Over on CMT’s blog, Executive Director Tom Shrout has responded to the idea of placing a rail corridor in the center of highway 40 as it is being rebuilt:
Basically East-West Gateway Council of Governments concluded that the better alternative was to extend MetroLink to West County along Page Avenue. Personally I believe this is the best decision. Locating transit stops in the middle of highways is brutal for the transit customer since the autos whizzing by on each side creates a very unpleasant environment.
What we need in the middle of 40 is not Metro Link, with dozens of stops, but instead, a train, that would start out in St. Charles County somewhere around 94, then have 1 stop in Chesterfield (around 141), then a stop in Clayton (around Brentwood), then end Downtown.
If MetroLink expansion occurs, area residents prefer a route that travels alongside Highway 40 by a two-to-one margin over an option that travels along Page Avenue.
Quelle surprise! And this was conducted in 2000, in the days of $1.15/gallon gasoline and without the looming shutdown of the interstate. Given recent developments over that 7 years, I doubt that 2:1 margin has shrunk.
Given that MetroLink along 64 would require a huge redesign of the entire highway and arterial roads, and would serve little in a pedestrian manner due to much of 64’s “Office Park style”, I agree with the study.
Steve’s plan to end 64 at 270 and restructure the boulevards of the City seems like a good idea. If there was the political will to completely redesign 64 then that should also be included.
Nothing revolutionary will happen regionally in St. Louis until we have a regional body which can get things done. Presently our fragmented governmental structure prevents anything from being pushed through. In this environment, there is no meeting of the minds because too many are at the table.
The current plans for the New I64 should have light rail down the middle. The failure to do this will be the greatest mistake our transportation planners have ever made.
Not only has the public voiced their preference for this route but it also has additional advantages which are being neglected. There is no better ad than being stuck in a car in traffic while watching the trains pass you by. It changes attitudes.
The highway 40 route serves the central corridor, is close to our major assets, and is widely used. No other route can potentially serve as many people and would connect the regions’ businesses, homes, activity centers and shopping areas better than this route. Having the route along Page would be ludicrous as the route is virtually office park row with multiple strip centers.
But given the competency of local leadership and liberals preferences for spending unwisely, I suspect that would be the plan of choice.
But there’s also no better ad for poor planning and taxpayer waste than seeing empty trains, whether whizzing by traffic or not. No doubt that Highway 40 is widely used, but by motorists. Unfortunately, many of the cars traveling this central artery are neither originating from nor heading to locations immediately along it, especially if thinking of locations along the New I-64 project limits WEST of I-170 to Spoede (east of I-170 already being served by MetroLink).
The two biggest reasons for going down the center of any freeway is to avoid having to buy right-of-way and to provide faster speeds for suburban commuters by having fewer stops. For any rider, waiting on a platform next to freeway traffic isn’t pleasant. Since 40/64 already has a severely constrained right-of-way in the Brentwood/Richmond Heights area (as evidenced by MoDOT’s [short-sighted, in my mind] decision NOT to add any lanes between I-170 and Forest Park), any transit added would require the acquisition and demolition of many owner-occupied residences, likely a poltically-unpalatable and very expensive option, especially at this point in the project. And since the folks in many parts of St. Louis County and nearly all of St. Charles County are apparently unwilling to raise or impose taxes, respectively, to fund a viable commuter line/expanded (and much-needed?) public transit in suburban areas, the ability to provide high-speed service becomes much less of an issue. That said, I’m not sure if Page Avenue is the answer, either, but the reality remains that all plans at this point in time are purely hypothetical until more funding is found to operate the Metro that we have now, much less looking at any extensions or expansions of service . . .
The empty trains and buses are exactly what we now see in St. Louis. So Page Avenue isn’t used by motorists? And suggesting that drivers along this central corridor don’t originate here, as I do, denies obvious demographic facts. No other area in StL of this size has greater density.
MetroLink, as currently designed and managed, is destined for failure. It will inevitably have similar results as the SLPS as it too will be mired in controversy and will never have enough revenues. Its design and operating methods, like the SLPS, guarantees this result.
The fact is the current metro link to Shrewsbury was in planning at the same time the Hwy 40/64 disaster was being planned. The decision to take metro link to Shrewsbury rather than out Hwy 40/64 demonstrates the incompetence of the EWGCC, MoDot and government planning in general. How in the world could money be spent for a Metrolink expansion and not account for tearing up Highway 40/64?
Perhaps the Page extension may be a better route, then that should have been built before the congestion that will be brought on by the Hwy 40/64 project.
The truth is if you push engineers out of the picture and allow architects, urban designers and other designers to do the work they could solve most, if not all of the problems connected with pedestrians along the Hwy 40 route.
As far as a lack of destinations along Hwy 40/64, I would disagree, while it is true that West Port Plaza is along the Page route, I would hardly call it a walking neighborhood. It in fact would have probably been better to develop new, walking developments connected to park and ride stations. The new bus stop with a park and ride lot at Ballas Road and Hwy 40/64 is a perfect example of an area that could have been developed much differently if there was any leadership in this town. In fact it is another example of money thrown away that adds nothing to the transportation system. This new stop was built in this Hwy 40/64, Metrolink to Shrewsbury time frame.
