^I disagree. Those hoosiers in St. Chuck had their chance and they voted it down. The people have spoken, I wouldn't waste any time trying to get those small-minded exurbanites to change their minds. Instead, there should be effort made to expand MetroLink to areas in which the highest concentrations of the population are dependent upon public transit-- St. Louis CITY. We need a North Side-South Side alignment BAD!!! Build up downtown as the mega transfer center for the whole system. I want MetroLink to be more than just an easy way to avoid parking downtown-- I want it to be a useful, practical means of getting to and from all points of interest in the city. The suburbs can fight over the lines after the city is well-served.
- 25
I definitely agree that the North and South alignments should be built ASAP. I am thinking of the St. Charles Project as more in the far term, after the north-south extensions, and the extensions into Madison County.
^
That vote was quite a while ago. I'm sure it would get much better support today than it did then. I'd vote for Metrolink to come to St. Charles County in a heartbeat..... in addition to, but not at the expense of expansion through the city.
That vote was quite a while ago. I'm sure it would get much better support today than it did then. I'd vote for Metrolink to come to St. Charles County in a heartbeat..... in addition to, but not at the expense of expansion through the city.
- 1,649
JivecitySTL wrote:Those hoosiers in St. Chuck had their chance and they voted it down. The people have spoken, I wouldn't waste any time trying to get those small-minded exurbanites to change their minds.
Please keep your fellow members in mind when posting and refrain from derogatory comments based on the location of someones residence. There is no reason for us to insult large groups of people on this forum. Also, try and keep your conversations as inclusive as possible, remembering that we are trying to welcome new members to the city through our conversations and discussions. Any further messages like this will be deleted without comment.
I was ONCE (don't flame me yet) against Metrolink. I recall many of the old arguements...
1) The lines don't come close enough to me to be useful.
2) The lines should be entirely self supporting therefore the ticket cost should be increased instead of raising taxes.
3) Metro/BiState wasted the money we already gave it.
My opinion didn't change until I worked downtown for a number of years and actually rode it. And later when I as a tourist in other cities found subways or metro lines useful and saved me the trouble of having to rent a car.
I wonder how many people have had a similiar change in heart over time.
1) The lines don't come close enough to me to be useful.
2) The lines should be entirely self supporting therefore the ticket cost should be increased instead of raising taxes.
3) Metro/BiState wasted the money we already gave it.
My opinion didn't change until I worked downtown for a number of years and actually rode it. And later when I as a tourist in other cities found subways or metro lines useful and saved me the trouble of having to rent a car.
I wonder how many people have had a similiar change in heart over time.
- 1,054
It does take exposure and experiencing outside one's realm like in other major cities in order to change our perceptions.
Thanks James for that important comment.
I think it is agreed that we love Metrolink on this forum and hope that our cities will be well connected by it one day. That is a vision. Again I shall repeat my promotion of what Denver did where exurbanites and urbanites (Republican just as much as Democrats: bipartisan) alike voted in favor of a $4.5 billion dollar expansion of mass transit throughout the region. We should do likewise.
Thanks James for that important comment.
I think it is agreed that we love Metrolink on this forum and hope that our cities will be well connected by it one day. That is a vision. Again I shall repeat my promotion of what Denver did where exurbanites and urbanites (Republican just as much as Democrats: bipartisan) alike voted in favor of a $4.5 billion dollar expansion of mass transit throughout the region. We should do likewise.
- 282
I don't think we should expand MetroLink, at least not within the City. I also want to cannibalize the bus system as much as possible.
Light rail is great for moving high numbers of people across long distances like the airport to downtown. However, light rail is not the best solution for moving people shorter distances within an urbanized area. The modern streetcar is the best solution.
Tucson Az has done an interesting study and they are concluding that modern streetcars are the best solution for their mass transit needs.
http://www.tucsontransitstudy.com
One of the best documents is this simple one page PDF that compares modern streetcars to light rail:
http://www.tucsontransitstudy.com/pdf/m ... ltrail.pdf
With modern streetcars you get more stops (like you would with a bus) so more people are served by the line. They estimate a modern streetcar line at $25 million per mile with a light rail like coming in around $65 million per mile.
I'd love to see us replace existing bus routes with modern streetcar lines. I think they'd pay for themselves in short order for two reasons, they'd promote new investment and they would be cheaper to operate than the bus line they replaced. I'd start with a line coming out of the transit hub on 14th, and go out MLK to meet up with the MetroLink station on St. Charles Rock Road.
