Well the transit station is built in the wrong place obviously. Only sort of joking. Transit station could be moved... Transit access to Flow Valley campus is the big plus for the purple which is nigh impossible to relocate.
I have no knowledge to draw on but my money is that there's not even been a discussion about doing that in the County or the municipalities along the line.quincunx wrote: ↑Jun 30, 2023Is there a commitment to upzone and remove parking minimums and other auto-centric regulations along any of these lines?
- 2,419
I think the purple line's biggest boost is that it meets up with the North County transit center, which has eight or nine bus lines connecting with it.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Jun 30, 2023Well the transit station is built in the wrong place obviously. Only sort of joking. Transit station could be moved... Transit access to Flow Valley campus is the big plus for the purple which is nigh impossible to relocate.
I doubt it either. Choice of route must be contingent on leveraging it. And the upzoning, etc should go into place years ahead of construction. A commitment from the County and munis to building sidewalks and safe connections to it too. Otherwise we just shouldn't bother. Not doing these things means they don't want it. We don't need a repeat of the car dealerships at the Sunnen station, or a gas station at Jefferson and Chouteau, or 10+ years before an exit from the Brentwood station to the Brentwood Pointe strip mall.PeterXCV wrote: ↑Jun 30, 2023I have no knowledge to draw on but my money is that there's not even been a discussion about doing that in the County or the municipalities along the line.quincunx wrote: ↑Jun 30, 2023Is there a commitment to upzone and remove parking minimums and other auto-centric regulations along any of these lines?
- 2,419
If the purple line were chosen, what would be done about the stretch of Goodfellow Blvd. between I-70 and W. Florissant?
It's pretty thin through there and it almost seems like the system would have to operate more like a streetcar than LRT along that stretch.
I'm not a big fan of that, as I really don't want MetroLink to ever be impeded by traffic.
My biggest worry with the brown line is probably the Ted Jones Trail bridge over S. Florissant, near UMSL and where the brown line would meet up with the red line. I'm not sure the bridge is tall enough for MetroLink to go under it, though perhaps they could go over or around it.
The brown line seems like it would be much easier to build.
It's pretty thin through there and it almost seems like the system would have to operate more like a streetcar than LRT along that stretch.
I'm not a big fan of that, as I really don't want MetroLink to ever be impeded by traffic.
My biggest worry with the brown line is probably the Ted Jones Trail bridge over S. Florissant, near UMSL and where the brown line would meet up with the red line. I'm not sure the bridge is tall enough for MetroLink to go under it, though perhaps they could go over or around it.
The brown line seems like it would be much easier to build.
Probably buy ajoining properties and widen the ROW. They did that for Jennings Station a while back.RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑Jul 01, 2023If the purple line were chosen, what would be done about the stretch of Goodfellow Blvd. between I-70 and W. Florissant?
It's pretty thin through there and it almost seems like the system would have to operate more like a streetcar than LRT along that stretch.
I'm not a big fan of that, as I really don't want MetroLink to ever be impeded by traffic.
Not sure if this is quite the right thread, but does anyone know if the renovations at Jefferson and Chouteau, (more specifically Jefferson's bridge over the rails) are being built to accommodate the new line, or will whatever they're doing now get torn out again in 5 years?
- 9,559
^ its not considered but also the new line may go over a new train only bridge.
but it isnt out of the questions that it will get ripped out, i mean SW airlines is spending like $40M on a 2 new baggage claims at lambert and its all for just 5-6 years before new terminal opens
but it isnt out of the questions that it will get ripped out, i mean SW airlines is spending like $40M on a 2 new baggage claims at lambert and its all for just 5-6 years before new terminal opens
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... bddfd.html
I don't agree with this article but felt it was worth posting
I don't agree with this article but felt it was worth posting
- 398
Well, I now live one block off Jefferson and am ready for this to occur. I recently flew back from Chicago and after spending a lot of Uber up there to get around, and then seeing the Uber fair home from Lambert opted to use Metro. The wait time was a bit of a deterrent (I think I had to wait about 15 minutes for the next train) along with the ticket kiosk being down, I downloaded an app and bought the ticket on my phone and the train ride was a fraction of the Uber fare. I got off an Union Station and it was an $8 Uber from there. The ride was indeed pleasant. The only things that stood out was the solicitation to buy candy, and not being able to understand the driver on the stops. They should automate the announcements.
