urbanSTL

Just don't move the CWE station west. It's already annoyingly far from the bus transfer center.

quincunx wrote:Just don't move the CWE station west. It's already annoyingly far from the bus transfer center.

Is there a way that the station could be upgraded that also connects the bus transfer center better? Also in a station improvement, would there be any need or considering of having it designed for another rail line at that station either light rail or say a streetcar line? I'm not sure if any proposal involves either occurring there but if there is redeveloping with that in consideration would work. (looking at the site overhead it might be hard to tie that in to other lines)

A wider platform and a canopy over the whole thing all the way to the bus transfer center would be great.

The tough part of a wider platform is the width of the tunnel under Euclid and the delivery access road. You'd have to widen that or push the station east so the tracks could part.

If the County wanted to bolster the density and demographics surrounding any of the possible extensions being studied (Metro North, Metro South, or Westport), it would be incredible if any proposal included a small City element acting as an eastern terminal for the new line. This would go towards that cooperation Stenger mentioned in his campaigning, and the regionalism Slay incessantly supports. I think the brevity of such an extension (1.2 miles, 2 stations) and limited cost (maybe $135 mil) compared to any of the County options (5+ miles, 5+ stations) would keep County folk from balking at it. Also, I'm sure the revenue it generates is limited, but when Prop A passed, it gave effect to a .25% sales tax in the City. Such an extension would acknowledge that contribution.

The Downtown connectivity wouldn't be ideal, since only Union Station and Civic Center would be directly served. But there'd be consistent cross-platform connections to points east via the blue and red lines at Civic Center.

It would have to be elevated to stay grade separated without multiplying costs like subway would.
\

If such an eastern terminal were bundled with a Westport or Metro North line there'd be much more widespread popular support (instead of more divisive debating which has already justifiably begun), a lot more political support, a greater chance of obtaining federal funding, and ultimately a much greater likelihood of a significant Metrolink expansion becoming a reality.

^ Trying to visual your thoughts but then I go back to the reality that you could probably extend Metro South along a River Des Peres greenway alignment by at least two stations @ Watson & Gravois Ave with a new relocated bus transfer from the Shrewsbury to a new Watson Street station/TOD development of the Shop n Save/Sea of asphalt. At same time, it would serve both county and existing bus lines that more efficiently while giving more south City & County residents direct transit access to Clayton CBD & Central Corridor for less then $125 million.

In other words, why not extend the existing fixed transit with its existing job & institutional centers at Metro doorsteps further into south county and city instead of trying to create an eastern spur in area that realistically could be decades from urban development.

dredger wrote:In other words, why not extend the existing fixed transit with its existing job & institutional centers at Metro doorsteps further into south county and city instead of trying to create an eastern spur in area that realistically could be decades from urban development.

There's significant development and redevelopment going on in Laf. Sq., Soulard, and Peabody Darst Webbe. McKinley Heights, the North end of Benton Park, and LaSalle Park could use a boost, which such a spur would provide. But the main difference between a short extension of the blue line and a short South City spur is demographics. The likelihood of federal funding will be higher if more minorities and transit-dependent riders are served. All of the census tracts this spur runs through have poverty rates above the City average (which is higher than the County or State), including the census tract with the third highest poverty rate in the City at 74.1%. Peabody Darst Webbe and LaSalle Park are majority minority neighborhoods, while McKinley Heights is plurality minority. Also, it can't hurt that Peabody Darst Webbe is the densest neighborhood in the City.

The idea here would be to serve as a sort of demographic counter-balance to the less dense, less poor, and less minority proposals by the County (primarily Westport, but also the others). Combined they might have a better chance of getting done. I'm not sure combining a Westport extension with a Watson extension would achieve that.

That said, I think a short Watson or Gravois or MorganFord extension is a great idea.

^ Wabash, thanks. Not sure if your map/link didn't showed last night or simply responded to quickly before the map loaded but I do understand what your talking about now.

Interesting thought, maybe spilt right at the turn into Busch stadium station creating a secondary stadium station with an on street alignment on 7th ave instead removing any need for raised grade wheil adding a Purina Station Stop/TOD development area and a final Broadway Ave/Soulard Market stop with a future Bud Light stop further down on Broadway.

ldai_phs wrote:

PeterXCV wrote:^It's very frustrating. And Metro has almost no interest in doing so. Like how they closed one of the entrances to the Delmar Loop station, as if that has made the local news freakout about Metrolink safety go away. Only made it harder for riders as far as I'm concerned. 

As far as I am concerned, Blue Line past downtown Clayton was a mistake. A lot of money was wasted to build stations surrounded by parking lots.
South City fast/frequent service should happen. I have been playing around with a routing that connects the Shrewsbury Metrolink Station to Busch Stadium

Gravois & Chippewa certainly seems like the best first goal for a Southside Metrolink line, considering the options the UPRR opens up. 