Once again there is a failure to serve the interests of the people. Commuters sitting is the congestion will have plenty of time to think about it for the next 3 years.
Just to clarify, I realize the Westport Plaza itself is walkable. The general layout of the West Port Community is not pedestrian friendly. The advantage of a new site such as the one along Ballas Rd. is that the Metrolink station has the possibility of having a station within or adjacent to the development. In more fully developed transit systems typically the station directly feeds a commercial or mixed use development, with minimum walking required to get to either.
It may be possible to make a direct connection with the Plaza since Page is not far away, but still it does not solve the problem of Hwy 40/64 congestion during construction if the transit is not built for another 20 years.
Maybe streetcars should have been considered as a more economical alternate to Metrolink. Streetcars could enter adjacent to the Westport complex easily. In fact the amount of physical reconfiguration needed with streetcars is much less the Metrolink, making it more feasible all around.
For the bus advocates there is the guided busways as an alternate to various rail proposals as used in Adelaide Australia http://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/.(Look at guides, O-Bahn)
In any case the transit planning in this region has some real problems. Looking at what MoDot and EWGCC is dumping into the laps of the citizens with the HWY 40/64 rebuilding should be proof that new leadership is needed all around.
MoDOT is EXPANDING its right-of-way in the New I64 plans and adding lanes. Without going into a long explanation, the land south of 40/west of Brentwood Blvd. has been annexed and homes are already being torned down. East of Brentwood Blvd., over 30 homes on the north side, east to Hanley are to be torned down. Further east, the City of Richmond Heights has filed a lawsuit to fight MoDOT plans.
Having lived in areas and ridden mass transit where the trains are in the center of the highways, I can vouch for the numerous values of this design. Contrary to statements made by others and Mr. Shrout, there are numerous stops and the surrounding areas are pedestrian friendly. Besides, the riders get their daily laughs from watching all the cars stuck in traffic. Such plans are the preferred design for many planners as they solve numerous problems which are either not understood or being ignored. In addition, these layouts cause the least amount of disruption to surrounding communities and cost less.
No other route in the StL area has a many walkable areas (defined in needed distance to walk and other factors),is as dense and offers as many potential opportunities as the central corridor. Perhaps Page Ave has a park with a lake to walk around and a plaza but not much else.
I don’t disagree that an alignment along 40/64 WOULD’VE made a lot of sense, but that’s 20/20 hindisght at this point. Twenty years from now, there may be enough momentim to extend a line west of Brentwood Boulevard, along the freeway, but with the service now offered by the new cross-county extension, there’s little need or justification for a light rail line along 40 between Hanley and Kingshighway and points east. Still, the overwhelming issue facing public transit in the St. Louis area is not where to build it but how to fund its ongoing operation and the maintenance of existing services.
The Daniel Boone extension goes to more than just Westport, which itself would be a good mix of walkable destinations (Westport Plaza itself), quicker bus connections (Earth City, Harrah’s, Chesterfield) and major park’n’ride (West County and St. Charles County commuters bound for Clayton, BJC, Downtown, etc.).
Branching off of Cross County at Clayton, the extension first follows the east side of I-170 to the next station at Delmar in western University City serving a large pocket of multi-family development, much of it visible from I-170. Then, the line crosses over I-170 with the next stop at Olive just west of I-170, where Olivette has committed to building a town center, if MetroLink would ever come. Next is Dielman just south of Page on the former Rock Island railroad, such station directly serving some public housing, but also very close to the established community of Overland. Then comes Lindbergh, where the Rock Island railroad meets Page Avenue, with quick bus connections to Monsanto and Northwest Plaza. Finally, you arrive at Westport on the north side of the Page Avenue right-of-way, with opportunities to still expand west of I-270 someday to Chesterfield, Earth City, and/or St. Charles.
In comparison, a line to I-270 along Highway 40 west of I-170 would only warrant a station at Ballas, and technically that’s outside New I-64’s western project limits of Spoede, although it still could be done. At McCutcheon, relatively affordable multi-family is being demolished, while at Lindbergh, Plaza Frontenac isn’t exactly a transit destination. And I don’t know what map John is looking at, but Ladue and Frontenac are among the least dense communities in the entire St. Louis urbanized area. And even if you could buy land for park’n’ride lots in this high-priced, low-density area, the north-south roads to access such stations (since most commuters wouldn’t be coming from Ladue) are far and few between Lindbergh and Hanley.
For mass transit to be worthwhile it needs to be in areas that meet particular standards (high-density, places where people work, entertain themselves and want to visit). The Page extension doesn’t come close to offering a fraction of what is available between Kingshighway to McKnight road. Of course every area west of this western boundary fails to meet these standards and for discussion, how silly to imply otherwise. The Manhasset Village is being rebuilt to offer much improved housing.
The extension Brian mentions is already being palnned for other purposes. He may want to check on those before more type space is wasted. But of course this issue for all practical purposes is dead. The leaders inspired by locals’ lack of understanding mass transit coupled with their lack of experience in using such has already guaranteed a failed product.
