urbanSTL

The streets are Market, 7th, Washington and 14th. Southside trains would enter downtown on 14th near the new Kiel transfer center, while Northside trains would enter on 14th north of the Washington loft district.



Previously, six stations were conceptually shared on the loop: 13th/Market, 10th/Market, 7th/Pine, 8th/Washington, Tucker/Washington, Locust/14th; as well as a station immediately north of the loop, 14th/Cass, and south of the loop, 14th/Spruce (Kiel).



However, with the new study coordinated by East-West Gateway, everything is up in the air, including alignment, stations, type trains and type stations (platform or grade-level).



The loop provides indirect transfers in downtown, unlike direct transfer opportunities at the redesigned Forest Park station serving both the Airport and Clayton-Shrewsbury. Though the lines were conceived to directly tie into other system lines in St. Louis County, this study will only cover the City between I-70/Riverview and I-55/Loughborough. Thus, in theory, if these lines would never tie into other system lines, the trains could look more like streetcars and not even need platform stations.



But there seems to be a bias in the public to have Metrolink off-street in exclusive right-of-way. If anything, though, the proposed downtown loop will be Metrolink's chance to get folks thinking about streetcars.

Hey Southsider,



Where are you getting all tha great information. If it's avaliable to the public I'd like to have a look at it.



Thanks

This link details past results of the northside and southside studies. And this link, with its table, gives a great timeline on where all the region's Metrolink corridors stand on their path towards implementation.



But as this below map shows, the corridors still remain conceptual, with alignment and station location to be studied further in East-West Gateway's recent RFP.



http://www.cmt-stl.org/popupmap.htm

If running in streets, traffic signals would be timed to give trains priority at intersections. But along streets, even if the tracks are constructed at-grade within the streets, they would likely not be within driving lanes. Think of it as a at-grade median perhaps.



As for keeping the trains on time, even exclusive rights-of-way lines have this concern, as the existing and Cross-County sections of Metrolink are. Here, sensors along the line currently help conductors maintain desired headways, or the time between trains.



When Cross-County opens, the headway for trains between the Forest Park and Jackie Joyner-Kersie stations will decrease to 5 minutes so as to maintain a headway of 10 minutes at peak times for both the Airport and Clayton-Shrewsbury segments west of Forest Park. To compensate on the east side, some trains will return back at JJK, while others continue on to Shiloh-Scott.



Similarly, the northside and southside lines would share the downtown loop, thus headways about the loop would likely be 5 minutes, while only 10 minutes in north city and south city.



The minimum headway found to be safe on MetroLink is 3.5 minutes, which Metro uses during major events exceeding normal demand.



In fact, this is why the south city extension cannot tie directly into the existing line at Grand, since then points west would be a 3-way split (2-way split already at Forest Park). Instead, a parallel route on Chouteau adds stations to the near southside as well as address the potential headway headache.

I heard the end of a news story last night on KMOX - and (while I clearly did not hear the whole thing so I could just be confused) it seemd to imply that the north and south lines of Metro were a go. Has anone heard anything about this? Am I just confused?



and by the way - I will take this opportunity to - once again - state that we should build a handfull of metro lines and then link them up with a handfull of street car lines (linking up Soulard, Lafayette, Tower Grove, the BOtanical Garden, both sides of Grand, OldNorth St. Louis and - of course - the west end) .. my two cents

This is a portion of an article entitled "Congress completes highway legislation" By Deirdre Shesgreen, Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau

07/28/2005









Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., praised a $15 million bonding program he successfully included in the bill, which could net Missouri an additional $300 million for infrastructure projects. And Bond said he secured about $50 million for transit projects in Missouri. He won authorization for two MetroLink extensions - $135 million for a south extension and $275 for a north extension - but lawmakers will still have to set aside specific money for those projects in their annual spending bills.

Thats eactly what they were talking about. I heard them say that funding was secured and then they went on to breifly describe the rail lines ....



I suppose this is really good news yes?



But again - like I said - I'll get really excited when they wise up to the need fopr street cars to supplement these lines. How expensive could it be? Especially if we go the cheaper route and just have the damn things run on ordinary tires (which I would even recommend - I would rather have 6 lines with tires than 2 on rails)

Good job Senators sticking up for mass transit in St. Louis, and who says Republicans don't care about transit?



I voted Kerry and McCaskill just for those who think I'm republican.



This could inspire the region to do what Dever did and pay for a major expansion with bipartisan support!

SMSPlanstu wrote:Good job Senators sticking up for mass transit in St. Louis, and who says Republicans don't care about transit?



I voted Kerry and McCaskill just for those who think I'm republican.



This could inspire the region to do what Dever did and pay for a major expansion with bipartisan support!

I will hold applause until I see results. Politicians love to show up and throw pork around and when they are gone, you realize they didn't really do anything. If any politician can get the Northside and the Southside Metrolinked - and I mean started in the next couple of years, I will shower them with bipartisan praise.

However Expat, i will say Sen. Bond has been very good for St. Louis for sometime in brining home the transportation pork.

