Official Website of North and Southside Metrolink Studies
The transportation projects I'm most interested in is the Northside/Southside alignments.
The transportation projects I'm most interested in is the Northside/Southside alignments.
For the south, these are the proposed stations:
* Kiel Center Station on the existing MetroLink alignment
* 14th Street at Chouteau
* Jefferson at Chouteau
* Grand Ave. at Chouteau
* Shaw at I-44
* Arsenal
* Chippewa near Gravois
* Itaska at Delor
* Loughborough at I-55
* Bayless at I-55
* Reavis Barracks at I-55
* Green Park
* South County Center
* Butler Hill at I-55
For the North:
# 14th Street
# N. Florissant at St. Louis Ave.
# Parnell at Natural Bridge Rd.
# Grand at Natural Bridge Rd.
# Fair Avenue at Natural Bridge Road
# Newstead at Natural Bridge Road
# Kingshighway at Natural Bridge Road
# Union at Natural Bridge Road
# I-70
# Riverview
# Jennings Station
# Northland
# Chambers Road at W. Florissant Ave.
# Florissant Valley Community College
Which stations should be at the ground level, elevated, and underground? For the South, I think that the Chouteau stations should all be underground (Isn't the Grand/Chouteau station rather close to the station at Grand of the original line?). Shaw at I-44 should be level with the ground, as should the Arsenal station. However, the Chippewa/Gravois, Itaska/Delor, and Loughborough stations should be underground. The rest shoud be elevated. For the North, the entire line should be underground, except for Chambers/W.Florissant and Flo-Valley stations.
* Kiel Center Station on the existing MetroLink alignment
* 14th Street at Chouteau
* Jefferson at Chouteau
* Grand Ave. at Chouteau
* Shaw at I-44
* Arsenal
* Chippewa near Gravois
* Itaska at Delor
* Loughborough at I-55
* Bayless at I-55
* Reavis Barracks at I-55
* Green Park
* South County Center
* Butler Hill at I-55
For the North:
# 14th Street
# N. Florissant at St. Louis Ave.
# Parnell at Natural Bridge Rd.
# Grand at Natural Bridge Rd.
# Fair Avenue at Natural Bridge Road
# Newstead at Natural Bridge Road
# Kingshighway at Natural Bridge Road
# Union at Natural Bridge Road
# I-70
# Riverview
# Jennings Station
# Northland
# Chambers Road at W. Florissant Ave.
# Florissant Valley Community College
Which stations should be at the ground level, elevated, and underground? For the South, I think that the Chouteau stations should all be underground (Isn't the Grand/Chouteau station rather close to the station at Grand of the original line?). Shaw at I-44 should be level with the ground, as should the Arsenal station. However, the Chippewa/Gravois, Itaska/Delor, and Loughborough stations should be underground. The rest shoud be elevated. For the North, the entire line should be underground, except for Chambers/W.Florissant and Flo-Valley stations.
^ underground? no. I completely disagree. Thats alot of extra cost for little reasonable gain (actualy given how empty some of those streets are there is no gain in running the lines underground). Besides, running them at street level is a ready made streetscape project in some areas that could use new curbs, sidewalks, and street trees.
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 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.
- 1,054
Redo the southside line!
I have complained on Urbanreview and gave my comments to Metro and desperately wish that the southside line is reevaluated for a more cleaner route. Why should the line vear west or southwest and not continue in that direction? Does it make sense to return to more southeastern STL?
The line should take Jefferson or Grand.
I have complained on Urbanreview and gave my comments to Metro and desperately wish that the southside line is reevaluated for a more cleaner route. Why should the line vear west or southwest and not continue in that direction? Does it make sense to return to more southeastern STL?
The line should take Jefferson or Grand.
I think Stlmike makes sense. The "official" proposal has way too much overlap with the existing line. Running much of the line up Gravois makes perfect sense. The street's already wide enough, so it should save lots of money. Although I guess the route's already pretty well served by bus?
