[Xing]

I'm not entirely fond of doing the on street light rail, but whatever, as long as we have more, and better transit in the city. The study should be done by early next year.

http://www.northsouthstudy.org/images/northside_map.gifhttp://www.northsouthstudy.org/images/southside_map.gif

http://www.northsouthstudy.org/images/SPW-LRS-Comp2.jpg

http://www.northsouthstudy.org/images/SPW-NS-NBSITE-AFTER.jpg

http://www.northsouthstudy.org/images/SPW-SS-GravPot-SITEAFTER.jpg

http://www.northsouthstudy.org/images/SPW-LRS-TYP5.gif

http://www.northsouthstudy.org/images/4075.jpghttp://www.northsouthstudy.org/images/Presentation-A.jpg

[JivecitySTL]

This rules!

[the urban politician]

This is incredible.

Any idea about the funding situation?

[Suburban Lou]

Northside alignment
http://www.northsouthstudy.org/images/SPW-DA-NB14th.gif

Southside alignment
http://www.northsouthstudy.org/images/SPW-DA-ChoutUPRR.gif

Southside alternatives
http://www.northsouthstudy.org/images/SPW-DA-GravUPRR.gif

http://www.northsouthstudy.org/images/SPW-DA-JeffI55.gif

[SuburbanNation]

i hope those southside "alternatives" arent really alternatives...i was thinking there was no preferred alternative. the chouteau alignment sucks ass, to be technical. theres absolutely no reason to blow off the heart of near, mid south city (and south grand). i hope the gravois/uprr alignment wins out.

[Bruin Brain]

http://www.northsouthstudy.org/images/SPW-LRS-TYP5.gif

A five-foot sidewalk adjacent to a lane of traffic. Wonderful. :(

[the pope]

^ouch

[STLgasm]

The Gravois alignment is clearly the best option. The other two alternatives completely bypass the most important sections of South City. Gravois at least cuts through the meat of the South Side and can make bus connections on the north-south streets (such as Broadway, Jefferson, Grand, Kingshighway, McCausland) possible. Also, Gravois retains a good amount of built density to create walkable streetscapes.

[JivecitySTL]

The Chouteau and I-55 options would not realize the greatest potential for South Side MetroLink access. Gravois. bitch.

[JMedwick]

Sorry, I have to disagree with both of you. The main problem with the Gravois route is that is almost cuts south city in half, making it difficult, if not impossible to design a good second south city line. I would much rather have the I-55 line and then a southwest line out of downtown, combined with some well located cross-city streetcars, such as along Grand or Kingshighway. I think choosing Gravois is short sighted.

Besides, if you have any hope of seeing a south city line built, then you must offer something to residents of St. Louis County. Sure the I-55 Bayless stop is a start, but you need more. The I-55 Jefferson alingment provides that because of the reduced travel time along the I-55 portion, thereby making up for the slower portion along Jefferson. A route running along Gravois would be much much slower and therefore less atractive to County comuters, because so much runs in the street. The choice is simple. Jefferson or bust...

[JivecitySTL]

^I still disagree. The North-South study is designed to benefit St. Louis CITY commuters, which is definitely of the utmost importance considering the fact that the highest concentrations of public transit riders are city residents. The I-55 route would service much more sparsely populated South City neighborhoods, aside from a few populous 'hoods just south of downtown, and it neglect the most densely-populated 'hoods in the central South Side. I-55 is not a congested expressway either, so I doubt there would be that many people living in far south county who would just abandon their cars to take the train. 55 would probably be much faster for those commuters than MetroLink anyway.

The Gravois alignment traverses a very important cross-section of South St. Louis, and would connect neighborhoods such as Soulard, Benton Park, Lafayette Square & South Grand via rail. I do not think it is necessary nor even advisable for St. Louis County residents to influence the development of URBAN transit. Imagine what Gravois could become if it was hooked up. I think the I-55 line would be such a waste of a very valuable resource. Again, the North-South study is focused on St. Louis City, as clearly stated in the heading of their website, and it should move forward with the best interest of CITY residents in mind. Suburban commuters should be secondary at this stage of MetroLink expansion. We already have two lines in the County, it's the City's time now.

[JMedwick]

I do not think it is necessary nor even advisable for St. Louis County residents to influence the development of URBAN transit.

This is the key quote in what you wrote. This clearly informs what you think should drive the design of any metrolink expasion within St. Louis City bounderies, and on some level I do agree with you that in an ideal world St. Louis City would and could build 3 or 4 great southcity lines, a Southwest, a Gravois, a near southside, and a Grand.

