^ Why should it have to be built by NGA? NGA employees all currently drive to work, and the site plan for the new facility will probably not even allow for pedestrian access.
- 985
I was thinking more relating to area redevelopment, but I think the routing did go close to that in various versions.
You're not even a little bit wrong, but if connecting near NGA is what it takes to finally get this thing moving forward, then do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it.Randy wrote:^ Why should it have to be built by NGA? NGA employees all currently drive to work, and the site plan for the new facility will probably not even allow for pedestrian access.
- 8,912
How do you know they all drive? Do they have any alternatives to driving? What if they did?Randy wrote:^ Why should it have to be built by NGA? NGA employees all currently drive to work, and the site plan for the new facility will probably not even allow for pedestrian access.
The last "final" N-S route went up 14th st and headed west on Florrisant to Natural Bridge. It went south on 14th street to Chouteau where it went West to Jefferson and headed South to 55. Currently, the latest concept was to go up 14th street to Delmar, West on Delmar to Jefferson and North on Jefferson until you get to Natural Bridge and head west.imperialmog wrote:I'm trying to remember, but did the Northside route go near where the NSA is going to build or was it closer to 70? And how practical would it be to build in phases? Since at this point I picture any Northside route will go by NSA, but arguments could be made was to weather it connects to current line by going east or south.
I personally would like to see it use Olive to Jefferson if they have to modify from the original route, but either would do wonders for Downtown West connectivity.
- 9,566
Cold hard truth about NS is the projected ridership does not justify the cost. So it probably wouldn't compete well on federal level for the other half of the construction cost
I think the 2007-08 study said 12,000 per day. At $1.5 billion cost to construction (probably close to $2b by time it happens) and since the study north city has emptied even more as has north county. So doubt even 12,000 is accurate now
I think the 2007-08 study said 12,000 per day. At $1.5 billion cost to construction (probably close to $2b by time it happens) and since the study north city has emptied even more as has north county. So doubt even 12,000 is accurate now
^The 2007-8 study was only from Goodfellow/I-70 to Bayless I-55, not all the way out to north county.
And I always enjoy the mention of "cold hard facts," a favorite phrase of cynics trying to make their opinion sound more legitimate.
And I always enjoy the mention of "cold hard facts," a favorite phrase of cynics trying to make their opinion sound more legitimate.
Those numbers are wrong. 15,000 ridership, $1 billion cost estimate.dbInSouthCity wrote:Cold hard truth about NS is the projected ridership does not justify the cost. So it probably wouldn't compete well on federal level for the other half of the construction cost
I think the 2007-08 study said 12,000 per day. At $1.5 billion cost to construction (probably close to $2b by time it happens) and since the study north city has emptied even more as has north county. So doubt even 12,000 is accurate now
I'm all for a N-S line but for now I wish it would just follow 70 out to Riverport/Earth City.
Not only that but if it went deeper into NoCo/SoCo it would blow those numbers out the water. Funny how people use federal projections on transit, when 99% of the time they have totally underestimated transit ridership, while overestimating highway usage. In addition to totally negating the network effect. A North/South line would increase ridership on the entirety of the system. I also do not agree with his logic that it wouldn't be competitive on the federal level, especially if its sold as a method for stabilization/revitalization to our most transit dependent and dense neighborhoods, in a promise zone, but a Westport line would be competitive?wabash wrote:Those numbers are wrong. 15,000 ridership, $1 billion cost estimate.dbInSouthCity wrote:Cold hard truth about NS is the projected ridership does not justify the cost. So it probably wouldn't compete well on federal level for the other half of the construction cost
I think the 2007-08 study said 12,000 per day. At $1.5 billion cost to construction (probably close to $2b by time it happens) and since the study north city has emptied even more as has north county. So doubt even 12,000 is accurate now
Also I dont know how familiar DB is with N. City, but the neighborhoods along Natural Bridge are still relatively dense, especially close to Fairground Park, they just need investment. Also St. Louis has a relatively large dense bungalow belt in our near South and North inner ring suburbs that need this type of transportation investment to remain stable and be attractive to reinvestment.- 9,566
Metro submitted $800m for north and $800m for south as part of the amendment 7 project list.