Light rail is great for moving high numbers of people across long distances like the airport to downtown. However, light rail is not the best solution for moving people shorter distances within an urbanized area. The modern streetcar is the best solution.
Tucson Az has done an interesting study and they are concluding that modern streetcars are the best solution for their mass transit needs.
http://www.tucsontransitstudy.com
One of the best documents is this simple one page PDF that compares modern streetcars to light rail:
http://www.tucsontransitstudy.com/pdf/m ... ltrail.pdf
With modern streetcars you get more stops (like you would with a bus) so more people are served by the line. They estimate a modern streetcar line at $25 million per mile with a light rail like coming in around $65 million per mile.
I'd love to see us replace existing bus routes with modern streetcar lines. I think they'd pay for themselves in short order for two reasons, they'd promote new investment and they would be cheaper to operate than the bus line they replaced. I'd start with a line coming out of the transit hub on 14th, and go out MLK to meet up with the MetroLink station on St. Charles Rock Road.
^ if they were cheaper to operate than buses, I don't think it would be by much...is there a comparison of the two in the studies (I looked but didn't see it)? When you add the initial outlay of capital to install the lines, plus disruption of traffic and lost business as the lines were being installed, I'm not sure it would make economic sense to replace a large portion of the bus system with streetcars - as much as I might like that.
That being said, I think the City could benefit greatly from picking maybe the two or three most heavily used bus lines and converting them to streetcars. Not only would they promote investment like you say, but they already have a large built in base of regular riders.
That being said, I think the City could benefit greatly from picking maybe the two or three most heavily used bus lines and converting them to streetcars. Not only would they promote investment like you say, but they already have a large built in base of regular riders.
- 1,026
Dear Urban Review St. Louis
we are soulmates. I have been screaming street cars from the rooftops for years. 5 or 6 well thought out street car lines connected to metrolink would work .... we could have a real, functioing mass transport system again.
we are soulmates. I have been screaming street cars from the rooftops for years. 5 or 6 well thought out street car lines connected to metrolink would work .... we could have a real, functioing mass transport system again.
- 282
Yes, the capital expenditure on a modern streetcar line is more costly than a bus line. No question. But the gain is also higher. The increased ridership coupled with the new investment is how you must evaluate the two.
Another site regarding Tucson's proposed streetcar system is
http://www.savetucson.org
They have an interesting PowerPoint presentation regarding the plan. They indicate that Portland's line was built at a rate of 3 blocks in 3 weeks.
Another site regarding Tucson's proposed streetcar system is
http://www.savetucson.org
They have an interesting PowerPoint presentation regarding the plan. They indicate that Portland's line was built at a rate of 3 blocks in 3 weeks.
Urban Review St. Louis wrote:
They indicate that Portland's line was built at a rate of 3 blocks in 3 weeks.
that is impressive...
I think it's only a matter of time before the benefits of a few well placed lines outweigh the resistance.
- 282
Yet East-West Gateway is still looking at dedicated light rail as the option to run through the streets of St. Louis. Metro doesn't like mixed traffic systems like streetcars.
So they want a light rail system down the middle of Natural Bridge with no crossings except at major intersections where you'll have railroad crossing gates. The modern streetcar is so much more approachable and a better solution for stimulating development along the route.
Plus it is so much more cheaper than light rail and much faster to build.
Portland built their streetcar system and then hired the local transit agency to operate it for them. We may need to do the same thing in St. Louis.
So they want a light rail system down the middle of Natural Bridge with no crossings except at major intersections where you'll have railroad crossing gates. The modern streetcar is so much more approachable and a better solution for stimulating development along the route.
Plus it is so much more cheaper than light rail and much faster to build.
Portland built their streetcar system and then hired the local transit agency to operate it for them. We may need to do the same thing in St. Louis.
This study looked at Portland's operating expenses of their bus and light rail lines. They found the bus lines were 21.7% higher per revenue seat-hour. That is, the cost per seat per hour was higher with their bus line.
http://www.publictransit.us/ptlibrary/s ... eattle.pdf
http://www.publictransit.us/ptlibrary/s ... eattle.pdf
I just made a post about a streetcar line along the gateway mall in our online charette...so I'm completely in favor of them.
How can we get this pushed to the forefront of St. Louis transit politics?
