urbanSTL

In fact, the vast majority of light-rail systems in the US have at-grade single lines, couplets or transit malls for their downtown component, not loops. Newark (a pre-1980 line), St. Louis (converted railroad tunnel) and Seattle (current conversion of bus tunnel) are the only three in the country to have below-grade light-rail downtown. Most cities (Baltimore, Buffalo, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Minneapolis, Phoenix, Portland, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Diego) have at-grade street-running light-rail for the downtown section of their rail transit system.



Looking at all rail system maps, Chicago and San Diego will show downtown loops. Of course, Chicago's loop is older heavy rail and grade-separated, hence the "el" for elevated. Yet San Diego is light-rail. However, while San Diego comes closest to looking like a downtown loop on a map, the lines don't actually operate that way. It's really an "L" on northern and eastern edges of their downtown operationally with the western edge of the resulting loop-looking triangle serving special events and entertainment stops that see fewer trains than the rest of their downtown.



And other cities have mixed technologies on their system. Baltimore, our sister city with its city-county split and rustbelt economy, has an east-west subway paired with a north-south at-grade light-rail. What is now proposed for St. Louis would add a north-south at-grade light-rail couplet downtown (if 9th/10th) or a hybrid couplet/loop (if Olive/Chesnut) above our existing below-grade east-west line.



But don't take my word for it, check out other systems in this exhaustive APTA list on-line of all US light-rail systems.

Boston has a kind of loop as well:

http://homepage.mac.com/lpetrich/www/tr ... ston_T.gif



I actually think something like this is a good model.

Would 8th and Pine be able to expand underground for a larger station and longer platform?



Can any of the mainline stations be lengthened when ridership calls for it?



It seems a Downtown Loop may cost upwards of $500 million alone.



With all this Loop talk: Should the northside-southside lines terminate downtown or be continuous?

Anyone who has listened to me (that probably excludes most of you) when I go off on the expansion of metro knows that I am a HUGE supporter of either grade separated or ROW methods of expansion. That being said ...I always assumed that the downtown portion would be worth going below grade... like the system we already have in tunnels (which we were lucky as he11 that they were there)... but if you were to have the same system in a "loop" in our CBD and some of the stations are underground and some are at grade, that would be downright tacky not to mention confusing to visitors (If they were looking for the subterranean train they would certainly get on the at-grade train because it would make the other train invisible). It works with MAX in Portland because that’s how the whole system is designed... it wouldn't work in NY, Chicago or any other MAJOR system (that I assume we would aspire to have a "major system" someday) to be at grade downtown and it wouldn't work here....

I agree with tbspqr. For the long term, it is well worth the money to build below ground downtown. I am about to move to Baltimore where their light rail (with train cars just like in St. Louis) runs at grade through downtown. It has to stop at every light with the cars and it is a very slow way to travel when compared to the St. Louis Metrolink. It is not nearly as cool as Metrolink.

Surely building Metro underground is cost prohibitive. At the moment, mainting the current system is cost prohibitive. Given the opportunity in the future to expand the system north and south or having trains underground (and there will be a cost trade off at some point), I'll take a larger system that reaches more people.

Jmed, I'm gonna tear your loops apart, just cause I don't like your face



it appears there is no way to get directly from civic to 14th and washington - which makes little sense if a lawyer works by the courthouses and lives in wash ave.



also - why cole? the convention center already serves the dome. Cole would service...neighborhood gardens? it's too far south to make any real use of the potential residental area (unless you still hold out hope for the bottle district)



What is at Cerre? Isn't that the southside of the stadium? What purpose would that serve?



You also can't get into Ralston via the east side without coming all the way into 8th & pine, tranferring, and backtracking. Doesn't make much sense to me.



For a loop to work, it has to touch AG Edwards. There is no argument here. They employ what, 30,000 people at the site? Plus visitors? We're talking what, minimum 70,000 trips A DAY to and from the HQ? And you're (you being metro or others there) gonna have a public transit loop terminate a few blocks away? That's worse than metro missing SLU, Grand Center, AND the hospitals.



The Loop should go from jefferson to washington to broadway to market. have a divider using the current line from civic through to the landing. It'll cost a lot to get the transfers right, but this is a better idea than missing the brunt of employment in the downtown.

tbspqr wrote:it wouldn't work in NY, Chicago or any other MAJOR system (that I assume we would aspire to have a "major system" someday) to be at grade downtown and it wouldn't work here....

Well, it does work in Chicago. Both the Red and Blue lines run underground straight down the center of the elevated loop. Both the Red and the Blue lines have two transfers to the loop (one on the north and one on the south side of the loop). Other than those who haven't had any experience riding rapid transit, I don't think it's too hard to understand and I've only ever been there as a tourist.



