urbanSTL

Right. It feels like a very expensive friendly gesture to North City where southwest city and south city could be best served with more connectivity since populations are largely stabilized, or growing.

In my opinion, the permanence of light rail is more appealing, though, than another bus (BRT). I know it is essentially the same thing as a light rail system, the aesthetic and implications aren't though. At least to me.

bwcrow1s wrote: ↑

Jul 05, 2018

Right. It feels like a very expensive friendly gesture to North City where southwest city and south city could be best served with more connectivity since populations are largely stabilized, or growing.

In my opinion, the permanence of light rail is more appealing, though, than another bus (BRT). I know it is essentially the same thing as a light rail system, the aesthetic and implications aren't though. At least to me.

A lot of this also depends on the wanted outcome and short and long term outcome. This line may make sense as a long term outcome to return population to North City but its going to be a very white population.

My view is that N/S alongside Old North/Hyde Park primes the pump for rapid infill development in years with a good economy/population growth. The 14th street mall is the only intact and ready to rent retail strip in NSTL and WILL eventually be an anchor for infill. Being only a couple stops from downtown will be huge for the area as well.

In 20 years I can see ONSTL built out like a more modern Soulard with 4-5 story infill buildings on Florissant Ave.

I used to be very much in favor of N/S but I’m starting to change my mind. Does anyone realistically think the line would cause even one person to move from the County to N City? I think it could cause some to move from other parts of N City to this part of N City, but that obviously won’t lead to a population increase.

^ yes. but it's not just people from the county. it makes more of the city desirable for transplants, and makes potential transplants more likely to choose St. Louis over somewhere else.

I really hope you all are right. I voted for it and really want to see this succeed, but I’m just losing my sense of optimism.

I think once the county pulled out (Thank You Stenger ) the city should have went for modern streetcar (like Kansas City) for a N-S alignment. Maybe we could have gotten more coverage and a faster implementation, especially if we used the same folks KC used (not the Loop people). With that said, it's hard not to see the potential in any type of Metrolink expansion (especially in the urban core). Although we have been losing density, we are no less urban than many cities that have been implementing massive light rail expansion plans (Denver, Dallas, Portland, Charlotte, etc.), hell even Nashville was going for a major plan. I'm always skeptical of ridership projections anyway and I think since we already have a nice spine of a system (east and west) having any sort of N-S spur will only enhance the utility of the system. Also, I think having a North-South line through the city has always been more about driving a certain type of development (gentrification?) than legitimate transportation, but who knows how this thing will play out.

^ i think we need at least an east-west spine and a north-south spine for fast cross-city transportation. then we could run shorter-distance streetcars that connect to the spine. unfortunately N-S is not gonna be that spine. as proposed it runs too damn close to the river on the south side and ignores too much of south city. how the hell is N-S going to be of any use to people in Shouthampton, for example?

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

Jul 05, 2018

^ i think we need at least an east-west spine and a north-south spine for fast cross-city transportation. then we could run shorter-distance streetcars that connect to the spine. unfortunately N-S is not gonna be that spine. as proposed it runs too damn close to the river on the south side and ignores too much of south city. how the hell is N-S going to be of any use to people in Shouthampton, for example?

I agree, Gravois seems like the no-brainer. Unfortunately, I think Jefferson was chosen so it could eventually ride along I-55 and get faster access to county....now the county is not even interested in being part of this line.

I think that true BRT would be the best move for St. Louis, with routes along Jefferson, Grand and Kingshighway (Broadway and Natural Bridge/N. Florissant + 12th/Gravois too?) probably being in the same ballpark of an investment as N/S Metrolink. That being said, the time and money that these studies take is painful, and we need to move forward with the Metrolink Plan.

In regard to the NGA alignment, there will probably be an employee shuttle even if there is a station on Cass or Jefferson, so it doesn't make sense to take that route (although Jefferson/Natural Bridge BRT with a new Metrolink Station under the Jefferson Viaduct would be a great compromise).

