urbanSTL

b777stl wrote:A tram/train/trolley route is generally permanent as opposed to a bus, granted this attracts more developers to the area. I remember reading several years ago that in St. Louis, more people (tourists and residents alike) are more likely to use MetroLink than a bus. This makes sense-face it, how many times have you seen a tourist on 95 Kingshighway? 90 Hampton? 93 Midtown-South County? 70 Grand? Tourists have been using the #3 Forest Park Shuttle, because it connects easily with MetroLink and runs on a frequent interval. There is large, clear, and attractive signage that make it easy for users.

Exactly. You've proven my point, and added to another.



The delmar loop trolley is fine as a tourist trap, but no one should look at it, or street cars, as a viable mode of mass transit anymore - not for the intrinsic costs and immeasurable benefits provided.



Tourists and locals alike would use buses more if there were large, clear attractive signage (and stops) that helped people get from point a to b, but there isn't. Bus systems are complicated, they have tons of lines, poorly designated intermediate stops, changing schedules, etc. The simpler you make a system for people to ride, the more they will ride it. That's why fixed rail is so attractive to us in the midwest - i mean, c'mon. It's a straight freakin line, and look how many people get messed up on our whole new second line.



Having a tram line provides stability and certainty where a bus line cannot, sure. But as I've said before, that same stability can handcuff a transit authority when travel patterns change, forcing them to run a masive loss across a line that they physically can't change. Again, if Metro spent the $2 billion it has on metrolink on significantly improving the public perception and physical appearance of the bus system, our public transportation system would be miles ahead of where it is now.



Don't get me wrong, I think the delmar tram is a fun idea for the city, as a tourist attraction. However, consider the cost per mile to install the thing, plus upkeep and operations, and you're likely to be looking at a HEAVY loss leader down the road, unless tickets are considerable, or U-City and STL defray the costs into their own budgets. When it comes to moving people long distances at high speeds, give me heavy rail. When you're moving people short distances, give me a bus. My taxes will thank you later.

Half the maintenance of a bus? I'd like to see those figures. Trams do not always have the right of way, I would know, they don't in melbourne.

I have seen many articles that state trams are much cheaper to maintain than buses. In any case here is some good slightly anecdotal evidence: In Spain and Portugal in the early 90's there were still trams running in several cities that had been put in operation in the 1920's. These were run by poor cash-strapped government agencies. After the EU came together all of the lines were heavily upgraded or done away with in favor of subway extensions.



Trams can have the right of way. In congested cities it makes sense to dedicate an entire lane to trams, and buses as well as emergency vehicles. Have you ever seen an ambulence trying to go down broadway in downtown manhattan? Even if they don't have the right of way, sometimes they can take short cuts through tunnels or alleys which increases their speed. I've seen that in several cities. In St. Louis there are many blocks with service alleys that are wide enough for trams. Whether they are actually feasible for tracks or not is a different story.





The bus lines in STL are not confusing at all. They have maps downtown and with the use of a normal map are quite easy to decipher. Many bus stops are clearly marked, though more could have some sort of shelter. The bus system also is quite extensive and will take you to places so far out in the boondocks of suburbia you will be surprised busses even exist there. The reason most tourists don't use the bus is because they are thought to be for the poor. Also, many are afraid to ride the busses for a variety of reasons. This is especially true amongst american tourists. A street car could overcome those negative perceptions as the metro link has. In fact, from what I have read, the bus ridership has shot up as the metro link ridership has risen. Some bus lines are still pretty gritty, but others are feeling more comfortable. A street car would only help, I think.

migueltejada wrote:
Tourists and locals alike would use buses more if there were large, clear attractive signage (and stops) that helped people get from point a to b, but there isn't.

One point - there is a large, clearly marked, attractive bus stop at Hampton and Gravois. I'm not attracted to it because homeless people are attracted to it. There are usually several who've set up camp in the shelter. I've been physically accosted (OK, hugged, but it still made me uncomfortable - dude was creepy) and threatened by homeless there. IMO this feeds the negative public perception both of the bus transit system itself and that personal safety might be at risk when taking the bus.



-RBB

Having just got back from Toronto, I was finally able to see, and ride, real streetcars in action. Here's my review-



The vehicles, even though some are nearly 30 yrs old, are fairly smooth more so than your average bus. However that seems to depend on the condition of the street and tracks. So streetcars/trams do have a longer lifespan.



As for noise, I personally LOVE the sound of the rails. They produce about the same noise volume that buses do. Maybe a bit more. Push a desk chair w/ wheels across a tile floor and you get a similar sound.



For speed, unless the route has a dedicated lane or ROW, you are at the mercy of motorists. They are no faster than buses on city streets.



Overall, I loved their streetcar network. They only operate on the busiest routes, which makes them fairly permanent and a good selling point. Frequency was very good. I don't think we waited more than 8 minutes for the next vehicle.



~~~

Now as a railfan this hurts me, but the streetcars also have their share of issues/problems.



Even with fairly short headways, cars often shortrun at a loop due to traffic along the route. Nothing was more annoying than boarding a car only to be told to get off a mile later despite the headsign displayed the end of the line.



And with heavy/irregular traffic, the street cars were often prone to bunching up. Forming a "tram jam" if you will. If a car is blocking the tracks either trying to turn or because of problems like a stall, better call work and tell em you'll be late. At least a bus can take a different route.



~~~

All in all, the only route I would like to see a MODERN streetcar/tram operate in St Louis at the present moment would be Grand. I think a line along Delmar from the loop connecting to Olive to downtown would be a decent choice too.

