Final Public Open Houses for MetroLink North & South Routes
Earlier today was the first of three open houses regarding routes for the future expansion of our MetroLink light rail system. That meeting was held at the Fifth Missionary Baptist Church on Natural Bridge. Additional open houses will be held on Wednesday & Thursday. From the notice:
We need your opinion! Come to one of the final public open houses in September on expanding MetroLink in the City of St. Louis. You will be able to review the evaluation results of the different routes being considered and tell us what you think.
The same information will be presented at each meeting.Southside
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
5:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
Meramec Elementary School • Gymnasium
2745 Meramec Street • St. Louis, MO 63118
Presentations at 5:30 & 6:30 p.m.
Downtown
Thursday, September 20, 2007
3:30 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.
Regional Collaboration Center • 12th Floor
One Metropolitan Square • St. Louis, MO 63102
Presentation at 4:00 & 5:00 p.m.
This is the final round of public meetings on the current study. Keep in mind, there is no funding source to actually build anything. For more information see www.northsouthstudy.org
I went, I saw, I was unimpressed. The “locally preferred alternative” (along Natural Bridge and Jefferson) would make a great express bus route, a pretty good streetcar line, but not a very good light rail line, especially in the bigger context of a cohesive regional transit system. There are simply too many stops proposed outside of downtown (often within ½-¾ mile of each other) along both arterials to provide a RAPID trip for potential riders from the county. Combine that with the impacts of existing businesses in both corridors from both 2-3 years of construction (limiting access) and the elimination of on-street parking near the stations (limited right-of-way width to accomodate 2 tracks, 1 platform and 4 traffic lanes), and I see more negatives than positives. Throw in the nearly $1 billion price tag, all within the city, to essentially replace one existing bus route, and you have a nearly-impossible sales job, politically!
I have just the exact opposite perspective, on the proposed line down Jefferson, than does Mr. Zavist.
I also attended the meeting last night at Meremac Elementary. I would like to address his concerns:
1. The number of stops are critical for walkers. If you’re talking about non-urban approach, then having fewer stops and requiring riders to get in their cars just to get to a station is the exact opposite of what South City needs. South City was built upon trolley cars with many stops. If this line were down Jefferson today, the only reason I would need to use my car would be to get to work. Currently I work in Webster, but have worked downtown.
A mass transit system is not for “county folk”. It is for the communities that it serves.
2. Yes, there will be impact to not only commercial, but also residential during the construction phase. However, this is only a construction phase and will not last forever.
The impact to business and the residential areas will only be positive when this line is completed. If you are concerned about the impact, then visit virtually any other city and use their mass transit system.
With mass transit, parking needs are reduced. The Jefferson line plan would include two parking locations; one at Broadway and 55, the other at Bayless.
I truely believe that other than an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening, the ridership will be from neighborhood residents who live along the line. The largest percentage will be walkers to get to the stops.
Just like other metro areas. We are already 20 years behind the 8 ball.
3. It is a pricy option, but the price includes the entire line, not just a piece. If you were to split out this plan into two phases, a price tag of $ 600m wouldn’t be too much.
Finally, I couldn’t have been happier with the plan for Jefferson. I feel this option will best serve city neighborhoods and the residents. The other option “Chouteau” would take the trains down the right of way of Union Pacific. Far and away from commerical and residential ease to access the stations.
THe Chouteau option would be the best if the ONLY reason to build this line was to get county folk to downtown…bypassing some of the greatest neighborhoods in Saint Louis.
