urbanSTL

Ebsy wrote:So you are basically saying they have no plan and are just throwing whatever they can against the wall until something sticks?

pretty much.

I'm a little confused... is the Westport Metrolink still tier 1, and the city N-S is tier 2? Or am I mis-understanding.

If not, What. Both seem like projects that would be tough sells. Why are we even holding on to the one that has no hope of federal funding (and isn't the best plan for the region)?

Also, I have never even heard about a Metrolink line going from Shrewsbury to Florissant. What's up with that being a high priority?

Ebsy wrote:Also, I have never even heard about a Metrolink line going from Shrewsbury to Florissant. What's up with that being a high priority?

Its likely the cross county corridor that has been talked about at various times since the 90s. It would generally run along 170 using the old RR right of way that exists. (the part south of Forest Park Parkway was used for the line already) I'm not sure what sort of priority it would be in all actuality. My guess is to have better access to the airport from Clayon and points south so as to not switch lines and backtrack?

^^It's the Blue Line in the below map from the 2006 E-W Gateway Future Corridors Study. It basically follows 170. Perhaps it's getting some renewed attention because of Ferguson and interest in North County in general.

I can't say that line bothers me, but I think any expansion that happens outside of the urban core is a miss. We need to work on that first.

Much of Metrolink is already serving lots of suburban/rural areas (mostly in the Metro East), and without looking at ridership statistics I can guess that it's greatly underused. Take a look at this google maps image of the College Station:


On the other hand, some good TOD has been built - see one view from the Emerson Park station below. We need more of this!

stlexplorer wrote:without looking at ridership statistics I can guess that it's greatly underused

That station's ridership is about on par with the average Illinois station, but only about 60% of the average for the system as a whole. Couldn't agree more that we could use more projects like the Jazz @ Walter Circle apartment project.

At the EWG final workshop for the long range plan where these projects were released, a metro person in charge of their long range planning (jessica something miller or miller-something) said while these big corridor projects are fine, we really need some medium range projects...she didn't give a price tag for what a medium project is but I would guess its projects $100-$300m

^ That's what I've been thinking for the longest. Metro is really shooting itself in the foot from a PR perspective. They are doing very little to keep the people that passed their tax increases engaged. It seems like with some strategic sausage making at EWGateway we could get some minor extensions in a reasonable time frame. We don't have to do a $billion extension and wait 20 years to pull it off. We could easily break ground every 3-4 years with a 3 mile extension here and a 4 mile extension there. It would keep people engaged and clamoring for more and likely garner more support. If you look at a lot of metro systems, very few build 20 mile expansions at one time. Many of them, Houston, Charlotte etc. are continuously making strategic and small $100-$300M extensions every couple years. The problem we have in the St. Louis is that our fractured political system makes it impossible to build practically. Do we start the Wesport phase I from Clayton to Olive, or do we build a N-S line phase I from N Grand to Cherokee? Seems like nobody would be satisfied.

That is the problem, too many hands in the decision making and the mentality of having to do an entire line at once.

It would be a lot more preferable to do short segments every few years. One reason is at least having one segment done would stimulate demand for the next segment. Also for example the segment between Clayton and the intersection of 170 and Olive, that is part of 2 different routes, so having that segment done and then look at which direction to go after that would make sense.

If an incremental plan is done, how complicated would the setup be on the N-S line in terms of track-station setup considering all the rail lines there and the need to have a line connecting the two for being able to move trains on either track? Also it would be helpful on each proposed corridor would be to look at how easy each segment would be to place a line, since some would be easier or harder than others based on ROW

^ I was curious about a possible line to Kirkwood. I know the idea of a Commuter rail line has been discussed going along the 44 corridor to at least Valley Park and possibly all the way to Pacific at times. A metrolink line to Kirkwood would be an interesting possibility. If there was a way to share the ROW with the two rail lines going SW from the area near the end of the Shrewsbury line would help as a cost effective method. The idea I had if you could is a line along the South rail corridor to the Old Orchard/Webster U area and then go along Lockwood to the North line and then to the downtown of Kirkwood I'm not sure how hard it would be to share said corridor though. But if doable it would be a nice way to work things out, also this line in time could go further, say the old Chrysler site (especially if it could get reimagined as a TOD development area) or to a park and ride around 141/44 intersection. Such a lot could also be interesting as a transfer point for busses and where someone could get off say on a bike and connect to parks and trails along the Meremec River.