Part of the reason I think it works is the differentiation between lines. When you're in a city with multiple lines, you don't just look for any train, you want the Blue Line. The N/S will likewise be differentiated from the current (Red Line?) system. I would hope that the signage on all of these stations clearly reflects which line it is (and directs people to closeby stops of other lines).

For those wanting to build underground, I think the "cheapest" below-grade option would be to extend the existing Tucker tunnel now ending north of Washington south to Clark then across City Hall's parking lot to Civic Center station. But such option would only add two new stations to Downtown, with a duplicate station at Civic Center and one new station at Tucker & Market (or Olive) as well as another new station at Tucker & Washington. But how is that different than just running at-grade on 14th straight-through with stops say at Civic Center, 14th & Market (or Pine), and 14th & Washington? By running at-grade as proposed in the Northside-Southside Study, you get more stations for less money. Plus, you actually get closer to the CBD's employment east of Tucker as well as the Loft District's residential on the northwest edge of the CBD. Finally, at-grade actually allows more stations because the slower speeds downtown (faster elsewhere) means you can have shorter station spacing, since dwell times matter less, when you're not decelerating as much as the existing line to stop at stations.

JMed wrote:

Under neither of the current downtown loop proposals can you go from Washington to Civic.

In both options proposed by the North-South Study, you can indeed go from the Loft District to Civic Center. I think JMed is assuming that each study option is still an overlapping loop as in the previous 2000 study, when current study representatives at neighborhood meetings have said trains will run THROUGH downtown between North and South City.



Thus, in the 9th/10th couplet option, a loft dweller could board at 14th & Delmar and travel south via Delmar, 10th, and Clark to 14th to reach the Civic Center. As for the Chesnut/Olive loop option, the ride gets longer, riding from 14th & Delmar south to Chestnut but then looping out of your way to 6th and back Olive before reaching Civic Center. It's for examples like this that the Chestnut/Olive loop option would likely work better still as overlapping trains from North and South, while the 9th/10th couplet option definitely works for straight-through trains, or continuing from North to South, and vice versa.

I haven't seen any projected ridership on this new study's alternatives, but the market for cross-town ridership could be strong, considering the top two buses in the entire regional bus system are Grand and Kingshighway, with Chippewa (becomes north-south on Jefferson) and Hampton also among the top ten.



Realistically, if you live and work west of Grand in the City, you won't save much time going downtown first, instead of just taking a current bus to the existing MetroLink. However, I believe the denser neighborhoods east of Grand (more potential density, if Northside), or all the many neighborhoods stretching from Hyde Park down to Carondelet, would save time over today's buses, even if Downtown was not their final destination, or using Downtown as their transfer hub.



Looking at the routing of the newly proposed alignments, the target market looks to clearly be commuters heading downtown. However, cross-town riders as well as quick connections to the existing system for western commuters (Barnes, WU, Clayton, UMSL, etc.) would only boost ridership even more. Thus, the challenge is how to serve many downtown destinations yet not take too long to get through downtown or even just to Civic Center to transfer west onto the existing line. IOW, it's a classic balancing act of both directness of route (and thereby more speed) and proximity to destinations (and thereby more trip generators).



Loops can certainly serve more places, hitting more destinations. However, since trains usually make all stops on two-track systems (Dallas' special event service being one exception), how many riders are you ironically losing, despite serving more places, by ultimately making the overall ride slower? If commuters originating outside of downtown are the larger share of riders than those just circulating within downtown (and they have to be, or you should just build a downtown trolley instead of a north-south regional line), then it's likely more riders lost, the larger your downtown loop gets.

I think, that if there is no need for a loop, that Tucker is the best and most fit road to take a train through downtown. And did I hear somewhere there is a tunnel underneath or am I just making things up?

^Again, it's likely balance. You can't take too much time looping around downtown. But at the same time, a line only on 14th, although fast, may lose too many riders, those transit-choice commuters that desire a single-ride to their downtown destination.



The 9th/10th couplet looks to me like a way to still serve employment and special events east of Tucker, yet still getting across downtown quicker than any loop. However, since outside of the Loft District, a 9th/10th couplet duplicates coverage already provided on the existing line, single-ride bias for new North and South markets can be the only rationale for even building 9th/10th, instead of just staying on 14th.



Still, a very fair question would then be-- if downtown residents should give up downtown circulation (no slow loop) for the benefit of non-resident commuters, then why can't these commuters give up the benefit of a single-ride (duplicate routing) to downtown employment and special events (instead straight-through on 14th and force transfers at Civic Center)? I think it's an especially fair question too since commuters traveling beyond Downtown via the existing lines are expected to transfer. IOW, why should downtown commuters get the luxury of a single-ride trip? Are transit-choice commuters, a target market for all US downtown-hub rail systems, that sensitive to a single-ride? Even more sensitive in regions with low congestion and minimal parking costs like St. Louis?



