Share
2,260
Life MemberLife Member
2,260

PostAug 06, 2024#1901

leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑
Aug 04, 2024
After several years of advocating for a North South Metrolink I no longer support the idea. Too many issues popping up, no stop at Russell, there's just not enough people, permanent tracks are expensive and disruptive and take forever to build, etc. As much as I'd like to dream about a an actual Metrolink system it's simply way too late for that.

This interview with David Stokes from Show Me Institute sums it up more succinctly.

https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/ne ... 4Y-yvB0Cn/#

Try legitimate high frequency BRT. More routes, moveable, way cheaper.

Side note, why doesn't anyone ever consider trackless trams!
Strongly disagree.

Any form of BRT is going to have a lower economic impact and overall benefit people less than the proposed LRT would. First, the Green Line is already extremely far along in the planning phase with planned construction from 2027-2031. Going back on all the planning and behind the scenes design work would take years alone and construction would take about half the time. Second, most of the funding is coming from federal grants and loans that will gradually get paid off via the city sales tax passed in 2018. There's no good reason to skip out on a massive amount of federal funding to go for an inferior product. Finally, it's a basic reality that LRT beats out BRT or any form of buses universally in the US. The Green Line as *will* have 5,000 daily riders or more, it *will* spark new development all along the route (which is half of the point of the line), and the long-term costs of LRT *will* be lower than BRT while having more benefits.

MetroLink represents 35% of Metro's systemwide ridership despite having far fewer operators/rider, vehicles, and basic route milage. It's also a fact that we are currently buying our 4th fleet of buses in the same timeframe that MetroLink has used the same original fleet.

So, let's get the facts straight....a BRT line would have fewer riders, less development, and higher long-term upkeep and operating costs. It would cost the federal government less to give us this inferior line, yet we will still keep paying the 2018 sales tax hike regardless. It seems extremely St. Louis-like to settle for some lesser transit expansion when we could get what St. Louis deserves....
2,623
Life MemberLife Member
2,623

PostAug 06, 2024#1902

The long term goal for STL (probably a 50 year time scale minimum at this point) is for a comprehensive railed transit system throughout urban STL. This gets us closer to that dream.
1,792
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,792

PostAug 06, 2024#1903

Auggie wrote: ↑
Aug 06, 2024
leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑
Aug 04, 2024
After several years of advocating for a North South Metrolink I no longer support the idea. Too many issues popping up, no stop at Russell, there's just not enough people, permanent tracks are expensive and disruptive and take forever to build, etc. As much as I'd like to dream about a an actual Metrolink system it's simply way too late for that.

This interview with David Stokes from Show Me Institute sums it up more succinctly.

https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/ne ... 4Y-yvB0Cn/#

Try legitimate high frequency BRT. More routes, moveable, way cheaper.

Side note, why doesn't anyone ever consider trackless trams!
Strongly disagree.

Any form of BRT is going to have a lower economic impact and overall benefit people less than the proposed LRT would. First, the Green Line is already extremely far along in the planning phase with planned construction from 2027-2031. Going back on all the planning and behind the scenes design work would take years alone and construction would take about half the time. Second, most of the funding is coming from federal grants and loans that will gradually get paid off via the city sales tax passed in 2018. There's no good reason to skip out on a massive amount of federal funding to go for an inferior product. Finally, it's a basic reality that LRT beats out BRT or any form of buses universally in the US. The Green Line as *will* have 5,000 daily riders or more, it *will* spark new development all along the route (which is half of the point of the line), and the long-term costs of LRT *will* be lower than BRT while having more benefits.

MetroLink represents 35% of Metro's systemwide ridership despite having far fewer operators/rider, vehicles, and basic route milage. It's also a fact that we are currently buying our 4th fleet of buses in the same timeframe that MetroLink has used the same original fleet.

So, let's get the facts straight....a BRT line would have fewer riders, less development, and higher long-term upkeep and operating costs. It would cost the federal government less to give us this inferior line, yet we will still keep paying the 2018 sales tax hike regardless. It seems extremely St. Louis-like to settle for some lesser transit expansion when we could get what St. Louis deserves....
straight fact is your comment is full of opinions and speculation.

