This would not be politically popular, but why not just work on a south line right now? The city needs to capitalize on the neighborhoods that are gaining traction and cutting the N/S extension in half would make funding much more feasible.
I ask because the Brown Line in Chicago is one of the most popular trains and only runs through the north part of the city. Why not extend the Metrolink north when the market demands it?
Not sure how it would fit into the existing infrastructure, but I would love to see the county line turned into a loop. From the Shrewsbury stop it could head back downtown with stops at The Hill, South Grand / Tower Grove Park, the Brewery, Soulard, and Lafayette Square. It could then rejoin at Civic Center since that seems to be a pretty major transit hub. As a daily metro rider, I think it would be great to have access to these areas and I imagine that efficiently servicing the brewery could add quite a bit of ridership from their employees and tourists.
ImprovSTL wrote:This would not be politically popular, but why not just work on a south line right now? The city needs to capitalize on the neighborhoods that are gaining traction and cutting the N/S extension in half would make funding much more feasible.
I ask because the Brown Line in Chicago is one of the most popular trains and only runs through the north part of the city. Why not extend the Metrolink north when the market demands it?
I agree. In my post "South City, Meet Metrolink: A No-Brainer Plan for Expansion" I noted that a Southside line, running along the existing De Soto line, would be the most cost-efficient route as it's in an existing right of way already graded for trains. It goes through or near many of South City's densest/growth districts and its success (gasp! a money-making route!) could go a long way toward funding an eventual northside line.
But yes, as we saw with the YMCA debacle, there's a delicate (and antagonistic) balance between southside/northside public works projects. Politicians will balk at doing one without the other.
ImprovSTL wrote:This would not be politically popular, but why not just work on a south line right now? The city needs to capitalize on the neighborhoods that are gaining traction and cutting the N/S extension in half would make funding much more feasible.
I ask because the Brown Line in Chicago is one of the most popular trains and only runs through the north part of the city. Why not extend the Metrolink north when the market demands it?
I agree. In my post "South City, Meet Metrolink: A No-Brainer Plan for Expansion" I noted that a Southside line, running along the existing De Soto line, would be the most cost-efficient route as it's in an existing right of way already graded for trains. It goes through or near many of South City's densest/growth districts and its success (gasp! a money-making route!) could go a long way toward funding an eventual northside line.
But yes, as we saw with the YMCA debacle, there's a delicate (and antagonistic) balance between southside/northside public works projects. Politicians will balk at doing one without the other.
Ah, but there's already at least an aspirational plan for light rail in North St Louis in McKee's plan - if northside polititians complain about not getting metro, why not point them back at that?
^ Believe McKee's aspirational plan is a streetcar on Jefferson. I'm still perplexed on why the mayor's office hasn't promoted or sought out streetcar - either it be Grand, Central Corridor or even some minimal discussion in McKee's northside plan. Maybe I'm mistaken, but some meaningful infrastructure changes like removing the raised section of I-70/transit investments in streetcars without a huge funding outlay as the North-South line would be a big plus and help the momentum going forward.
I would rather have the full N-S Line than just a Southside line. Not only would it not be politically feasible to do just a Southside line, but a fully built out N-S would get way more ridership and spark far more redevelopment than a random Southside spur. I think the full city of St. Louis needs better Metrolink coverage, not just the Southside.
dredger wrote:^ Believe McKee's aspirational plan is a streetcar on Jefferson. I'm still perplexed on why the mayor's office hasn't promoted or sought out streetcar - either it be Grand, Central Corridor or even some minimal discussion in McKee's northside plan. Maybe I'm mistaken, but some meaningful infrastructure changes like removing the raised section of I-70/transit investments in streetcars without a huge funding outlay as the North-South line would be a big plus and help the momentum going forward.
I thought the partnership for Downtown St. Louis was studying a central corridor Streetcar as we speak.
I would love to see a Grand Avenue streetcar from the N. Grand water tower to Carondelet Park.
goat314 wrote:I would rather have the full N-S Line than just a Southside line. Not only would it not be politically feasible to do just a Southside line, but a fully built out N-S would get way more ridership and spark far more redevelopment than a random Southside spur. I think the full city of St. Louis needs better Metrolink coverage, not just the Southside.
