Great idea. Start with small pieces that are likely to be successful allowing for future expansion. Definitely a big missed opportunity if nothing is done.addxb2 wrote: ↑Sep 26, 2025Here is what I emailed the Mayor and Staff. I don't expect anyone will read it or respond but sometimes I feel the need to say something just in case someone hasn't already thought of or considered it.ccbstl wrote: ↑Sep 25, 2025BRT down Jefferson would still require the construction of a new Metrolink station where it intersects the line, no? Its going to be a lot ($$$) of work to get that area suitable for pedestrians and even then it would have little utility beyond transfers.
An alternative could be North to South Jefferson>Market>Grand, but that probably requires a rebuild of the whole Market/Grand/FPP area.
---
I recommend a phased approach that immediately strengthens competitiveness, generates local funding, and maintains the City's commitment to constructing light rail:
- Construct the Jefferson MetroLink Station
This new station appears in all alternatives and can be advanced as a stand-alone improvement to the FTA, similar to the successful Cortex Station process. The lower cost and strong local match would position this as a competitive project within one year. Once built, consolidating MetroBus Routes 4 and 11 into a single Jefferson Avenue route could reveal minor opex savings.- Develop the Green Line MetroLink (Cass to Lafayette)
Advance construction contingent on passage of a Transportation Improvement Sales and/or Property Tax along the 2.2 mile corridor, following the Kansas City Streetcar funding model. This TID would create a dedicated revenue stream for operations while leveraging the City’s North-South MetroLink fund for capital matching.- Implement a Green Line BRT Connector (Chippewa to North Grand)
Establish a BRT overlay along the Green Line corridor to provide frequent-stop service to an extended area. Over time, segments could be incrementally replaced by MetroLink expansion as additional funding is secured. Since this BRT service directly supports the Green Line extension and would share similar infrastructure, I anticipate it could also draw upon remaining proposition funds.
I would also endorse this.addxb2 wrote: ↑Sep 26, 2025Here is what I emailed the Mayor and Staff. I don't expect anyone will read it or respond but sometimes I feel the need to say something just in case someone hasn't already thought of or considered it.ccbstl wrote: ↑Sep 25, 2025BRT down Jefferson would still require the construction of a new Metrolink station where it intersects the line, no? Its going to be a lot ($$$) of work to get that area suitable for pedestrians and even then it would have little utility beyond transfers.
An alternative could be North to South Jefferson>Market>Grand, but that probably requires a rebuild of the whole Market/Grand/FPP area.
---
I recommend a phased approach that immediately strengthens competitiveness, generates local funding, and maintains the City's commitment to constructing light rail:
- Construct the Jefferson MetroLink Station
This new station appears in all alternatives and can be advanced as a stand-alone improvement to the FTA, similar to the successful Cortex Station process. The lower cost and strong local match would position this as a competitive project within one year. Once built, consolidating MetroBus Routes 4 and 11 into a single Jefferson Avenue route could reveal minor opex savings.- Develop the Green Line MetroLink (Cass to Lafayette)
Advance construction contingent on passage of a Transportation Improvement Sales and/or Property Tax along the 2.2 mile corridor, following the Kansas City Streetcar funding model. This TID would create a dedicated revenue stream for operations while leveraging the City’s North-South MetroLink fund for capital matching.- Implement a Green Line BRT Connector (Chippewa to North Grand)
Establish a BRT overlay along the Green Line corridor to provide frequent-stop service to an extended area. Over time, segments could be incrementally replaced by MetroLink expansion as additional funding is secured. Since this BRT service directly supports the Green Line extension and would share similar infrastructure, I anticipate it could also draw upon remaining proposition funds.
There are so many imaginative ways to expand and/or improve transit in St. Louis while simply waiting for federal funding to be available for the Green Line.
Possibilities include:
1) Improving MetroLink amenities, such as real-time arrival screens and improved signage at stations. Though, this might be part of the broader improvement plans that are rolling out extremely slowly.
