tom, i've been to your office before, i'm related a former employee of yours, and i know you have some maps made out of future lines that you would like to see. i don't know if you guys made those in house or not, but is there a possibility to work with metro on this? or can you guys publish a plan that you know they would want on their behalf? or is that stepping on their toes?
- 37
This may be off topic, and i know MetroLink has its fair share of financial problems- many of which i are perceived as "wasteful spending etc."- but the 'encouragement' to reject a 1/2 cent tax increase is simply unjustifiable in this day and age. I am 24 years old, a graduate of Washu, and an urban planning master's student at SLU. Of my 6 college roomates, it was only I that stayed in St. Louis and all of my friends moved to what they called 'real cities.' I was talking to a few of them over this past week and they mentioned a large part of not staying here was lack of good transit and how it was impossible to get around without a car. While that is not totally true, and personally i think we should be proud to have an excellent MetrolLink System that is clean, reliable and increasingly popular in all demographics (I am a daily rider), my friend's sentiments stated something that really worries me. How can we compete with other cities when smart, young, creative talent are leaving in droves to cities such as Denver, Portland, San Francisco, Chicago, DC and New York? Obviously, correlation does not equal causation, but notice how all of the above are strenuously working to provide/ or already have significant monies for superior methods of public transit. For young adults tired of sububia, living in a city obviously has its benefits financially and from an employment perspective. Of those 6 roomates, only one owns a car and the rest walk to work, or take their respected mode of public transit. If St. Louis wants to grow in any way, this tax increase needs to pass in order to make it affordable and exciting for young people to live here. Perhaps by providing an expansive system of transit routes, St. Louis will be able to attract more businesses and thus, retain some of our excellent young graduates from Webster, SLU and Washu growing our urban fabric, adding density, and diversifying our archaic 'show me' / lack of civic pride mentality.
We need to support this increase as it is tantamount for the next generation of St. Louisans, and not for the ongoing status quo of the way things have been.
We need to support this increase as it is tantamount for the next generation of St. Louisans, and not for the ongoing status quo of the way things have been.
If gas stays high, I think this will pass. The lawsuit is almost a year in the past and people have short memories. Metro ridership is up, I really think this has a good chance.
I still chuckle when I remember people from St. Chuck saying that if Metrolink came out there "they" would come out and steal their TV's. I always pictured two guys carrying a TV out of a house onto a metrolink train. Of course their absurdity and borderline racism has kind of fittingly bit them in the a$$ on this one.
How many F-150 or Suburban owning O'Fallon residents that work in the city or county are loving not having public transit now that it costs $100 to fill their gas tank.
The Westport line that is favored would be a logical stepping stone to St. Charles via the Page Extension if they ever did wake up out there and decide public transit was a good thing. I personally would like to see a line go to South County and I still think it was serious folly to not figure out a way to run tracks west to I-270 during the Hwy. 40 rebuild.
I still chuckle when I remember people from St. Chuck saying that if Metrolink came out there "they" would come out and steal their TV's. I always pictured two guys carrying a TV out of a house onto a metrolink train. Of course their absurdity and borderline racism has kind of fittingly bit them in the a$$ on this one.
How many F-150 or Suburban owning O'Fallon residents that work in the city or county are loving not having public transit now that it costs $100 to fill their gas tank.
The Westport line that is favored would be a logical stepping stone to St. Charles via the Page Extension if they ever did wake up out there and decide public transit was a good thing. I personally would like to see a line go to South County and I still think it was serious folly to not figure out a way to run tracks west to I-270 during the Hwy. 40 rebuild.
tbspqr wrote:^is that becuase 99% of people on here are dudes?
Probably.
- 1,610
FYI, some in Denver are even already thinking beyond their fairly aggressive regional rail plan for more localized rail transit within the urban core.
But I agree the voting public needs to see what their tax levy will buy in terms of a map. If Metro feels uncomfortable making a map, maybe CMT, as more of an advocacy organization, could at least update theirs for public distribution.
But I agree the voting public needs to see what their tax levy will buy in terms of a map. If Metro feels uncomfortable making a map, maybe CMT, as more of an advocacy organization, could at least update theirs for public distribution.
FYI, some in Denver are even already thinking beyond their fairly aggressive regional rail plan for more localized rail transit within the urban core.
But I agree the voting public needs to see what their tax levy will buy in terms of a map. If Metro feels uncomfortable making a map, maybe CMT, as more of an advocacy organization, could at least update theirs for public distribution.
