With today's story dealing with the enormous cost overrun for the current expansion of Metrolink, what does the future hold for further expansion most notably north. $100 million is a LOT! of money, both sides now want to sue the other, no one is giving that kind of loot up without one major fight.



My thought is any prelimanary plans for future expansion will spend years being researched and then more years being discussed. Mass transit in St.Louis as we all know is not the in thing.

They spent years(since early 90s) studying and designing cross county. The problem was Metro threw out a good and far cheaper design(i.e. above ground trains running down the middle of the street) and pretty much started from scratch. Any future lines will spend many years(read: 5-7) doing route studies, design and public meetings before construction starts just like Cross County. Let's hope Metro learns their lesson from this one!



Link to article

<A HREF="http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... 18799A">As gas goes up, so does MetroLink and bus ridership</A>

By Shane Graber

Of the Post-Dispatch

04/06/2005



Ever since gas topped $2 and stayed there, the Metro public transportation agency says, more Missouri and Illinois commuters have opted for public transit. Ridership on the light rail MetroLink line topped 1 million passengers in February, compared to slightly more than 897,000 in February 2004, an 11 percent increase.



<A HREF="http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... DC0018799A">>>> read more</A>

brickandmortar wrote: The problem was Metro threw out a good and far cheaper design(i.e. above ground trains running down the middle of the street) and pretty much started from scratch.

I was pretty sure that a lot of Claytonians protested the above ground option...That was why they dug the tunnel and then emerged in the middle of FP Pkwy, rather than having it above ground the whole way alongside it...I wouldn't blame just Metro, since i think that the public (clayton citizens=vocal minority) are the ones who trashed those plans.

Does that woman audit everything except herself?

I'm glad she has at least remained auditor even if I wished her governor because at least she can still investigate or prevent government corruption by one party.

Despite the troubles facing Metrolink things aren't completely grim. I noticed this on the "New I-64" website.



"MetroLink: Why don't you put MetroLink down the middle of the highway?

The East-West Gateway Council of Governments (EWGCOG), the planning agency for the entire St. Louis region, recently approved plans for a West County MetroLink. The approved route does not follow I-64.



The West County line will be located in the area of Page Avenue, and will terminate near Westport Plaza. Also under development is the Cross County MetroLink line, that will run through Clayton and terminate at Shrewsbury. The Cross County line will cross I-64 near Hanley. Metro expects this segment to be operational by 2006."



Very interesting.

Interesting letter released from METRO:



--



Dear Metro Constituents:



The St. Louis Post-Dispatch recently published an editorial containing a number of false or inaccurate statements about Metro?s Cross County MetroLink Project. With eight miles of new light rail track and nine new stations expanding MetroLink into western St. Louis City and southwest St. Louis County, this light rail project represents a significant investment in the region?s transportation system. The Cross County Project is important to the St. Louis region for both transportation infrastructure improvements and direct and transit induced economic development. Therefore, the community and political stakeholders deserve accurate information about its progress and status. I apologize for the length of this letter; however, the detailed response is dictated by the long history, magnitude, and complexity of the project, and the need for our leaders to have accurate information to make judgments and decisions.



<A HREF="http://www.metrostlouis.org/MetroNews/P ... .pdf">read the letter in PDF format</A>

The high gas prices might be the only thing that saves Metro from making the new Cross County extension a complete debacle. With the cost over runs, delays, and bad press, Metro's service better be great so it could get a nice bump in support when the line opens. I mean think how popular Metro would be right now, with the line opened as scheduled as gas prices going higher, but alas Metro missed the boat. I have no hopes for new lines for at least a decade.

How did Metro "miss the boat?" By the way, missing the train would have been appropriate. But I digress. So, again, what passing opportunity did Metro pass up? Running MetroLink down the New I-64?



Though highways provide linear public right-of-way to run a line, it's not as easy as taking highway lanes for tracks. Where would the stations be? How would you get to the stations? But the bigger question is who would bother walking to a station in, over or beside I-64?



Not all MetroLink stations are park'n'ride stations. Typically, even if you drive to one MetroLink station, you're still going to walk from another. MetroLink stations work well with a mix of park'n'ride stations and stations walkable to activity centers like major employers and universities. The original line did this by having both park'n'rides like North Hanley and East Riverfront, as well as major activity stations in Downtown, the CWE medical complex and UMSL. Only a handful of stations like the Delmar Loop function as both a park'n'ride also near walkable activities.