Within the city, a northside line wouldn't add much ridership though. A southside line would serve a purpose.
I would like to see the city pursue the east-west tram line instead of metro expansion. When that proves successful, they can start adding north-south lines.
goat314 wrote:I would rather have the full N-S Line than just a Southside line. Not only would it not be politically feasible to do just a Southside line, but a fully built out N-S would get way more ridership and spark far more redevelopment than a random Southside spur. I think the full city of St. Louis needs better Metrolink coverage, not just the Southside.
Within the city, a northside line wouldn't add much ridership though. A southside line would serve a purpose.
Huh? The North Side comprises half of the city, and a definitely has a higher share of transit-dependent population. How do you conclude that a North Side line "wouldn't add much ridership"?
I think the priority should definitely be the full North Side-South Side extension. It would go a long way to connect the urban core physically, politically, socially and psychologically. I think a South Side spur without the North Side would do the exact opposite, further illuminating the divide between the "haves" and "have-nots" in our city.
And as far as an east-west tram line over a north-south line, I am scratching my head at that one. We have the Metro blue and red lines that serve the central corridor, and soon we'll have the Loop Trolley that will also serve the central corridor. What we need next are additional lines that connect other parts of the city. I don't understand your logic at all.
Why do we always do this to ourselves? We keep going around and around about a dream for a north/south metrolink line. But it is incredibly difficult (damn near impossible) without state and federal support.
After going to Metro's planning sessions last year, they estimate a north/south line to be near $700 million dollars. There's no way we can do that on our own. Slay is smart not to promote any kind of expansion because he knows the city can do nothing about it without outside money. He'd just be creating empty promises.
pat wrote:Why do we always do this to ourselves? We keep going around and around about a dream for a north/south metrolink line. But it is incredibly difficult (damn near impossible) without state and federal support.
After going to Metro's planning sessions last year, they estimate a north/south line to be near $700 million dollars. There's no way we can do that on our own. Slay is smart not to promote any kind of expansion because he knows the city can do nothing about it without outside money. He'd just be creating empty promises.
Our lack of state support is abominable, but I don't think that's a reason to give up on bold planning for the future. It's a miracle that we have managed to build what is arguably the 2nd or 3rd best rail transit system in the Midwest despite our backwoods Missourah legislature, and I do think the region is still capable of accomplishing big things. In my opinion, a north-south Metro line would be the single most important infrastructure project of our generation.
stlgasm wrote:In my opinion, a north-south Metro line would be the single most important infrastructure project of our generation.
I take it the importance you put on this goes beyond the general idea of "public transit is effective in an urban environment" but also a project that could very possibly help blur North City/South City racial and socio-economic lines and also help the average STLien to become more aware of the effectiveness and convenience of public transit and in turn helping combat our love of car culture, not to mention quite possibly being a boon for Metrolink ridership and revenue? Seems plausible.
Don't mean to put words in your mouth but just wanted to make sure I was reading into this correctly.
I did have a thought a while back about funding a new Metrolink line that I though could be pretty feasible.
What if Metro had its own campaign (outside of the money raised through the new tax increase) to fund a new Metrolink line? Something like kickstarter but only for Metro and a specific line.
Money raised would only be allowed for construction costs of the line. (This could also be a way to entice the state and feds to grant matching funds)
Different donation levels gets you various gifts like most campaigns. For example, donating...
$25 - some type of souvenir
$50 - Metro t-shirt
$100 - fare card for a month
$500 - something better
$1000 - fair card for 6 months
$10000 -
etc.
You could also have business sponsorship levels (thousands and million dollar ranges) as well. Really target those along the line.
On top of all that, have a pop-up at fare card machines and on buses, that asks people "Would you like to donate $1 to the new Metrolink line?" before they finish paying. Depending on how many people donate a day, that could be an extra hundreds of thousands to maybe millions of dollars a year.