But I agree the voting public needs to see what their tax levy will buy in terms of a map. If Metro feels uncomfortable making a map, maybe CMT, as more of an advocacy organization, could at least update theirs for public distribution.
When Denver is done building this system in the next decade, St. Louis will have the same system because neither the people or the leaders see the benefits of public transportation. If St. Louis doesn't get on board for a comprehensive transportation plan soon, we will be left in the dust again. I want to see local politicians in Jeff City making some demands about funding and expansion of public transportation in St. Louis and Kansas City.
I would like to add that St. Louis is not really behind many other comparable cities when it comes to transportation (our metrolink is nothing to be ashamed of), but I would like more citizens and leaders to recognize the economic and social benefits of having a comprehensive transportation system. I feel like St. Louis needs to get on it sooner than later, because when the federal government starts giving out federal funding again...ya know we will get screwed for the Sunbelt cities.
Guys,
The county has proposed a 1/2 cent sales tax. It is the County's referendum and they call all the shots. Metro is and will continue to share information about what will happen if it passed and what will happen if it doesn't. (If it doesn't pass, we all need to find a new hobby other than this forum.)
If it passes it would trigger the 1/4th cent tax that passed in the City in 1997. The wording of the referendum is something like 1/4th cent to support Metro's existing operation. So about $51 million would to to support current and future operations.
The other 1/4th cent (Which will be a county only tax) would generate roughly $42 million. This money is identified to expand the transit system including light rail.
The County will call the shots because they bring the money and the County exec has identified the Westport extension as the #1 alignment. (About 6 miles in length.) The original planning work was done in 2000 so must be updated. This effort would support a full funding request and would take up to two years to complete. May 18 months if everything works perfect, which it won't.
There are no up to date costs and there won't be up-to-date costs until the preliminary engineering is done. The consultant helping us refine the costs and developing a financial plan indicates that the very most optimistic timeline would not have the train operating for 8 years. It would more probably take 10 years.
To do two alignments totally depends upon the cost estimates and obtaining federal funds. Getting federal funds is no slam dunk.
Also the referendum is likely to have a 20 year sunset, so you can't bond much more than 12 years...not 20 or 30 years. This pretty much will take all the money.
Also remember that we will not have paid off the Cross County bonds for 28+ years. That means you can't use that money. Also how do you pay for the operation of the system with this new alignment if all the money is going to pay for the capital cost? We believe that a financial plan, to be solid, will require reducing the Cross County debt.
Metro believes that any approach to building more than a single alignment would also require paying off the Cross County debt.
In all reality building out an entire system will require much more revenue than this particular tax will provide. It will take major involvement from the State of Missouri and perhaps more aggressive use of Flex highway funds to build rail.
When the County cut the 1/2 cent sales tax split with Metro to 50-50 between transit and highways, they took a major step away from as solid financial plan for a system to build more rail alignments.
The City has no significant money. Even if the City passed an additional 1/4 the cent sales tax, what would it generate ....$9.5 million at most? The North South alignment is listed at $1.2 billion. Even if you got 50 % federal funds, you would have a $600 million debt to amortize. You would need at least $40 million or more to pay off that debt. Who is going to pay for that? Certainly not St.Louis County under the current leadership and Council.
The future of multiple alignments will require that we pass the County referendum to prevent a financial meltdown in 2009. It will require eliminating the debt on Cross County as soon as possible and then getting the State to begin to invest in Major Transit capital projects instead of simply highways.
This will only happen if we develop a cohesive strategy for expansion that benefits both the County and the City and get State to help out.
If we can't do that, we will build one alignment and just have to wait on anything more.
The county has proposed a 1/2 cent sales tax. It is the County's referendum and they call all the shots. Metro is and will continue to share information about what will happen if it passed and what will happen if it doesn't. (If it doesn't pass, we all need to find a new hobby other than this forum.)
If it passes it would trigger the 1/4th cent tax that passed in the City in 1997. The wording of the referendum is something like 1/4th cent to support Metro's existing operation. So about $51 million would to to support current and future operations.
The other 1/4th cent (Which will be a county only tax) would generate roughly $42 million. This money is identified to expand the transit system including light rail.
The County will call the shots because they bring the money and the County exec has identified the Westport extension as the #1 alignment. (About 6 miles in length.) The original planning work was done in 2000 so must be updated. This effort would support a full funding request and would take up to two years to complete. May 18 months if everything works perfect, which it won't.
