PostJul 13, 2022#1626
No.
- 6,123
^That's actually starting to look like a reasonable line.
^ I don't disagree. Here is a link to the entire presentation for the upcoming EWG meeting.
https://www.ewgateway.org/wp-content/up ... L-NSSS.pdf
Couple other slides that I found informative:
![]()
![]()
https://www.ewgateway.org/wp-content/up ... L-NSSS.pdf
Couple other slides that I found informative:
- 1,792
While it misses some key nodes i would have liked to see in the next metrolink line (Old North, Soulard and South Grand) I think its good enough. It is simple enough that i think it doesn't see confusing for an out of towner and is functional for alot of locals.
Build it so we can start armchair quarterbacking the next expansion.
Build it so we can start armchair quarterbacking the next expansion.
Does anyone know what this means? "Action Requested" "FTA Ratings Request" "15% design" "30% design"
Like, if it takes a year to do 15% of the design, does that mean construction won't begin until 7 years from now?
- 1,792
Shouldn't be 7 years. Any design effort ramps up and down as staff is added to a project and the concept designs are fleshed out. Detail design would have more people and thus go faster. Still probably at least a few years of design to do before any ground breaking though. Maybe could have design to the point where you could break ground in 2026 or 27 if they were determined to push this through as conceptualized.
What kind of environmental impact studies etc would be required before breaking ground. Or are we past that already. I tend to think those things are mostly dumb for stuff like this since the alternative is driving cars, but there will have to be a fair amount looking at how this affects rainwater runoff, water sewer electric pedestrian, traffic, etc, even though the net positive conclusion is pretty much foregone. Also can they do this in tandem to design or if its sequential. Ideally tandem because those those things seem to take years and by the time they are done everyone wants to change the plan because of reason X.
Also are federal funds a prerequisite for this. Would think it should be a shoe in but with metrolink numbers down and and the loop trolley debacle you gotta wonder.
What kind of environmental impact studies etc would be required before breaking ground. Or are we past that already. I tend to think those things are mostly dumb for stuff like this since the alternative is driving cars, but there will have to be a fair amount looking at how this affects rainwater runoff, water sewer electric pedestrian, traffic, etc, even though the net positive conclusion is pretty much foregone. Also can they do this in tandem to design or if its sequential. Ideally tandem because those those things seem to take years and by the time they are done everyone wants to change the plan because of reason X.
Also are federal funds a prerequisite for this. Would think it should be a shoe in but with metrolink numbers down and and the loop trolley debacle you gotta wonder.
- 1,792
do they slow roll the design effort until thats done... ifthey do that easily pushes ground breaking to 2028/2029
This is why i can't get excited about this until it's literally under construction.
- 9,565
Idk if they slow roll it as much as that they can’t proceed past certain level without an record of decision for the EIS. I do hope Biden admin does some E.O or EPA/Transportation does a rule update to make eis more streamlined. It’s killing or stalling so many projects. Like do we really need a full blown eis to know that adding transit will not negatively impact the environment from baseline?
This project has failed to move forward for years bc they didn’t expect to qualify for federal funds. I guess they think that changes with recent political changesSTLEnginerd wrote:Shouldn't be 7 years. Any design effort ramps up and down as staff is added to a project and the concept designs are fleshed out. Detail design would have more people and thus go faster. Still probably at least a few years of design to do before any ground breaking though. Maybe could have design to the point where you could break ground in 2026 or 27 if they were determined to push this through as conceptualized.
What kind of environmental impact studies etc would be required before breaking ground. Or are we past that already. I tend to think those things are mostly dumb for stuff like this since the alternative is driving cars, but there will have to be a fair amount looking at how this affects rainwater runoff, water sewer electric pedestrian, traffic, etc, even though the net positive conclusion is pretty much foregone. Also can they do this in tandem to design or if its sequential. Ideally tandem because those those things seem to take years and by the time they are done everyone wants to change the plan because of reason X.
