^Was there any discussion of the stations they cut at Russel and Arsenal?
- 6,126
^They show the deleted stations on the maps as "design options," making me think they could add them back in at some point in the future. The presentation says the removal of the stations reduces the footprint of the project and improves transit times. Further, they claim that not building those stations "avoids potential building, business, and property impacts." All of that feels like truisms, really. That which you don't build has no footprint and no impact. They do say they keep spacings to under a mile. The meat of the thing is already on the web on the Green Line site, but the posters went into at least a little more detail, so I'll present them here.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Thanks for posting these, yeah sounds like a whole bunch of word salad to say "we felt like it." It's just really weird to me this whole process where they've been studying this line since like 2007 and these transit stops have always been a part of the plan, with different studies and public comment periods just for them to pull the plug. It's honestly why I probably won't bother to attend any of these presentations, much as I care about this project, I don't think they will listen. Seems like all show for federal funding requirements.
- 928
They are maximizing the appeal for funding which I am okay with at this point. Get this thing built then we can always infill stations and expand on the system. From the answers of the presenters, I think they will actually bring that to the table once the project gets off the ground. The natural bridge expansion will likely be phase 2. One more station to the south at I-55 will be considered.PeterXCV wrote: ↑May 01, 2024Thanks for posting these, yeah sounds like a whole bunch of word salad to say "we felt like it." It's just really weird to me this whole process where they've been studying this line since like 2007 and these transit stops have always been a part of the plan, with different studies and public comment periods just for them to pull the plug. It's honestly why I probably won't bother to attend any of these presentations, much as I care about this project, I don't think they will listen. Seems like all show for federal funding requirements.
Promising things from the presentation:
1. The upzoning of the corridor. I think they can even go a couple steps up on that. They should zone out gas stations along the corridor (There are way too many on Jefferson as it is). I worry that some of the existing development along Jefferson particularly the stretch on the west side from 44 to 64 will not be conducive to new TOD and density. They also should just eliminate minimum parking all together but it will at least be diminished.
2. The project is a strong candidate for funding because of demographics being served.
3. No costs of eminent domain anticipated.
4. New station at Ewing Yards for transfer sounds like it will be functional and nice.
5. They will reallocate bus service to feed system and provide better intra service in the neighborhoods.
Questions I remember:
Why Jefferson and not Kingshighway or Grand?
How will it affect Jefferson traffic?
How will it affect structures (vibrations)?
What would expansion look like?
What would security be?
The design stage will start to show this project more rounded out. I am very excited as I think it will finally bring some new investment to north city and make the south city neighborhoods very desirable to young people. The Chippewa to 44 stretch on Jefferson will become more dense and stimulate commercial activity in my opinion. There will definitely be new residential mid and high rises built along Jefferson, especially from 64 to MLK when it breaks ground. Bi-State and the City are going all in on this and are pretty adamant about making it happen.
Overall, I feel good.
The catchment area map showing a simple 1/2 mile radius doesn't factor in ease/comfort of crossing the wider stroads and highways. Riders will be more willing to walk further through Lafayette Square, for example, than if they need to cross Gravois or I-44. I think a catchment map that reflected this reality would reflect the benefit of the Arsenal and/or Russell stations.
- 2,637
My walk to a station from the Northern side of Mckinley Heights was about seven minutes to the Russell Station. Now it's 15 minutes to Park Ave assuming I walk along Jefferson the entire way (including under that terrible overpass/onramp complex) or 20 minutes if I walk through Lafayette Park.
We own so we aren't going anywhere, I know I will be using this line a fraction of what I would have with a Russell station. It's also a shame because that intersection has some seriously juicy redevelopment parcels nearby
We own so we aren't going anywhere, I know I will be using this line a fraction of what I would have with a Russell station. It's also a shame because that intersection has some seriously juicy redevelopment parcels nearby
- 2,419
You have a month to submit that comment, according to what symphonicpoet shared. Do it.
I think there should be Arsenal and Russell stations, without doubt.
And to be honest, I'm not sure I love the consolidation of the Washington Ave. and Carr St. stations into the single Dr. MLK Jr. Dr. station.
I think there should be Arsenal and Russell stations, without doubt.
And to be honest, I'm not sure I love the consolidation of the Washington Ave. and Carr St. stations into the single Dr. MLK Jr. Dr. station.