There are no up to date costs and there won't be up-to-date costs until the preliminary engineering is done. The consultant helping us refine the costs and developing a financial plan indicates that the very most optimistic timeline would not have the train operating for 8 years. It would more probably take 10 years.
To do two alignments totally depends upon the cost estimates and obtaining federal funds. Getting federal funds is no slam dunk.
Also the referendum is likely to have a 20 year sunset, so you can't bond much more than 12 years...not 20 or 30 years. This pretty much will take all the money.
Also remember that we will not have paid off the Cross County bonds for 28+ years. That means you can't use that money. Also how do you pay for the operation of the system with this new alignment if all the money is going to pay for the capital cost? We believe that a financial plan, to be solid, will require reducing the Cross County debt.
Metro believes that any approach to building more than a single alignment would also require paying off the Cross County debt.
In all reality building out an entire system will require much more revenue than this particular tax will provide. It will take major involvement from the State of Missouri and perhaps more aggressive use of Flex highway funds to build rail.
When the County cut the 1/2 cent sales tax split with Metro to 50-50 between transit and highways, they took a major step away from as solid financial plan for a system to build more rail alignments.
The City has no significant money. Even if the City passed an additional 1/4 the cent sales tax, what would it generate ....$9.5 million at most? The North South alignment is listed at $1.2 billion. Even if you got 50 % federal funds, you would have a $600 million debt to amortize. You would need at least $40 million or more to pay off that debt. Who is going to pay for that? Certainly not St.Louis County under the current leadership and Council.
The future of multiple alignments will require that we pass the County referendum to prevent a financial meltdown in 2009. It will require eliminating the debt on Cross County as soon as possible and then getting the State to begin to invest in Major Transit capital projects instead of simply highways.
This will only happen if we develop a cohesive strategy for expansion that benefits both the County and the City and get State to help out.
If we can't do that, we will build one alignment and just have to wait on anything more.
- 44
CMT has a vision of a regional system. We did some work today on how that might happen financially. There are a couple of scenarios that might work to build West Port, Northside/Southside and Metro South if the tax passes in November. More work needs to be done and by the way, this is not a part of the campaign in November. However, that HAS to pass to make any of this possible. Unfortunately not much groundwork has been done with the campaign about maps, benefits, etc.
When thinking about the failure of local leadership, I think it is helpful by looking at the East West Gateway Metrolink web page.
Back in 1991, St. Louis did lay out which corridors were priorities and thus far both MO and IL expansions have hit the Tier I corridors and even the proposed Westport route would include another Tier I corridor. This is good news.
The problem is that while the region has outlined where and in what order it wants to expand metrolink in general terms, leaders have not followed through on this outline by progressing possible alignments based on these priorities. Look no further than this web page listing the [url=ttp://www.ewgateway.org/metrolink/StatusTable/StatusTable.htm]Current Status of Planning and Implementation Activities of MetroLink Corridors.[/url]
As the page clearly shows, the unbuilt lines furthest along in the planning process are the Northside-Southside and the Metro South routes. Why are funds being spent on what appear to be Tier II corridors like the Northside-Southside when a key piece of the region's plan for funding Metrolink is the promise of the Westport expansion, which appears to be in a Tier I corridor?
This fail to perform the requisite planning to show the public what would be built where from a tax is not the fault of Metro or East West Gateway. The lack of local leadership on this matter is damning and will ultimately see the system fail. There is no long term vision for how to build out a transit system and this is why in August 2008 County residents have no clue what they will gain from passing the November 2008 tax other than vague promises of metrolink expansion in the County and not seeing the current system slashed and burned. Sounds to me like a recipe for failure.
Back in 1991, St. Louis did lay out which corridors were priorities and thus far both MO and IL expansions have hit the Tier I corridors and even the proposed Westport route would include another Tier I corridor. This is good news.
The problem is that while the region has outlined where and in what order it wants to expand metrolink in general terms, leaders have not followed through on this outline by progressing possible alignments based on these priorities. Look no further than this web page listing the [url=ttp://www.ewgateway.org/metrolink/StatusTable/StatusTable.htm]Current Status of Planning and Implementation Activities of MetroLink Corridors.[/url]
As the page clearly shows, the unbuilt lines furthest along in the planning process are the Northside-Southside and the Metro South routes. Why are funds being spent on what appear to be Tier II corridors like the Northside-Southside when a key piece of the region's plan for funding Metrolink is the promise of the Westport expansion, which appears to be in a Tier I corridor?
