urbanSTL

I disagree completely.



I think that the problem is not the location of metrolink stops but St. Louis' general aversion to walking any distance.



Look at the El in Chicago or the subway in New York...you ride the subway and then get out and walka few blocks to your destination.



The CWE stop is at MOST 5-6 blocks from the heart of the CWE...THAT IS NOT A LONG WALK.



Union Station to AG EDwards is 4 blocks



Delmar stop to the loop is 3 blocks



Forest Park Stop to destinations within the park varies, but is there a more beautiful place in the city to walk, also there is a circulator that picks up right at the stop and drops you pretty much wherever you want to go in the park.



In New York or Chicago relying on public transit usually means walking 3-4 times these amounts and nobody complains, but then again St. Louis is one of the fattest cities as well

mophipsi wrote:I think that the problem is not the location of metrolink stops but St. Louis' general aversion to walking any distance.

=D> =D> =D>

mophipsi wrote:I think that the problem is not the location of metrolink stops but St. Louis' general aversion to walking any distance.



Look at the El in Chicago or the subway in New York...you ride the subway and then get out and walka few blocks to your destination.



The CWE stop is at MOST 5-6 blocks from the heart of the CWE...THAT IS NOT A LONG WALK.

I disagree about the CWE stop. The problem with the CWE stop is that it's located in the extreme southwestern part of the neighborhood. It's convenient from the hospital to the heart of the CWE (.6 miles to Euclid/Maryland?), but not to those that live in the North and East areas of the CWE (1+ mile walk to Euclid & Washington and a 1.3+ mile walk to Westminster & Boyle).

JMedwick wrote:That's about as hostile and unattractive a route as you can imagine.

Well said about the SLU/Grand Center stop - I completely agree.

mophipsi wrote:In New York or Chicago relying on public transit usually means walking 3-4 times these amounts and nobody complains, but then again St. Louis is one of the fattest cities as well

Yes, but generally the areas surrounding transit stops in NY and Chicago are more vibrant and pedestrian-friendly than many of our Metrolink stops (e.g. Union Station-AG Edwards). If I were working late at AG Edwards, I can understand feeling uneasy about walking at night to Union Station next to all the surface parking lots.

5-10 minutes is not a very long walk for anyone in a city.



The problem isn't the walk, it's the lack of visibility. A lot of people I talked with literally don't even KNOW that there IS a stop in the CWE.

I will agree with everyone that lack of visibility is a big issue for some of these stops. I wouldn't agree that they are too far from where people want to get, or not convenient.

The CWE stop is located in the midde of the Barnes complex, making it not only less than visable from the CWE as a neighborhood, but even worse, located at the southern edge of the neighborhood. Not at all the "ideal" location for such a CWE stop.

You say this JMedwick, which makes me think that in your opinion the stop should be located further north, near Lindell. But then you contradict yourself in the same post...

Finnaly we have AG Edwards. Leaving one of downtown's biggest employers off of the route? Does this make sense?

Isn't Barnes a bigger employer than AG Edwards? I also guarantee there are a lot more people that work at Barnes that live in the city than at AG Edwards - I consulted at AG Edwards so I know.



So while I agree that changes could have been made to make the route more ideal, the route never would have came into existance. I'd MUCH rather have a less-than perfect Metrolink route, than a perfect non-existant Metrolink route. That's why I feel that the south side line should use the less-than perfect existing track, and later we can add an "ideal" subway or elevated line through the other neighborhoods.



It's too bad St. Louis is against walking long distances and using buses. I'm not one to talk - I didn't take a bus the whole time I lived in the city. Now I live in Chicago, and I take buses all the time, b/c sometimes the train just isn't close enough. I'll be one of the bus-riding pioneers when I move back to St. Louis city.

JMedwick wrote: I just don't want to see another line built where we pay so much attention to the bottom line that we forget about putting stops in better locations. ..... I feel like we have ONE SHOT to get this right, not TWO, not THREE. If we only have one shot, we better get it right and I am not sure the southside alingment is worth that ONE SHOT.

I agree completely. But to me the in street system is not the one shot i would bet the whole farm on. As visible as Metrolink is, it is still in the phase where one huge misstep (cross county is no where new a huge one yet)... can mean the end to all expansion. Hypothetically... put a train down Gravois and it ties up traffic and halts progress and development during construction. Then, as you pointed out, Metro picks some questionable locations/designs for the stations. Then on top of that, when the train is running at rush hour, it hampers traffic at those vital intersections you mentioned, every time a train passes, people in all directions must wait. Then you have the chance of a freak car accident where it may or may not have been Metros fault. I think all these together are real possibilities and could damage permanently any momentum that Metro has.



