^ I agree with this sslider, if you look at it purely in ridership terms it probably doesn't make sense. If the argument for it is to be successful, it will have to include the economic development perspective, which is tough to quantitate.
- 282
Couple of points of clarification. I'd love to see us eliminate all buses but we all know that ain't going to happen. But replacing a good number of them with modern streetcars (not vintage trolleys) would be a good start.
Keep in mind that many of our existing bus lines were streetcar lines. The #40 Broadway bus line was the #40 Broadway streetcar line, for example.
Streetcars were used by developers to lure people to developing areas. We owe much of St. Louis' rise in population in the early 20th century to the streetcar which allowed people the mobility they desired. Sadly the 2nd half of the century saw increased mobility in our sprawling suburbs.
Looking strictly at current ridership it would be very hard to justify a streetcar line in the city. The ridership simply is not there, with some exceptions such as #70 Grand. But the ridership wasn't there a hundred years ago. That is part of the whole point, to invest in transit in places where you are seeking increased density and therefore ridership.
I'm looking for an even swap, replacing an existing bus line for a streetcar line. No point running a bus down the same route as a new streetcar. But #70 Grand is already attracting ridership and South Grand is already attracting development. A streetcar from MetroLink south would have less impact than a streetcar from MetroLink north to say the watertower.
Economic development tools are used all the time to try to increase investment. Modern streetcars are just such a tool and would bring many returns.
Keep in mind that many of our existing bus lines were streetcar lines. The #40 Broadway bus line was the #40 Broadway streetcar line, for example.
Streetcars were used by developers to lure people to developing areas. We owe much of St. Louis' rise in population in the early 20th century to the streetcar which allowed people the mobility they desired. Sadly the 2nd half of the century saw increased mobility in our sprawling suburbs.
Looking strictly at current ridership it would be very hard to justify a streetcar line in the city. The ridership simply is not there, with some exceptions such as #70 Grand. But the ridership wasn't there a hundred years ago. That is part of the whole point, to invest in transit in places where you are seeking increased density and therefore ridership.
I'm looking for an even swap, replacing an existing bus line for a streetcar line. No point running a bus down the same route as a new streetcar. But #70 Grand is already attracting ridership and South Grand is already attracting development. A streetcar from MetroLink south would have less impact than a streetcar from MetroLink north to say the watertower.
Economic development tools are used all the time to try to increase investment. Modern streetcars are just such a tool and would bring many returns.
Streetcars are more expensive, slower, and less practical than busses, as cool as they are. We need to pick and choose. Some spots streetcars are a good idea, others are not.
- 282
stlmike wrote:Streetcars are more expensive, slower, and less practical than busses, as cool as they are. We need to pick and choose. Some spots streetcars are a good idea, others are not.
Actually, modern streetcars (new vehicles) will be as fast or faster than a city bus. They are also more practicle in having a low-floor center area so that those in wheelchairs can just wheel right in rather than haivng to do through the special trouble as required with a city bus. Also, modern streetcars have more carrying capacity than our typical city buses.
Modern streetcars have a progressive and high-tech look about them, much like our MetroLink vehicles. They are just not so long. Where installed in the US (Portland) they have attracted additional riders not found on the bus line.
- 1,610
Design standards adopted by Metro prohibit mixed traffic except in Downtown, plus desire a minimum average speed of 35mph outside of Downtown. Hence, Metro does not seek to build or operate streetcars.
And I think Grand buses are successful because of short headways. It's the one line, for which you don't need to carry a schedule. While a modern streetcar would have higher per vehicle capacity, to remain cost-effective, the streetcar would likely run less frequently than the current buses do now. So then, I think it's a little elitist to say you'd use something just because it's on rails, when the actual service (frequency) would decrease. Ideally, we need more buses to be like Grand, not replace them all with streetcars.
And I think Grand buses are successful because of short headways. It's the one line, for which you don't need to carry a schedule. While a modern streetcar would have higher per vehicle capacity, to remain cost-effective, the streetcar would likely run less frequently than the current buses do now. So then, I think it's a little elitist to say you'd use something just because it's on rails, when the actual service (frequency) would decrease. Ideally, we need more buses to be like Grand, not replace them all with streetcars.
There are two primary ways to operate a streetcar within a roadway:
1) operate in an exclusive lane
2) operate in a non-exclusive lane (duh!)
In both of the above cases, streetcars can be designed to preempt traffic signals so that they get all greens guarenteed (minneapolis does this with their light rail). This and the exclusive lane operation can allow streetcars to go faster than traffic. Notice, however, that the above design options are not exclusive to streetcars and could be applied to a bus route. Thus, streetcars and buses operate at the same speed.
So the reasons to build a streetcar line?
