urbanSTL

wabash wrote:

goat314 wrote:....a lot of people are already dubbing this the "elitist line" and this a diverse group of people saying this.

Which people and which groups are you referring to?

I like the idea of a southside line, but I don't see the justification (perhaps other than political viability) for a northside line. At this point the near northside is extensively hollowed out. I just don't see it generating the ridership or development needed to justify the infrastructure. Other than Carr Sq. and Columbus Sq., which are pretty walkable to Downtown, the density just isn't there anymore.

Your statement is part of the problem. Many people fail to realize that the "near northside" is a small part of the northside. There are many dense and intact neighborhoods along the Natural Bridge corridor, that's why that was the chosen alignment. The northside also has the highest transit dependent population in the region. In my opinion, if Charlotte, Denver and recently Norfolk/Va Beach is dense enough for light rail, pretty much most neighborhoods in the city are.

Well, do you build a transit line only for the dense areas or do you build a line to create density? It gets into the "chicken or the egg" argument.

I think its a safe bet that a metrolink line through the northside would help bring up property values and make the area along the line more attractive.

roger wyoming II wrote:Anyway, I wish there'd be some public discussions about moving forward with transit expansion now that A3 is a no go.

I wonder if this would have happened had Ferguson not so quickly overshadowed it.

That said, transit could and should be a big part of the solution to fixing our socioeconomic disparity. But some people have a lot of trouble connecting any dots, let alone the few it takes you to get from Ferguson to transit.

A3 v2.0 will be back when the new legislative session begins January, should probably know more once bills start get filled in December. But i have a feeling, this version will strictly be funding for roads.

Also it will help spark some much needed development and life into an area thats starved for any sort of jobs. Its as food desert as you get there.
I don't think neglecting an certain neighborhoods because its hallowed is a bright idea you want to find ways in getting people to invest in those neighborhoods and a North Line would justify doing so..

goat314 wrote:There are many dense and intact neighborhoods along the Natural Bridge corridor, that's why that was the chosen alignment.

I thought we were talking about the St. Louis Streetcar not N-S Metrolink. The St. Louis Streetcar, as proposed terminates at N. Florissant and St. Louis Ave. and does not reach the Natural Bridge corridor.

You're right, there are many dense and intact neighborhoods along the NB corridor, but they are pretty far away from downtown. The first really dense neighborhood (more dense than the City average) is O'Fallon, which is about 3.8 miles from downtown. Penrose, Kingsway West, and Wells-Goodfellow are also all dense and along the NB corridor, but they're between 4.3 and 5.6 miles out. Furthermore, each of those neighborhoods are shrinking by 13-28% per decade. Closer in neighborhoods along the route, like St. Louis Place, Old North St. Louis, and Hyde Park are all in the bottom quartile for density among City neighborhoods. The St. Louis Streetcar, as proposed, is 6.9 miles long. If you're proposing that the first line is equally split N-S, it's not going to get to any of the densest Northside neighborhoods. If you're proposing that the St. Louis Streetcar should only be a Northside line, it's going to go through some of the least dense neighborhoods in the City, before reaching more dense neighborhoods, which are among the most quickly depopulating in the City.

If a Northside spur is needed to obtain federal funding, then it should obviously happen. But the opportunities for TDD, TIF, and Public-Private Partnership funding are far greater along the Central Corridor, and would still be greater, though to a lesser extent for a Southside alignment.

In the goals of this project are connecting people to jobs, encouraging development, and creating a dense walkable environment - the best alignments are: Central Corridor, Southside, Northside, in that order. If the goal is to stem the exodus of people from North St. Louis, then the best alignment is obviously a Northside corridor. But that seems to me to be a pretty narrow and specific goal that doesn't take full advantage of such an infrastructure investment.

goat314 wrote:The northside also has the highest transit dependent population in the region.

That's an interesting claim. Do you have any data or sources to back it up? I find it a bit surprising since the population of the Southside is 1.7x that of the Northside, and the population of North County is 3.8X that of the Northside.

^ Wabash, my goal was not to go tit for tat with you on statistics, but they are readily available with the smallest amount of research. The highest need for transit and transit dependency is in North St. Louis City, North St. Louis County, and South City East of Grand. That was a mistake on my part I meant to say highest PERCENTAGE of transit dependent people.

I was also not talking about the current streetcar alignment. My point was that they should scrap their current alignment and basically build the city portion of the N-S Metrolink line as a streetcar line instead. I believe that would be a far more productive line and work as a stabilizing force for neighborhoods that are not in the central corridor.

