urbanSTL

ntbpo wrote:Because gasoline was 35 cents a gallon.

The Metrolink is the current low-priced transportation. The point is people weren't willing to pay a little more just for the joy of being transported by the trolleys--so St. Louis got rid of the trolleys.



$32 million for a new 2.2-mile trolley line seems like a bit much. Maybe I overlooked it, but how much would a ride on the trolley cost per person?



If I'm going to pay a little more to ride an inefficient form of transportation just for fun, then I'd rather ride in a horse-drawn carriage than a trolley.

Because gasoline was 35 cents a gallon.

Kind of - but the real story isn't just that people chose to use cars because gas was cheap. Owning and maintaining a car was, and still is, more expensive than using mass transit. Americans became much more affluent following WWII, enabling them to purchase cars. Homeownership soared as well, millions went to college for free, and (I know this is a somewhat controversial subject) whites left the cities. Where once a trolley line served 30,000 people without cars, it now served 12,000, some of whom had cars. Shopping centers followed residents west and people had to drive to shop . . . anyway, I don't know that this presents an argument for building a new trolley today. A very high percentage of people own a car and density in the city hasn't really increased in the past several decades. Maybe people are beginning to downsize. I know a number of people on here do not have a car. Some of my friends have downsized from two to one car and my wife and I are considering doing the same.

A great thing about a trolley is it allows you to eliminate many small parking lots in favor of a few larger garages. People can park further from where they need to be. They don't have to be walking distance from their destination. Park by the Dome and take a trolley down Washington or to the ballpark or to the Brewery or whatever. It allows developers to fill in former parking lots with buildings making the area even more dense. It wouldn't make sense in all areas of the city but there are a few where it would work nicely. The Loop being one of them.

I understand that money is a factor in extending a trolley route beyond the Loop and Forest Park, but I do hope there is consideration given before any track is laid to expanding the route in the future.



In general, I think many of us would agree that one of the real problems with St. Louis is that you often find great spots (or islands) surrounded by stretches of poor spots. This divide cuts off the real gems from one another. Accessibility can also be a real problem with locations like Laclede's Landing and its relationship with I-70 or the problems with the Gateway Mall, for instance. I love the idea of a trolley system connecting these great areas and potentially helping to fill in some of the lesser spots.



Here's what I would like to see: First, the trolley line would go from the Loop to Forest Park as already planned. Second, the trolley would continue east on Lindell, past some attractive mansions, and continue across Kingshighway to Euclid. This would connect the Loop with CWE. Third, from Euclid we continue east, past the new Cathedral, until we reach Grand by Saint Louis University. Forth, we turn north on Grand and then turn right on Washington Avenue only two short blocks away. This takes us past the Fox and through the heart of Grand Center. Fifth, we travel east on Washington all the way to the Loft District. Sixth, further north we reach Laclede's Landing and, hopefully, the Bottle District. So, we have taken the scenic route from UCity to the Landing while connecting the important areas between while, from Forest Park, while traveling almost exclusively east with only a short two block detour from Lindell to Washington on Grand. That's pretty efficient! But let's not stop there. Seventh, if the Laclede's Landing stop were on Broadway, we could head south and have access just using Broadway to visit the Arch, Ballpark Village and the new Busch, Choteau's Landing and we would go all the way to Soulard! The route could end right there.



For tourists or skeptics of the city, there would be no better argument for the finer points of St. Louis. Unlike with a bus and its winding route, the direct trolley line to each of these locations would make it not only scenic but practical. Also unlike a bus route, where along its route it will likely service a few high risk areas, a trolley route located in only prime areas should see a safer rider experience. That, I believe, is a key point towards success.



Think of it from a business standpoint. Let’s say you have a retail store on Washington Avenue. Now imagine all of the people who will pass by your store each day on the trolley. Imagine a trolley line that can easily bring students from SLU and Wash U, along with full-time residents and tourists and others, to your doorstep each and every day. Washington Avenue suddenly becomes easily accessible to those along the line who do not own a nearby loft or want to pay, or take the risk, of parking on a side street. Washington Avenue is no longer an island.



For residents along the line, imagine being able to go to the best places in St. Louis, seeing such variety, in a direct manner. Many people could probably go without a car! Also, each of these locations would only benefit from the accessibility gained by the trolley line. Let’s see, I don’t have to pay for parking or find a parking spot, I can drink without having to worry about driving and the route is both scenic, safe and direct…I think I would like this very much.



