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.
- 924
- 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.
- 924
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.
- 6,119
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.
- 2,623
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.
- 32
The goal of further investment in public transit should be to maximize the utility of the system for riders—i.e., maximize combined bus and rail ridership. The goal shouldn't be to build more rail for the sake of building more rail. That's exactly what Dallas has done, and their system has pitiful ridership because it's not actually useful.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.
The best light rail systems in North America share a core characteristic: they're all served by an extensive network of high-frequency bus routes.
The two existing MetroLink lines provide a strong east-west spine of frequent, high-capacity transit connecting major activity hubs. But MetroLink is severely underutilized because MetroBus service is abysmal. The real embarrassment is that St. Louis has one bus route that runs more than once every 20 minutes. At a minimum, we need to double bus frequencies across all routes (and perhaps add new routes) to properly service the Red and Blue lines. The Green Line shouldn't be built without a commitment from Metro that it will intersect with several bus routes with a frequency of 15 mins or less. If it doesn't, it will be a failure from day one.
^Agreed. Additionally, among the actual riders of the Metro system I think 90+% would put as a priority increased bus service asap over more Metrolink. (I'm not against Metrolink expansion tbc)
I think I am in the same camp--if the Green Line gets built, I will wind up using it, but I don't think it is the best use of our transit dollars, and I question if the ridership numbers will really make it worth it. I think improving bus frequency would have the most impact, followed by expanding bus routes. Unfortunately, increasing bus frequency doesn't get people excited, and BiState is ultimately accountable to politicians more than riders.
We also seem to have trouble maintaining the MetroLink stations we already have, with constantly broken escalators and elevators that seem to take months to repair. In addition to making the stations challenging to use for people with mobility issues, I think it probably makes choice riders less likely to choose transit.
We also seem to have trouble maintaining the MetroLink stations we already have, with constantly broken escalators and elevators that seem to take months to repair. In addition to making the stations challenging to use for people with mobility issues, I think it probably makes choice riders less likely to choose transit.
While I agree that Metro should work on improving bus service, I just don't think politicians and the general public sees Metrolink expansion in relation to bus service (as crazy as that sounds). I think Metrolink expansion is primarily being pushed by politcians (who want to be at ribbon cutting ceremonies), real estate developers (who hope this line increases land values and development opportunities), and choice riders (people who want a cool way to the soccer games from their soon to be gentrified south city neighborhood). This line definitely gets built, because the political and civic machine seems to be behind it. Leaning on the Justice40 initiative will definitley get it past the finish line.
- 2,419
St. Louis definitely could do a lot better with its bus system, both in terms of frequency and in terms of infrastructure. All too often, stops are in lonely spots, barely with a sidewalk, with no seating, with no cover, and with hardly any dignity.
I think a large investment into the bus system and its stops would do wonders for ridership.
I can't help but notice that the southern terminuses of the existing blue line and upcoming green line are at Chippewa. To me, it makes sense to run BRT between the Shrewsbury station and the Civic Center.
It would add a east-west spur to the system in south city, along some of the city's densest neighborhoods. The corridor would likely support high ridership and is ripe for development. It would also connect south city riders to all three MetroLink lines -- the blue line at Shrewsbury, the green line at Gravois, and the blue and red lines at the Civic Center. With this, south city Metro users would have fairly quick and easy access to anything the entire system offers.
You then feed the south city bus lines to the transit centers and along the BRT route.
Edit: I've provided a crude illustration. Ignore the red dots that are showing downtown...
I think a large investment into the bus system and its stops would do wonders for ridership.
I can't help but notice that the southern terminuses of the existing blue line and upcoming green line are at Chippewa. To me, it makes sense to run BRT between the Shrewsbury station and the Civic Center.
It would add a east-west spur to the system in south city, along some of the city's densest neighborhoods. The corridor would likely support high ridership and is ripe for development. It would also connect south city riders to all three MetroLink lines -- the blue line at Shrewsbury, the green line at Gravois, and the blue and red lines at the Civic Center. With this, south city Metro users would have fairly quick and easy access to anything the entire system offers.
You then feed the south city bus lines to the transit centers and along the BRT route.
