^ any restart now puts in at 2040 opening
- 2,419
I agree that MetroLink should not run along the highway, but I do spend a bunch of time at the Clayton MetroLink station and don't think it's the worst thing in the world.
Yes, I think a station at Forsyth/Central would be better, but I also think that some major improvements could be made at the Clayton MetroLink station to make it work.
I like to imagine the entire Enterprise campus being bulldozed and remade with far better urbanism, with another entrance/exit for the station from Brentwood Blvd.
Yes, I think a station at Forsyth/Central would be better, but I also think that some major improvements could be made at the Clayton MetroLink station to make it work.
I like to imagine the entire Enterprise campus being bulldozed and remade with far better urbanism, with another entrance/exit for the station from Brentwood Blvd.
- 9,539
What happens if President Green asks metro to continue? It our weak mayor system, the board president has equal if not more power than the Mayor
The Clayton station is our baby version of a middle of the highway station. Try the Spring Garden station in the middle of I95 in Philly for the real deal.
My assumption is they would reject. Bi-State is not required to plan or design MetroLink expansions and previously (2018) were not interested in owning N/S planning and consulting efforts.dbInSouthCity wrote:What happens if President Green asks metro to continue? It our weak mayor system, the board president has equal if not more power than the Mayor
They would likely divert back to this conservative approach if they sensed they were being pulled into a political disagreement. They would provide completed materials and consultant contacts but the City would become the lone customer.
Green would then have to prop up a planning process within the City and without support of the Mayor. It’d be a challenge, especially if the votes aren’t there to override any veto. It’d also drag this project through years of political infighting.
Running rail transit next to highways is very common across the country because the ROW is already there and potentially more cost effective. A line along I-70 could actually help with the redevelopmnent of some of the most blighted neigborhoods next to the highway, improve how I-70 going into downtown is perceived, possibly spur revelopment along the North Riverfront. It would also make it possibly for a transfer station at Hanley Station. An I-55 line would also serve Soulard, Anheuser Busch, etc. I never thought the N-S street running line was a good idea, because 1) you have to get a whole new fleet 2) it would be slow as hell and have an increased risk of traffic accidents and 3) transfers would not be seemless at all because it would be two totally different transporation systems. If we're not going to build a real N-S Metrolink using the current technology or have the support from the county to build a much more substantial line. Why don't we just build a modern streetcar system like KC that intersects with the current E-W alignment? It could be completed much faster than a real Metrollink line and serve denser areas than KC's line.RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑Apr 29, 2025I agree that MetroLink should not run along the highway, but I do spend a bunch of time at the Clayton MetroLink station and don't think it's the worst thing in the world.
Yes, I think a station at Forsyth/Central would be better, but I also think that some major improvements could be made at the Clayton MetroLink station to make it work.
I like to imagine the entire Enterprise campus being bulldozed and remade with far better urbanism, with another entrance/exit for the station from Brentwood Blvd.
The amount of incoherence in this thread is extremely funny.
I want to see what Spencer's idea of "better" would be for this. I disagree with the pause but she is allowing things already happening to continue happening, but I want to see what her real vision or plan is for the future, which she- as normal- has not provided.
There's a few realities that exist:
(1) The current plan included multiple community meetings with input and was largely received well. The only major changes that were received badly were station removals.
(2) The current plan was designed to cut down the cost, you can't add more miles without making it more expensive, so we have to choose which vice we want to take on.
(3) The county has been MIA on MetroLink expansion for years and does not seem likely to be coming around anytime soon. So why doesn't this plan go to the county? Because the county doesn't want it. It's very simple and straightforward. Maybe Spencer can work with them to come up with a plan, but that remains to be seen.
(4) BRT should not be an option and if this gets built as a BRT in the end, that will be a resounding failure for St. Louis. I've lived in a city that chose BRT over LRT (it was forced to by the state) and I can't express how unimpressed I was with it. All the politicians promote how cheap it was, but at the end of the day, the 70 Grand ridership is comparable if not higher. BRTs in America simply do not have the same economic impact as LRTs nor do they have nearly any of the same advantages. I desperately do not want St. Louis to make the same mistakes made by cities like Indianapolis or Nashville.
(5) The County's failure to develop around MetroLink does not mean the city shouldn't be allowed to build more MetroLink nor does it mean the city should be spending its money to help the county. First, there has been significant development all along the city's trunk. It absolutely could be better, but the idea that the city has failed at development along Metro, especially in any way like the suburbs have, is just laughable. On top of that, the city has already passed legislation to up-zone the Green Line's route in a significant way. It's not a coincidence that every neighborhood along or adjacent to the MetroLink has outperformed the city's population growth over the last 20 years.
