Readers want more frequent transit service, additional light rail
The poll last week asked, “Now that Prop A has passed, what do you want to see in our local transit system?” Here are the results:
-
More frequent service 47 [ 27.98%]
-
schedules & maps at bus stops 37 [22.02%]
-
Other answer… 35 [20.83%]
-
GPS on buses to indicate next arrival time at bus stops 33 [19.64%]
-
Doesn’t matter, I still won’t ride public transit 8 [4.76%]
-
don’t know/unsure 5 [2.98%]
-
With the old routes restored the system will be perfect 3 [1.79%]
As you can see above “other” was the third most popular answer. This is primarily due to my failure to include an option for new rail lines.
Here are all of the other answers from readers:
-
MetroLink to Westport, Text message schedule information
-
another metrolink line
-
A north-south Metro line up Gravois and Natural Bridge
-
more metrolink line
-
begin planning and build north-south metro line
-
Light rail from South County to downtown.
-
Expanded Metrolink
-
Expand MetroLink
-
wireless
-
all of the above
-
Metrolink Fare Enforcement.
-
MORE STOPS / ROUTES
-
A north-south line within the city – Jefferson to south 55
-
Expanded Service
-
extensions out to other major areas and restorations, more frequent routes
-
expansion
-
expand metrolink
-
weekend circulator route serving high-density business districts
-
BRT (with dedicated lanes and higher frequency) on Grand!
-
Trolleys!
-
weekend circulator route serving high-density business districts
-
Weekend circulator route serving high-density business districts.
-
The north-south Metrolink line
-
Light rail in South City, more frequent service, schedule and maps, better signs
-
responsible fiscal management
-
more lines
-
Restored service and upgrades of exsiting stations, like BATHROOMS!
-
metrolink expansin
-
north south metro expansion in the city
-
Expansion.
-
Expanded light rail system. This time lets be a little more strategic
-
restoration of old routes expanded Link service
-
Metrolink Expansion
-
Expansion
-
services aimed at not just the transit-dependent
I personally wouldn’t build another light rail line in our region, especially not one on local streets. What I would do is build a network of modern streetcars to serve more local service.
I like the idea of at least our longer bus routes having WiFi such as Madison County Transit’s “WiFi on Wheels.”
– Steve
Extend Metro current lines on the Missouri side and build out BRT on Grand in the city and N. Lindbergh in the County. Extending Metrolink on the current alignment past Lambert would give us a much better main airport station, provide a station at Lindbergh and thus a link to another great BRT possibility, as well as a direct link to Riverport, Harrah's & Verizon amphitheater, and Earth City industrial complex.
Second, In Illinois build the next metrolink line to SIUE. You then have all major campuses connected together, to the airport, downtown, etc. Alton and Granite City could possibly be served by a future commuter line if their is a demand.
As far as Bus service. Wi-fi would be great and should revolve around bus routes serving downtown and Clayton central business district and/or express services. Express Bus Service can easily be established without major infrastrucre of BRT's. We essentially have ready made lots/parking space at all are major shopping centers along I-55, I-44, I-64 and I-70. Just a matter of negiotiating short term leases and establishing a temporary shelter to get things started. If the route gets ridership, then sign a long term lease to build a permnament shelter.
Sorry Westport and North South line. I think we need to take some small steps first that either include the inherent flexibility of buses and incorporate and extend the current Metrolink spine.
The other item that I think is necessary is bringing the City back into the county as another Muncipality. Then we will have the economic and political framework to make better choices in regards to what metrolink line to build next. Right now, their is an obvious split and lack of funds to build two new metrolink lines.
Many good ideas and mostly agree. Simply put, we need to build a system that is more attractive to people who now drive. We need to get past the perceptions (and the realities?) that transit is slow, uncomfortable, frustrating and “not for me”. A better product is a part of the solution, but so are greater density, less sprawl, more congestion, less easy parking and a sea change in local attitudes. The most telling comment you made is “If the route gets ridership”. Build it and they will come may work in the movies, but in the real world, all of us/those lazy folks need crass, understandable reasons to literally walk away from our/their single-occupant vehicles . . .
tpekren:
I wholeheartedly agree that SIUE should get a Metrolink branch. The school (which will soon officially be Division 1) has really grown and prospered in the last decade, making giant strides in housing, out-of-state/region enrollment, engineering and science programs, and athletics. Surprisingly, the 'e' re-brand is working and the university is quickly becoming more deesirable than its Carbondale brother.
Tons of students and residents would take advantage of a Metrolink extension (not even counting the many St. Louis residents who would benefit from access to a quality, inexpensive 4-year university) and really remove the need for some of the expansive parking lots surrounding the campus' northern edge, opening it up for more buuldings/residences/etc.
