were a discussion at a EW Gateway meeting, I'd feel pretty good about the future.

^ I see what you are saying but Metro can still be the manager of expanded city funding for city projects, no?

Sure, I guess they could, but I like the idea of keeping money management "in the family". I think it is best if city raised moneys are managed by the city. Though, I would likely support contracting out consulting, engineering, and operation services out to Metro. Metro had to bail out the Loop Trolley similarly in regards to the bureaucracy of that project. I don't see why a city funded transit system couldn't do the same.

KB, I agree on the cigarette tax. That was a good thought you had a while back. Taxing something like cigarettes to support walk-able transit seems to go hand-in-hand (though cigarette tax revenues would be likely to go down over time). Maybe even throw alcohol in there if you can.

We need to get more and better transit built. One of the very few areas where the city is growing is the millennials. What do they want? Walk-able, transit-centric neighborhoods. Seems pretty clear that there is a huge area where we need to invest.

Are we anywhere close to filling up the MetroLink-adjacent central corridor with Millenials? If we're going to argue that St. Louis needs more transit-accessible neighborhoods, doesn't that imply that the neighborhoods already having access are filling up?

Somewhat unrelated, but how would a overhead-electric trolley bus compare in cost to a streetrailcar or N/S Metrolink?

MarkHaversham wrote:Are we anywhere close to filling up the MetroLink-adjacent central corridor with Millenials? If we're going to argue that St. Louis needs more transit-accessible neighborhoods, doesn't that imply that the neighborhoods already having access are filling up?

The fundamental flaw with that line of thinking is that getting on a train is only half the issue. If you can't get off near the places you want to go, it doesn't matter. Thus the need for a North-South line that compliments the E-W line.

If you live in the Loop, work in Cortex, hangout in the CWE, attend events downtown, and I guess shop at the Culinaria, then sure, the E-W line in the central corridor should serve all your needs.

If you like to visit the many other vibrant and/or emerging neighborhoods of St. Louis and enjoy their many offerings, then you're out of luck.

If you're determination on building a fully functional system is based on the performance of a half-complete system, you're setting it up to fail from the start.

jstriebel wrote:If you like to visit the many other vibrant and/or emerging neighborhoods of St. Louis and enjoy their many offerings, then you're out of luck.

Well, you could take the bus.

I have to say, I don't understand the obsession with streetcars. They provide the same service as buses at a higher price. If the permanence of tracks is so important to attracting developers, why not achieve that same permanence for a fraction of the cost? Sign a contract agreeing to not reroute strategically important bus lines for 25 years. Mandate certain routes remain unmoved in Metro's charter or city council. There has to be better way to guarantee transit access than spending a bunch of money on a mode of transportation that has no advantage over traditional bus service other than it can't be moved and it looks cool.

Instead spend that money on making bus transit better and more attractive for all those millenials who are supposedly moving to Denver because there are more light rail lines. A robust bus system is still the backbone of any great transit system. Big cities with mature heavy rail systems like Chicago and Philadelphia still have more bus riders than any other mode, and those riders come from all different backgrounds. For some reason in St. Louis, we've decided that the bus is only for poor people and then we complain that metrolink doesn't go everywhere. Why not fix the bus system instead? Lobby to make it faster, more convenient, and cooler. Funding is a challenge in the current politically environment, so at least get the most bang for your buck. Chicago proves that regardless of how expansive your rail system is, a good bus system will still be the most important component of a comprehensive mass transit system.

Rail is faster, and more dependable. A North-South Line is extremely feasible, and I'm stunned Metro is not looking into it. In reality, I don't think one will be built, even though the demand is there.

^ can you expand on the feasibility and demand?

I can understand the sentiment that buses are as good as street cars. I'm sure there's a debate to be had, but there's merit to that.

But no, buses don't satisfy the need for a N-S light rail or even TRUE BRT if you want to go the cheaper route. They take WAY too long for the price you pay.

And I'm not anti-bus. I'm gonna buy a bus pass next month to start taking it to work. It will limit my flexibility, cost more money than my gas would, and take twice as long as driving, but I'm going to do it because I believe in transit and want to continue to understand it better.

But until our system—both bus and rail—can actually get people to many places in a decent time without costing significantly more than the gas used to drive it, it won't really be good enough.

Light rail or fast BRT that takes you to the major regions of the city (north city, south city, central corridor) that is then complimented by buses would begin to do this.

I was going to do that, I planned my trip to work on metro website. Trip Time: 151 minutes. $3.00 on way. Apparently there is no bus going from south Hampton to west county down 64 that would get me there by 7:30

Car- 22 min and 3.00 worth of gas.

In regards to buses vs rail, I agree that there are many similarities. If you can get dedicated ROW and pre-board ticketing, that's definitely a plus and will go along way to improving the system.

Some differences that weren't brought up is the greater amount of riders, the lesser amount of maintenance, and environmental factors that streetcars are capable of. Not direct benefits to the riders, but still a plus. I believe the average lifespan of a bus is 12 to 15 years vs. 30 years/plus for a streetcar.

jstriebel wrote:I can understand the sentiment that buses are as good as street cars. I'm sure there's a debate to be had, but there's merit to that.

A true streetcar, unlike a bus, has its very own dedicated lane and signal priority. It should also be larger. Also, when does anyone ever hear about a transit-oriented 26 story tower like the Crossing in Clayton or something like CORTEX being built "by a bus station" ? Developers could really care less about a bus stop. I'm not picking my next place based on a bus stop.

