Thank you! Grand would be a perfect prototype, and I hope after its success people will see the benefits of having that style of BRT in the city.Jennifer wrote:Sorry I'm late to the party on this discussion, but I wanted to answer Brody's question about why the lack of non-highway BRT routes. The answer is that Metro very much wants to build BRT on Grand, which is Metro's busiest bus corridor currently. That BRT line would then be used as a model for building other on-street, in-city BRT. The Moving Transit Forward plan, if adopted by Metro's Board this Friday, is the preliminary plan for the region but is intended to be a living document, subject to updates at least every five years. As funding situations change and population centers shift, the plan would have to be updated. But the simple answer is that Grand BRT would be a prototype and, we would hope, would serve as such an excellent model that it would prompt/allow for more similar BRT routes.
Honetly, goat14 I'm no transportation planner and my last Civil Eningeering course in transportation planning was over twenty years ago but I think your bias is overtaking your education when it comes to N-S line. What is fairly evident to most of our posters is the demographics of the region, the employment of centers of the region (someone posted a great density map of this at one time in one of the threads - don't forget this alignment has a stop by Dansforth new plant center and a very short shuttle trip to Monsantio's complex), and politicaly realities of the region will favor a Westport Line. I don't think E-W council is playing politics in pickiing Westport Line. Instead, they are currently making a choice that has the best chance of succeeding based on the makeup of the region that will stay that way for the foreseeable future. How do I think it will change, if McKee's plan goes forward and at it is at least as half as successful as I hope.
Personally, I have different thoughts and wondered if the idea of extending the current metrolink lines had any consideration (Jennifer?). My thought is that Metrolink needs to rebuild the stations at Lambert and at least extend the line to Earth City via I-70 medium. Which I think will be another plus for an Air China Hub. This would allow expansion into St. Charles if ever desired and set the stage for an express route to downtown. More importantly it connects metrolink with a major jobs area around Earth City/Maryland Heights Expressway as well as put it in striking distance of two casino's and the Verizon amphitheater. Three more destination spots. Hopefully, that would leave enough funds to add street car lines or Bus Rapid corridors on Grand, Jefferson (as McKee proposed) or better yet Washington Ave. You can even extend Cross County little farther south to better utilitize the existing line as a feeder to Clayton Business District and developments in Richmond Heights and Brentwood.
Personally, I have different thoughts and wondered if the idea of extending the current metrolink lines had any consideration (Jennifer?). My thought is that Metrolink needs to rebuild the stations at Lambert and at least extend the line to Earth City via I-70 medium. Which I think will be another plus for an Air China Hub. This would allow expansion into St. Charles if ever desired and set the stage for an express route to downtown. More importantly it connects metrolink with a major jobs area around Earth City/Maryland Heights Expressway as well as put it in striking distance of two casino's and the Verizon amphitheater. Three more destination spots. Hopefully, that would leave enough funds to add street car lines or Bus Rapid corridors on Grand, Jefferson (as McKee proposed) or better yet Washington Ave. You can even extend Cross County little farther south to better utilitize the existing line as a feeder to Clayton Business District and developments in Richmond Heights and Brentwood.
I haven't heard any plans about extending the current MetroLink alignment that now terminates at Lambert. I will tell you that there will be no plans put into place for expanding transit into St. Charles County until and unless St. Charles County opts to become a part of Metro's system, which it currently is not.
- 3,444
If I'm not mistaken, the original plan for MetroLink was for it to continue north along I-170 to McDonnell Douglas and beyond. Sometime prior to the start of construction for that northern segment, plans were changed and MetroLink was rerouted to the airport.Gary Kreie wrote:At the point where metro link crosses I-70 and I-170, it looks like there is the start of a spur designed in that would go on North, I suppose, along I-170. Was there originally a plan to make a spur that would go further into North County, to, say, Florissant?
Once again I disagree with you on this topic.Dredger wrote:Honetly, goat14 I'm no transportation planner and my last Civil Eningeering course in transportation planning was over twenty years ago but I think your bias is overtaking your education when it comes to N-S line. What is fairly evident to most of our posters is the demographics of the region, the employment of centers of the region (someone posted a great density map of this at one time in one of the threads - don't forget this alignment has a stop by Dansforth new plant center and a very short shuttle trip to Monsantio's complex), and politicaly realities of the region will favor a Westport Line. I don't think E-W council is playing politics in pickiing Westport Line. Instead, they are currently making a choice that has the best chance of succeeding based on the makeup of the region that will stay that way for the foreseeable future. How do I think it will change, if McKee's plan goes forward and at it is at least as half as successful as I hope.