I'm not necessarily against the rail, though i see some definite limitations.  Consider the inconvenience experienced by riders due to flooding where riders were move to buses and shuttle a few stops down while repairs were ongoing.  A BRT could just establish a temporary detour with minimal disruption.  We are talking street running rail so you don't get the advantages of grade separation.

You could say buses are stigmatized which strikes me as both a lame reason and not necessarily true.  The 70 Grand is very popular and even if there is a stigma it something the metro should be working to counter, not throwing up hands and simply saying i guess its got to be rail then...  What is the evidence that it would have fewer riders than a rail solution?

On operating cost rail might have a long-term edge, though i am somewhat skeptical given the potential for black swan events that wreck the system for weeks, like the flood.

What is the evidence that it will "spur" development? There are several metro link stops which are nothing more than park and rides and that has had 30 year to "spur" development.

The main thing i think is we are never really given a satisfactory analysis that justifies rail over BRT and maybe the access to federal money is the key deciding point.  I submit IF there was no federal money and the choice was between 1 rail corridor or 4 BRT corridors for the same up front cost (Florissant/Gravois, Jefferson, Grand and Kingshighway)  which would you prefer.  To me it would be 4 BRT routes.

I'll fully grant that they don't need to satisfy me specifically but hopefully they acknowledge the need to satisfy the majority of city residents that the path they chose is the right one.  And yes we are well down the road so hopefully it is the right one.  You definitely make a valid point valid point that we need to leverage federal money as much as possible.  That said i don't know all the ins and out on why they would allocate less money to the region it it was clear there was a concerted effort to get the most bang for the buck.  In an ideal world that would mean greater access to funds but I realize we don't live in an ideal world.
1,642
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,642

PostAug 07, 2024#1904

Please note that I'm a public transit fan and user. Over the years I've used Metrolink to commute to work and also buses with the bike on front (yep, that guy).

I don't know, STL wants to build a hard train line along a route where there is NOT EVEN CURRENT BUS SERVICE. Seems like a test with legitimate bus service might be in order. I've had recent extremely positive experiences with BRT in SF so maybe that's why I'm leaning that way, I don't know.

On the "unintended consequences" side of things, I honestly wouldn't mind seeing Jefferson torn up and made into a construction zone for a few years though. Would slow down speeders and bad drivers possibly.

It's kind boggling that STL had more transit riders BEFORE Metrolink existed than currently. That's likely more of a population loss issue though.

Can we ensure that development around Green Line stops would be on par with all the development around the Metro stop in Wellston, for example? Joking of course.

I would slow the roll on this and think about it.
1,792
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,792

PostAug 07, 2024#1905

leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑
Aug 07, 2024
I don't know, STL wants to build a hard train line along a route where there is NOT EVEN CURRENT BUS SERVICE. Seems like a test with legitimate bus service might be in order. I've had recent extremely positive experiences with BRT in SF so maybe that's why I'm leaning that way, I don't know.
I do agree but i think its fair to note the lack of a transfer station to metrolink at Jefferson.  If that was there i think there would already be a bus line that follows this route and i do think it would be a popular route though 70 Grand would probably still dominate due to higher density along the route.
2,260
Life MemberLife Member
2,260

PostAug 07, 2024#1906

leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑
Aug 07, 2024
Please note that I'm a public transit fan and user. Over the years I've used Metrolink to commute to work and also buses with the bike on front (yep, that guy).

I don't know, STL wants to build a hard train line along a route where there is NOT EVEN CURRENT BUS SERVICE. Seems like a test with legitimate bus service might be in order. I've had recent extremely positive experiences with BRT in SF so maybe that's why I'm leaning that way, I don't know.

On the "unintended consequences" side of things, I honestly wouldn't mind seeing Jefferson torn up and made into a construction zone for a few years though. Would slow down speeders and bad drivers possibly.