This fail to perform the requisite planning to show the public what would be built where from a tax is not the fault of Metro or East West Gateway. The lack of local leadership on this matter is damning and will ultimately see the system fail. There is no long term vision for how to build out a transit system and this is why in August 2008 County residents have no clue what they will gain from passing the November 2008 tax other than vague promises of metrolink expansion in the County and not seeing the current system slashed and burned. Sounds to me like a recipe for failure.
A super duper top secret source has informed me that Charlie Dooley was not in attendance at the Metro thing today at WashU. I don't know what his reason for not coming was, but I can't think of a very good reason not to be there.
- 2,005
^I know. His mother is ill and is in the hospital. Hopefully she gets better.
Good to hear that there is a real reason. I was hoping he wasn't just skipping it. Hopefully she gets better soon.
on the bright side, I did hear that the leaders in attendance were supportive of a tax increase and expansion.
on the bright side, I did hear that the leaders in attendance were supportive of a tax increase and expansion.
- 1,054
I still voice the concern that the tax is not enough and agree with major state support, federal support, and creative local financing contributions like who owns the former railroad rights-of-way or tax breaks for landowners donating land for the stations, park 'n ride lots, and TOD sites.
According to early alignment plans it looks like the Daniel Boone/Westport expansion would have stations at Delmar, Dielman, Lindbergh, and Westport/I-270, and connect at the Clayton station. These stations are based on studies from '04,'05 and earlier. I would think a Maryland or Olive station would make sense, particularly considering Brown Shoe's ambitious expansion plans. And why Dielman and not Olive? That Dielman office/industrial park is pretty desolate/pointless, and seems like another Sunnen. Anyways, if anyone knows anything about these station locations I'd love to hear it.
- 8,924
PLEASE ATTEND!
sorry for yellling...
click the link to see dates and times
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... ily10.html
sorry for yellling...
Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - 12:19 PM CDT
Metro schedules 15 public hearings on expansion plansSt. Louis Business Journal
Print Email Reprints RSS Feeds Add to Del.icio.us Digg This CommentsResidents wanting to sound off on Metro’s plans for possible service reductions and expansion plans can attend 15 public hearings scheduled for this month, starting Wednesday.
A proposed half-cent transit sales tax hike would raise about $80 million a year for Metro operations and the expansion of MetroLink light-rail trains.
click the link to see dates and times
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... ily10.html
Wabash wrote:According to early alignment plans it looks like the Daniel Boone/Westport expansion would have stations at Delmar, Dielman, Lindbergh, and Westport/I-270, and connect at the Clayton station. These stations are based on studies from '04,'05 and earlier. I would think a Maryland or Olive station would make sense, particularly considering Brown Shoe's ambitious expansion plans. And why Dielman and not Olive? That Dielman office/industrial park is pretty desolate/pointless, and seems like another Sunnen. Anyways, if anyone knows anything about these station locations I'd love to hear it.
Where along Olive are you thinking about? I work near Olive and Dielman and I'm guessing that Dielman has a lot more room for them to build a rail station and parking structure of any significant size. I think there is a rail line that cuts through there already. Not sure if it is compatible with a Metro train though.
About an 1/8th of a mile west of 170 the old rail alignment crosses Olive Blvd. right behind (just east of) the garden center. This would be the northern most 170 station (although North Hanley is close) and Olive has high car traffic and bus ridership. Therefore an Olive/170 station might be a more useful spot than an out of the way, traffic-free, busless Dielman Business Park stop.
Even thought the entire Daniel Boone alignment would be pedestrian unfriendly, I hope they do the best with what they have concerning density/transit synergy.
Even thought the entire Daniel Boone alignment would be pedestrian unfriendly, I hope they do the best with what they have concerning density/transit synergy.
it's ironic that oil prices are driving up ridership on bus and metro while at the same time cauising budget problems that may lead to a slashing of services. just can't win it seems.
ST. CLAIR JOURNAL
Despite gas prices and support, local light rail plan hits roadblock
Void of fed funds clouds MetroLink expansions
By Chris Coates
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 9:11 AM CDT
CHRIS COATES PHOTO Cars crowd the parking lot at the Metro station in Swansea on Wednesday morning.
Todd Plesko doesn't have to look very far to gauge the need for a light rail system in Madison County. As planning chief for the region's transit provider Metro, Plesko is flooded with dozens of messages every month from local commuters demanding that the agency expand into the county.
"All the time," he said. "Two to three e-mails this week."
