urbanSTL

It'd be interesting to see where the people who work at Westport, Plant Center, etc live. Would the line offer an alternative means to work for a substantial portion?

roger wyoming II wrote:

quincunx wrote:Yeah fragmentation!

Steve Stenger @StengerSTLCo

The first step in my strategy is to get input from people & professionals about which route to study: Daniel Boone, MetroNorth or MetroSouth

Can somebody translate Stengerspeak for me? What is MetroNorth? MetroSouth? Is this different than working with the city on N/S?

In the past, I thought MetroNorth/South referred to extensions of the red/blue lines to Florissant and Butler Hill, respectively.

Edit: I wish somebody could convince Stenger that he's not the CEO of Krispy Kreme, and STL is not a doughnut.

Stenger got 0 votes from city residents. It's as simple as that.

I voted for Stenger because he had mentioned at some point that he supported BetterTogether and was regionally minded. How wrong I was...

roger wyoming II wrote:

quincunx wrote:Yeah fragmentation!

Steve Stenger @StengerSTLCo

The first step in my strategy is to get input from people & professionals about which route to study: Daniel Boone, MetroNorth or MetroSouth

Can somebody translate Stengerspeak for me? What is MetroNorth? MetroSouth? Is this different than working with the city on N/S?

These projections are at least a decade old at this point, but I'm not sure much has changed since then:
"MetroNorth" = Dark Blue


"MetroSouth" = Light Blue


N/S as we've been discussing for the last 5+ years (i.e. the route running down Jefferson, or here projected to run down the Union Pacific right-of-way) was originally called the "Southside Alignment" and "Northside Alignment" as opposed to "Metro South" and "Metro North." Fragmentation indeed:
(The key mistakenly has "Metro North" as grey, when it should be dark blue)

Ugh.

Time to start acting alone as a city. The county doesn't want to play.

I find it interesting that Mayor Slay has said nothing in regards to this.

i find it even more interesting that Metro had no idea this was coming.

This basically confirms that there is at least two different groups basically speaking two different languages which is disorderly. It really is not unexpected to be honest, since that's the norm for things around here and rhetoric aside the past year or so really hasn't changed much. To be honest as much as the leadership might say the right things on regionalism, a large segment of the voters want no part of it and there has been a hardening of that mindset from what I have seen in the last year.

Stenger is going the opposite of regionalism. it's very disheartening to see. It's time Slay pulls out all the stops and go KC-style to boost downtown and make the city more attractive.

dbInSouthCity wrote:i find it even more interesting that Metro had no idea this was coming.

Not what I heard. County controls the purse strings, therefore Metro.

Stenger said he wants to expand Metrolink to keep millennials here.

I get the frustration, and of course choosing to pursue a County Only Metrolink expansion is not collaborative or cooperative in any way, and may even run counter to a campaign pledge. But let's not forget that Metrolink and the Metro Bus system is intrinsically regional. Any expansion of light rail to Westport, North County, or South County will help tie the region together, and will increase the value and utility of the single most regional entity around - Metro. Downtown, the Central West End, and (admittedly) Clayton will continue to be the backbone of a network connecting a greater proportion of the region.

It might not be working closely with the City to enable a N/S Metrolink through large swaths of the City and then onward through the Couty. But investing in Metrolink expansion is regional in itself - even if to a lesser extent than we might hope or desire.

We've all seen the projections, N/S looks like a $1b+ project, and that barely gets you passed the City Limits. If the County is looking for cheaper, quicker, more politically palatable and controllable alternatives, they're going to find them in their own backyard. It's not ideal, but the merits of that approach can't be rejected entirely.

How much of this is possibly due to the County proposal uses a lot more railroad ROW than the design the City has? Since it would be a lot cheaper and easier on a cost basis. Would the City proposal get a lot more traction if they did use the alternates that use ROW more? Since you could build out more for the same cost that way. Since what would not using the railroad/highway ROWs give as a benefit vs the added costs of doing so? And would the benefit be negated if development shifts to the ROW corridors?

Could there be benefits in doing at least part of a line instead of all at once?

roger wyoming II wrote:thanks for the maps, if you have an enlarged one for Danny Boone that would be great.