Jim, I too attended the meeting last night at the Meremac school and like you I was unimpressed but for a different reason. I just didn’t think they told us much more than what was already said at the meetings nearly a year ago. Other than the fact that they are leaning toward the route down Jeffereson, which is sort of ironic considering that alternative was’nt even thought of until just prior to last years meetings. Being a resident of the Southampton Neighborhood I was dissappointed. If they followed the Union Pacific route, the station at Arsenal & Brannon would have been about one mile from my home. If they go with the Jefferson route, I doubt that I’ll ever have any reason to ride it. Maybe just occasionally, couple times a year at most. But when I think about it, the Jeffereson route is probably the best overall for everybody and would be more successful. In the long run. You said you don’t think it would make a very good light rail line, but rather a pretty good streetcar line. I was under the impression that this is intended to be marketed as more of a streetcar that a light rail line. In which case more stations would be a plus. I light rail line is intended to move large numbers of people longer distances, and our current Metrolink does that. It moves crowds for events and work commuters from the outskirts of the city into the center core. If there were more station stops than we already have it couldn’t do that. At least not with much speed. I don’t think the route on Jefferson is intended to get people from south county into downtown. Think about it. If I live down in Mehlville, or even Arnold or Festus, once I’ve driven a car all they way up to Carondolet Park all be darned if I’m going to shell 2 bucks for a Metro ticket. May as well drive the rest of the way, whcih is only a couple more miles.
Bill, read my first senstence – I agree that the proposal put forward last night would make a good streetcar line, but as proposed, as a light rail line with frequent stops, it looks like overkill. Realistically, there should be two, parallel solutions, one, a new BRT (bus rapid transit) or streetcar line along this alignment, to move city residents more efficiently, and two, a separate light rail line on I-55 or along the river to get commuters from the county and points south into downtown with few stops along the way in south city. You can’t serve both markets at the same time and do a good job for either one . . .
The Gravois line has the advantage of connecting to both north-south and east-west streets, they alternate creating many options and thus helping build a larger, more efficient system. In addition the line would serve large residential and commercial districts.
If you compare the it to the Chouteau line, that line travels parallel to an already existing line and at the Grand and Chouteau intersection is literally a football field away from another East-West stop. In addition north of Chouteau is a waste land of railroad tracks and parking lots so it does not service an active part of the city. It gets a little better as it turns south, but then generally serves only East-West connections.
Jefferson is better than Chouteau, it has a large service area, although that falls off quickly as it heads towards the river and in a sense is similar at that point to the area north of Chouteau. And of course Jefferson will only connect with East-West streets.
Streetcars are far superior to light rail. They cost less, estimates vary, but you may be able to as much as to double the amount of light rail built. (Streetcars should have never been taken out in the first place).
I would forget trying to serve any area of the county except the inner ring of suburbs. The further out you go it is like dropping a needle in a haystack as far as having any impact. Passenger cars on already existing rail lines might make sense, but other than that the focus should be on building a comprehensive, efficient transit system where it can have an immediate and profound impact. Once the city and inner ring of suburbs has developed mass transit as a serious alternative to the automobile, then consideration of far reaching suburbs can take place. Until then rail to distant suburbs is pointless and a waste of money.
As a result the concept light rail and high speed trains should also be abandoned in favor of streetcars. What is needed is efforts to achieve a sustainable, energy efficient environment in the face of global warming, energy shortages and war. Once sustainability is accomplished in the regional center it will be possible to take lessons learned and apply them to far flung suburbs. Some of those lessons will not only be how to best form a comprehensive transit system, but also land use planning and the best use of scarce dollars for infrastructure.
You are right Jim you can’t serve both groups at the same time. However this is a plan for a city line so the potential city users should take priority.
I spoke to some of the study team members and they believe that the funds for this project would most likely come from federal and city tax dollars. The county won’t be paying for it. So why focus on building a line to make county residents’ lives easier?
I have to agree with JZ on this one. It seems like sometimes Metrolink tries to be both suburban commuter rail and intra-urban streetcar and achieves neither. Why should we focus on a line that makes county residents’ lives easier? how about because we’re a region and we depend on county votes to get the entire system built out?