JMedwick wrote:However Expat, i will say Sen. Bond has been very good for St. Louis for sometime in brining home the transportation pork.

Has he brought home pork for St. Louis public transportation in the past? I hope so. They seem to be better about bringing home highway money than transit money. Often I have been disappointed because major highway projects get funded and transit gets crumbs. Of course, Missouri needs both. Well, all states need both. My statement regarding pork & politicians was a melodramatic way of saying that I want to get more details before I get excited.



Xing - love your map!

That Metro Map would be a dream come true!! We can only hope that some of that is built.... Too bad my hometown would not have a line... Columbia IL...





SE LINE: ESTL-Sauget-Cahokia-Dupo-Columbia/255

Xing, Where did you find that last map?

Those metrolink routes through the city are not the best, need subway lines under Broadway, Grand, Kingshighway, and Jefferson for north/south routes and Gravois, Manchester, Olive, and MLK for east/west routes.



I say this because with the proposed south city line it would take longer to go from Carondelet on Metro than by a streetcar along Broadway straight north.

The south city line bypasses SO many neighborhoods like Soulard, Benton Parks, Grand South Grand, Dutchtown, and Carondelet area east of Grand. It looks like Morganford south of Arsenal is skipped too if the Tower Grove station is in the Southwest Garden district along Kingshighway. The north line skips Baden and any neighborhood south of the ville, north of the CWE area and west of Old North St. Louis. This is why subways on Grand, Olive, and MLK, and Broadway for Baden would work.



Expat, you're right that I want to see this bill passed with it's great amount of money for the Metrolink expansion and not just give apllause too soon. However, just the fact that Bond and Talent put these projects in the bill is noteworthy and good policy even if it may be for some glamor.

Planning for new MetroLink extensions advances

By Phil Sutin

Of the Post-Dispatch

07/29/2005





Plans for expanding MetroLink took two steps forward this week, but money to build future projects still is not in sight.



Congress authorized spending $410 million for two expansions in a six-year, $286.5 billion transportation bill. The House passed the measure, and the Senate followed suit.



The East-West Gateway Council of Governments hired a team of consultants on Wednesday to plan part of an expansion north, south and west from downtown St. Louis.



The projects in the transportation bill call for spending

$275 million for 28 miles of an expansion north, south and west of downtown St. Louis. If fully developed, the expansion would extend MetroLink from a loop in downtown St. Louis north to St. Louis Community College at Florissant Valley, south to Interstate 55 near the South County shopping mall and west to West Port Plaza.



$135 million for 11 miles of an extension of MetroLink south of Shrewsbury. That expansion would go along either the Burlington Northern Railroad right of way or the River Des Peres to Interstate 55, ending at Butler Hill Road. Metro is building an extension to Shrewsbury from Forest Park that it expects to open by Oct. 31 next year.



The importance of Congress' action is the not the money, but putting the projects on the bureaucratic and political table for future action. Before construction begins, lawmakers have to appropriate the federal share and regional officials have to come up with the local one.



However, the money in the federal authorizations may not be close to the cost of the two expansions. The highest cost estimate of the extension south of Shrewsbury is $700 million, and engineers have yet to determine the cost of the north-south-west extension.



Money from a quarter-cent transit sales tax in St. Louis and St. Louis County, the main source for local financing of MetroLink expansion, is tied up retiring bonds for an expansion now under construction.

Thanks, just wondering



BTW, Is your new icon giving the 'evil eye'

JUst going to throw a wierd idea out there after seeing Xing's map.



For the north and south metrolink lines that come into downtown:

Why couldn't downtown have a single station located along Tucker or 14th street where the north and south lines both meet the downtown loop? Say near where Xing has the Olive Street Station? That way north and south lines coming out of downtown could cross Jefferson and provide nice stops for both AG Edwards and the West Loft District.

i agree Bond has brought a bunch of transportation money to MO, but so much of it gets thrown into highways and roads it's not even funny. They should have put a freeze on new highway construction back in the 70's (i think Massachussetts did something similar) and started investing in mass transit back then. I'm guessing St. Louis (and KC) would be much different, more compact cities today. Another thing, reading a Brookings report some time ago, they said that the state of Missouri already has too many highway miles to maintian for it's budget (and yet they keep expanding and widening highways). I actually think MO should begin actively taking down certain highways, put a good chunk into mass transit, and the rest into schools (i know that's not how funding really works on a federal level, but maybe at a state level).

How much will this investigation cost (year long!)?



New state audit to focus on Metro extension





08:13 AM CDT on Monday, August 1, 2005



(KMOV) ? Missouri State Auditor Claire McCaskill begins a year-long look into Metro expansion. The latest forecast places the project a year behind schedule and $126 million over budget.



The audit will focus on the eight-mile extension from Forest Park to Clayton and then south to Shrewsbury.



There are reports that Metro may not open all of the books on the project because of on-going litigation.



McCaskill says if auditors get full access, and full cooperation, they should have a complete report within 9 to 12 months.



The original budget of the cross county extension was $550 million.