Lets not kid ourselves. We both know that St. Louis City by itself does not have the financial capacity (nor does METRO have the creativity) to fund any Metrolink expasion. For future expasions, the region must get St. Louis County on board with any tax increases to support future expasions.

Yet, East-West Gateway and others continue to push forward with the task of developing the localy perfered alternatives for north and south city lines with few, if any, stops in the County. So the question is this: is the current task of determining routes for lines that largely run through the City of St. Louis a pipedream or are we to take these alingments seriously and think long and hard about the alingment that has the best possiblity of being built. And given the facts above (facts you can't refutue, as we have both seen the same financial figures about where local METRO dollars come from), we both know that while it might be nice to stand tall and claim that St. Louis County shouldn't influence the design of Metrolink inside the City, the fact is that if we ever want to see Metrolink expanded in the City, then County interests must be met. There is no other option. Either County residents find a benefit in the localy perferd alternative or the region gets no Metrolink expasion.

So given those stark choices, then I think you have to concede and develope alternatives that provide benefits for the County. You tell me what benefits a Gravois alingment gives to County residents. Why should they vote for such an alingment? Why is it in their own best interest?

[JivecitySTL]

^Because they can either support a logical expansion of MetroLink through neighborhoods that really need it, or they could hold out for a more mediocre route that wouldn't serve as many people who would rely on the system. The I-55 corridor is not nearly as densely-populated or congested as the central South Side. What is the point of building a MetroLink extension where it isn't needed the most? It can always be extended down Gravois into Affton, Grantwood Village and beyond. I don't see how, after looking at the maps, anyone could argue that a line down Gravois wouldn't be a MUCH more attractive option, in that it serves key locales within the city. It is the only alternative that serves the integral intersection of Grand & Gravois-- the major crossroads of the South Side any way you slice it. Imagine what MetroLink could do for that part of the city! Imagine how many transit-dependent immigrants and urbanites could benefit from having that line at their doorstep. The I-55 alignment serves the critical Near South Side, but then steers east and south through sparse neighborhoods and a less-than-congested expressway corridor. It just doesn't seem to be the most logical route, especially in contrast to Gravois.

I appreciate your point about future expansion, but at this point with little or no funding, we need to push for the very best and most useful lines that we can get in the here and now. It could be 50 years before the next expansion after this. I'd rather have something that practically and efficiently links the most visited and inhabited parts of the city rather than a low traffic corridor like I-55. And I don't see how a Gravois alignment would be any impediment to future expansion, especially along major east-west avenues.

[JMedwick]

It could be 50 years before the next expansion after this.

If these (the Gravois and northside) alingments are the best that can be done for the City of St. Louis AND St. Louis County, then I have a very dim view of future expansions of Metrolink and the St. Louis area. While I can understand (and in many cases agree) with all points about the value of a Gravois alingment too St. Louis City residents and too those County voters who are concerned about the welfare of St. Louis City, do you think that the majority of County voters care more about the welfare of the City or about building the line that gets them downtown to the Cardinals game the quickest?

I would agrue that if the only selling point of the Gravois alingment for County voters is the welfare of the City and the surrounding neighborhoods, then there is ZERO chance that such a line will engender enough public support for the tax increases to fund such an expasion. And that remains my biggest concern over the Gravois alingment. That it doesn't offer enough to County voters. It offers them few, if any, reasons to vote for a tax increase to build such a line. Untill that hurdel can be crossed, then we will not be seeing the line built for 50 years anyway, so what is the difference.

Are you willing bet the future of Metrolink in the City of St. Louis on the "civic-mindedness" of County voters?

[MSPtoMKE]

Cool, nice to see details of more expansion emerging. I wouldn't be too concerned about running them in a reserved area in the street, i think that can work, but that looks like a tight fit in the ROW and a 5'6" sidewalk is a definite concern...

Are the LRVs pictured just a "generic" option or are they considering it to be ordered. It is Bombardier's Flexity Swift which is used in Europe a lot, but that front is exactly the same as the ones here in Minneapolis, which as are as far as i know unique as of now.

[JivecitySTL]

JMedwick-- you raise some excellent points and I really do enjoy discussing this topic with you. I guess there are pros and cons to each alignment option. I think all of them are equally possible and I'm excited that we are at this point already. No matter how things end up, we will have a kick-ass rapid transit system that we can all be proud of.

[matguy7070]

STL already has a kick-butt rail system. Any additions are just adding to the excellent system. I prefer the Jefferson or Gravois Lines.

