Cross-County MetroLink Extension
Public Opinion Survey The public opinion survey provides insight into the perceptions of individuals living close to the proposed alignment who might not otherwise be engaged in the planning and design process for Segment I of the Cross-County extension. The survey results will help the Engagement Consultants understand the nature of the community's concerns regarding the
extension and various design ideas and alternatives.
Background In May 1998, Attitude Research Company conducted a telephone survey to test attitudes toward possible MetroLink expansion. The purpose of the survey was to determine the level of support for the extension, to understand why people supported or did not support the extension, and to help planners understand public opinion about various design features. Five hundred (500) people were selected from the
vicinity of the proposed extension to participate in the survey, yielding an overall margin of error for the survey of 4.4%. Specifically, the sample included 100 respondents each from the City of St. Louis, University City, and Clayton, 101 from Maplewood, 49 from Richmond Heights, and 50 from Brentwood. In the larger municipalities the geographic area was further limited: For instance, in University City no one who lives north of Vernon was called. These geographic limits were chosen to
ensure that the majority of respondents lived within one half mile of the proposed extension, and that no one was called who lived more than one mile from the extension.
Summary of Results Survey participants were positive toward a MetroLink extension that would run along Forest Park Parkway from the Forest Park-DeBaliviere station to Clayton, and then south through Richmond Heights, Brentwood and Maplewood to I-44. A majority (87.8%) was in favor and only 10.6% opposed
the extension. If residents could walk to the MetroLink station, they would be even more likely to favor the extension. Three-fourths (76.8%) of respondents said they would be "much more" or "somewhat more" likely to support the proposal if MetroLink was in close proximity to their home. Although a majority of residents never (47.4%) or rarely (21.0%) use MetroLink, 65.6% feel the proposed expansion would cause them to use MetroLink "much more" or
"somewhat more often." Only one-third (32.0%) answered that the expansion would have little or no effect on their MetroLink usage. Almost all respondents (94.0%) agreed that "MetroLink is an environmentally clean, safe, and efficient method of transportation" and "The St. Louis area should take pride in the success of the existing MetroLink system" (94.0%). The same percentage (94.0%) also agreed that MetroLink should link commuters to employment centers in
Clayton, downtown St. Louis, and the airport. Regarding the potential negative affects of an extension along the proposed alignment, most (80.2%) residents disagreed that MetroLink will increase crime in their neighborhood, and 70.0% said they did not worry that there would be too much noise from the trains if MetroLink came through their neighborhood. Many design alternatives will be analyzed for the extension, including whether or not trains should run at street-level, in a
tunnel, or in an open trench below street level. Respondents were read a list of features that would be involved in building a MetroLink extension in a tunnel under the street. The cost of tunneling and the fact that this may delay building the full extension to I-44 were seen as negatives by respondents. The length of time it would take to dig the tunnel, build the rail line, and then rebuild the street above as well as how it may disrupt the area, were also seen as negatives. The most
positive feature of an underground tunnel to respondents is that, once completed, it would be the quietest option. The fact that the tunnel will cause little or no disruption to the businesses or homes nearby once in place was also well liked. The same process of questions was repeated for features of building the extension at street level. Survey participants were most responsive to the fact that building at street level may be the least disruptive and least expensive alternative.
Residents also responded positively to the statement, "a street-level track would give riders a more pleasant view than either riding in a tunnel or in an open trench." Finally, the fact that the light-rail train may be quieter than bus traffic and similar to automobile traffic was also seen as a positive. The only feature regarding a street level extension that was viewed as a negative was that the train, running on or along the street, might cause some disruption of
automobile traffic. When reading various features for building the light rail in an open trench, respondents were comparatively more negative about most of the features. The fact that adjacent properties might have to be purchased was a negative for over half of the survey participants. "The walls of the trench will block riders' views of surrounding neighborhoods" was also very negative in the minds of respondents. In commercial areas, survey participants preferred the
extension to be built at street-level (59.6%) rather than in a tunnel (26.4%) or in an open trench (9.4%). Of the respondents that preferred a tunnel, most would be willing to pay higher taxes in order to build the tunnels. When asked about residential areas, a plurality preferred a street-level extension. Fewer than half (41.8%) favored a street level extension and 35.8% felt a tunnel would be the best option for residential areas. A smaller number (17.6%) preferred an open trench. Of
those respondents who preferred a tunnel, three-fourths would pay higher taxes to help pay the added expense. Respondents were then read a list of statements in favor of the MetroLink expansion. All of these statements struck a chord, and "The expansion of MetroLink should be encouraged because it is an environmentally friendly way to get around St. Louis" was considered "very" or "moderately" persuasive by nine out of ten (92.0%) respondents. The fact that
the light rail service, going through downtown Clayton, near the U. City Loop, and through the Central West End, will enhance economic development and make these areas more attractive to shoppers and diners was considered positively by 86.6% of respondents. The above procedure was repeated with statements in opposition to the expansion. Most were considered not very persuasive. The statement, "People will drive to the MetroLink stops even if they don't have any Park and Ride
facilities, parking on residential streets and disrupting the neighborhoods," garnered the most support: 45.5% said this was a "very" or "moderately" persuasive argument against expanding MetroLink. At the end of the survey, when asked to reconsider the possible expansion after learning more facts about the expansion, respondents continued to be supportive of the proposal. Almost nine of ten (86.6%) favored the expansion compared to only 11.4% who opposed it.
Overview of Data Attitude Research Company developed and administered a survey designed to test attitudes toward a possible MetroLink expansion. This report presents the responses of 500 residents of the St. Louis metropolitan area, yielding a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4%. I. Direction of County and Area As warm-up questions, and to ascertain overall levels of optimism or pessimism in the population, respondents were asked if they thought things were
headed in the right direction, or if they were off-track and headed in the wrong direction. We asked this question about both the St. Louis Metropolitan area, and the survey participant's local area. Some survey participants volunteered that they had mixed feelings. | 