- 6,126
Now that you mention it I remember the comments on Kingshighway/Grand and security. Very good summary.delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑May 01, 2024They are maximizing the appeal for funding which I am okay with at this point. Get this thing built then we can always infill stations and expand on the system. From the answers of the presenters, I think they will actually bring that to the table once the project gets off the ground. The natural bridge expansion will likely be phase 2. One more station to the south at I-55 will be considered.
Promising things from the presentation:
1. The upzoning of the corridor. I think they can even go a couple steps up on that. They should zone out gas stations along the corridor (There are way too many on Jefferson as it is). I worry that some of the existing development along Jefferson particularly the stretch on the west side from 44 to 64 will not be conducive to new TOD and density. They also should just eliminate minimum parking all together but it will at least be diminished.
2. The project is a strong candidate for funding because of demographics being served.
3. No costs of eminent domain anticipated.
4. New station at Ewing Yards for transfer sounds like it will be functional and nice.
5. They will reallocate bus service to feed system and provide better intra service in the neighborhoods.
Questions I remember:
Why Jefferson and not Kingshighway or Grand?
How will it affect Jefferson traffic?
How will it affect structures (vibrations)?
What would expansion look like?
What would security be?
The design stage will start to show this project more rounded out. I am very excited as I think it will finally bring some new investment to north city and make the south city neighborhoods very desirable to young people. The Chippewa to 44 stretch on Jefferson will become more dense and stimulate commercial activity in my opinion. There will definitely be new residential mid and high rises built along Jefferson, especially from 64 to MLK when it breaks ground. Bi-State and the City are going all in on this and are pretty adamant about making it happen.
Overall, I feel good.
They did say that they were looking at improving pedestrian access. I think they were mostly talking about Jefferson itself, but getting across the major thoroughfares near the line is at least on their mind: improving pedestrian safety, reducing accidents. I don't know quite what they have in mind yet, and you're not wrong, things like 44 and Gravois are absolutely a barrier that needs to be perforated._nomad_ wrote:The catchment area map showing a simple 1/2 mile radius doesn't factor in ease/comfort of crossing the wider stroads and highways. Riders will be more willing to walk further through Lafayette Square, for example, than if they need to cross Gravois or I-44. I think a catchment map that reflected this reality would reflect the benefit of the Arsenal and/or Russell stations.
I won't really be using it at all until (or more accurately if) they extend it south to Loughborough, since I'm nowhere near what they're planning now and it won't really go anyplace I particularly need to go. I'll still just use the 70 Bus to access the rest of the system on those occasions I use it. I understand your frustration. I really do. But as RockChalkSTL says you should submit a comment. (I do think omitting the stations is a mistake.) And even without those stations, and even if they never extent the thing my way I'm still in favor of it. It'll make the system stronger. The better it gets the more likely they are to expand it in the future.GoHarvOrGoHome wrote:My walk to a station from the Northern side of Mckinley Heights was about seven minutes to the Russell Station. Now it's 15 minutes to Park Ave assuming I walk along Jefferson the entire way (including under that terrible overpass/onramp complex) or 20 minutes if I walk through Lafayette Park.
We own so we aren't going anywhere, I know I will be using this line a fraction of what I would have with a Russell station. It's also a shame because that intersection has some seriously juicy redevelopment parcels nearby
- 928
The Russell cut stinks because it might have encouraged them to fix the horrible Russel-Gravois intersection so that it could have served northern parts of Soulard. It does feel like one station between Cherokee and Park Ave is pretty spread out for this type of transit.GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑May 01, 2024My walk to a station from the Northern side of Mckinley Heights was about seven minutes to the Russell Station. Now it's 15 minutes to Park Ave assuming I walk along Jefferson the entire way (including under that terrible overpass/onramp complex) or 20 minutes if I walk through Lafayette Park.
We own so we aren't going anywhere, I know I will be using this line a fraction of what I would have with a Russell station. It's also a shame because that intersection has some seriously juicy redevelopment parcels nearby
I also have preferred keeping the Wash Ave stop. I’ve even dreamed of a street runner going down Wash Ave or Olive to intersect this then down Broadway to Soulard. Alas maybe the MLK stop will get some investment into that blvd because it badly needs it.
- 985
Also in the next few years is that the timeline for determining which Phase 2 alignment they will choose?
After that is there any idea on what the next step will be? Seems like it will depend on the development and political landscape 10 years out.
After that is there any idea on what the next step will be? Seems like it will depend on the development and political landscape 10 years out.
- 928
It will all but likely be a north county extension because the county is working on it now. Extension would likely go down natural bridge then up to North County transit center. They said the county is about a year behind them in the process.imperialmog wrote: ↑May 01, 2024Also in the next few years is that the timeline for determining which Phase 2 alignment they will choose?
