FAQs

Frequently Asked Questions

Answers to Frequently-Asked-Questions are provided on the following pages. Questions and answers are organized under these general categories: 1) Design Alternatives; 2) Funding; 3) Public Engagement & Decision-Making; and 4) Study Background

DESIGN ALTERNATIVE Q & A's

Q. Will the system be safe?
A. Absolutely.  Any at-grade crossings would be well designed and carefully controlled. According to actual experience on the nation's light rail systems, the risks at controlled crossings are very low. Most of the twenty light rail systems in the US had few, if any, collisions at grade crossing in 1997 (the latest year for which data are available).  Carefully done research on at-grade light rail systems by a unit of the National Research Council in 1996 concluded that, "overall, LRT systems are safe, so the number of LRV accidents at any one location is low."  And, "overall, LRT systems are safer than the motor vehicle-highway system."

Collisions occasionally occur along shared, unprotected rights of way, where light rail trains travel alongside or together with traffic, without any physical barriers between them.  Sometimes, collisions occur when motor vehicles are allowed to make uncontrolled left turns across the tracks. No comparable conditions will exist on MetroLink. The only at-grade options being considered are those in which trains will run in a protected right of way. At grade crossings, MetroLink will operate at low speeds, often approaching station platforms, further reducing accident risks. 

At underground stations, where personal safety and security is the concern, there will be appropriate security systems and personnel to ensure confidence in the safety of the system.
 

Q. Will the light rail vehicles block intersections and aggravate traffic congestion?
A. MetroLink vehicles will never block an intersection in normal operation. MetroLink trains will move through intersections along with parallel vehicular traffic observing the same green traffic signals as vehicular traffic.  MetroLink will pass though an intersection in about 12 seconds, even while moving at slow speed.  Traffic level of service will be unaffected, even at the busiest intersections.

Q. Is an at-grade alternative being considered only because funding is limited?
A. No.  Light rail systems are typically operated at-grade. An at-grade alternative for this corridor has been considered as far back as the mid-1980's and has been included in all of the studies done since that time.  East-West Gateway staff and consultants are continuing to consider other, more costly alternatives, as well as an at-grade alternative.

Funding limitations, if any, will not compromise the quality of the design for the MetroLink Cross County extension. In fact, the freedom to select from more elaborate and costly designs is enhanced by using local funds alone.  The ability to "build it right" is in no way diminished by the available funding.

Q. Are there significant speed differences between the alternatives under consideration?
A. For a fully grade separated design, the estimated travel time from Shrewsbury station to the 8th and Pine station in the heart of downtown St. Louis will be about 30 minutes, as compared to 33 minutes for the at-grade alternative. Most of the travel time difference will occur in Clayton.  The travel time difference among the alternatives between the 8th and Pine station and the Government Center station in Clayton will be slightly more than one minute.

Q. Will extending MetroLink diminish downtown St. Louis' role as the regional "hub"?
A. The overall plan for MetroLink expansion generally mirrors the hub and spoke pattern of the area's interstate highway system.  Downtown is the hub of the system and will have the highest level of MetroLink service in the region. The success of MetroLink comes from the connections it makes between people, jobs and the other activities that are important to our lives.  Downtown cannot remain the region's hub if it does not connect to other important places in the region.

Q. When was the decision made to build the segment of MetroLink from the Forest Park Station to Shrewsbury? Were the decisions to extend the line to Shrewsbury and consider an at-grade alternative made only after the Proposition M vote failed in November, 1997?
A. Key decisions regarding the termini of the extension and the range of design options to be considered were made months before the Proposition M election.  These decisions were made in an orderly fashion, never compromising in any way the quality of the design.  The essential history follows:

The regional plan for MetroLink was adopted in 1989. Priorities were assigned to nine corridors throughout the region.  The Cross-County Corridor, which generally follows a route to Clayton and then extending north and south to Florissant and Butler Hill Road respectively, was selected in the first tier of priorities, along with the route currently under construction to Belleville, IL. In March, 1997 the East West Gateway Coordinating Council's (the Council) Board of Directors adopted the findings of the Major Transportation Investment Analysis (MTIA) in the Cross-County Corridor, which included a variety of highway improvements and the extension of MetroLink.  The first "operating segment" of Cross-County, the route now being designed, was identified at that time. It was determined that this route would be independently successful, and could likely be paid for with the Proposition M funding being accumulated.  This study did not determine the design of MetroLink, just the general route.