Also are federal funds a prerequisite for this. Would think it should be a shoe in but with metrolink numbers down and and the loop trolley debacle you gotta wonder.
Here is my wild, likely infeasible, pitch.
Connect N/S with existing MetroLink via Scott and Ewing Yards property. Utilize the existing rolling stock and build high-floor stations throughout.
Skip adding a new station at Jefferson (saving $)
Skip buying new rolling stock, focus of refurbishment (saving $)
I added a sandbox route map in the corner to show how this opens the system up to more combinations of routes.
![]()
Connect N/S with existing MetroLink via Scott and Ewing Yards property. Utilize the existing rolling stock and build high-floor stations throughout.
Skip adding a new station at Jefferson (saving $)
Skip buying new rolling stock, focus of refurbishment (saving $)
I added a sandbox route map in the corner to show how this opens the system up to more combinations of routes.
- 1,792
i don't see it as infeasible.
I kind of prefer high platforms. I feel like the concrete work itself is not really a big driver of cost so high versus low is probably just a choice based on other factors. Making the trains on either route interchangable has some significant benefits worth considering.
The connection between the NS route and the east west routes is one of two options. Either that or you build new maintenance supporting facilities along the NS line. To me making the connection is easier whether it follows your exact routing is something they would have to design.
As for the route map, i think it would be confusing for users. I think it would be better to just have increased frequency on both routes and a a top notch transferring station at the intersection. One persons opinion of course. Ever since i witnessed the London Underground I've always appreciated the bustle of moving people through a transfer station. I never got the same sense from NY or SF, and only partially in the CHicago loop.
I kind of prefer high platforms. I feel like the concrete work itself is not really a big driver of cost so high versus low is probably just a choice based on other factors. Making the trains on either route interchangable has some significant benefits worth considering.
The connection between the NS route and the east west routes is one of two options. Either that or you build new maintenance supporting facilities along the NS line. To me making the connection is easier whether it follows your exact routing is something they would have to design.
As for the route map, i think it would be confusing for users. I think it would be better to just have increased frequency on both routes and a a top notch transferring station at the intersection. One persons opinion of course. Ever since i witnessed the London Underground I've always appreciated the bustle of moving people through a transfer station. I never got the same sense from NY or SF, and only partially in the CHicago loop.
- 398
The underground was just amazing. A sea of people moving down there.
I have tried to read through this to answer my question, perhaps I have missed it. Do they plan this to be IN Jefferson and thereby adhering to street lights? Or will this have it's own right of way?
I have tried to read through this to answer my question, perhaps I have missed it. Do they plan this to be IN Jefferson and thereby adhering to street lights? Or will this have it's own right of way?
I think they'd need more rolling stock regardless.addxb2 wrote: ↑Aug 31, 2022Skip buying new rolling stock, focus of refurbishment (saving $)
I also think having the same rolling stock would be awesome. Especially if they could somehow merge with the existing system somehow. It would be awesome to live in Clayton and go straight to NGA. Or live on Cherokee St. and not have to transfer to get to the airport. Obviously a system like this would cost more, but long term I think it would have much greater benefit to the city.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Aug 31, 2022i don't see it as infeasible.
I kind of prefer high platforms. I feel like the concrete work itself is not really a big driver of cost so high versus low is probably just a choice based on other factors. Making the trains on either route interchangable has some significant benefits worth considering.
The connection between the NS route and the east west routes is one of two options. Either that or you build new maintenance supporting facilities along the NS line. To me making the connection is easier whether it follows your exact routing is something they would have to design.
As for the route map, i think it would be confusing for users. I think it would be better to just have increased frequency on both routes and a a top notch transferring station at the intersection. One persons opinion of course. Ever since i witnessed the London Underground I've always appreciated the bustle of moving people through a transfer station. I never got the same sense from NY or SF, and only partially in the CHicago loop.