After that is there any idea on what the next step will be? Seems like it will depend on the development and political landscape 10 years out.
- 2,419
As a reminder, here are the four potential alignments for the Green Line extension.
From what I understand, the purple and gold alignments are the favorites, with purple likely #1.
Gold could be enticing if there is direct airport connection, but I'm not sure how they could get the Green Line onto the tracks at the existing UMSL-North station. It seems the most realistic option would be another transfer station.
Connection into downtown Ferguson is also appealing, for multiple reasons.
From what I understand, the purple and gold alignments are the favorites, with purple likely #1.
Gold could be enticing if there is direct airport connection, but I'm not sure how they could get the Green Line onto the tracks at the existing UMSL-North station. It seems the most realistic option would be another transfer station.
Connection into downtown Ferguson is also appealing, for multiple reasons.
- 928
Purple is definitely most likely. Gold would be my preferred choice. Another transfer station to integrate system and serves downtown Ferguson which actually has good fabric that can be built upon and become a desirable inner ring destination. Seems like it could be extended to Old Town Florissant in future or up to 270 then east to the transit center. I’m not sure if Walnut Park and Dellwood provide the same opportunities for progressing the city. North Pointe is a nice little north side neighborhood though for what it’s worth. That purple alignment would make a lot more sense to me if it was a Kingshighway alignmentRockChalkSTL wrote: ↑May 01, 2024As a reminder, here are the four potential alignments for the Green Line extension.
From what I understand, the purple and gold alignments are the favorites, with purple likely #1.
Gold could be enticing if there is direct airport connection, but I'm not sure how they could get the Green Line onto the tracks at the existing UMSL-North station. It seems the most realistic option would be another transfer station.
Connection into downtown Ferguson is also appealing, for multiple reasons.
- 2,419
I hope someone here can correct me if I'm incorrect, but I believe it has been said that Old Town Florissant can't easily be reached using the gold alignment. I think it might be that the I-270 bridge over S. New Florissant Rd. is too short to allow MetroLink trains.
What comment submission are you referring to? I only see that as something in the open house's powerpoint slide.RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑May 01, 2024You have a month to submit that comment, according to what symphonicpoet shared. Do it.
I think there should be Arsenal and Russell stations, without doubt.
And to be honest, I'm not sure I love the consolidation of the Washington Ave. and Carr St. stations into the single Dr. MLK Jr. Dr. station.
- 6,126
On the Greenline-about page, in the heading labeled Project Timeline just a bit before Project History there's a link in the text that says "comment on this project." It just takes you to their contact page, so I'm not really sure it works as a public comment pipeline, but maybe there's a way to put something in the subject line.
- 320
Fairly long article in today's Business Journal about the Green Line.
BUILD IT, SO THEY COME
BUILD IT, SO THEY COME
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2024/05/08/new-metrolink-line-few-riders-matter.htmlThe expansion of St. Louis' light rail through north and south city is projected to attract few riders and carry substantial capital costs per rider compared with similar projects around the country, a Business Journal analysis shows, raising questions about whether the route and transportation mode are the best possible choices.
But local officials say ridership projections aren't the driving factor in whether to build MetroLink's new "green line," largely on Jefferson Avenue, arguing it will further spark development and build toward a better future in long-neglected areas.
"Transit can be a catalyst for development," Kim Cella, executive director of public transit advocacy group Citizens for Modern Transit, said, citing a 2023 consultant study touting its economic benefits. "This line is unique in that it traverses highly dense parts of the south side, but also areas of the north side where they're ripe for redevelopment." 'LoopTrolley 2.0'
Of projects seeking funding from the FTA's Capital Investment Grants programs, only two had lower ridership projections than MetroLink's green line, according to an analysis of available federal data.
The Capital Investment Grants include the New Starts, Small Starts and Core Capacity programs. Bi-State Development, which oversees transit agency Metro and its MetroLink, will seek funding through the New Starts program for the green line.
Bi-State, with consultant HNTB, projects that the green line will serve 5,000 riders per day, less than all other projects currently seeking funds from the Capital Investment Grants program with the exception of a light rail project in Inglewood, California (4,300 a day) and bus rapid transit project in Monterey County, California (2,800).
A Chapel Hill, North Carolina, bus rapid transit project, for comparison, anticipates more than 10,000 daily riders. And, on the high end, an expansion of the red line on Chicago's "L" train anticipates 41,500 daily riders, an extension of a commuter rail line in San Francisco projects 48,000, and the addition of tracks in tunnels into New York City would serve 210,400.
