If you mean that the project died over the summer because A3 was defeated, then that is entirely wrong.... A3 pretty much would have ensured that N/S would not be built.Ebsy wrote:This project died over the summer. Ferguson is the only reason anyone is talking about it.
- 8,155
- 985
I was curious in a related exercise, has anyone shown a map that highlights various right of ways from or near existing metrolink lines that could be used as a less expensive method of system expansion? The lines that would be key are any unused railroad corridors, any rail/highway right of ways that could have metrolink lines added in parallel without much difficulty, utility corridors which could possibly be easier to add rail lines under them, land that was bulldozed associated with the airport runway which could be used to say extend a line west to Earth City.
I am curious if any routings would be feasible using any of the above methods and how much it would cost relative to other means versus the potential current benefit. Since if most of the benefit applies with no more than half the cost, then it could be something to pursue, especially if combined with transit oriented development along said corridors.
I am curious if any routings would be feasible using any of the above methods and how much it would cost relative to other means versus the potential current benefit. Since if most of the benefit applies with no more than half the cost, then it could be something to pursue, especially if combined with transit oriented development along said corridors.
A lot of the initial EWG vision for expansion ran along existing railroad right of ways.
![]()
I've been reading comments here and on the nextstl.com article, and I'll throw a few points out:
- Grand has never been a contender for light-rail because it is too narrow in some places. Same with Gravois. The current N/S route hits highest population density neighborhoods in both north and south St. Louis along a route that is wide enough to build center-running dedicated right of way.
- The N/S route isn't something amateurs are dreaming up. Its had millions of dollars of study through East-West Gateway already. Its the only route on the table with a substantial City component. If you are interested in more MetroLink is St. Louis City, this is your option. Speculation on any other route within the city, with possible exception of route from DT to Natural Bridge, is really just speculation.
- Even if Grand was an option (its not, and never will be) The Grand viaduct is a terrible place to transfer from the N/S line to the Blue line to go downtown or to CWE, or airport. That would become an extremely busy transfer point, and having it on and under a bridge is a terrible idea.
- Downtown is the most concentrated area of employment in the region, and even more-so for cultural events, sporting events, and activities. Light-rail should emphasize connections to downtown. N/S route does that.
- N/S MetroLink will simplify some bus routes and make it easier for people to get to the existing major bus transfer points - meaning even if ML doesn't take you directly to destination, it could make bus commute shorter.
- The N/S route is very likely the only route in the region to contend for substantial federal funding, which will be an essential component of funding package.
- "There's no money to build it" is not really the correct analysis when you dive into existing funding stream in StL County and start to consider how existing funding becomes the base from which to access other money at the state and federal level. You don't pay for these things up front, you bond most of the total amount.
- Putting anything underground or on a flyover bridge will drive the cost up dramatically. Its not an option - funding is possible but it is constrained.
- "Light Rail" and "Modern Street Car" are the same thing. The only "difference" is potentially the floor height of the vehicle or the length of the vehicle in some systems. In Minneapolis, the local colloquialism for the Green Line (which you might call a streetcar) is the "The Light Rail".
- I think Metro / EWG / St. Louis City & St. Louis County have caused a lot of confusion by not clearly identifying what the regional transit priorities are, their routes, and what they look like in practice.
Thanks
Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman
- Grand has never been a contender for light-rail because it is too narrow in some places. Same with Gravois. The current N/S route hits highest population density neighborhoods in both north and south St. Louis along a route that is wide enough to build center-running dedicated right of way.
- The N/S route isn't something amateurs are dreaming up. Its had millions of dollars of study through East-West Gateway already. Its the only route on the table with a substantial City component. If you are interested in more MetroLink is St. Louis City, this is your option. Speculation on any other route within the city, with possible exception of route from DT to Natural Bridge, is really just speculation.
- Even if Grand was an option (its not, and never will be) The Grand viaduct is a terrible place to transfer from the N/S line to the Blue line to go downtown or to CWE, or airport. That would become an extremely busy transfer point, and having it on and under a bridge is a terrible idea.
- Downtown is the most concentrated area of employment in the region, and even more-so for cultural events, sporting events, and activities. Light-rail should emphasize connections to downtown. N/S route does that.
- N/S MetroLink will simplify some bus routes and make it easier for people to get to the existing major bus transfer points - meaning even if ML doesn't take you directly to destination, it could make bus commute shorter.
- The N/S route is very likely the only route in the region to contend for substantial federal funding, which will be an essential component of funding package.
