urbanSTL

thats right across the street from me - I'll be there. I'd like to hear why we can;t add a street car line or two to supplement the southern route ....

by the way - what is the "lift for life academy."

Regarding the Southside Metrolink line, I sent an email to the planning commission regarding the new Jefferson/I-55 plan that runs metrolink down I-55. Here is what I wrote:



I am a former resident of St. Louis county who currently lives in the

Washington DC area along the orange metro line which runs down the center of I-66 for several miles on the west side of town. From my experience, running the train down the center of an interstate is not an optimal design.



Based on my experience with the orange line in DC, there are two major

problems with running a metro train down the center of an interstate:



1) I always compare the speed of driving with the speed of taking the train and since the train and my car can take the exact same route, often times the train is slower and I choose to drive. In other parts of DC where the train does not follow the highway, it is clearly faster to take the train because it follows the path of slow surface streets (making driving less desirable).



2) By placing the train in the center of the highway, TOD cannot be very close to the stations because it has to be at least as far away as the width of the highway lanes. The center placement makes the station disconnected from the surrounding community. It is similar to the isolation of the Grand Avenue Metrolink station where it is impossible to build TOD by the station.



On the plans for the southside Metrolink extension, I noticed that one option sends Metrolink down I-55. I am not a fan of this option for reasons mentioned above. If you end up selecting this option, please consider putting the train on one side of the interstate, perhaps the west side of the highway (not the center) so that TOD can be developed right by the train line on that side of the highway.

If the Jefferson route is pursued, would it make make sense to extend it to all the way up Jefferson and then to Olive?



The AG Edwards employees express some frustration that they are too far from Metrolink. If you could integrate a station on the existing Metrolink with the new Southside line at Jefferson it would be quite effective eliminating the need for the southside line to serve 14th Street. You could also shift Ewing operator reliefs to this a new Jefferson Street station off the east end of the Ewing yard so the additional stop time would not hurt you too much. You might also integrate this extension of the Southside line nto a redeveloped 20th Street interchange that MDOT was interested in pursing to provide redevelopment options at one time. The idea of going east and west along Olive (two way isn't so bad.) I felt that the alignment should take Olive to 6th and then north on 6th to Lucas or Convention. You could probably work out an approach to put the station along the Ed Jones dome (either in Bear Park) or immediately adjacent to the dome in Broadway. This way the street car could serve the bottle District and new Casio before heading back north. If its going to be a street car rather than Metrolink, you might as well have it serve something new. By coming down 6th (you could make 6th between Washington and Lucas or Convention a transit way. There isn't much auto traffic and then you will have close access to Metrolink. Additionally, I would love to build a bus transit center in the ground floor of a parking garage being considered behind dillards (as part of the Pyramid project).



East West wants to use 10 and 9th as a logical cut through to the north side but I agree that its really not providing much new access in downtown. Serving Olive from Jefferson to 6th would provide rail to a totally new area of downtown and to the area just developing north of the Dome.

August 29, 2006



There have been a couple of changes to the alternatives being considered for South St. Louis. Initially, there were four Southside alternatives, three light rail and one express bus, that would share some Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right-of-way. The UPRR’s requirements for shared use of its right-of-way could result in impacts to numerous adjacent properties. For this reason, and because of its other economic development and ridership benefits, the study team has added a new alternative for detailed evaluation. It is the Jefferson/I-55 alternative. In addition, primarily because of serious roadway impacts on Grand Avenue, the team recommended the removal of the Grand alternative from further consideration. Click here to view the new Jefferson/I-55 alternative. (864 kb PDF)



http://www.northsouthstudy.org/S5_Jefferson_0630.pdf







Personally, I like this cooridor quite a lot. It goes through an area of the city that is on a verge of renaissance (and started rehabbing) through Compton Heights, Marine Villa, brushing western upper Soulard and then using right away straight down I-55. I think this would be most favorable for south city and downtown. My biggest concerns with extending the Shrewsbury Line south is the time factor for commuters from South County/Suburbs into Downtown! I think a line like this (Jefferson/I-55 South) would be more usitilized overall for commuters (not just event travel). Linking AG Edwards and Downtown/Midtown and CWE quickly and easily from the south suburbs through south city. This is the best proposal I have seen yet. The only thing I am not crazy about is the street level running trains down Jefferson. We are spoiled with complete rightaway service in this city.

