Volume 1, Fall 1998Volume 1, Fall 1998
Cross-County MetroLink Conceptual Design Study On Track
The first phase of the Conceptual Design Study for the extension of MetroLink in the Cross-County Corridor is underway. The East-West Gateway Coordinating Council has prepared design concepts and evaluation criteria to review with the community in the Public Forum and Community Issues Workshops scheduled for late September and early October. The design concepts illustrate several ways to build a MetroLink line between Forest Park Station, to downtown Clayton and south to Maplewood and Shrewsbury. The evaluation criteria will be used to assess alternatives in later phases of the study. The Conceptual Design Study builds on previous work done by the Council—studies that led to the selection of the "North-of-Forest Park" MetroLink route in August 1997. While these earlier studies defined the mode and the route, the Conceptual Design Study focuses on specific alignments and design features such as, whether the light rail line runs on the surface, in a tunnel or on elevated tracks. The location and design of stations, park-and-ride lots and related facilities will also be determined and an improved transportation system to serve Forest Park will be designed.
Upcoming Events
Monday, September 28, 1998
Public Forum
Clayton Community Center (Clayton High School Vicinity), 2 Mark Twain Circle, 4-6 p.m. and
7-9 p.m.
Thursday, October 1, 1998
Community Issues Workshop—Forest Park Station through University City
Compton Drew Investigative Learning Center, (St. Louis Science Center Vicinity), 5130
Oakland Avenue, 7-9 p.m.
Wednesday, October 7, 1998
Community Issues Workshop—Richmond Heights to Shrewsbury
Richmond Heights Library (Lower Level), (Richmond Heights City Hall Vicinity), 7441 Dale,
7-9 p.m.
Thursday, October 8, 1998
Community Issues Workshop—Clayton & Galleria Area
Wydown Middle School, (Fontbonne College Vicinity), 6500 Wydown, 7-9 p.m.
Current Status
To begin the study, the Council and its consultants reviewed previous studies, analyzed physical conditions along the route, consulted with Bi-State engineers and other public agencies and reviewed information gained through past public involvement processes. Based on this initial work, the consultants have prepared Technical Memoranda documenting their findings and describing design concepts and evaluation criteria. (Copies of the Technical Memoranda will be posted on the Council’s web site, www.ewgateway.org, and made available for review at locations listed on page nine of this newsletter). This issue of the Cross-County Update summarizes the information prepared in the first phase of the study.
[page 2]
The Update introduces design concepts and evaluation criteria for the Cross-County MetroLink extension. This material will be reviewed with the public during the meetings scheduled for late September and early October. Meeting dates and times are shown on page one. A discussion of evaluation criteria and methods begins on this page and a summary of design concepts, illustrating where the line may run and how it may be constructed begins on page five.
This study is organized into four phases. The first phase is underway. During phase two of the study, in the Winter of 1998-99, conceptual design alternatives will be prepared and reviewed with the community. During phase three, in the Spring of 1999, revised design alternatives will be evaluated. In early Summer 1999, during phase four, the Council will decide on a conceptual design.
Making Choices—Tools for Evaluating Options
By applying accepted technical standards and evaluation criteria, the Council seeks to achieve a design that balances local and regional interests, improves community livability and economic vitality, and serves existing and new transit customers in an efficient, cost-effective manner. At the conclusion of this phase of the study, the Council will review community ideas and concerns and select alternative design concepts for further development and evaluation. Some concepts will not make it through the screening process. Choosing the concepts to pursue requires judgements about how best to meet the community’s and the region’s diverse technical, financial, environmental, and social objectives.
Design Standards & Policies
Preparing engineering specifications and design standards that are compatible with the current MetroLink system is among the first tasks in the conceptual design process. It is also critical that design concepts allow for future extensions to the system, extensions from Clayton to Florissant, from Shrewsbury to Butler Hill Road, and possibly into West County.
Evaluation Criteria
During this phase of the study, a toolbox of proven planning procedures and evaluation techniques will be reviewed with the community. These tools will be used later in the study to guide the community’s and the Council’s consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of design alternatives. Your feedback on the preliminary evaluation criteria will help the Council ensure that its ultimate decision reflects a broad range of community interests and concerns.