Chippewa doesn't seem wide enough for a street-level line. Since the thread is "fantasies," I'd love to see an elevated line over the street similar to the N in Astoria, Queens.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

^It's four lanes almost its entire length, save for a small portion east of Morganford that got a diet a few years back. But there's really not enough traffic to require four lanes anymore save maybe right at Hampton once in a while. Just give away two lanes to a higher and better use (which would be any alternate use, really) and Bob's your uncle.

From Reddit. This should be the 30 year plan for St. Louis. Every transit and infrastructure decision should be made to help make this a reality




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^Maybe if it was BRT. With how slow things go here, you're looking at the Metro system of 2250.

sc4mayor wrote: ↑

Apr 13, 2022

And maybe if it just focused on the city and inner county.

I'd like to see rail and frequent bus service tied explicitly to TOD districts and zoning. Like, tell communities along Watson to implement transit-friendly zoning forms and you'll run buses every 10 minutes. Probably a pipe dream when we can't even accomplish that in all the current form-appropriate neighborhoods, but it would be nice to see transit and zoning cooperate toward a purpose.

sc4mayor wrote: ↑

Apr 13, 2022

And maybe if it just focused on the city and inner county.

Those long distance lines to low density exurban areas like Wildwood and Wentzville aren’t really necessary.

Cool map, though.  Love the rainbow logo.

Metro should be building all of those lines in parallel a station at at time. The full build of all of the lines should be constructed over a 50-75 year timeframe, where each line is expanded to the next station every 5-7 years.   Build to a station, open the station, and then start construction to the next station. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

By the time they get to the exurbs, it might be necessary.

Just focusing one line at a time is painfully inefficient.

sc4mayor wrote: ↑

Apr 14, 2022

^ Yet, no other region builds mass transit expansions one station at a time.  What makes building transit in St. Louis inefficient is regional fragmentation.

A traditional commuter rail line running on existing railroad rights of way would be fine for Wentzville, out to Carlyle Lake, etc.  They don’t need or want MetroLink in those distant areas.

Never mind that St. Charles and Madison County are likely to never raise taxes for public transit, making all of this moot anyway.  Also, it’s up to the regional MPO to identify expansion, rights of way and then identify and secure funding to build it.  Metro does none of that, they simply operate the system.

Most systems don't build one station at a time, but I know that other cities have built small 3-4 mile spurs at a time, which I think would be a smart move for St. Louis. I want to say that Houston builds out it's system like that. A small spur that goes to the Grove and down to Botanical garden with a couple of stations would be the kind of expansions I would like to see in St. Louis. Basically little spurs off the spine to important destinations would do a lot for the system in my opinion. Would have rather seen than the Loop Trolley. 

sc4mayor wrote: ↑

Apr 14, 2022

^ Yet, no other region builds mass transit expansions one station at a time.  What makes building transit in St. Louis inefficient is regional fragmentation.

A traditional commuter rail line running on existing railroad rights of way would be fine for Wentzville, out to Carlyle Lake, etc.  They don’t need or want MetroLink in those distant areas.

Never mind that St. Charles and Madison County are likely to never raise taxes for public transit, making all of this moot anyway.  Also, it’s up to the regional MPO to identify expansion, rights of way and then identify and secure funding to build it.  Metro does none of that, they simply operate the system.

1. "No other region builds mass transit expansions one station at a time" in a thread titled "MetroLink Ideas and Fantasies"...goodness I love how STL always feels the need to compare to other cities.  It's like some weird insecurity. So my counterpoint to your comment is "So What?"  The way we're currently building out Metro is ridiculous.
2. Good catch on the MPO, they should outlay a broad expansion plan like above, secure the funds and land now...and then they can build each line out a station at a time. 
3. Fragmentation is here to stay in some form...maybe we'll whittle it down to 70 or maybe 60 municipalities, but too many egos control too many kingdoms.  This is why a broad plan, like above, needs to be put forth so the land can be secured across the municipalities. Start near the current lines and build out from there.
4. The exurbs in 50-75 years might want MetroLink, I don't see any signs of the exurbs shrinking...but building a station at a time allows for mitigation/reallocation of resources.  By the time you get to the point where you're expanding into the exurbs in 50+ years, they can make the decision to expand or not...but the land is secured with 2022 dollars (for example) not 2072 dollars.
5. At our current pace, we might get half of the N-S line complete in 50 years...something has to change drastically unless we're all cool with highway expansions and more parking garages.

^I think the intention was always to build N/S in phases of a few miles each. I think the first phase was supposed to be Cass and alignment of choice to Jefferson and Cherokee or maybe Broadway. (So maybe six miles, which is a little more than suggested, but not much.) Phases two and three would only add a few miles each. (I can't quite recall if it was divided into three phases or four. So even that first part might actually be two phases, in which case each phase would only be three miles or so. The entire total of the thing was only maybe fifteen miles.) Anyway, yes, I do believe we should be adding onto the system slowly and consistently. You could even, in theory, plan things out in longer stretches, but build from the center out so you could open routes in phases as described. Even if it's not realistic, it's a great fantasy. I might or might not have played with such things in NIMBY rail.

As long as we're talking fantasy, let's draft all the office workers into the construction corp, melt down all the steel skyscrapers for rail, and go crazy.