IMHO - these should be postponed until after the World Series. I was going to go to the downtown one today but will be fleeing downtown ASAP after work. I should add...fleeing only to align myself with a tv screen in a Soulard bar!

I went to the downtown meet this evening. You missed out on some neat info.



Though if anyone plans to attend any other meets, each location's meeting is focused on that part of the route. So if you really want details on the southern part of the route, head to the southside meet. The downtown meet focused on the core portion.



I had to leave early, but got the info I really wanted and it will be online soon as well.



It looks like they are leaning toward the 9th/10th route. The line, at this point, would continue straight thru so it will be one line, not seperate northern and southern lines. If thats a good or bad thing, its is up to you.



Trains will be low-floor and the ones in the presentation looked very similar to what Minneapolis uses but I'm sure that was just for visual purposes. Platforms would be no more than 14in high compared to the current 30in. Trains would be no longer than two cars in order to not block intersections, a similar issue Portland faces. So if you ever had a dream of boarding a 3 car train to head home, flush it down the toilet now.



For any street running sections, it looks like they are going for the barrier route to seperate traffic. Whether its a small curb or fence is still up in the air.



And it looks like they are FINALLY going for different shelter designs. Something I have always hated about the current system is that every station looks exactly the same!!



Enough typing. If I get off work at the right time, I might try to go to the southside meet tommorow. If not, I can wait till its on the web.

My text (Planning in the USA by Cullingsworth) says that studies indicate that shelter or light rail station design does not attract more ridership but is just an aesthetic and bonus feature.



Granted, let's have new design!



If just two cars deep than can Metro respond with more trains if ridership spikes from the suburbs?

If just two cars deep than can Metro respond with more trains if ridership spikes from the suburbs?

I meant to ask the same question, however, since I volunteered to take notes, I didn't have time to ask this.



I would imagine since this line will be mostly street-running that the trains will be slower than the other alignments. I think this would allow them to run at shorter head times than the others. Hopefully someone can ask that question at one of the other workshops.

From the 17th Ward Town Hall Meeting: FPSEDC is officially in favor of the following route, bringing light rail west on Chouteau from downtown to Vandeventer and then following current rail right-of-way south to Carondolet Park. I believe they will be pushing for stops near Vandeventer and Tower Grove.

What a surprise, the only alignment being studied coming close to the FPSE neighborhood is that endorsed by FPSEDC. I'm sure others like Soulard will only endorse that alignment serving their neighborhood too, like Gravois.



Instead of neighborhoods fighting over a Southside MetroLink extension (hey, at least they are fighting to have it, instead of against it like Parkview/Catlin was on Cross County), I hope more objective reasons (cost, ridership, development) will factor into the final decision.

The above map is only FPSEDC's preferred alignment.



I think the above route is great for Metro and would encourage development along Chouteau and solidify the CORTEX desitrict by providing great transportation options. This would be a great incentive for businesses to locate headqarters in the city. The line largely parallels the existing line, but this isn't a bad thing because having three lines converge into one would necessitate very long lead times as trains would bunch up.



It would be great to have South Grand and Soulard served by fixed mass transit, but I don't think having Metro running down Grand would be ideal. Several people have talked about how this would not serve anyone's purpose as stops would be widely spaced, speeds relatively low. So south county commuters would be inconvenienced and those wanted to visit South Grand wouldn't have many options.



City neighborhoods should be served by streetcars that make frequent stops. Metro is really for commuting longer distances, going to the airport, park & ride, etc.

I like the proposed route but agree with STLgasm that the parallel sections are too close together. Instead I would like to see the east/west portion further south & closer to (but not along) I-44 and then continue on with the rest of the route.

In addition to that shown in the above map running along Chouteau and the Union Pacific, there are two other alignments being equally considered in the study-- Gravois to Union Pacific, and Jefferson to I-55. At this time, there is no preferred alternative, but three alignments all being carried forward for comparative evaluation.

I still see no logical reason for any metrolink line to run down choteau. It's a highly car oriented and industrial road. The population centers are well south of it, and would only draw half the population if it ran down a more central location. Serving an industrial area with light rail makes even less sense, as the total number of jobs per square foot is half that of any retail center. I know i'm not the only one who went to planning school, come on folks!



Plus there should be lines running down grand and jefferson, not or. The way this thing is getting built, we'll have a lot of pretty lines that serve NO ONE, and costs a lot of money. Who the hell is paying for these studies!!?? Common sense people!

choteau. It's a highly car oriented

That's the problem with StL - all its roads are so car oriented!