Why Don't We Have Free Public Transit?
Estonia just rolled out the largest free public transit scheme in the world. Here's why we're not following suit.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/arti ... sportation

^ i think we need at least an east-west spine and a north-south spine for fast cross-city transportation. then we could run shorter-distance streetcars that connect to the spine. unfortunately N-S is not gonna be that spine. as proposed it runs too damn close to the river on the south side and ignores too much of south city. how the hell is N-S going to be of any use to people in Shouthampton, for example?

The southern part of the proposed metrolink goes through the densest part of south city

^ i know, but considering that another expansion is unlikely in our lifetimes, a little more forethought as to how the line might induce greater density over a larger, more isotropically developable area would have been wise. the river is a huge undevelopable swath in which people can't live or work.

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Jan 26, 2018

STLEnginerd wrote: ↑

Jan 26, 2018

Yes I've always hated this. Of course I prefer Tucker instead of 14th. Largely because its MUCH wider than 14th and could accommodate dedicated ROW. AND I think the new bus hub is a crammed up mess. Maybe it just because of everything else in the little corner that make it feel so tight. Amtrack, bus hub, Metrolink, onramp to freeway, off ramp from freeway. Now they want another rail system to run through there???

Actually, that may be the point. Turning east on Chouteau makes sense to me so that you can better serve Lafeyette Park. And then turning up 14th and dropping a station at Clark facilitates easy transfers to the red and blue lines. That said, I think I might agree with you that it makes better sense and better serves downtown to move the stations a bit further from the existing stations at 8th and Pine and the convention center. Tucker would work fine, but just going straight up fourteenth might work almost better. Stations at 14th and Pine and 14th and Washington would put virtually all of downtown within a quarter mile's walk to a station. Either or. But yes, that does seem better than the 9th/10th allignment.

Sooo much better coverage if the alignment went north on 14th from Clark and probably a heckuva lot cheaper too.

stlien wrote: ↑

Jul 06, 2018

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Jan 26, 2018

STLEnginerd wrote: ↑

Jan 26, 2018

Yes I've always hated this. Of course I prefer Tucker instead of 14th. Largely because its MUCH wider than 14th and could accommodate dedicated ROW. AND I think the new bus hub is a crammed up mess. Maybe it just because of everything else in the little corner that make it feel so tight. Amtrack, bus hub, Metrolink, onramp to freeway, off ramp from freeway. Now they want another rail system to run through there???

Actually, that may be the point. Turning east on Chouteau makes sense to me so that you can better serve Lafeyette Park. And then turning up 14th and dropping a station at Clark facilitates easy transfers to the red and blue lines. That said, I think I might agree with you that it makes better sense and better serves downtown to move the stations a bit further from the existing stations at 8th and Pine and the convention center. Tucker would work fine, but just going straight up fourteenth might work almost better. Stations at 14th and Pine and 14th and Washington would put virtually all of downtown within a quarter mile's walk to a station. Either or. But yes, that does seem better than the 9th/10th allignment.

Sooo much better coverage if the alignment went north on 14th from Clark and probably a heckuva lot cheaper too.

Yes, the downtown section has always been the worst part of the plan to me. It makes no sense and totally misses the opportunity to better serve downtown west.

stlexplorer wrote:I think that true BRT would be the best move for St. Louis, with routes along Jefferson, Grand and Kingshighway (Broadway and Natural Bridge/N. Florissant + 12th/Gravois too?) probably being in the same ballpark of an investment as N/S Metrolink. That being said, the time and money that these studies take is painful, and we need to move forward with the Metrolink Plan.

In regard to the NGA alignment, there will probably be an employee shuttle even if there is a station on Cass or Jefferson, so it doesn't make sense to take that route (although Jefferson/Natural Bridge BRT with a new Metrolink Station under the Jefferson Viaduct would be a great compromise).

If BRT was driverless with deliberate acceleration, and had active leveling suspension, would it feel just like rail?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Honest question, where on earth are we going to get the money for even this unambitious expansion of MetroLink if the City is essentially on its own?

goat314 wrote:

stlien wrote: ↑

Jul 06, 2018

Sooo much better coverage if the alignment went north on 14th from Clark and probably a heckuva lot cheaper too.