A subway system is too expensive for us to do alone, so assuming we get funding from the Feds and more important: OUR OWN STATE.... we should do this. Construction has minimal effect of the surrounding development. Traffic problems are independent of the train running, and since there is no direct interaction between train and surface traffic - no cause for accidents/messing up pedestrians. The route/routes could be done ANY WAY WE WANT to get the best stops in the best places to benefit the most people.



I don’t like the existing right of way in this part of town. All the tracks that I am aware of are either in use already and/or wouldn't serve to a minimal level the development and needs of the south side.



The only street system I would ever begin to support would be an electric (environmentally friendly and silent) pneumatic tire street car/trolley. A LOT less infrastructure, its no confused with Metro (which would have to by a different type of train for street use and therefore couldn't be compatible on the existing system). Run these trolleys down the street, picking up people. You can shift them to do downtown runs for ball games, move people into/out of Tower Grove Park for festivals etc, and Soulard for Mardi Gras. Its not much better than the busses we have now, except the design would be more like the trolleys found in San Fran.



People don’t like to walk, St. Louis, NYC, Chicago... anywhere. When you are going to a train - your trying to get somewhere... and the last thing you want to do is to walk to a station then have to wait 10 minutes for a train. This is universal.



To me - there needs to be two systems, one for streets and one for existing Metro -- tall raised platforms. Certain areas are more conducive than others to existing metro and South Side (or North side for that matter) aren't those places.....If someone can propose to me a solution, or explain how the in street metro system here would work -- fine. Mnpls has a great system, how would you use their experience to get our system to a better level?

I think in many ways the rail lines can be seen as an accident of history; the cost to have placed that Grand stop on Lindell, for example, would have likely made the project infeasible. So, it is where it is, and the city should adapt to it the way it adapts to landscape (topography, rivers) or the not-entirely-controllable placements of influential industry or business centers.



Yes, it'd be nice if past and future stations were placed nearer existing activity centers, or if St. Louisians were not so afraid of buses or walking. But take that Grand station. SLU students come from all over the country and have to do a lot of walking anyway, because Larry likes grass. Instead of blaming them for not wanting to walk along that desolate overpass, perhaps we should be looking for ways to draw them towards it. I don't think the simple distance of the walk would put people off if the viaduct was reengineered with small shops along it and a buffer of on-street parking.

The Grand Stop can be greatly improved with a general consensus to promote the Chouteau Lake Greenway project as perhaps the most important in the city. Taking what many consider to be ugly industrial areas, and turning them into habitable locations would do wonders for the city, and MetroLink. That would improve many stops, and the travel area in the city for the trains.



I don't support a subway line anywhere except downtown for one simple reason. Visibility. I want the trains visible, I think that increases the aesthetic of urban life, and increases the likelihood of higher ridership in the more dense areas.



The best way for this line to be approached would be to try to touch as many hot-spots as possible. Then, what you can't touch with the Southside line, you get with a streetcar running to the other locale.



Overall, I don't have a problem with the instreet lines, though I'd rather not have them in the middle of a street, but I see the benefits of running it along gravois or Broadway. Basically, we just need to connect the city better, and the quicker it gets done, the better off we'll be. TOD forever.

trent wrote: I want the trains visible, I think that increases the aesthetic of urban life, and increases the likelihood of higher ridership in the more dense areas.

The thing that increases the likelyhood of high ridership is good planning. If planned/implemnted correctly any method will have the high density of people living around stops and the desire of those people to take the train to a paticular destination. Good visability can be as simple as an entrence to an underground station thats easy to find and located in a good spot. I doubt when someone goes to a city they say "hey that train looks aetheticly pleasing in this complex urban fabic - lets ride it" They say "I am here, the train goes where I want to go .. so lets take it" and if looks cool on top of that - great.



I guess I am just odd that I want something that works efficently and with as little kinks, but at the same time happens to look good (I do want the new south side train/stations etc to look nice) If we need to expand - I say do it right and perfect the first time... OR DONT DO IT AT ALL. "Its not worth winning if you can't win big" Some of you seem to want something that looks good first and might preform well as a secondary note. Others seem to just say "lets put something out there becuase its the next logical step in this need to expand mentality - cheap is ok"

My opinion is that many people don't ride the MetroLink even now because it's not as visible. When you see something everyday, it will become more feasible. When you see people on the train and they're zipping by you, the first though people have is 'I should be there'.



Obviously I'm thinking somewhat short term, but I'd like to see the trains running, with people on board.



I don't think anyone is advocating just getting it out there. I'm in a hurry to have a train run closer to me, but I want it to look good and work right. Personally, I like to see the trains, it one of my favorite sights in STL is to see a MetroLink train buzzing along the tracks.