(6) If we want better technology, it's gonna cost more and be more disruptive. Similar to length vs cost, keeping grand-separated high floor technology on any type of route will cost more and be more disruptive to current residents and businesses.
Overall, not a good look for the future of transit in St. Louis, actually very depressing, but hopefully Spencer has some coherent broader plan that she's working towards.
I want to see what Spencer's idea of "better" would be for this. I disagree with the pause but she is allowing things already happening to continue happening, but I want to see what her real vision or plan is for the future, which she- as normal- has not provided.
There's a few realities that exist:
(1) The current plan included multiple community meetings with input and was largely received well. The only major changes that were received badly were station removals.
(2) The current plan was designed to cut down the cost, you can't add more miles without making it more expensive, so we have to choose which vice we want to take on.
(3) The county has been MIA on MetroLink expansion for years and does not seem likely to be coming around anytime soon. So why doesn't this plan go to the county? Because the county doesn't want it. It's very simple and straightforward. Maybe Spencer can work with them to come up with a plan, but that remains to be seen.
(4) BRT should not be an option and if this gets built as a BRT in the end, that will be a resounding failure for St. Louis. I've lived in a city that chose BRT over LRT (it was forced to by the state) and I can't express how unimpressed I was with it. All the politicians promote how cheap it was, but at the end of the day, the 70 Grand ridership is comparable if not higher. BRTs in America simply do not have the same economic impact as LRTs nor do they have nearly any of the same advantages. I desperately do not want St. Louis to make the same mistakes made by cities like Indianapolis or Nashville.
(5) The County's failure to develop around MetroLink does not mean the city shouldn't be allowed to build more MetroLink nor does it mean the city should be spending its money to help the county. First, there has been significant development all along the city's trunk. It absolutely could be better, but the idea that the city has failed at development along Metro, especially in any way like the suburbs have, is just laughable. On top of that, the city has already passed legislation to up-zone the Green Line's route in a significant way. It's not a coincidence that every neighborhood along or adjacent to the MetroLink has outperformed the city's population growth over the last 20 years.
(6) If we want better technology, it's gonna cost more and be more disruptive. Similar to length vs cost, keeping grand-separated high floor technology on any type of route will cost more and be more disruptive to current residents and businesses.
Overall, not a good look for the future of transit in St. Louis, actually very depressing, but hopefully Spencer has some coherent broader plan that she's working towards.
1. Highway lines are handicapped by the highway itself in terms of their impact and are extremely unpleasant for riders unless the stations are fully enclosed. Not saying that a highway line wouldn't be better than nothing, it would, but there's serious issues with them that need to be mentioned and taken into account.goat314 wrote: ↑Apr 29, 2025Running rail transit next to highways is very common across the country because the ROW is already there and potentially more cost effective. A line along I-70 could actually help with the redevelopmnent of some of the most blighted neigborhoods next to the highway, improve how I-70 going into downtown is perceived, possibly spur revelopment along the North Riverfront. It would also make it possibly for a transfer station at Hanley Station. An I-55 line would also serve Soulard, Anheuser Busch, etc. I never thought the N-S street running line was a good idea, because 1) you have to get a whole new fleet 2) it would be slow as hell and have an increased risk of traffic accidents and 3) transfers would not be seemless at all because it would be two totally different transporation systems. If we're not going to build a real N-S Metrolink using the current technology or have the support from the county to build a much more substantial line. Why don't we just build a modern streetcar system like KC that intersects with the current E-W alignment? It could be completed much faster than a real Metrollink line and serve denser areas than KC's line.RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑Apr 29, 2025I agree that MetroLink should not run along the highway, but I do spend a bunch of time at the Clayton MetroLink station and don't think it's the worst thing in the world.
Yes, I think a station at Forsyth/Central would be better, but I also think that some major improvements could be made at the Clayton MetroLink station to make it work.
I like to imagine the entire Enterprise campus being bulldozed and remade with far better urbanism, with another entrance/exit for the station from Brentwood Blvd.
2. KC's streetcar goes slower and deals with traffic impacts that the Green Line wouldn't have dealt with as much with having it's own dedicated lane. The Green Line was basically the KC streetcar but better.
- 977
Totally agree with you on point #4. BRT would lead to failure.Auggie wrote:The amount of incoherence in this thread is extremely funny.
I want to see what Spencer's idea of "better" would be for this. I disagree with the pause but she is allowing things already happening to continue happening, but I want to see what her real vision or plan is for the future, which she- as normal- has not provided.
