Well, that's the trick. If Metro were privately owned, it could build wherever it bought/rented property. But it's a publically-funded service, and thus it has a mission to serve the entire community. This might be helpful: instead of talking about where it should go NEXT, a discussion about where it should GO, period, would result in a plan that would support the maximum number of people. From there decisions about what line to open next can occur. I don't think it's ever possible to entirely eliminate the political aspects of this; but, if there was a clear commitment to build out the entire system, people might be more willing to cut Metro some slack in how they picked and chose the order of expansion.
- 359
Xing wrote:I don't buy your argument about gaining stronger political support, when we just did that by the construction of a line through the richest, and most populated area of the metro region. What has that provided us with? Lower than expected ridership, and funding issues.
And you think people in my neck of the woods would want their tax dollars funding projects in North St. Louis? Think again. Even if you don't buy my argument, I'm sure there are plenty of people in the St. Louis Metro (from affluent/powerful backgrounds) right or wrong who would have said something similar to "Why waste all of that money on North St. Louis?" as well. I think a N-S line would be excellent. I think a starter line should run from Grand Center down Grand all the way to South County. I bet that line would be more popular than the proposed one.
- 11K
I feel that if the north line isn't built as part of a north/south expansion that it will never get built. There simply won't be the political will, public sentiment for building it. I do think people will support it if its part of a larger project.
Grover wrote:I feel that if the north line isn't built as part of a north/south expansion that it will never get built. There simply won't be the political will, public sentiment for building it. I do think people will support it if its part of a larger project.
That's a very good point.
- 476
stlmizzoutiger wrote:And you think people in my neck of the woods would want their tax dollars funding projects in North St. Louis? Think again.
Well, I dont think people from your neck of the woods would be too keen on funding a line running through your neck of the woods either.
"A new train wouldnt just bring us downtown for Cards games... I could also bring people from the city out HERE! GASP!
"stlmizzoutiger wrote:
And you think people in my neck of the woods would want their tax dollars funding projects in North St. Louis? Think again. Even if you don't buy my argument, I'm sure there are plenty of people in the St. Louis Metro (from affluent/powerful backgrounds) right or wrong who would have said something similar to "Why waste all of that money on North St. Louis?" as well. I think a N-S line would be excellent. I think a starter line should run from Grand Center down Grand all the way to South County. I bet that line would be more popular than the proposed one.
Thank you. Sometimes I need to be reminded of how superficial and selfish some people are. Sometimes, I actually have an optimistic picture of society.
Xing wrote:stlmizzoutiger wrote:
And you think people in my neck of the woods would want their tax dollars funding projects in North St. Louis? Think again. Even if you don't buy my argument, I'm sure there are plenty of people in the St. Louis Metro (from affluent/powerful backgrounds) right or wrong who would have said something similar to "Why waste all of that money on North St. Louis?" as well. I think a N-S line would be excellent. I think a starter line should run from Grand Center down Grand all the way to South County. I bet that line would be more popular than the proposed one.
Thank you. Sometimes I need to be reminded of how superficial and selfish some people are...
"Me-me-me. If I don't see an immediate benefit, screw it."
Some people really are penny-wise and pound-foolish.
North or South or West: That is the question. If we cannot build the combined northside-southside line at once, perhaps we can at least commit to building the lines so that noone feels left out, for long. Salt Lake recently made a deal with the FTA to speed up development of their light-rail system:
Not that I'm necessarily recommending St. Louis do the same thing. Salt Lake is getting speed for increased cost and I doubt St. Louis could afford to do the same. But at the very least, it may be nice if we could commit to building one line by 20xx and the next by 20xx+y.UTA on track for U.S. funds
Letter of intent says $500 million is anticipated for Utah rail projects
By Nicole Warburton
Deseret Morning News
The Utah Transit Authority said Monday it has signed a letter of intent with the federal government to fund 20 percent of the cost to build four new light-rail lines and commuter rail to Provo.
The anticipated funding will total about $500 million of the more than $2 billion cost to build the five rail lines, said Mike Allegra, UTA's chief capital development officer and assistant general manager. Local sales tax dollars from Salt Lake and Utah County residents will fund the remainder.
...
Because the letter of intent applies to all five projects, Inglish said his agency will save what would have been years of waiting through a lengthy federal funding process.
- 2,386
Not a terribly bad idea. Although I do have to say, I think a line west down 44 from downtown through the tower grove community connecting with the shrewsbury line would be the most riden of any talked about in the last few pages. I say this not based on any demographic basis, but it would truly connect a loop around the east-west corridor in the city, so to speak. That'd be pretty cool, and make the current lines as a whole much more functional, but that's just my uneducated opinion. North-South should deffinitely be a package deal, and I think an extension to 270 would increase ridership more than the current route does, but that's just compounding the obvious problem of funding.