The questions are piling up as Metro celebrates the 15th anniversary since its first MetroLink train rumbled from East St. Louis 17 miles to north St. Louis County.The construction was considered a major civic success, in part because it was built as an evolving project, with new routes coming online as the need rose. Today, the system stretches 46 miles, from Shrewsbury, Mo., and Lambert-St. Louis International Airport east to Scott Air Force Base.
However, missing from the service area are two large swaths of the region, both quickly growing and poised to need more transit options: St. Charles County and Madison County.
The void is neither because of accident or lack of need.
In fact, interest in adding more routes and service on Metro has amplified in recent months with the surge in gas prices and construction on Highway 40 in St. Louis.
"There's a core group that's interested," said Thomas R. Shrout Jr., the executive director of Citizens for Modern Transit, a nonprofit advocacy group that's lobbying for more public transportation options in the St. Louis region.
Plesko said Metro, which is already hampered by a massive budget shortfall, acknowledges the need and has helped compile studies about expanding, including an extensive report in 2005 with East-West Gateway Council of Governments that outlines possible routes.
Preliminary plans are in place. But major stumbling blocks remain, most notably a near-complete void of funding - even for a more advanced look at possible routes, not to mention for construction.
"To move forward, we would need a couple of million dollars for a detailed study," said Jerry Blair, who leads transportation planning for East-West Gateway. "And we don't have the revenue."
County officials said they are working on the issue but are hemmed in by a lack of available cash in Washington, D.C., and Springfield, despite a huge need locally for light rail.
"There's still a lot of interest," said Madison County Administration Director Joseph D. Parente. "But it's not possible right now without the financial resources. It hasn't been determined feasible."
The frustrating conditions here mirror numerous U.S. cities angling for light rail but meeting little support.
"It's a national issue that's coming up all over the country," said Shrout. "People thought they could rely on automobiles."
A hopeful past
The funding question is especially confounding because Madison County was originally identified for possible routes for MetroLink long before the system's first tie was laid.
The St. Louis Systems Analysis for Major Transit Capital Investments, penned as a master plan for the proposed system in 1991, identified nine potential light rail corridors across the region, two in Madison County.
But then Metro prioritized the region for new routes, with St. Charles and St. Clair counties at the top; west, north and south St. Louis counties in the middle; and Madison County at the very bottom.
That pyramid is why the initial leg of MetroLink, built starting in 1990, focused so much on St. Clair County, running from North Fifth Street and Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, over the Mississippi River, to Lambert.
The connector cost $464 million, 75 percent of which came from the Federal Transit Administration.
Since then, the line has expanded twice further east, both times funded largely by federal and state monies.
The federal government picked up 72 percent of costs for the 2001 expansion from East St. Louis to Southwestern Illinois College in Belleville, with a half-cent sales tax approved by voters providing the rest. In 2003, a 5.3-mile extension to Scott Air Force Base that cost $75 million was paid for through a $60 million state grant and additional funding from the St. Clair County Transit District.
Metro has also added routes further southwest, most recently to Shrewsbury in August 2006. The system serves about 68,000 riders each weekday.
Meantime, efforts to expand north into Madison County stalled.
In 1997, voters rejected a similar sales tax to fund a local line. (A similar proposal in St. Charles County has also failed to gain traction.)
For years, the proposal languished until renewed interest in mass transit forced East-West Gateway to launch a new light rail feasibility study for Madison County.
What resulted was a 56-page outline that for the first time seriously looked at options for new routes.
Suggestions ranged from a four-mile, $165 million expansion from East St. Louis to Madison to a 23-mile, $650 million route to Edwardsville.
Plesko, the Metro planner, said the small study was intended as a jumping-off point for further talks.
"It looked at different possible alignments that could be done," he said.
The results, released in October 2005, were heralded as a step in the right direction by transit supporters and county officials.
But then funding dried up, and plans for a second study to look more closely at precise alignments were put off. The study would have cost about $2 million.
"Nothing has occurred since that time," said Parente, the county official.
Shrout, the transit supporter, said the project has been effectively dead as state, federal and county dollars shrink. If agencies are struggling with a few million, he said, what about the hundreds of millions needed to fund a major line?
"If they're interested, they have to come up with the bucks," he said.
Funding woes
And that money, at least historically for big transit projects, comes from familiar coffers: the federal government, which supplied the bulk of funding for previous MetroLink expansions.
Plesko said many blame Metro for not wanting to build in Madison County, when in reality it's the lack of federal support preventing it.
"People assume Metro decides this and Metro just isn't doing this, or haven't, or we're not fully doing our job," he said on Friday, between public hearings about a proposed half-cent sales tax in St. Louis County that would raise funds for operations and system expansions.