I think alot of people don't ride the link because it's not as convenient as their car. How many people have to leave there house, drive out of their way to the link station, get out, wait for a train, then ride the slow train and wait at all the stops.. I think for most people, it's just soo much easier to hop in their car and drive to their destination. It's unfortunate, but true.

I'm all for mass transit, And I ride everyonce in a while. but...

For example, I live in clayton in the moorlands. by the time I drive over the the metrolink stop in the loop, park and wait for the train, I could be downtown already with my car. And all that in the comfort of my Air conditioned car.



Once the stop opens in clayton it will be more convenient, but i'll still have to drive over to the station. boo

Although times have obviously changed I think it's interesting to note something I came across in my thesis research. In the early 60s as the streetcars were on their last legs, bi-state had plans to use some of the right of ways and such to construct a light rail system with federal assistance from a 1964 urban mass transit bill. The mayor threw out the program because he thought it would be too disruptive to traffic. This region is car dependant obviously at the moment, anything disrupting traffic will come in with bad vibes. Others have mentioned this next point before but in all our comparisons to other light rail systems I think it's worth repeating. Around the country metrolink gets some of the highest ratings because of its avoidance of streets and exclusive right of ways. If it's on the street it will have to go slower and bpe brought up a good pt about all the time it takes to drive into a station, park, and wait.

stlmike wrote:I know these sketches have been around for a while, but I honestly don't know if I like the idea of it running along Choteau. I mostly just feel like the "Red Line" covers a lot of this general area. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me to have one stop at Grand and 40 and another at Grand and Choteau. Too close! I understand it is to spur development along Choteau but I think a streetcar line would work best here.



I would prefer the MetroLink to turn east at Choteau, then south along Tucker, which turns into Gravois. Next, take Gravois south to Grand and then go south down Grand street, then down 55.



Here is my "sketch" of the spots such a line could hit.

I've liked the original design, mainly because it puts a stop right by my house. I think that they designed it to run that far west to put a stop near the Botanical Garden and Tower Grove Park, and also because there is a unused railroad already in the area.

The new southside line is what I have been touting on this site, urbanreview, and at this summer's Northside/Southside Metro alternatives meeting.



Now that the alternative has been added the question comes to mind:



Will people around Grand take a bus, bike, or walk east to Jefferson/Broadway or people in Soulard go west to take the Metro downtown or to Clayton/Galleria/Lambert Intl. Airport??????



Will the real estate market upswing for quality & quantity TOD along Jefferson and the Benton neighborhoods truely take off?



How will the office markets change?



Would A-B invest in the closest station to them and encourage or pay for transit passes for their workers like BJC does?



Will the people west of Morganford be upset about needing to drive to Shrewberry or Broadway? Will they clamor for a Kinghighway line?



Will the line cross the River Des Peres and go to Lemay or the new casino? <You may be thinking of the tourists but I'm thinking of the low income workers>

The jeferson route is great but it misses Grand all together. I would still go with the Gravois route. It brushes against Soulard, Lafayette Square, Benton Park AND hits Grand just south of the main strip (and you'd have a station within view of the cool southside bank)

The big problem with the Gravios line is that it heads southwest and backtracks east somewhat. Gravois is very auto oriented whereas Jefferson has more transit oriented development potential. The Jefferson line may serve less like light rail and more like a subway/elevated line.



I would prefer the Jefferson/I-55 line with a branch separating off of it along Gravois that continues to Affton.

There's got to be a way to do this without having to cut so far west before going south.

yeah I hear your concerns .... I suppose i would prefer the Jefferson line if it had a branch up to Grand .. grand just has to be included. Hell - why not a street car line that runs down gravois to grand - north all th weay up grand and then back .... ...... that would solve a lot of problems.

IMHO, either Jefferson or Gravois would be an improvement over the Chouteau alternative-- that one heads really west before coming back to I-55 and looks like it duplicates the existing line at Grand.



But I have to agree with SMS that Jefferson is more transit-oriented, or has better walkable density than Gravois. Yet Mark is right in that only Gravois touches Soulard and South Grand, albeit at their edges. The problem here again is trade-offs, how do you draw as direct of a line as possible from Downtown out to South County yet connect as many great neighborhoods as possible? And while Lafayette Square and Benton Park may be the most obvious victors along today's Jefferson, additional areas like struggling Dutchtown and Carondelet could also benefit. IOW, don't just think about today's demographics, but also how areas might continue to rehab and revitalize.



If wanting to get involved, I think all of us should attend the upcoming workshops October 24th through 26th. The one for Southside will be held October 25th, 5-7pm in Soulard at the Lift for Life Academy.