I like this route a lot better than the Chouteau/UP option as well. My only concern is that Grand gets pretty narrow after Chippewa and after Bates it's basically residential. I'm not sure an at-grade option would be feasible in this area. Perhaps a line that stayed on Gravois until it hit the UP rail line would be a reasonable compromise.
![]()
- 2,005
I believe one of the main issues with this study is trying to find a way to connect MetroLink into downtown. There are issues with which bridges could hold MetroLink or if there is enough clearance for the trains and catenaries to pass below the railroad bridges on 7th or Broadway. The 'proposed' line on the EWG study came from a Transporation Corridor study back in 2000. This study will further refine where MetroLink could conceivably run.
The picture McCarill drew is a pretty good representation of the south line. South(or west?) of the UP line Gravois narrows. Gravois north of the UP line is in one of the densest pockets of South City and it also wide enough to accomodate light rail and automobile traffic. I think the line should shift north at Jefferson then east to Chouteau where it would connect into downtown at 14th St.
The picture McCarill drew is a pretty good representation of the south line. South(or west?) of the UP line Gravois narrows. Gravois north of the UP line is in one of the densest pockets of South City and it also wide enough to accomodate light rail and automobile traffic. I think the line should shift north at Jefferson then east to Chouteau where it would connect into downtown at 14th St.
I like Mccarrils proposal. The planned Southside line misses too many dense neighborhoods and duplicates too many red line stops.
Several times I have heard a south/north line is 20 years away. That is too long for me and simply not acceptable. What can be done to make it happen sooner? As far as I am concerned, once the green line opens, they should start on the blue line (or whatever the color is).
Several times I have heard a south/north line is 20 years away. That is too long for me and simply not acceptable. What can be done to make it happen sooner? As far as I am concerned, once the green line opens, they should start on the blue line (or whatever the color is).
Are we expanding Metro just for expansions sake - or are we really fixing mass transit deficiencys. Before Cross country - It wasn't easy to go from I44 - to clayton - so the new line gave people a NEW OPTION. From what I understand - It isn't too difficult for someone on south Grand or Jefferson to take a bus that is already in place to downtown. Shouldn't the goal of the new line be to give NEW choices to people - not just exchange one bus line for a metro link line....
tbspqr wrote:Are we expanding Metro just for expansions sake
No, we are not expanding Metro just for the sake of expansion.
The north & south lines are needed to complete the system. Without this line, we are missing a major component. I have lived in St. Louis without a car and understand the deficiencies of the system.
My real question was more along the lines of - is it worth the huge cost of expanding the system if they just replace busses - I understand the system isn't perfect now - but is it worth the huge cost to just run down the middle of a street. Wouldn't it be better in the long run to have its own right of way - that doesn't follow the current transportation plan.
Other question - What are the different lines? Red? Blue? Green? I take it one is the main line, and one is cross county, with another one being the "theoretical" lines to North/South city. what about west county? Edwardsville? Do those theoreticals have colors?
And doesn't Chicago use colors to describe their L - couldn't we be more original. More St. Louis... like name them after Hall of Famers, Ex mayors, fruits/veggies, etc?
Other question - What are the different lines? Red? Blue? Green? I take it one is the main line, and one is cross county, with another one being the "theoretical" lines to North/South city. what about west county? Edwardsville? Do those theoreticals have colors?
And doesn't Chicago use colors to describe their L - couldn't we be more original. More St. Louis... like name them after Hall of Famers, Ex mayors, fruits/veggies, etc?
- 1,493
No.tbspqr wrote:Are we expanding Metro just for expansions sake
http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t=670
First of all, many cities use colors to identify rail lines. It makes it easy for anyone to use the system, especially if you happen to be a tourist and speak little English. But, even if you have perfect English, the color lines makes it easy to quickly read a system map and watch for your transfers/stops.
Now, if they run a line down to South County, offering those people a NEW EASY OPTION accessing downtown and the central corridor, why not have it serve densely populated neighborhoods as it travels downtown. Besides, South City goes farther from downtown than you must realize. It can take quite awhile to ride a bus downtown from some of the neighborhoods. Offering a convenient Metro stop, with access to downtown and the entire central corridor will prompt many people in those densely populated neighborhoods to leave their car at home. Also, by connecting these neighborhoods to Metro you are connecting them to the job centers of the central corridor. That raises the value of our north and south neighborhoods. And let's face it, most of rsidential St. Louis City is either north or southside.