How can we get this pushed to the forefront of St. Louis transit politics?
- 282
trent wrote:I just made a post about a streetcar line along the gateway mall in our online charette...so I'm completely in favor of them.
How can we get this pushed to the forefront of St. Louis transit politics?
Basically I think we have to convince everyone of the benefit of modern streetcars. I think several key players, such as Rollin Stanley, are already keen on streetcars. We've got to get East-West Gateway moved in this direction as well as Metro/Bi-State. Contacting both and indicating you'll support funding for modern streetcars but not light rail within the city might get them thinking they would face an uphill battle on light rail.
- 1,610
Light rail is a flexible technology, able to operate at varying speeds and in varying types of right-of-way. In central business districts or other dense mixed use corridors, trains can run slower and in reserved lanes of limited mixed traffic (possibly restricted to only turning vehicles, emergency vehicles, buses, etc.), yet still run at moderate speeds in semi-exclusive rights-of-way, like a dedicated median with shared intersections (special signals, not crossing gates), and at high speeds, where fully exclusive or grade-separated.
But vintage streetcars or heritage trolleys are not as flexible, having slower maximum speeds and challenging access for persons living with disabilities.
The trains planned for a north-south MetroLink line could very well use different vehicles than current MetroLink lines. For example, the cars could be low-floor platform, allowing stations to better incorporate into City streets. However, vintage trolleys are highly unlikely. And like the Loop Trolley, Metro would refuse to operate any technology less cost-effective than buses.
But vintage streetcars or heritage trolleys are not as flexible, having slower maximum speeds and challenging access for persons living with disabilities.
The trains planned for a north-south MetroLink line could very well use different vehicles than current MetroLink lines. For example, the cars could be low-floor platform, allowing stations to better incorporate into City streets. However, vintage trolleys are highly unlikely. And like the Loop Trolley, Metro would refuse to operate any technology less cost-effective than buses.
- 282
southslider wrote:Light rail is a flexible technology, able to operate at varying speeds and in varying types of right-of-way. In central business districts or other dense mixed use corridors, trains can run slower and in reserved lanes of limited mixed traffic (possibly restricted to only turning vehicles, emergency vehicles, buses, etc.), yet still run at moderate speeds in semi-exclusive rights-of-way, like a dedicated median with shared intersections (special signals, not crossing gates), and at high speeds, where fully exclusive or grade-separated.
But vintage streetcars or heritage trolleys are not as flexible, having slower maximum speeds and challenging access for persons living with disabilities.
The trains planned for a north-south MetroLink line could very well use different vehicles than current MetroLink lines. For example, the cars could be low-floor platform, allowing stations to better incorporate into City streets. However, vintage trolleys are highly unlikely. And like the Loop Trolley, Metro would refuse to operate any technology less cost-effective than buses.
I never once mentioned vintage or heritage trolley cars. I think they are cute but as you indicate they are quite limited. I'm advocating modern streetcars which would be a low-floor design. Please don't try to confuse the issue by bringing vintage vehicles into the discussion. In the context of a short run like the loop I guess it is ok. I'd prefer the loop be part of a bigger network of modern streetcars.
I can't imagine the existing MetroLink stock being used in a street situation --- you'd need a low-floor design instead unless you wanted to build massive ramps and platforms everywhere.
The main issue for me is the dedicated right of way in the middle of a street with infrequent stops. I'd much prefer having the line meet me at the curb and stop more often.
The decidated right of way scheme with stops only every half miile or so will cost far more to build, take longer to construct, and will not have as positive impact on the area in which it runs through.
- 1,610
A stop at St. Louis Avenue and North Florissant will clearly have positive impact on Old North St. Louis' development, whether in a median or not.
I think what people are failing to see in this discussion is the reality of compromises. But in your argument for building something faster and cheaper, I wish to appeal to that concern.
Subway/elevated, heavy-rail, grade-separated lines would be the fastest, attract the most riders, but also be extremely expensive to build. Streetcars (even if modern vehicles) would be cheapest in rail transit to build, but would operate at slow speeds, indeed no faster than current buses, and attract fewer riders. Hence, light rail is the compromise. And with low-floor cars, a flexible technology that will act like rapid transit northwest of Union/Natural Bridge and southwest of Grand/Chouteau, yet also operate similar to a streetcar within Downtown.