To address Bill’s concerns, again, one of the main points of the metrolink system is to reduce the *duration* of auto trips, especially those into the core – not to eliminate them altogether. Thus park-n-ride (or bus/bike-n-ride) will always be a major constituency of Metrolink and I wouldn’t expect the southside line to be any different. Every once in awhile you may be able to do a walk-ride-walk type trip on metrolink, but it’s main purpose should be to move large numbers of people large distances quickly, not getting hung up on a bunch of local stops, a purpose much better served by a streetcar or BRT line. Additionally, if downtown is going to remain an attractive place for business they need to focus on improving workers’ access to the area, either through faster transit connections or better workforce housing closer to downtown. Faster transit can take the form of improved highways (though we’ve built about all we can in the city and most improvements are coming west of Kinshighway) or improved commuter rail, and this means a fast connection. People don’t want to drive to a park-n-ride stop in the suburbs and then sit through a bunch of local stops – they’ll prefer the single seat private auto trip to a suburban office location and so will their employers.
I attended the 6:30 session Wednesday at the Meramec Elementery as well. The attendance was not great (about 15 folks). The amount of information presented was interesting.
The presentation was very casual and when Ken, from the study group, spoke he was hardly audible from the second row. Like the others I found the results of the study to be unimpressive. It was unimpressive for two main reasons – the violation of the KISS principal and the conflict to the current purpose of the Metro.
There seemed to be a few violations of the KISS principal. For example, as stated the proposed routes are designed as low platform. These cars are different than the current Metro system. It sounded that the cars are the same gage but they dodged the question of whether a new maintenance station would be required. They did acknowledge my question that there are different spare parts between the two types. The low platform cars do look better at street level but is it worth the maintaining two different light rail systems. Also, the new proposed loop in downtown will be above ground. This seems to create a physical disconnect with the existing system. Wouldn’t it be rather awkward to transfer between the two systems?
Second there seems a basic difference of opinion of the purpose of the Metro as has been pointed out. The Metro as a connection to the outside to the focus areas (e.g. hub and spoke configuration) verses an inner city transit system (street car). To my understanding the Metro has been used as a means to connect the outside to focal areas using the bus system as a feeder. Also, this is reflected in the use of the park-n-ride stations for folks in the perimeter to access these focal area(s). As a result, the proposed routes should enter to at least to the edge of the county. This study seemed to be naturally biased to interests of an inner city transit view since the feedback is from city residences and not county commuter residents. And South and North county residents should have been included in the study. County voters may be more interested in funding new extensions if they can locally access and provide input into the process.
Another tidbit that I picked up was that Union Pacific is taking a hard line regarding their use of their right of way. They are requiring a 50 foot clearance between their track and the Metro. So there would be UP track relocated, additional property purchased, and new bridges constructed to fulfill the requirement as an additional unpublished cost to the project. Let me know if I am misunderstanding something…
A few observations. One, Denver’s in the process of building ±80 miles of new light rail. One condition they’ve imposed is that stations outside of high-density employment areas need to be at least 2 miles apart. Now that both riders and developers there “get it”, everyone wants a station at their front door. The reality is if you do put a station every ½ mile, you triple the travel time and kill much of the incentive of using rail in the first place. On Jefferson, that would put stations at Carondolet Park, Chippewa/Broadway, Gravois and the existing Civic Center station IF light rail was chosen and “done right”. Everywhere else would just see the trains gliding by . . .
Two, you’re right, transit is difficult in the ‘burbs. The one area that does work well is the concept of virtual density – park-and-rides. When you have suburbanites working downtown (St. Louis or Clayton) or at the BJC complex, you have density on one end of the trip. If you provide safe, attractive parking at the other end and provide frequent, attractive and quick service in between, you can and do attract new riders. Light rail does this. Streetcars would do this. Even dedicated express bus service could do this (using over-the-road coaches like Greyhound and Vandalia do).