It's kind boggling that STL had more transit riders BEFORE Metrolink existed than currently. That's likely more of a population loss issue though.

Can we ensure that development around Green Line stops would be on par with all the development around the Metro stop in Wellston, for example? Joking of course.

I would slow the roll on this and think about it.
If we had rail transit like San Francisco, I wouldn't mind getting some good BRT. But we don't.
924

PostOct 01, 2024#1907

Can somebody explain to me why the submitted alignment for funding did not include the Natural Bridge leg out to Goodfellow? Even with the county sitting on its potential extension, any extension required the line to go to at least Goodfellow. This would also include more of the demographics, transit reliance that they are looking for. The Kingshighway stop would also pull in one of the top 5 ridden buses in the city. I’m confused why they stopped it at Grand. Seems like the numbers would have made sense for them to take it to the city line.
2,678
Life MemberLife Member
2,678

PostOct 01, 2024#1908

Money is the short answer.

Unfortunately, North City barely has the density to justify the project at all. It has the percentages, just not the real number of potential riders. The project would actually be better served going another mile SOUTH.
924

PostOct 01, 2024#1909

addxb2 wrote: ↑
Oct 01, 2024
Money is the short answer.

Unfortunately, North City barely has the density to justify the project at all. It has the percentages, just not the real number of potential riders. The project would actually be better served going another mile SOUTH.
Yes, I meant to add that going south to Meramec would accomplish the goals they need for funding. My point is the added cost seems to be offset by the potential for more funding. Getting into Dutchtown which hits both density and demos they are looking for. The area west of Fountain Park/north of Natural Bridge is still fairly dense. Plus these are some of the most divested urban areas in the country so I’d have to think that would matter.

Both directions it would be necessary for any extension by the county and they both seem to make the project more competitive for funding (outweighing whatever extra cost). They did countless studies on this so I assume they split it where it would best strike the balance to get it off the ground.
2,419
Life MemberLife Member
2,419

PostOct 02, 2024#1910

delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑
Oct 01, 2024
Can somebody explain to me why the submitted alignment for funding did not include the Natural Bridge leg out to Goodfellow? Even with the county sitting on its potential extension, any extension required the line to go to at least Goodfellow. This would also include more of the demographics, transit reliance that they are looking for. The Kingshighway stop would also pull in one of the top 5 ridden buses in the city. I’m confused why they stopped it at Grand. Seems like the numbers would have made sense for them to take it to the city line.
The Chippewa to Natural Bridge alignment has been considered Phase 1 for a while. 

The County has decided to reject all extension proposals because they have no interest in helping to pay for the low-density stretch of north St. Louis city. They're instead looking into other options, which they are expected to announce this fall.

Without the County's help, I do not think the north city tracks we see in Phase 1 will be expanded upon for a while. 

I like the extension to Meramec idea. 

What I also really like is a Gravois line that meets up with the Jefferson line. Run it from the Gravois-Hampton Transit Center to Jefferson, where it swings a left and shares track with the Green Line. 

It would mean a second MetroLink line going into north city, connecting it to south city neighborhoods that are among the densest in the entire region. It would help fix some of the worst intersections in the city and provide traffic calming for Gravois. Furthermore, this line would meet up with and provide another access point to some of the busiest bus lines in St. Louis -- #70 Grand, #95 Kingshighway, #90 Hampton, #11 Chippewa, etc. 

I believe it would help bolster the northern segment of the Green Line, which we all know is going to have low ridership. Creating that kind of access may help drive some growth along the northern portion of the line. 
Screenshot 2024-09-28 2.01.50 PM.png (362.72KiB)
2,260
Life MemberLife Member
2,260

PostOct 02, 2024#1911

RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑
Oct 02, 2024
delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑
Oct 01, 2024
Can somebody explain to me why the submitted alignment for funding did not include the Natural Bridge leg out to Goodfellow? Even with the county sitting on its potential extension, any extension required the line to go to at least Goodfellow. This would also include more of the demographics, transit reliance that they are looking for. The Kingshighway stop would also pull in one of the top 5 ridden buses in the city. I’m confused why they stopped it at Grand. Seems like the numbers would have made sense for them to take it to the city line.
The Chippewa to Natural Bridge alignment has been considered Phase 1 for a while. 

