MetroLink in the Middle of 40?
A question that I often get is “Why isn’t MetroLink being built to go down the middle of Highway 40?” In 1999-2000, the East-West Gateway Council of Governments studied improving transportation to the West which included an examination of putting MetroLink in the Highway 40 right-of-way.
(To view that study in detail go to click here and scroll down to Daniel Boone and you can see the results of that study.)
Basically East-West Gateway Council of Governments concluded that the better alternative was to extend MetroLink to West County along Page Avenue. Personally I believe this is the best decision. Locating transit stops in the middle of highways is brutal for the transit customer since the autos whizzing by on each side creates a very unpleasant environment. To see a local example, stand in the new Central Avenue Station in Clayton on the Cross County alignment to see what I mean.
I have discussed locating transit stops in the middle of highways with transit officials in Chicago and San Francisco and they agree it is a location of last resort. The attraction is that the right-of-way already is there. But being in the middle of a highway kills the desirability to do transit oriented development.
Remember transit riders also are pedestrians and there really are not many good destinations in the 40 corridor that are pedestrian friendly. The area is built up for autos. Large Park and ride lots or garages would be about the best that could be expected initially along the 40 corridor. At least West Port Plaza would have some attraction as a destination.
But nothing will be built without the City and County voters approving additional tax dollars – perhaps a half-cent sales tax – to build to West County and/or the Northside/Southside expansion which Gateway currently has advanced the study to the next level.
(To view that study in detail go to click here and scroll down to Daniel Boone and you can see the results of that study.)
Basically East-West Gateway Council of Governments concluded that the better alternative was to extend MetroLink to West County along Page Avenue. Personally I believe this is the best decision. Locating transit stops in the middle of highways is brutal for the transit customer since the autos whizzing by on each side creates a very unpleasant environment. To see a local example, stand in the new Central Avenue Station in Clayton on the Cross County alignment to see what I mean.
I have discussed locating transit stops in the middle of highways with transit officials in Chicago and San Francisco and they agree it is a location of last resort. The attraction is that the right-of-way already is there. But being in the middle of a highway kills the desirability to do transit oriented development.
Remember transit riders also are pedestrians and there really are not many good destinations in the 40 corridor that are pedestrian friendly. The area is built up for autos. Large Park and ride lots or garages would be about the best that could be expected initially along the 40 corridor. At least West Port Plaza would have some attraction as a destination.
But nothing will be built without the City and County voters approving additional tax dollars – perhaps a half-cent sales tax – to build to West County and/or the Northside/Southside expansion which Gateway currently has advanced the study to the next level.
Labels: Highway 40, TOD
posted by CMT at 8:53 AM
6 Comments:
Putting transit in highway medians is an almost complete waste of the transit infrastructure and service. Almost all the most important/valuable land, that within a quarter mile of the station, is necessarily taken up by the highway.
What should be going on with the reconstruction of Route 40 is the introduction of HOV lanes. It's shocking and preposterous that MO law doesn't allow them. Every time I see the 10 lane part of I-270 I'm reminded of how much land is wasted (and air pollution created) by not having HOV lanes. They are good for buses because they reduce travel times, and they encourage car and van pools by reducing congestion and travel times for them too. They use land more efficiently, and I think St. Louis is about the only major city I've been to that doesn't have them.
It is good to see this blog here.
I thought the organization was a citizen organization rather than industry supported. I am not entirely clear. Your mission statement is focused on light rail. Oddly enough that is the focus of EWGCC also. Hence a bit of confusion about the name, perhaps Citizens for Light Rail would be more accurate.
I was under the impression you were advocating better transit in general and not only light rail. It is impossible that light rail is the only solution. In fact it seems that the solution “light rail” is in place before understanding the transit needs of St. Louisians.
I wanted to comment on a few points in your article.
You state that Highway 40 as a transit route is not as viable as the Page route. Good design can make the difficult, beautiful and turn unfavorable environments into great places to be. It would be relatively easy to put a station on the right or left side of the highway, the idea you are stuck in the center is false. A viaduct, a tunnel?, build a train at grade, or elevated?, subway or parallel lines? You’re rebuilding the highway, maybe the right or left side becomes the train with the highway adjacent, leaving ample space for TOD or anything else. Design becomes an idea generating force that directs and makes a project successful. Why is the White House not a ranch house? It is design.