Busdad, if entering/exiting Downtown from near AG Edwards on the southwest and the Dome on the northeast, how do you get from Olive and 20th (the edge of MODOT's right-of-way) to Bear Park (the eastern edge of the Dome)? It seems like a lot of turns, or closing of streets like Olive east of Tucker and 6th between Tucker and Convention Plaza.



I will agree that putting a new transit center on the northern edge of downtown would ideally be located on both lines, hence Busdad's Convention Center concept. But ironically, that's the same logic for entering Downtown from the Southside at 14th. So does that transfer center move to Jefferson near Highway 40? And ultimately, if you have cross-town riders between North and South City, do you force them to take longer to get through Downtown for the benefit of loft-dwellers who just won't currently walk to work or take any one of the many buses?

I have one complaint about the Jefferson/55 option, and this is coming with my opinion that it's the best looking option, at the moment. My complaint is that it runs along 55, instead of taking advantage of some great potential in neighborhoods along South Broadway. I just don't like the idea of running a line along a highway, because a highway leaves no options for TOD. And it reminds me less of being a urban transit option, and more of a strictly commuter line.



Why not follow Brodaway instead of 55 down at the intersection of Jefferson and Broadway?



There are some awesome commercial districts along S. Broadway, that have long been forgotten and could really revive with TOD.

^I think Broadway is rather isolated from the rest of South City by I-55, plus I-55 looks like a quicker means of heading into South County, and making up time lost street-running on Jefferson.



In a perfect world, you'd have strong, consistent density warranting both frequent-stop streetcars for shorter trips and limited-stop heavy rail for longer trips. Looking at Jefferson/55, it's a hybrid with stops likely more frequent on Jefferson than along I-55.



And I think it's along, not the middle of, I-55. MODOT would never lose capacity on existing highways, even though I-55 is rarely jammed. But by being alongside the highway, despite maybe property impacts where it's tight, you at least get stronger access from one side. And while I-55 misses the commercial heart of Carondelet, I-55 does come near some neighborhood commercial, like Virginia Avenue.

I'm going to try to attend the DT meeting.



I can see why they would try to go along 55 as it would be less disruptive in neighborhoods and it would be a way to pickup speed after street running, which I assume it would be.



^^I think running along S Broadway would be nice but it has it's disadvantages. Broadway is at the eastern end of neighborhoods and the vast majority of the east side of Broadway is all industry. And with all that industry come the awful 18 wheelers and dump trucks that routinely tear up the street. Not exactly a large source of ridership.



For once, running along a highway might be a decent choice. There is plenty of ROW along 55. Though I'm sure some sections will need to be realigned and bridges replaced.



It's still not the best option though.....

Southslider and all:



In speaking to the East West Staff and North South Consultants, I believe their thinking is that using 9th and 10th provides a fairly direct path through downtown areas primary employment centers. (Mostly the area east of Tucker.) It provides a good connection at the best current station for connections to the existing Metrolink(Civic Center). The proposed North South coupler using 9th and 10th also is close enough to Busch Stadium and the Dome to insure that the line will carry some special event ridership.



From that perspective, I think their analysis is pretty good. I wouldn't object too much.



I would love to see any totally new rail offer some additional stations for the far western end of down perhaps around Edwards. A station at Jefferson with the existing alignment would then use the double frequency of Metrolink to distribute passengers to the primary stations already serving some excellent areas of downtown east of Tucker.



If you operated on Olive east of Tucker, you would probably have to use Olive eastbound and perhaps Locust to Tucker westbound. Street car service on Olive west of Tucker would operate two way. This would be pure street car operation rather than Metrolink. It would not be fast east of Tucker.



Trying to get onto 6th and then from 6th over Washington and then somehow past the Dome along Broadway would be difficult. In discussing the concept with East West staff, it doesn't seem that downtown interests would be willing for such a radical concept.



The other negative is that it would be very slow as Southslider correctly pointed out.



On the other end, at 55...would St.Louis County people be really interested in investing their tax dollars in a South City Street Car operating on Jefferson if you didn't offer some faster "Metrolink style" operation in the I-55 right of way.



Metrolink in Missouri only averages 29 miles per hour with all of the stations stops and slower downtown speeds. Would a Jefferson Avenue street car average 29 miles per hour or would it be a 13 miles per hour fancy bus? Would the Jefferson Avenue Street Car be faster than the 10X South Grand Express? It would clearly have more development potential, but may not be a major ridership generator from the County. Don't we have to attract the County voter?