There's a few realities that exist:
(1) The current plan included multiple community meetings with input and was largely received well. The only major changes that were received badly were station removals.
(2) The current plan was designed to cut down the cost, you can't add more miles without making it more expensive, so we have to choose which vice we want to take on.
(3) The county has been MIA on MetroLink expansion for years and does not seem likely to be coming around anytime soon. So why doesn't this plan go to the county? Because the county doesn't want it. It's very simple and straightforward. Maybe Spencer can work with them to come up with a plan, but that remains to be seen.
(4) BRT should not be an option and if this gets built as a BRT in the end, that will be a resounding failure for St. Louis. I've lived in a city that chose BRT over LRT (it was forced to by the state) and I can't express how unimpressed I was with it. All the politicians promote how cheap it was, but at the end of the day, the 70 Grand ridership is comparable if not higher. BRTs in America simply do not have the same economic impact as LRTs nor do they have nearly any of the same advantages. I desperately do not want St. Louis to make the same mistakes made by cities like Indianapolis or Nashville.
(5) The County's failure to develop around MetroLink does not mean the city shouldn't be allowed to build more MetroLink nor does it mean the city should be spending its money to help the county. First, there has been significant development all along the city's trunk. It absolutely could be better, but the idea that the city has failed at development along Metro, especially in any way like the suburbs have, is just laughable. On top of that, the city has already passed legislation to up-zone the Green Line's route in a significant way. It's not a coincidence that every neighborhood along or adjacent to the MetroLink has outperformed the city's population growth over the last 20 years.
(6) If we want better technology, it's gonna cost more and be more disruptive. Similar to length vs cost, keeping grand-separated high floor technology on any type of route will cost more and be more disruptive to current residents and businesses.
Overall, not a good look for the future of transit in St. Louis, actually very depressing, but hopefully Spencer has some coherent broader plan that she's working towards.
I do have to disagree on #5. I think the fact that neighborhoods along the Metrolink route in the city are the ones growing population is actually just coincidence.
- 985
Is there a way for officials to play hardball with state and/or federal officials to offer the grant? I know in the 70s a town in West Virginia was frustrated in getting state funding for a new bridge and decided to ask the Soviet Union to fund it. This got the state to move because of the embarrassment. Maybe a stunt like this could be done here to try to force either the state or federal government to act.
I think Cara Spencer canceling the Green Line is indicative of her not seeing it's value. She will be another Krewson type mayor that will talk the talk but ultimately be status quo. She actually has advocated for BRT before. The problem with transit in St. Louis is that we haven't had one regional leader that has taken completing the Metrolink system serious, which is why we have a half baked system.Auggie wrote: ↑Apr 29, 2025The amount of incoherence in this thread is extremely funny.
I want to see what Spencer's idea of "better" would be for this. I disagree with the pause but she is allowing things already happening to continue happening, but I want to see what her real vision or plan is for the future, which she- as normal- has not provided.
There's a few realities that exist:
(1) The current plan included multiple community meetings with input and was largely received well. The only major changes that were received badly were station removals.
(2) The current plan was designed to cut down the cost, you can't add more miles without making it more expensive, so we have to choose which vice we want to take on.
(3) The county has been MIA on MetroLink expansion for years and does not seem likely to be coming around anytime soon. So why doesn't this plan go to the county? Because the county doesn't want it. It's very simple and straightforward. Maybe Spencer can work with them to come up with a plan, but that remains to be seen.
(4) BRT should not be an option and if this gets built as a BRT in the end, that will be a resounding failure for St. Louis. I've lived in a city that chose BRT over LRT (it was forced to by the state) and I can't express how unimpressed I was with it. All the politicians promote how cheap it was, but at the end of the day, the 70 Grand ridership is comparable if not higher. BRTs in America simply do not have the same economic impact as LRTs nor do they have nearly any of the same advantages. I desperately do not want St. Louis to make the same mistakes made by cities like Indianapolis or Nashville.
(5) The County's failure to develop around MetroLink does not mean the city shouldn't be allowed to build more MetroLink nor does it mean the city should be spending its money to help the county. First, there has been significant development all along the city's trunk. It absolutely could be better, but the idea that the city has failed at development along Metro, especially in any way like the suburbs have, is just laughable. On top of that, the city has already passed legislation to up-zone the Green Line's route in a significant way. It's not a coincidence that every neighborhood along or adjacent to the MetroLink has outperformed the city's population growth over the last 20 years.