This would be a political miracle if it pulled through, but in order to make the "M" a truly usable service for most of st. louis, a massive funding campaign for 5 years, and subsequent building of 5 or 6 lines at once, connecting in a useful manner seems to be the only way to turn the majority of our residents onto light rail. Either that or massive population growth to about 5 million people within the next 10 years. (I have no idea how long it would take to gain the funding for this idea, 5 years is a blatant guess to illustrate a point.)
This would be a political miracle if it pulled through, but in order to make the "M" a truly usable service for most of st. louis, a massive funding campaign for 5 years, and subsequent building of 5 or 6 lines at once, connecting in a useful manner seems to be the only way to turn the majority of our residents onto light rail. Either that or massive population growth to about 5 million people within the next 10 years. (I have no idea how long it would take to gain the funding for this idea, 5 years is a blatant guess to illustrate a point.)
- 11K
^ I'm not sure I'd like to see an I-44 line, but the idea of connecting the loops has a lot of merit. It seems obvious that connected a south side line with the Shrewsbury line via the River Des Peres would be a natural step. The right-of-way is there and it would make Richmond Heights and Clayton reasonably accessible to So Co residents.
To me the North-South line with its street level access has the feel of an extended modern day street car line with the emphasis on bringing in city neighborhoods to a strong central district. Portland comes to mind. In that context, I think you need to build it as one distinct line. I think the study emphasized that in their recommendation by showing it as such.
How is isolation of the rail line handled with street-level tracks? I know the issues must have already been faced by cities that have it, but there are some basic questions that the public will need answered to be assured the system can work, including: synchronization of traffic signals, isolation of the rail line from pedestrians / bicyclists, etc. And what if there's a traffic accident that leaves wreckage on the tracks? Do things like this affect the punctuality of street trains? I'd be curious to learn how other cities have addressed /mitigated these potential problems.
- 1,768
newstl2020 wrote:Are we considering any type of raised structure?
Opposite...would run at grade, sometimes down the street. Entirely new type of cars for this line.
- 2,386
I know what this proposal entitles, I was curious as to whether or not a raised structure had been looked into as well. Would almost undoubtedly be more expensive, but DAMN, would it be cool.
- 1,610
Trains would run in raised or curbed travel lanes on concrete-embedded tracks. There are some pictures on the study website. The curbing would discourage motorists from entering medians (or tactile edges for one-way curbside lanes in the heart of downtown) for trains, although emergency vehicles could mount the curb. Then again, so could errant motorists, but it would be like driving on a sidewalk.
Motorists would cross the tracks at limited, raised (table-top, not elevated) intersections with signals, not crossing gates. Signals would use prioritization technology for trains to reduce the likelihood of a red light for trains, but trains would still sometimes need to stop for a red light. To further ensure on-time performance, reduce costs, and limit possible conflict points, minor intersections, or any intersection without a signal, would be right-turn only.
Similar operations are already employed on light rail systems in Portland, Denver, Dallas, and Minneapolis, among other cities with even older light rail. Seattle and Phoenix are new systems under construction that will also use street-running trains and traffic signals instead of control gates. Charlotte has the only new line under construction using only control gates for at-grade crossings, however, like St. Louis, Charlotte's new line completely reuses a former freight railroad.
Motorists would cross the tracks at limited, raised (table-top, not elevated) intersections with signals, not crossing gates. Signals would use prioritization technology for trains to reduce the likelihood of a red light for trains, but trains would still sometimes need to stop for a red light. To further ensure on-time performance, reduce costs, and limit possible conflict points, minor intersections, or any intersection without a signal, would be right-turn only.
Similar operations are already employed on light rail systems in Portland, Denver, Dallas, and Minneapolis, among other cities with even older light rail. Seattle and Phoenix are new systems under construction that will also use street-running trains and traffic signals instead of control gates. Charlotte has the only new line under construction using only control gates for at-grade crossings, however, like St. Louis, Charlotte's new line completely reuses a former freight railroad.
- 8,905
southslider wrote:
Similar operations are already employed on light rail systems in Portland, Denver, Dallas, and Minneapolis, among other cities with even older light rail. Seattle and Phoenix are new systems under construction that will also use street-running trains and traffic signals instead of control gates. Charlotte has the only new line under construction using only control gates for at-grade crossings, however, like St. Louis, Charlotte's new line completely reuses a former freight railroad.
St. Louis seems to be above the curve when it comes to our mass transit compared to other similarly sized cities. But now it loooks like we're about to be passed up.... I'd like to know where we stand currently and in 10 yrs with or without the NS extention.
bpe235 wrote:southslider wrote:
Similar operations are already employed on light rail systems in Portland, Denver, Dallas, and Minneapolis, among other cities with even older light rail. Seattle and Phoenix are new systems under construction that will also use street-running trains and traffic signals instead of control gates. Charlotte has the only new line under construction using only control gates for at-grade crossings, however, like St. Louis, Charlotte's new line completely reuses a former freight railroad.