Edit: I've provided a crude illustration. Ignore the red dots that are showing downtown...
- 1,792
I'd agree with this but i think a metro link stop at Jefferson would be worth the investment regardless of whether the Greenline goes forward or not.rbeedee wrote: ↑May 12, 2024I think I am in the same camp--if the Green Line gets built, I will wind up using it, but I don't think it is the best use of our transit dollars, and I question if the ridership numbers will really make it worth it. I think improving bus frequency would have the most impact, followed by expanding bus routes. Unfortunately, increasing bus frequency doesn't get people excited, and BiState is ultimately accountable to politicians more than riders.
We also seem to have trouble maintaining the MetroLink stations we already have, with constantly broken escalators and elevators that seem to take months to repair. In addition to making the stations challenging to use for people with mobility issues, I think it probably makes choice riders less likely to choose transit.
I do think a lot of the reason they are pushing it is a bunch of promises made to get NGA built in North City. That isl why they decided to shift their choice of routing after all. I think this is largely silly since i'd wager the ridership from NGA worker will be disappointing but its driving a lot of suboptimal decision making IMHO.
I know that feds said that the only way the NGA would relocate to North St. Louis is if the near Northside is radically improved over the years. I think that's why the line is pretty much a sure deal with the feds. We have local match, politicians are behind it, and the Justice40 initiative ribbon cutting will be irresistible to the feds. Roach also said that there is so much money for transit expansion available. Big plans in places like Nashville have fell through, which leaves a lot of funds on the table for us to expand our system.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑May 14, 2024I'd agree with this but i think a metro link stop at Jefferson would be worth the investment regardless of whether the Greenline goes forward or not.rbeedee wrote: ↑May 12, 2024I think I am in the same camp--if the Green Line gets built, I will wind up using it, but I don't think it is the best use of our transit dollars, and I question if the ridership numbers will really make it worth it. I think improving bus frequency would have the most impact, followed by expanding bus routes. Unfortunately, increasing bus frequency doesn't get people excited, and BiState is ultimately accountable to politicians more than riders.
We also seem to have trouble maintaining the MetroLink stations we already have, with constantly broken escalators and elevators that seem to take months to repair. In addition to making the stations challenging to use for people with mobility issues, I think it probably makes choice riders less likely to choose transit.
I do think a lot of the reason they are pushing it is a bunch of promises made to get NGA built in North City. That isl why they decided to shift their choice of routing after all. I think this is largely silly since i'd wager the ridership from NGA worker will be disappointing but its driving a lot of suboptimal decision making IMHO.
- 2,419
I'm pretty confident that the green line is going to get built. St. Louis is following through on old promises, and hopefully now the feds will reciprocate.
I think phase 1 of the green line is going to work out well for St. Louis, with lots of development coming up and down the corridor, but I do think that the green line needs a phase 2 into north county and phase 3 into south county for it to pay off as much as it can.
Edit: I also don't think that NGA is going to drive much use, but I don't think that north city in general will be driving much of it for a while. My hope is that the public-private working relationship between NGA and the geospatial companies in town will be as rich and fruit-bearing as all parties have teased over practically the last decade. I'm hoping a number of geo companies move up there and that the ridership is more due to them than the actual NGA.
I think phase 1 of the green line is going to work out well for St. Louis, with lots of development coming up and down the corridor, but I do think that the green line needs a phase 2 into north county and phase 3 into south county for it to pay off as much as it can.
Edit: I also don't think that NGA is going to drive much use, but I don't think that north city in general will be driving much of it for a while. My hope is that the public-private working relationship between NGA and the geospatial companies in town will be as rich and fruit-bearing as all parties have teased over practically the last decade. I'm hoping a number of geo companies move up there and that the ridership is more due to them than the actual NGA.
- 1,792
i think north city will use it heavily, but i also think the users will simply be people who would have taken the bus anyway. Its not that i think they don't deserve a train or something but its not really about that IMHO. Its about driving new investment and attracting new residents. I just don't think the train is the best way to do that. I think a very strong downtown is the way to do that.RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑May 14, 2024I'm pretty confident that the green line is going to get built. St. Louis is following through on old promises, and hopefully now the feds will reciprocate.