- 6,120
The Show Me Institute never ceases to astound me. I'll leave my rant aside for now, but suffice it to say consider the source. And gee, won't it be nice when we have a good secondary line helping to connect secondary transit nodes to the primary nodes? We have lots of stops where the jobs are. Now we need more where people actually live. And trains can solve the driver shortage problem a lot more easily than busses . . . since you can have one operator for a train of any length, but to increase the capacity of your bus line past a certain (relatively low) limit you do need more operators. Busses offer one kind of flexibility: routing. Trains offer another: capacity. They say they want a hub and spoke. Well, trains are the hub of your hub and spoke model. And if we can get more hub in the places we know we have the demand, like Grand or Jefferson, we will free up more drivers to improve the spokes and thereby build the system into a more flexible, more robust thing.
This really cannot come fast enough.
This really cannot come fast enough.
- 2,631
It's a bad faith "study" made by a libertarian think tank that would probably argue to remove the NYC Subway if they had the chance. Shame on STLToday for giving them a platform.
- 9,559
I’m surprised Mark Schlinkmann took the bait from Show Me. This isnt a study, they started at their preferred conclusion & than paid Randal O’Toole to backfill with some pretzel twisting data, O’Toole has spent the last 50 years doing this & being paid by these libertarian orgs
- 1,792
These critiques are often arguments against investing couched in disagreement about how you invest. (see Elon Musk and California HS rail) We have to invest in transit as mobility of people to get to work is essential for the health of the local economy.
Ultimately to me is HOW do you invest such that you draw more people into the system. I agree with you regarding flexibility vs. capacity. I am not sure i agree, buses lack capacity to meet current demand (except maybe 70 Grand). If they had said take the current planned investment in a new train line and instead invest that into the system going fare free for a decade, i think that would be worth considering. Its much cheaper to implement, costs less to maintain and could arguably be more effective at growing the user base for the system. SO that MIGHT be a alternative worth considering, but that argument isn't going to come from a libertarian think tank. If that was not on the table, then lets build the damn train.
Ultimately to me is HOW do you invest such that you draw more people into the system. I agree with you regarding flexibility vs. capacity. I am not sure i agree, buses lack capacity to meet current demand (except maybe 70 Grand). If they had said take the current planned investment in a new train line and instead invest that into the system going fare free for a decade, i think that would be worth considering. Its much cheaper to implement, costs less to maintain and could arguably be more effective at growing the user base for the system. SO that MIGHT be a alternative worth considering, but that argument isn't going to come from a libertarian think tank. If that was not on the table, then lets build the damn train.
Any idea on when we should expect the next "milestone" for the N-S extension? I feel like it's been kind of quiet lately. City leaders should be talking about this publicly like every month or so to continue hyping it up and providing updates. Every step closer, no matter how small, to making this a reality should build investor confidence along Jefferson. It'd be nice to have some more density and TOD projects lined up ahead of time.
- 79
Maybe this has already been suggested: Bit of a missed opportunity not running this thing from Grand and Gravois along a Gravois-Tucker-N Florissant-Natural Bridge alignment but maybe theres good reason, outside of the slightly shorter track length and CITYPARK, NGA, and the Ewing yard as nodes. Wouldn't a Gravois alignment be more opportune for transit oriented development?
Anyway, since a Jefferson alignment is what we're getting, would a new bridge at the rail valley truly need to be built for the tracks? If so what are the possibilities that it could dip down after going above E/W tracks and meet at a single platform with the E/W lines that take a short loop (like the ewing yard is setup) to briefly orient N/S before before completing the loop and continuing their E/W journey.
I dig the (somewhere above) design with the awning and steps, but also wonder if a single platform solution wouldn't ease the awkwardness of having to switch trains to get downtown, etc.
Anyway, since a Jefferson alignment is what we're getting, would a new bridge at the rail valley truly need to be built for the tracks? If so what are the possibilities that it could dip down after going above E/W tracks and meet at a single platform with the E/W lines that take a short loop (like the ewing yard is setup) to briefly orient N/S before before completing the loop and continuing their E/W journey.
I dig the (somewhere above) design with the awning and steps, but also wonder if a single platform solution wouldn't ease the awkwardness of having to switch trains to get downtown, etc.
Sorry to be glib, but yes this has been suggested countless times. In the original alternatives analysis, a Gravois alignment was rejected for several reasons, including complex intersections and that it wouldn't run as directly to South County as the Jefferson alignment. The routing being considered would have run down Gravois until the UPPR tracks where it would've turned off and then headed down to Carondelet/I-55.verdantruins wrote: ↑Oct 17, 2023Maybe this has already been suggested: Bit of a missed opportunity not running this thing from Grand and Gravois along a Gravois-Tucker-N Florissant-Natural Bridge alignment but maybe theres good reason, outside of the slightly shorter track length and CITYPARK, NGA, and the Ewing yard as nodes. Wouldn't a Gravois alignment be more opportune for transit oriented development?