These go all the way back to 1999, when E-W Gateway was studying D-B alternatives, but maybe they'll want to dust them off:

^The southern possibility for this one follows a utility ROW that goes from the existing railroad ROW directly out to Creve Couer Lake

^This is my preferred alternative. It follows the railroad ROW up and around much of Maryland Heights. It bypasses Westport Plaza, but hits the Westport area at Fee Fee & Dorsett, and goes on to serve Riverport and the Page Extension.

^This one is just sort of a hybrid of the first two, and seems unlikely at this point that they would fork the line that far out.

There were two other alternatives, one which ran right down 40/64 and another which, ridiculously, followed a small Deer Creek ROW through the heart of Ladue, Frontenac, and Creve Couer. Pretty sure that one's off the table for good.

I think the Post updated the article to include this:

“The East-West study will determine if there is a viable MetroLink line out there. And by viable, I mean would it qualify for federal funds,” said Jerry Blair, director of transportation for East-West Gateway.... Federal transportation dollars would account for at least half of the cost of extending the reach of MetroLink deeper into the county.

I would think a Florissant (Metro North) or even South County line would have a better shot at federal transit dollars than D-B. But the complexity of that process is beyond my armchair interest/understanding.

^ Not sure if many know, but that Deer Creek ROW is actually a former railroad line. (wonder if that could work as a bike trail)

In terms of federal matching funds, would it be easier to get it if they ended the line at 270? What would be ideal is with the different routes is to secure the ROW for the different plans and have hiking and biking trails on them now and then it would be easy to turn the lines into future metrolink lines.

imperialmog wrote:^ Not sure if many know, but that Deer Creek ROW is actually a former railroad line.

I did not know that but a quick look at Google maps and it's easy to see. (especially from Manchester to farty)

http://www.abandonedrails.com/Creve_Coeur_Branch

This maps out and some history on this old rail line. I wonder if trailnet has looked into at least portions of this route since most of it seems to still be intact as a ROW. It would make a nice cross-county trail from Creve Coeur Lake to Brentwood.

Google maps is useful for looking at aerials to get an idea on what routes might work in relation to going west. It seems there are several options and that might be why the County is deciding on the routes. How much of this is related to the issues and cost overruns relating to the last expansion is affecting this? Since it could be making some prefer the easier routes that utilize existing corridors.

^Ah, it would make sense if GRG did work on these corridors with Metro as sort of a trail bank system that could be utilized for future lines if need be. The Centennial Greenway along 170 is utilizing a likely future metrolink line in this way from Shaw Park to Olive.

The metric will be is weather these options w/o federal support by using the existing lines will be cheaper in terms of local money than any lines that do get federal support. It is possible that its cheaper locally for using the ROW on a line from Forest Park Parkway and 170 to Dorsett and Fee Fee with no federal matching than for other lines. Also can one really rule out companies like Monsanto lobbying to try to get federal moneys for it?

The craziest thing about this whole fiasco is that Stenger mentioned "Ferguson and millenials", neither would be well served by the routes he is pushing. N/S line would serve both quite well and probably the only one that would qualify for federal funding. Which is why the county will go rogue and bond out Westport.

Positives of MetroNorth vs Northside:
Increased frequency on existing lines? Would MN trains go north/south, stop or turn east in Clayton?
Florissant TOD is more likely on New Florissant than Flo Valley
MetroNorth/South as an alternative to South County Connector is appealing
Appears to have some support from the PTB, so it might actually happen

Would like to see a N/S streetcar or gold-standard BRT within the city. But I'm still convinced that a better overall bus network is a better panacea for urban ills than a streetcar, regardless of what happens with MetroLink.

goat314 wrote:The craziest thing about this whole fiasco is that Stenger mentioned "Ferguson and millenials", neither would be well served by the routes he is pushing. N/S line would serve both quite well and probably the only one that would qualify for federal funding. Which is why the county will go rogue and bond out Westport.

There's nothing crazy about picking a plan you want, and then publicly justifying it with the most appealing framing you can plausibly apply.

I understand Westport, but is MetroNorth impossible to get federally funded?

Are any of these places dense enough to generate enough riders (or potential rides through new development) to justify the cost even if the construction costs less than building in the city?