Three, as much as we’d like to dismiss the needs of suburban residents, meeting their needs is critical to funding any transit in the region. To put it bluntly, we need their tax dollars, and we need to provide (the illusion of) a certain level of service to justify their “contribution”. St. Louis simply doesn’t have an extra $25 – $50 million lying around to fund their share of a new streetcar or light rail line, nor could we continue to run the existing Metro system inside the city if the county cuts back on what they allocate now!
Four, the two big things public transit offers to an individual commuter is lower costs and a quicker trip with fewer hassles. I live in SW city and I used to work in Olivette. I’m a supporter of public transit. In two years, I took Metro to work maybe once or twice. Why? Simple – it was over an hour by transit versus 20-30 minutes by car. Now that I’m working in Clayton, Metrolink is an attractive option, but I’m still going to drive the mile to the Shrewsbury station. Yes it costs me more, but I’m not willing to deal with an hourly bus schedule (nearest stop, a block from the house). If I worked downtown and had to pay for parking (don’t have to now), then transit becomes even more attractive. What’s being proposed here will work well for a relatively small number of people, for a relatively large investment, so it doesn’t pass the smell test, IMHO . . .
I didn’t make it to this round, but it sounds like the plans haven’t changed much.
I do think on-street operation would slow things down. As much as I love the idea of having two stops within walking distance of home (Jefferson/Cherokee and Jefferson/Arsenal), I’m also concerned about operational speed. While the current system is not perfect, it does operate in dedicated rights-of-way which makes it reasonably fast.
As far as the awkwardness in transferring — I think that’s inevitable. Look at downtown Chicago! To get from the Red Line (State Street Subway) or Blue Line (Dearborn Street Subway) to any of the El transfer points, you have to walk upstairs, a half-block or more on the street, then up some more stairs to the El platform.
Granted, we’re building new so we should be able to do better. But I think Civic Center will be the best opportunity for transfers. I hate to say it, but wouldn’t the line be much faster if it just went straight down 14th or Tucker, without the loop or couplet into the downtown core? That would probably be a big negative for ridership, however. Although maybe not — if you took out the medians on Tucker and put in trains, that wouldn’t be such a bad walk into most of DT, right? Washington & Tucker is only three blocks from the Convention Center, really. And that would probably increase business for shops located between Tucker and the major employers.
B – you heard right on the right of way. Ever since a suicidal guy parked his SUV on some UP tracks in California and derailed a ccommuter train, UP has been very reluctant to share their tracks with public transit (too many lawyers, too many potential lawsuits).
One last Denver observation – one reason light rail is succeeding with suburban riders there is the free mall shuttle bus (http://www.rtd-denver.com/Projects/Fact_Sheets/MallRide_Facts.pdf). Much like downtown St. Louis, there are only 3-4 light rail stops in downtown Denver. The free shuttle bus, running every 70 seconds at peak times, makes it possible for commuters to easily complete the last 3-4-5 blocks of their trips without worrying about missed transfers. If Metro really wanted to encourage more subburban ridership, they’d be working on similar soultions for both downtown St. Louis and downtown Clayton.
Unfortunately, the meeting i attended yesterday was slow starting and i had to leave before asking my question. Maybe somebody here already knows the answer: Will the Jefferson and Natural Bridge alignments be adaptable for express service when/if they are extended into North and South County?
No – to that would require adding passing tracks at the stations, which would require 2-3 more traffic lanes, to say nothing of further increassing the projected budget . . .
Upon furher consideration, a little clarification . . . another alternative would be to simply close some little-used stations in the city if and when the line is ever extended into the county. That’s not a very poltically-popular option – it’s much like changing bus routes (which always impacts someone) with the added baggage of abandoning the investment in the station infrastructure.
The other option is providing passing tracks away from the stations, but that would involve careful coordination of schedules and likely would significantly slow the local trips, since they’d likely be the ones waiting between stations for the express trains to pass . . .
