^ the jobs themselves don't have to be along the proposed corridor. the point is that people living along the proposed corridor can get to wherever the jobs happen to be in 30 minutes or less via some combination of walking and transit. the N-S line would connect more people to more jobs than would the Westport line.
- 1,792
I think its fair to say both attack the problem from the opposite angle. Westport would deliver access to more jobs, North-South would open access to more people. I think it really is a question of where the scales are currently as to which makes the most sense. The easy way to figure that out is to figure out why people who appreciate transit, don't currently comute by transit.
Is it...
A) People choose not to take transit to work because it doesn't go to their job in a reasonable amount of time.
B) Transit is not easily accessible from where they live.
C) Both
Most people are both but expansion success depends on getting the right balance. Personally I think the job centers are mostly covered right now.
Is it...
A) People choose not to take transit to work because it doesn't go to their job in a reasonable amount of time.
B) Transit is not easily accessible from where they live.
C) Both
Most people are both but expansion success depends on getting the right balance. Personally I think the job centers are mostly covered right now.
- 8,155
^ right. A Westport extension also has major first and last mile problems that would severely erode the 30 minute potential as well... besides the fact that relatively few West Countians are going to start taking Metro b/c a new line comes there way, those that do probably won't be able to access it quickly by walking or transfer. And on the receiving end, workers will find their actual jobs are not really adjacent to the stops.
In contrast, a N/S line would bring access to thousands of people within a five-ten minute walk and get them efficiently to strong job centers throughout the Central Corridor.
In contrast, a N/S line would bring access to thousands of people within a five-ten minute walk and get them efficiently to strong job centers throughout the Central Corridor.
That's a really good point. While some stations on a Westport line could see significant park-n-ride, that doesn't do a whole lot of good for truly transit dependent riders or "outbound" commuters.roger wyoming II wrote:A Westport extension also has major first and last mile problems
I know one of the goals of N-S line is to get to SLCC-Florissant Valley, but if there were a movement just to get Metrolink to Ferguson it would be pretty easy. DT Ferguson is just 2.5 miles from UMSL South station entirely along existing abandoned railroad right-of-way, the Ted Jones Trail (although a new tunnel under 70 would still be required).
Metrolink can use investment and expansion wherever and however possible. Ideally that will be in the form of a N-S Line, but if smaller incremental expansion (like the Boyle/Cortex station) becomes a possibility (either because of political goodwill/pork, public-private partnership, or simple affordability) Metro should go for it.
Similarly, I'd like to see just the Clayton-to-Olive section of the Westport line (basically just Maryland/Ladue, Delmar, and Olive stations). This would serve the west side of DT Clayton and have strong bus connectivity at Delmar and Olive. Basically, those three stations would have the least "last mile problems" compared to the rest of the line. Also a Downtown O'Fallon, Illinois extension from Shiloh-Scott. It's hard to believe, but such a station would actually be walkable for a 50+ block area of Downtown O'Fallon (although it'd still take about 50 minutes just to get to 8th & Pine).
- 3,428
- 985
I was wondering if the Northside extension would be influenced by that or not. One idea I had was if something ran up to there it could go further to connect ONSL area and provide a possible future extension along the riverfront to all the businesses there or even if possible switch McKinley bridge from road to rail to build a line towards Granite City.gary kreie wrote:How would a new stadium North of Lumiere change NS line plans?
- 1,792
If metrolink access is important for the new stadium they should build it along the existing routes, or along the N-S or Westport route if they prefer. To build a stadium so far from a planned alignment and then expect the alignment to be adjusted is just backward thinking. Thats especially true for a stadium in or near downtown, where alignments are not as flexible. I can think of several option places along current metrolink that would work for a stadium. Some in the city and some not.
Also, the landing stop is a half mile from the proposed stadium location.
I know at one point Paul McKee wanted the Northside alignment to go up North Broadway, cross I-70, and continue West on Natural Bridge.
I would like to point out that multiple people in positions of authority have repeatedly said that the alignment for NS is not going to change significantly.
^ That's unfortunate. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that a S. Tucker/Gravois route to Jefferson would be preferable to the proposed Chouteau route.
- 1,792
You are not alone.
The alignment is not set in stone anymore than the "people in authority" themselves. Of course in both cases we might be facing a rising tide.
I think three things drive them away from the Tucket to Gravois option.
1) civic center station, I personally jamming another transit line into this tight space is a bad idea but the current vision doesn't seem to agree with me.
2).ameren. I think they really want a stop at ameren. I'm not sure what kind of ridership they'd expect over Soulard and Lafayette Square which are and could be more major tourist spots.
3) cost to build, crossing the viaducts seems to be the largest expense. Chouteau only crosses one viaduct. The route you describe could have 3.
Even with all this I still think the should build it as you describe, but to influence the decision a justification counter point to each item is needed.
The alignment is not set in stone anymore than the "people in authority" themselves. Of course in both cases we might be facing a rising tide.
I think three things drive them away from the Tucket to Gravois option.
1) civic center station, I personally jamming another transit line into this tight space is a bad idea but the current vision doesn't seem to agree with me.
2).ameren. I think they really want a stop at ameren. I'm not sure what kind of ridership they'd expect over Soulard and Lafayette Square which are and could be more major tourist spots.
3) cost to build, crossing the viaducts seems to be the largest expense. Chouteau only crosses one viaduct. The route you describe could have 3.
Even with all this I still think the should build it as you describe, but to influence the decision a justification counter point to each item is needed.