2) Improving bus stops by building more bus shelters, especially along high ridership routes; improving the bus stop infrastructure itself like raising the sidewalk higher to help close the gap with the bus.
3) Find corridors to build "BRT lite" like in Minneapolis or suburban Chicago where routes are significantly improved for relatively cheap ($20-40M per route), this would probably take a tax increase, however.
4) Work with the County Executive, or maybe wait for the next one, to put together a unified version of a N-S MetroLink line with guaranteed funding and support from the County (obviously this would require a sales tax hike). This is the type of leadership that would move me, even if it failed.
I also would like to see some type of property tax hike put on the ballot to fund transit, infrastructure, and increase city worker/bus driver pay. As unfortunate as it may be, many of our chronic issues could be greatly helped by having some more tax revenue.
- 985
The idea of doing it as smaller bits to be done over time make sense. Also if any work by any party is done along the corridor for something else, have it designed in a way to accommodate a future line.
One cost element to note is a lot of the cost will be just in getting the first part of the line done due to needing the rolling stock and maintenance facilities built for it.
One cost element to note is a lot of the cost will be just in getting the first part of the line done due to needing the rolling stock and maintenance facilities built for it.
- 917
Very sound and love it. There really is no reason not to go ahead and pursue the Jefferson stop, as it would be productive as is in the current alignment and spur some development around there. I also think building in smaller phases is the name of the game. The particular N-S route they chose is less productive in shorter segments and is designed for a more extended route (to north and south county) as opposed to something like a Broadway alignment that would be very useful with just a mile of track (Soulard to Downtown) but I think it is still a good idea as it further connects neighborhoods to the existing metrolink via Jefferson then can become more useful on its own as it extends to Chippewa and Natural Bridge and beyond, then in 15 years you have something really transformative
I hope leaders get a round table and think like this. Otherwise, I’m just going to hope Trump also decides rail freight is no good and throws policy and money behind some other way of freight that Elon/Bezos want him to do and one of our railroads gets abandoned and bi-state snatches it up lol
I hope leaders get a round table and think like this. Otherwise, I’m just going to hope Trump also decides rail freight is no good and throws policy and money behind some other way of freight that Elon/Bezos want him to do and one of our railroads gets abandoned and bi-state snatches it up lol
- 985
The same mindset may also be a way to start building elsewhere in the system. Thinking Red line extending a bit west from the airport, Blue line to go further south to Watson if not Gravois, and build a branch along 170 north from Clayton. The Olive/170 intersection would be a likely line junction area and could work on getting higher density and TOD in that area. Also to start banking some land corridors on likely routes and bring in Great Rivers Greenway to set up cycling paths on the corridor and can when time comes have rail + trail corridors.delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑Sep 26, 2025Very sound and love it. There really is no reason not to go ahead and pursue the Jefferson stop, as it would be productive as is in the current alignment and spur some development around there. I also think building in smaller phases is the name of the game. The particular N-S route they chose is less productive in shorter segments and is designed for a more extended route (to north and south county) as opposed to something like a Broadway alignment that would be very useful with just a mile of track (Soulard to Downtown) but I think it is still a good idea as it further connects neighborhoods to the existing metrolink via Jefferson then can become more useful on its own as it extends to Chippewa and Natural Bridge and beyond, then in 15 years you have something really transformative
I hope leaders get a round table and think like this. Otherwise, I’m just going to hope Trump also decides rail freight is no good and throws policy and money behind some other way of freight that Elon/Bezos want him to do and one of our railroads gets abandoned and bi-state snatches it up lol
- 1,290
Been saying this for years. Would be hilarious to see MOLeg and Trump become apoplectic cause of some trains.imperialmog wrote: ↑Sep 26, 2025So why not ask China?
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 5e62a.html
Metro OKs study for BRT line along Jefferson.
Metro OKs study for BRT line along Jefferson.
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... -folo.html
BJ article says the estimated cost of a BRT line would be $400 million.
This seems significantly higher than Indianapolis' Purple Line, so as much as I do not like this degradation, I am kinda interested to see what the hell is gonna cost $400M.