Personally, I have different thoughts and wondered if the idea of extending the current metrolink lines had any consideration (Jennifer?). My thought is that Metrolink needs to rebuild the stations at Lambert and at least extend the line to Earth City via I-70 medium. Which I think will be another plus for an Air China Hub. This would allow expansion into St. Charles if ever desired and set the stage for an express route to downtown. More importantly it connects metrolink with a major jobs area around Earth City/Maryland Heights Expressway as well as put it in striking distance of two casino's and the Verizon amphitheater. Three more destination spots. Hopefully, that would leave enough funds to add street car lines or Bus Rapid corridors on Grand, Jefferson (as McKee proposed) or better yet Washington Ave. You can even extend Cross County little farther south to better utilitize the existing line as a feeder to Clayton Business District and developments in Richmond Heights and Brentwood.
I do have a bias, but it in no way interferes with my logic or planning studies.
I'll address your points one by one.
Demographics
Westport
one of the least transit dependent populations in the region
one of the most car dependent populations in the region
one of the higher income areas (outside of Olivette) in the region
area saturated with big box stores, fast food chains, and sprawling corporate campuses
N-S Line
one of the highest transit dependent populations in the region
one of the least car dependent populations in the region
one of the most economically depressed areas in the region
area full of small business, commercial storefronts, and civic institutions
Zoning
Westport
urban planning disaster
big lots
suburban campuses
parking lot requirements
low density
detached housing
commercial buildings with one acre setbacks from the street
not conducive to transit
lack of sidewalks
N-S line
environment built for transit
solid urban street grid
high density (even North St. Louis along Natural Bridge is higher density than Ladue or Creve Coeur)
commercial store fronts
walkable environments (the city is full of sidewalks)
better potential for true urban infill
political realities
A Westport line is more politically feasible than a city line, but that just shows the dysfunctional and backwards decision making processes that have steadily held the region back. The city hasn't seen a Metrolink extension since 1993 (Goat314 was in grade school then lol), how many times do we have to extend in the county before a city line is built? The city is growing and the county is shrinking now. If the regional leaders were smart they would build a city line in anticipation of a younger population that is trending urban. I just don't see how the region expects to keep its young talented people building park and ride lines to sprawlsville.
downtown vs Clayton and sprawling suburban campuses
downtown is still by far the largest business district in the region
a Westport line would support Clayton as the center of the region
Westport and Earth City are growing employment districts, but I'm not sold that they would embrace Metrolink
I would like to see these suburban campuses adopt a new urban, transit focused plan like downtown Clayton has before I support a Westport line
Also I think the Cross County and Westport lines are very different animals, Clayton and Richmond Heights were already relatively urban before Metrolink came so it was easier to make denser zoning changes
This area is suburban sprawl with no regret
I also feel like Downtown is underserved as the largest business district, why give Clayton more transit options than Downtown?
compromise
I will say that I do support your idea of streetcars in the city along major arterial roads like Grand, Jefferson, Kingshighway, and a loop that went from downtown to grand center following Washington and Locust/Olive. I would like to see streetcars served as feeders to a Metrolink spine. The reality is that Metro is not that progressive and if this tax passes (which I'm starting to doubt) your beloved Westport line will almost certainly get chosen, although I think it would have problems getting federal funding when competing against truly urban rail lines.
- 2,005
I found this video on CNN re: Portland's Streetcar revival to be interesting. Basically, no streetcars have been built here in the US for 58 years until a Portland company stepped up to start construction. Watching the video I must say I like the way streetcar systems are set up. I must say I'm surprised streetcars weren't even considered as part of Metro's Long Range Plan.
Streetcars in a dense city like St. Louis makes far more sense than putting light rail as it's currently proposed in in the Northside/Southside plan. Why do we need to block off streets and take lanes of traffic for transit? We can address needlessly wide streets like West Florissant in other ways. Streetcars seemlessly blend in with traffic and it won't disrupt the street grid. Please consider streetcars for future city extensions. Westport can have light rail vehicles, but it makes more sense to me to start a streetcar network within the urban core.
Link to Video
Streetcars in a dense city like St. Louis makes far more sense than putting light rail as it's currently proposed in in the Northside/Southside plan. Why do we need to block off streets and take lanes of traffic for transit? We can address needlessly wide streets like West Florissant in other ways. Streetcars seemlessly blend in with traffic and it won't disrupt the street grid. Please consider streetcars for future city extensions. Westport can have light rail vehicles, but it makes more sense to me to start a streetcar network within the urban core.