If we can't offer St. Louis Count residents some "speed", will the county tax payers be wiling to vote for more light rail. In speaking to many county transit riders or those currently driving but receptive to using Metro if there is a competitive alternative, they collectively seem to express a desire for more Metrolink. Does that include significant street running of a street car?



Could we look at three short 3 or 4 mile extensions off the current alignments...something north, something west, and something south.



This could be an extension west from Clayton to Westport using one of previously discussed alignments. North could be an extention north from Springdale area to I-270 along Hanley, and south using one of the alternatives of Metro South.



These expansions of the current Metrolink would require investing in closer track circuit between CWE and Emerson to permit closer headways.



The North South Street car could serve only the City and not be proposed as an alternative for St. Louis County.



Neverthless, it appears the next referendum may NOT include additional funding for expanded rail. My conversations with elected officials and policy people suggest that the next referendum will address only operating funding for the existing system--- a November 2007 vote would include only the 1/4th Prop M in the County. Expansion funding for more rail would be years down the road and would perhaps involve a statewide funding proposal involving State capital fundiing for transit and highways.

I can't comment to the northside line simply because i don't know enough about the area



Now, as for the southside - for there to be a line that doesn't hit south grand OR the hill area OR the botanical gardens/tower grove park/ is a bit miffling to me. I understand that lots of people live off or near jefferson, and that there's a lot of scope for TOD, but isn't this putting the cart before the horse? We have 3 major activity areas and this line appears to miss them all! The only one it hits is Lafayette Park, which is ok, but what about the rest of the south?



I can only hope that the preferred line has scope for 2 other split offs, one that runs straight down gravois, and another that runs down gravois and turns right onto arsenal, continuing to kingshighway before turning south again.



The downtown loops look awful, I don't know what EW is thinking. OK, if the northside line comes into 14th st, I can live with that - so then run a line east down washington to connect to 14th and viola, we have a single loop! From there we can extend the line west along washington to jefferson, then run it south and bingo - we have 2 loops now, and the southside line can feed driectly from that jefferson starting point.



I understand there are costs involved in all of this, but isn't this more logical than what they are proposing?

I know it would cost more, but what if the southside line had two branches (or was at least planned with a second branch in mind)? Could a couple of the current proposals be combined into two branches?



We could combine the Jefferson/I-55 proposal with the Chouteau/UPPR proposal. The Bayless-bound Jefferson/I-55 (Southeast City) branch would head south out of downtown, west on Chouteau, south on Jefferson to follow I-55. The Carondelet-bound (Southwest City) branch would continue west on Chouteau and go down the UPRR ROW and terminate at I-55 (joining the other southside branch). This would be my preferred combination as it would cover a wider area of the City (leaving potential for streetcars to connect more neighborhoods to MetroLink).



We could also combine the Jefferson/I-55 proposal with the Gravois/UPRR proposal. Southside trains would head south out of downtown on Tucker (or 14th as shown in the Gravois route). They would continue along Gravois. At Jefferson, Bayless-bound (Southeast City) Jefferson/I-55 trains would turn south on Tucker. Carondelet-bound (Southwest City) Gravois/UPRR trains would continue southwest down Gravois, turn southeast on the UPRR ROW, and terminate at I-55 (joining the other southside branch).



What if the downtown Olive/Chestnut loop was modified? Instead of going back to 14th St., trains could head south out of downtown on Broadway and head west on Chouteau to whichever Southside alignment was built. This would give Soulard better access to the Metrolink system and allow for more TOD on Chouteau (and provide better access for any development on the southside and eastside of Chouteau Lake if/when it's built). It would also surround the Stadium with stations (at the expense of access to the Scottrade Center on the North/South-side alignment). The best transfer point with the current alignment would be the 8th/Pine station (1 block walk).

I think the rationale is that NEW service is being added OUTSIDE of downtown, mainly North City and South City/County. Within downtown, the 9th/10th routing serves many of the same destinations as the original line, with one major exception, the loft district, which becomes the gateway to the Northside.



I think there is a clear trade-offs dilemma. You could route the downtown portion of a North-South line to new areas of downtown, but you risk adding more travel time, either in circuitous routing or forced transfers to the original line, for Northside and Southside commuters trying to reach the same downtown destinations as current MetroLink commuters.