Let's not forget this trolley is a brainchild of Joe Edwards and as far as he's concerned getting people from the MetroLink to destinations on the Loop is all that he needs. Perhaps in the future other developers may note the success of a streetcar line through their areas and attempt the same. Of course this is based on if the trolley ever gets built...

I'd just like to see several modern streetcar lines put up in the city. I don't think we need to replace buses, but along central routes, move to streetcar. Maybe 4 lines total, pick your lines, use them to supplement the rail system in place, and watch as the investment around those lines grows.

Just Like The Village Trolley -- Everybody Gets A Ride



21 September 2007 - 2:00pm



Before its planners had realized what they'd done, a proposed name for a planned streetcar system in Seattle -- the South Lake Union Trolley, or SLUT -- had already slipped out into the public.



"The story that the neighborhood's streetcar line now under construction was called the South Lake Union Trolley until the powers that be realized the unfortunate acronym -- SLUT -- seems here to stay."



"Officially, it's now the South Lake Union Streetcar. But the trolley name already has caught on, and in the old Cascade neighborhood in South Lake Union, they're waiting for the SLUT."



"At the Kapow! Coffee house on Harrison Street, they're selling T-shirts that read 'Ride the SLUT.'"



"'We're welcoming the SLUT into the neighborhood,' said Jerry Johnson, 29, a part-time barista."

Full Story: SLUT -- Streetcar's unfortunate acronym seems here to stay

Somebody was telling me about that, but they were saying it was Salt Lake, which would have even been funnier...



But it's still a classic.

trent wrote:Somebody was telling me about that, but they were saying it was Salt Lake, which would have even been funnier...



But it's still a classic.

Just call it St. Louis Urban Trolley.

Any recent updates on this?

The short answer is no.

The long answer (that I am aware of) is that Joe Edwards said it was still going to happen in an interview at the opening of Flamingo Bowl.

Pending approvals, the design of the trolley line should begin within the next month or two. Funding for construction of the trolley hasn't been finalized.

^Mixed-traffic operations. IOW, put a bus on rails. IMHO, streetcars are more needed in other dense corridors NOT already served by MULTIPLE MetroLink stations.



BTW, most modern streetcars run curbside in the outside travel lane along parking. Thus, the parking changes to a bulb-out (or curb extension) at streetcar stops. Plus, it's more intuitive for motorists to pass a stopped streetcar in the left lane, if a four-lane street.

southslider wrote:^Mixed-traffic operations. IOW, put a bus on rails. IMHO, streetcars are more needed in other dense corridors NOT already served by MULTIPLE MetroLink stations.

Yes, but because of all of those MetroLink stations, it would be that much more effective and that much more likely to be used here; increasing density, pushing the Loop east along Delmar, reviving the neighborhoods north of Delmar, and bringing retail to DeBaliviere. It is the most viable place for such a system; you have thousands of college students, some of the highest residential density in the city, Forest Park, and MetroLink nearby. Plus, there are several natural extensions that could be built out from such a line. If it is wildly successful here, which I think it will be, then it makes it that much more likely that we might see future trolleys on Lindell, Manchester, Grand, Kingshighway, Jefferson, Gravois, Arsenal, Park, Broadway, etc.

Why is this needed? What's wrong with the 97 bus? Just schedule it a little more frequently.

^Because people hate buses.

Bastiat wrote:The buses don't stop for white people (bus drivers shocked to see them get on).

I don't seem to turn any heads when I get on.

You'd think the beard would turn more heads, though. It has an existence quite apart from me.



Seriously though, folks, I don't know what the fuss is about. I see other crackers on the bus all the time. Is it 80% AfAm? Sure. So what? Are you seriously telling me most white Metro [train] riders are so classist/racist that they won't use the bus to fill in the gaps? From U City, I can get everywhere I go on a regular basis with the train plus about 5 routes (90, 91, 95, 97, 30, 13). Especially 97 Delmar. This afternoon after work (at UMSL North) I'm gonna give 34 to St Louis Mills a shot from North Hanley to see if it's feasible.



The only problem I have with the bus is that these women driving the bus put the damn thermostat on 82 degrees.

^Despite other's posts, I don't think the bus haters (myself included) are racist, at least most of them. For me it has a whole lot more to do with comfort, certainty over the route, reliability, etc. I have ridden buses far more than enough in my lifetime to be able to say emphatically, with reason, that I much prefer rail.



Busses just aren't that comfortable, particularly when you are sitting in back and speeding down a pothole-filled street. Or when the bus takes a corner really fast and you are wedged between someone covered with open sores and someone that sounds like they have TB (or even worse, someone that has a wild, unkempt throatybeard ). I seem to find myself in that situation far more often on busses than on trains (and also seem to catch viruses much more often when riding busses). Think about it, it is pretty damn hard to stand up on city busses unless it is an express bus, but it is no problem to stand for the whole trip on a train. In any case, if I have to be wedged between two strangers, I much prefer to be standing - of course, I am taller than most.



I also believe that anyone that is unfamiliar with an area, particularly tourists, is going to prefer rail. If you get on the wrong train, or you miss your stop, you pretty much always know you can get off and get back on the train going back in the opposite direction. This isn't always true of busses. Depending on how it is designed, trains don't get stuck in traffic, or delayed for other reasons, as much as busses. If you are visiting an area, it isn't hard to figure out where the train routes are, cuz they'd be the streets with rails running down the middle .



Of course, much of this may just be perception, but which is easier, changing people's perceptions, or designing a system that takes those into account?