The County has decided to reject all extension proposals because they have no interest in helping to pay for the low-density stretch of north St. Louis city. They're instead looking into other options, which they are expected to announce this fall.

Without the County's help, I do not think the north city tracks we see in Phase 1 will be expanded upon for a while. 

I like the extension to Meramec idea. 

What I also really like is a Gravois line that meets up with the Jefferson line. Run it from the Gravois-Hampton Transit Center to Jefferson, where it swings a left and shares track with the Green Line. 

It would mean a second MetroLink line going into north city, connecting it to south city neighborhoods that are among the densest in the entire region. It would help fix some of the worst intersections in the city and provide traffic calming for Gravois. Furthermore, this line would meet up with and provide another access point to some of the busiest bus lines in St. Louis -- #70 Grand, #95 Kingshighway, #90 Hampton, #11 Chippewa, etc. 

I believe it would help bolster the northern segment of the Green Line, which we all know is going to have low ridership. Creating that kind of access may help drive some growth along the northern portion of the line. 
I think further extension of the northern side would rely on good development along Jefferson spurred by the Green Line. There are still decently dense neighborhoods in North City that would heavily use the line if it was accessible for them.

Another point to be made for a line along Gravois would be that it would replace the buses which would allow those buses to be re-allocated to other parts of the system. Obviously, decades off though.
924

PostOct 02, 2024#1912

Auggie wrote: ↑
Oct 02, 2024
RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑
Oct 02, 2024
delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑
Oct 01, 2024
Can somebody explain to me why the submitted alignment for funding did not include the Natural Bridge leg out to Goodfellow? Even with the county sitting on its potential extension, any extension required the line to go to at least Goodfellow. This would also include more of the demographics, transit reliance that they are looking for. The Kingshighway stop would also pull in one of the top 5 ridden buses in the city. I’m confused why they stopped it at Grand. Seems like the numbers would have made sense for them to take it to the city line.
The Chippewa to Natural Bridge alignment has been considered Phase 1 for a while. 

The County has decided to reject all extension proposals because they have no interest in helping to pay for the low-density stretch of north St. Louis city. They're instead looking into other options, which they are expected to announce this fall.

Without the County's help, I do not think the north city tracks we see in Phase 1 will be expanded upon for a while. 

I like the extension to Meramec idea. 

What I also really like is a Gravois line that meets up with the Jefferson line. Run it from the Gravois-Hampton Transit Center to Jefferson, where it swings a left and shares track with the Green Line. 

It would mean a second MetroLink line going into north city, connecting it to south city neighborhoods that are among the densest in the entire region. It would help fix some of the worst intersections in the city and provide traffic calming for Gravois. Furthermore, this line would meet up with and provide another access point to some of the busiest bus lines in St. Louis -- #70 Grand, #95 Kingshighway, #90 Hampton, #11 Chippewa, etc. 

I believe it would help bolster the northern segment of the Green Line, which we all know is going to have low ridership. Creating that kind of access may help drive some growth along the northern portion of the line. 
I think further extension of the northern side would rely on good development along Jefferson spurred by the Green Line. There are still decently dense neighborhoods in North City that would heavily use the line if it was accessible for them.

Another point to be made for a line along Gravois would be that it would replace the buses which would allow those buses to be re-allocated to other parts of the system. Obviously, decades off though.
Although it has taken 20 years for North-South to get to this point, I don't think the next expansion will be so far off if this one can be done efficiently from here on out. Bi-State has basically already established all the routes. If there would have been more political cohesion between 2008-2018, we would have the original North-South with the county extensions, one of River Des Peres or Westport, and a downtown streetcar. If Madison County got on board with a tax increase, I think they would quickly get state support. Some cities took advantage of the transit funding infusion but we did not. Costs can come down again and the funding can be there. If you read through Bi-State's studies, they are extensive. I don't believe they will always be for nothing. There's also always the possibility that railroads continue to lose their footing, and they abandon more routes and willing to sell just like our original metrolink. St. Louis and Metro East are flooded with railroads when compared to almost any area besides Chicago. There are some right-of-ways that would fit nicely into the system. 