I also find it ironic that a north-south line is now supposed to solve the perceived failings of our east-west line. Ironically, if our original line had been street-running on Olive/Lindell, maybe others wouldn't be asking now for a north-south line to run counter-intuitively east-west.



To minimize travel time for north-south riders, if east-west routing were used, you ideally do a "Z" between the southwest and northeast, or between the southeast and northwest. However, since North 14th serves as a gateway from northside to downtown via the loft district and South 14th serves as a gateway from southside to downtown via Civic Center, any downtown ciculation that's more east-west risks taking riders for a lengthy tour of Downtown, when all they likely want to do is get close to their workplace (most jobs are on a backwards "L" along Market and N. Broadway), attend a special event (Stadium, Dome, Scottrade) or transfer quickly to the original line for other destinations (Barnes, WU, Clayton, UMSL, etc.).



My bias is that we should make downtown more walkable, instead of slowing down any north-south line for downtown circulation. Right now, the line under 8th splits the employment core evenly between 4th and Tucker-- that's 4 blocks east (to 4th) and 4 blocks west (effectively 12th). If St. Louisans can't walk 4 blocks to fixed rail transit, isn't that really more of land use symptom than a transit failing?

I really do think that South St. Louis needs two lines. Having both the original proposals and a Broadway line would be very good, IMO.

Okay, I have been advocating the East-West circuit too much

After rereading parts of this thread, others, and assessing who would use the northside/southside lines I can say:



The North-South or 9th and 10th street slice through downtown should be used because:



Speed & mobility for access to original line, limiting frustrations for North/South County ridership or City ridership for the time wasting east-west circuit > East-West not feasible (two blocks separation for stations?)



Original line already makes accessibility by West Downtown possible if people walk between Washington to Union Station.



Focus on employment/entertainment



Variable to consider

Spatial Ridership region

Market Forces over patronage and accessibility

The range of ridership or ridership origination regions needs to be considered



Wider ridership region:

Lemay which will draw South County and Jefferson County drivers

North Hanley: St. Charles County triangle area, Northwest County, North Central County, Far North County



More restricted ridership region:

Downtown West or Washington Avenue Residential

CWE residential

Delmar residential



Another Variable would be patronage and accessibility

The County has much less density despite more possible riders > there ridership will depend on market costs for gasoline, downtown parking, highway congestion to downtown, and ease of using Metrolink



South City has greater density but how many people work/shop/play downtown or transfer to the original line to go to Clayton, WashU, BJC, Lambert, and maybe Westport one day.



The benefit to both is alternative accessibility and ease for business travel.



Can someone with a specialized transportation planning masters or experience add more comprehensive knowledge?

A generialized education only goes so far or can only address so much of all the possible disciplines or subdisciplines.

Now we're no different than Denver, Salt Lake City, or Portland.

If only our light rail system were no different than the aformentioned cities . . .

Does it have to be different?



I mean we have to consider efficiency, speed, and walking distance to places. Maybe a Loop is not possible since our downtown is not large enough to create a Chicago Loop which looks like it could incorporate our whole CBD inside.

I love dreaming too but we can't have a wet dream all the time. Sometimes you have to come to reality. Lets go to westport-- appease the 1 million+ county folks... and their tax base then lets co Southside then northside while Illinois goes to Edwardsville/Alton getting the 250,000 people of Madison County and their tax base. Then lets get a loop downtown... if the momentum is still going strong when all that is realized... then a loop will certainly be warranted.

According the the Northside-Southside Study website, the "Refinement of Locally Preferred Alternatives" was to occur during Spring 2007. Well, it's officially summer 2007 now... how 'bout them locally preferred alternatives?

Delays in modeling ridership. The last round of open houses are now tentatively September 18-20 with East-West Gateway Board adoption of a locally preferred alternative likely October 31st.



It's also now down to just two Southside alternatives for light-rail, either Chouteau/UPRR or Jefferson/I-55. That is to say, Gravois has been eliminated for light-rail (complex intersections, too narrow west of Grand, auto-oriented, etc.), however, Gravois still shows promise as a BRT project.

I like the Chouteau alternative. I understand that it doesn't hit some of the more densly populated neighborhoods, but I can't imagine that a light rail line will be put through any dense neighborhood. The Chouteau line would have excellent TOD potential. Even if this took 10-20years as it as in some other cities, I think it would be a wise decision. I don't know that the same TOD potential would exist with a line down 55.