Now, if they run a line down to South County, offering those people a NEW EASY OPTION accessing downtown and the central corridor, why not have it serve densely populated neighborhoods as it travels downtown. Besides, South City goes farther from downtown than you must realize. It can take quite awhile to ride a bus downtown from some of the neighborhoods. Offering a convenient Metro stop, with access to downtown and the entire central corridor will prompt many people in those densely populated neighborhoods to leave their car at home. Also, by connecting these neighborhoods to Metro you are connecting them to the job centers of the central corridor. That raises the value of our north and south neighborhoods. And let's face it, most of rsidential St. Louis City is either north or southside.
The currently proposed southside line is and intersting combo of stops. It is great that the line would provide good stops for Tower Grove Park, the Botanical gardens, and some prerty stable southside communities near the city edge.
But at the same time the proposed gravois line might offer more opertunity for rehab and redevelopment around the line, while providing stops for some established inner ring neighborhoods that would do alot to help grow downtown.
It is an intersting trade off. To be fair, two lines would be ideal , one hitting gravois and one following chouteau west, hitting up the Tower Grove and the gardens and then extending into southwest city, but I am not sure we would ever get both lines. An intersting route would allow a Southwest line to go along Chippewa after it exits the UP ROW near Kingshighway. Maybe the two lines would work better, because it seems like one alingment tries to cover too much ground. Lord knows the city would be better off with two lines over one on the southside.
But at the same time the proposed gravois line might offer more opertunity for rehab and redevelopment around the line, while providing stops for some established inner ring neighborhoods that would do alot to help grow downtown.
It is an intersting trade off. To be fair, two lines would be ideal , one hitting gravois and one following chouteau west, hitting up the Tower Grove and the gardens and then extending into southwest city, but I am not sure we would ever get both lines. An intersting route would allow a Southwest line to go along Chippewa after it exits the UP ROW near Kingshighway. Maybe the two lines would work better, because it seems like one alingment tries to cover too much ground. Lord knows the city would be better off with two lines over one on the southside.
Point taken, now when people talk of the different lines - what do they mean... what is the red line? Green? Blue?
PS. All i was saying about the fruit is that we should be creative and unique in our system - I dont want our system to be like everyone elses - and I was just throwing out outlandish ideas.
PS. All i was saying about the fruit is that we should be creative and unique in our system - I dont want our system to be like everyone elses - and I was just throwing out outlandish ideas.
The biggest difficulty in evaluating all these different options is that every time you move the line to a ?better? route, you end up giving up some nice stops in the former route. Thus, I like mcarril?s compromise plan that heads down Gravois instead of Chouteau because it hits the northwestern corner of Soulard, but it leaves out the Botanical Garden and TG Park. If Metrolink is all we have to work with then that single compromise line might be the best option, but an even better plan as I see it would be to have the original alignment that Metro?s proposing (TG and botanical garden) plus a single streetcar line to fill in the gaps on the near southside. As mentioned above, two separate Metrolink lines (SW and South) may be ideal, but looking at Metro?s expansion plans, I think we can agree this really isn?t a possibility.
The original line is the Red Line. The cross county line is the Green Line. As far as I know, no new planned lines have been officially associated to a color. The north side & south side lines will be assigned colors as they become reality. (or maybe it has been decided, I don't know)
There was no need to use the color system when there was only one line. When you look at a system map, either at a Metro Station, on a schedule, online or wherever, different lines need to be in different colors or they will all be the same color. It would be very confusing to read a map that had all lines the same color. With the different colors you can tell where one starts and another begins. You don't need to speak English or quickly learn names with a color line system. It is the easiest way to do it. If you travel to a country that doesn't use English, you can understand how important the color system is. All you do is identify your destination and you can follow the color home. You can easily ride the subway in nearly any city, no matter the language, because of the colored lines.
