urbanSTL

Lafayette Square can be served by a stop on Chouteau.



The south grand neighborhood should be served by a streetcar line that connects the tower at Gravois and Grand to the Corinthian on n. grand. That would hit two metrolink stops en route.



The line picks up st. louis hills.



It ends in Carondelet park and is ideally situated to launch into SoCo, picking up affton, lemay, mehville, soco mall, oakville and terminate in a place where it could eventually extend to arnold.

True, but this is more direct, and covers a larger stretch by going down the middle. It also encourages development to its east.

Did I read that right? They aren't going to connect the first phase of the line with the central line? Doesn't seem to make sense.

Xing wrote:"Day said that while much of the current MetroLink line uses railroad rights-of-way, any new MetroLink routes would be forced to use streets, a common practice in other light-rail systems across the country. "



Boo!



I understand, but it's too bad. That's what made our system unique.

I hate the idea of having metro run down the middle of a street. It might be the only way - but yeah - taking a route that streets can't fulfill is defianately an advantage of the current system.

trent wrote:Did I read that right? They aren't going to connect the first phase of the line with the central line? Doesn't seem to make sense.

The plans aren't to connect it directly to the original line rather a transfer will have to be made if one wishes to go to Illinois, Clayton, or the airport. Hopefully the proposed line will run through downtown near 8th street as the current line does.

brickandmortar wrote:The plans aren't to connect it directly to the original line rather a transfer will have to be made if one wishes to go to Illinois, Clayton, or the airport.

If this transfer is done underground in one of the downtown stations - it could be great - similar to Washington DCs stations - with two levels. This is much better for efficiency than having lines split and merge. Makes schedules a lot easier in the long run.

I realize it's ridiculously expensive, but I really wish we would push metro underground. I think the investment would be worth it in the (very) long run.

steve wrote:I realize it's ridiculously expensive, but I really wish we would push metro underground. I think the investment would be worth it in the (very) long run.

AGREED!! if you can't build on right of way - build under stuff - rather than on existing streets -> which is a waste as far as I am concerned. 50+ years from now (very very long run) Metro should still be viable and expanding.

beware of caves!

it was exciting to see the article talk about possible routes down Gravois or South Grand, I'm glad to hear they're at least considering these possibilities. The way the south extension looks now, we'll have two stops on Grand, neither of which puts you within walking distance to Grand Center or the S. Grand entertainment district.

It's possible that an underground route could be explored. The Feds will support underground projects as long as the ridership expectation is high enough to merit subways. Personally I think ridership would be extremely high through south city due to the high population density of the neighborhoods.



Viewing the proposed line from google, you really begin to see where wisely planted TOD could really boost some neighborhoods, where under used industrial sites currently sit. The amount of industry in this city never fails to amaze me.

While I too would love to see a line on its own ROW, I can live with a mix of street running and ROW. On a recent trip to San Francisco, I took the Muni Metro line to the beach and was quite surprised. All their Metro lines run underground in the city center and then fan out onto streets and some private ROWs. The line that I used, N-Judah, used the main tunnel and another shorter one in the middle of town. Their LRVs accelerated quite fast, even in the streets.



If any Metro extension here is done in a similar fashion, there shouldn't be too much of a problem.

One of the major pros to an in-street light-rail line is cheaper construction costs. An elevated line costs roughly three times that of an at-grade line, while a below-grade line costs more than ten times that of an at-grade line. However, even an in-street, at-grade line built in semi-exclusive medians (reserved lanes in wide streets) costs less than an at-grade exclusive right-of-way line like MetroLink. One reason for the cheaper cost is that in-street median track can be embedded in the street or rest on a shallower concrete median, hence built like a streetcar (but with exclusive lanes), while current MetroLink trains run on ballasted tracks, built much more like a railroad.

It may be cheaper to build short term - but long term is what is important - and you wont presuade anyone from NYC or Washington DC or any other city with an underground system that the huge cost isn't worth it...... i think the prostect of an at grade in-street system would be very detrimental to the image of METRO and to its usefullness.

^The expanding miles of in-street light-rail transit certainly hasn't damaged Portland's image, or many other cities that built (Dallas, Denver, Minneapolis) or are building (Seattle, Phoenix) their systems with street-running sections.



Indeed, the vast majority of American light-rail systems are partially street-running. Only in St. Louis do you have the nation's only modern (post-1980) light-rail system (Newark's older and much shorter line is the only other one in the US) with zero signalized crossings (only limited gate-controlled crossings). That is to say, only cities with heavy rail systems (subway or elevated lines) are fully exclusive.



And honestly, St. Louis, size-wise, is more like Portland than New York or Chicago. But as Portland shows, you don't have to be a megapolis with subways or elevated lines to be a truly urban mecca. Rather, strong policies of linking land use policies to their expanding light-rail system has dramatically put Portland on the map as a highly desirable, increasingly urban place to live.

I like Gravois because its route provides a prime artery. This strategic phase of MetroLink expansion is still a "line" that will help provide the basic infrastructure of a system. Much later, the lines can be connected by smaller ones that may appear oval or circular across the system.