Key is to get this done and hope that some things fall in place that allow a couple other of these expansions that Bi-State has sat on since 1999. 
3,541
Life MemberLife Member
3,541

PostOct 02, 2024#1913

delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑
Oct 02, 2024
Auggie wrote: ↑
Oct 02, 2024
RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑
Oct 02, 2024
 The Chippewa to Natural Bridge alignment has been considered Phase 1 for a while. 

The County has decided to reject all extension proposals because they have no interest in helping to pay for the low-density stretch of north St. Louis city. They're instead looking into other options, which they are expected to announce this fall.

Without the County's help, I do not think the north city tracks we see in Phase 1 will be expanded upon for a while. 

I like the extension to Meramec idea. 

What I also really like is a Gravois line that meets up with the Jefferson line. Run it from the Gravois-Hampton Transit Center to Jefferson, where it swings a left and shares track with the Green Line. 

It would mean a second MetroLink line going into north city, connecting it to south city neighborhoods that are among the densest in the entire region. It would help fix some of the worst intersections in the city and provide traffic calming for Gravois. Furthermore, this line would meet up with and provide another access point to some of the busiest bus lines in St. Louis -- #70 Grand, #95 Kingshighway, #90 Hampton, #11 Chippewa, etc. 

I believe it would help bolster the northern segment of the Green Line, which we all know is going to have low ridership. Creating that kind of access may help drive some growth along the northern portion of the line. 
I think further extension of the northern side would rely on good development along Jefferson spurred by the Green Line. There are still decently dense neighborhoods in North City that would heavily use the line if it was accessible for them.

Another point to be made for a line along Gravois would be that it would replace the buses which would allow those buses to be re-allocated to other parts of the system. Obviously, decades off though.
Although it has taken 20 years for North-South to get to this point, I don't think the next expansion will be so far off if this one can be done efficiently from here on out. Bi-State has basically already established all the routes. If there would have been more political cohesion between 2008-2018, we would have the original North-South with the county extensions, one of River Des Peres or Westport, and a downtown streetcar. If Madison County got on board with a tax increase, I think they would quickly get state support. Some cities took advantage of the transit funding infusion but we did not. Costs can come down again and the funding can be there. If you read through Bi-State's studies, they are extensive. I don't believe they will always be for nothing. There's also always the possibility that railroads continue to lose their footing, and they abandon more routes and willing to sell just like our original metrolink. St. Louis and Metro East are flooded with railroads when compared to almost any area besides Chicago. There are some right-of-ways that would fit nicely into the system. 

Key is to get this done and hope that some things fall in place that allow a couple other of these expansions that Bi-State has sat on since 1999. 
Mayor Slay really sat on his hands with N-S Metrolink. We could have easily gotten to Kingshighway and Natural Bridge for probably less than we are paying for this is extension. Then after Ferguson Stenger nuked a major regional North-South line for political reasons. I've always thought St. Louis should have been adding shorter extensions every few years. Illinois has, but obviously Missouri is a victim of low state support.
985
Super MemberSuper Member
985

PostOct 02, 2024#1914

goat314 wrote: ↑
Oct 02, 2024
delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑
Oct 02, 2024
Auggie wrote: ↑
Oct 02, 2024
 I think further extension of the northern side would rely on good development along Jefferson spurred by the Green Line. There are still decently dense neighborhoods in North City that would heavily use the line if it was accessible for them.