It's the semi-exclusive segments (Natural Bridge, North Florissant, Chouteau), where in a dedicated in-street median, that appear to draw criticism. However, the problem again is compromise. The lines need to both quickly provide others traveling further distances quicker access into Downtown, yet also provide neighborhood-scaled access for our urban neighborhoods. The hybrid solution is then semi-exclusive medians. Unlike a streetcar, medians allow the trains to travel free of traffic. However, unlike a subway or elevated line, medians are of course a much more cost effective means of adding speed.
I think what people are failing to see in this discussion is the reality of compromises. But in your argument for building something faster and cheaper, I wish to appeal to that concern.
Subway/elevated, heavy-rail, grade-separated lines would be the fastest, attract the most riders, but also be extremely expensive to build. Streetcars (even if modern vehicles) would be cheapest in rail transit to build, but would operate at slow speeds, indeed no faster than current buses, and attract fewer riders. Hence, light rail is the compromise. And with low-floor cars, a flexible technology that will act like rapid transit northwest of Union/Natural Bridge and southwest of Grand/Chouteau, yet also operate similar to a streetcar within Downtown.
It's the semi-exclusive segments (Natural Bridge, North Florissant, Chouteau), where in a dedicated in-street median, that appear to draw criticism. However, the problem again is compromise. The lines need to both quickly provide others traveling further distances quicker access into Downtown, yet also provide neighborhood-scaled access for our urban neighborhoods. The hybrid solution is then semi-exclusive medians. Unlike a streetcar, medians allow the trains to travel free of traffic. However, unlike a subway or elevated line, medians are of course a much more cost effective means of adding speed.
- 282
southslider wrote:A stop at St. Louis Avenue and North Florissant will clearly have positive impact on Old North St. Louis' development, whether in a median or not.
I think what people are failing to see in this discussion is the reality of compromises. But in your argument for building something faster and cheaper, I wish to appeal to that concern.
Subway/elevated, heavy-rail, grade-separated lines would be the fastest, attract the most riders, but also be extremely expensive to build. Streetcars (even if modern vehicles) would be cheapest in rail transit to build, but would operate at slow speeds, indeed no faster than current buses, and attract fewer riders. Hence, light rail is the compromise. And with low-floor cars, a flexible technology that will act like rapid transit northwest of Union/Natural Bridge and southwest of Grand/Chouteau, yet also operate similar to a streetcar within Downtown.
It's the semi-exclusive segments (Natural Bridge, North Florissant, Chouteau), where in a dedicated in-street median, that appear to draw criticism. However, the problem again is compromise. The lines need to both quickly provide others traveling further distances quicker access into Downtown, yet also provide neighborhood-scaled access for our urban neighborhoods. The hybrid solution is then semi-exclusive medians. Unlike a streetcar, medians allow the trains to travel free of traffic. However, unlike a subway or elevated line, medians are of course a much more cost effective means of adding speed.
Sorry but I think your logic is a bit off. You say that heavy rail would attract the most riders. Which riders? From St. Charles and other hinterlands yes.
My point was that within the city of St. Louis we need a transportation system that serves our internal needs. That is best met with modern streetcars. They offer the convenience of frequent bus stops yet with GPS and traffic signalization they can move along quickly.
I don't know if we can ultimately prove either point but perhaps a computer model exists. Option one is the currently planned semi-exclusive right of way down Natural Bridge. Option two being modern streetcars down both sides of Natural Bridge. Option One benefits those further down the line (North County) by having less stops in the city. Option Two benefits those in the areas adjacent to the line by being more convenient.
Which one will have more riders from the City of St. Louis? Which will spur more TOD along the route. The answer, I believe, is #2 --- streetcars.
- 1,610
Wrong, Natural Bridge and Chouteau attract more City riders. If wanting to just attract non-City riders, the lines would simply follow I-70 and I-55. But the lines go through our neighborhoods to better serve our neighborhoods.
If one wanted to simply get people quickly out of Downtown, the Old North St. Louis station could be at I-70 and St. Louis Avenue, instead of North Florissant and St. Louis Avenue. But running trains in medians along North Florissant is a win-win for City residents and non-City commuters, with our City seeing new development along this long-neglected urban radial arterial, yet commuters still traveling quickly. And thus, though compromises are being made, City benefits remain the highest concern.