Link to Video
Actually, I believe it's kind of nice that their giving exclusive lanes to the N-S line, it gives you the impression that St. Louis values transit enough to give it it's own ROW. I've also never understood why streetcars would be more cost effective.
--- I need you guys to know, this is just my opinion, not Metro's. I actually don't know what "Metro's" opinion is (officially) on streetcars. ---
Regarding streetcars, they are much, much slower than light rail. In Portland, streetcars are used as the downtown circulators. Currently that role is served in STL (for a much lower cost) by buses. Yes, streetcars are sexy and buses are not. But in an era where we can barely sustain basic bus services due to lack of funding, it's not very practical to consider streetcars in the city and hope for future ridership - yet. I'd like to see bus frequency and service expanded to the point that you can hop on a bus every ten minutes and get anywhere in the city. If we get to that level, I think that ridership will increase correspondingly and then we can evaluate where a good place for streetcars might be.
One other thought on the cost of streetcars - it isn't just the infrastructure but the maintenance and operation that would be more costly, because you'd have to train your people, keep a whole extra set of parts, train operators, etc. Plus people here object to street-running light rail, which in my opinion is a great idea. But it does take some adjustment and other regions that have introduced it have suffered through several years of car vs. light rail collisions until people learn not to turn in front of the train.
Believe me when I say I'm not against streetcars. I just don't think it's a very practical or economically feasible (or politically feasible, for that matter!) solution to the transit needs of the overall St. Louis region at this time.
Regarding streetcars, they are much, much slower than light rail. In Portland, streetcars are used as the downtown circulators. Currently that role is served in STL (for a much lower cost) by buses. Yes, streetcars are sexy and buses are not. But in an era where we can barely sustain basic bus services due to lack of funding, it's not very practical to consider streetcars in the city and hope for future ridership - yet. I'd like to see bus frequency and service expanded to the point that you can hop on a bus every ten minutes and get anywhere in the city. If we get to that level, I think that ridership will increase correspondingly and then we can evaluate where a good place for streetcars might be.
One other thought on the cost of streetcars - it isn't just the infrastructure but the maintenance and operation that would be more costly, because you'd have to train your people, keep a whole extra set of parts, train operators, etc. Plus people here object to street-running light rail, which in my opinion is a great idea. But it does take some adjustment and other regions that have introduced it have suffered through several years of car vs. light rail collisions until people learn not to turn in front of the train.
Believe me when I say I'm not against streetcars. I just don't think it's a very practical or economically feasible (or politically feasible, for that matter!) solution to the transit needs of the overall St. Louis region at this time.
Jennifer,
No one here will argue that streetcars aren't more expensive than buses, that they are more expensive to maintain, or that Metro's current level of funding likely precludes adding streetcars to the operating mix. I would argue with you about streetcars being much slower than buses; somewhat slower, likely, but not much slower. That, I would say, is largely a matter of street design and signal prioritization.
What I think bothers many people on this board is Metro's complete silence on streetcars to the point of exclusion. For example, not one peep was made about streetcars in the Moving Transit Forward plan despite every other mode of transit under the sun being mentioned. Many people have mentioned streetcars in this forum, I brought up streetcars in public meetings, yet still there was no mention of streetcars in any of the MTF meeting summaries or reports.
No one here will argue that streetcars aren't more expensive than buses, that they are more expensive to maintain, or that Metro's current level of funding likely precludes adding streetcars to the operating mix. I would argue with you about streetcars being much slower than buses; somewhat slower, likely, but not much slower. That, I would say, is largely a matter of street design and signal prioritization.
What I think bothers many people on this board is Metro's complete silence on streetcars to the point of exclusion. For example, not one peep was made about streetcars in the Moving Transit Forward plan despite every other mode of transit under the sun being mentioned. Many people have mentioned streetcars in this forum, I brought up streetcars in public meetings, yet still there was no mention of streetcars in any of the MTF meeting summaries or reports.
^ I agree.
However, I still wish our circulator buses were “decked” out somehow. Either buy a used or new double decker bus, or even cheaper, paint the buses for that particular circulator to really let it stand out.
However, I still wish our circulator buses were “decked” out somehow. Either buy a used or new double decker bus, or even cheaper, paint the buses for that particular circulator to really let it stand out.
I found this exchange from the November 18 Post-Dispatch Live Chat (they happen every other Wednesday at noon):
http://interact.stltoday.com/discussion ... 709943/all
http://interact.stltoday.com/discussion ... 709943/all
Herbie: In the recent Moving Transit Forward public workshops, why was there -zero- mention of streetcars? This seems like a serious oversight.