It seems to me that what is lacking is a coherent strategy. What is the real goal here? To bring people from the outer suburbs into the core? Is it to encourage transit use? Is it to eliminate the need for a car? Is it to relieve congestion on the highways? Each demands different solutions.
I’m not sure there is a strategy. There are only random proposals that may or may not fit into the needs of St. Louis. It seems to me, as I mentioned above, if you cannot even make the central core, (the city and inner ring of suburbs), transit efficient then it is vain to think that you can run random rail lines out to the suburbs and create a successful transit system.
For instance if there was a high speed train from Chesterfield to downtown, and the person arriving downtown can’t get around, they will more than likely prefer their auto for their trip.
There has been much talk here of the number of stops, quickness of the routes etc and I think that is the point. If the core can be developed to become quick and efficient then it will set the tone for the whole region.
Meanwhile express buses on dedicated lanes or other experiments will suffice to bring the far suburban reaches into the center quickly and allow people to get around once they arrive. Later, after further review expensive rail extensions to the deep suburbs could occur if needed.
It seems to me the debate should be the strategies of transit development, not necessarily the status of individual lines. (Do these lines exist in a vacuum?) In any case running individual lines further out to the suburbs will only solve a minute problem in that particular area. It does not appear there is a coherent goal or strategy other than to build new lines.
Nor should the subject of streetcars be avoided as now is the case. The machinations that are gone through to feed light rail onto old rail lines puts the transit system into the position of not serving the needs of the community. One has to only read Steve’s previous commentary in the West End Word about this subject to understand the many failings of this method of designing the transit system
http://www.westendword.com/moxie/opinion/one-year-on-cross-county.shtml
The process offered by East West Gateway does not address real transit solutions. Leadership once again is lacking, imagination is lacking, the ability to build cities is lacking and there is no understanding of the problems America faces in the future.
The study’s funding directed much of its outcome. The scope of the study was specifically limited to inside the St. Louis city limits, even though an underlying (and valid) assumption was that any line would a) likely extend into the county and b) be a part of Metrolink’s “master(?) plan”.
GM’s right – we can’t look at addressing the city’s transit needs in a vacuum. Many suburbanites work in the city and many city residents work outside the city limits. The city can’t afford to fund alone the transit we have now (much less any new construction) without the participation of the surrounding counties.
Which all point out the flawed assumptions underlying this study (light rail, but just inside the city). To both create a cohesive system and to convince suburban voters of the wisdom of expanding our present rail transit options, it’s critical that we look at a comprehensive, regional system, where as many voters as possible will be getting something they can support with their taxes.
This study will be lucky to make it past the next step, approval by the Gateway Council of Governments. One, it’s a city-only project, with little or nothing for any adjacent county or municipality. Two, it offers nothing in the way of other projects to those who live outside the city. Three, it’s relatively expensive for what it delivers. And four, the technology choice is hard to justify – a streetcar would offer less disruption, cost less, likely with more stops AND more-frequent service, yet it was excluded because it won’t work well if or when the line is ever extended.
Metro needs to ask for a tax increase next year to fund its current budget (NO new construction). I expect they will have a very difficult time outside the city in justifying an increase. If our/their leaders were smart, they would be looking at new rail lines out to Chesterfield, down I-55 into South County, out to Westport and out to the Earth City area. They would be looking at demand-responsive (call-and ride) services in suburban areas to replace existing fixerd-route bus services. They would be looking at implementing Bus Rapid Transit (on the LA Rapid or Kansas City model) within the city, connecting existing light rail stations and suburban park-and-rides. They would be looking at creating circulator bus or streetcar lines in downtown St. Louis and in downtown Clayton. And they would do away with the concept of charging for transfers and charging different fares for bus and rail services.