Maybe the best way to make our system different than others is in the design of stations or art/sculpture at stations.
There was no need to use the color system when there was only one line. When you look at a system map, either at a Metro Station, on a schedule, online or wherever, different lines need to be in different colors or they will all be the same color. It would be very confusing to read a map that had all lines the same color. With the different colors you can tell where one starts and another begins. You don't need to speak English or quickly learn names with a color line system. It is the easiest way to do it. If you travel to a country that doesn't use English, you can understand how important the color system is. All you do is identify your destination and you can follow the color home. You can easily ride the subway in nearly any city, no matter the language, because of the colored lines.
Maybe the best way to make our system different than others is in the design of stations or art/sculpture at stations.
The original proposal is fine. Neighborhoods will funnel to the link stops via bus routes. It will work fine.
I'm just ecstatic that they aren't talking about coming into the county via Shrewsbury. That stop needs to be the jumping off point for a spur that goes into Webster, Crestwood, Kirkwood, picking up Meremac Community College and heading into Fenton where there should be a MAJOR park and ride, alleviating traffic into the city on 44 past 270.
I'm just ecstatic that they aren't talking about coming into the county via Shrewsbury. That stop needs to be the jumping off point for a spur that goes into Webster, Crestwood, Kirkwood, picking up Meremac Community College and heading into Fenton where there should be a MAJOR park and ride, alleviating traffic into the city on 44 past 270.
jefferson wrote:The biggest difficulty in evaluating all these different options is that every time you move the line to a ?better? route, you end up giving up some nice stops in the former route. Thus, I like mcarril?s compromise plan that heads down Gravois instead of Chouteau because it hits the northwestern corner of Soulard, but it leaves out the Botanical Garden and TG Park. If Metrolink is all we have to work with then that single compromise line might be the best option, but an even better plan as I see it would be to have the original alignment that Metro?s proposing (TG and botanical garden) plus a single streetcar line to fill in the gaps on the near southside. As mentioned above, two separate Metrolink lines (SW and South) may be ideal, but looking at Metro?s expansion plans, I think we can agree this really isn?t a possibility.
My biggest issue with the Choteau route is the duplication of stations. We have limited resources, so it seems a waste to over saturate some neighborhoods with stations and ignore others. But, I understand how it might be cheaper to install the line using Choteau and serve those western Southside hoods. Your suggestion to fill in the gap with a single streetcar on Gravois is a good compromise.
Question about this:
Do you mean South County? You are aware of the http://www.metrosouthstudy.org, right?
SLUBLUE wrote:
I'm just ecstatic that they aren't talking about coming into the county via Shrewsbury.
Do you mean South County? You are aware of the http://www.metrosouthstudy.org, right?
SLUBLUE wrote:The original proposal is fine. Neighborhoods will funnel to the link stops via bus routes. It will work fine.
I'm just ecstatic that they aren't talking about coming into the county via Shrewsbury. That stop needs to be the jumping off point for a spur that goes into Webster, Crestwood, Kirkwood, picking up Meremac Community College and heading into Fenton where there should be a MAJOR park and ride, alleviating traffic into the city on 44 past 270.
I agree - on all the plans I see - South West St. Louis County isn't served at all. Sending one all the way to the chrystler plant and a bit further to Martiz would be a smart move with stops in Kirkwood, Meremac, valley park, etc. That line would be much more used than a west county alignment....
The original proposal is fine. Neighborhoods will funnel to the link stops via bus routes. It will work fine.
I don't think I want it to just be "fine," but as "great" as it can be. By your logic, people can just take busses from the redline stops. They are literally two blocks away. If we are going to do this right, the goal should be to cover the most ground so that at no point would someone be ridiculously too far from a MetroLink stop, while at the same time encouraging population growth in straight lines outward from downtown. Also, by taking Gravois, the Link serves LaSalle Park, Lafayette Square, Soulard, Benton Park, Benton Park West, Tower Grove East and the southern end of the South Grand area... It's just makes too much sense in my opinion.