zink wrote:Yea, after hearing the details that it would cost 52 million to build, AND 4 MILLION a year in maintenance costs, there is no way I would ever go through with it. 4 million a year is crazy!
Seriously, this is a ridiculous amount of money for what will end up being a tourist toy.
Where is the money to operate this going to come from? The TDD tax reportedly will only generate $200-$400K a year. That's even assuming that it would go toward operating expenses and not toward retiring debt incurred by building this. Are they going to charge 4 bucks a trip, assuming their 1 million passengers/year projections aren't too optimistic?
The other thing that seems unclear is who will run this. It's been stated this isn't a Metro project, which leads me to infer that while this trolley will take you to/from a Metrolink station, you're going to have to buy another ticket. Who will use this to go to work/school when they have to pay twice?
Especially when just about all of the trolley line appears to be within a 10-15 minute walk to any one of three Metrolink stations, and is covered by bus routes that one can purchase a transfer from.
Yes, there is a service overlap with the proposed Delmar Trolley line that would make it not so useful for neighborhood residents. Still, this line could be the real jumping point for future in-street fixed rail transit. On your own blog, Alex, someone has cryptically commented that it was never Joe Edwards' intent to confine the trolley to the Loop alone.
Plus, I'm not sure what the potential for redevelopment along DeBaliviere is (i.e. the likelihood that the shopping center at Pershing/DeB could be retooled), but the Trolley would seem to really heighten those prospects. You might say that this notion is misguided, since the Metrolink stop didn't change this intersection either. But that was before Joe Edwards had a stock in the matter...
Matt Drops The H wrote:Plus, I'm not sure what the potential for redevelopment along DeBaliviere is (i.e. the likelihood that the shopping center at Pershing/DeB could be retooled), but the Trolley would seem to really heighten those prospects.
DeBaliviere is really looking shabby these days (the street, not me ) The old Able Hardware is closed and strewn with weeds, and the strip mall has definitely seen better days (namely, when the original buildings were still there!). I have to think the trolley will help development there.
Delmar from Rosedale on east is in bad shape too, although there are a few bright spots.
There are so many other places in greater need of a modern streetcar.
Instead, you could link South Grand, SLU and Grand Center with a Grand streetcar. Or the Loft District with a line between Convention Center and Grand Center. Or Soulard/Benton Park with a Broadway-Cherokee line to Busch Stadium. Or The Grove and Garden to CWE. Or downtown Maplewood to its poorly placed station. Or downtown Webster Groves and Old Orchard to Shrewsbury. Or Ferguson to UMSL.
The Loop is already served with three MetroLink stations. If you want to build a tourist trolley, build such vintage line within Forest Park. But the rest of the City needs modern streetcar! And many more areas are a much higher priority (farther walk from MetroLink) than the Loop.
Well, while the Urban STL forum slept the Loop Trolley Co. sent out their latest mailing, continuing to insist that their idea is similar to the Portland Streetcar. That's simply dishonest: http://www.stlurbanworkshop.com/2009/08 ... inues.html
I read your article in the Beacon. I think a lot of people prefer rail over buses for another reason you don't mention. Rail vehicles are just more comfortable. The do not have all the accelerations in all directions that buses and cars have. A rail vehicle has long sweeping curves or slow turns, no sudden starts or stops, and no vertical bumps out of nowhere. It is simply fewer jolts to the body in every dimension compared to a car or bus. And no steps.
I am intrigued by the idea of a bus that essentially rides like a railed vehicle. It would be limited to take turns slowly, would have its own lane possibly to allow gradual start-up and slow downs. It would have active suspension to smooth the road out like a rail vehicle. It could lower or have platforms to avoid steps for everyone. I could see this kind of bus competing with a rail vehicle in the comfort area (acceleration jolts).
I don't know how much such a vehicle would cost. Maybe more than just laying a rail.
I'm glad I'm not the only one out there who thinks buses are the far superior option in this day and age. The only problem is that the system needs to be streamlined and modernized. Having such a streamlined and modernized bus on delmar (with a dedicated lane, modern amenities, etc) would be a wonderful way initiate some change, not to mention provide what would appear to be a legitimate, 21st century mode of transportation. Sadly, not going to happen.
St. Louis is a terrific test case of the failure of non-place-based planning interventions. Public housing, as it did in many cities, neither reflecting a local architectural vernacular nor preserved any existing housing stock in its way. These areas fell "victim" to an assumption of progress, movement, and updating. What I mean by that is that "changing tastes" and "progress" were thrust on the area instead of developing naturally.
Transit planning in St. Louis is even more extremely centered on this mindset of progress and change. We all know that our extensive interstate system came at the cost of thousands of well-built, historic structures, including dozens of small businesses. We also know these highways made driving convenient and walking throughout the city less so. Highways even killed some areas--or sped along deaths.