If one wanted to simply get people quickly out of Downtown, the Old North St. Louis station could be at I-70 and St. Louis Avenue, instead of North Florissant and St. Louis Avenue. But running trains in medians along North Florissant is a win-win for City residents and non-City commuters, with our City seeing new development along this long-neglected urban radial arterial, yet commuters still traveling quickly. And thus, though compromises are being made, City benefits remain the highest concern.
I support light rail for Metro transportation.
I support streetcar for city transportation.
What I mean is that we can have both, and should look to have both. I imagine MetroLink as the system that get's you from spot to spot, like downtown to the West End, or Belleville to SLU, etc. Whereas streetcars get you from spot to spot within those spots. A streetcar would be appropriate for usage along streets like Grand, Market, Broadway. If you lived in Clayton, you could hop the Link to Grand, take the Grand Streetcar to South Grand to have dinner at Mekong, get back on it to go to Powell Symphony Hall, then hop it back to get to MetroLink to go home.
I think you create a transportation system that supports the area. Dedicated lines running you quickly from area to area, shared lines running you to locations within that area.
I support streetcar for city transportation.
What I mean is that we can have both, and should look to have both. I imagine MetroLink as the system that get's you from spot to spot, like downtown to the West End, or Belleville to SLU, etc. Whereas streetcars get you from spot to spot within those spots. A streetcar would be appropriate for usage along streets like Grand, Market, Broadway. If you lived in Clayton, you could hop the Link to Grand, take the Grand Streetcar to South Grand to have dinner at Mekong, get back on it to go to Powell Symphony Hall, then hop it back to get to MetroLink to go home.
I think you create a transportation system that supports the area. Dedicated lines running you quickly from area to area, shared lines running you to locations within that area.
trent wrote:I support light rail for Metro transportation.
I support streetcar for city transportation.
I agree both can be incorportated into our transportation system, but I don't think streetcars will ever replace the bus system on a large scale (which I think is what some others are arguing for); a few of the streets you mention might be appropriate, not only from the perspective of an existing rider base, but from the economic development perspective. I think it was sslider who posted an interesting article on this earlier, possible in a different thread. It basically argued for streetcars to be considered economic development tools first, and utilitarian transportation second.
either way, they're super-neat!
I agree they are super neat. 
I think that these would be economic development tools, and I don't want to replace the bus system. But I would certainly spend more time in Grand Centre if I could hop a streetcar and ride from South Grand in, as opposed to hopping a bus. Stategic placement would be prime for the city, and you wouldn't need to replace bus lines, since busses can make even more frequent stops than streetcars.
I think that these would be economic development tools, and I don't want to replace the bus system. But I would certainly spend more time in Grand Centre if I could hop a streetcar and ride from South Grand in, as opposed to hopping a bus. Stategic placement would be prime for the city, and you wouldn't need to replace bus lines, since busses can make even more frequent stops than streetcars.
trent wrote: But I would certainly spend more time in Grand Centre if I could hop a streetcar and ride from South Grand in, as opposed to hopping a bus.
yes, this is the line that gets metioned the most often...it makes too much sense to ignore. It's a perfect candidate because it's already the busiest busline, and would bring development to an area, Grand Center, that the city is trying to promote. Like you say, people might actually take metrolink to grand center if they didn't have to take a bus after getting off the train.
- 1,610
Grand is the system's most successful bus line, running at 7-minute peak and 12-minute off-peak headways. The next most successful line is Kingshighway, running at 10-minute peak and 15-minute off-peak headways. Both the Grand and Kingshighway are cross-city routes connecting to MetroLink outside of Downtown.
However, MetroLink trains will run at 10-minute peak and 15-minute off-peak headways on both the Red and Green lines, though where overlapping between Forest Park and Emerson Park, then at 5-minute and 7.5-minute headways.
But if the Grand buses already operate at better headways than MetroLink, switching to trolley service would have to attract substantial new riders to cover the added cost of providing a similar service already provided at below $1 per passenger subsidy, the only line having such low subsidy per rider.
However, MetroLink trains will run at 10-minute peak and 15-minute off-peak headways on both the Red and Green lines, though where overlapping between Forest Park and Emerson Park, then at 5-minute and 7.5-minute headways.
But if the Grand buses already operate at better headways than MetroLink, switching to trolley service would have to attract substantial new riders to cover the added cost of providing a similar service already provided at below $1 per passenger subsidy, the only line having such low subsidy per rider.