urbanSTL

Why is Freim saying MetroLink will look very different in ten years, while also acknowledging that nothing will happen without federal dollars that are obviously tight? Is he stupid or something?

^ Metrolink will look different in 10 years, transit expansions are more about political sausage making than waiting til 2024 to get something going. That's why we have 2 senators, a congressman etc. in Washington. If political leadership wants something it will get done, even if it is bonded out. It will also be interesting to see the funding mechanisms that CMT-STL will propose. That will also help determine what gets built and where. So his comment about it being the system looking different in 10 years is accurate.

As far as the New Starts speculation, its hard to even speculate that far into the future. For all we know the political climate could be totally different for the better in 10 years. We cannot make the assumption that everything will stay the same, but if I were to make a bet, I would say the country will likely have a more pro-transit bend by then. Also we have only had Metrolink for 20 years and even with the high amount political dysfunction, anti-urban state legislature, and lack of federal emphasis on transit we have a pretty sizable system for a city our size. So if I were a betting, I would say our system could easily be much larger in 10-20 years. The question is going to be where and in what form.

One thing I do know, Westport is being built no matter what and that is likely the next line unless there is a tremendous amount of public outcry.

Would it also make sense as part of this is to try to secure various corridors for both future metrolink on these lines but also at the very least for off road trails that could be used for future lines whenever the need arises. Since a lot of the proposed routings at least partially use various ROW going for those corridors first would make things easier. And also in some cases trails could be used to connect areas to rail stations.

imperialmog wrote:Would it also make sense as part of this is to try to secure various corridors for both future metrolink on these lines but also at the very least for off road trails that could be used for future lines whenever the need arises. Since a lot of the proposed routings at least partially use various ROW going for those corridors first would make things easier. And also in some cases trails could be used to connect areas to rail stations.

Dont be surprised to find out later that many of the GRG ROW are secretly future Metrolink ROW...ahem...Shaw Park to Olive = Westport. I also think there is a possibility that the Northside-Southside Metrolink could change from being street running to dedicated ROW. For example, using the rail ROW through South City and the Express Lanes on I-70 when the highway is reconstructed. I think many regional leaders want Metrolink to have that heavy rail/commuter rail feel. Like getting a subway system for the cheap.

An economic case needs to be made against the 3 county lines:

How many people will the county lines serve relative to the cost?

How many people will the N/S city line serve relative to its cost?

If it makes more sense economically to build the N/S line instead of the county options it can happen.

^ The Shaw Park to Olive trail is definitely in part for a Westport line, but also is a segment for a cross-county N/S line. It would be interesting to get an idea of the ROW version of Northside/Southside would stack up vs the non ROW version in terms of costs, expected usage, and travel times. Since it does need to be fast enough to get support since people would question an at grade system that isn't much faster than just using buses for the expense.

On that could way down the line after other routes are built, could say the Grant's Trail corridor be a potential future line after the proposed lines are built out?

I think Metro should get behind the city and help build modern streetcars that feed into central spine. Metro wants to keep the system grade separated, but we do need rail transit in the city. A couple of streetcar N-S lines that feed into the blue and red lines could be built at a lower cost than Metrolink and give the densest neighborhoods the rail transit they need. I say the St. Louis Streetcar needs to be refocus to become the N-S streetcar, I would still support a central corridor line to Grand, but I don't think its political feasible without major N-S spurs.

^ THat is what seems to make the most sense to me. Provide a rail method that is more appropriate for an at grade street level system and keep metrolink as a faster grade-separated system with the two working together with buses. the focus on the N/S streetcar with setting aside the South City rail ROW and 70 express lanes for a metrolink line down the road with the streetcar intersecting them at some location which could be TOD hubs.

MarkHaversham wrote:Why is Freim saying MetroLink will look very different in ten years, while also acknowledging that nothing will happen without federal dollars that are obviously tight? Is he stupid or something?

moorlander wrote:Ya, that's pretty much what i assume

Because he's a booster of MetroLink and because it's possible that it does look different in 10 years. Don't take dbInSouthCity's projections at face value. They assume that NewStart funding will stay exactly the same between now and 2024, while they went up by 14% this year. Also, the idea that it is "very likely" that a republican white house would bail on federal funding obligations - even if there were a republican president, which isn't "very likely' in itself - is an exaggeration. Many of the large upcoming projects for funding are in conservative states: Texas, North Carolina, Arizona, Utah, Tennessee. And in swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Colorado that even an incumbent wouldn't want to piss off.