Yes, the downtown section has always been the worst part of the plan to me. It makes no sense and totally misses the opportunity to better serve downtown west.

I agree. As long as there’s a direct, relatively seamless connection at Civic Center, a route running straight up 14th Street may be preferable. You could transfer to an eastward red or blue train in the time it would take to noodle through Downtown. It would certainly be cheaper to build, but may just be better as a design as well.

I suppose a key question would be how many people are taking N-S to get to the heart of the CBD vs. taking it to connect to Metrolink and points further East and West. I think the latter is likely to have the greater numbers, which would justify a 14th Street alignment.

Ebsy wrote: ↑

Jul 07, 2018

Honest question, where on earth are we going to get the money for even this unambitious expansion of MetroLink if the City is essentially on its own?

well we are collecting $20M a year since last April from the new sales tax for metrolink....30 year bond should yield $300-350M cash

wabash wrote: ↑

Jul 07, 2018

goat314 wrote:

stlien wrote: ↑

Jul 06, 2018

Sooo much better coverage if the alignment went north on 14th from Clark and probably a heckuva lot cheaper too.

Yes, the downtown section has always been the worst part of the plan to me. It makes no sense and totally misses the opportunity to better serve downtown west.

I agree. As long as there’s a direct, relatively seamless connection at Civic Center, a route running straight up 14th Street may be preferable. You could transfer to an eastward red or blue train in the time it would take to noodle through Downtown. It would certainly be cheaper to build, but may just be better as a design as well.

I suppose a key question would be how many people are taking N-S to get to the heart of the CBD vs. taking it to connect to Metrolink and points further East and West. I think the latter is likely to have the greater numbers, which would justify a 14th Street alignment.

I want the 9th/10th street split to merge to just 9th street. 9th street should get a treatment like the 16th Street Mall in Denver. Ped/cyclist with a two-way LRV, no cars.

9th Street is already closed at City Garden. It would be pretty incredible if we could get a stop right in city garden.

addxb2 wrote:

wabash wrote: ↑

Jul 07, 2018

goat314 wrote:
Yes, the downtown section has always been the worst part of the plan to me. It makes no sense and totally misses the opportunity to better serve downtown west.

I agree. As long as there’s a direct, relatively seamless connection at Civic Center, a route running straight up 14th Street may be preferable. You could transfer to an eastward red or blue train in the time it would take to noodle through Downtown. It would certainly be cheaper to build, but may just be better as a design as well.

I suppose a key question would be how many people are taking N-S to get to the heart of the CBD vs. taking it to connect to Metrolink and points further East and West. I think the latter is likely to have the greater numbers, which would justify a 14th Street alignment.

I want the 9th/10th street split to merge to just 9th street. 9th street should get a treatment like the 16th Street Mall in Denver. Ped/cyclist with a two-way LRV, no cars.

9th Street is already closed at City Garden. It would be pretty incredible if we could get a stop right in city garden.

Just getting those stops right downtown will be awesome. Portland just looks like a city of the future with all those light rail trains along both sides of the mall downtown.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ebsy wrote: ↑

Jul 07, 2018

Honest question, where on earth are we going to get the money for even this unambitious expansion of MetroLink if the City is essentially on its own?

Def need federal to match but who knows these days what's going with that.

The consulting team studying the proposed Northside-Southside MetroLink line has recommended that the route’s initial phase be pared back a bit.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/traffic/a ... the-latest

"The line could be extended in later years, he said, and potentially link to another line that would go west to Lambert."

I wonder if they are considering scrapping the segment that would go up West Florissant in the county. Maybe they are looking to have it go parallel to I-70 at good segment and meet up with the North Hanley station. Not against this particular plan, but if they are going to use this route. I would rather Metro just keep it a grade separated and go all the way down I-70 for the Northside and used the Desoto right of way for the Southside.