A subsequent "Strategic Alignment Analysis," completed in August 1997 by an independent consultant, resulted in a decision by the Council's Board of Directors to endorse the North-of-Forest Park route for the first operating segment of the Cross-County extension. The route runs north of Forest Park to Clayton and then south to the vicinity of I-44. This decision was made before the Proposition M vote with the full knowledge that this segment could be built and operated with existing funds regardless of the outcome of the vote later in the year on Proposition M. The failure of Proposition M in November 1997 did not affect in any way the Council's plans for the route currently being designed.  Had Proposition M passed, it would have meant that the remaining segments of the Cross-County Corridor would have been built, along with at least one other corridor.

Q. Why are planners proposing to extend the system to Lansdowne Avenue?
A. The original proposal was to extend the route in the vicinity of Interstate 44.  Current studies indicate that a Lansdowne Avenue station would best serve the communities affected and the system as a whole. The option remains, however, to end the route at the Deer Creek station north of I-44.

Q. What kind of environmental analysis will be performed during the project?
A. Potential positive and negative impacts of design alternatives will be evaluated using accepted technical standards and criteria. A toolbox of proven planning procedures and evaluation techniques will be used to guide the community's and the Council's consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of design alternatives. Evaluation criteria are organized into the following categories: Urban and Land Use Relationships, Transportation Service, Environmental Impact, Socio-Economic Impact, Cost-Effectiveness, Financial Feasibility, and MetroLink Compatibility. While federal funds will not be used to pay for the extension, the evaluation will follow federally-accepted methods for evaluating potential impacts.

 

FUNDING Q & A's

Q. How will the extension be funded?
A. As currently planned, the extension from Forest Park Station to Clayton and south to Maplewood and Shrewsbury will be financed from existing Proposition M revenues that were approved by the voters in 1994.  A bond issue will be required to finance this extension and will commit about two-thirds of existing Prop M revenues to the payment of debt service until the bonds are retired (a twenty-year period). Prop M revenues will be sufficient to both pay back the bond debt and cover operating expenses.  Additional revenues will be necessary to build and operate the proposed extensions to Butler Hill Road in south St. Louis County and Florissant in north St. Louis County.

Q. Will a tax increase be required to build or operate this extension?
A. No.  There will be sufficient money available through the Proposition M tax, approved by voters in 1994 and now being collected, to both build and operate the proposed MetroLink extension.

Q. Couldn't we build a higher quality extension if we used federal funds?
A. The source of funding has no bearing on the design quality of the extension. The Council is using the same standards in the design of the Cross-County extension as any of the previous two federally funded MetroLink projects.  Likewise, the same environmental analysis methodology is being used. The Council is not 'cutting corners' on the design or evaluation of any of the alternatives. In fact, based on preliminary cost estimates, it appears that this extension could cost three times as much as any of the previous MetroLink routes.  The quality of the design, regardless of the alternative selected, will be comparable with the best light rail systems in the nation.

The use of federal funds would not necessarily promote consideration of higher cost alternatives (like the underground alternatives), as some have suggested.  The high cost of those alternatives would likely cause the projects to rank poorly in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) cost effectiveness criterion used in rating projects competing for federal funds. The federal process for funding these projects assigns ratings for more than one hundred proposed projects.  Only a handful are ultimately funded. Transit projects must do very well on the FTA cost effectiveness criterion to have any hope of receiving federal funds.  The likelihood of receiving federal funds for an underground alternative would therefore be extremely remote. Using local monies, we are free to consider any alternative regardless of cost effectiveness.

Q. Why isn't the region receiving its share of federal money for MetroLink's extension?
A. The region is, in fact, receiving the maximum amount of federal money possible. Those funds are being used on the Illinois extension currently under construction. That route will not likely be completely funded until approximately 2005.  Were the region to wait for federal funds, it would probably be 10 years or more before the Cross County segment, currently being studied, would be under construction.