Evaluation criteria are organized into five broad categories: Urban and Land Use Relationships, Transportation Service, Environmental Impact, Socio-Economic Impact, Cost-Effectiveness and Financial Feasibility. Within these categories, specific measures have been developed to assess the benefits, costs and impacts of each alternative. Projected revenues as well as construction, operating and long-term maintenance costs, will also be considered. While Federal funds will not be used to pay for the extension, the evaluation will follow Federally-accepted methods for evaluating the potential impacts of major transportation projects.
[page 3]
Design Concepts—Building Blocks for Transit
In locating a rail transit line, designers need to consider not only how to draw a continuous line on a map, but they also need to think about practical designs that fit with the terrain and the surrounding communities. For example, the designers need to consider whether the line should be on the surface or underground. Alternatives must then be tested to make sure that they meet acceptable standards for safety and operation. The following two sections of Update describe the various design concepts under consideration and how these concepts may be applied in different areas.
Design Concepts Defined
For the design of any rail transit line, there are three basic configurations or alignments—elevated, surface, and below-grade. For each of these vertical alignments, several alternatives exist. For example, a below-grade line may run in a trench or in a tunnel and a surface line may run in a street or in a separate right-of-way along a street. Concepts for the extension’s design are described in this section.
Surface Tracks
A surface line runs at the level of adjacent streets and properties. Tracks, stations and support facilities are constructed at ground level. Because surface tracks follow land contours, they can be the simplest and least costly to construct. However in hilly areas, a route that is used by automobiles may be too steep for rail cars. Surface lines may also have some interaction with other traffic such as at left turns or cross streets. To see an illustration of surface tracks click here.
Surface—Street Running. The simplest method of constructing a rail line is to lay tracks in existing streets, like trolley lines did many years ago. This is the quickest and least expensive way to build a system, but it affects traffic flow. There is no MetroLink track like this in service now in St. Louis.
Surface—Separate Track Zone. In this option, tracks run in their own space along or in the center of a roadway. Pairs of tracks can run in the median of a road or along the side of a road. It is also possible to run a single track on each side of a road. In these cases, both rail and street traffic move faster than in street running. Signals instruct trains and automobiles when it is their turn to move ahead.
Surface—Separate Right-of-Way. In this option, there are no intersections nor traffic interaction. The line runs in an exclusive right-of-way separated completely from vehicle traffic. Travel on such lines can be the fastest of the surface options. MetroLink runs on the surface in a separate right-of-way for much of its length.
Elevated Tracks
An elevated line runs above the surface either on a structure or an embankment. This is a way of providing separation from automobiles or pedestrians, and from other forms of rail traffic. This is how MetroLink reaches Lambert Airport over I-70 and the approach roads. Because rail cars need gentle slopes to climb and descend, long ramps are required to change levels. Embankments, such as exist now along the Terminal
Railroad right-of-way in Clayton and Richmond Heights, look more natural than structures but take up a wider slice of land and may divide areas on either side of the line. Because of the structures required, elevated lines may be the most visible of the alternatives. The visual impact and design quality of overpasses and embankments is an important consideration in planning. To see an illustration of elevated tracks click here.
[page 4]
Below-Grade Tracks
Below-grade lines run below the ground surface, either in an open cut or a tunnel. Of the three basic vertical alignment options, below-grade lines are usually the most expensive and can result in the highest level of disruption during construction. With the exception of stations, ventilation equipment, and other features, below-grade lines are not visible from adjacent properties. The quality of the rider’s experience, however, may be lower than for surface or elevated lines. As with elevated lines, long ramps may be required to transition between below-grade sections and surface and elevated sections.
Below-Grade—Open Cut. Lines running in an open cut run below-grade in a trench or channel. Open cuts use up larger or smaller amounts of land depending on depth, slope of the sides, soil conditions and the height and location of retaining walls. Open cuts can reduce noise by muffling sounds at the wheel level of rail cars. From a distance, a line in an open cut may be difficult to see, but open cuts are visible up close. Open cuts may divide an area as much as an embankment, since they must be fenced for safety and crossings can only be provided at certain points. To see an illustration of below-grade open-cut tracks click here.
Below-Grade—Cut and Cover Tunnel. Cut and cover tunnels put the rail operation completely underground, effectively making it invisible. The cut and cover tunnel is the least expensive tunneling method, as it involves digging a trench from street level, putting in walls and installing a covering structure to replace what was there. Ventilation and emergency escapes are required for cut and cover tunnels. Costs are high and construction disruption is considerable, but once installed, transit operations can be quick and efficient. To see an illustration of a below-grade cut and cover tunnel click here.