1.) The case for Metrolink connectivity at Civic Center is valid. Solution: Have the Gravois/S. Tucker line tack west two blocks either at Park Ave. (which is more like one block) or Chouteau, and take 14th into Downtown.
2.) A Gravois/S. Tucker route that tacked west to 14th at Chouteau would offer more direct access to the Nestle Purina campus, and would come within 4-5 blocks (1/3 mile) of Ameren (estimated 6-7 minute walk).
3.) This is an interesting point. It assumes that the bridges over I-55/I-44 and I-55 would have to be replaced or significantly altered, and that the current alignment could go under I-55 at Jefferson at significantly less expense. Both of which sound right. Not sure what the solution would be here.... lighter weight rolling stock?
2.) A Gravois/S. Tucker route that tacked west to 14th at Chouteau would offer more direct access to the Nestle Purina campus, and would come within 4-5 blocks (1/3 mile) of Ameren (estimated 6-7 minute walk).
3.) This is an interesting point. It assumes that the bridges over I-55/I-44 and I-55 would have to be replaced or significantly altered, and that the current alignment could go under I-55 at Jefferson at significantly less expense. Both of which sound right. Not sure what the solution would be here.... lighter weight rolling stock?
- 271
http://nextstl.com/2014/12/northside_so ... expansion/
Good piece by Scott Ogilvie re: the state of transit in STL and what should be
Good piece by Scott Ogilvie re: the state of transit in STL and what should be
- 3,762
^ highways are such an inspiration. and that music… 
- 9,539
keep in mind that Mayor Slay approved Page Projects as he sat on the EWG Board but he had no choice if he wanted things in the City, he had to play ball with St.Charles...welcome to governing and reality
I'm not sure I see your point. St. Charles County wanted the final Page extension, so they produced the matching funds along with state and federal monies to complete the project. Why would Slay be against that? Just to be obstructionist? Or to project his own urban-centered views onto Saint Charles to make some broader point or personal statement? He doesn't really have a dog in that fight, and the whole point of EWG is to foster cooperation among its constituencies.dbInSouthCity wrote:keep in mind that Mayor Slay approved Page Projects as he sat on the EWG Board but he had no choice if he wanted things in the City, he had to play ball with St.Charles...welcome to governing and reality
Do you think Slay should have stood up and fought against the Phase III Page extension? What would be the endgame there?
I don't blame Slay for not expending political capital to fight the Page Avenue Extensions.
- 1,792
^^if you are familiar with db's posts then you can infer he probably was fine with the mayor supporting the Page extension. I believe he was trying to make a point about the nature of quid pro quo realities of governing, and implying that purists on this site would advocate taking a more hostile stance against such an expansion. I think he is probably right on that point even if you aren't one. Its easy to say what should be in a perfect world but it is harder to hold the line on every issue when the reality is you want to get things done. Not a paticularly unreasonable comment.
Then again Slay practically lives in South County so maybe he sees highway expansion as something positive.
Plus i don't think that means a person should just shutup about highways. Afterall if his counterparts don't percieve he is being pressured from his electorate they would push harder for him to move their way and urbanists would loose more ground. Part of playing politics is giving where you don't mind loosing to get what you really wanted in the first place.
Then again Slay practically lives in South County so maybe he sees highway expansion as something positive.
Plus i don't think that means a person should just shutup about highways. Afterall if his counterparts don't percieve he is being pressured from his electorate they would push harder for him to move their way and urbanists would loose more ground. Part of playing politics is giving where you don't mind loosing to get what you really wanted in the first place.
- 8,155
The fight was over after the original expansion. Some people like Joan Bray had some common sense and foresaw that the County would be making a huge mistake but lost out. Viva Saint Charles!
- 933
What do people think of SkyTran, "the physical internet", which is headquartered at the NASA Ames Research Center near Mountain View, California? It's a PRT (personal rapid transit) system. They're building one now in Tel Aviv.
-$10-15M per mile
-Suspended 20 ft in air
-Personal pod with just a few seats
-Supported by legs that can be installed in sidewalks and medians
-May reach speeds of 150 mph
-You can skip over the stations you are not going to and go directly to your destination
-Riders can summon a pod with their smart phone
-Will also be built in France, India, and San Francisco Bay area. Seattle is considering it as well.
-Runs 24/7
-Little or no pollution
The one in Tel Aviv will cost $70M for 12 miles and will only go 70 mph, but future SkyTran systems will likely be faster.
![]()
How much money does St. Louis have set aside for MetroLink expansion? If this is a success in other cities, is St. Louis innovative enough to try it? With $300M, we could build the entire N-S Line with this.
-$10-15M per mile
-Suspended 20 ft in air
-Personal pod with just a few seats
-Supported by legs that can be installed in sidewalks and medians
-May reach speeds of 150 mph
-You can skip over the stations you are not going to and go directly to your destination
-Riders can summon a pod with their smart phone
-Will also be built in France, India, and San Francisco Bay area. Seattle is considering it as well.
-Runs 24/7
-Little or no pollution
The one in Tel Aviv will cost $70M for 12 miles and will only go 70 mph, but future SkyTran systems will likely be faster.
How much money does St. Louis have set aside for MetroLink expansion? If this is a success in other cities, is St. Louis innovative enough to try it? With $300M, we could build the entire N-S Line with this.
… … … 
- 9,539
There is that...The first public experiment will be built in Tel Aviv, with planned completion in mid-2014,[4] however as of July 2014 - there are no signs of SkyTran in Tel Aviv.