Um, “between Kingshighway and McKnight” would be the argument for building Cross County instead south of Forest Park, not to now head west of I-170 with MetroLink along Highway 40. The single best explanation for why “north of the park” won out is that Clayton (our region’s largest employment center outside of Downtown) is significantly north of 40. And that’s the problem with 40, the highway is fairly close to multiple destinations, but proximate enough to walk to very few. And unfortunately, the lack of walkable density needed to support transit gets even worse west of I-170, as any driver can see traveling the wooded section of highway between the Galleria and Ballas.
The value of 20 20 hindsight is the importance of understanding the whole process used to determine transit routes. It shows the decision making in general is flawed and needs to change. The fact there is no transit alternatives, no funding even for new buses indicates the lack of planning ability and knowledge by those at MoDot and EWGCC. It also illustrates vividly how little they care for the welfare of the public.
In addition, the process of public hearings and comments online is hardly one that vigorously includes the public. These officials feel they know better than the public and their disdain for public input is clear. So the first step in utilizing our 20 20 hindsight is to remake the process for decision making.
Nor is the discussion of the Hwy 40 transit route vs. the Page route as important as the fact alternate routes are not in place before tearing up Highway 40. In any case it is important to remember the detail of the design can make or break a project. To truly judge between the two routes would require clearly stating how stations would be located and where. All of the vacant land next to Highway 40 actually leaves a blank canvas to create true transit orientated development. In spite of the rush of traffic it could easily be designed to favor comfortable pedestrian traffic.
Certainly maintenance and support for the system is an issue. Much has to do how money is allocated in the first place. There is no way 500 million dollars should be spent on highway redevelopment. They don’t maintain bridges for years and then say, “See they are falling apart.†Nor would there be a need to expand the highway if transit was introduced into the area and if proper urban planning was used in the first place. (The concentration of commercial centers at the Highway 40/170 intersection bogs down traffic, different planning options could have prevented this problem)
Funds have to be reallocated in a more sensible manner, the federal government has a subsidy of some 39 billion for road building against some 9 billion for all other forms of transit including marine.
It is time to rethink local and national priorities. We are at a crossroads with energy, with global warming and with urban sprawl. Even without these potential serious problems it makes perfect sense to begin building a sustainable culture. What does the Bible say? “Waste not, want not.†The highway interests like things the way they are, but they will destroy America to maintain their self interest.
Michael Allen on his http://ecoabsence.blogspot.com/ asks citizens to quiz candidates about urban problems to see how they stand on urban issues. That would be a step in the right direction, yet there seems to be no one with the charisma and leadership willing to speak for the welfare of the people.
Sensible transit options, reurbanization efforts and new, sound energy conservation policies need to be implemented for the good of the people of St. Louis and America. The Hwy 40/64 fiasco, with its lack of transit alternatives is only one more example of willfully poor leadership.
And so yes, there is a lack of funding for transit right now, but this is not about begging for a nickel here or there. Everything has to change: all new thinking, redefining all aspects of the problem, a whole approach to building the region.
From the outside, it would be easy to conclude that MetroLink is part of a grand conspiracy to give mass transit a black eye in this area. Otherwise it is a story of power being used to serve a small minority while lowering the quality of life for many others. The process was misleading at best.
The shortsightednes has yet to be dealt with as New I64 will make obvious. Already the County is negotiating with the cities along the alternative routes to allow more truck traffic among other issues. Whatever is decided, the quality of life will suffer enormously. The New I64 plans are likely to infuriate commuters for years and damage businesses significantly. MoDOT, EWGCC and MetroLink were made aware of these potential problems years before ground was broken for the extensiion. But that’s the way StL works (if you want to call it that). I still believe that the New I64 plans should be revised to include light rail but I have no hope of such. Most of these potential problems could have been avoided.
The potential of getting visitors and locals to ride MetroLink was wasted. One example, to get to the airport from Clayton, the ride takes about 45 minutes (if lucky) assuming a transfer train is in wait. If the extension was straight north, the ride would be a convenient 15 minutes.
The reason the Metro-extension was placed under FP Expressway (at a ridiculous expensive price tag) was to satisfy one of the most powerful institutions in StL. If it was designed as a Shrewsberry-Lambert route, along the original right-of-way, Clayton’s stop would have been located next to Shaw Park. This would have served as a feeder route to a trolley system desired by many Claytonians. Then a wise expansion would have been along Hwy 40 so as to create a system whch triangulated our most prosperous and walkable areas.
I suppose those who favor Page most believe that there are more places walkable along Page? What about all the places in Brentwood and Richmond Heights that are less than one mile apart and are all along Hwy 40? Clayton is less than one mile north of Hwy 40, but again this is only one criteria of many. The Page idea is a loser in every category. Long existing highways have already defined our areas of density and therefore should be taken advantage of instead of ignored. Favoring Page further illustrates what happens when bad ideas become policy
Too bad Metrolink bowed to pressures to create a dogleg design that only benefits a small minority. The result is less revenues, a ridiculous route system and one which guarantees inferior results for years to come. For this system to be successful, it must serve more than a group of free riders.