When my friends tell me (and I'm my family and friend's go-to guy about this, like seriously every week) that they want to find a new place, their first question is always: "Does it have MetroLink?" If I say "No, [neighborhood] doesn't have it," then we have to move the discussion to a neighborhood that does. I've tried telling them that there are parts of St. Louis that would appeal more to their personality (Southampton, Bevo, Old North, Kirkwood, Webster Groves, etc.) but they just aren't interested. One hook that sometimes gets them is "Oh, well they're planning to build a streetcar there eventually." I sold one of my friends on DeBaliviere because of that plus the fact it's where the Red Line and Blue Line meet.

Even though I am pro-streetcar, however, I think that in order for the Loop Trolley to work very well, it MUST be connected to the other streetcar proposal. If I had my way, though, our streetcar line would be going N-S along either Kingshighway or Jefferson, not Lindell-Olive-N. 14th Street. While I do like to see the Central Corridor being double reinforced by it, I think a N-S line is still more urgent. And it would come a lot sooner than a N-S MetroLink line...

Which, really, is the proposed street-running N-S Jefferson MetroLink line even really that different than a streetcar anyway? It's bigger and faster, but it's also more expensive. I'd rather see a streetcar there today than a MetroLink tomorrow. That is, as long as it had its own dedicated lanes and all. If it doesn't, then no, it really wouldn't be faster than a bus. However, it would still signal to developers that it's a permanent commitment to the Jefferson corridor. If I were a developer, that's where I would want to build. Not somewhere only accessibly by automobile. I would be alienating a huge part of the population: people without cars.

No kidding. My cousin, one of the biggest, most loyal St. Louis lovers you could ever meet, has toyed with the idea many times over the years of moving to Chicago because of the L. He's tried talking me into it, too. It was tempting at one point.

"I love St. Louis, but Chicago is basically just a bigger version of St. Louis with way better public transportation...And I'm tired of paying for my car."

I couldn't even count on all my fingers how many times he's said that. He's also told me a jillion times that if we had a N-S Line, he would finally move to South City and stop thinking about Chicago once and for all. But we don't, and until we do, people like him and countless other people I know (and you probably know people exactly like them) will continue moving to Chicago and other cities with much better RAIL transportation than us. I'm surprised he hasn't moved there already, though I don't doubt he eventually will.

danryan1 wrote: For some reason in St. Louis, we've decided that the bus is only for poor people and then we complain that metrolink doesn't go everywhere. Why not fix the bus system instead? Lobby to make it faster, more convenient, and cooler. Funding is a challenge in the current politically environment, so at least get the most bang for your buck. Chicago proves that regardless of how expansive your rail system is, a good bus system will still be the most important component of a comprehensive mass transit system.

I don't think that buses are a replacement for metrolink, as they serve a different purpose. But I do think buses need to be improved, and it might be more critical than metrolink expansion. I get sick of going to Google Maps to plan trips and seeing "18 minutes for transfer" for 50 minute transit trips.

My question is what is being done to lobby Metro and the City for this? Maybe I missed it in previous posts but I think they need to see our passion for this issue. It's not just on this board, it's people I meet all over the city. I'm not sure how the county feels on the expansion and I hate to speak for them but I doubt they have as much drive as people in this beautiful city do. Maybe we need our own USTL lobby committee!?

cteclipse wrote:My question is what is being done to lobby Metro and the City for this? Maybe I missed it in previous posts but I think they need to see our passion for this issue. It's not just on this board, it's people I meet all over the city. I'm not sure how the county feels on the expansion and I hate to speak for them but I doubt they have as much drive as people in this beautiful city do. Maybe we need our own USTL lobby committee!?

DM me your email address if you're interested in taking part. It's time to grassroots this ish.

raising the cig tax to pay for metrolink is not going to be considered until the Rams new stadium issue is resolved..

roger wyoming II wrote:

jstriebel wrote: DM me your email address if you're interested in taking part. It's time to grassroots this ish.

just curious; are your goals to advocate for specific projects or more transit funding in general? Part of the problem we're having is that there is division within the community on what our transit system should look like. Until that is settled, its going to be pretty hard to move forward. (CMT lobbies for more state transit funding, but to my knowledge it isn't too public on what specific expansion projects should be supported.)

I think that's TBD after getting some like-minded people together and deciding a good plan.

But with that said, I won't be happy until we have a real North-South connection, so I think there's something to the specific projects angle.

My working name for this is the Urban Transit Advocates of St. Louis, so it's VERY specifically for the urban core (which is mostly the city limit—but not entirely—in this case), so whether it will be advocating for specific routes or just expanded transit within a specific area, I'm not sure. CMT does not appear to have any real willingness (whether that's due to their own beliefs or political pushback) to fight for urban core transit. They like to start discussions about it and then let it hang.

Nothing can happen without funding, so that will have to be a part too, but I think it may need a new approach, because clearly what's being tried now is failing HARD.

East-West Gateway had established expansion corridors. It seemed to me (and I think almost everyone) that following Prop A they would pursue the Daniel Boone - Westport alignment, since most of the new money was coming from the County. For no apparent or coherently articulated reason, Metro scrapped the East-West Gateway planned expansion corridors and adopted this new BRT project.

From this:


To this:


With hardly a word of why.

I emailed Metro yesterday. Their new social media manager, Matthew Hibbard (formerly with the BizJournal) told me via Twitter he would pass it onto the right person or people. What I don't know is if anyone will ultimately bother to respond.

But one of my questions was what has and what is being considered (this isn't impossible to find), and why or why not are certain things priorities now and not others (this is very hard to find).

As for the North-South plan, I'm almost happy they didn't do it yet if the Daniel Boone/Westport would have been the chosen route. That's a miss. The North-South route NEEDS to run through the urban core.

I think it'd be amazing to have both, actually. But one further east has to be the priority.

Instead none of them are.