The only question is: where do you build the spur? A Fairview Heightsline, running north from Bluff Road/157 would allow for stations in Caseyville, Collinsville (multiple stops?) and Old Glen Carbon (maybe) before reaching SIUE. Unfortunately, that option may not work as the route – from SIUE to Fairview Heights to St. Louis – might be at too much of a right angle to be desirable timewise.
The only other current option would be to run the extension north-northwest from one of the East St. Louis station stops…probably JJK Center or Emerson Park. This line would move north through Brooklyn and Venice before turning northeast through Madison, Granite City, Pontoon Beach (again, maybe, if ridership warrants it) and on to SIUE. This is a more direct route but would also serve much smaller communities/towns along the way.
The best option (I think) would be to build the North-South Missouri line and hook up with a Near-North/Hyde Park station stop. Then, the extension could cross the McKinley Bridge into Venice and take a straight-line shot to SIU-Edwardsville with stops in Madison, Granite City, Horseshoe Lake (maybe) and Pontoon Beach. This plan would, sadly, take Collinsville out of play, but allows for a straight, quick route. Also, Collinsville already benefits from the MCT #18 and #18X, which provide quick, easy access to St. Louis.
Also, with the new Mississippi River Bridge making it superfluous, this would be an opportunity to dedicate the McKinley Bridge to alternative transportation: Metrolink on one lane, expanded bike/walking trail with amenities (benches, lookout points, refill stations, restrooms?) on the other.
I like it, the McKinley Bridge should carry trains again (in fact this would run roughly the same route as the interurbans to Illinois back in the 20s)
Next step? Step away from your keyboard and be a part of the solution! As a part of this restoration plan, Metro will conduct community engagement on the proposed changes. A series of meetings are schedule for the following dates:
April 27, 2010, 5:30pm – 7:30pm
Mehlville High School, Library
3200 Lemay Ferry Road
St Louis, MO 63125
Metro Access: 73
April 28, 2010, 3pm – 6pm
Riverview Transit Center
9000 Riverview Boulevard
St. Louis, MO 63147
Metro Access: 16, 27, 36, 40, 41, 61, 90, 240X
May 3, 2010, 4pm – 6pm
301 River Park Drive
Council Chambers
East St. Louis, IL 62203
Metro Access: 1 (IL)
May 4, 2010, 5:30pm – 7:30pm
St. Louis Community College at Florissant Valley, Multi Purpose Room
3400 Pershall Road
St. Louis, MO 63135
Metro Access: 36, 74
May 5, 2010, 3pm – 6pm
Ballas Transit Center
790 S. New Ballas Road
St. Louis, MO 63141
Metro Access: 49, 58, 98, 58X, 258
May 7, 2010, 12pm – 1:30pm
St. Louis City Hall, Kennedy Room
1200 North Tucker Boulevard
St. Louis, MO 63102
Metro Access: 4, 10, 11, 13, 30, 32, 40, 40X, 41, 57, 58X, 59, 73,
74, 94, 97, 99, 174X, 240X, 410X, Civic Center MetroLink
For more information, visit http://www.metrostlouis.org.
I love the MCT (Madison County Transit)! For two years, I took it to work from Edwardsville to downtown St. Louis and back: either the 16X (express) right to my building or a 19-18-Metrolink combo, again, right to my building. Then, when I started working in Alton, the same ease of travel was there (granted I had to walk a whole block to the office for that one — disgusting, right?). And yes, the free Wi-Fi is a BIG plus. I think if all the Metro buses/trains included it and promoted it, more professionals would be inclined to ride rather than drive.
MCT has a really good system in place that covers a wide area and almost perfectly matches up its arrival/departure times for quick and worry-free transfers. The town-to-town lines are synched nicely with local circle routes too. Metro could do worse than to study and talk with Madison County Transit for examples of successful regional transit.
Thanks Steve, for the great post, and to everyone for responding. I have passed the poll and results along to our management in planning, marketing and communications. Many of the comments and thoughts here have been discussed here as well, and its great to see St. Louisans give feedback.
Thanks!
When studied as part of Northside-Southside, the Northside lacked ridership by conventional models. The City is also a smaller contributor to sales tax receipts. But Madison County could still pass their own sales tax. Hence, I kind of like the idea of the Granite-SIUE line starting in Missouri via Old North St. Louis. Otherwise, a branch extension off Clayton to Westport or off North Hanley to North County is the only likely new light rail line to be built in 15 years. By combining Northside with Madison, you may actually have the regional funding to build a City-Madison line within a similar timeframe as a St. Louis County branch extension.
I keep praying for metrolink to come out to my neck of the woods in St. Charles, but no dice. The Yuppies won't vote for it 🙁
better yet move to the city! Much better all around
planning on it! just have to get out of this whole college business… one more month!
“Yuppies” is not what comes to mind when I think of St. Chuck. It stands for Young Urban Professionals, and I don't know any “urban” St. Charles living, with the exception of a couple blocks in old town. Much less any young professionals. Isn't the average age somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 out there 🙂
Go easy on the replies. I'm only having fun.