Matt wrote:I like Gravois because its route provides a prime artery. This strategic phase of MetroLink expansion is still a "line" that will help provide the basic infrastructure of a system. Much later, the lines can be connected by smaller ones that may appear oval or circular across the system.

But my objection comes from the inherent lack of a NEW option. Gravois is already a major public transportation option via metro bus. I know this isn't ideal - but I think the HUGE expense of any metrolink expansion should be a new option. How hard was it in 1992 to go from the airport to East St. Louis on Metro run facilities? How hard is it now to go from Shrewsbury to the Forrest Park station on Metro - NEW OPTIONS. If the new metro gives NEW OPTIONS it will be worth it - but spending $250 million where the public transportation already exists.... that?s a waste.



That being said - we aren't a NYC or a Chicago or a Wash. DC as far as urban transportation. But if the only way to make a new option is to go underground - then so be it.

southslider wrote: The expanding miles of in-street light-rail transit certainly hasn't damaged Portland's image, or many other cities that built (Dallas, Denver, Minneapolis) or are building (Seattle, Phoenix) their systems with street-running sections.

But their system is like this - OUR SYSTEM IS DIFFERENT - lets keep it unique - prosperous, distinctly St. Louis. I am all for expansion when it is needed and when it is done in a way I will be proud of - and I haven't been on many street level systems that I have enjoyed.... mainly due to delays and what not...



If I am missing a big point ? please tell me ? cause I am so opposite of this? but if I just think differently ? than that?s what this forum is here to do ? talk about different choices?

^The big point is cost. Cross County showed our region, that if we're going to continue to build out MetroLink to the same (exclusive running) standards as the original line, it will cost us too much per mile.



The original line was a gift on abandonned railroad infrastructure that only cost $464 million for nearly 20 miles. Then, we built cheap again on more abandonned railroad lines, vacant East St. Louis land and eastside cornfields for only $339 million for about another 20 miles. But with Cross County, we're seeing a project reaching $680 million for less than 10 miles, meaning FOUR times as much per mile. Why? Partly, because along the section east of I-170, there was no cheap land or abandonned rail line, but the connection to Clayton, our region's largest employment center outside of Downtown was viewed as crucial to our regional system. And believe it or not, no other alternative along 40 or through Forest Park would have been cheaper than the direct shot along the Parkway for getting to Clayton.



Another point is the increasing competition for light rail projects between US cities. While the original line was fully federal and St. Clair (Phase I) about 75% federal, Cross County was 100% local funds. And while our region's leaders never want to build another extension fully locally, any future extension using the federal New Starts program could now easily require 50% local match. And with every region building light-rail, the New Starts program has become highly competitive, requiring now a cost effectiveness measure that essentially requires less than $30 million per mile average project cost. Since Cross County cost almost $80 million per mile, we have no choice but to look at cheaper solutions. And since the feds also now increasingly stress travel time savings, mixed traffic streetcars can't compete with the current bus system we already have.



In summary then, if our central city already well served by bus transit wants any New Starts project that both improves travel time yet with cost-effective solution, then semi-exclusive, street-running light-rail is the only rail solution (bus rapid transit being another viable, albeit much less sexy alternative).



However, ultimately, all is a moot point, if Missouri continues to not fund transit anywhere close to the national average among states, and/or County voters will continue to vote down tax levies. That's because the local sales taxes in place that could go to MetroLink expansion are now being eaten up by the costs of subsidizing transit operations, a cost previously taken care of by the feds, by now handed off to states and locals. However, in Missouri, the state contributes virtually nothing, leaving that almost entirely to the City and County, unlike Illinois, which does subsidize transit at more than thirty times the rate of Missouri, a benefit to the Metro East, except that current and even added Cross County trains make bi-state runs. The dire financial state is to a point now that unless County voters pass just another quarter-cent ($1 for every $400 in sales) sales tax that passed only in the City in 1997 (but never went into effect due to the County), Metro will have a deficit next year, requiring drastic service cuts to both buses (cut routes or increased headways) and trains (increased headways).

Metro did have a 5 millon deficit for 2007 budget that was passed and they were able to balanced that budget without cutting service. It just not possible for metro to cut 28 millon from their budget without cutting service. Cutting 25 percent transit service could creave a title VI problem. Title VI deals with enivormental justice and the disparate ecominc transportation impacts in the communitly. If a transit agency is violation of title vi federal funds could be in jeopardy. metro could lose 25 million in federal funds which are mostly used for vechile matincene. The federal government considers that a capital expenise because it preseve capital. I just hope the sales tax increase passed so these major cuts don't happen which i will denfitly will vote for. Some of this information found on their website under current board minutes.

southslider wrote:In summary then, if our central city already well served by bus transit wants any New Starts project that both improves travel time yet with cost-effective solution, then semi-exclusive, street-running light-rail is the only rail solution (bus rapid transit being another viable, albeit much less sexy alternative).

Wouldn't running rail through existing railroad right-of-way be even cheaper than running over street? I know the initial south-side line used Chouteau street but then connected to a former train line and weaved it's way near the hill and down south.



I personally think this is a MUCH better idea than going down Gravois. Why would we want to put a light-rail along a corridor already served by a bus line??? It would make much more sense to weave the train through areas that don't have a direct bus line into downtown.