[UrbanReviewSTL – I’m going to agree and disagree with you here. The process for transit decisions (bus, rail, highway) has been a clusterf*ck past and present. Part of the problem with the light rail has been the lack of a master plan that has been well communicated. We debate a line at a time without a big picture. Your Clayton to airport example is quite true. But, I think they are looking at a route which would follow I-170 and eventually connect near the airport. This might even be a possible way to get deeper into North County. Â
But here is the big thing to keep in mind around light rail. It is not about creating walkable communities. Sure, they will talk TOD around stations but we’ve not really seen that here to any degree. We have some evidence that part of the downtown loft boom is due to transit but that is only part of the factor. You are right, Page does not have anything walkable. The focus of light rail is to move large numbers of people across large distances. This ties in with how federal funds are given out for transit projects. The major goal then becomes connecting the employment center dots. Period. If you catch something else along the way (such as a stadium) great but it is centered around employment. This is completely different than creating high-density walkable neighborhoods along a transit route. Â
In this sense I don’t see 40 being any better than Page. The Galleria and Hanley/Eager are served by mass transit — beyond McKnight it goes high dollar low density until you get to Lindbergh. There it is not much better. But, here is where I will agee with you. Suppose we left a right of way for transit down 40 for future use — either light rail or heavy rail commuter line. We could, in the future, redo the Lindbergh right-of-way with a north-south transit line — the outer transit loop. It might be localized service via a modern streetcar/tram or light rail. This line could bring people to 40 to get into Clayton and Downtown. With the cross county line under 40 at near Hanley that makes a good place to transfer rather than continuing the line along the highway. But, some say the existing system is at capacity — that is the size of our stations are so small that at many times the trains are full. We can also feed into the existing system so much before we need parallel systems.
The problem is that it is hard to predict the needs for the next 20-50 years. It was just over 50 years ago when planners were predicting St. Louis’ population would top a million by now, instead we are down to 350K (partly due to some of their actions). I do think many people work in the Westport area (they have my sympathies) so getting some rail transit out to them may be wise. Sadly we are so sprawled in our region it is hard to see clear patterns on people coming and going from the same points.]
We can talk all we want about alternatives. And it is good discussion, but the politicians own the process.
They determine the second rate crap that is built. Until the citizens are included it doesn’t matter whether or not Metrolink has a stop on the moon or on mars.
Look at the northside-southside study now going on. According to the EWGCC website in early 2007 there will be a Refinement of Locally Preferred Alternatives.
That is what they call it, but whose locally preferred alternatives would that be? These guys get a pass it seems to me. I’m glad Citizens for Modern Transit has started a blog, but Tom Shrout needs to call them out on this process now, put it into his blog and let people know what is going on.
The northside southside study already favors a Chouteau route. I find it unbelievable their preferred route is up Chouteau when there is a parallel route already for Metrolink literally several hundred feet to the North of Chouteau. I sent a comment asking why Gravois is not used and their answer was that,
“Our study team has yet to fully evaluate the full impacts of the
Alternatives. However, in preliminary assessment of the Gravois
alternative, it is known that the right-of-way narrows west of Grand, with perhaps most serious pinch-point (80-feet width) for a station and four lanes of traffic at Chippewa. One possible solution is obtaining easements for the sidewalks to be relocated on adjoining private property, but this issue has yet to be fully evaluated along with other factors. Once the alternatives are fully evaluated, another round of open houses will be held next year, likely late spring, to share study results with the public for comments.†This was sent by Laurna Godwin of Vector Communications.
It is a ridiculous process beyond belief. Study teams will come to a conclusion, those conclusions will be presented and that will be that, what good is an open house at that point? Citizen participation should be active now and until the time of the open house. In fact the tools are readily available to communicate with the public if the desire to do so was there.
In urban planning a street such as Gravois has the purpose of covering the most ground in the shortest time, of covering both north and south running streets and coverage of a large portion of the city in the shortest distance. Gasp! all the attributes you might expect from a good mass transit line.
If Tom Shrout cannot rattle cages like Steve and the Urban Review Blog, then he should turn the reins over to someone that can. If not, we will be on this blog in several years talking about the missed opportunities of the northside-southside study area instead the messed up Highway 40 disasters. Actually, come to think about it, we will probably still be talking about the incompetence surrounding Highway 40 rebuilding project for quite some time. I give up, this is all a bad dream right? I’ll wake up and …….
I realize this thread is headed for blog oblivion. I just want to try to get one more comment in before that happens.
What the northside-southside transit study illustrates more than anything is that it is not an inclusive process for the citizens. It is the same problem with highway 40.
If the southside route EWGCC has chosen along Chouteau is really better it should be able to withstand public analysis. They seemed to have chosen this route even before the public hearings a month or so ago.
Truthfully I wonder why light rail is being proposed for projects within the city boundaries. It is the basic reason they give why so many city streets are supposedly off limits, due to the amount of space needed for light rail trains and stations.
Streetcars not only are more pedestrian friendly, they can travel on practically any city street to optimize transit possibilities for the people of St. Louis. Their stops can be as simple as a bus stop, plus you can build at least twice as many miles of line for the money compared to what you would spend for light rail.