Metro and county officials are also quick to point to East-West, the agency charged with administering how federal dollars are spent locally. Jerry J. Kane, the managing director of Madison County Transit, which runs the county's extensive bus system, said East-West makes the call.
"It's up to East-West Gateway to make the regional determination as to which would be the next alignment would be considered for federal funding. It's not up to MCT to make that decision; we try to lobby East-West, but it's up to them," he said.
Blair said East-West would take the steps if the funding was in place, which it's not. State funding is also rare and there's little movement to place a transit funding tax on the ballot, despite the interest from commuters, he said.
"It's quite a bit of money. People in Madison County are talking about it, but there's no money," he said.
Plesko said the Bush administration has severely sliced funding for light rail projects in recent years, forcing cities hungry to expand systems to lobby heavily or chalk up the cash themselves.
"If you want federal funds, then you must compete for them. The current administration makes it really hard to get light rail," Plesko said.
Systems that do get funding are almost all urban, with closer stops and existing infrastructure, which allows the money to go further and make a larger impact.
A Madison County system, on the other hand, would probably have long distances and entirely new train lines in rural and semi-rural routes.
That presents major planning, construction and operational issues, not to mention raising questions about whether the area has enough people to support such a sizable investment, said Plesko, who pegged the cost at around $40 million.
"They'll never get the kind of ridership for the revenue flow to make it cost effective," he said.
With the project forced to rely so much on federal dollars, the void of cash has effectively sidelined any effort to get a Madison County light rail rolling. Metro, meanwhile, faces huge cost issues from high gas prices and other issues, and may slice services. The agency is hardly in the position to be considering expansion.
Plesko is blunt about the prospect.
"It really comes down to money," he said.
The future
Still, conditions could change.
Plesko said congressional elections could alter the makeup of lawmakers in Washington, D.C., which could mean a new take on light rail.
"It's possible. There are Congress members that want to change that. And if we had any money, it's possible you might see some changes in philosophy," he said.
Parente said the county has also told its legislators about the issue and is confident they are listening.
"They know there's still interest in MetroLink," he said.
MORE.../FULL ARTICLE:
http://stclairjournal.stltoday.com/arti ... nk.ii1.txt
Despite gas prices and support, local light rail plan hits roadblock
Void of fed funds clouds MetroLink expansions
By Chris Coates
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 9:11 AM CDT
CHRIS COATES PHOTO Cars crowd the parking lot at the Metro station in Swansea on Wednesday morning.
Todd Plesko doesn't have to look very far to gauge the need for a light rail system in Madison County. As planning chief for the region's transit provider Metro, Plesko is flooded with dozens of messages every month from local commuters demanding that the agency expand into the county.
"All the time," he said. "Two to three e-mails this week."
The questions are piling up as Metro celebrates the 15th anniversary since its first MetroLink train rumbled from East St. Louis 17 miles to north St. Louis County.The construction was considered a major civic success, in part because it was built as an evolving project, with new routes coming online as the need rose. Today, the system stretches 46 miles, from Shrewsbury, Mo., and Lambert-St. Louis International Airport east to Scott Air Force Base.
However, missing from the service area are two large swaths of the region, both quickly growing and poised to need more transit options: St. Charles County and Madison County.
The void is neither because of accident or lack of need.
In fact, interest in adding more routes and service on Metro has amplified in recent months with the surge in gas prices and construction on Highway 40 in St. Louis.
"There's a core group that's interested," said Thomas R. Shrout Jr., the executive director of Citizens for Modern Transit, a nonprofit advocacy group that's lobbying for more public transportation options in the St. Louis region.
Plesko said Metro, which is already hampered by a massive budget shortfall, acknowledges the need and has helped compile studies about expanding, including an extensive report in 2005 with East-West Gateway Council of Governments that outlines possible routes.
Preliminary plans are in place. But major stumbling blocks remain, most notably a near-complete void of funding - even for a more advanced look at possible routes, not to mention for construction.
"To move forward, we would need a couple of million dollars for a detailed study," said Jerry Blair, who leads transportation planning for East-West Gateway. "And we don't have the revenue."
County officials said they are working on the issue but are hemmed in by a lack of available cash in Washington, D.C., and Springfield, despite a huge need locally for light rail.
"There's still a lot of interest," said Madison County Administration Director Joseph D. Parente. "But it's not possible right now without the financial resources. It hasn't been determined feasible."