Let's say it's 15,000. That's still waaaay to low for a $1.6 b -$2b cost
If metrolink is suppose to connect people to jobs and opportunity than Westport line makes more sense coupled with brt from downtown to going north.
Let's say it's 15,000. That's still waaaay to low for a $1.6 b -$2b cost
If metrolink is suppose to connect people to jobs and opportunity than Westport line makes more sense coupled with brt from downtown to going north.
PeterXCV wrote:^The 2007-8 study was only from Goodfellow/I-70 to Bayless I-55, not all the way out to north county.
And I always enjoy the mention of "cold hard facts," a favorite phrase of cynics trying to make their opinion sound more legitimate.
I'm not a cynic just shooting from the hip I'm talking based on almost a decade of experience in transportation project planning and financial projections for transportation projects.
What? When did this happen? I remember them pushing that bs. streetcar study and westport line study, but there was nothing in there for Metrolink for the city.dbInSouthCity wrote:Metro submitted $800m for north and $800m for south as part of the amendment 7 project list.
Let's say it's 15,000. That's still waaaay to low for a $1.6 b -$2b cost
If metrolink is suppose to connect people to jobs and opportunity than Westport line makes more sense coupled with brt from downtown to going north.
Again, your 15,000 figure is suspect at best. You know better than that. A light rail line from Ferguson to South County Center would have way more riders than that. Not to mention the development it would spur. By the way, I'm not a Westport basher by any means, I think it has merits.
- 9,566
Those are not federal projections. Feds don't project future usage of planned local projects, they are projections from the EWG NS studygoat314 wrote:Not only that but if it went deeper into NoCo/SoCo it would blow those numbers out the water. Funny how people use federal projections on transit, when 99% of the time they have totally underestimated transit ridership, while overestimating highway usage.wabash wrote:Those numbers are wrong. 15,000 ridership, $1 billion cost estimate.dbInSouthCity wrote:Cold hard truth about NS is the projected ridership does not justify the cost. So it probably wouldn't compete well on federal level for the other half of the construction cost
I think the 2007-08 study said 12,000 per day. At $1.5 billion cost to construction (probably close to $2b by time it happens) and since the study north city has emptied even more as has north county. So doubt even 12,000 is accurate now
^ My point proven, EWG can produce the scenarios they want. Metrolink was way more successful than we could have every imagined, expectations for the system were not high, but we built it and it is an integral part of our community now. We need to expand it, it will be expanded, sooner or later, in my opinion, but now its about picking the right line. Now I'm a realist, the current alignment may not be the solution. The final iteration of North South Metrolink may look very different, maybe the Northern line uses the express lanes of I-70 and the South line uses DeSoto, which would definitely cut costs, but I dont think we should give up on the idea of a major North South line through the city.
- 9,566
EWG was the lead agency. The study was done by transit experts. And they always give rosy projections because they know who is paying themgoat314 wrote:^ My point proven, EWG can produce the scenarios they want. Metrolink was way more successful than we could have every imagined, expectations for the system were not high, but we built it and it is an integral part of our community now. We need to expand it, it will be expanded, sooner or later, in my opinion, but now its about picking the right line. Now I'm a realist, the current alignment may not be the solution. The final iteration of North South Metrolink may look very different, maybe the Northern line uses the express lanes of I-70 and the South line uses DeSoto, which would definitely cut costs, but I dont think we should give up on the idea of a major North South line through the city.
^ well we will see soon enough. According to Metro...Metro EWG and City of St. Louis are going to begin studying expansion this year. Consistent with my source at Metro, who said that N/S was moving forward. Hopefully the county is not too committed to Westport, because I do believe they will have to on board. I think the hold up for EWG designating a new line is not only financial, it is very political, especially Post-Ferguson.
- 9,566
Only way you see NS move forward is with another sales tax ballot issues in the city and county.
EWG long range plan says metro is $1.25b short just for operations of current system over the next 30 years
Report says because of this there are no major expansion plans assumed in the plan
And just to maintain the current system and start planning expansion it would need another 1/2 cent sales tax hike in the city and county.