It is a much better solution for the city environment. Light rail is more appropriate for long distances where speed is useful.
So, just like the highway 40 project the decision making process is still messed up. The wrong decisions continue to be made for the wrong reasons. And the worse part is that citizen participation is nothing but a smoke screen and has no real value as those at EWGCC do as they please.
The same people who brought us the Hwy 40 debacle are at it again. There has to be a way to put a stop to this foolishness.
As a rider of light rail for over 20 years, I agree with virtually every point and particularly in the design/planning process here. I too have recieved those foolish explanations by mail.
Light rail should be part of an overall strategy that incorporates autos, buses, trolleys and bicycles as necessary vehicles. Every transportation plan should address how each and every design/upgrade supports each alternative. One other major advantage of light rail not mentioned is the flexibility of capacity. Cars can be added/subtracted easily to meet fluctuating demands whether for rush hour or special events. It’s like having the ability to add lanes on a highway for greater capacity without much effort.
OK, enough, now go back to sleep… we’ll be debating the same issues (managing priorities, integrating public comments, etc.) when you wake up… now that’s something you can rely on as it is StL’s favorite product!
AARP Livibility Index
The Livability Index scores neighborhoods and communities across the U.S. for the services and amenities that impact your life the most
Built St. Louis
historic architecture of St. Louis, Missouri – mourning the losses, celebrating the survivors.
Geo St. Louis
a guide to geospatial data about the City of St. Louis
What we need in the middle of 40 is not Metro Link, with dozens of stops, but instead, a train, that would start out in St. Charles County somewhere around 94, then have 1 stop in Chesterfield (around 141), then a stop in Clayton (around Brentwood), then end Downtown.
From the phone survey executive summary:
If MetroLink expansion occurs, area residents prefer a route that travels alongside Highway 40 by a two-to-one margin over an option that travels along Page Avenue.
Quelle surprise! And this was conducted in 2000, in the days of $1.15/gallon gasoline and without the looming shutdown of the interstate. Given recent developments over that 7 years, I doubt that 2:1 margin has shrunk.
Given that MetroLink along 64 would require a huge redesign of the entire highway and arterial roads, and would serve little in a pedestrian manner due to much of 64’s “Office Park style”, I agree with the study.
Steve’s plan to end 64 at 270 and restructure the boulevards of the City seems like a good idea. If there was the political will to completely redesign 64 then that should also be included.
Nothing revolutionary will happen regionally in St. Louis until we have a regional body which can get things done. Presently our fragmented governmental structure prevents anything from being pushed through. In this environment, there is no meeting of the minds because too many are at the table.
The current plans for the New I64 should have light rail down the middle. The failure to do this will be the greatest mistake our transportation planners have ever made.
Not only has the public voiced their preference for this route but it also has additional advantages which are being neglected. There is no better ad than being stuck in a car in traffic while watching the trains pass you by. It changes attitudes.
The highway 40 route serves the central corridor, is close to our major assets, and is widely used. No other route can potentially serve as many people and would connect the regions’ businesses, homes, activity centers and shopping areas better than this route. Having the route along Page would be ludicrous as the route is virtually office park row with multiple strip centers.
But given the competency of local leadership and liberals preferences for spending unwisely, I suspect that would be the plan of choice.
But there’s also no better ad for poor planning and taxpayer waste than seeing empty trains, whether whizzing by traffic or not. No doubt that Highway 40 is widely used, but by motorists. Unfortunately, many of the cars traveling this central artery are neither originating from nor heading to locations immediately along it, especially if thinking of locations along the New I-64 project limits WEST of I-170 to Spoede (east of I-170 already being served by MetroLink).
The two biggest reasons for going down the center of any freeway is to avoid having to buy right-of-way and to provide faster speeds for suburban commuters by having fewer stops. For any rider, waiting on a platform next to freeway traffic isn’t pleasant. Since 40/64 already has a severely constrained right-of-way in the Brentwood/Richmond Heights area (as evidenced by MoDOT’s [short-sighted, in my mind] decision NOT to add any lanes between I-170 and Forest Park), any transit added would require the acquisition and demolition of many owner-occupied residences, likely a poltically-unpalatable and very expensive option, especially at this point in the project. And since the folks in many parts of St. Louis County and nearly all of St. Charles County are apparently unwilling to raise or impose taxes, respectively, to fund a viable commuter line/expanded (and much-needed?) public transit in suburban areas, the ability to provide high-speed service becomes much less of an issue. That said, I’m not sure if Page Avenue is the answer, either, but the reality remains that all plans at this point in time are purely hypothetical until more funding is found to operate the Metro that we have now, much less looking at any extensions or expansions of service . . .
The empty trains and buses are exactly what we now see in St. Louis. So Page Avenue isn’t used by motorists? And suggesting that drivers along this central corridor don’t originate here, as I do, denies obvious demographic facts. No other area in StL of this size has greater density.
MetroLink, as currently designed and managed, is destined for failure. It will inevitably have similar results as the SLPS as it too will be mired in controversy and will never have enough revenues. Its design and operating methods, like the SLPS, guarantees this result.