Beyond literal highway building, major roads of St. Louis were converted to automobile-friendly expressways as well. These road "upgrades" were excellent for "transient" drivers--but spelled eventual death for businesses and property values along high-speed roads. Colonies of gas stations, car lots, and other autocentric properties became the only businesses that could enliven these unwelcoming streets. Most of this is still true today.
I label these interventions non-placed-based because they do not respond to the urban design/development of the pre-existing place but instead shoehorn a new form onto an existing fabric.
Streetcars are place-based since they have fixed rails. On wide streets, they calm traffic simply by taking up space. (On a side note, they're more attractive than buses in either modern or historic incarnations in this person's opinion. They can also be much cleaner depending on the upfront cost of construction.)
I think of the road as yet another piece of real estate. When building anything, the presumption is that it will not be torn down in, say, five years, to low ball it. It's an investment in the area, for better or for worse. It is precisely a bus's customizable nature that removes it from the road-real estate business. I don't know if that bus (tricked out or run of the mill alike) will be there next year, but I do know that in all likelihood that $50 million dollar trolley isn't going anywhere. Streetcars contribute to a psychological investment in a particular place. In St. Louis, a place where most of its neighborhoods were built with that very technology in mind, it just makes sense as a place-based strategy. It's a huge victory for non-automobile transit.
Dismissing the development potential of improved (and fixed) transit options is foolhardy in my opinion. Metrolink's original line and extension have very few pedestrian friendly stops and aren't well connected to the neighborhoods/roads which they serve. The Skinker stop on the Cross County extension is the best of the lot, dumping you out right into the mini-business district. The Loop stop is not horrible, either. Nearly all of the rest have fatal flaws (ugliness, parking garages, beneath unwelcoming bridges, etc.). Ironically, Metrolink's reuse of fixed rails was also not a place-based strategy. The original Metrolink line was designed, of course, to serve industry and not commuters. Therefore, it transports St. Louisans through the bleakest and grayest parts of town.
As someone who now lives in New Orleans, I can tell you that the St. Charles streetcar line is the most popular line in the transit system. It's operating in its third century, is the most frequent of any transit vehicle, is the most attractive, and has helped to stabilize one of New Orleans' most beautiful and storied avenues.
It's purely conjectural, but I doubt Lindell Boulevard would have any gaps in its urbanity if the city had never removed the streetcar line. Yet the line of planning is always about customization and planning for progress.
That's a lot of meandering points, so I'll try to close this post. I will concede that the proposed line (from the History Museum to U City Hall) serves little, if any, transit "need". However, I'll echo some of the points made earlier that I think in-street fixed rail (a place investment, not technological investment) will spread across St. Louis if the Loop Trolley's admittedly tourist-oriented approach hits it off well. Trust me that if I'm a white middle class resident who owns two cars, I'd choose to hop the trolley to Lafayette Square over some bells-and-whistles bus. And a middle-class/tourist buy-in is the key issue.
When building anything, the presumption is that it will not be torn down in, say, five years, to low ball it. It's an investment in the area, for better or for worse. It is precisely a bus's customizable nature that removes it from the road-real estate business. I don't know if that bus (tricked out or run of the mill alike) will be there next year, but I do know that in all likelihood that $50 million dollar trolley isn't going anywhere. Streetcars contribute to a psychological investment in a particular place. In St. Louis, a place where most of its neighborhoods were built with that very technology in mind, it just makes sense as a place-based strategy. It's a huge victory for non-automobile transit.
This is the best description of the benefits of fixed transit I've read. Thanks Matt. I'll be stealing this now.
I think a lot of people prefer rail over buses for another reason you don't mention. Rail vehicles are just more comfortable. The do not have all the accelerations in all directions that buses and cars have. A rail vehicle has long sweeping curves or slow turns, no sudden starts or stops, and no vertical bumps out of nowhere. It is simply fewer jolts to the body in every dimension compared to a car or bus. And no steps.
Gosh. I am amazed by all these generalizations.
I have the choice of two commutes. One is to take the Blue Line in Garland to downtown Dallas. The time is roughly 34 minutes. Its smooth all right but it changes speed, stops eight times before my stop loading the world. it's not a bad commute and the frequency is every 10 minutes which is good. (This costs $4.00 for a day pass effective September 14th.)
My preferred commute, however, is from the Ray Hubbard Park Ride lot off I-30 at Belt Line. High back express buses every 12 minutes that use the HOV lanes to downtown Dallas. Running time is perhaps 20 minutes on the highway and 25 minutes to by stop. This is by far more comfortable, faster that light rail in this instance. (This costs $5.00 for a day pass but its worth it)
Our local buses on local streets may be rougher and more stops and starts.
The Dallas system has light rail, Commuter rail, local buses, shuttle routes, Express buses, flex route vans, DART on Call paratransit.
We are adding over 45 miles of light rail in the next four years, but even with that multi billion dollar investment, it is the bus system that does the work of moving people in support support the rail.