[Jessica]: Herbie,
The Moving Transit Forward long-range transit plan is focusing primarily on transit projects that are regional in scope, like light rail, commuter rail, or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Streetcars can certainly be very effective local projects that are tied into a regional system. If the community chooses to pursue design and construction of any of the corridors identified in this plan, streetcars could be explored as a potential type of transit service for urban corridors like Northside-Southside. There are also other streetcar projects taking place right now in the community, like the Loop Trolley. This project is being undertaken by entities outside of Metro, but if constructed would become part of an integrated regional transit system. Cities elsewhere like Dallas are pursuing projects like downtown streetcars, however those projects are being undertaken directly by entities like the city, and not the larger regional transit districts.
Zink,
Thanks, and I agree. We're actually working on "wrapping" the Downtown 99 Circulator bus to make it a distinctive standout from the other buses that you can see around downtown. I just spoke to Tara Creamer, our Brand Manager, and she told me that because our budget is so tight we're in talks to try to get an organization (I can't say who) to partner with us on "wrapping" the bus and also branding the stops in a way that make them more distinctive. I'll let you guys know as soon as there are any details to report on that.
Thanks, and I agree. We're actually working on "wrapping" the Downtown 99 Circulator bus to make it a distinctive standout from the other buses that you can see around downtown. I just spoke to Tara Creamer, our Brand Manager, and she told me that because our budget is so tight we're in talks to try to get an organization (I can't say who) to partner with us on "wrapping" the bus and also branding the stops in a way that make them more distinctive. I'll let you guys know as soon as there are any details to report on that.
Hey guys, I also just want to say in general, thank you for all of the ideas, feedback, and criticism. It is such a delight to have this many well-informed, thoughtful people who are engaged in transportation planning and issues. Even if we don't always see eye to eye, I really respect the level of engagement I see on this forum. And keep the ideas coming!
In an ideal world, we would have streetcars. They're cleaner, smoother, more intuitive, and sexier than buses. But honestly I think buses make sense for St. Louis at the moment. As a region, we don't (and aren't willing to) spend enough money on public transit to make streetcars an option.
But, I think no matter what type of transit we get in the future, it should be one of our utmost priorities to separate this transit from street traffic. This could be light rail with separated right of way or bus in dedicated lane. I think all of our major transit corridors should head in this direction as soon as possible. It would significantly improve the speed of the whole system, encouraging increased ridership, which would improve the system's efficiency... and so on.
But, I think no matter what type of transit we get in the future, it should be one of our utmost priorities to separate this transit from street traffic. This could be light rail with separated right of way or bus in dedicated lane. I think all of our major transit corridors should head in this direction as soon as possible. It would significantly improve the speed of the whole system, encouraging increased ridership, which would improve the system's efficiency... and so on.
- 1,000
problem with buses according to my bro-in-law, who was key in the design/build of metrolink, non-poor people won't ride them in anywhere near the numbers they will ride light rail and streetcars.
- 11K
How do you see this working? The infrastructure costs would be much more than running streetcars in traffic. We have a (lack of) density problem in St. Louis. Separated systems (subways/dedicated BRT/etc.) seem to make the most sense when traffic congestion makes integrated additional mass transit prohibitive.brody wrote:But, I think no matter what type of transit we get in the future, it should be one of our utmost priorities to separate this transit from street traffic. This could be light rail with separated right of way or bus in dedicated lane. I think all of our major transit corridors should head in this direction as soon as possible. It would significantly improve the speed of the whole system, encouraging increased ridership, which would improve the system's efficiency... and so on.
- 667
I just wished Metro would buy some nicer looking and riding coaches (i.e. Novabus LFS) than those ugly Gilligs they use.Jennifer wrote:Zink,
Thanks, and I agree. We're actually working on "wrapping" the Downtown 99 Circulator bus to make it a distinctive standout from the other buses that you can see around downtown. I just spoke to Tara Creamer, our Brand Manager, and she told me that because our budget is so tight we're in talks to try to get an organization (I can't say who) to partner with us on "wrapping" the bus and also branding the stops in a way that make them more distinctive. I'll let you guys know as soon as there are any details to report on that.
Wrapping a Gillig won't make an ugly lady pretty, but at least it covers it up some. As for the circular bus, I like it and making it identifiable would be better for the neighborhood it serves.