The region does not automatically receive a share of federal transit construction funds. Rather, the St. Louis region is competing with as many as 100 cities nationwide at any one time for an annual federal appropriation that will be approximately $900 million. The region has averaged about $30 million a year in appropriations over the last 14 years. Considering these circumstances, the Council concluded it would be well into the next century before there would be adequate federal funds to pay for the extension of MetroLink in the Cross-County Corridor were the Council to pursue federal funding. Were the region to wait for federal funds, it would probably be 10 years or more before the Cross County segment, currently being studied, would be under construction.

Q. Why not shorten the line to enable consideration of higher cost alternatives?
A. The Council's Board of Directors is in no way restricted from making such a decision.  However, were they to do that, the benefits of the extension would be so severely compromised that such a decision would be unlikely.

Q. With limited funds, why is the Forest Park circulator being considered as part of this project?
A. The Council's Board of Directors decided to include the circulator to create better access to MetroLink. The project also includes a variety of bus feeder services elsewhere along the line. These services are essential to making MetroLink more widely available in the community.

 

Public Engagement & Decision-Making Q & A's

Q. Has the public been given adequate opportunity to participate in the planning process for MetroLink?
A. The Council has conducted an extensive public engagement process starting even before design work was underway.  This process has involved public open houses, public design workshops, scores of meetings with subdivisions, civic groups, and municipalities.  A Community Working Group, involving citizens representing affected communities and interests, was organized to provide another way to provide input to the design. To keep interested parties informed about the project, the Council has prepared newsletters, press announcements, and advertisements as well as maintained a project web site.

Staff and consultants will continue to meet with any group that asks. It's important to the Council that the diverse interests, ideas, and concerns of the affected communities as well as those of residents, transit users and organizations are considered throughout the design process.

There are several ways to express your ideas and concerns. We encourage you to share your ideas with the Council by calling the study hotline and leaving a voice message or by sending an e-mail message to crosscounty@marymeans.com. Written comments may be sent to Steven Schukraft, Engagement Team Manager in care of the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, 701 N 15th St Suite 1001E, Tenth Floor, St. Louis, MO 63103. You may also want to share your ideas and concerns with your local elected officials.

Q. Is the public engagement process affecting the design of the project?
A. Yes. Design options have either been included or rejected as a result of public input.  Even now, planners are continuing to investigate design alternatives to address concerns being raised by the public.  While we know that it will not be possible to satisfy each and every concern that we hear, that does not mean that East-West Gateway staff and consultants are not listening, or that we are not working very hard to address those concerns.

Q. Has the decision-making process for this segment of the MetroLink system been too hasty?
A. This design and planning process for the Cross-County extension has been going on for several years now, and has had unprecedented public exposure.  The June 30 decision date has been known for close to a year. While the decision will be a difficult one, all of the necessary information to make that decision will be known at least six weeks in advance of Council's June 30 Board of Directors meeting.  Most of the information has been known for months.

Q. Who will decide on the Conceptual Design for the extension?
A. When the study is complete, a final conceptual design will be selected by the Council's Board of Directors. The board will consider recommendations and ideas from a variety of sources—localities along the route, individuals and interest groups, property owners and transit riders, and the technical consultant team—and make a final decision on a conceptual design.

 

Study Background Q & A's

Q. What is the Cross-County Conceptual Design Study?
A. A conceptual design study is the first step in the design and engineering of a complex project. Such design studies are conducted after project planning is complete, but before final design and engineering studies are initiated.

For the Cross-County MetroLink extension, a conceptual design study is being undertaken to test and ultimately decide upon design options and alternatives for the extension of MetroLink along a route from the Forest Park Station to Clayton and south to Shrewsbury. During the study, the Council and its consultants will prepare maps, drawings, analyses and reports that describe possible design and operating alternatives for the extension. While previous planning studies resulted in the selection of the route, additional information regarding the extension's design, costs and impacts must be analyzed before decisions can be made on a specific design for this route.

The study will address issues such as the appropriateness of running trains below grade in a tunnel, at the surface in a separate right-of-way, or on elevated tracks. The location and design of stations and related facilities such as park-and-ride lots and bus loading and unloading areas will also be considered.

Q. Who is conducting the study?
A. The study is being sponsored by the Council in cooperation with its partner agencies the Bi-State Development Agency (Bi-State) and the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT). The study is being managed by the Transportation Corridor Improvement Group (TCIG), composed of staff from the Council, Bi-State and MoDOT.