The fact is the current metro link to Shrewsbury was in planning at the same time the Hwy 40/64 disaster was being planned. The decision to take metro link to Shrewsbury rather than out Hwy 40/64 demonstrates the incompetence of the EWGCC, MoDot and government planning in general. How in the world could money be spent for a Metrolink expansion and not account for tearing up Highway 40/64?
Perhaps the Page extension may be a better route, then that should have been built before the congestion that will be brought on by the Hwy 40/64 project.
The truth is if you push engineers out of the picture and allow architects, urban designers and other designers to do the work they could solve most, if not all of the problems connected with pedestrians along the Hwy 40 route.
As far as a lack of destinations along Hwy 40/64, I would disagree, while it is true that West Port Plaza is along the Page route, I would hardly call it a walking neighborhood. It in fact would have probably been better to develop new, walking developments connected to park and ride stations. The new bus stop with a park and ride lot at Ballas Road and Hwy 40/64 is a perfect example of an area that could have been developed much differently if there was any leadership in this town. In fact it is another example of money thrown away that adds nothing to the transportation system. This new stop was built in this Hwy 40/64, Metrolink to Shrewsbury time frame.
Once again there is a failure to serve the interests of the people. Commuters sitting is the congestion will have plenty of time to think about it for the next 3 years.
Just to clarify, I realize the Westport Plaza itself is walkable. The general layout of the West Port Community is not pedestrian friendly. The advantage of a new site such as the one along Ballas Rd. is that the Metrolink station has the possibility of having a station within or adjacent to the development. In more fully developed transit systems typically the station directly feeds a commercial or mixed use development, with minimum walking required to get to either.
It may be possible to make a direct connection with the Plaza since Page is not far away, but still it does not solve the problem of Hwy 40/64 congestion during construction if the transit is not built for another 20 years.
Maybe streetcars should have been considered as a more economical alternate to Metrolink. Streetcars could enter adjacent to the Westport complex easily. In fact the amount of physical reconfiguration needed with streetcars is much less the Metrolink, making it more feasible all around.
For the bus advocates there is the guided busways as an alternate to various rail proposals as used in Adelaide Australia http://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/.(Look at guides, O-Bahn)
In any case the transit planning in this region has some real problems. Looking at what MoDot and EWGCC is dumping into the laps of the citizens with the HWY 40/64 rebuilding should be proof that new leadership is needed all around.
MoDOT is EXPANDING its right-of-way in the New I64 plans and adding lanes. Without going into a long explanation, the land south of 40/west of Brentwood Blvd. has been annexed and homes are already being torned down. East of Brentwood Blvd., over 30 homes on the north side, east to Hanley are to be torned down. Further east, the City of Richmond Heights has filed a lawsuit to fight MoDOT plans.
Having lived in areas and ridden mass transit where the trains are in the center of the highways, I can vouch for the numerous values of this design. Contrary to statements made by others and Mr. Shrout, there are numerous stops and the surrounding areas are pedestrian friendly. Besides, the riders get their daily laughs from watching all the cars stuck in traffic. Such plans are the preferred design for many planners as they solve numerous problems which are either not understood or being ignored. In addition, these layouts cause the least amount of disruption to surrounding communities and cost less.
No other route in the StL area has a many walkable areas (defined in needed distance to walk and other factors),is as dense and offers as many potential opportunities as the central corridor. Perhaps Page Ave has a park with a lake to walk around and a plaza but not much else.
I don’t disagree that an alignment along 40/64 WOULD’VE made a lot of sense, but that’s 20/20 hindisght at this point. Twenty years from now, there may be enough momentim to extend a line west of Brentwood Boulevard, along the freeway, but with the service now offered by the new cross-county extension, there’s little need or justification for a light rail line along 40 between Hanley and Kingshighway and points east. Still, the overwhelming issue facing public transit in the St. Louis area is not where to build it but how to fund its ongoing operation and the maintenance of existing services.
The Daniel Boone extension goes to more than just Westport, which itself would be a good mix of walkable destinations (Westport Plaza itself), quicker bus connections (Earth City, Harrah’s, Chesterfield) and major park’n’ride (West County and St. Charles County commuters bound for Clayton, BJC, Downtown, etc.).
Branching off of Cross County at Clayton, the extension first follows the east side of I-170 to the next station at Delmar in western University City serving a large pocket of multi-family development, much of it visible from I-170. Then, the line crosses over I-170 with the next stop at Olive just west of I-170, where Olivette has committed to building a town center, if MetroLink would ever come. Next is Dielman just south of Page on the former Rock Island railroad, such station directly serving some public housing, but also very close to the established community of Overland. Then comes Lindbergh, where the Rock Island railroad meets Page Avenue, with quick bus connections to Monsanto and Northwest Plaza. Finally, you arrive at Westport on the north side of the Page Avenue right-of-way, with opportunities to still expand west of I-270 someday to Chesterfield, Earth City, and/or St. Charles.