Now you can't pick out a north/south line outright. That's unfair to the region. But. You would need to have a regional vote to see where a line could go. Each municipality that approves it, would be saying that they are OK with allowing metrolink in their city. Then, Metro chooses the line based on which municipality approves it and where the most need is. Odds are that leaves the city as the winner, but it would be fair process.
Now say after its all said and done, it doesn't add up to $700 million. Say its $100 million or some other number. Start building the line anyway. Build a down own loop first. Then build out from that as funds allow. Once people see something tangible, it'll help bring in more money. Maybe even break down construction to a mile by mile basis. So people can see $30 million is another mile. Encourages those on the verge of the line extending to them to donate more.
What do you think? (Its hard to explain my entire thoughts on the process in a single post, but I think it would be a great way to do it.)
goat314 wrote:I would rather have the full N-S Line than just a Southside line. Not only would it not be politically feasible to do just a Southside line, but a fully built out N-S would get way more ridership and spark far more redevelopment than a random Southside spur. I think the full city of St. Louis needs better Metrolink coverage, not just the Southside.
Within the city, a northside line wouldn't add much ridership though. A southside line would serve a purpose.
Huh? The North Side comprises half of the city, and a definitely has a higher share of transit-dependent population. How do you conclude that a North Side line "wouldn't add much ridership"?
I think the priority should definitely be the full North Side-South Side extension. It would go a long way to connect the urban core physically, politically, socially and psychologically. I think a South Side spur without the North Side would do the exact opposite, further illuminating the divide between the "haves" and "have-nots" in our city.
And as far as an east-west tram line over a north-south line, I am scratching my head at that one. We have the Metro blue and red lines that serve the central corridor, and soon we'll have the Loop Trolley that will also serve the central corridor. What we need next are additional lines that connect other parts of the city. I don't understand your logic at all.
South city has a much larger population. The north is losing population at a higher pace and doesn't have enough density. Where would you put the line in the city? From my observations, the only remaining largely intact neighborhoods are pretty far west. I think the north line wouldn't do much to slow the decline, whereas it could do a lot more in the south.
The metro line travels along the industrial pit through the center of the city. We haven't seen any construction due to the metro line. The central corridor is the only growing part of the city and I think the most likely to successfully implement a tram line. My hope would be for it to close the gaps between the CWE, Midtown, and Downtown.
flipz wrote:
South city has a much larger population. The north is losing population at a higher pace and doesn't have enough density. Where would you put the line in the city? From my observations, the only remaining largely intact neighborhoods are pretty far west. I think the north line wouldn't do much to slow the decline, whereas it could do a lot more in the south.
The metro line travels along the industrial pit through the center of the city. We haven't seen any construction due to the metro line. The central corridor is the only growing part of the city and I think the most likely to successfully implement a tram line. My hope would be for it to close the gaps between the CWE, Midtown, and Downtown.
As I said before, even though the South Side has more people, the North Side has a higher per capita transit-dependent population. To disregard an entire half of our city in terms of transit expansion would be perceived as blatant racism and would only deepen the disparities between the north and south sides.
As for the north side alignment, I believe it is slated to run along Natural Bridge. It's not a bad route, as it would hit a lot of the major intersections on the North Side.
^ for the southside option, I'd obviously prefer Option #1 as it hits a variety of south city neighborhoods and attractions. Just yesterday, I visited/surveyed the would-be rail connections at Chippewa, Bates and Grand. All have multi-family/apartment residential close by, go through or abut dense neighborhoods and/or commercial corridors, and intersect strong bus routes.
What I can't understand though is the $678 million price tag for a route that runs, for the most part, in an existing, grade-separated right-of-way. Is the lion's share of that for the new Chouteau line (Below ground? Above?) and if so, couldn't you drastically reduce the price if you continued up Vandeventer along the existing rail-line and hooked up with the Red/Blue line at Grand?
Of course, it's all moot until Union-Pacific opts to sell/lease the right-of-way, but UP's De Soto Subdiv. seems vastly superior in access and connectivity to the Jefferson/I-55 option. Maybe the City has some riverside land it could exchange, allowing UP to better utilize that route while leasing over the De Soto Subdiv. as a popular southside Metrolink line.