Also, while the proposed lines may not be the best alternatives in St. Louis (with N-S obviously being preferred in terms of density and demographics), that doesn't mean they wouldn't qualify by fed standards. Some of the projects they have funded or in the pipeline aren't ideal in terms of density, diversity, or other considerations: Honolulu LRT, Orlando SunRail, San Diego Midcoast Corridor, Fort Worth TexRail. So, yeah, the County lines might not be ideal, especially from the St. Louis City dweller perspective, but getting them funded and executed is very much a possibility.

^ Wabash, you are correct. The Westport line may not have the residential density, but it does have the job density. The argument will be made that poor inner city folks will take the line from St. Louis City to Westport plaza for jobs and economic opportunity. I also wouldn't be surprised if they say they are planning mixed use villages around transit stations. Not to mention the real elephant in the room the Danforth Plant Science Research Park. It will be great from a business perspective to ride the Green Line from Danforth to Clayton to Cortex to Downtown and never have to get into a private vehicle, it will also be a great way to impress out of town investors on the connectivity of our knowledge corridor....take that Research Triangle!

Like I said, I'm not necessarily against the Westport line and I do think that extending the systems reach will make every line that much more valuable. I just think that at this point in system development, Northside-Southside should be the line we build for numerous reasons already mentioned.

Ultimately, I think St. Louis will have a built out light rail system one day. It will just likely take another 30 years. We are only 20 years out and ahead of a lot of cities. Many of our fast growing peer cities, with the exception of Charlotte, Denver, Minneapolis are not even think about building rail yet. Places like Indianapolis and Nashville have state bans against developing such systems. Tampa and Austin keep slamming the idea of transit expansions in local referendums. We have to keep in mind, Chicago, NYC, DC, Boston etc. didn't build their systems overnight. There were many stops and starts, funding crisis, times of great expansion, times of stagnation, lots of oppositions, many naysayers, lots of let downs etc. With that said, one thing holds true. With every rail expansion in these cities, more people started to see the benefit of rail transit, more advocates were created, the value of the system continued to increase, communities that formerly hated rail, wanted a station in their neighborhood.

I would think that some politician would try to work out some sort of grand bargain to build both lines, since it is pretty obvious that both N-S and Westport are needed for the region. I know either one would cost a lot of money, and building both would be a huge undertaking for the region, but if there isn't political will to do it now, when will there be will to do it?

Is it possible to build out on phases where you start building both lines in parts? Also it would be helpful is to firmly nail down the Northside/Southside line characteristics, since it does seem there are differences in opinion if it will resemble the existing lines or more a streetcar. I picture the more streetcar lines if reconfigured to the style of existing lines could get expensive fast, and not make too much sense considering there are alternative routes for that style using rail ROW and 70 express lanes. (ideally long-term both NS/SS routes done due to different neighborhoods connected)

Also would a large part of the cost for both lines be the first part of each line in connecting to existing network and the infrastructure around it?

read this on Ballotpedia for the Prop A in StLcounty in 2010

Some have come out against the measure, stating that it is just a wish list put together by the transit authority and because there is no price set on each plan, a yes vote would give them free rein to do whatever they want with the proposed money.

funny that some were pretty much on the money with what would happen....

Imperial, I think their some legitimate criticism of both Metro itself and regional leadership, at city and county, that both N-S alignment and Metro South (south county extension to I55) hasn't been finalized since Prop A. Their was a funding basis with Prop A to complete studies, environmental reviews and preliminary engineering for budgetary reasons as well as an ability to refinance cross county bonds as Dooley did with Prop A funds via a nifty loan.

I can't be help to think that Dooley/Slay essentially wasted a solid four years of planning since Prop A. I'm not sure if Dooley's replacement will be better or not for the long haul but the county has done more, if even minimal, in the last year then Dooley ever did since Prop A was passed as far as advancing transit priorities and goals. We might not all agree on those goals and priorities but going forward when all said and done but their is definitely a process that needed to start happening the day that Prop A was passed.