- "There's no money to build it" is not really the correct analysis when you dive into existing funding stream in StL County and start to consider how existing funding becomes the base from which to access other money at the state and federal level. You don't pay for these things up front, you bond most of the total amount.
- Putting anything underground or on a flyover bridge will drive the cost up dramatically. Its not an option - funding is possible but it is constrained.
- "Light Rail" and "Modern Street Car" are the same thing. The only "difference" is potentially the floor height of the vehicle or the length of the vehicle in some systems. In Minneapolis, the local colloquialism for the Green Line (which you might call a streetcar) is the "The Light Rail".
- I think Metro / EWG / St. Louis City & St. Louis County have caused a lot of confusion by not clearly identifying what the regional transit priorities are, their routes, and what they look like in practice.
Thanks
Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman
- 1,792
I don't think anyone here is saying they were amateurs when they dreamed it up 10 YEARS AGO. I am just saying that A LOT of things have changed in that time. I believe there are better alignments through down town. Its a small part of the larger picture but it is absolutely the most critical to get right. If a critical analysis of the several potential alignments convinces me that this line provides the best value then maybe i'll stop. The Jefferson vs. Gravois question is also valid but i don't think it is as critical because eventually I'd like to think there will be the political will to do build a Gravois Line.- The N/S route isn't something amateurs are dreaming up. Its had millions of dollars of study through East-West Gateway already. Its the only route on the table with a substantial City component. If you are interested in more MetroLink is St. Louis City, this is your option. Speculation on any other route within the city, with possible exception of route from DT to Natural Bridge, is really just speculation.
Essentially my major beef with the current proposal if you are curious is that the UP switch yard will now have really terrific service on both its north and south side. Unless you forsee Chouteaus greenway happening in the near future, that unicorn is harder to catch that the N-S metrolink expansion, there isn't a lot of potetial to build there. Additionally Lafayette square has demonstrated a strong opposition to dense development, Ameren has low growth potential, and is already somewhat served by the Union Station station (its not a pleasant walk but the distance is reasonable) and Purina could be served equally (or better) through a different alignment choice. My feeling as an "amateur" transit planner is that you want to cross the UP tracks as quickly as possible, and provide the bulk of your service through the heart of downtown. I also wrap Downtown west into that because it has such amazing potential to grow. Which is why I proposed instead of using Chouteau, either veering right as you go north onto Gravois instead and cross the tracks on either 14th, or Tucker carry that through downtown and directly into a NS alignment, OR Following Jefferson across the track all the way to Washington and turning down Washington to the current alignment at convention.
Would it cost more? PROBABLY
The Gravois option only wouldn't add track length (might actually decrease it some) but would add a few more bridges to deal with which are inherently more expensive than regular track. That said you create a stop in Soulard which is HUGE and still have service very close to Lafayette Square at Park, Purina is not impacted at all, Ameren slightly. I imagine it might help transition Darst into a more up and comming district.
The Jefferson to Washington alignment opens up a ton of potential development in Downtown West (which i consider to be a natuaral extension downtown, sorry purists) It would be less about serving existing bussinesses than it would be about spurring development there. Serves Wells Fargo and the other businesses at Market and Jefferson, as well as more directly City museum and the lofts on Washington. Conceptually I'd imagine about 10 blocks of subsurface track underneath Washington avenue, which i'd consider smallish. It also would tie into current line at convention so no new servicing depots would need built.
Few things annoy me more than someone saying (paraphrased) 'sit down be quiet and let the big boys handle this'. Feel free to reject the merit of my comments or even better critically examine it with data. I'd like to hear an actual reason why what i'm saying is wrong, I really want to feel good about the investment we could be making. Telling people to stop trying to voice their opinions just because alot of work has already been done and those people were smarter than you is not an arguement. The last time the public had any input was 5 years ago and this thing even if we're optimistic won't break ground for another 5 years, so i think we have time to throw suggestions out there.
- 131
Jefferson to Market or Olive could also make a lot of sense and still serve the same attractions without the restricted ROW that Washington has. This would still allow for a CBD loop or a direct Tucker/14th turn north. That being said, if making changes to the "well-studied route" that's already on the books would cause any substantial delay, I don't think it's worth messing with.
- 1,792
Olive maybe. I think market would directly compete with the current Metrolink.
I think this ends up getting done a lot quicker than many seem to expect. I say that out of optimism, and little else. But I really think so.
And if the already identified route is the one that can happen sooner rather than later, then that's good enough for me. Let's make it happen.
And if the already identified route is the one that can happen sooner rather than later, then that's good enough for me. Let's make it happen.