If such a plan were laid out and if a non-profit group similar to Forest Park Forever were made a part of this I would be curious as to the reaction of those who would most stand to benefit. Since their property value would inevitably rise, and it would be a boost to businesses, the private sector might be willing to invest significantly.



Finally, if you get the chance, drive the route I described above and I think you will see the possibilities.

An update from the West End Word



U. City puts money where its mouth is with trolley project

By Heather Wadsworth

West End Word wrote:The University City City Council voted to commit $250,000 to the Loop trolley project during its July 16 meeting.



University City’s money will be combined with $50,000 that the city of St. Louis’ Community Development Agency has committed to the project.



Matching funds totaling $300,000 are needed in order to receive a $1.2 million federal surface transportation program enhancement grant, City Manager Julie Feier said. This grant will fund an engineering and design study.

As the only person who lives in a city that actually uses streetcars, I laugh at the romanticism used when people describe the street cars. Oh sure, people hearken back to the good ol' days, when whites were white, blacks were nowhere to be seen on television, and street cars glided softly over a bed of rose petals making nary a sound as they moved swiftly from destination to destination.



Now let's get back to reality shall we?



Trolleys, street cars, whatever you want to call them, are obsolete. They're slow. They hold up traffic. They're incredibly inefficient at moving people across any distance, especially in peak times. If one breaks, you have to pull the whole car off the line, which can take hours at a time, causing further delays. And god help you if the power goes out.



Now, buses, despite their public perception, are a significant improvement over street cars. They're faster. They move with traffic, which allows them to avoid slow spots to keep their schedule. They run on diesel or gasoline, so there's never a risk of the bus stopping due to a freak power failure. There's never any repairs that need to be done on "bus tracks". If a bus breaks down, putting a new one on does not require an army to move the broken down one, and the new bus can GO AROUND the broken one when it picks up the old passengers. Buses are also highly flexible, so that routes can be changed when passenger boarding patterns change, rather than a fixed rail car that has to stay on the same failing route.



Sure, I've heard the arguments - fixed line = economic development, TOD, safety, blah blah blah. I know for one thing, standing at a tram stop is no safer than a bus stop in any country at night if it's away from activity areas. If the bus system was well managed, well maintained, and well promoted, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Fixed rail high speed long distance lines (Metrolink) would meet up with flexible lower speed variable distance buses to get people from a to b to c with nary a problem. High bus traffic areas would get fixed high quality stops similar to the metrobus station at ballas, thus adding to further TOD. But Metro is broke, and no one will give them a dime to pull them out of it.



Bottom line, as I've said a bajillion times - street cars are dead, and only valuable as a form of tourist entertainment. Please Metro - promote the bus system properly!

I agree. Most of the population in Zurich uses the tram system over any other form of transportation. It is convenient, quiet, has a larger capacity than buses, has little to no emissions if run from clean power, often faster than buses or cars since trams always have the right of way (also contributing to a more reliable schedule as it is not encumbered by rush hour traffic), has roughly half the maintenance costs as a bus, has up to triple and sometimes quadruple the life expectancy as a bus... I'll stop there, but although buses are cheaper in the here and now, trams/streetcars are a better choice than buses for a cities transportation system.

I reguards to the Delmar trolley, I still believe that if they want to make it into a viable trasportation route they need to take it from the Loop metrolink all the way to Clayton (possibly to Kirkwood in the distant future). This would give all the people in between a fast connection to both metrolink lines without having to backtrack. I feel that a line to the CWE would be somewhat redundant as it would run parallel to metrolink.

crbswiss wrote:I reguards to the Delmar trolley, I still believe that if they want to make it into a viable trasportation route they need to take it from the Loop metrolink all the way to Clayton (possibly to Kirkwood in the distant future). This would give all the people in between a fast connection to both metrolink lines without having to backtrack. I feel that a line to the CWE would be somewhat redundant as it would run parallel to metrolink.

But there are two Metrolink stops in Clayton and only one for the CWE. I'd guess that it's a very similar walking distance from the Forsyth stop to some of the more popular Clayton restaurants as it is from the CWE stop to North Euclid. Besides, the CWE is more densly populated than Clayton and judging by ridership numbers (and my own unassailable knowledge) many more people would ride a link to the CWE. The CWE stop needs more platform space to handle ridership and the trolley could help. Besides, where would a trolley to Clayton run? Down Skinker and up Forsyth? Seems unlikely. Delmar to Kingshighway seems to me to make more sense - great development potential and certainly many fewer NIMBY's along the route. Actually bringing a streetcar back to Pershing would probably make the most sense - very dense housing, and a lovely route.