Until the line is in the ground though, I don't think anyone will stop suggesting this despite that it's been off the table since 2008.
- 1,792
I agree with your routing. I like Gravois-Tucker-Florissant better. Best i have been able to gather there seems to be some kind of commitment to get Metrolink to the NGA campus. That and maybe Gravois is a problem because its controlled/"maintained" by the state?verdantruins wrote: ↑Oct 17, 2023Maybe this has already been suggested: Bit of a missed opportunity not running this thing from Grand and Gravois along a Gravois-Tucker-N Florissant-Natural Bridge alignment but maybe theres good reason, outside of the slightly shorter track length and CITYPARK, NGA, and the Ewing yard as nodes. Wouldn't a Gravois alignment be more opportune for transit oriented development?
Anyway, since a Jefferson alignment is what we're getting, would a new bridge at the rail valley truly need to be built for the tracks? If so what are the possibilities that it could dip down after going above E/W tracks and meet at a single platform with the E/W lines that take a short loop (like the ewing yard is setup) to briefly orient N/S before before completing the loop and continuing their E/W journey.
I dig the (somewhere above) design with the awning and steps, but also wonder if a single platform solution wouldn't ease the awkwardness of having to switch trains to get downtown, etc.
I think stacked platform configuration is ideal. Curving rail takes a lot of real-estate. Criss-cross allows for things to be built at the intersections. For instance Ewing yard & the UPS facility might (at some point) relocate and Scott Ave. could be developed as residential buildings, offices or hotels. Also this is how many transit transfer stations in cities like London and Chicago work and the transfers are IMHO very intuitive.
From a quick Google search, it looks like Houston's street-running light rail averages about 15mph. A trip from South County mall to downtown is going to be time consuming. Seems like the few long trips shouldn't even really be much of a consideration when something as slow as street-running light rail is more designed for shorter trips within the city.PeterXCV wrote: ↑Oct 17, 2023... it wouldn't run as directly to South County as the Jefferson alignment.
- 1,792
There are a lot of considerations that are less about functionality and more about politics. Since the county has an interest it could be that regardless of whether such a thing would be used by them, the politics demand a solution more tailored to their preferences. The complex intersection is legit negative but i don't think it would be a show stopper all else being equal.eee123 wrote: ↑Oct 17, 2023From a quick Google search, it looks like Houston's street-running light rail averages about 15mph. A trip from South County mall to downtown is going to be time consuming. Seems like the few long trips shouldn't even really be much of a consideration when something as slow as street-running light rail is more designed for shorter trips within the city.PeterXCV wrote: ↑Oct 17, 2023... it wouldn't run as directly to South County as the Jefferson alignment.
FWIW i had put a Jefferson alignment as my 3rd preferred rout behind Gravois-Tucker-Florrissant, and Grand. Also cheaper than what i really wanted to see on either of those since in my mind there was some tunneling (or more likely cut and cover) on both of them. I also hated the weird cut over and split on 9th/10th that was part of the other NS concept.
- 2,419
Is there any way that we could run BRT down Gravois?
I apologize if there are studies that have been saying it is impossible since 2008.
I apologize if there are studies that have been saying it is impossible since 2008.
I think gravois-tucker-west florissant thing works better as a good bus route, it could go all the way from north county transit center to south county hospital. I think next time they redo it they could upgrade and consolidate the stops, give them bus bump outs alongside street parking and curb extensions, and move the bikelanes to curb level along the sidewalk. Plant street trees, add a median, ect. Run the buses at the same frequency as the metrolink, and give them traffic signal priority to use when the bus is behind schedule. Then I think you could give it a name and put in on the metro map. I think if we took this kind of incremental approach to major routes we could make a better system much faster than a new billion dollar train route every 20 years
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 1,792
Everything is possible but i don't think metro is going to try to walk and chew gum at the same time. My guess would be that if we are going to do NS link, BRT will go to a back burner. The real kick in the groin is that if they had started this 5 years ago the bonds that get issued would be at a MUCH lower interest rate 
.
.I don’t even think we need bus lanes or anything. If we are redoing a bunch of roads anyways it wouldn’t take much to make them good bus streets. Olive/Lindell could really use some work.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 79
Do the same intersection complexities also bar BRT down Gravois? With signal priority, would think that would be less of an obstacle. If it were possible to do both at roughly the same time(i agree, it's unlikely), would certainly be a good study in how things develop along each.
Also, agreed--North County Transit to Mercy South BRT along that alignment would be ideal.
Also, agreed--North County Transit to Mercy South BRT along that alignment would be ideal.