There is way too much debate of rail versus bus everywhere. Every system ever built is a rail-bus network. One can't work effectively without the other.
By the way, who is paying for the cost of operating the Joe Edwards Trolley?
Busdad - I don't think that these are wild generalizations at all. Riding Metrolink is incredibly more comfortable than riding a bus, even BRT (such as in Cleveland) in my opinion. But of course you're right to point out that what's needed is a SYSTEM and not one or the other.
Re: paying for the Loop Trolley... who knows? I believe that the assumption is fares (MAYBE 20%) and the special taxing district would cover expenses.
Grover wrote:Busdad - I don't think that these are wild generalizations at all. Riding Metrolink is incredibly more comfortable than riding a bus, even BRT (such as in Cleveland) in my opinion. But of course you're right to point out that what's needed is a SYSTEM and not one or the other.
Re: paying for the Loop Trolley... who knows? I believe that the assumption is fares (MAYBE 20%) and the special taxing district would cover expenses.
I don't see how the trolley will be any less "jerky" than a bus, as it will still have to negotiate traffic and signaled intersections just as a bus would. I suppose that, at 8 mph, the trolley will not exactly throw you back in your seat though.
At the time the taxing district was enacted, it was expected to to only pull in $200-$400K, leaving a $3.6M-$3.8M funding gap that has to be picked up somehow. ( http://southsidejournal.stltoday.com/ar ... 564681.txt ) Where that's going to come from is a pretty big unanswered question.
I think Ben1040 is correct in noting that the TDD will cover only a portion of the operating expenses and be limited at that. Which gets back to Metro, the region, as whole funding the operation.
This gets to a bigger question on if the $40 to 50 million to build the loop trolley could be to better use. Say, fleet improvements for an expanded express bus service. It would certainly be much more cost effective and flexible for downtown commuters then any fixed rail system that the region can't afford. Maybe a downtown circular where a TDD might generate enough revenue to fund operations without paying Paul by robbing Peter (think ticket sales on 3.2 million sport fans tending Busch stadium). Downtown circular would serve a much larger tourist base as well as serve a loft district with room to grow.
Interesting points in Matt's post. I think the biggest problem with comparisons to successful trolleys in other cities is that most of those trolleys serve a genuine transportation need, i.e. they actually link workers to their places of employment or consumers to stores. I was only 1/2 joking in suggesting that the new trolley will only go from Caps 'N Threadz to "Donuts." Obviously it's possible that new development will follow the introduction of the line, but $50 mill is a staggering amount of money to wager on a guess.
One of the biggest revelations for me in living with my family for 15 months in Berlin concerned the importance of the bus system there. Tourists always come back from Germany raving about the subways and commuter trains (S-Bahn), but the fact is that it's the seamless bus system which knits the whole system together and makes it truly viable. The lesson: You need coverage. Not just a pleasant attractive system, but a pleasant attractive system that one can rely on to get places you really want to go.
The trolley just isn't going to deliver much in the way of coverage and it's not going to be especially efficient. A bus, by contrast, could tie the Loop to two existing, genuinely popular destinations: the zoo and the SLAM. That might make the bus attractive to these hypothetical tourists we're all dreaming about.
And speaking of bad Metrolink stations: My wife was just commenting on the truly awful building that BJC has put up in front of the entrance/exit to the CWE station. I haven't seen it, but it's apparently the worst case scenario for urban planning.
For sake of argument, the positive for the Loop Trolley is that it cements the Loop as a destination - increases the chances of development east of Skinker and along DeBaliviere and may increase the demand for streetcars elsewhere in the city.
(FYI - the new WU building is just fine, it's relatively tall, big and was built to accommodate future vertical expansion. In terms of urban planning I guess the only thing that could be better is that the building be even taller. The problem is the treatment of the first floor. What could be ground-level retail is a brick wall. However, this wall is a simple curtain and I've been told that retail could be added to the first floor later.)
• The nonprofit Loop Trolley Co., led by developer and business owner Joe Edwards, was recommended for $5 million in New Markets Tax Credits to help fund the $50 million plan to build a trolley system that links the Delmar MetroLink Station to sites within the city of St. Louis and University City. Two renovated trolleys that will be used for the project are on display in front of the Missouri History Museum and on Delmar in the Loop.
Groups ask federal agency to help Loop Trolley plan
By Tim Bryant
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Organizations that support construction of a streetcar line from the University City end of the Delmar Loop to Forest Park have peppered the Federal Transit Administration with nearly a dozen letters urging the agency to award the project a grant.
Interesting comments on STL Today. I'll summarize:
Many think it's a waste of money.
It may make the Loop less friendly to navigate by car.
The Page Ave extension was a bigger waste of money.
It's Fed money so why not?
Streetcars are awesome.
) The old Able Hardware is closed and strewn with weeds, and the strip mall has definitely seen better days (namely, when the original buildings were still there!). I have to think the trolley will help development there.