(6) If we want better technology, it's gonna cost more and be more disruptive. Similar to length vs cost, keeping grand-separated high floor technology on any type of route will cost more and be more disruptive to current residents and businesses.
Overall, not a good look for the future of transit in St. Louis, actually very depressing, but hopefully Spencer has some coherent broader plan that she's working towards.
To me it seems that St. Louis leadership has just accepted that the state will never help fund transit. The problem is that no regional leadership has brought a coherent regional vision for Metrolink, a local match, to the state and said, this is what we want to do, how can the state contribute? Maybe a regional transportation vision also includes investment in updating the highway system and local roads, who knows but it's never happened.imperialmog wrote: ↑Apr 29, 2025Is there a way for officials to play hardball with state and/or federal officials to offer the grant? I know in the 70s a town in West Virginia was frustrated in getting state funding for a new bridge and decided to ask the Soviet Union to fund it. This got the state to move because of the embarrassment. Maybe a stunt like this could be done here to try to force either the state or federal government to act.
I largely agree with you, but I want to at least give Spencer a chance to come up with a potentially better plan.goat314 wrote: ↑Apr 29, 2025I think Cara Spencer canceling the Green Line is indicative of her not seeing it's value. She will be another Krewson type mayor that will talk the talk but ultimately be status quo. She actually has advocated for BRT before. The problem with transit in St. Louis is that we haven't had one regional leader that has taken completing the Metrolink system serious, which is why we have a half baked system.Auggie wrote: ↑Apr 29, 2025The amount of incoherence in this thread is extremely funny.
I want to see what Spencer's idea of "better" would be for this. I disagree with the pause but she is allowing things already happening to continue happening, but I want to see what her real vision or plan is for the future, which she- as normal- has not provided.
There's a few realities that exist:
(1) The current plan included multiple community meetings with input and was largely received well. The only major changes that were received badly were station removals.
(2) The current plan was designed to cut down the cost, you can't add more miles without making it more expensive, so we have to choose which vice we want to take on.
(3) The county has been MIA on MetroLink expansion for years and does not seem likely to be coming around anytime soon. So why doesn't this plan go to the county? Because the county doesn't want it. It's very simple and straightforward. Maybe Spencer can work with them to come up with a plan, but that remains to be seen.
(4) BRT should not be an option and if this gets built as a BRT in the end, that will be a resounding failure for St. Louis. I've lived in a city that chose BRT over LRT (it was forced to by the state) and I can't express how unimpressed I was with it. All the politicians promote how cheap it was, but at the end of the day, the 70 Grand ridership is comparable if not higher. BRTs in America simply do not have the same economic impact as LRTs nor do they have nearly any of the same advantages. I desperately do not want St. Louis to make the same mistakes made by cities like Indianapolis or Nashville.
(5) The County's failure to develop around MetroLink does not mean the city shouldn't be allowed to build more MetroLink nor does it mean the city should be spending its money to help the county. First, there has been significant development all along the city's trunk. It absolutely could be better, but the idea that the city has failed at development along Metro, especially in any way like the suburbs have, is just laughable. On top of that, the city has already passed legislation to up-zone the Green Line's route in a significant way. It's not a coincidence that every neighborhood along or adjacent to the MetroLink has outperformed the city's population growth over the last 20 years.
(6) If we want better technology, it's gonna cost more and be more disruptive. Similar to length vs cost, keeping grand-separated high floor technology on any type of route will cost more and be more disruptive to current residents and businesses.
Overall, not a good look for the future of transit in St. Louis, actually very depressing, but hopefully Spencer has some coherent broader plan that she's working towards.
- 1,607
I find the pause extremely disappointing, and consider the 17 mi track through downtown and via Broadway to south county something that could link to Green line in the future, going out NB or along 70.
It’s obvious the county is splitting from route designation for the moment, so this one should’ve been all for city
It’s obvious the county is splitting from route designation for the moment, so this one should’ve been all for city
- 916
Agreed. The shortsighted thinking on this has been maddening.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Apr 29, 2025New Starts Grant is not the only way to get federal funds for N/S metrolink. Democrats will mostly likely take the house in 2026 &funding for it can be part of the budget negotiations. Pausing now & restarting when democrat takes the WH in 3.5 years just delays it by 3.5 years
the current City NS metrolink account will have $100,000,000 by this time next year. We should continue the work towards positioning the project to win Fed funds in 2027 or 2029.