CMT Transit Alliance weighs in on County’s MetroLink corridor study

CMT’s Transit Alliance asked about possibilities for St. Louis County funding other corridor studies, and in particular the Northside-Southside cooridor was mentioned. According to St. Louis County, only St. Louis County corridors are under consideration for this study because none of the three have been studied to the level of detail that the Northside-Southside corridor has been studied in the City of St. Louis. St. Louis County aims to further analyze less-studied corridors to provide data to the region for an informed selection of a project corridor to the FTA New Starts program.

http://cmt-stl.org/cmt-transit-alliance ... dor-study/

My interpretation of CMT-STL article goes like this.

St. Louis Co. will fund a study to see which strictly "COUNTY" corridor will be competitive enough to compete for federal grants. At the end they will match up the chosen county line and compare it with the Northside-Southside line and see which one should be built. They claim the public will be involved with the selection process of the next line that will get built, but we all know this thing is shaping up to be a political nightmare and result in a lot of sh*t slinging. 2016-2017 will be an interesting time frame in the Metrolink discussion for sure.

Likely scenarios or outcomes(IMO).

1. Westport barely qualifies for Federal Funds and county moves forward citing cost effectiveness, access to jobs, and choice riders.

2. No county extension is seen as feasible and the county opts for a BRT system and no Metrolink because they are butt hurt and dont want to work with city to build N-S line.

3. No county extensions get built and the county concedes that it has to work with city to build N-S line for betterment of region.

4. (Long Shot aka my dreams) Funding study comes back with creative approaches to expand light rail system. City, County, Metro, State, and Feds work together to build out system like Denver FasTracks program. Everybody is happy and gets promised their extensions within a 20 year time frame, with creative bonding and financing system.

goat314 wrote:we all know this thing is shaping up to be a political nightmare and result in a lot of sh*t slinging.

I'm not sure I do know that. Let's say they go with Westport or Metro North. Sure, some City folk will continue to be frustrated at the lack of a N-S Metrolink, but they're not going to go all obstructionist about it like some crazy bunch of hardcore fiscal conservatives. There might be murmurings from aldermen or even Slay about how they'd prefer to see N-S, but they're not going to take on the County. How could they? To what end? Lacy Clay won't come out against either of them since both Metro North and Daniel Boone (and N-S) are all in his district. McCaskill and Blunt don't really have a dog in the fight, and would probably just fall along party lines without much involvement. Even a Republican governor probably wouldn't come out against it, because MO wouldn't be contributing any money anyways and there are too many moderate republican votes and checkbooks in the County.

So, who would be slinging the sh*t exactly? Lefty urbanists would lament the continued stagnation of N-S progress, and right wing conservatives would kick and shout about wasteful spending and wealth-transferring taxation. But that's just par for the course and two outspoken and disproportionately publicized minorties. I think generally, pols and your average citizens (both County and City) will be moderately supportive of continued investment in light-rail infrastructure.

goat314 wrote:At the end they will match up the chosen county line and compare it with the Northside-Southside line and see which one should be built.

'

I think that is very optimistic. I hope it's the case, but my interpretation is that the County is studying County lines to build a County line. I really don't think N-S is on the table this time around.

wabash wrote:

goat314 wrote:we all know this thing is shaping up to be a political nightmare and result in a lot of sh*t slinging.

I'm not sure I do know that. Let's say they go with Westport or Metro North. Sure, some City folk will continue to be frustrated at the lack of a N-S Metrolink, but they're not going to go all obstructionist about it like some crazy bunch of hardcore fiscal conservatives. There might be murmurings from aldermen or even Slay about how they'd prefer to see N-S, but they're not going to take on the County. How could they? To what end? Lacy Clay won't come out against either of them since both Metro North and Daniel Boone (and N-S) are all in his district. McCaskill and Blunt don't really have a dog in the fight, and would probably just fall along party lines without much involvement. Even a Republican governor probably wouldn't come out against it, because MO wouldn't be contributing any money anyways and there are too many moderate republican votes and checkbooks in the County.