But here's hoping we can have both lines (and a handful more) down the road a-ways!
Kevin B wrote:^ for the southside option, I'd obviously prefer Option #1 as it hits a variety of south city neighborhoods and attractions.
FYI - Option Two was the preferred selected alternative.
Yeah, I read the report awhile back. I understand it provides a straight line route, cutting down on ride time, but it just seems that a route that hugs the interstate will result in nothing but park n' rides in the city. It's somewhat beneficial to those east of/adjacent to I-55, I guess. But then again the I-55 express bus basically performs the same function...
I'm not really a fan of how the downtown loop is proposed. I would rather it be an underground loop that merges with the red line. So in my mind, the downtown loop should follow under Washington, 14th, and 8th streets. That way you would be able to get to all lines from a single station when downtown.
Under the current downtown proposal the lines do connect at the Gateway Transit Center.
They wouldn't be able to share a station (ie under 8th Street) because they would have different floor heights. The proposed line would be a low floor street car (similar to Portland), and Metrolink has higher floors requiring station platforms. I think either running under Tucker or running on street along 7th & 8th would make the most sense (instead of 9th & 10th as proposed). Then you could have a station directly upstairs from 8th & Pine and Stadium, and 1 block from Convention Center.
I guess it would be a snub of the north side, but I'd love to see a starter line running from the Old Post Office along Option 2 to South Broadway & Gasconade/I-55. This would clock in at 5.5 miles and maybe $500-550 million.
Regarding all these plans with price tags, I have wondered how those numbers may have changed since August 2007. If Metro were to return to the prospect of a North-South project in 2013 and put the tax on the ballot in early 2014, what would their costs be going into the project in 2015? Also, if the tax netted Metro a $600 million bond, where does the county get theirs from a North-South project?
An easy solution is for the city to reenter the county, but that's another thread...
Kevin B wrote:^ for the southside option, I'd obviously prefer Option #1 as it hits a variety of south city neighborhoods and attractions.
FYI - Option Two was the preferred selected alternative.
Yeah, I read the report awhile back. I understand it provides a straight line route, cutting down on ride time, but it just seems that a route that hugs the interstate will result in nothing but park n' rides in the city. It's somewhat beneficial to those east of/adjacent to I-55, I guess. But then again the I-55 express bus basically performs the same function...
I think you also to look in context of extending Cross County. I believe the preferred option was to extend down the River Des Peres vs following the existing BNSF row, essentially city & county line. In that context, I think Option Two for southside is the better choice. Especially if you go with low slung streetcar like vehicles.
Which goes to the bigger question, is the city better served streetcar approach tying into the metrolink spine line or we trying to build another light rail line. At end of day, I think the approach is resulting in a extending street car line that can be accomplished in phase approach. I don't think that is a bad option within the city with its wide streets already built for it. In other words, an alignment that favors park n ride within the city is really a waste of resources.
flipz wrote:
South city has a much larger population. The north is losing population at a higher pace and doesn't have enough density. Where would you put the line in the city? From my observations, the only remaining largely intact neighborhoods are pretty far west. I think the north line wouldn't do much to slow the decline, whereas it could do a lot more in the south.
The metro line travels along the industrial pit through the center of the city. We haven't seen any construction due to the metro line. The central corridor is the only growing part of the city and I think the most likely to successfully implement a tram line. My hope would be for it to close the gaps between the CWE, Midtown, and Downtown.
As I said before, even though the South Side has more people, the North Side has a higher per capita transit-dependent population. To disregard an entire half of our city in terms of transit expansion would be perceived as blatant racism and would only deepen the disparities between the north and south sides.
As for the north side alignment, I believe it is slated to run along Natural Bridge. It's not a bad route, as it would hit a lot of the major intersections on the North Side.
Both the north and south are served pretty well with existing bus routes. It is not a matter of people not having access to transportation. I think the north will continue to lose huge chunks of population and the city would be better served with pursuing a south section (first).
Was there ever talk of a true north-south line? One following Kingshighway or something like that. The lines following 70/55 to downtown seem more like commuter trains and would serve the county more than the city.