Hopefully, transit planners will model both staying on 14th verses direct service into the CBD east of Tucker, be it a skinny loop (Olive/Chestnut) or quicker couplet (9th/10th). That way, decision-makers can reason whether the obvious added cost of more track downtown is worth the added benefit in ridership. If not, separate service for downtown circulation, be it streetcar loop or frequent, well-branded bus shuttle, seems worthy of consideration.

I don't think a slow loop is a concern. Downtown is the center of the region and it's where most people are travelling to or to transfer from. If they were planning on going somewhere outside of downtown, they would have to transfer anyway, right? The loop should ensure a stop near all the major destinations, and have all of its lines eminate from downtown in different directions. Once someone arrives downtown, they transfer accordingly. The transfers should be at the entrance to each end of the loop. I don't think this would be too slow.

After rereading this page multiple times in order to understand a quick question pops up:



Is the Civic Center station capable of being a transfer and normal station for multiple Metrolink lines, Amtrak, and Metro buses?



Why can't Northside/Southside Metrolink travel undergound or along/under one road as opposed to At-Grade 9th/10th?



Yes, cost maybe the answer, but won't At-Grade traffic be horrible to mix with Metrolink?

^By building a new north-south line at-grade, any new "Civic Center" station on the north-south line could be adjacent to, but not sharing the platform of the existing below-grade "Civic Center" station. If the north-south line will be on at-grade track separate from the below-grade tracks of the existing east-west line, then Civic Center is capable of being a transfer station, so long as there is room to build a new station nearby within very short walking distance. For example, a new at-grade station could be built partially where the bus loop and landscaped plaza now are presently.



And aside from cost, physical feasibilty is an added reason why any new north-south line cannot be below-grade. With the existing tunnel just below Washington and 8th, you can't intersect this tunnel without damaging it, and that includes branching off from the 8th & Washington curve. As such, you're left with only west of 8th as below-grade options for a new north-south line. However, at the same time, the existing line curves west of 8th to form an east-west barrier to crossing Mill Creek Valley below-grade. So even if you were to be below-grade on a north-south street west of 8th, you still would have to be above-grade to cross Mill Creek Valley, yet still squeeze above existing MetroLink yet below elevated Highway 40. And trains can't rise or fall as quickly in grade changes as or as steeply as roads.



For example, say you extend the existing "tunnel" under Tucker now north of Washington south. Such option wouldn't impact the tunnel on the existing MetroLink, but then where and how do you transition to elevated to cross Mill Creek? Ironically, an at-grade crossing of Mill Creek would be easiest at or east of 7th, but then the existing 8th tunnel forces new tunnels west of 8th (7th and 8th basically the same street at the pinchpoint of Spruce at the western edge of the new Stadium, where MetroLink curves from an east-west barrier at Mill Creek's edge to a north-south tunnel under 8th).



So not only would grade-separation on a new line be costly, but it may not even be physically feasible. The existing tunnel can't be touched, isolating the employment core from any new below-grade lines. Additionally, Mill Creek acts as a barrier between South City and Downtown, limiting below-grade options. In fact, going from at-grade to elevated to at-grade makes sense for crossing Mill Creek, just as many street viaducts do now, but that means running with the street. As such, a new north-south line would only go elevated where existing streets go elevated, such as 14th to cross Mill Creek Valley.

Would a deep level bored tunnel be possible with our geography? I doubt that would ever happen though with cost, but just curious. It seems like other cities have pulled it off.



Though I could see our cheap, anti-society citizens calling up Town Talk to complain that they spent to much doing it right. Because you know we deserve only the half a$$.



Darn streetcar barons. If only you had built a Metro back in the day, St Louis. If only...

Personally I would prefere the new line to be an elevated system, even if just in the downtown loop, versus at grade. That way it would be possible to keep the streets open, avoid traffic entanglements by keeping the entire system isolated and have much more flexable station placement. If designed well the tracks would not have much of an impact on daylight in the streets and if constructed out of concrete noise would not be an issue as it is in Chicago. The cost would be more than at grade track, but much more feasable than a subway system. Busdad, any thoughts on why this is not a consideration?

by keeping the entire system isolated and have much more flexable station placement

I don't think that this is true. At-grade would allow for the most flexible station placement. An elevated system has some cool potential for stations directly into buildings, but not many of us would want this obscuring and of our historic gems.



Also, I think it's good to remember that our city infrastructure once supported more than 800,000 people. Our city roads are more than wide enough to accomodate current auto traffic and at-grade rail.