In comparison, a line to I-270 along Highway 40 west of I-170 would only warrant a station at Ballas, and technically that’s outside New I-64’s western project limits of Spoede, although it still could be done. At McCutcheon, relatively affordable multi-family is being demolished, while at Lindbergh, Plaza Frontenac isn’t exactly a transit destination. And I don’t know what map John is looking at, but Ladue and Frontenac are among the least dense communities in the entire St. Louis urbanized area. And even if you could buy land for park’n’ride lots in this high-priced, low-density area, the north-south roads to access such stations (since most commuters wouldn’t be coming from Ladue) are far and few between Lindbergh and Hanley.
For mass transit to be worthwhile it needs to be in areas that meet particular standards (high-density, places where people work, entertain themselves and want to visit). The Page extension doesn’t come close to offering a fraction of what is available between Kingshighway to McKnight road. Of course every area west of this western boundary fails to meet these standards and for discussion, how silly to imply otherwise. The Manhasset Village is being rebuilt to offer much improved housing.
The extension Brian mentions is already being palnned for other purposes. He may want to check on those before more type space is wasted. But of course this issue for all practical purposes is dead. The leaders inspired by locals’ lack of understanding mass transit coupled with their lack of experience in using such has already guaranteed a failed product.
Um, “between Kingshighway and McKnight” would be the argument for building Cross County instead south of Forest Park, not to now head west of I-170 with MetroLink along Highway 40. The single best explanation for why “north of the park” won out is that Clayton (our region’s largest employment center outside of Downtown) is significantly north of 40. And that’s the problem with 40, the highway is fairly close to multiple destinations, but proximate enough to walk to very few. And unfortunately, the lack of walkable density needed to support transit gets even worse west of I-170, as any driver can see traveling the wooded section of highway between the Galleria and Ballas.
The value of 20 20 hindsight is the importance of understanding the whole process used to determine transit routes. It shows the decision making in general is flawed and needs to change. The fact there is no transit alternatives, no funding even for new buses indicates the lack of planning ability and knowledge by those at MoDot and EWGCC. It also illustrates vividly how little they care for the welfare of the public.
In addition, the process of public hearings and comments online is hardly one that vigorously includes the public. These officials feel they know better than the public and their disdain for public input is clear. So the first step in utilizing our 20 20 hindsight is to remake the process for decision making.
Nor is the discussion of the Hwy 40 transit route vs. the Page route as important as the fact alternate routes are not in place before tearing up Highway 40. In any case it is important to remember the detail of the design can make or break a project. To truly judge between the two routes would require clearly stating how stations would be located and where. All of the vacant land next to Highway 40 actually leaves a blank canvas to create true transit orientated development. In spite of the rush of traffic it could easily be designed to favor comfortable pedestrian traffic.
Certainly maintenance and support for the system is an issue. Much has to do how money is allocated in the first place. There is no way 500 million dollars should be spent on highway redevelopment. They don’t maintain bridges for years and then say, “See they are falling apart.†Nor would there be a need to expand the highway if transit was introduced into the area and if proper urban planning was used in the first place. (The concentration of commercial centers at the Highway 40/170 intersection bogs down traffic, different planning options could have prevented this problem)
Funds have to be reallocated in a more sensible manner, the federal government has a subsidy of some 39 billion for road building against some 9 billion for all other forms of transit including marine.
It is time to rethink local and national priorities. We are at a crossroads with energy, with global warming and with urban sprawl. Even without these potential serious problems it makes perfect sense to begin building a sustainable culture. What does the Bible say? “Waste not, want not.†The highway interests like things the way they are, but they will destroy America to maintain their self interest.
Michael Allen on his http://ecoabsence.blogspot.com/ asks citizens to quiz candidates about urban problems to see how they stand on urban issues. That would be a step in the right direction, yet there seems to be no one with the charisma and leadership willing to speak for the welfare of the people.
Sensible transit options, reurbanization efforts and new, sound energy conservation policies need to be implemented for the good of the people of St. Louis and America. The Hwy 40/64 fiasco, with its lack of transit alternatives is only one more example of willfully poor leadership.
And so yes, there is a lack of funding for transit right now, but this is not about begging for a nickel here or there. Everything has to change: all new thinking, redefining all aspects of the problem, a whole approach to building the region.
From the outside, it would be easy to conclude that MetroLink is part of a grand conspiracy to give mass transit a black eye in this area. Otherwise it is a story of power being used to serve a small minority while lowering the quality of life for many others. The process was misleading at best.
The shortsightednes has yet to be dealt with as New I64 will make obvious. Already the County is negotiating with the cities along the alternative routes to allow more truck traffic among other issues. Whatever is decided, the quality of life will suffer enormously. The New I64 plans are likely to infuriate commuters for years and damage businesses significantly. MoDOT, EWGCC and MetroLink were made aware of these potential problems years before ground was broken for the extensiion. But that’s the way StL works (if you want to call it that). I still believe that the New I64 plans should be revised to include light rail but I have no hope of such. Most of these potential problems could have been avoided.
The potential of getting visitors and locals to ride MetroLink was wasted. One example, to get to the airport from Clayton, the ride takes about 45 minutes (if lucky) assuming a transfer train is in wait. If the extension was straight north, the ride would be a convenient 15 minutes.
