urbanSTL

dbInSouthCity wrote: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

There aren't any jobs along the current lines that NS would connect to? That doesn't sound right.

MarkHaversham wrote:

dbInSouthCity wrote: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

There aren't any jobs along the current lines that NS would connect to? That doesn't sound right.

.

I don't see job centers around south city, it's residential with neighborhood commercial districts that are largely bars and restaurants. And of course there is nothing in north city or even people for that matter. There is downtown in between but a brt going north makes that connection and current bus lines do the job to since it's a short distance.

dbInSouthCity wrote:Westport would do better federally because it's connecting poor area to west county where good paying jobs are located.

Which "poor area"? Do you mean the East St. Louis Stations? Or maybe Wellston and Rock Road? The current Metrolink alignment as a whole isn't exactly a "poor area". Would the feds really support a Westport alignment for the "poor areas" it is providing transit access to?

dbInSouthCity wrote: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.

"Poor area with nothing in it." Are you referring to North St. Louis, which has about 100,000 residents, many of whom are transit-dependent? Are you saying residential areas don't justify connection to fixed-rail transit? Poor areas don't justify connection to fixed-rail transit? Or both? Also, there will be 3,100 jobs moving to North City shortly.

dbInSouthCity wrote: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.

Pretty solid track-record of fixed-rail transit spurring demand. See the streetcar systems of the first half of the last century, the Central Corridor today, or just about every American city with a developed fixed rail transit system. New York, Chicago and DC wouldn't exist as they do today without their fixed rail transit systems. It's not just the city or the system, it's the symbiotic relationship of the two that facilitates growth.

dbInSouthCity wrote: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

That's a really wild view. I also think a Westport alignment would be good for City dwellers - particularly those who rely heavily on transit and want/need better access to jobs further West - but really? You're going to say that a Westport alignment would pose a better chance for the City adding residents than N-S? You must have an incredibly positive view of what Westport connectivity would bring to the table.

There's more people and economic activity in North City than in freaking Westport.

this is from the 2007 study
by 2030 they are still projecting decline in population even with this line...heck for the city as a whole we already blew last 327K by 12,000 and 15 years ahead of the projections.

Shall we sue the state under the clean air act for promoting driving by spending only 4% of transportation funds on multimodal and force it to spend $5B on transit?

dbInSouthCity wrote:

MarkHaversham wrote:

dbInSouthCity wrote: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

There aren't any jobs along the current lines that NS would connect to? That doesn't sound right.

.

I don't see job centers around south city, it's residential with neighborhood commercial districts that are largely bars and restaurants. And of course there is nothing in north city or even people for that matter. There is downtown in between but a brt going north makes that connection and current bus lines do the job to since it's a short distance.

There are job centers along the original line that N-S would allow transfer to.

But do you need a $100m a mile fixed line to connect north city and south city to downtown jobs when a $35/$40m a mile BRT will do the same thing

Metro has had ridership decrease by 15% the last 2 years and we want them to build a $100m per mile expansion is insane and especially when metro is $40m a year short on operation of current system over the next 30 years.

Generally system expansion happens when your current system is running at capaticy & you have enough money to maintain the current system. Currently we are 0 for 2

Would need another sales tax hike. Probably at 1% or you'll need a big influx on state $ and that boat sailed years ago when GOP took a iron grip of state house and senate



another another -15% for 2014-2015 (combined)

dbInSouthCity wrote:But do you need a $100m a mile fixed line to connect north city and south city to downtown jobs when a $35/$40m a mile BRT will do the same thing

Our increase the frequency of buses already serving the route.

In all this we can't forget the role our terrible regional land use policy (or lack there of really). We need to work on that too.

^ all transportation projects are run through air conformity model at EWG before being approved...

http://www.ewgateway.org/pdffiles/libra ... proved.pdf

dbInSouthCity wrote:But do you need a $100m a mile fixed line to connect north city and south city to downtown jobs when a $35/$40m a mile BRT will do the same thing

Metro has had ridership decrease by 15% the last 2 years and we want them to build a $100m per mile expansion is insane and especially when metro is $40m a year short on operation of current system over the next 30 years.

