Dielman is close to the records center on page and spencer.

Only three stations? What about Ladue Rd and Delmar?

Walkability around the stations shown is pretty bad and won't be good for quite some time if ever. One of the reasons this shouldn't be built.

Its of note that cost per mile on this would likely be significantly cheaper due to most of this line Is using right of way of rail corridors. The map as noted is nearly 20 years old so not representative of what it is there now. I would put one for example at Olive and 170, due to local traffic and as part of a possible future junction if a line uses the abandoned rail corridor along 170 going north from there. Another would be to work on further development around the Olive and Lindbergh intersection and push it north in planned manner. (the distance is around a half mile) A good walkable corridor between the J and Monsanto campus would be helpful even without a possible station on the north end. ( could help further increase infill development in this area) Also maybe at this station plan a more trunk like bus line that goes west on Olive from the Lindbergh/Olive intersection and then go South on Ballas towards the bus station at 64 and Ballas. It would hit a number of employment centers along this corridor and also promote infill and densification in the area around City Place.

Would there be a direct route from Westport to Shrewsbury using the existing train bridge over FPP or would you have to transfer at Clayton stop?

^You'd have to transfer at Clayton.

This route was considered over 15 years before the County plant science district was an idea, so I have to think the station locations would be totally rethought. I've always thought Ladue/Maryland, Delmar, Olive, Ashby/N. Warson, and Westport Plaza would make the most sense for stops. Maybe Dielman as well.

wabash wrote:^You'd have to transfer at Clayton.

You don't think they'd do something like they do with westbounds out of downtown; with half the trains going to the airport and the other half going to Shrewsbury? Out of Shrewsbury half could go downtown and half to Westport? That bridge had a sign on it for years suggesting it would be used for future Metrolink. And it's the most logical way to connect a Westport extension to the existing Shrewsbury line. In fact, it is what the map shows. Not really any good way to get trains to Clayton off that alignment without a reverse move, which logically you'd make at a station, with the Richmond Heights station being the first one where you could. To do anything else would require a significant amount of bridgework through Shaw Park and around the DoT facility. (Which might well be justifiable anyway for route flexibility.) But it seems silly not to use the existing bridge. It would be much less expensive. I'd have to guess there's at least some traffic from the southwest to Westport, and traffic from east to Westport could transfer at Richmond Heights just as easily as traffic from the south could transfer at Clayton. (And it might well be a more pleasant station, not being quite smack in the middle of a highway. Nearly, but at least not literally.)

symphonicpoet wrote:

wabash wrote:^You'd have to transfer at Clayton.

You don't think they'd do something like they do with westbounds out of downtown; with half the trains going to the airport and the other half going to Shrewsbury? Out of Shrewsbury half could go downtown and half to Westport?

That's because those are two lines which overlap in the city. Is it worth running an extra line just between Westport and Shrewsbury?

MarkHaversham wrote:That's because those are two lines which overlap in the city. Is it worth running an extra line just between Westport and Shrewsbury?

You wouldn't have to run an extra line. The Westport line is intended to connect to the Shrewsburry line. The only questions are how that connection is made and how you route trains over it. The alignment is mostly the old Rock Island passenger alignment, which connected with and was later shared with the TRRA West Belt. The Shrewsbury line takes the old West Belt north from Shrewsbury until it meets this alignment. Forest Park Parkway occupies much of it. (The Rock Island began using the TRRA Central Belt, and abandoned it's original passenger alignment around 1900 I believe it was. The TRRA alignment was longer, but had more favorable grades.) However, because of the shared stretch, there is still a TRRA West Belt bridge in place that would suffice to immediately make a connection between the Shrewsbury line and the proposed extension, and it is this bridge whose alignment you see on the map above. (It crosses Forest Park Parkway immediately east of 170.) If you follow this alignment then you would logically transfer to the Shrewsbury line at Richmond Heights . . . or just continue a little further down the existing line to Shrewsbury and end trains there, thus creating a condition precisely like that downtown. Keep in mind, there's no reason that trains from Shrewsbury need to actually go downtown. You could just end them at Forest Park-Deballivier, turn around, and head back west.

symphonicpoet wrote:But it seems silly not to use the existing bridge. It would be much less expensive.

Is the bridge wide enough for two tracks?

symphonicpoet wrote:

MarkHaversham wrote:That's because those are two lines which overlap in the city. Is it worth running an extra line just between Westport and Shrewsbury?

You wouldn't have to run an extra line. The Westport line is intended to connect to the Shrewsburry line. The only questions are how that connection is made and how you route trains over it. The alignment is mostly the old Rock Island passenger alignment, which connected with and was later shared with the TRRA West Belt. The Shrewsbury line takes the old West Belt north from Shrewsbury until it meets this alignment. Forest Park Parkway occupies much of it. (The Rock Island began using the TRRA Central Belt, and abandoned it's original passenger alignment around 1900 I believe it was. The TRRA alignment was longer, but had more favorable grades.) However, because of the shared stretch, there is still a TRRA West Belt bridge in place that would suffice to immediately make a connection between the Shrewsbury line and the proposed extension, and it is this bridge whose alignment you see on the map above. (It crosses Forest Park Parkway immediately east of 170.) If you follow this alignment then you would logically transfer to the Shrewsbury line at Richmond Heights . . . or just continue a little further down the existing line to Shrewsbury and end trains there, thus creating a condition precisely like that downtown. Keep in mind, there's no reason that trains from Shrewsbury need to actually go downtown. You could just end them at Forest Park-Deballivier, turn around, and head back west.

If you run trains from Shrewsbury to Westport instead of downtown, then yeah you're just redirecting a line instead of adding a new one. But that doesn't make sense unless you think cross-county passengers are more likely to be heading to Westport than to downtown (and you don't see significance value in increasing train frequency within the city, which IMO is half the justification for building Daniel Boone in the first place).

This conversation is off the rails (get it!?). A Shrewsbury-Westport direct train wouldn't be justified by ridership (there's no major employment center along the route) and has never been studied or considered. It's just not part of the plans to this point, and doesn't seem to make sense as a plan going forward.

I think a Daniel Boone/Westport extension would probably terminate at 5th & Missouri, perhaps with a Forest Park-Debaliviere terminal on weekends.

Are they considering a stop near Maryland/170 servicing all that retail, Caleres, Vanguard and the all the other businesses/residential Clayton High School/Clayton community Center?

^Maybe more so. But I'm not sure what would generate ridership on a line from South County to Northwest County that doesn't serve Downtown, BJC/CWE, any of the major universities, or Clayton. It would be almost entirely park-n-rides with no direct service of employment centers.