I was thinking more that the trolly would go down Delmar and then down Hanley or something similar. However, I see a major difference in our logics. With a streetcar there are many more short distance stops serving the line versus major destinations such as Loop-Clayton or Loop, CWE for that we have metrolink. It seems to me that the more densly populated area between the Loop and Clayton would benefit more that the emply lots down delmar going east towards the CWE.

I think there are many possibilities where this potential streetcar line could/should go... I agree about the Clayton & CWE ideas, also it would be nice if from it's proposed route it continued south to the Muni, then to the zoo. heck, it could cross hgwy 40 and hit the heart of dogtown on Clayton Ave., loop around and hit Wydown-Skinker and loop back up to U. City on Big Bend.

Many possibilities ... could eventually be several routes that share the same tracks for some of their run.

It's important just to get a starter line in, as proposed (assuming it goes enough places that it isn't a flop). This will hopefully get people excited and have the ridership numbers to prove it and they'll see the potentials for expansion.



I think that's one reason we haven't seen any rail transit in KC. Too costly to have it go every at once. A starter line in the core would have been good for the "show me" masses...



I know it's a ways off, but do we know if this streetcar would be operated under Metro? Or if you'd have to purchase fare even if you had a monthly metro pass? If not, that could make transfers from Metrolink a pain. Probably too early to know any details like this.

crbswiss wrote:I was thinking more that the trolly would go down Delmar and then down Hanley or something similar. However, I see a major difference in our logics. With a streetcar there are many more short distance stops serving the line versus major destinations such as Loop-Clayton or Loop, CWE for that we have metrolink. It seems to me that the more densly populated area between the Loop and Clayton would benefit more that the emply lots down delmar going east towards the CWE.

I don't think that those living on Delmar west of the Loop or on Hanley would allow a line to be built. And where would the stops be along here? This is not a densly populated area - nearly all single family homes. The Skinker/DeB neighborhood is denser (and growing denser with rehab/new building's proposed) and there's retail.



I love the idea of Metrolink/streetcar direct service to the art musuem and zoo, but don't know how this would work - there's no good line to run through the park (like an old RR line/tunnels/whatever). Actually a streetcar along the north side of 40 would rock - from the med center servicing the park, Dogtown, the High Pointe area and then north along Skinker to Delmar? It's fun to dream!

crbswiss wrote:I agree. Most of the population in Zurich uses the tram system over any other form of transportation. It is convenient, quiet, has a larger capacity than buses, has little to no emissions if run from clean power, often faster than buses or cars since trams always have the right of way (also contributing to a more reliable schedule as it is not encumbered by rush hour traffic), has roughly half the maintenance costs as a bus, has up to triple and sometimes quadruple the life expectancy as a bus... I'll stop there, but although buses are cheaper in the here and now, trams/streetcars are a better choice than buses for a cities transportation system.

Quiet? Not in my experience. Trams make lots of noise as they rattle over the tracks, dinging cars that zoom by unexpectedly. They're no louder than a bus and its engine, probably more so. 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. Giving them ROW would require adding extra lanes of traffic or reducing them - neither of which are good options to reducing traffic flows or expediting car travel. Don't forget, there are cities with dedicated bus lanes too - that's another version of ROW.



I never denied that trams had a better public perception than buses - that doesn't make them better. People don't ride buses in any country because it's become the mode of transit for the poor, disheveled, and mentally ill. Problem is, it's a better option than streetcars for the reasons I've already mentioned. Remember - just because a choice is popular doesn't mean it's right.

Rather than build a new trolley line from scratch, we should tap into an existing resource. Let's extend the St. Louis Zoo train line throughout Forest Park and into the Delmar loop.

^ hey that's a great idea, we can then run a second line out to the museum of transportation and tie it in with their train.

migueltejada wrote:Remember - just because a choice is popular doesn't mean it's right.

Aren't the many more bus systems that train systems - meaning they're more popular? I know, not really the point, but fixed rail has the huge advantage of being semi-permanent. No one will build a condo building as being transit oriented because it's on a busline. Maybe they should, but from my experience bus lines change - whether from road construction, budget problems, whatever. Metro has it's own budget issues, but the lines aren't moving anywhere.