How does that look operationally? Blue line heads north to NGA instead of to Ill. Orange line goes S City, Dowtown, Illinois?goat314 wrote:I also think having the same rolling stock would be awesome. Especially if they could somehow merge with the existing system somehow. It would be awesome to live in Clayton and go straight to NGA. Or live on Cherokee St. and not have to transfer to get to the airport. Obviously a system like this would cost more, but long term I think it would have much greater benefit to the city.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Aug 31, 2022i don't see it as infeasible.
I kind of prefer high platforms. I feel like the concrete work itself is not really a big driver of cost so high versus low is probably just a choice based on other factors. Making the trains on either route interchangable has some significant benefits worth considering.
The connection between the NS route and the east west routes is one of two options. Either that or you build new maintenance supporting facilities along the NS line. To me making the connection is easier whether it follows your exact routing is something they would have to design.
As for the route map, i think it would be confusing for users. I think it would be better to just have increased frequency on both routes and a a top notch transferring station at the intersection. One persons opinion of course. Ever since i witnessed the London Underground I've always appreciated the bustle of moving people through a transfer station. I never got the same sense from NY or SF, and only partially in the CHicago loop.
- 805
I feel like blue line requiring a transfer to get downtown would be a nonstarter.ldai_phs wrote:How does that look operationally? Blue line heads north to NGA instead of to Ill. Orange line goes S City, Dowtown, Illinois?goat314 wrote:I also think having the same rolling stock would be awesome. Especially if they could somehow merge with the existing system somehow. It would be awesome to live in Clayton and go straight to NGA. Or live on Cherokee St. and not have to transfer to get to the airport. Obviously a system like this would cost more, but long term I think it would have much greater benefit to the city.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Aug 31, 2022i don't see it as infeasible.
I kind of prefer high platforms. I feel like the concrete work itself is not really a big driver of cost so high versus low is probably just a choice based on other factors. Making the trains on either route interchangable has some significant benefits worth considering.
The connection between the NS route and the east west routes is one of two options. Either that or you build new maintenance supporting facilities along the NS line. To me making the connection is easier whether it follows your exact routing is something they would have to design.
As for the route map, i think it would be confusing for users. I think it would be better to just have increased frequency on both routes and a a top notch transferring station at the intersection. One persons opinion of course. Ever since i witnessed the London Underground I've always appreciated the bustle of moving people through a transfer station. I never got the same sense from NY or SF, and only partially in the CHicago loop.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Agreed. Don’t see this going anyways but how it’s proposed nowSeattleNative wrote:I feel like blue line requiring a transfer to get downtown would be a nonstarter.ldai_phs wrote:How does that look operationally? Blue line heads north to NGA instead of to Ill. Orange line goes S City, Dowtown, Illinois?goat314 wrote: I also think having the same rolling stock would be awesome. Especially if they could somehow merge with the existing system somehow. It would be awesome to live in Clayton and go straight to NGA. Or live on Cherokee St. and not have to transfer to get to the airport. Obviously a system like this would cost more, but long term I think it would have much greater benefit to the city.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do enjoy that they basically called out their own issues that are financially fixable in the immediate term with the bus system- "limited passenger amenities at select stops". It's depressing to see how EXISTING users of public transit are treated. Are those things that really need the onerous 'design and study' death spiral? Can't we improve things at a nickel and dime (comparatively) first? Then again we're spending $50m on turnstiles for people who probably don't ride to begin with.
From my assessment of the map, it looks like the yellow line would be the answer to that issue. It would parallel the blue line but continue downtown to Illinois.ldai_phs wrote:Agreed. Don’t see this going anyways but how it’s proposed nowSeattleNative wrote:I feel like blue line requiring a transfer to get downtown would be a nonstarter.ldai_phs wrote: How does that look operationally? Blue line heads north to NGA instead of to Ill. Orange line goes S City, Dowtown, Illinois?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
- 9,565
Best case scenario for construction is summer or fall 2025 and opening in 2029