Fortunately, the ridership for a new Cross-County will be significantly better than if running a line down I-64, having park'n'ride stops serving I-64 (Brentwood) and I-44 (Shrewsbury), but also connecting major activity centers like downtown Clayton and Washington University.

Nope Southslider, you missed the train.

I said that refering to the opertunity Metro would have had to build public support for new lines during the current run up in gas prices. But alas, the CCE is not open and instead Metro only recives bad press.

The bad press about Metro will hurt their chances for getting the second 1/4 cent tax passed in St. Louis County in the near future. The problem with the delay in opening Cross County is that the results people want to see(this is the Show-Me State after all) won't be apparent until 2007. By then gas will probably be at $3 a gallon.



I doubt the tax issue will come up to vote until a year or so after Cross County opens. Even then it willl be interesting to see if voters put their trust in Metro to fund more light rail lines via tax increases.



I've said this before, but it wouldn't hurt if the Missouri supported Metro like other states support their transit agencies. I agree with the statement above that new MetroLink lines are a decade off from today.

Jmedwick-

Actually, higher gas prices dont induce higher transit use. It's not logical, but it's what some of the studies say. Think of it this way- those who want to ride metro already do; those who think metro is a hassle (real or percieved) wont switch (but they'll b*tch all day about gas prices & traffic); the rest is a relatively tiny group for whom higher gas prices is the final straw. So all we can do is try to raise the public perception of transit and get this last group to grow.



I do agree though that Metro missed an opportunity for some good public relations by not being ready this summer.

Well, the folks living near Cross-County in Clayton and U-City are the ones to blame, if anyone, for the belated opening a MetroLink line.



In fact, the first line was intended to go to the airport by way of Clayton, following I-170 north thereof, but opponents then forced Metro to look at the Wabash line instead, albeit to the benefit of UMSL.



Then, when extension planning was underway in the late 1990s, planners suggested saving costs by having a line more so running in the street. But sure enough, the rich folks from Parkview/Catlin Tract to Clayton, wanted the trains underground, and Bi-State appeased them.



Thus, costs went from original estimates of $400 million to $550 million even before construction began. An additional $150 million for a subway system instead of a streetcar system was overly optimistic to begin with, to say the least.

Par, while I agree with your assessment of the way one should think of transit use, the results are still the same: some people( they may be a small group) switich from car to transit because of the high prices:

the rest is a relatively tiny group for whom higher gas prices is the final straw

And this summer, with rising gas prices, the specter of the Highway 40 rebuild, and a sucessfuly opened CCE, Metro would have been sitting pretty to try and grow that thrid group. They might have built a more difficult and costly line because of resident pressures, but really the fault still falls on Metro, who was not able to develope realistic cost or time estimates. People would not be b*tching about the cost over-runs and delayed opening if Metro's predictions would have been closer to the mark.

^I'm not trying to say the construction of the new line wasnt mishandled. It was. What I am saying is higher gas prices do not lead to significantly higher transit ridership. Another part of this equation that I forgot earlier is that the people who do switch to transit dont stay switched for very long. As soon as they have a change they get back in the car (gas prices go back down, they get a raise, etc)

the specter of the Highway 40 rebuild

New I-64 won't even begin to move any dirt until 2007. With Cross-County MetroLink scheduled to open in Fall 2006, I don't think rebuilding 40 qualifies as a factor to consider in Metro's delayed project. You may have a point though, in that once 40 is partially shut down for reconstruction, folks (in mid-county especially) may be a little thankful that the parkway and extension offer some choice.

with rising gas prices

If you think gas prices will be significantly falling after Cross-County opens, then I commend you for such hopeful optimism. If anything, I think $2-plus prices are here to stay, if not increase even more.



Overtime, Metro's credibility will slowly be rebuilt. Once the new extension opens and people realize how many more places are then connected to MetroLink, I think another sales tax has a very good chance of passing.



However, it will be the debate over which lines to build next that may spoil another Prop M, not Metro's Cross-County management. The City may even vote down a proposal (though the last one barely passed and may not require a new election but didn't go in effect due to the County's failing).



For example, if the next line appears to the public as Clayton to Westport, then even pro-transit City voters may decide not to support a tax they see as paying only for County expansion. Vice-versa, County voters may vote against a Northside/Southside extension. Or even in a compromised Northside/Westport line, southside voters could spoil the City vote.