St. Louis seems to be above the curve when it comes to our mass transit compared to other similarly sized cities. But now it loooks like we're about to be passed up.... I'd like to know where we stand currently and in 10 yrs with or without the NS extention.
Thats why I think Its important we get something major on the board within the next few years, because St. Louis has good transit and is really urban for a city of its size, but at the same time do you want Charlotte, Phoenix, Denver, or any of those suburban sunbelt cities to become more urban than St. Louis. I mean they well never surpass us as far as culture and housing stock, but they can offer better transit and accessibility. I just dont want the STL to be left in the dust for another generation.
- 86
I recently rode the Baltimore light rail line to BWI airport, flew to St. Louis and later rode the Metrolink. The Baltimore light rail is more like what the NS lines will be: streetcar rather than right of way.
Here are some of my thoughts that apply to the proposed NS line. I did not like having to climb stairs to get on the Baltimore train; I much prefer the Metrolink raised platforms and wonder if the NS line can have raised platforms too. To me the raised platform indicates a nicer and more "big time" system, not just a bus on rails.
The street down which the Baltimore trains ran is only open to cars going in the northbound direction which made the corridor feel less vibrant as there were few cars traveling the road (and no parked cars on the sides). I am not clear on whether cars will be able to travel in both directions and have street parking with the NS rail line running down the middle. Does anybody know?
Also, the Baltimore train does not currently (but will in the next year or so) have priority over traffic lights, so the train sat and waited for the green light just like a car. Without the traffic light priority for the train, I felt there was little advantage to riding the train over driving in the downtown area.
Overall, I really wish we could find some way to have the NS line run underground downtown. While vastly more expensive, it is an investment in the city that puts us closer to the league with much larger cities with extensive underground subway systems. St. Louis is worth the investment.
Here are some of my thoughts that apply to the proposed NS line. I did not like having to climb stairs to get on the Baltimore train; I much prefer the Metrolink raised platforms and wonder if the NS line can have raised platforms too. To me the raised platform indicates a nicer and more "big time" system, not just a bus on rails.
The street down which the Baltimore trains ran is only open to cars going in the northbound direction which made the corridor feel less vibrant as there were few cars traveling the road (and no parked cars on the sides). I am not clear on whether cars will be able to travel in both directions and have street parking with the NS rail line running down the middle. Does anybody know?
Also, the Baltimore train does not currently (but will in the next year or so) have priority over traffic lights, so the train sat and waited for the green light just like a car. Without the traffic light priority for the train, I felt there was little advantage to riding the train over driving in the downtown area.
Overall, I really wish we could find some way to have the NS line run underground downtown. While vastly more expensive, it is an investment in the city that puts us closer to the league with much larger cities with extensive underground subway systems. St. Louis is worth the investment.
Portland has these low-floor Light Rail Vehicles. Most of the train is low-floor, with the areas above the axles being raised up (like a low-floor bus). They don't require going up any stairs unless you want a seat in a raised section. I like how they include four bike racks per car that you can hang your bike on. Siemens (the same company that makes our current stock of trains) also makes these for San Diego, Houston, and others which are also low-floor throughout most of the train.FromTheLou wrote:Here are some of my thoughts that apply to the proposed NS line. I did not like having to climb stairs to get on the Baltimore train; I much prefer the Metrolink raised platforms and wonder if the NS line can have raised platforms too. To me the raised platform indicates a nicer and more "big time" system, not just a bus on rails.
- 1,054
I agree that a subway or underground rapid rail would better enhance the level of potential for the transit zones served. However, the costs are extremely high compared to what we willing to afford at present-time. Also, a rapid rail travelling the proposed distance of the alignment would be better suited to have fewer stations are be more commuter rail like which would not serve well to revitalization.
The solution could be a third rail for passing trains from South County and South South City. (Imagine that people living as far south as Carondelet Park areas will not receive any time savings from switching from auto to rail unless given more direct service to downtown).
Where that third rail is located is another issue of contention. We might as well wait until I-55 needs a major overhaul until adding a commuter rail to its right-of-way to South County.
The major financing issue the Metropolitan regions faces is if we are willing and able to pay for a massive bond issue or spike in taxed to fund rail expansion on the scale being seen in Denver, Dallas, Portland, and in the future Charlotte and other faster growth regions?
The solution could be a third rail for passing trains from South County and South South City. (Imagine that people living as far south as Carondelet Park areas will not receive any time savings from switching from auto to rail unless given more direct service to downtown).
Where that third rail is located is another issue of contention. We might as well wait until I-55 needs a major overhaul until adding a commuter rail to its right-of-way to South County.