Transit works best when it’s viewed as a SYSTEM, NOT as a series of discrete routes and lines. Metro has made a good start at timed transfer points (like at Hampton & Gravois). Now they have to rationalize their bus routes and create a web of interlocking options ( a matrix). A smaller and smaller percentage of the region’s population will work in downtown St. Louis in future years, while the overall region will continue to grow. While Metro needs to continue to serve the core downtown market, they also need to serve the growing market of suburb-to-suburb trips. They also need to position themselves to serve suburban cities that are reinventing themselves with higher densities.
Another Denver observation – their RTD tried to have a sales tax increase approved in three elections over 15 years before one was finally approved in 2004. Besides growth and increasing congestion, the biggest reason it passed in 2004 was was that there were 8 rail transit lines defined and proposed, not just one or two. With a much-larger built-in constituency, it’s easier to justify a tax increase. Here, Metro cut out the special bus service from the suburbs into home Rams games. These were voters who rode a Metro bus maybe a dozen times a year, yet they pay sales taxes every day. Do the math – are they more likely or less likely to vote for a tax increase now than they were 3 years ago?!
Bottom line, this study will likely remain just that, a study on a shelf gathering dust. A consultant worked hard and was paid, hopefully well, for a study fitting a limited (and a bit warped) set of criteria. A grant (otherwise known as your and our taxes) was spent inside the city, to further the agenda of our elected officials. And we citizens had another chance to express our opinions in a public forum and to interact with our legislators’ surrogates, a.k.a., the consultants (it’s surprising that no one has mentioned seeing any elected officials in attendance . . . hmmm, could that give us a clue about this projects real place in the city’s list of priorities?! If I sound a more than a bit cynical, I am . . .
I am surprised that the stations do not offset every once in a while so there is track continuation past the station. It would be great to have an express train that took those people along the same metro lines to other nodes more quickly. While one train was at the station the other could zip by. I guess this would take too much coordination and forethought though. I remember riding trains in italy and they had the local trains that hit every stop, and express trains that only hit the major cities. Why couldnt you do that with regional mass transit? They do it with the bus routes now, but it would get more people using the same lines and stations and avoid traffic that the busses have to sit through.
I think the biggest travesty of this situation is the absolute lack of leadership. Even putting aside the problems with the lack of strategy and the poor planning (and believe me, I think there is PLENTY of that), but the fact that ONLY 15 PEOPLE showed up for the southside meeting is unbelievable to me. And I put that on the city officials. For a city on the rise, a larger and more efficient network of public transportation could be vital to continue real progress. It could be the thing, if done well, that really catapults us to that next level… and 15 people show up for a meeting to give their input and show their support!?!? That just floors me. If I were a city official, not only would I be out at every meeting to champion the effort, I would be organizing a huge campaign to get people involved and make the solution as relevant and useful for people as possible. Shouldn’t that be the point?!?! If we create (and pay for handsomely with our tax dollars) a system that doesn’t work for people, what are we accomplishing? Even if, due to budget constraints, it had to be executed in a more underground grassroots fashion, I would make sure that as many people as possible were made aware. At the very least, I’d issue a simple letter to neighbors urging them to attend the meetings… I didn’t hear about this meeting at all until 2 days before it happened! My alderman brought ONE FLYER to pass around at the neighborhood meeting and spent about 30 seconds saying that it could be a good thing for our area and that we ought to come out and show our support. With 2 days notice, I couldn’t rearrange my schedule and make it happen, so I wasn’t able to attend. It’s unfortunate. Until there’s some change in leadership (whether that means changing leaders or somehow convincing our leaders to change their approach), the public will continue to be held out of the process, and we risk the gains that we’ve made to this point.
The study website has now been updated with a summary of display boards and key figures from the Open Houses:
http://www.northsouthstudy.org
http://governing.typepad.com/13thfloor/2007/09/a-streetcar-nam.html#more
The MetroLink Extension proves that public input is not really wanted and can be easily ignored. Therefore our “public” transportation system is too costly, deficient in design, and only serves a small fraction of the public. Leadership has proven once again that they cannot be trusted….absolutely shameful.