Madison County recently experienced the same dilemma, concerned if the line would serve the Riverbend communities or greater Edwardsville area. Though MetroLink is popular, it's biggest flaw for greater public support is how it has been built incrementally to only sub-sections of our region.

the specter of the Highway 40 rebuild

New I-64 won't even begin to move any dirt until 2007. With Cross-County MetroLink scheduled to open in Fall 2006, I don't think rebuilding 40 qualifies as a factor to consider in Metro's delayed project. You may have a point though, in that once 40 is partially shut down for reconstruction, folks (in mid-county especially) may be a little thankful that the parkway and extension offer some choice.

with rising gas prices

If you think gas prices will be significantly falling after Cross-County opens, then I commend you for such hopeful optimism. If anything, I think $2-plus prices are here to stay, if not increase even more.



Overtime, Metro's credibility will slowly be rebuilt. Once the new extension opens and people realize how many more places are then connected to MetroLink, I think another sales tax has a very good chance of passing.



However, it will be the debate over which lines to build next that may spoil another Prop M, not Metro's Cross-County management. The City may even vote down a proposal (though the last one barely passed and may not require a new election but didn't go in effect due to the County's failing).



For example, if the next line appears to the public as Clayton to Westport, then even pro-transit City voters may decide not to support a tax they see as paying only for County expansion. Vice-versa, County voters may vote against a Northside/Southside extension. Or even in a compromised Northside/Westport line, southside voters could spoil the City vote.



Madison County recently experienced the same dilemma, concerned if the line would serve the Riverbend communities or greater Edwardsville area. Though MetroLink is popular, it's biggest flaw for greater public support is how it has been built incrementally to only sub-sections of our region.

My only point southslider, is that Metro missed a golden opertunity this summer. Imagine 2005 with the CCE open, no bad press about delays, cost over-runs, or the fact that metro won't be able to pay of operation of the new line when it does open.



Metro could have wisely taken advantage of such an opertunity and used the high gas prices and future 40 construction to advertize and promote metrolink like crazy and hope it would result in greater support for new lines. (I however even doubt sometimes that metro's leadership would have seen the opertunity they had and been ready with an add campagin and set plans for future lines (including costs))



However, sadly, none of that can happen. regardless of the future of gas prices, i really belive it will take awhile for Metro to regain crediablity and public support and that it will doom any future lines for some time.

Conveniently, there is no reply to the concern for which extension should be next. Until there is leadership within the region supportive of a particular extension (there wasn't any in South County), then I don't think Metro is fully to blame for not having another vote on Prop M.



Would County folks living outside 270 be willing to levy an additional quarter-cent sales tax, knowing fully well that any extensions wouldn't really cross the beltway (Flo Valley CC, Westport, but okay barely with Florisant & Butler Hill)?



Even if Cross-County were open amidst the looming 40 reconstruction and high gas prices, a vote may still fail until people know what the plan is for expansion.



Since prioritizing lines means one sub-area might receive benefits first over another, you have a daunting task of overcoming the parochial nature of greater St. Louis. So, where's the regional leadership?



Metro is challenged just to maintain existing service. Unless local entities wish to provide some support, including the needed match for additional expansion, it's not in Metro's interest to further ignite the flames of parochial rivolries. Since losing Buzz Westfall, no one has yet become a strong regional leader, or voice of reason on MetroLink expansion.

Well sure, it you want speculation soutslider on what might pass politcal muster, fine, here we go.



First, if the concern is making sure all the region get benefits for a new line, then the only real option is to expand the cross county extension , north and south. Though this line would not recive much support from people on this board and is not as flashy a route as something coming out of downtown, I think it would provide benefits for those people who use 170, better to clayton and the regions premier shopping district, and provide better transit access for people in south county.



If you want a flashy line, i still say a south city/ county line would recive the most support from the county as a whole. Yes I agree that few people from the northern half of the city or county would support such a plan, but I think that when coupled with the traffic realities of rebuilding 40 (such a line might take people off of 44 and 55 routes that will cary more traffic with 40 under construction) people from west/ centeral west county and south county will support the plan and it could pass.



You are corect that any plan will take greter politcal leadership. Leadership that no mayor or councilman has been wiling to provide. And no, Metro is not at fault for having another vote right now because, lets face it, no one would vote for it (not because people don't want the plan) because no one like metro right now, they screwed up too much. It will take time for those memories to fade. My only point ever was that Metro would have had a premium opertunity to pass M right now if the CCE was done. The forces at work could well have made up for lack of politcal leadership and that a line could always be hammered out that would pass in the County if not the city.