Also, many alderman have come out against the St. Louis Streetcar (both North and South City alderman). Their argument is that the Central Corridor is already served by Metrolink, while North and South City still do not have rail service. We also have to consider that North City may not be as dense as the Southside, but we are not talking about suburban density or suburban neighborhoods here. Its mind boggling that there are some people that support a westport line, but not a northside alignment of Metrolink and their argument is density.

Hard data on total or density of transit-dependent citizens by census tract, neighborhood, City or even Metro area is harder to come by than you might think. But the highest need is certainly in those three parts of the region.

Leaving the issue of ridership aside, I suppose a key distinction is development v. stabilization. Neither exist in a vacuum, but if the goal is development, the Central Corridor will clearly garner the most mixed-use, multi-family, and perhaps even office development in and around SLU, Midtown, BJC, and CWE. If the goal is stabilization then North and Southside alignments are definitely the best options.

I take issue with North and South City alderman saying "no fair, the Central Corridor already has Metrolink" because this line, in all likelihood, will not be funded by any citywide taxes. It will be primarily funded by the property owners, businesses, and consumers who shop along the line, and the private institutions (SLU, Wash. U. Medicine, and BJC) along the line. If those people and institutions agree to band together to make a significant investment in their immediate environment, then more power to them.

While they couldn't trade out the current proposal for the City portion of the N-S line because it would be many times more expensive and doesn't have the same density of economic and institutional support along its proposed alignment, I agree that a line from S. Grand to N. Grand via Gravois, Tucker/14th, and N. Florissant (which would be comparable in length to the proposed Streetcar line) would be a huge leap forward for St. Louis transit.

Thanks Mill. That really helps put it in perspective: Population density in the heart of the Southside, Population loss on the Northside, and Transit-Dependence on the Northside. To grossly oversimplify.

Tucker/Gravois has always seemed like an obvious route.

Plenty of room, passes nearby dozens of neighborhoods/population and a lot of good pockets of building stock along the route.

Don't mean to ruin the n/s metro line party but best case, 20 years from now and more likely 25-30 for construction start.

^ people have told me in the past Westport will get built before N-S line, because St. Louis Co. controls the money. My guess is that a N-S line will be way out of our price range in 10-20 years, so its most likely dead unless state and national transportation policies drastically change.

^ neither will be built in next 20 years. There will be a lot of glues in January when EWG holds their last workshop for the new long range plan, projects will be scored at that workshop and in order for a project to be in the LRP, it has to be fiscally restraint- meaning metro has to show how it would pay for it. My guess they won't show it and just stick it on the Illustrative list aka where projects go to die list due to lack of funding

^db, you don't think that as Prop A pays down the Cross County debt, and more funds could be allocated to capital expenditures, that the County wouldn't want to invest in all or part of a Westport line to continue to entrench Clayton as a Downtown alternative? Having two lines converging in Clayton and twice the frequency of trains to points east would bolster their "new Center of the region" marketing abilities, and in that regard serve the County as a whole.

wabash wrote:^db, you don't think that as Prop A pays down the Cross County debt, and more funds could be allocated to capital expenditures, that the County wouldn't want to invest in all or part of a Westport line to continue to entrench Clayton as a Downtown alternative? Having two lines converging in Clayton and twice the frequency of trains to points east would bolster their "new Center of the region" marketing abilities, and in that regard serve the County as a whole.

i don't think Prop A is bringing in as much as they anticipated.
the County loaned metro $400M to pay off 80% of the Cross County debt, so does that mean the county is keeping Prop A until that 400M is paid off? idk...

dbInSouthCity wrote:^ neither will be built in next 20 years. There will be a lot of glues in January when EWG holds their last workshop for the new long range plan, projects will be scored at that workshop and in order for a project to be in the LRP, it has to be fiscally restraint- meaning metro has to show how it would pay for it. My guess they won't show it and just stick it on the Illustrative list aka where projects go to die list due to lack of funding

That's part of the problem to me. Is there any hope that we can see change in this system. It seems like EW-Gateway and MoDOT have essentially set the region up to be an over-sprawled and auto dependent region. Where is the accountability? Who is going to pay for all of this highway infrastructure? The legacy costs are going to be enormous for what we already have and it seems like we want to just keep building in the most inefficient and costly ways. Are there any other regions that have similar problems? How are we seeing all of these other regions build great and dynamic light rail systems, yet we give Metro millions upon millions and we don't even have a solid vision for the future? I've heard we have one of the better locally funded light rail systems.

.

Does anyone know what's going on with the Portland Streetcars sitting on the metrolink rails just west of Union Station?

They're being leased for the Loop Trolley

http://urbanstl.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... &start=840

quincunx wrote:They're being leased for the Loop Trolley

http://urbanstl.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... &start=840

Thanks