Design has been left to traffic engineers too long. Instead urban designers, architects, environmental designers, artists should create the transit system that would include technical coordination with engineering firms. Designers and planners should be involved in route layout as well as station location and design, the human element is an important part of the city. So yes, a Highway 40 route could have been made attractive. In fact if you look at EWGCC’s own documents showing all projected light rail (to date). http://www.ewgateway.org/pdffiles
/maplibrary/
metrolinkcorridors-oct2006.pdf. They have light rail following both Highway 55 and Highway 170, so they must think highway routes are okay also.
Page may in fact be a better route for other reasons, I don’t know, but Highway 40 should not be eliminated as a possible route due to design difficulties.
Here is an illustration how design competence matters. Compare the vision of the future in Stockholm Sweden to MoDot and EWGCC. In Sweden they realized suburban development was going to occur in the fifties; they devised a plan where train lines radiated out from the center like “fingers on a hand.” This left green space between the suburban developments. So today fully 70% of the traffic into the center travels on mass transit, in addition the people have the benefit of easy access to green space. It is a government policy that is concerned about the health and welfare of the people.
Now compare this with the chaos of the state mismanaged Highway 40/64 project. The road will be tore up for 3 years. There is not even a mass transit system in place that would allow as much as 70% of the populace to travel to the center of St. Louis. Mass transit should have been built along Highway 40 or along Page Avenue, supposedly the preferred route, before tearing up Highway 40. Even worse MoDot and EWGCC did not provide funding for new bus lines to accommodate citizens trying to travel to the center while Highway 40 was tore up. The disdain and arrogance in which they treat the citizens is clear for all to see. Do they care for the welfare of the people at all? Traffic jams, congestion beyond imagination. Enjoy the wait.
There is also the question of tax money for the North South Distributor and the West County extension. The Chouteau route for the North South Distributor was decided “as a favored route” even before the public hearings by EWGCC. It parallels the existing MetroLink along Chouteau. In some areas the line is literally hundreds of feet away from the proposed Chouteau line. The route chosen is also interesting because it almost no one living along the route. The area north of Chouteau is essentially a wasteland dominated by rail tracks. That makes this choice puzzling.
The answer is that this is a route suitable for light rail. It is a solution for the train system, not in service of the people. It is the same attitude expressed on the Highway 40/64 debacle mentioned above.
As far as the West County route is concerned. If we return to the map, we see light rail projected to the far reaches of the region, north south, east and west. The population density drops significantly once you exit the central corridor. Does it make sense to spend millions of dollars to serve small numbers of people?
The region of St. Louis should forego any future light rail development for the time being and rebuild the core transportation system. This can include streetcars, reworking the bus system, a new bicycle system, there are many possibilities.
Population density is one reason to stop building light rail. There at least two other reasons that development of core transit is more important than continuing building light rail.
1. Light rail has not stimulated economic development in the areas it traverses. This is part due to the design of the system, as well as routes they have taken. TOD has not occurred.
2. There is clear evidence the core system is unworkable and does not serve the existing light rail properly. Parking lots with cars belonging to riders are at all MetroLink stops. If these people are willing to use transit in the first place it demonstrates the failure of the core system to get riders from their home to the closest station.
The focus on light rail is a problem in the city and the inner ring of suburbs. It eliminates streets such as Gravois, Grand, Jefferson and a whole host of others that can’t take a train driving down the middle of the street. All that is left is to duplicate train service down the central corridor, and another poor decision is made.
Streetcars should be considered. An important point at the outset is that you can build at least twice as many miles of streetcar line over light rail. This gives enormous flexibility over planning options.
A loop line could run up Gravois, to Kingshighway or Hampton, East on Manchester, and probably rather than continue down Chouteau for reasons given above, cross over at, or near Grand and continue East either on Park or Lafayette Street. Lafayette would probably be a better solution because it could terminate at Soulard Market. It would cost about the same as light rail yet would do infinitely more for the welfare of the citizens of St. Louis and for the region
Another route may connect the historic districts with attractions such as the brewery, up to Cherokee Row, maybe Grand, Tower Grove Park, Kingshighway, Manchester, Lafayette, Soulard Market.