Another transportation thing I only caught a part of and wasn't sure what it was. I heard something about the need for looking at the railroad bridge situation over the Mississippi River due to age of bridges? Is it about looking at replacements? Since that is an important transportation and infrastructure need in the region since it could help for HSR and for freight transportation

Db, Goat, Imperial: That's exactly what I'm talking about: medium-sized projects in the $100-$300 million range. That's what going to make the system grow.

Unless you're New York City, the days of billion $ projects are gone, not for lack of want or will, but because the federal and local dollars just aren't there.

If major expansions are ever going to stand a chance, the system has to continue to expand its ridership and relevance in the meantime to stay competitive and attractive as an investment of public monies. It's not ideal, but that includes expansions along less dense, but significantly more affordable corridors from Clayton, Shrewsbury, and Shiloh-Scott.

I'd rather build Metrolink in dense places or places that welcome density over running it out everywhere.

There were efforts to get ~$150M for the Merchants Bridge so it could support two trains at a time again.

The Pres of the TRRA said the MacArthur is in great shape.

imperialmog wrote:^ I was curious about a possible line to Kirkwood. I know the idea of a Commuter rail line has been discussed going along the 44 corridor to at least Valley Park and possibly all the way to Pacific at times. A metrolink line to Kirkwood would be an interesting possibility. If there was a way to share the ROW with the two rail lines going SW from the area near the end of the Shrewsbury line would help as a cost effective method. The idea I had if you could is a line along the South rail corridor to the Old Orchard/Webster U area and then go along Lockwood to the North line and then to the downtown of Kirkwood I'm not sure how hard it would be to share said corridor though. But if doable it would be a nice way to work things out, also this line in time could go further, say the old Chrysler site (especially if it could get reimagined as a TOD development area) or to a park and ride around 141/44 intersection. Such a lot could also be interesting as a transfer point for busses and where someone could get off say on a bike and connect to parks and trails along the Meremec River.

I don't think Metrolink can run on active freight lines. If there's to be transit along those lines I think it would have to be commuter rail along the UP/Amtrak line to Pacific.

^ I don't think it could, but was curious if there is room to add two more parallel tracks along sections of those corridors? Since if its possible to do that it with minimal to no additional land needed it could be a cost effective way of expansion and those lines would be nice corridors to build out of.

What would be interesting is to see if anyone has plotted all the abandoned rail corridors and utility corridors that could be used since they could be a way of cheaper expansion if it makes sense, and at the very least could make for some nice hiking and biking trails.

^ Imperialmog, I think the rail infrastructure outside of stations and a crossover junction is in place for downtown to Pacific commuter line on the Missouri side and any improvements on the IL side to Alton could easily be incorporated into the HigherSpeed rail improvements.

What I think is needed is the institutional framework and agreements between Metro and Union Pacific & BNSF to incorporate directional running of freight trains at given times. In other words, the BNSF and Union Pacific lines essentially parallel each other and would be a matter of getting some select UP trains onto BNSF line during peak commuter times.

I think the bigger question, can Metro justify ridership for a commuter train?

dredger wrote:I think the bigger question, can Metro justify ridership for a commuter train?

I'd rather see a redoubled effort to incrementally expand Metrolink than the start of an entirely separate system. But there's plenty of precedent for commuter rail in mid-sized cities, including: Orlando, Salt Lake, Minneapolis, Albuquerque, Nashville, Seattle, and San Diego.

^One of the biggest flaws of Metrolink is that it borderline IS commuter rail.

The biggest flaw is that it runs in old row and not where the people/businesses are

^The "where the people are" side of that argument is completely valid, as many of the densest residential neighborhoods and areas of the city and region aren't served. But I think the "where the businesses are" side is a bit thin. I'm not just saying this because of your comment, but because I hear it too often. Metrolink directly serves the two largest employment centers in the region (Downtown & Clayton), the single largest employer (BJC/WUSM), three of the four largest universities (Wash. U. UMSL & SLU), three of the four largest employers in St. Clair County (Scott AFB, Memorial Hospital, & SWIC), along with Lambert, the Galleria, and The Loop (each with their fair share of business/employment activity).

jstriebel wrote:One of the biggest flaws of Metrolink is that it borderline IS commuter rail.

There are some key differences like station density, frequency, continuity, and rolling stock that make Metrolink nothing like commuter rail.