I would really like to see a line built to serve the north and south side. All at once. But, if I had to choose, it would be the south side. I think the a southside line would spur a lot of development and interest that would encourage them to hurry with other lines. A southside line would be popular and strengthen the idea that we need more.

Northside, since I live there. An extension of the northside line would also serve as the Daniel Boone/Wesport connector so I see a lot of political support for it.

This is a toughy, but I'd have to say South Side.

I also though it was tough, but out of pure selfishness, I voted for the southside line.

Gotta go with south side.

the Southside line needs to be totally redrawn

Gravois was actually considered as a preliminary alternative in 1999/2000 studies, along with Broadway, Jefferson and I-55. However, most of these were eliminated due to right-of-way constraints or having too many adjacent property impacts (takings). The I-55 alternative even made it beyond initial screening. But ultimately, the Chouteau-UP RR alternative was chosen over I-55 for having more bus route connectivity, transit-oriented development potential and ridership.

The southside line using the UP tracks seems decent, all except the portion coming out of downtown. It owuld be nice to see the ine offer access to AG edwards and then move southwest past the grand stop. One day maybe an I-55 line will be built, it could be for commuting.

except the portion coming out of downtown

The southside line ideally needs to enter/exit downtown close to Kiel (around 14th) or Busch (around 7th) for riders to transfer to the main line.

One day maybe an I-55 line will be built, it could be for commuting.

MetroLink doesn't follow Interstates because alleviating congestion is not the sole purpose of light-rail. The lines connect to park'n'ride stations, like Hanley on I-70, Brentwood I-64 or Shrewsbury I-44 to provide commuter options. But while destined for downtown or Clayton, you still need to link major bus feeders, activity centers and destinations along the way.



For this reason, the southside line doesn't follow I-55, nor does the northside line follow I-70. Still, each line does have park'n'ride opportunities along I-55 near Loughborough and I-70 near Riverview.



Plus, if we only built lines to get you Downtown, return trips would be empty with such one-way commute patterns. Ridership is better when actually connecting multiple dots instead of just from the suburbs to a central business district, such as the interstates are configured.



For comparison, the original line works not only to get you from the airport to downtown, but to UMSL, Forest Park, BJC, SLU and other destinations along the way. Similarly, the southside line isn't meant to just get folks to downtown from I-55 park'n'ride lots, but also connect major activity centers and bus lines along the way.



And think of land use. Interstates are very hostile environments for pedestrians and cyclists. Even if using a park'n'ride at one station, most transit users are limited by how far they can walk from a station for their destination. For these reasons, Natural Bridge is better than I-70, and Chouteau-UP better than I-55.

The southside line ideally needs to enter/exit downtown close to Kiel (around 14th) or Busch (around 7th) for riders to transfer to the main line

Why? IF you read the rest of my post, i sugest that the line could cross the main line out at grand, providing all the conection you can want to the main line. However, the prefered design of 14th to Chouteau seems to only have the bennefit of going past the Laffyett Square. I aplaud the city for attempting to connect this line to that neighborhood, but i wonder if it would be better for overall ridership to go past AG Edwards.

One day maybe an I-55 line will be built, it could be for commuting.

I think you missed the point. If you noticed i said one day, not tomorrow. I did not say I-55 is the best southern line. I understand full well why the southern route is taking the alingment suqqested, as it does hit many more urban neighborhoods, which is a great thing for the city. However, the alingment allows a southern route to serve the southwestern part of the city very well. It does not serve the southern part of the city, neighborhoods close to I-55 well. If one of the long term goals of Metro is to create density in the city, this area and the I-55 alingment fit well into that plan. To ignor that, and the neighborhoods would be foolish. If it is good to connect LQ and the CWE to downtown, then it is good to connect Soulard and other areas. As an added bennefit , this line would be good for commuting, allowing Metro the same type of sucess with AB that it had with BJC. To ignor such opertunites is very dumb. It seems like Metro ignors alot of them. (see the often inadequit number of parking spaces at the Forest Park stop)



I will even go one step further. Metro and other may wish to dismiss the idea of using highways as routes for mass transit, however I think they are missing the boat. First off, there are neighborhoods that service these area with decent populations. The routes of highways were not arbitrary. Contentious yes, racialy based, yes. But they are still aligned in such a way that they quickly funnle people to and from areas. Highway allingments have spawned many destinations such as shopping centers. To uses these routse as a basis for understanding where people are coming from and going to is a great tool that Metro should utalize, whether the alingment is down the middle of the highway or not.



THe highways into and out of downtown follow four basic patterns. People want to leave the city going directly south, southwest, west or northwest. Very few people want to go directly north, but then again, check a map and you will see very little development due north of the St. Louis metro ebcause of the confluence. Therefore, I don't understand how it makes so little sense to apply this logic to metrolink, serviceing into and out of downtown. Seems to me like a line to service the northwest, due west, southwest, and south make the most sense in the LONG TERM. MEtro can ignor this, but doing so doesn't make sense.

I would have voted for a line that ran either the length of Grand or Kingshighway, and extended from there into the county.

steve wrote:I would have voted for a line that ran either the length of Grand or Kingshighway, and extended from there into the county.

I still think as far as the South Side Metrolink expansion goes, the Gravois alignment with street-car or Metro shuttle bus connectivity on major north-south routes would be best for the city. Gravois itself would provide stops to Soulard, McKinley Heights/Fox Park, Benton Park West, Tower Grove South/Grand South Grand, Gravois Park/Dutchtown, Bevo, and Southwest city (Boulevard Heights). Grand and Kingshighway streetcars or shuttles could then move north and south along the streets and connect people to the stops on Gravois.



Yes, this would be expensive. But if the Loop trolley, which is designed with Metrolink connectivity in mind, is indeed successful, maybe people will begin to consider this as an option.

i'm going with south side.

existing line = north county

Expansion = mid county

Future - South City/County South City is the highest population density of any place in the entire metro area. It should be south.