BJ article says the estimated cost of a BRT line would be $400 million.
This seems significantly higher than Indianapolis' Purple Line, so as much as I do not like this degradation, I am kinda interested to see what the hell is gonna cost $400M.
This project will be a top notch failure. $400 million for an "upgraded" bus is crazy.Auggie wrote: ↑Sep 26, 2025https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... -folo.html
BJ article says the estimated cost of a BRT line would be $400 million.
This seems significantly higher than Indianapolis' Purple Line, so as much as I do not like this degradation, I am kinda interested to see what the hell is gonna cost $400M.
- 917
BRT just makes so much more sense on Grand or even Lindell than Jefferson. Those corridors are more apt for buses and have much more car traffic where BRT would actually improve run times. And they would be harder roads to try to eventually run metrolink next to unlike Jefferson. Lindell and Grand also are not in the desperate need of investment like Jefferson, and BRT just does not bring the investment of rail.
Jefferson only makes sense as metrolink to me. It is not heavily trafficked by cars, needs heavy development and investment, has lots of space, and was an attractive corridor in part for the ease of route to later connect to north and south county.
If we are going BRT, choose another corridor where studies (all 30 years of them) show it would be productive and save Jefferson for the rail plans. Don’t throw away all the work on the prior proposal, nor try to do half the work for something new if it doesn’t make sense.
Rail was going to be difficult next to Grand, but BRT is perfect for Grand and I think it would be much more worthwhile the investment. Grand is a more logical bus route.
Jefferson only makes sense as metrolink to me. It is not heavily trafficked by cars, needs heavy development and investment, has lots of space, and was an attractive corridor in part for the ease of route to later connect to north and south county.
If we are going BRT, choose another corridor where studies (all 30 years of them) show it would be productive and save Jefferson for the rail plans. Don’t throw away all the work on the prior proposal, nor try to do half the work for something new if it doesn’t make sense.
Rail was going to be difficult next to Grand, but BRT is perfect for Grand and I think it would be much more worthwhile the investment. Grand is a more logical bus route.
I wonder if they’re working backwards based on what they can afford and competitive. That could be why they mentioned earlier this week that it would be a more extensive multi-modal project. It could be $400M for a complete rebuild of the Jefferson corridor. Sidewalks, traffic and street lights, cycle track, elevated bus stations. Things that were removed from MetroLink.
The Jefferson MetroLink station also adds a cost that isn’t usually included in other BRT projects. I am not sure but it could require a complete rebuild of the Jefferson rail overpass to support an attached structure (stairs, waiting areas). That could be $100M alone.
The Jefferson MetroLink station also adds a cost that isn’t usually included in other BRT projects. I am not sure but it could require a complete rebuild of the Jefferson rail overpass to support an attached structure (stairs, waiting areas). That could be $100M alone.
- 9,539
Bi-State board chair says theyll go to court to get an opinion if funds can be used for BRT
- 595
Doesn’t make any sense to do all that studying to only put it to shelve it. This is typical St.Louis never sticking to the plans accordingly. This is why nothing gets accomplished always looking for a cheap way to do things… i get there’s not a realistic chance at funding ATM. however republicans aren’t going to control the country forever why not just have the project ready for funding when it gets to that time they can make their bid. I’m not against BRT but I really think they should stick to plan A as proposed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm also not against BRT. In fact, I think there are corridors where upgrading the bus to a sort of "BRT lite" would be a great thing. Not here though. We will regret it when either 1) Nothing ever gets built or 2) We build BRT and realize how big of a waste it was after the fact.PlatinumBlues wrote: ↑Sep 26, 2025Doesn’t make any sense to do all that studying to only put it to shelve it. This is typical St.Louis never sticking to the plans accordingly. This is why nothing gets accomplished always looking for a cheap way to do things… i get there’s not a realistic chance at funding ATM. however republicans aren’t going to control the country forever why not just have the project ready for funding when it gets to that time they can make their bid. I’m not against BRT but I really think they should stick to plan A as proposed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 595
I agree with you they’ll end up regretting it & it will be money thrown down the drain but I’m not an expert so we’ll see what they’ll come up with yet again.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
After reviewing the tax language and ordinance, I feel confident that the City will be required to build some rail. Any length of rail paired with a BRT and a vague commitment to expand would survive a court challenge. Alternative is to convince the Board of Aldermen to return to voters an amendment.