I think phase 1 of the green line is going to work out well for St. Louis, with lots of development coming up and down the corridor, but I do think that the green line needs a phase 2 into north county and phase 3 into south county for it to pay off as much as it can.
Edit: I also don't think that NGA is going to drive much use, but I don't think that north city in general will be driving much of it for a while. My hope is that the public-private working relationship between NGA and the geospatial companies in town will be as rich and fruit-bearing as all parties have teased over practically the last decade. I'm hoping a number of geo companies move up there and that the ridership is more due to them than the actual NGA.
In my fantasy metrolink map I have a southside line that follows jefferson much as planned for the Greenline, but it is tunneled north of 40 and it turns at Washington tunneling under Wash Ave all the way to Convention creating a transit loop path through downtown. Of course it would be comparitively expensive to tunnel under washington, but connecting to the Blue line in two places would be the start of an incredible network in Downtown. A Future Red Line follows Gravois-Tucker-Florrissant-NaturalBridge
this concept predated the NGA decision by almost a decade, but even given the changes since then its still my fantasy pick.
- 2,419
Love the Grand streetcar idea.
I think the green line can pretty much be penciled in as we are seeing it proposed at this point. It's what we're going to get.
I've wondered if the city couldn't create another line that bypasses Jefferson through the Central Corridor, instead going downtown like we saw proposed in the early days of the N-S MetroLink discussions.
In the illustration I created below, I actually have the trains running down 14th instead of Tucker. Doing that allows the train to meet up with the Civic Center, creating another direct connection with the blue/red lines, but also with the many bus lines that run out of that transit center.
This 5.3-mile line would create a third NGA station, better connection to Old North St. Louis and places like Crown Candy, easy access to City Museum, another Wash Ave. stop, fairly easy convention center and Central Library access, another way to get to Enterprise and City Hall, a Civic Center connection, and gets the system closer to places like Soulard.
I think this would make moving the Union Station MetroLink station from its current place on the east side of Union Station to the west side make sense. With a blue and red line MetroLink stop at 20th St., I think Union Station benefits from it, the soccer crowd benefits from it, and the station would also meet up with the 20th St. Mobility Improvements project (https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/project-conn ... /index.cfm), which will run from Market St. to St. Louis Ave. The 20th St. Mobility Improvements project would also intersect with the north end of this line.
After the green line is built, I would think the north county extension would be the system's next move. After that, I would think a third phase -- one for south county -- would be next.
But I do wonder where city leaders will point next for a line in the city. My hope is for 14th, Tucker, or Broadway -- or something east-west in south city -- to be that choice.
I think the green line can pretty much be penciled in as we are seeing it proposed at this point. It's what we're going to get.
I've wondered if the city couldn't create another line that bypasses Jefferson through the Central Corridor, instead going downtown like we saw proposed in the early days of the N-S MetroLink discussions.
In the illustration I created below, I actually have the trains running down 14th instead of Tucker. Doing that allows the train to meet up with the Civic Center, creating another direct connection with the blue/red lines, but also with the many bus lines that run out of that transit center.
This 5.3-mile line would create a third NGA station, better connection to Old North St. Louis and places like Crown Candy, easy access to City Museum, another Wash Ave. stop, fairly easy convention center and Central Library access, another way to get to Enterprise and City Hall, a Civic Center connection, and gets the system closer to places like Soulard.
I think this would make moving the Union Station MetroLink station from its current place on the east side of Union Station to the west side make sense. With a blue and red line MetroLink stop at 20th St., I think Union Station benefits from it, the soccer crowd benefits from it, and the station would also meet up with the 20th St. Mobility Improvements project (https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/project-conn ... /index.cfm), which will run from Market St. to St. Louis Ave. The 20th St. Mobility Improvements project would also intersect with the north end of this line.
After the green line is built, I would think the north county extension would be the system's next move. After that, I would think a third phase -- one for south county -- would be next.
But I do wonder where city leaders will point next for a line in the city. My hope is for 14th, Tucker, or Broadway -- or something east-west in south city -- to be that choice.