Common sense people!

Common sense would dictate that any proposal be realistic. I don't think Metro down Jefferson and Grand is realistic. Building metro on existing rail right-of-way and possibly on a six-lane road that sees very little current traffic is realistic. Also, there's an honest debate to be had regarding the purpose and possibilities of light rail. It can be built to serve the most densly populated areas of a region or it can be built to serve longer-distance commuters and promote development. The former is the most difficult because of cost and disruption to current residents/businesses. The latter is more realistic for the same reasons.



Personally, I'd love to see Chouteau become a major thoroughfare with the hypothetical South Grand/SLU area study become reality as well as Chouteau Lake, etc. This area will never be industrial again and if it were to see residential/commerical infill it could really tie north, south, east and west parts of St. Louis City together.

^thanks ihnen... where is this?

Thats perfect .. isn't it essentially a streetcar - just more modern. a few lines of those (connecting, of course, to the metro stations) would really boost this city. Grand is a no brainer. Olive? Delmar looping through the west end?



I would prefer a system like that if it acted liek a train - ie it stops only at stations rather than whenever someone tugs the line - that would make it more like subway/lightrail



why the hell don't we do this?

I think the infrastructure cost alone (expansion of roads and laying down lines) would be a non starter for the city. There is so little you can change in established neighborhoods.

Metro Transit's Hiawatha line in Minneapolis is a hybrid of the 2 systems. It functions as a streetcar downtown and is on a dedicated right of way once it leaves the city. I could see such a model working really well in st louis (since we have both to work with). The Zurich tram system is a streetcar like that for almost the entire system and is arguably the most comprehensive light rail network in the world. The only problem I see with doing that in STL is the time it takes to travel to outlieing areas. It works in Zurich because there is an extensive heavy rail network that can make traveling to the further reaches of the city much faster (10 min vs 40-50 min). I believe that the Metrolink should serve the DT and near DT areas as a streetcar and the farther South and North counties as it does today. From what I understand isn't that the intention of Metro anyhow?

^thanks ihnen... where is this?

Portland, OR



^ I'd agree that a hybrid system wouldn't work will in StL because it would take 50mins to go from downtown to 270. Of course there could be express trains etc. etc., but I like the idea of two systems.

markofucity wrote:I would prefer a system like that if it acted liek a train - ie it stops only at stations rather than whenever someone tugs the line - that would make it more like subway/lightrail



why the hell don't we do this?

I was in Portland a couple weeks ago and used the streetcar and light rail quite a bit. The streetcar works exactly as you prefer. It only stops at stations. Here's a map of the stations. There is a station every 3 or 4 blocks, with 40 total on a 6 mile loop. A train arriving about every 13 minutes. Also, they use NextBus' system with GPS to track where streetcars are at any given time. They have screens at stations showing how long until the next streetcar and you can check it online (or on your cell phone).

^The north-south line is also a hybrid. It acts somewhat like a streetcar with more frequent stations and street-running operations, albeit in reserved curbside lanes or medians, where Downtown, South City neighborhoods east of Grand, and North City neighborhoods east of Goodfellow. Meanwhile, it acts more like existing MetroLink in more exclusive rights-of-way in Far North City, Far South and/or (depending on alignment) Southwest City, as well as North and South St. Louis County.



The hybrid result is possible because this north-south line will supposedly use fairly similar vehicles to MetroLink in capacity and dimensions, except low-floor vehicles in order to have low-platform stations within urban streetscapes. Just as existing MetroLink operates at variable speeds, the low-floor version can go slower Downtown, travel moderate speeds in medians on wide streets in City neighborhoods, and travel top speed in more exclusive-running rights-of-way like the Union Pacific and I-55 corridors.

It was my understanding that the new line would have train-sets with slightly smaller dimensions than the existing metrolink in order to make the tight 90 degree turns on the city streets.

Materials from the recent station planning workshops are recent additions to the Northside-Southside Study website, including maps of the alternate routes with proposed station locations, computer simulation stills of existing street scenes with the addition of street-running light rail, and renderings of conceptual development spurred by new stations.

Those are sweet and sleek new trains



Will a Southside line cross the River Des Peres into Lemay or beyond?



Will the Goodfellow near I-70 station have to be redesigned when extended north? Those current designs show it stopping at Goodfellow without a design for an anticipated extension to Furguson.