[JMedwick]

JMedwick-- you raise some excellent points and I really do enjoy discussing this topic with you. I guess there are pros and cons to each alignment option. I think all of them are equally possible and I'm excited that we are at this point already. No matter how things end up, we will have a kick-ass rapid transit system that we can all be proud of.

Indeed. What matters the most is that the region continues to move forward developing a world-class light rail system and by developing these, the important steps are being taken. The next step is to see where County alingments fit into the picture so that METRO can present a cohesive plan of light rail expasion alingments to City and County voters. Then the region can see a full network in place. :tup:

[orulz]

I think it's really neat how MetroLink re-uses the Eads Bridge and its tunnel through downtown (both built in the 1870). This saved massively on the costs of digging a new tunnel and new crossing of the Mississippi.

Not sure how many folks in St Louis are aware of this these days, but there's another abandoned railroad tunnel downtown, underneath Tucker Blvd. It was built by the Illinois Terminal Railway, and stretches from Ofallon Street to just short of Washington Avenue. Originally, the Illinois Terminal Railroad extended north from Ofallon along an El (the "Illinois Terminal High Line") and eventually curved up and over the river on the McKinley bridge. The bridge was closed to train traffic long ago, but the tunnel was still in use until around 2003, delivering newsprint to the Globe-Democrat building (which, incidentally, used to be the downtown station for the Illinois Terminal Railroad.)

I wonder why MetroLink isn't repeating the resounding success they had with the first line and the tunnels under 8th & Washington, by re-using this tunnel under Tucker as well? They could tunnel the four additional blocks under Washington to connect with 8th street. Depending on how the connection is made, trains could either continue on Washington over the Eads Bridge, turn south down 8th towards the stadium, or (ideally) both.

The four blocks of new tunnel under Washington would be expensive and disruptive to construct, but the final result would be an integrated, unobtrusive, and reliable system, rather than the potentially unreliable and disruptive on-street loop that's being planned now.

Anyone have PDFs of the planning and feasibility studies done for this line? I want to know if they considered this option. It just makes too much sense from the perspective of this out-of-town armchair transit planner.

[JivecitySTL]

^Excellent question. I knew there were more tunnels beneath downtown, but I had no idea about the specifics. Sounds like you need to be on the planning committee!

[orulz]

Sent an e-mail to the address listed on their web page, and got this reply:
Technically an abandoned sub-surface rail right-of-way beneath a
deteriorating bridge deck, the Tucker "tunnel" was previously studied as
part of the Northside and Southside Multi-Modal Transportation Investment
Analyses (MTIA's) in 1999/2000. As reported in the "Downtown LRT Alignment
Options: Development and Screening" (July 2000), "Tucker - below-grade" was
one of eight options screened out. As shared in the report, both the
existing "tunnel" and street above would "require considerable cost to
reconstruct," not to mention much more expense for new below-grade
connections south of Washington past the current terminus of the existing
"tunnel." However, even if cost were not a factor, Tucker was reported as
failing to "penetrate the Downtown core and major employment and activity
centers as compared to other options."

So that answers that! Couldn't find a PDF of the study they mention, but it sounds like the Tucker viaduct is deteriorating. This means it will eventually need to be refurbished or rebuilt. And when this happens, it sounds unlikely that they'll rebuild the viaduct; rather, they'll probably fill it in (that would be cheaper) and this underground right-of-way will be lost. Pity. If they could somehow time it so the Northside line was built at the same time as rebuilding the viaduct, they could lessen the disruption and end up with another subway line to boot.

[orulz]

OK, found a blog post (http://ecoabsence.blogspot.com/2006/10/strange-purchases-on-near-northside-is.html) that mentions this right of way.

It contains the following quote:
...the tunnel approach section of the right-of-way of the former Illinois Terminal Railroad's electric interurban railroad.

The interurban ceased its runs in the 1950s, and this right-of-way has been vacant ever since. Currently, the section of the interurban line that ran on an elevated trestle to the McKinley Bridge is being converted into a trail. The "tunnel" section under Tucker Boulevard will be filled in by the city so that improvements can be made to Tucker.
Sounds like there's no hope for the tunnel under Tucker. Oh well.

[ThreeOneFour]

The only one I really don't like is the Chouteau alignment. The Jefferson/I-55 line is probably not the best possible choice, but I don't think it's a bad one either. The Gravois alignment is my favorite, as it serves the most densely populated areas of south Saint Louis. The North Side proposal looks good, and hopefully it will spur large-scale redevelopment near the proposed stations.

I'd like to see what consideration is being given to the South County portion of this route, because some areas near the city are older and denser, and some well-designed TODs could give this area a boost.