Put a streetcar route or two at a public hearing next to the Chouteau light rail route. It would be interesting to see public reaction about a streetcar line. And unlike light rail it would inspire economic development. Portland, Oregon had multi billion dollars in new investment associated with a streetcar line. St. Louis might not be able to match that, but the economic effect would be enormous.
There should be open debate about this subject. For the most part there seems to be a heavily orchestrated process with solutions designed to fulfill agendas other than those related to the needs of the people.
This discussion is only related to southern routes, northern and downtown routes should have the same discussions.
Linkage and connectivity can be increased along with the increased mileage of streetcar lines. This would strengthen the core system. A transit savvy city would be a catalyst for the region.
Light rail proposals have little to do with internal transit in the City of St. Louis and the surrounding inner ring of suburbs. Light rail is meant for the traveling long distances, quickly. The ramification here is that the City of St. Louis has no representation at the EWGCC, not physically, but with predetermined policies that exclude the needs of the city based community.
It may be better at this time to create a St. Louis City/ inner ring suburb transit district and remove any responsibility for transit from MoDot and EWGCC. In fact an elective body in a new transit district would help insure a commitment to the interests of transit riders and citizens.
gmichaud said:
"I thought the organization was a citizen organization rather than industry supported."
CMT is governed by a 30-member board of directors, none of whom is directly involved in the industry. Memberships of ($40, $50 $100 etc.) make up about 35% of our funding, the rest comes from grants such as one we are working on from the Missouri Foundation for Health to get seniors to use transit. We also have received Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funding to work on improving transit ridership in Missouri and Illinois. We receive no funding from Metro.
gmichaud makes several good points about the merits of good planning. One of the many differences between St. Louis and Portland is in Portland transit is very much a part of the regional growth strategy and is supported by policies at the local, regional and state level such as limits on parking and sprawl. We have no such unified political strategy.
Thoughts of creating a city and inner ring suburban transit district would have to be weighed against how much revenue such a district would generate. As an example, the half-cent transportation sales tax generates about $17 million a year in the City of St. Louis vs. $75 million in St. Louis County. What light rail has done over the last 14 years has generated public and political support for transit in St. Louis County that was nearly absent in 1992.
If the city's population would rebound to 450,000 or so maybe it could build some streetcar lines on its own. The streetcar in Portland is owned by the City of Portland, not Tri-Met, the regional transit system.
CMT, your response pretty well does nothing but verify what I am saying. You may not receive funding from industry patrons, but nevertheless you seem to pretty well toe their line. You give short shrift to the core transit system. Light rail is the thing. Don’t get me wrong, as an organization seems to do good things, and I appreciate your efforts, but, as your mission statement states, you support light rail and the indication from your site is that is your focus.
Here are some points
1. First, light rail is a necessary component of any transit planning, no question about it. The problem is everything else is left out.
2. Transit, especially inner core transit includes light rail, trains, autos, taxis, streetcars, trams, bicycles, walking, scooters, even esoteric methods of movement such as horse drawn carriages and rickshaws. Transit also is an important component in forming public space, of building the city. TOD is merely a small factor.
3. TOD is a term that is thrown around. I see there is a conference on it coming up. TOD requires housing; public space and a properly functioning transit system to be successful. It is a system of planning, not only light rail. The idea that TOD can stand alone is wrong and ignores thousands of years of knowledge gained in developing cities.
4. In general it is impossible to plan transit without also planning the surrounding environment. That is not happening that is why TOD is attached to stations, rather than integrated into the city fabric. Your post about the poor conditions surrounding Cross County MetroLink is a case in point. How successful do you think transit and light rail would be if it was fully integrated with the city? Poor planning sets the stage for failure.
5. As I mentioned in the previous post, the fact there are parking lots at each MetroLink station is another indication of failure in the transit system. If someone is willing to take transit, they should be able to do so from their home. This requires a well designed core system.
6. Funding questions are moot. First of all, transforming the inner core transit should replace the next billion or so spent on light rail, in addition funding for the operation is replaced by funding for light rail operation.
7. I find that there seems to a tendency to yell “funding, funding” when there is a reluctance to discuss transit in any meaningful way. I would like to point out that EWGCC has roughed out the entire light rail system throughout St. Louis City and County without funding to build it in place. The same should be done with proposals for all other transit and the creation of new public spaces.