The frustrating conditions here mirror numerous U.S. cities angling for light rail but meeting little support.
"It's a national issue that's coming up all over the country," said Shrout. "People thought they could rely on automobiles."
A hopeful past
The funding question is especially confounding because Madison County was originally identified for possible routes for MetroLink long before the system's first tie was laid.
The St. Louis Systems Analysis for Major Transit Capital Investments, penned as a master plan for the proposed system in 1991, identified nine potential light rail corridors across the region, two in Madison County.
But then Metro prioritized the region for new routes, with St. Charles and St. Clair counties at the top; west, north and south St. Louis counties in the middle; and Madison County at the very bottom.
That pyramid is why the initial leg of MetroLink, built starting in 1990, focused so much on St. Clair County, running from North Fifth Street and Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, over the Mississippi River, to Lambert.
The connector cost $464 million, 75 percent of which came from the Federal Transit Administration.
Since then, the line has expanded twice further east, both times funded largely by federal and state monies.
The federal government picked up 72 percent of costs for the 2001 expansion from East St. Louis to Southwestern Illinois College in Belleville, with a half-cent sales tax approved by voters providing the rest. In 2003, a 5.3-mile extension to Scott Air Force Base that cost $75 million was paid for through a $60 million state grant and additional funding from the St. Clair County Transit District.
Metro has also added routes further southwest, most recently to Shrewsbury in August 2006. The system serves about 68,000 riders each weekday.
Meantime, efforts to expand north into Madison County stalled.
In 1997, voters rejected a similar sales tax to fund a local line. (A similar proposal in St. Charles County has also failed to gain traction.)
For years, the proposal languished until renewed interest in mass transit forced East-West Gateway to launch a new light rail feasibility study for Madison County.
What resulted was a 56-page outline that for the first time seriously looked at options for new routes.
Suggestions ranged from a four-mile, $165 million expansion from East St. Louis to Madison to a 23-mile, $650 million route to Edwardsville.
Plesko, the Metro planner, said the small study was intended as a jumping-off point for further talks.
"It looked at different possible alignments that could be done," he said.
The results, released in October 2005, were heralded as a step in the right direction by transit supporters and county officials.
But then funding dried up, and plans for a second study to look more closely at precise alignments were put off. The study would have cost about $2 million.
"Nothing has occurred since that time," said Parente, the county official.
Shrout, the transit supporter, said the project has been effectively dead as state, federal and county dollars shrink. If agencies are struggling with a few million, he said, what about the hundreds of millions needed to fund a major line?
"If they're interested, they have to come up with the bucks," he said.
Funding woes
And that money, at least historically for big transit projects, comes from familiar coffers: the federal government, which supplied the bulk of funding for previous MetroLink expansions.
Plesko said many blame Metro for not wanting to build in Madison County, when in reality it's the lack of federal support preventing it.
"People assume Metro decides this and Metro just isn't doing this, or haven't, or we're not fully doing our job," he said on Friday, between public hearings about a proposed half-cent sales tax in St. Louis County that would raise funds for operations and system expansions.
Metro and county officials are also quick to point to East-West, the agency charged with administering how federal dollars are spent locally. Jerry J. Kane, the managing director of Madison County Transit, which runs the county's extensive bus system, said East-West makes the call.
"It's up to East-West Gateway to make the regional determination as to which would be the next alignment would be considered for federal funding. It's not up to MCT to make that decision; we try to lobby East-West, but it's up to them," he said.
Blair said East-West would take the steps if the funding was in place, which it's not. State funding is also rare and there's little movement to place a transit funding tax on the ballot, despite the interest from commuters, he said.
"It's quite a bit of money. People in Madison County are talking about it, but there's no money," he said.
Plesko said the Bush administration has severely sliced funding for light rail projects in recent years, forcing cities hungry to expand systems to lobby heavily or chalk up the cash themselves.
"If you want federal funds, then you must compete for them. The current administration makes it really hard to get light rail," Plesko said.
Systems that do get funding are almost all urban, with closer stops and existing infrastructure, which allows the money to go further and make a larger impact.
A Madison County system, on the other hand, would probably have long distances and entirely new train lines in rural and semi-rural routes.
That presents major planning, construction and operational issues, not to mention raising questions about whether the area has enough people to support such a sizable investment, said Plesko, who pegged the cost at around $40 million.
"They'll never get the kind of ridership for the revenue flow to make it cost effective," he said.