A team of consultants led by Mary Means & Associates, Inc., a community planning firm based in Alexandria, VA, is managing the community engagement process for the study. Parsons Transportation Group, supported by a team of engineers, architects, planners and specialists, is managing the conceptual design and environmental analysis processes.

Q. What is the Council?
A. The Council was incorporated in 1965 to provide a forum for cooperative problem-solving and the coordinated development of regional policy. Among other responsibilities, the Council serves as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the agency responsible for long range transportation planning in the St. Louis region.

The board is composed of members from throughout the region. Of the Board's 21 voting members, fourteen are local elected officials, six are citizens representing both states, and one is the Chair of the Bi-State Development Agency. Representatives of a number of other state and federal agencies sit on the Board as non-voting members. The Board meets monthly to discuss and deliberate issues of regional concern and to decide matters of common interest. A number of standing and ad hoc advisory committees help inform the dialogue and decision-making process. Information on the Council's programs may be found on their web site at www.ewgateway.org or by calling the Council at (314) 421-4220.

Q. What will be the results of the study?
A. In late June 1999, the Council will make a decision on a conceptual design for the extension. The decision will be based on information prepared during the study—information from staff, consultants and the public regarding the location and design of the extension and its support facilities, construction and operating costs, and the possible positive and negative impacts that the extension may have on surrounding communities. The study also will result in the conceptual design of a transportation system for Forest Park.

Once a conceptual design for the extension is approved by the Council's Board of Directors, Bi-State will complete the final design, engineering and construction and begin system operations on the new line.

Q. How was it decided that Cross-County would be the first extension of MetroLink in Missouri?
A. Several studies led to the decision to extend MetroLink in the Cross-County Corridor. Early suggestions for an extension in the corridor were included in the St. Louis Systems Analysis for Major Transit Capital Investments, which was adopted by the Council in 1989. The Systems Analysis evaluated potential extensions of light rail and bus transit in nine corridors. Of those nine corridors, the Cross-County and the St. Clair corridors (a later amendment added St. Charles) were identified as priority areas for MetroLink extensions. Northside, Southside and Westside corridors were identified as areas for later extensions.

In 1994, the Council adopted Transportation Redefined, a long-range transportation plan for the St. Louis Region, that identified several transportation corridors for further study, including Cross-County. The Council completed a study of the Cross-County Corridor, called the Cross-County Corridor Major Transportation Investment Analysis, (MTIA) in 1997. The study was conducted jointly by the Council and MoDOT in cooperation with Bi-State.

The MTIA resulted in the Council's decision to amend Transportation Redefined to include, among other transportation improvements, the extension of MetroLink in the Cross-County Corridor. The MTIA planning process lasted approximately two years from the Spring of 1995 to the Council's decision in March 1997.

Q. How was the "North-of-Forest Park" route chosen for the extension?
A. Following the MTIA, a Strategic Alignment Assessment and Business Plan were prepared by the Council to address several important questions concerning the extension of MetroLink in the Cross-County Corridor. These reports dealt with project cost and phasing options, financing options, and potential environmental and community impacts.

The Strategic Alignment Assessment resulted in a decision by the Council to extend MetroLink along a route that branches off the existing MetroLink line at the Forest Park Station following Forest Park Parkway and Millbrook west through downtown Clayton. The route then turns south and follows the existing railroad right-of-way to I-44 in Shrewsbury. This route, often referred to as the "North-of-Forest Park" route, was selected by the Council in September 1997.

Q. What future MetroLink extensions are under consideration?
A. While the Cross-County Conceptual Design Study is underway, the Council has initiated Major Transportation Investment Analyses (MTIAs) in three important transportation corridors:

  • The Northside Corridor running north-south through the northern part of the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County;
  • The Southside Corridor running north-south through the southern part of the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County; and
  • The Daniel Boone Corridor running east-west in western St. Louis County.

These studies are the first stage in considering transportation improvements in each corridors, a process already completed for the Cross-County Corridor. Investments in highway and transit improvements, including potential extensions to MetroLink, will be among the improvements analyzed for each corridor.

The Cross-County study is sponsored by the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council in cooperation with the Bi-State Development Agency and the Missouri Department of Transportation. For more information call the study hotline at 314.621.4499, check out the Council's web site at www.ewgateway.org or send an e-mail message to crosscounty@marymeans.com. (rev 05.08.99)