- 9,565
If New Starts $ is needed (which it is) then mid 2020's is the best case.jstriebel wrote:I think this ends up getting done a lot quicker than many seem to expect.
You've mentioned that a number of times. What makes you think that?
The FTA just committed $1 bil. in New Starts grants to the Boston Green Line two weeks ago. Article. Phase I of the project is expected to be completed in 2017, and Phase II in 2020.
The FTA just committed $1 bil. in New Starts grants to the Boston Green Line two weeks ago. Article. Phase I of the project is expected to be completed in 2017, and Phase II in 2020.
Couldn't construction begin once money is committed? We may not have access to federal funding until 2025 or whatever, but if they tell us in 2016 that we WILL have the money in 2025, then can't you can start selling bonds to finance and begin construction?
I don't claim to have full knowledge of how this stuff works, but I know that money for major developments like this and stadiums aren't paid upfront.
I don't claim to have full knowledge of how this stuff works, but I know that money for major developments like this and stadiums aren't paid upfront.
- 9,565
They put a bow on it 2 weeks ago. That project has been on the New Starts lift for a while now and penciled in.wabash wrote:You've mentioned that a number of times. What makes you think that?
The FTA just committed $1 bil. in New Starts grants to the Boston Green Line two weeks ago. Article. Phase I of the project is expected to be completed in 2017, and Phase II in 2020.
To answer your first question. New starts and small starts has signed agreements or projects in prelim stages for over $23 billion worth of projects and the entire program has a $2billion year budget...you do the math.
http://www.transportationissuesdaily.co ... -projects/
“MAP-21 authorized $1.907 billion in each FY 2013 and FY 2014 for the New Starts program. The total amount appropriated in FY 2013 was less than the authorized amount at approximately $1.855 billion, as a result of sequestration.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s report on funding recommendations for FY 2014, as required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(o)(1), the FTA has existing, signed FFGAs to provide approximately $14 billion in funding for 17 projects. In addition, FTA has existing, signed SSGAs to provide approximately $94 million in funding for two projects. On top of these existing demands, the report shows 12 projects, which are currently in the project development and engineering phases, seeking approximately $8.7 billion in New Starts funding, and 14 Small Starts projects, which are currently in the project development phase, seeking approximately $680 million in funding.
Given these demands on program funding, projects that have completed the applicable requirements of the New Starts program may face delays in securing grant agreements or receiving their full grant amounts.”
Not sure, if you read the piece I posted above, there is really no guarantee that future admin will keep the program around. So it's very risky to depend on reminursment funds in the future if you forward fund it locally firstjstriebel wrote:Couldn't construction begin once money is committed? We may not have access to federal funding until 2025 or whatever, but if they tell us in 2016 that we WILL have the money in 2025, then can't you can start selling bonds to finance and begin construction?
I don't claim to have full knowledge of how this stuff works, but I know that money for major developments like this and stadiums aren't paid upfront.
^Thanks. Interesting article. Looks like based on its figures - $8.7 bil of projects in the pipeline and $1.9 bil authorized per year - that the New Starts funds were accounted for up to about July 2017 as of the publication of that article. That's assuming funding stays at its current level ($1.9 bil per annum) over that time (obviously they could go up or down with any funding bill).
It certainly sounds like any project "may face delays in securing grant agreements", but there may be a better case scenario than mid 2020s.
It certainly sounds like any project "may face delays in securing grant agreements", but there may be a better case scenario than mid 2020s.
- 9,565
^ the $14billion in signed agreements isnt funded yet, so that would get first dibs, then the $8.7Billion in planned and then new applications.
The administration did request $2.5billion for Federal fiscal year 2015 but that was in Obama's budget which of course never gets voted on
the FTA has existing, signed FFGAs to provide approximately $14 billion in funding for 17 projects
The administration did request $2.5billion for Federal fiscal year 2015 but that was in Obama's budget which of course never gets voted on
Some good news- New Starts funded at $ 2.17B for 2015. (95-97% of that after obligation limitation)
![]()
The article doesn't make this clear, but actually just over 60% of that amount had already been funded. In any event, that article is working from old data. The current numbers are as follows.dbInSouthCity wrote:^ the $14billion in signed agreements isn't funded yet, so that would get first dibs
Total Existing FFGAs: $11.5 bil
Total unfunded Existing FFGAs: $4.1 bil
Recommended/Proposed Projects (including New Starts & Small Starts) remaining funding needed: $5.2 bil
At the current funding level (thanks for the increase Congress), all existing and recommended projects should be fully funded by April of 2019. Again, not ideal, but funding will be freed up before we get to 2020 let alone the mid 2020s.