Below-Grade—Bored Tunnel. Bored tunnels are the most complex form of underground construction. Operationally, they accomplish the same results and benefits as other below-grade solutions. However, their cost can be very high, due to the machinery and special engineering processes involved. In areas where great impediments lie near the surface, however, such as major utility corridors, rivers, other underground roads already in place, etc., it may be the only method available to achieve the desired grade separation. As with cut and cover tunnels, ventilation and emergency escapes are required. Surface disruption is generally confined to small areas, where the bores and tunnels are started or ended and where stations are located. To see an illustration of a below-grade bored tunnel click here.
[page 5]Design Concepts By Area
As the line runs west from the Forest Park Station to Clayton and south to Shrewsbury, it passes through many distinct places: older established residential neighborhoods in St. Louis and University City, a thriving retail and office district in Clayton, the rapidly expanding retail district near the Galleria, quiet neighborhoods in Richmond Heights and up-and-coming commercial and industrial areas in Brentwood, Maplewood and Shrewsbury. Because of the unique challenges presented in each area, design options are organized into three geographic areas—Forest Park Station through University City, Clayton and the Galleria area, and Richmond Heights to Shrewsbury.
Design options in each of these areas are summarized on the following pages. These options will be reviewed in the Public Forum, discussed in greater detail at the Community Issues Workshops, and reviewed by the Council. At the conclusion of this phase of the study, the Council will select several of these options for further development, refinement and evaluation. To see an overview map of the three Cross-County sections under study click here.
[page 6]
Section 1: Forest Park Station through University City
The options under consideration run within or along Forest Park Parkway and Millbrook Boulevard. The extension will connect to the existing MetroLink line at or near the Forest Park Station, so changes to the existing station will be required to make a below-grade connection. Each option would run within or alongside the existing roadways. Issues associated with the location of stations and parking, and the effects of various design options on the neighborhoods along this section will be central considerations throughout the study. Design options are described below.
Surface Tracks. In each of these options, the tracks would slope up from under DeBaliviere, where the line diverges from an expanded Forest Park MetroLink Station. Two options for running lines on the surface are under consideration. Tracks could run in the median from just west of DeBaliviere to the point at which Pershing Avenue diverges from Millbrook Boulevard, or they could run on a strip of land along the south side of Forest Park Parkway and Millbrook from just west of DeBaliviere to Big Bend, with the tracks crossing to the north side of Millbrook west of Big Bend. If it is determined that rail operations or traffic flow might be disrupted because of insufficient intersection capacity, the design of through lane underpasses could be considered for both Skinker and Big Bend Boulevards. From Pershing west, lines would run below-grade to the east edge of the Clayton central business district (CBD) under the Forest Park Parkway pavement. Click to see the following images: map of possible surface locations; illustration of possible surface tracks in the median; illustration of possible surface tracks on a separate strip of land.
Below-Grade Tracks—Cut and Cover Tunnel. A similar pair of options can be located below-grade. Clearance of the River Des Peres storm-water tunnel will be an important consideration. Two cut and cover options are under study. Under the first option, the line could run under the existing roadway pavement from DeBaliviere to Pershing. Under the second option, cut and cover tunnels would carry tracks underground along the edge of the surface road following the same alignment proposed for the surface lines. To see a map of possible below-grade locations click here.
Below-Grade Tracks—Open Cut. The alignments for open cut are similar to the cut and cover options, but open to the sky. The cuts could be bridged at intervals to permit vehicles or pedestrians to cross. To see an illustration of possible below-grade open-cut tracks click here.
[page 7]
Section 2: Clayton & the Galleria Area
Several alignments are under consideration for a line through Clayton to the Galleria area including the connection of the line to the former Terminal Railroad right-of-way. As the Clayton CDB is hilly and street elevations are different from block to block, design and engineering choices depend on which streets are used. While a number of alternatives are possible, a continuous line must be assembled, possibly using a combination of surface, below-grade and elevated sections. The location and design of stations, as well as possible sites for joint development opportunities in the Clayton CBD and near the Galleria, will be looked at closely throughout the study process. Design options are described below:
Surface Tracks. Many options for surface lines in this section are being explored. It is possible that a line could run at the surface through all of Clayton and south to the Galleria, or that surface segments could be combined with other elevated or underground sections. Starting at the tunnel under Forest Park Parkway, surface lines could run west along Forsyth and Carondolet to turn south on Meramec or Brentwood. A surface line could also run on Bonhomme, then turn south on Meramec. Further west, an option is to run on Forsyth and Maryland from Brentwood to connect with the former Terminal Railroad right-of-way just east of the I-170/Ladue Road interchange. Another option is to have a line run south from the Clayton CBD along Brentwood to the main entrance of the Galleria, then turn east to connect back to the railroad right-of-way. Because some places are too steep for train cars to travel, surface lines could not run on the surface from the Clayton CBD to the Terminal Railroad right-of-way through Shaw Park. Right-of-way constraints and the on/ramps would not permit a surface line to run alongside the full length of Forest Park Parkway south of the Clayton CBD. To see a map of possible surface locations click here.