- 9,539
Sometimes Roach is all in; other times he’s lukewarm and on board with a pause. These aren’t serious people. These aren’t visionary leaders. These are ass kissers
A week before the vote to fund NS metrolink, Nahuel Fefer (current CDA director) and at the time advisor to Slay, went on STL NPR to make the case for NS metrolink Funding, it was always meant to be a smaller phase 1. It’s a shameful lie for Spencer to say the project changed significantly since voters approved it
It has been substantially changed though, stations were dropped, the alignment was changed.
Sort of, but also not really.
https://www.stltoday.com/online/pdf_50a ... 2521f.html
The major difference is that this route goes downtown while the current design does not and was changed to save money and fit with the growth the Downtown West and Midtown.
Stations were also not something that was set in stone at the time. No one was voting on where the stations were going to exactly be.
https://www.stltoday.com/online/pdf_50a ... 2521f.html
The major difference is that this route goes downtown while the current design does not and was changed to save money and fit with the growth the Downtown West and Midtown.
Stations were also not something that was set in stone at the time. No one was voting on where the stations were going to exactly be.
In my opinion, the project has changed. The connection to the heart of Downtown was important to me as a voter. I believed the streetcar played a big role in KC and I wanted to see the same for Downtown St. Louis, still do! It seemed like the best mix of reviving the St. Louis Streetcar and Northside Southside. First erosion was the NGA alternatives which cut out Old North after more than a decade of waiting (2008 plans). Then it was the Downtown alternative which took a massive investment further from Downtown's core and avoided the City's primary transit center. Then it was the south city stops which were just quietly dropped from materials, cutting the accessibility in the densest part of the city in half.
I understand phasing the length to account for cost but Phase 1 could've been Park Avenue to St. Louis Avenue from the original plan. It could've phased out just the same.
I understand phasing the length to account for cost but Phase 1 could've been Park Avenue to St. Louis Avenue from the original plan. It could've phased out just the same.
Not that it has to be a trade off, but I found myself asking if more efficient transit or greater impact / economic development is the better outcome to solve for. Re: KC Streetcar.Auggie wrote:1. Highway lines are handicapped by the highway itself in terms of their impact and are extremely unpleasant for riders unless the stations are fully enclosed. Not saying that a highway line wouldn't be better than nothing, it would, but there's serious issues with them that need to be mentioned and taken into account.goat314 wrote: ↑Apr 29, 2025Running rail transit next to highways is very common across the country because the ROW is already there and potentially more cost effective. A line along I-70 could actually help with the redevelopmnent of some of the most blighted neigborhoods next to the highway, improve how I-70 going into downtown is perceived, possibly spur revelopment along the North Riverfront. It would also make it possibly for a transfer station at Hanley Station. An I-55 line would also serve Soulard, Anheuser Busch, etc. I never thought the N-S street running line was a good idea, because 1) you have to get a whole new fleet 2) it would be slow as hell and have an increased risk of traffic accidents and 3) transfers would not be seemless at all because it would be two totally different transporation systems. If we're not going to build a real N-S Metrolink using the current technology or have the support from the county to build a much more substantial line. Why don't we just build a modern streetcar system like KC that intersects with the current E-W alignment? It could be completed much faster than a real Metrollink line and serve denser areas than KC's line.RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑Apr 29, 2025I agree that MetroLink should not run along the highway, but I do spend a bunch of time at the Clayton MetroLink station and don't think it's the worst thing in the world.
Yes, I think a station at Forsyth/Central would be better, but I also think that some major improvements could be made at the Clayton MetroLink station to make it work.
I like to imagine the entire Enterprise campus being bulldozed and remade with far better urbanism, with another entrance/exit for the station from Brentwood Blvd.
2. KC's streetcar goes slower and deals with traffic impacts that the Green Line wouldn't have dealt with as much with having it's own dedicated lane. The Green Line was basically the KC streetcar but better.
To be fair, we would have had a very high chance of getting funding had Harris been elected. Jones and Bi-State literally moved mountains to put together a legitimate plan, the furthest a N/S plan had ever come.
Only like a week before you made that post, Krewson said that they were looking into "alternatives", including BRT. That's how far we've come.
I wish Harris had been elected as well but unfortunately we have to deal with the reality of "the dang Cheeto in the White House."
- 1,290
I've said this here before but I legitimately think the city should ask the Chinese to fund it as a giant middle finger to the state/federal governments. Would be absolutely hilarious if nothing else.imperialmog wrote: ↑Apr 29, 2025Is there a way for officials to play hardball with state and/or federal officials to offer the grant? I know in the 70s a town in West Virginia was frustrated in getting state funding for a new bridge and decided to ask the Soviet Union to fund it. This got the state to move because of the embarrassment. Maybe a stunt like this could be done here to try to force either the state or federal government to act.