Boy, JM, actually several questions, but I'll try, including some speculation, when downtown and funding alternatives remain an unknown:
In Downtown, an array of streets will be considered. Many stakeholders dislike the previously identified streets of the Downtown Loop (14th-Market-7th-Washington), especially Market and Washington. Metro itself has created a bi-directional bus loop of multiple bus routes along Market, Washington and 4th/Broadway.
Given recent and planned increased residential density in the Loft District, Old Post Office Square, Bottle District and Ballpark Village, the loop or similar downtown concepts will likely try to tap these trip-generators by exploring alternate streets. In addition to a loop, other explored concepts may include a couplet of parallel one-way streets, a transit mall, and/or running directly through downtown mostly north-south.
If looking at the loop concept, I would guess that a revised loop would likely fall within the boundaries of 14th to the west, Clark to the south, 4th to the east, and Cole to the north. The north edge of the loop would likely be between Cole and Locust; the south edge between Olive and Clark; the east edge between 4th and 9th; and the west edge between 10th and 14th. Depending upon one-way-street and even counterflow options, a revised loop could remain counter-clockwise like the original concept or even operate clockwise instead.
But JM, all options for downtown would be built as part of a northside, southside or combined north-south line, not any downtown loop by itself. Nationally, downtown people-movers and monorail-like lines are generally not very successful, though some heritage trolley lines, basically streetcars, have limited success. But the purpose of the Northside-Southside Study is not building something really for tourists or mostly downtown interests. Rather, downtown will benefit in being a transit hub for a region, so that individuals, whether having their final destination or just transferring in downtown, will have improved choices in accessing our region's employment and services in or outside of downtown.
As for funding, federal funding from the New Starts program would be needed, but that also means a local match of about half of the project's capital cost. The current quarter-cent (Prop M) sales tax in St. Louis City and County will be tied up for debt service to pay off Cross County construction. An additional quarter-cent sales tax would only help Metro meet its operating budget shortfalls that Missouri fails to subsidize like other states. Since a gas tax increase with a transit component is unlikely (failed Prop B), the local match for further MetroLink expansion in Missouri will likely have to come entirely from St. Louis City and County.
A three-quarters cent tax could provide a local match, but County voters may not support paying additional taxes for a mostly City north-south line just barely entering the County to Northland (Jennings) and Reavis (Lemay/Mehlville). Perhaps, if the northside and southside extensions were campaigned in conjunction with a line to Westport, then County support would increase. But promising even more extensions would then require closer to a full-cent sales tax and that still doesn't solve the problem of getting MetroLink outside of the I-270 beltway. Many voters think MetroLink should expand westward, but such areas lacking walkable density and bus ridership challenges cost effectiveness.
However, though a public plan of multiple extensions would likely be needed for voter support, the New Starts program is so competitive that regions must be patient, really only building one extension at a time. In addition to competing Missouri MetroLink extensions, Madison County may enact its own sales tax and has much greater state funding options with Illinois. But Madison County, and even the Delmar Loop Trolley (albeit a Small Starts project), are as much in the St. Louis region as all of the competing Missouri MetroLink extensions, definitely testing the patience and cooperation of our region's voters to accept an incremental plan that may not serve their own community as soon as others.
But as with any extension prospect anywhere on the Missouri side and even indirectly for any in Illinois (since a bi-state system operationally), Metro ultimately doesn't have a capital budget problem as much as it faces an operations budget problem, since Missouri lacks a dedicated funding source for transit as other states have.
And JM, the ridership projections are less conservative on Cross County than those for the original line. But the actual ridership of the original line far exceeded its far too conservative projections. Of interest, however, west of Forest Park, projections predict more ridership to Clayton-Shrewsbury than to UMSL-Lambert. This may have been a factor as to why St. Clair County Transit District will now pay for Metro to change from its plans to instead have all Belleville-Shiloh trains head for Clayton, not Lambert. Still, Forest Park will serve as an even split, at least in the short term, with half of the trains going equally to UMSL-Lambert or Clayton-Shrewsbury.