So, who would be slinging the sh*t exactly? Lefty urbanists would lament the continued stagnation of N-S progress, and right wing conservatives would kick and shout about wasteful spending and wealth-transferring taxation. But that's just par for the course and two outspoken and disproportionately publicized minorties. I think generally, pols and your average citizens (both County and City) will be moderately supportive of continued investment in light-rail infrastructure.

goat314 wrote:At the end they will match up the chosen county line and compare it with the Northside-Southside line and see which one should be built.

'

I think that is very optimistic. I hope it's the case, but my interpretation is that the County is studying County lines to build a County line. I really don't think N-S is on the table this time around.

Yes, you are right that backlash will likely be minimal. I just don't know if the county has any viable lines that would be federally competitive that don't include the city of St. Louis. Maybe Westport, because of the large concentration of jobs. Metro North is a poorly designed concept in my opinion. North County would definitely be better served by the N-S line currently being proposed.

I tweeted CMT-STL about it, from what I gathered, the county is going to pick the most feasible of the three lines, definitely Westport IMO, then it will study that line for a year. At the end of that process it will compare that line to "previously studied" lines (presumably N-S) and work with the region to see what line goes forward. I'd imagine a public process would be involved.

You are correct that the county is putting up a majority of the money for Metro, so that is why they are studying county expansions, but if no county expansions are deemed "feasible" then we are back to the drawing boards. It may either force the County to go big, work with the city, and build North-South. Or the County will shift the focus to something different like BRT and say screw Metrolink expansion, because we cant get our choo-choo. I also dont see why people view N-S as a city centric line, when fully built out it will serve large sections of the county and many inner ring municipalities in NoCo and SoCo. Also, the county is paying for Cross County and that was just as beneficial to the city as county. IMO......A Westport line the feeds into the city could be very beneficial.

For the record, I support Westport, just not before N-S. Honestly, I think Westport and N-S are the last missing pieces to a functional light rail system. after that the focus should switch to service level and development. Fill in the gaps with BRT.

goat314 wrote:Wabash, I also wouldn't categorize N-S proponents as leftist urbanists. That's a pretty narrow group for sure. I wouldnt even say most residents of the city are "leftists urbanists". Most proponents of this system expansion are hardworking people that have to use it as their only means of transportation.

I agree. I was saying that lefty urbanists would be an outspoken group that might generate some of the mudslinging you mentioned. I agree that N-S has very broad appeal and support that transcends us urbano-transpo junkies.

goat314 wrote:I also don't see why people view N-S as a city centric line, when fully built out it will serve large sections of the county and many inner ring municipalities in NoCo and SoCo.

I think one big stumbling block is that N-S would take $1b+ or maybe 1.5b+ at this point before you reach the City Limit. So, while fully built out it would definitely be a boon to inner-ring municipalities, it might take multiple phases and billions of dollars just to get there. I don't see that County being particularly interested in footing that bill, or the City being able to foot that bill.

goat314 wrote:If no county expansions are deemed "feasible" then we are back to the drawing boards.

I've mentioned this before, but I think we're a bit spoiled in St. Louis. The system as it stands serves a surprising number of major employment and educational centers, from Lambert to Clayton even to Scott AFB. We expect light rail to serve dense corridors with major employment centers (which we should!). But I think the Feds would hold us to a lower standard than we hold ourselves.

Here's a list of New Starts/Small Starts Projects, and here's the list of proposed 2016 funding allocations. Without getting into too much detail, a lot of these projects are not the paragon of dense urban corridors.

Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor - total cost $5.1b - 116,000 riders in 2030 - $44,000 per rider
Charlotte - Lynx Blue Line Extension - total cost $1.2b - 24,600 riders in 2035 - $49,000 per rider
San Jose - Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension - total cost $2.3b - 46,000 riders in 2035 - $50,000 per rider
Los Angeles Purple Line Extension - total Cost $2.8b - 33,700 riders in 2035 - $83,000 per rider

If they can get the cost down to near $500m and justify a 2035 ridership projection above 10,000, a Westport extension could be competitive with projects currently getting significant awards.

^the cost aspect could be quite feasabile when you consider Westport using railroad right of way which would greatly reduce costs. Big portion would be bridges around 170/Olive and Lindgergh/Page areas. Its the highest density job area not on a line now and there seems to be movement afoot to add more residents along this corridor

wabash wrote:

goat314 wrote:Wabash, I also wouldn't categorize N-S proponents as leftist urbanists. That's a pretty narrow group for sure. I wouldnt even say most residents of the city are "leftists urbanists". Most proponents of this system expansion are hardworking people that have to use it as their only means of transportation.