Elevated Tracks. There are fewer options under consideration for elevated tracks. An elevated line along Forest Park Parkway from the tunnel on the east side of the Clayton CBD to Brentwood is being considered. From Brentwood, two options for elevated tracks are being considered. Elevated tracks could run south on Brentwood from Venetian or Davis to the Galleria entrance and turn east to connect to the railroad right-of-way, or elevated tracks could run west along Forest Park Parkway and connect to the railroad right-of-way just south of the Parkway’s interchange with I-170. Click to see the following images: map of possible elevated track locations, and; illustration of elevated tracks.
Below-Grade Tracks—Cut and Cover or Bored Tunnel. Options for a line in a cut and cover or bored tunnel are being considered for the same alignments as those being considered for the surface lines. A below-grade line could run west from the tunnel below Forest Park Parkway along Forsyth, Carondolet, or Bonhomme. The tunnel could then turn south along Brentwood and resurface just north of Forest Park Parkway. This line could continue on the surface along Brentwood then climb to the Terminal Railroad right-of-way via an elevated structure just north of where Brentwood crosses under I-170. A below-grade line could also be constructed underneath Maryland and Forsyth west of Brentwood. As with the other options, a combination of surface, below-grade and elevated sections is possible. To see a map of possible below-grade locations click here.
[page 8]
Section 3: Richmond Heights to Shrewsbury
For the section from Galleria Parkway south to Big Bend Boulevard, there is only one basic alignment that follows the former Terminal Railroad right-of-way to a terminus near I-44 in Shrewsbury. While the horizontal alignment is set, several issues will affect the design of this section, including those associated with the potential impacts of the line on adjacent residential and commercial properties.
For the section that runs from Flora through the Sunnen Business Park, below-grade and elevated sections are being evaluated. Because the line will have to run either above or below the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, the line could cross Big Bend Boulevard on the surface or be elevated. South from Big Bend, the line could become elevated over I-44 to reach its terminus in Shrewsbury.
The light rail alignment will need to share the railroad right-of-way with major electric utility lines, and this may require the relocation of some of the utility poles. Also, freeway access to a station and park-and-ride lot near I-44 may require the construction of a new I-44 interchange or modifications to the existing interchange at Shrewsbury Road.
As with the Clayton and Galleria area section, development opportunities at proposed station locations will be evaluated. At Eager Road and in the vicinity of I-44, there is the potential for new development in association with the construction of park-and-ride lots. Traffic access needs for new development could require significant roadway modifications. Click to see images of the following: map of possible surface locations; map of possible elevated locations, and; map of possible below-grade locations.
[page 9]
Getting Involved
Will portions of the line be on the surface or underground? What happens at major intersections like Skinker? Where should stations and park-and-ride lots be located? How will community issues be addressed? What will the extension cost taxpayers? Are there places where the line could reinforce community or economic development strategies?
These are some of the questions that will be discussed in the upcoming Public Forum and Community Issues Workshops. The Public Forum is being planned as an open house. You are invited to drop in and learn more about the study, review displays and talk to members of the study team. The Community Issues Workshops are designed to provide you with opportunities to share your ideas and concerns about design options in specific geographic areas.
The Council invites you and your neighbors to play a part in the design process, to learn more about the options, and to share your ideas and perspectives. Plan to drop by the Public Forum or participate in one of the Community Issues Workshops. To have your name added to the study mailing list, call the hotline at (314) 621-4499 or send an e-mail message to crosscounty@marymeans.com.
For more detailed information on the conceptual design options for the Cross-County MetroLink Segment I Extension, you can visit any one of the following locations to review the Technical Memoranda:
 |
|||
East-West
Gateway Coordinating Council |
|||