The analysis also showed that capital costs per rider are comparatively high for the St. Louis MetroLink expansion.
If the project costs $1.1 billion, as officials have said it could, the cost per daily rider would equal $220,000, more than all but the Inglewood project and a 6-mile extension of Bay Area Rapid Transit in San Francisco.
Decreasing St. Louis' costs to $850 million, a stated goal of Bi-State, perhaps via expansion of an existing maintenance facility rather than construction of a new one, would make the project the fifth-most expensive per rider of 24 total projects seeking federal funds, according to the analysis.
The ridership estimates for the green line are "extremely underwhelming," said David Stokes, director of municipal policy at the free-market think tank Show-Me Institute and a critic of the project. He dubs it "Loop Trolley 2.0," a reference to the Delmar Loop streetcar that suffered from lack of paid ridership, and, after numerous struggles and controversies, is now operated by Bi-State with no fare.
Metro currently has no bus route for the proposed green line, Stokes said, as buses, which have seen service reductions, instead use a hub-and-spoke model. "The idea that there's some sort of latent demand for this route is crazy," he said.
And Stokes cited a Show-Me analysis, distributed to the region's planning agency before it chose to move forward with the green line route, showing that past Metro ridership projections for new MetroLink stations have fallen far short of actual figures collected later. It also says that fewer St. Louisans utilized mass transit in 2019 than did in 1990, before MetroLink was developed, as regional sprawl has continued, particularly to the west. Ridership is now lower than before the Covid-19 pandemic.
Randal O'Toole, another critic of the green line project and former senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, advocates not only nixing it, but reimagining St. Louis buses, with nonstop routes running to and from primary and secondary transit centers near large numbers of jobs. An example advocates stops downtown, and in Clayton, Creve Coeur, Ferguson and Sunset Hills, among other places, making possible "a rapid, one seat trip" from "one end of the urban area to the other."
Count me as a skeptic too. I'd love to see MetroLink expanded, but I just don't see this line being worthwhile.
I think N-S Metrolink is crucial to the stabilization and redevelopment of neighborhoods in South and North City. I don't understand people's negativity towards Metrolink expansion. What's the point of having a light rail system if the goal is to not eventually complete the system? I don't think we should let the current state of the city, politics, population, crime, etc. take us off track. As far as the current state of the Metrolink system. I think we're doing better than most similar sized metros, but I also think a lot of typical St. Louis negatively and political dysfunction is why we don't have a complete system by now. I mean when you look at the way regions like Denver, Dallas, Salt Lake and currently (Minneapolis and Charlotte) have rapidly expanded their systems, it's emabarrising that our system has been the same size for almost 20 years. Time to expand the system into some of the densest residential neighborhoods now.framer wrote: ↑May 09, 2024Count me as a skeptic too. I'd love to see MetroLink expanded, but I just don't see this line being worthwhile.
While not the only reason, I believe the current lines contribute to the growth in the central corridor, it will be nice to bring those benefits to new areas.goat314 wrote: ↑May 09, 2024I think N-S Metrolink is crucial to the stabilization and redevelopment of neighborhoods in South and North City. I don't understand people's negativity towards Metrolink expansion. What's the point of having a light rail system if the goal is to not eventually complete the system? I don't think we should let the current state of the city, politics, population, crime, etc. take us off track. As far as the current state of the Metrolink system. I think we're doing better than most similar sized metros, but I also think a lot of typical St. Louis negatively and political dysfunction is why we don't have a complete system by now. I mean when you look at the way regions like Denver, Dallas, Salt Lake and currently (Minneapolis and Charlotte) have rapidly expanded their systems, it's emabarrising that our system has been the same size for almost 20 years. Time to expand the system into some of the densest residential neighborhoods now.framer wrote: ↑May 09, 2024Count me as a skeptic too. I'd love to see MetroLink expanded, but I just don't see this line being worthwhile.