What is everyone's preferred one-mile?
What is everyone's preferred one-mile?
- 917
Broadway and Wash Ave always made the most sense to me for a streetcar project
Make a loop of a streetcar that goes in a loop up 4th to Washington, south on Jefferson and then east on Market. That would be great IMO. Also driving around downtown after CITY2 I looked at Washington Ave. Such great bones there. Just shocking there is such little retail there.delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote:Broadway and Wash Ave always made the most sense to me for a streetcar project
Also the BNSF rails make sense for commuter rail but I don’t see the political will for it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... pivot.html
-Cost savings being made from changes such as relocating utilities were being basically immediately offset by the rising cost of concrete and steel.
-Roach says that using money from the 2017 sales tax is beyond his scope.
-Describes BRT as "light rail on wheels".
-Said a BRT line would likely have signal priority.
-Unclear what the route would look like, being just the Green Line alignment or longer, possibly expanding to the county.
-Expect more clear details on route, station locations, and ridership projections in about 90 days.
-Will likely be ready to seek federal funding in August 2026.
-Funding will be ~$320 million from the feds and $80 million local (80/20).
-------
The only way I even come close to supporting dumping $400M on a BRT is if it is extremely expansive (20 miles+), ridership projection is 15,000+, and alternative N-S light rail alignments are studied (such as the UP line). It basically needs to be a slam dunk.
And this project is also not gonna get funding so we are just wasting money to waste money at this point.
-Cost savings being made from changes such as relocating utilities were being basically immediately offset by the rising cost of concrete and steel.
-Roach says that using money from the 2017 sales tax is beyond his scope.
-Describes BRT as "light rail on wheels".
-Said a BRT line would likely have signal priority.
-Unclear what the route would look like, being just the Green Line alignment or longer, possibly expanding to the county.
-Expect more clear details on route, station locations, and ridership projections in about 90 days.
-Will likely be ready to seek federal funding in August 2026.
-Funding will be ~$320 million from the feds and $80 million local (80/20).
-------
The only way I even come close to supporting dumping $400M on a BRT is if it is extremely expansive (20 miles+), ridership projection is 15,000+, and alternative N-S light rail alignments are studied (such as the UP line). It basically needs to be a slam dunk.
And this project is also not gonna get funding so we are just wasting money to waste money at this point.
- 595
Just build the damn green line as previously proposed bus rapid can be built elsewhere. There just being wasteful & throwing money away on more studies. In fact why don’t they put the possible new green line up for vote either build as street level light rail or bus rapid. Instead of doing it the way they want why not let the people in the city decide what they want that’s my gripe….
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
$450M for 5 miles of buses seems like a worse deal than $1B for the same amount of rail with hardly any of the benefits. Now if this was miles of BRT that would be a different story, but $100M/mile for fancy buses is bad policy. Also, where is the county on this? I don't see how BRT is sufficient without the line expanding to the county. Taulby is a smart guy and has a tough job dealing with incompetent St. Louis regional leaders, but Cara is really playing politics with this and it's frankly disgusting. Not to mention there is no indication that Trump will fund any transit expansions the way things are going now. Better just to wait and keep collecting funds for a more meaningful project.PlatinumBlues wrote: ↑Oct 06, 2025Just build the damn green line as previously proposed bus rapid can be built elsewhere. There just being wasteful & throwing money away on more studies. In fact why don’t they put the possible new green line up for vote either build as street level light rail or bus rapid. Instead of doing it the way they want why not let the people in the city decide what they want that’s my gripe….
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Once a N-S Metrolink is built (whatever that may look like and whenever that happens) does the tax continue to stay in effect and accumulate funds? Or does the tax eventually go away?