With the project forced to rely so much on federal dollars, the void of cash has effectively sidelined any effort to get a Madison County light rail rolling. Metro, meanwhile, faces huge cost issues from high gas prices and other issues, and may slice services. The agency is hardly in the position to be considering expansion.
Plesko is blunt about the prospect.
"It really comes down to money," he said.
The future
Still, conditions could change.
Plesko said congressional elections could alter the makeup of lawmakers in Washington, D.C., which could mean a new take on light rail.
"It's possible. There are Congress members that want to change that. And if we had any money, it's possible you might see some changes in philosophy," he said.
Parente said the county has also told its legislators about the issue and is confident they are listening.
"They know there's still interest in MetroLink," he said.
MORE.../FULL ARTICLE:
http://stclairjournal.stltoday.com/arti ... nk.ii1.txt
- 1,054
The demand for transit is hopefull. Why isn't the post doing similar articles in St. Louis County.
It is surprising that municipalities like Maryland Heights, Creve Coeur, Olivette, University City, and Clayton aren't stepping up to advocate for the Westport line and encourage voters county-wide to support the tax with the stipulation that Metrolink will come north and south after going west.
It is surprising that municipalities like Maryland Heights, Creve Coeur, Olivette, University City, and Clayton aren't stepping up to advocate for the Westport line and encourage voters county-wide to support the tax with the stipulation that Metrolink will come north and south after going west.
I bet if TOD really took off in North Park and along the new Shrewsbury alignment (Sunnen and Richmond Heights) you would see all the municipalities stand up and take notice.
Funding however is going to be a problem in states and communities with slow growth in tax revenues.
I notice that the City had to give Thompson (law firm) all sorts of incentives to stay in downtown including building another parking garage. That is so unfortunate in many ways. Too bad you can't give the incentive if the law firm commits to insuring that 50 % of their employees live in the city and even more subsidy if they don't build a parking garage, but have 80 % of their staff use transit.
I have this image of St. Louis where the county commuters drive into St. Louis, into their building, park next to their desk, and then leave later in the day without every setting foot on the sidewalk. Then the city has to subsidize them for doing that. When the first law firm got the subsidy to stay downtown, you open yourself up for every other firm with a big lease threatening to leave if you don't subsidize the next lease.
Funding however is going to be a problem in states and communities with slow growth in tax revenues.
I notice that the City had to give Thompson (law firm) all sorts of incentives to stay in downtown including building another parking garage. That is so unfortunate in many ways. Too bad you can't give the incentive if the law firm commits to insuring that 50 % of their employees live in the city and even more subsidy if they don't build a parking garage, but have 80 % of their staff use transit.
I have this image of St. Louis where the county commuters drive into St. Louis, into their building, park next to their desk, and then leave later in the day without every setting foot on the sidewalk. Then the city has to subsidize them for doing that. When the first law firm got the subsidy to stay downtown, you open yourself up for every other firm with a big lease threatening to leave if you don't subsidize the next lease.
- 1,054
Ah corporate handouts, how the private market has held governments for ransom money. When will the feds make this illegal?
The communities do stand to benefit from TOD if they have planned for it and made it clear that they are open to it in their zoning ordinances and comprehensive plans. Otherwise, it could become transit-adjacent development with orientation to autos and dangerous obstacles to pedestrians and cyclists.
Regarding downtown and more parking garages. Metrolink and express buses were instituted as a means to make up for the limited parking downtown. Parking garages keep us from attaining EPA's attainment levels whereas mass transit helps to reduce emmissions. The construction of a parking garage or parking should be paid for separately by employees both in downtown, Clayton, and all parking lots at all office centers. Then, and only then, will we truely pay for the negative externalities we impose on our cities. Sadly, parking allowances have been instituted as public good that must be paid for out of our taxes or loss of tax revenue to government jurisdictions.
The communities do stand to benefit from TOD if they have planned for it and made it clear that they are open to it in their zoning ordinances and comprehensive plans. Otherwise, it could become transit-adjacent development with orientation to autos and dangerous obstacles to pedestrians and cyclists.
Regarding downtown and more parking garages. Metrolink and express buses were instituted as a means to make up for the limited parking downtown. Parking garages keep us from attaining EPA's attainment levels whereas mass transit helps to reduce emmissions. The construction of a parking garage or parking should be paid for separately by employees both in downtown, Clayton, and all parking lots at all office centers. Then, and only then, will we truely pay for the negative externalities we impose on our cities. Sadly, parking allowances have been instituted as public good that must be paid for out of our taxes or loss of tax revenue to government jurisdictions.