8. In fact a properly designed inner core will influence the design of light rail. By designing light rail without the rest of the system as part of the design, can only lead to an unbalanced, chaotic transit system, something like St. Louis has today. (And again as you reveal in your post about Cross County MetroLink and Pedestrians)
9. What is the plan for transit today? to spend 40 to 60 years and billions of dollars running light rail all over the place. It is hard to tell, but that seems to be what is planned for St. Louis. The fragmented and fractured system now being developed does not bode well for the future of the St. Louis region.
10. By investing a minimum amount of money (compared to light rail) in the core transit system can transform transit into an exciting destination in its own right. Many cities have a feeling of elegance and glamour associated with their transit systems, rather than being a system of last resort, as in St. Louis.
11. A well developed core system will not only be financially successful, it will encourage the public to support transit. The experience in Portland with billions of dollars of investment along a new streetcar line indicates people are looking for fuller lives. The fact Portland City provided funds for the streetcar line, and the fact the City of St. Louis is not Portland does not matter. All of this should be decided with public debate. Debate with alternatives transit approaches, not just what route, nor staged public hearings with decisions already made behind the scenes.
12. There are however, serious questions about governance in the region of St. Louis. MoDot should absolutely be removed from any involvement in mass transit, they are a highway department and they act like one. EWGCC perhaps is doing okay with light rail (although the south city route is lazy and designed for the train, not the people), but even they should be relieved of some or all responsibility for transit. The solution should be new transit planning authority (or authorities), preferably with elected officials leading the organization to insure public oversight.
13. CMT has codified its interest in light rail. Although I know there is some support of other projects such as the U. City streetcar, and the mission statement mentions other interests, still CMT acts as an extension of EWGCC with the emphasis on light rail. CMT is not taking the lead in making sure the transit system is developed as a whole. (Including city planning issues related to transit). This process seems to be headed for another version of the 50 years of decline City of St. Louis leadership has presided over.
14. It seems that MoDot and EWGCC are getting off easy.. The result is a transit system going no where, inspiring no one and serving a small segment of the society. Who is speaking for the public?
GMichaud has a lot of intersting points about transit planning. Start an advocacy organization/blog etc. and go for it....
CMT is an already existing organization. I thought perhaps you could show me how you are advocating for a balanced system of transit and city planning. So in other words rather than consider new ideas (which are not really new) you prefer I go away? From his biography, I suspect Mr. Arrington your TOD consultant will say something similar to what I have said.
If in fact CMT is ignoring all options except light rail, then it is the wrong strategy even for an organization that wants to advocate light rail. Your post about the stations and the poor conditions of the area surrounding the stations proves that point exactly. Go look at the stations on previous routes; for the most part they have developed into nothing also. Obviously you care, but don’t you want to know why the stations don’t work the way they should?
Here is a quote for Camillo Sitte from his late 19th century book on city planning. He says”…city planning should not be merely a technical matter, but in the truest and most elevated sense be an artistic enterprise. Such it was in Antiquity, in the Middle Ages, in the Renaissance; indeed, wherever the arts were fostered. It is only in our mathematical century that the process of enlarging and laying out cities has become an almost purely technical concern. Therefore it seems important to remind ourselves once again that this attitude solves only one aspect of the problem, and that the other, artistic aspect, is of at least equal importance.”
In the case of the light rail system as built in St. Louis, only technical problems are being solved. In the latest case concerning the Southside alternate light rail, as I mentioned above, the EWGCC favored route solves technical problems, but ignores the needs of the rest of society. But hey, they found a great place to run trains.
Unfortunately it is a permanent mistake that only compounds the difficulty in ever establishing light rail and transit as a fully integrated part of the city and the region. This same observation can be made over and over, although the Southside favored alternative is so obviously a poor choice that it is clear the only motivation for choosing that route is technical, and EWGCC all but says that in their communications.
Finally I have talked to one of your board members about transit issues; I would prefer to expand that avenue of pursuit, perhaps with other board members, rather than start a blog or advocacy group. It does not make sense to duplicate efforts.
I had assumed that the purpose of this blog was to discuss issues related to transit.
Post a Comment
<< Home