Here's the FTA's 2015 Funding Report if you're interested: Report.
- 1,868
Even if New Starts were deader than dead, you never know what new funding might become available. We should be politically prepared with a project as shovel-ready as possible, for whatever opportunities arise.
- 9,565
Working over the Claire and Roy for an earmark is the best shot. They could call for below a line earmark from the DOT budget, meaning the $ would come from the existing $1billion a year MoDOT is allocated in federal funds
The politics and mechanics of it would be difficult but probably easier then winning a New Starts Grant. Of course they couldnt just earmark the entire amount but $50m a year to pay bonds is a possibility
The politics and mechanics of it would be difficult but probably easier then winning a New Starts Grant. Of course they couldnt just earmark the entire amount but $50m a year to pay bonds is a possibility
I doubt the Republican Congress will be handing out many earmarks for urban light rail projects in St. Louis, especially to Claire McCaskill. And Roy Blunt's power base is rural areas and the suburbs that won't be serviced by Metrolink. Nothing is impossible, but I don't see it happening.
- 284
Not to be political but i think Republicans are going to be targeting more populated urban areas for votes and what not and in order for them to try and entice people of great urban minds they'll likely have to do quite a bit of sacrificing. The Republican committee by far are more desperate and aggressive then what the Dems are. Either way i could see St.Louis getting some decent funding for the N/S line probably not anytime soon but somewhere in the 10 yr line maybe sooner who knows I'm optimistic
- 9,565
From STLTODAY chat on N/S Expansion- basically its going nowhere fast.
From Metro
From Metro
MetroLink expansion is an ongoing regional conversation, and a Northside-Southside (NS-SS) MetroLink alignment is one option on the table. Any light rail corridor including NS-SS would require further planning and design before the region could approach the federal government with an application for construction funds. The decision regarding whether or which corridor to advance and when rests with our regional leadership in the City of St. Louis, St. Louis County, and others that sit on the Board of the East-West Gateway Council of Governments.
The primary reason any expansion is not under construction at this time is funding. That’s funding for the construction and operation of new service. We know that the region would have to support at least 50% of the cost to construct any light rail expansion (and that assumes we have a project that is very competitive at the federal level, and federal funding is available. For Northside – Southside the total construction cost would like exceed $1 billion. The region would also have to support 100% of the cost to operate service. The germane conversation at this time is not whether or even when to advance light rail, but rather how we as a region, a state and a country can assemble the financial resources necessary to accomplish a successful project. These conversations are taking place, but we do have hurdles ahead. There is almost no funding at the state level in Missouri for transit. This places a tremendous burden on our limited and already strained local transportation funding resources. Funding at the federal level is also uncertain, limited, and competitive. The region has provided local funding and the majority of those funds are being used to provide service today. Some funding is being set aside to support service expansion, but it must be matched by federal and state resources.
- 109
This would be perfect time to do it........ North County has a lot of people needing to get in and out the city everyday, the Flo Valley station would be full.dbInSouthCity wrote:From STLTODAY chat on N/S Expansion- basically its going nowhere fast.
From MetroMetroLink expansion is an ongoing regional conversation, and a Northside-Southside (NS-SS) MetroLink alignment is one option on the table. Any light rail corridor including NS-SS would require further planning and design before the region could approach the federal government with an application for construction funds. The decision regarding whether or which corridor to advance and when rests with our regional leadership in the City of St. Louis, St. Louis County, and others that sit on the Board of the East-West Gateway Council of Governments.
The primary reason any expansion is not under construction at this time is funding. That’s funding for the construction and operation of new service. We know that the region would have to support at least 50% of the cost to construct any light rail expansion (and that assumes we have a project that is very competitive at the federal level, and federal funding is available. For Northside – Southside the total construction cost would like exceed $1 billion. The region would also have to support 100% of the cost to operate service. The germane conversation at this time is not whether or even when to advance light rail, but rather how we as a region, a state and a country can assemble the financial resources necessary to accomplish a successful project. These conversations are taking place, but we do have hurdles ahead. There is almost no funding at the state level in Missouri for transit. This places a tremendous burden on our limited and already strained local transportation funding resources. Funding at the federal level is also uncertain, limited, and competitive. The region has provided local funding and the majority of those funds are being used to provide service today. Some funding is being set aside to support service expansion, but it must be matched by federal and state resources.