Isn't New Town St. Charles urban in density, if not location? And isn't it infested with yuppie wannabes? (And I'm only having fun, too.)
New Town…. *shudders* St. Charles is way to pretentious for me. Plus I wanna live somewhere where I don't see a chain fast food place on every street corner. Ditto for car dealers.
A question I have in my mind, What would be the headways for having three seperate trains from downtown to Lambert, Shrewsbury and a line extending to Wesport or Florrisant via exntension off North Hanley.
Love the idea of re-routing the next Illinois extension via downtown over McKinnley bridge. However, I understand that is a no go on the Illinois political front. Dissappointed, because I really think that McKinnley Bridge should have a new focus in the transportation system once the new Mississippi Bridge is opened.
Two-minute headways are possible with proper signalling. The real challenge, however, lies in the existing grade crossings between downtown and Forest Park – if trains are running every two minutes, in both directions, then there will be little opportunity for vehicular traffic to cross the tracks. The obvious “solution” then becomes adding grade separation (bridges) to most or all of the existing crossings (at significant cost).
Another alternative, albeit with similar significant cost implications, would be rebuilding the existing Metrolink stations to accomodate 3- or 4-car consists (trains). The current stations are limited to a maximum of two cars. While inadequate capacity is rarely an issue now, it may very well be in the future. If/when that occurs, the most logical solution is using more cars, either running longer trains at the same schedule frequency or running the same-size trains at higher frequencies.
I would assume that you could build stations on a better cost basis then securing the additional ROW as the infrastructure to have multiple tracks. Two track system is a pretty straight forward operation. So I would think that capacity increase going with longer trains makes sense. We can't forget that the original spine line was built with secondhand track. Their will be some capital expense just to keep the current system in good working order.
This leads to another idea that I think a Lambert extension using 1-70 median to a Maryland Heights Express station and who knows, a possible Missouri River Crossing. That idea is a future express service from Lambert to Downtown via I-70.
Keep dreaming! The reality is that the odds of building a parallel line along I-70 between downtown and Lambert are extremely slim. The politics of who gets the next line(s) pretty much precludes building a redundant one before most other unserved areas get “their” lines first.
The other reality is that the majority of riders on most airport lines are airport workers, not local travellers or out-of-town visitors. So assuming that there is an overwhelming demand for express service is probably incorrect. Riders' destinations are as diverse as the entire region, not just the CBD.
Interesting post. I have made a twitter post about this. Hope others find it as interesting as I did.
Definiety see your point, both on the dreaming part and that their would not be the ridership levels to justify a seperate dedicated airport/downtown link.
Didn't express my thoughts all the way through on the pipe dream. I'm thinking in terms of an eventuall Metrolink extension into St. Charles County. I know, more dreaming. But, you could start seeing ridership numbers for matching federal funds that would justify another line and the possibility of incorporating a dual epxress route and local route (the current line) to downtown. Also, Right of Way issues limited to one government is less complicated and expensive, even if it is MoDOT, as well as having infrastructure such as stations/access and the like that is already comparable to true BRT routes. The ideal transfer point for users would be Lambert in my mind. Otherwise you would have a tough time convincing ridership to an extended trip time with all the multiple stops.
The first step in my mind is getting reasonable express bus service going on Interstate Corridors using new buses. The infrastructure for BRT stations, dedicated lanes, and the likes will come with increase ridership and use.
I do agree on continuing to try and get St. Charles County to join Metro. Much like Illinois, a river, the Missouri, in their case, creates a choke point for commuters trying to get into St. Louis (city or county), which creates congestion, which increases demand for alternatives to the SOV. The two big hurdles I see are taxes and racism, and until we a) give them a reason, like Metrolink, to support paying a transit tax, and b) change the perception that Metro isn't just a conspiracy to import criminals into their suburban coccoon, any thoughts of expanding Metro out Page, 40/64 and/or 70 will remain just a pipe dream.
Whatever New Town residents should be called, the word “yuppie” is not applicable, strictly speaking. The u in this '80's vintage acronym stands for “urban”, after all, and whatever New Town may aspire to be, it isn't that. I find New Town surreal in appearance and quite depressing: abandonment of a genuine, existing urban core for for an ersatz, Stepford-Wife-ish one propped up in a cornfield.
And that's why I called its residents yuppie wannabes . . . they're young, they're professional and they want their urbanity in a sanitized coccoon.
They do have the density and the walkability that would support public transit, and IF they weren't plopped in a cornfield and IF they weren't the exception, but the norm, for suburban development, THEN public transit would be a more attractive and viable alternative. Remember, nearly all of our walkable urban neighborhoods were once new and treeless and on the fringes, too. It takes time for context to happen and a patina to develop. Our autocentric lives will make that a lot harder for the current fringes, but it's not impossible . . .