![]()
EWG long range plan says metro is $1.25b short just for operations of current system over the next 30 years
Report says because of this there are no major expansion plans assumed in the plan
And just to maintain the current system and start planning expansion it would need another 1/2 cent sales tax hike in the city and county.
There you go again. Forget the arbitrary numbers thrown into Prop 7 - the actual study from 2008 - that you first mentioned -pinned N-S at $971 million, which in today's dollars is $1.07 billion. So throwing around numbers like $2b is misleading and inaccurate.dbInSouthCity wrote:Metro submitted $800m for north and $800m for south as part of the amendment 7 project list.
Let's say it's 15,000. That's still waaaay to low for a $1.6 b -$2b cost
You may be a transit planner, but you sure love providing misinformation about transit financing on this forum.
Exactly, I dont buy the Metro is broke argument. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and other agencies around the country have gotten creative with financing and building their transit systems, with equal or less resources. If there was no way, EWG, Metro, and the city would not be wasting time.wabash wrote:There you go again. Forget the arbitrary numbers thrown into Prop 7 - the actual study from 2008 - that you first mentioned -pinned N-S at $971 million, which in today's dollars is $1.07 billion. So throwing around numbers like $2b is misleading and inaccurate.dbInSouthCity wrote:Metro submitted $800m for north and $800m for south as part of the amendment 7 project list.
Let's say it's 15,000. That's still waaaay to low for a $1.6 b -$2b cost
You may be a transit planner, but you sure love providing misinformation about transit financing on this forum.
- 9,566
It's not misinformation that metro providied $1.6b for A7, Today's dollars are irrelevant tho. Best case this being built in 2025, factor in 2% per year and that's $1.6*1.18 = $1.888b and you won't get fed $ if you can't reasonably show you have money to operate & maintain it. So it's very easy to get to $2b.wabash wrote:There you go again. Forget the arbitrary numbers thrown into Prop 7 - the actual study from 2008 - that you first mentioned -pinned N-S at $971 million, which in today's dollars is $1.07 billion. So throwing around numbers like $2b is misleading and inaccurate.dbInSouthCity wrote:Metro submitted $800m for north and $800m for south as part of the amendment 7 project list.
Let's say it's 15,000. That's still waaaay to low for a $1.6 b -$2b cost
You may be a transit planner, but you sure love providing misinformation about transit financing on this forum.
After metro/consultants bombed the cross county estimate, they werent going to stick with the $971. Hence the $1.6 in 2014 A7
There isn't anything to buy, metros budgets are public documents and they are getting killed in operation costs & pensions ect.goat314 wrote:
Exactly, I dont buy the Metro is broke argument. .
Westport would do better federally because it's connecting poor area to west county where good paying jobs are located. NS connects poor area with nothing in it that's emptying out to a middle class residential area at a cost of $1.5b. That's insane. And this pipe dream that it will spur development is even more insane. Development happens when there is a demand for it not because of fixed rail tracks
Westport would also be a best chance for the city to add residence. Plenty of people would live in the city and take metrolink to work at WWT or anything along the route
Westport would also be a best chance for the city to add residence. Plenty of people would live in the city and take metrolink to work at WWT or anything along the route
I see. It's very easy to get to $2b when you factor in the unreported back-room reaction of Metro (or did Metro release a statement rejecting the study's findings?) and consultants (excluding the consultants hired by EWG to perform the study) and put faith in the random $800m number that they threw out as a request for both N & S alignments (because Metro has no incentive to inflate the numbers in their request for funding), which were roundly rejected and not placed on the final project list or voted on.dbInSouthCity wrote:wabash wrote:dbInSouthCity wrote:So it's very easy to get to $2b.
After metro/consultants bombed the cross county estimate, they weren't going to stick with the $971. Hence the $1.6 in 2014 A7
Indeed Metro throwing out a random number with no explanation of route selection, and applying it identically for both N and S (because that's not suspicious), with no actual reasoning or justification to back it up should definitely be the preferred cost estimate over an 800 page report commissioned by EWG, providing extensive analysis of the benefits and drawbacks of multiple alternative routes, and developed over a three year period.
So $2b it is then.