Absolutely, I think a N-S line will lead to a massive wave of development along Jefferson._nomad_ wrote: ↑May 09, 2024While not the only reason, I believe the current lines contribute to the growth in the central corridor, it will be nice to bring those benefits to new areas.goat314 wrote: ↑May 09, 2024I think N-S Metrolink is crucial to the stabilization and redevelopment of neighborhoods in South and North City. I don't understand people's negativity towards Metrolink expansion. What's the point of having a light rail system if the goal is to not eventually complete the system? I don't think we should let the current state of the city, politics, population, crime, etc. take us off track. As far as the current state of the Metrolink system. I think we're doing better than most similar sized metros, but I also think a lot of typical St. Louis negatively and political dysfunction is why we don't have a complete system by now. I mean when you look at the way regions like Denver, Dallas, Salt Lake and currently (Minneapolis and Charlotte) have rapidly expanded their systems, it's emabarrising that our system has been the same size for almost 20 years. Time to expand the system into some of the densest residential neighborhoods now.framer wrote: ↑May 09, 2024Count me as a skeptic too. I'd love to see MetroLink expanded, but I just don't see this line being worthwhile.
- 2,637
The route isn't currently served by buses because there isn't currently Metrolink stop on Jefferson for that bus to connect to. South City contains most of our densest and most urban neighborhoods. In it's current state it's still pretty car dependent but once the line is installed, people who want to use it will self sort themselves into the surrounding neighborhood leading to a slow boost in ridership before factoring in new housing stock.
Adding the Russell and Arsenal stations back would boost ridership too but they seem to have been sacrificed to save money. Good thing we are wasting so much on turnstiles on the existing system
Adding the Russell and Arsenal stations back would boost ridership too but they seem to have been sacrificed to save money. Good thing we are wasting so much on turnstiles on the existing system
After attending the virtual town hall last week, they sent attendees the public input form. My feedback to them was:GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑May 09, 2024The route isn't currently served by buses because there isn't currently Metrolink stop on Jefferson for that bus to connect to. South City contains most of our densest and most urban neighborhoods. In it's current state it's still pretty car dependent but once the line is installed, people who want to use it will self sort themselves into the surrounding neighborhood leading to a slow boost in ridership before factoring in new housing stock.
Adding the Russell and Arsenal stations back would boost ridership too but they seem to have been sacrificed to save money. Good thing we are wasting so much on turnstiles on the existing system
"I do believe it is a mistake to eliminate from phase 1 the most crucial of stops, with the most critical mass, in favor of value engineering. Which is what appears to be illustrated in the choice. The distance people must walk from within neighborhoods such as Benton Park, Fox Park, etc is extensive and not encouraging. I understand you're trying to be sensitive about impacts to properties, as was outlined in the public meeting. But, the line will have more impact if you place a single stop at Gravois/Sidney where it's a busy crossroads with crazy, incompetent drivers, than if you place stops at Russell and Arsenal, where it's calmer conditions and the road is narrower. It's safer for riders to cross narrower, mid-block streets than try to access wide, busy intersection stops.
Also, I don't believe a stop is necessary or useful at Jefferson & MLK. There's nothing there. No draw. If anything, if not at Wash Ave/Jefferson, consider a stop between Locust & Olive. More critical mass and accessibility to where people want to go..such as the new MLS stadium, Union Station, the burgeoning new district of dining/drink establishments at Locust & Beaumont. Not to mention, safer for bicyclists utilizing the green line, who may be trying to get from Jefferson to the Chestnut Street bike corridor. Also, this gives further activation to Locust street as a community corridor, which has the potential to further develop into a walkable, desirable destination in downtown west...as opposed to Market St, which is an unsafe stroad. Sure...the Brickline Greenway will eventually cross through Market St...but, while accessible to the new MLS stadium...it's further from other businesses. A stop closer to Wash Ave..anchored by Locust street is more of a win all around than either the market street or MLK stops.
With what I am saying, you can then eliminate Gravois/Sidney, Market St and MLK stations. And instead have Arsenal, Russell and Olive/Locust in place. And if service demand dictates..you can consider Market St and MLK as infill stops down the road. I emphatically implore you to really weigh this and consider. Thank you."
Also posted it to the Facebook page they set up independent of the main Metro fb page, to which they responded:GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑May 09, 2024The route isn't currently served by buses because there isn't currently Metrolink stop on Jefferson for that bus to connect to. South City contains most of our densest and most urban neighborhoods. In it's current state it's still pretty car dependent but once the line is installed, people who want to use it will self sort themselves into the surrounding neighborhood leading to a slow boost in ridership before factoring in new housing stock.
Adding the Russell and Arsenal stations back would boost ridership too but they seem to have been sacrificed to save money. Good thing we are wasting so much on turnstiles on the existing system
I agree, find locations for the best possible ridership results from the get go then fill in other stops once there is some momentum. Instead of trying to spark development in struggling areas we need to be igniting the flame in the Russell and Locust areas. Thank you for submitting that.