Generally system expansion happens when your current system is running at capaticy & you have enough money to maintain the current system. Currently we are 0 for 2

Would need another sales tax hike. Probably at 1% or you'll need a big influx on state $ and that boat sailed years ago when GOP took a iron grip of state house and senate

Rail vs BRT is a different discussion than NS vs Westport. We could run BRT to Westport, too.

Running at capacity would be a reason to run another parallel line or increase train count on the current line. Packed trains between the airport and downtown wouldn't be a reason to add a line to north city.

I agree the cost-benefit of rail vs BRT is dubious, but I thought it was a given that a new tax + subsidy/grant dollars would be involved in any Metrolink expansion.

dbInSouthCity wrote:^ all transportation projects are run through air conformity model at EWG before being approved...

http://www.ewgateway.org/pdffiles/libra ... proved.pdf

Under the Federal Regulations, the Council, as the region's Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), is the agency responsible for conducting this determination of conformity

Based on the conformity analysis, the projects and programs included in the Federal Fiscal Year
2016-2019 Transportation Improvement Program and related amendments to Connected2045 have
met all applicable budget tests as required by the regional emissions analysis and, therefore, are
found to be in conformity with the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the relevant
sections of the Final Conformity Rule 40 CFR Part 93, and the Missouri State Conformity Regulations
10 CSR 10-5.480.

Fox running the hen house?

I'm sure there was an official mechanism by which MSD said all the right things yet dumping sh!t in the river was deemed OK for decades too.

I only read the exec summary. Do they project the ground level ozone levels in 2045 and how their choices affect that projection?

quincunx wrote: Fox running the hen house?

No, its not like the agencies submitting projections to EWG are the ones running the model, its a EWG model based on federal standards for Clean Air Act

quincunx wrote:I only read the exec summary. Do they project the ground level ozone levels in 2045 and how their choices affect that projection?

No idea...i stay away from the AQ stuff for the most part...but i do administer fed funds for the American Lung Association project that monitors and promotes better AQ in the region.

roger wyoming II wrote:I'd just as soon get going on something like this and if the day comes when we ever figure light rail expansion then we can lay track.

I think gold-standard BRT would be 90% as effective as a rail solution, and easier to finance.

Gold standard brt is about half the cost of light rail. And it has a better shot at getting New Starts fed $.

^ I was thinking that, and would operationally be similar to a light rail line if the line was not grade separated and going along streets.

I picture for example the Southside proposals is that this would be just as effective as any route that isn't using some right of way corridor. And that it could allow for more possible routings. Or maybe this can be built out along one routing and when its feasible and available to use the right of way for a light rail line that has a different routing going to the same place. Say have this run along Gravois while down the road if the rail line that cuts through south city is utilized to then add light rail there. The combined would create a nice network with a possible transit hub near Gravois and Chippewa. Something similar could be done in north city in a similar pattern

^ If you build a gold standard BRT, you might as well build a grade separated streetcar.

Gold standard brt is about half the cost of light rail. And it has a better shot at getting New Starts fed $.

So somewhere in the neighborhood of $50,000,000 per mile?

ebo wrote:

Gold standard brt is about half the cost of light rail. And it has a better shot at getting New Starts fed $.

So somewhere in the neighborhood of $50,000,000 per mile?

I would've thought it's more like $20-30m per mile at most, most of the way. If there are any portions where you can do without grade separation, even better.

dbInSouthCity wrote:Metro has had ridership decrease by 15% the last 2 years

Any metrics or data to back that up?

According to Metro's annual reports ridership increased by 2.3% in the year ending June 31, 2014. In their 2016 Annual Budget release in March 2015 Metro projected the same passenger boardings (48.2 million) in 2015 that they'd had in 2014. According to the American Public Transportation Institute Metro's ridership increased by .28% in calendar year 2014 and decreased by 5.69% in calendar year 2015. Neither Metro nor APTA's numbers point to a 15% slide "the last two years." Again, that seems to be misinformation.