urbanSTL

flipz wrote:I don't see why his support is needed for this. If the county fears that the streetcar is taking federal funds away from the Metro expansion, he can push for metro to expand instead of trying to slow down a STL city project.

When the streetcar idea was presented I wondered why they didn't want to try and seek funds from Metro but quickly realized that if they tried, it would never be built. St louis city needs to do this on its own if it can.

Have to agree, this project can easily and solely be pushed by the city. The point that can't be loss is the city would need to pursue every possible funding avenue and resources including Fed's New Starts programs. I think it is worth the competition to have two transit projects competing for federal funds locally. Yes, it might be some petty politics at the moment but believe the streetcar is a much better proposal at end day and will support a thriving urban core which is needed in a very competitive economic environment.

I have pretty much thrown out my two cent support of Westport Line now that their is a legitimate, viable plan to add decent transit to the existing system. Wish Dooley would recognize that he could probably get more bang for the buck if hew would advocate an extension of the existing line to Earth City as a means to invest in the airport (new airport stations/consolidated car rental facility) and extend cross county as a mobility issue for south county. The region needs to invest in its airport and maximize the use of/develop the existing metrolink line. Westport doesn't do either.

Is there any chance of scrapping the Taylor segment in the CWE, since that seems the most likely part to gin up resistance from residential property owners, in favor of double-tracking down Euclid, then taking Forest Park Parkway east to Taylor to connect to the MetroLink/MetroBus center?

It would be more expensive since it would require more total track and backtracking along Forest Park Parkway, but it seems like the additional price would be marginal when compared to the whole project, and it might decrease neighborhood resistance while running the streetcar through the actual commercial street in the CWE. Am I missing why this would be a bad idea?

Here's what the RFQ has to say about the western terminal:

"Options included a single-track one-way loop west on Lindell, south on Euclid Avenue,east on Forest Park Avenue and north on Taylor Avenue. Alternatively, the double track on Lindell Boulevard could continue south on Taylor Avenue and west on Children’s Plaza, terminating at the Central West End MetroLink station, where streetcars wouldreverse direction. Further analysis in the next phase of project development will include considerations of traffic impacts, safety concerns, and extensive stakeholder and institutional input."

Your plan is a great hybrid, serving Euclid and the Bus/Metro station directly. It doesn't make as much sense as just double tracking right down Euclid to the Metrolink Station. But if they are dead set on preserving the precious tranquility of their Maya Lin sanctuary, then yours absolutely seems like the right idea.

I'm 100% for a Euclid route, but I have to question your assumption that the Taylor corridor would raise much resistance. It's all apartment buildings along Taylor (i.e. more transient residents who have less invested in the neighborhood and are less prone to NIMBYism). The few grand old homes that remain are mostly offices and organizations.

wabash wrote:While we're on the topic of superior routes. Does anyone/everyone think that the extra downtown loop to Kiener Plaza makes sense? I can't see a justifiable need for it. Apparently they wanted a line-of-site connection to the Arch, but that seems overly conciliatory to tourists. Unlike the Loop Trolley, I don't see this as a tourist driven project.

Wabash, I'm Mill that you are making a great point.

My thought, extend another block and involve Broadway and Wash Ave in a loop. This accomplishes a couple of things,

1) Ties in Convention Business/Wash Ave metrolink station/Lacledes Landing
2) Ties in Stifel Nichols, a big expanding downtown business and booster. Would pick a major employer over tourist any day for this corridor.
3) If not mistaken, I believe Metro was looking along the east end Wash Ave to place downtown bus station. A nice tie in.
4) Broadway gives you another N-S option that would tie in ONSL/EDJ, Bottleworks, Busch Stadium and Soulard/AB. Heck, Schafly builds their new brewery on near north side and you could call it the Beer line. Beers, Brat and a ballgame. What more could ask for

^ Wash Ave. would be great, but I think they are purposefully avoiding running the streetcar directly above Metrolink. A few times in the RFQ they mentioned limiting Metrolink down-time during construction. Perhaps crossing over subterranean tracks wouldn't require the same tunnel reinforcement, expense, and down-time as running along/above subterranean tracks? That could be reading too much into it... Turning up 7th and then back out Locust seems like the simplest and cheapest solution.

wabash wrote:I'm 100% for a Euclid route, but I have to question your assumption that the Taylor corridor would raise much resistance. It's all apartment buildings along Taylor (i.e. more transient residents who have less invested in the neighborhood and are less prone to NIMBYism). The few grand old homes that remain are mostly offices and organizations.

Good point. There was a Taylor resident at the open house who was very opposed to having the line run along Taylor (he was against the potential tax and thought that a streetcar would cause traffic problems), but he may not be representative of the general sentiment of Taylor residents.

I don't really get the entire "traffic problem" argument. A streetcar is essentially a bus hooked up to wires. I can't see a bus causing more congestion and therefore neither a streetcar. Granted, there is no bus that goes down Euclid right now.

There's traffic problems on Euclid now because everyone drives their car down there, and there's not enough room for all of the cars. And traffic (what little there is) is really only in the evenings.

I know a couple who live in the condo building (Lindell and Taylor) where this gentleman lives and they are both thrilled at the prospect of a Street car.

^Because now they have much grander views of the cathedral and skyline to the east.

And the couple I speak of bought in the building mid 2011. I never asked them how they would have felt about the San Luis.

I never could understand why BJC closed Euclid through their campus; seems that keeping it open would have made access much easier overall.

wabash wrote:OT, but perhaps weekend parking meter revenue could be a part of the funding mechanism for the streetcar project?

People are willing to pay for convenience. If they aren't charged it's just leaving money on the table. Might as well put it toward transit to ameliorate the need for parking in the first place, and further justify charging for it.

stlhistory wrote:^That sounds like a good way to make customers and businesses quite feisty about paying extra property and sales tax for the project.

I don't quite follow. Are you saying they'd balk at having to pay property taxes AND having their free parking taken away?

The only constituent who would get hit twice would be retailers who own their own store. Condo, apartment building, and office building owners should be for it, since they assumedly have designated off street parking, and would be relieved of some of the street car property tax burden.

pat wrote:Granted, there is no bus that goes down Euclid right now.

#1 WashU gold runs down Euclid and has a stop right at one of the busiest corners in the whole city, Maryland