The major financing issue the Metropolitan regions faces is if we are willing and able to pay for a massive bond issue or spike in taxed to fund rail expansion on the scale being seen in Denver, Dallas, Portland, and in the future Charlotte and other faster growth regions?
- 84
The "final newsletter" from northsouthstudy.org has been emailed out.
It was a .pdf file with a color map and whatnot, but I don't have a server to post that to.
It was a .pdf file with a color map and whatnot, but I don't have a server to post that to.
Potential MetroLink Extension Selected for St. Louis City
The Board of Directors of the East-West Gateway Council of Governments, our region’s metropolitan planning agency, has approved a
potential MetroLink extension in the City of St. Louis. The board’s vote means that if or when light rail is expanded in the City, this is the
route that should be considered. The approved extension, known in transit planning as a locally preferred alternative, would travel in the
street, except along the I-55 right-of-way, as follows:
•From I-70 north near the Goodfellow Avenue exit
south to Natural Bridge;
•East to North Florissant, south on 14th Street into
Downtown;
•East on Convention Plaza, south to 10th Street, west
on Clark, south to 14th Street; and
•West on Chouteau Avenue, exit south onto Jefferson,
to Broadway exit to I-55 right-of-way and terminating
at Bayless/I-55.
A separate set of tracks would move passengers, in the
opposite direction, from south to north.
The board’s approval culminates a two-year planning
study sponsored by East-West Gateway, Metro and
the Missouri Department of Transportation called the
“Northside-Southside Transit Improvements Study,” which
examined several potential light rail extensions for north
St. Louis, south St. Louis and downtown. At the study’s
start, with input from elected officials, stakeholders and
the general public, it was determined that an expanded
light rail system in the City was worth pursuing because
it would: encourage economic development, provide
access to opportunity, spur job growth and stabilize
neighborhoods. Armed with this information, the study
team began looking at several potential routes that
would achieve these goals. It started with eight possible
extensions, then through detailed analysis that included
costs, development opportunities, property impacts
and ridership, combined with public input, study team
members narrowed the options down to one. It was this
option that East-West Gateway’s board approved.
Planning Transit Improvements for St. Louis City
Page 2
Northside-Southside Study
c/o Vector Communications
701 N. 15th Street, Mailbox 43
St. Louis. MO 63103
Dec. 2007 page 2
What’s Next?
Even though a new MetroLink
extension has been approved for
the City of St. Louis, it does not mean
it will be built in the near future. That’s
because currently there is no money
available to expand light rail anywhere
in the St. Louis area. Plus, the federal
government requires that in order to
receive federal funding to build a light
rail extension, an environmental study
must be conducted.
The purpose of the Environmental
Impact Study is to analyze in detail the
economic, social and environmental
effects of the proposed alternative and
to evaluate whether there are other
alternatives that could minimize
adverse impacts.
www.northsouthstudy.org
Public Participation - Key to Study’s Success
Thanks to you, the “Northside-Southside Major Transit Improvements
Study” had more citizen involvement than any St. Louis area transit study
in recent history. Furthermore, it far exceeded the federal government’s
requirements for public engagement. During the study:
• Presentations were made to 33 neighborhood groups, business
organizations, ward groups not once, but several times;
• St. Louis Aldermen and other elected officials, especially those wards
directly involved, were briefed periodically throughout the study;
• Three rounds of public meetings were held in north St. Louis, south St.
Louis and downtown at major study milestones;
• A Technical Advisory Group consisting of well-respected transit officials,
engineers and city officials met six times to provide advice to the study
team;
• A Policy Advisory Group composed of neighborhood and community
leaders met three times to offer suggestions to the study team;
• A telephone hotline, a website with all project information and
information sites at area public libraries were established; and
• A project brochure and four newsletters, including this one, were
distributed to more than 1,600 households.
Local media outlets were also kept informed throughout the study and
several television stations and newspapers reported on project
milestones.
Although there can never be too much public input, the study team thanks
you for your participation. Whenever the next stage of planning begins, we
hope you will be involved.
Thank You!
I found where someone posted a picture of the North South study map:
http://marinevilla.org/sailing/wp-conte ... ofinal.jpg
![]()
http://marinevilla.org/sailing/wp-conte ... ofinal.jpg
Are there any cost estimates for the selected city line? I like the route going down Jefferson, I think it could stir economic activity in the area. And it would be nice to have full service grocery store on a main line (glad it goes to loughborough commons), could really increase ridership. 
Also how much would the required environmental impact study cost to conduct?
Also how much would the required environmental impact study cost to conduct? - 1,610
^$971 million for 16.73 miles, or $58 million a mile. For that price, you could build two shorter extensions using exclusive rights-of-way, one to Westport via Clayton and another to Florissant via North Hanley. As a result of this study, the City's future for rail transit, if any at all, will have to find a much cheaper solution than conventional LRT, like modern streetcars on much shorter routes.