I agree. I was saying that lefty urbanists would be an outspoken group that might generate some of the mudslinging you mentioned. I agree that N-S has very broad appeal and support that transcends us urbano-transpo junkies.

goat314 wrote:I also don't see why people view N-S as a city centric line, when fully built out it will serve large sections of the county and many inner ring municipalities in NoCo and SoCo.

I think one big stumbling block is that N-S would take $1b+ or maybe 1.5b+ at this point before you reach the City Limit. So, while fully built out it would definitely be a boon to inner-ring municipalities, it might take multiple phases and billions of dollars just to get there. I don't see that County being particularly interested in footing that bill, or the City being able to foot that bill.

goat314 wrote:If no county expansions are deemed "feasible" then we are back to the drawing boards.

I've mentioned this before, but I think we're a bit spoiled in St. Louis. The system as it stands serves a surprising number of major employment and educational centers, from Lambert to Clayton even to Scott AFB. We expect light rail to serve dense corridors with major employment centers (which we should!). But I think the Feds would hold us to a lower standard than we hold ourselves.

Here's a list of New Starts/Small Starts Projects, and here's the list of proposed 2016 funding allocations. Without getting into too much detail, a lot of these projects are not the paragon of dense urban corridors.

Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor - total cost $5.1b - 116,000 riders in 2030 - $44,000 per rider
Charlotte - Lynx Blue Line Extension - total cost $1.2b - 24,600 riders in 2035 - $49,000 per rider
San Jose - Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension - total cost $2.3b - 46,000 riders in 2035 - $50,000 per rider
Los Angeles Purple Line Extension - total Cost $2.8b - 33,700 riders in 2035 - $83,000 per rider

If they can get the cost down to near $500m and justify a 2035 ridership projection above 10,000, a Westport extension could be competitive with projects currently getting significant awards.

Excellent points Wabash. Looking at it, I agree that Westport could be competitive just because of the high concentration of jobs. The population density is not there (now), but the job density is insane. The only areas where Westport is not competitive is population density and having a low number of transit dependent populations, but this could be addressed if Westport is sold as away to redevelop suburban industrial parks into mixed use nodes with commercial, residential, office etc. In Washington D.C. you are seeing a lot of areas that were obviously suburban, Westport styled industrial parks turn into dense mixed use nodes. Obviously the demand is not there in St. Louis to do it at that level, but I'd imagine over a 20-30 year time frame we could see the development of mixed use villages around a Westport line. I just fear that the regional fragmentation and lack of strong planning will turn a Westport line into Cross County part II.

As far as N-S line. Yes, the cost will likely be the nail in that coffin for the foreseeable future. I just wish there was an abandoned rail ROW in North City that could be used. Obviously South City has one that could be easily used and stretch deep into the county. We could use the I-70 ROW, which also has a large concentration of jobs (e.g. North Riverfront) but people would probably argue against it because it doesn't go into the neighborhoods, I say that line would make ONSL, Hyde Park, and College Hill perfect long term gentrification prospects.

I would be content with Westport, N-S (City Only) with a BRT overlay into the county. I think that would give us a damn good network and keep us competitive for at least a generation. Even just the addition of Westport would put our system in another class. I just hate that the main component we are missing is rail transit in our most urban neighborhoods, where as other cities, specific MSP has focused on most urban first, gotta love regional fragmentation . I wish St. Louis Streetcar had a more N-S orientation.

I don't think it has been studied. The main N-S Study that was conducted between 2005-2008 did not include the County. It was St. Louis City only, which is pretty clear from the mission statement at the top of the EWG N-S website:
"The Northside-Southside Study was sponsored by East-West Gateway, along with Metro and the Missouri Department of Transportation. The purpose of this study was to build upon previous planning efforts that recommended light rail and other transit improvements for St. Louis City."

Also the cover pages of the final Northside Report and Southside Reportboth state "Planning Transit Improvements for St. Louis City." The only County element incorporated was the proposed Bayless terminal station for the Southside alignment.