The reason the Metro-extension was placed under FP Expressway (at a ridiculous expensive price tag) was to satisfy one of the most powerful institutions in StL. If it was designed as a Shrewsberry-Lambert route, along the original right-of-way, Clayton’s stop would have been located next to Shaw Park. This would have served as a feeder route to a trolley system desired by many Claytonians. Then a wise expansion would have been along Hwy 40 so as to create a system whch triangulated our most prosperous and walkable areas.
I suppose those who favor Page most believe that there are more places walkable along Page? What about all the places in Brentwood and Richmond Heights that are less than one mile apart and are all along Hwy 40? Clayton is less than one mile north of Hwy 40, but again this is only one criteria of many. The Page idea is a loser in every category. Long existing highways have already defined our areas of density and therefore should be taken advantage of instead of ignored. Favoring Page further illustrates what happens when bad ideas become policy
Too bad Metrolink bowed to pressures to create a dogleg design that only benefits a small minority. The result is less revenues, a ridiculous route system and one which guarantees inferior results for years to come. For this system to be successful, it must serve more than a group of free riders.
We can talk all we want about alternatives. And it is good discussion, but the politicians own the process.
They determine the second rate crap that is built. Until the citizens are included it doesn’t matter whether or not Metrolink has a stop on the moon or on mars.
Look at the northside-southside study now going on. According to the EWGCC website in early 2007 there will be a Refinement of Locally Preferred Alternatives.
That is what they call it, but whose locally preferred alternatives would that be? These guys get a pass it seems to me. I’m glad Citizens for Modern Transit has started a blog, but Tom Shrout needs to call them out on this process now, put it into his blog and let people know what is going on.
The northside southside study already favors a Chouteau route. I find it unbelievable their preferred route is up Chouteau when there is a parallel route already for Metrolink literally several hundred feet to the North of Chouteau. I sent a comment asking why Gravois is not used and their answer was that,
“Our study team has yet to fully evaluate the full impacts of the
Alternatives. However, in preliminary assessment of the Gravois
alternative, it is known that the right-of-way narrows west of Grand, with perhaps most serious pinch-point (80-feet width) for a station and four lanes of traffic at Chippewa. One possible solution is obtaining easements for the sidewalks to be relocated on adjoining private property, but this issue has yet to be fully evaluated along with other factors. Once the alternatives are fully evaluated, another round of open houses will be held next year, likely late spring, to share study results with the public for comments.†This was sent by Laurna Godwin of Vector Communications.
It is a ridiculous process beyond belief. Study teams will come to a conclusion, those conclusions will be presented and that will be that, what good is an open house at that point? Citizen participation should be active now and until the time of the open house. In fact the tools are readily available to communicate with the public if the desire to do so was there.
In urban planning a street such as Gravois has the purpose of covering the most ground in the shortest time, of covering both north and south running streets and coverage of a large portion of the city in the shortest distance. Gasp! all the attributes you might expect from a good mass transit line.
If Tom Shrout cannot rattle cages like Steve and the Urban Review Blog, then he should turn the reins over to someone that can. If not, we will be on this blog in several years talking about the missed opportunities of the northside-southside study area instead the messed up Highway 40 disasters. Actually, come to think about it, we will probably still be talking about the incompetence surrounding Highway 40 rebuilding project for quite some time. I give up, this is all a bad dream right? I’ll wake up and …….
I realize this thread is headed for blog oblivion. I just want to try to get one more comment in before that happens.
What the northside-southside transit study illustrates more than anything is that it is not an inclusive process for the citizens. It is the same problem with highway 40.
If the southside route EWGCC has chosen along Chouteau is really better it should be able to withstand public analysis. They seemed to have chosen this route even before the public hearings a month or so ago.
Truthfully I wonder why light rail is being proposed for projects within the city boundaries. It is the basic reason they give why so many city streets are supposedly off limits, due to the amount of space needed for light rail trains and stations.
Streetcars not only are more pedestrian friendly, they can travel on practically any city street to optimize transit possibilities for the people of St. Louis. Their stops can be as simple as a bus stop, plus you can build at least twice as many miles of line for the money compared to what you would spend for light rail.
It is a much better solution for the city environment. Light rail is more appropriate for long distances where speed is useful.
So, just like the highway 40 project the decision making process is still messed up. The wrong decisions continue to be made for the wrong reasons. And the worse part is that citizen participation is nothing but a smoke screen and has no real value as those at EWGCC do as they please.
The same people who brought us the Hwy 40 debacle are at it again. There has to be a way to put a stop to this foolishness.
As a rider of light rail for over 20 years, I agree with virtually every point and particularly in the design/planning process here. I too have recieved those foolish explanations by mail.
Light rail should be part of an overall strategy that incorporates autos, buses, trolleys and bicycles as necessary vehicles. Every transportation plan should address how each and every design/upgrade supports each alternative. One other major advantage of light rail not mentioned is the flexibility of capacity. Cars can be added/subtracted easily to meet fluctuating demands whether for rush hour or special events. It’s like having the ability to add lanes on a highway for greater capacity without much effort.
OK, enough, now go back to sleep… we’ll be debating the same issues (managing priorities, integrating public comments, etc.) when you wake up… now that’s something you can rely on as it is StL’s favorite product!