Lukethedrifter, I totally disagree. This is the only city I've ever lived in where people would even think that. Whether someone will use transit is far more to do with social background and education level than race, as people assume.
- 11K
lukethedrifter wrote:problem with buses according to my bro-in-law, who was key in the design/build of metrolink, non-poor people won't ride them in anywhere near the numbers they will ride light rail and streetcars.
Jennifer - not sure to what you're referring. Luke didn't say anything about race.
Anyway, St. Louis isn't the only place I've lived/traveled/worked where people think buses are primarily for poor people and/or minorities. In part, minorities ride buses at a disproportionately high rate - for many reasons. No matter the issues, it's a true statement that buses are not as attractive for a segment of the population. Maybe that doesn't matter - maybe buses are still the best option.
- 1,000
Jennifer wrote:Lukethedrifter, I totally disagree. This is the only city I've ever lived in where people would even think that. Whether someone will use transit is far more to do with social background and education level than race, as people assume.
What Grover said. Plus, as I mentioned this came from my brother-in-law who is a design consultant in your business who has worked at and designed light rail in several different cities. He was just quoting studies that showed projected ridership of various public transit options. Not just in St Lou.
I think what is really unappealing about most bus systems in the US is the low frequency of service coupled with low density of denstinations (the two are tied) and resulting long travel times. Many buses run only every 20 to 30 minutes compared to light rail services, which usually run more frequently. Unfortunately, if you are going to connect most neighborhoods in the metro area with bus service, there is no cost effective alternative to the current approach unless population densities go up alot. Given this, I think Metro's commitment to mobility across the entire metro, much of which is very low density, has been very commendable.
However, rather than bus rapid transit, street cars, or metrolink extensions to west county, I think high frequency (at least every 10 minutes except during low demand periods) bus circulators in some neighborhoods would attract alot more middle income riders. And this could be what metro needs to move beyond its image as poorly managed social service.
A few circulator routes that come to mind would be 1) downtown and soulard (together), 2) south grand/tower grove east to the metro link station to SLU (and maybe to Shnucks on Lindell), and 3) CWE circulator connecting the CWE station to the CWE north of lindell to the Cathedral to Forest pkwy and back to the CWE metro station.
I know, some of these routes would overlap with metro link and existing bus routes, but unfortunately many metro link stations are far removed from the "urban" core of the neighborhoods they are supposed to serve.
This kind of service is less focused on moving people to and from their jobs and more focused on moving people around neighborhoods and between higher density neighborhoods, which could make transit convenient enough to compete with cars on St. Louis's relatively uncongested roads.
However, rather than bus rapid transit, street cars, or metrolink extensions to west county, I think high frequency (at least every 10 minutes except during low demand periods) bus circulators in some neighborhoods would attract alot more middle income riders. And this could be what metro needs to move beyond its image as poorly managed social service.
A few circulator routes that come to mind would be 1) downtown and soulard (together), 2) south grand/tower grove east to the metro link station to SLU (and maybe to Shnucks on Lindell), and 3) CWE circulator connecting the CWE station to the CWE north of lindell to the Cathedral to Forest pkwy and back to the CWE metro station.
I know, some of these routes would overlap with metro link and existing bus routes, but unfortunately many metro link stations are far removed from the "urban" core of the neighborhoods they are supposed to serve.
This kind of service is less focused on moving people to and from their jobs and more focused on moving people around neighborhoods and between higher density neighborhoods, which could make transit convenient enough to compete with cars on St. Louis's relatively uncongested roads.
- 11K
Excellent comment - let's add at least a few bus shelters to identify the bus route. IMO one of the best things about streetcars and trains is that you can SEE the route. The small faded, sometimes broken, bus stop signs in STL do not give me confidence that a bus is actually on its way.ddd5 wrote:However, rather than bus rapid transit, street cars, or metrolink extensions to west county, I think high frequency (at least every 10 minutes except during low demand periods) bus circulators in some neighborhoods would attract alot more middle income riders. And this could be what metro needs to move beyond its image as poorly managed social service.
Timetables and maps for the routes posted at each stop would also really help.
- 396
I agree, seeing the route as in different sinage for the DT circulator helps alot. Show us a map that says "you can get there from here" show people where this bus goes and maybe more people will ride it. You can put the maps up where all the Billy D Williams ads are!alexihnen wrote:ddd5 wrote:
Excellent comment - let's add at least a few bus shelters to identify the bus route. IMO one of the best things about streetcars and trains is that you can SEE the route. The small faded, sometimes broken, bus stop signs in STL do not give me confidence that a bus is actually on its way.