Another point to be made for a line along Gravois would be that it would replace the buses which would allow those buses to be re-allocated to other parts of the system. Obviously, decades off though.
Although it has taken 20 years for North-South to get to this point, I don't think the next expansion will be so far off if this one can be done efficiently from here on out. Bi-State has basically already established all the routes. If there would have been more political cohesion between 2008-2018, we would have the original North-South with the county extensions, one of River Des Peres or Westport, and a downtown streetcar. If Madison County got on board with a tax increase, I think they would quickly get state support. Some cities took advantage of the transit funding infusion but we did not. Costs can come down again and the funding can be there. If you read through Bi-State's studies, they are extensive. I don't believe they will always be for nothing. There's also always the possibility that railroads continue to lose their footing, and they abandon more routes and willing to sell just like our original metrolink. St. Louis and Metro East are flooded with railroads when compared to almost any area besides Chicago. There are some right-of-ways that would fit nicely into the system. 

Key is to get this done and hope that some things fall in place that allow a couple other of these expansions that Bi-State has sat on since 1999. 
Mayor Slay really sat on his hands with N-S Metrolink. We could have easily gotten to Kingshighway and Natural Bridge for probably less than we are paying for this is extension. Then after Ferguson Stenger nuked a major regional North-South line for political reasons. I've always thought St. Louis should have been adding shorter extensions every few years. Illinois has, but obviously Missouri is a victim of low state support.
Aren't there a few short extensions that would make sense and not cost too much? Thinking Blue Line extension south, Red Line extension west, and along 170 from Forest Park Parkway to Olive (where a future split would be).

As for state support, why not try the initiative process to propose dedicated transit funding stream? This case it would be not just money for St. Louis metro transit but for other systems statewide. Could sell it to outstate noting how it can be used to set up or expand bus systems and improve Amtrak service.
3,541
Life MemberLife Member
3,541

PostOct 02, 2024#1915

imperialmog wrote: ↑
Oct 02, 2024
goat314 wrote: ↑
Oct 02, 2024
delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑
Oct 02, 2024
 Although it has taken 20 years for North-South to get to this point, I don't think the next expansion will be so far off if this one can be done efficiently from here on out. Bi-State has basically already established all the routes. If there would have been more political cohesion between 2008-2018, we would have the original North-South with the county extensions, one of River Des Peres or Westport, and a downtown streetcar. If Madison County got on board with a tax increase, I think they would quickly get state support. Some cities took advantage of the transit funding infusion but we did not. Costs can come down again and the funding can be there. If you read through Bi-State's studies, they are extensive. I don't believe they will always be for nothing. There's also always the possibility that railroads continue to lose their footing, and they abandon more routes and willing to sell just like our original metrolink. St. Louis and Metro East are flooded with railroads when compared to almost any area besides Chicago. There are some right-of-ways that would fit nicely into the system. 

Key is to get this done and hope that some things fall in place that allow a couple other of these expansions that Bi-State has sat on since 1999. 
Mayor Slay really sat on his hands with N-S Metrolink. We could have easily gotten to Kingshighway and Natural Bridge for probably less than we are paying for this is extension. Then after Ferguson Stenger nuked a major regional North-South line for political reasons. I've always thought St. Louis should have been adding shorter extensions every few years. Illinois has, but obviously Missouri is a victim of low state support.
Aren't there a few short extensions that would make sense and not cost too much? Thinking Blue Line extension south, Red Line extension west, and along 170 from Forest Park Parkway to Olive (where a future split would be).

As for state support, why not try the initiative process to propose dedicated transit funding stream? This case it would be not just money for St. Louis metro transit but for other systems statewide. Could sell it to outstate noting how it can be used to set up or expand bus systems and improve Amtrak service.
Those kind of routes are exactly what I'm talking about.
924

PostOct 03, 2024#1916

goat314 wrote: ↑
Oct 02, 2024
imperialmog wrote: ↑
Oct 02, 2024
goat314 wrote: ↑
Oct 02, 2024
Mayor Slay really sat on his hands with N-S Metrolink. We could have easily gotten to Kingshighway and Natural Bridge for probably less than we are paying for this is extension. Then after Ferguson Stenger nuked a major regional North-South line for political reasons. I've always thought St. Louis should have been adding shorter extensions every few years. Illinois has, but obviously Missouri is a victim of low state support.
Aren't there a few short extensions that would make sense and not cost too much? Thinking Blue Line extension south, Red Line extension west, and along 170 from Forest Park Parkway to Olive (where a future split would be).

As for state support, why not try the initiative process to propose dedicated transit funding stream? This case it would be not just money for St. Louis metro transit but for other systems statewide. Could sell it to outstate noting how it can be used to set up or expand bus systems and improve Amtrak service.
Those kind of routes are exactly what I'm talking about.
The standard is low in the U.S. We would have a top 10 system if we just would have built part of River Des Peres, part of Westport and part of North South. Millions of dollars have been a spent on all of them over the years. Bi-State was ready but political will was not all the way there. Instead, we have a top 20 system that we have sat on and now every city trying to either expand or start rail is prohibited by cost.

The hope I have is that we get Phase 1 of North-South done by 2030, some county extension by 2035, then a city streetcar or Madison County or second county extension by 2040. Then we are right back competitive with almost any region in the country.
406
Full MemberFull Member
406

PostOct 28, 2024#1917

North and South Neighborhoods Aligned Against Metro Green Line

^^ Residents from Jeff Vander Lou, Academy and Lafayette Square have created an alliance against the proposed Green Line expansion. 

PostOct 28, 2024#1918

SRQ2STL wrote: ↑
Oct 28, 2024
North and South Neighborhoods Aligned Against Metro Green Line

^^ Residents from Jeff Vander Lou, Academy and Lafayette Square have created an alliance against the proposed Green Line expansion. 
Also, as to who is behind it...I became privy several months ago, when I was given these screenshots of private correspondence between Lafayette Square and Jvl residents. I sent these to Metro and Bi-State to try to give them the leg up and get them ahead of the push-back...don't know if they even saw these though. 
456598087_935909301680948_4919569622005419511_n.jpg (139.92KiB)
456598089_787659800111186_432110484525065951_n.jpg (129.62KiB)
2,419
Life MemberLife Member
2,419

PostOct 28, 2024#1919

This is as St. Louis as it gets. 

The city needs an enforceable citywide plan that is not able to be ripped up by Karens and Kens. 
2,623
Life MemberLife Member
2,623

PostOct 28, 2024#1920

They came to the McKinley Heights meeting and basically had nothing. No alternative plan, just the same old grievances. Complaining about how this project came out of nowhere despite the fact that this has been in the works for 18 years at this point.

The planning process for this line could buy cigarettes now
924

PostOct 28, 2024#1921

Came out of nowhere when it was in every one of Bi-State’s published plans since 1999 and millions of dollars has already been spent over many years trying to get it to this stage.

Please people don’t hold this city back, and please don’t try to now engage northside residents to proliferate your selfish complaints. JeffVanderLou, as well as many southside neighborhoods, need this type of investment. JVL/St. Louis Place has needed infrastructure investment to heal wounds from Pruitt-Igoe and decades of divestment. Do not strip our north side neighborhoods of real opportunity to bounce back.
2,623
Life MemberLife Member
2,623

PostOct 28, 2024#1922

Also interesting that JVL was so worried at the meeting about the line leading to gentrification and pricing out current residents but in this article they are now worried about it hurting home values.

Classic NIMBY business
2,260
Life MemberLife Member
2,260

PostOct 28, 2024#1923

This is the single most important project to St. Louis' future. Couldn't care less what a fringe minority has to say and nor should the city or Bi-State. But of course the useless media feels the need to cover it. Non-city based media should just stop reporting on the city as far as I'm concerned.
1,607
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,607

PostOct 28, 2024#1924

Do you have any screen grabs of any actual/specific complaints?
2,678
Life MemberLife Member
2,678

PostOct 28, 2024#1925

I’m still a little disappointed in Bi-State for not allowing the public to participate in naming the line. Yellow remains the correct line color.

Read more posts (367 remaining)
Share