1) Streetcars have a higher capacity than buses
2) Streetcars are more attractive than buses
There are many, many people who would ride a streetcar but would not ride a bus. Thus, streetcars usually attract more riders than the equivalent bus route. Elitist, perhaps, but that is the opinion of the transit riding public. But with more riders, it may be possible to maintain existing headways.
There's a place for Metrolink, streetcars, and buses, and a place for airplanes, intercity rail, commuter rail, and cars. One just needs to recognize when each one is appropriate. In my opinion, Grand would make a great streetcar line. I'm undecided whether Metro North should be a streetcar or Metrolink, leaning on the latter.
1) operate in an exclusive lane
2) operate in a non-exclusive lane (duh!)
In both of the above cases, streetcars can be designed to preempt traffic signals so that they get all greens guarenteed (minneapolis does this with their light rail). This and the exclusive lane operation can allow streetcars to go faster than traffic. Notice, however, that the above design options are not exclusive to streetcars and could be applied to a bus route. Thus, streetcars and buses operate at the same speed.
So the reasons to build a streetcar line?
1) Streetcars have a higher capacity than buses
2) Streetcars are more attractive than buses
There are many, many people who would ride a streetcar but would not ride a bus. Thus, streetcars usually attract more riders than the equivalent bus route. Elitist, perhaps, but that is the opinion of the transit riding public. But with more riders, it may be possible to maintain existing headways.
There's a place for Metrolink, streetcars, and buses, and a place for airplanes, intercity rail, commuter rail, and cars. One just needs to recognize when each one is appropriate. In my opinion, Grand would make a great streetcar line. I'm undecided whether Metro North should be a streetcar or Metrolink, leaning on the latter.
I'd love to see Metro try to draw in the "too good for the bus" crowd on critical lines such as Grand by creating line-specific "branding". If the busses that took Fox and Powell patrons from the Metro station to Grand Center were "special" (all CNG, painted differently, different upholstery) maybe it'd be okay to ride them, even if some of the unwashed masses also used them.
Or perhaps Grand Center could have it's "own" passes that are good for a round trip involving Metro and the Grand line. These could then be sold and delivered as add-ons to event tickets. The perception that the Symphony was endorsing the train and bus might be worth a lot of ridership.
Or perhaps Grand Center could have it's "own" passes that are good for a round trip involving Metro and the Grand line. These could then be sold and delivered as add-ons to event tickets. The perception that the Symphony was endorsing the train and bus might be worth a lot of ridership.
- 282
southslider wrote:Design standards adopted by Metro prohibit mixed traffic except in Downtown, plus desire a minimum average speed of 35mph outside of Downtown. Hence, Metro does not seek to build or operate streetcars.
Now we are getting to the issue. Metro adopted a policy at some point against mixed traffic. Well, there you go. Case closed. After all, they have a policy.
And I wonder when this policy was inacted? Perhaps back in the 1970s or 80s when work first began on what would become MetroLink?
Metro's design standards also likely require the most costly and over engineered solutions to transportation needs. We, as a tax paying society, are paying for Metro and if the best solution happens to be mixed traffic then they can change their policy to meet the times.
southslider wrote:And I think Grand buses are successful because of short headways. It's the one line, for which you don't need to carry a schedule. While a modern streetcar would have higher per vehicle capacity, to remain cost-effective, the streetcar would likely run less frequently than the current buses do now. So then, I think it's a little elitist to say you'd use something just because it's on rails, when the actual service (frequency) would decrease. Ideally, we need more buses to be like Grand, not replace them all with streetcars.
Yes, short headways make a huge difference in ridership. No question. But I find it funny that you automatically assume that replacing a bus line with a higher-capacity modern streetcar means longer headways. Why not assume, or at least recognize, the possibility the mere precense of the streetcar might attract more riders and at the very least be as equally cost-effective in a per passenger per mile analysis?
Here is a list of the bus routes I'd either fully or partially replace with modern streetcars (not slow, small, non-ada vintage trolleys):
These are in numerical order, not order of importance:
#4: Connect downtown to UMSL via W. Florrissant/Natural Bridge
#10: Connect downtown to terminal at Gravois & Hampton, via Gravois
#13: Connect CWE to Cemetaries via Union
#32: Connect 14th St Civic Plaza to St. Charles MetroLink via MLK
#70: Connect north Water Tower to Carondelet park via Grand
#97: Connect downtown to loop via Washington/Delmar.
I'd like others such as the #40 Broadway but I'm not sure they'd be able to have as much development along the route. My thinking is where do we need to move people efficiently and where can we stimulate higher density development along the routes.
I would then use MetroLink light rail to connect UMSL (north or south) to North County (Florrisant Community College). This would get north county folks into the system (they are most supportive). I would also use light rail to connect the existing Wellston MetroLink stop to head west to the Westport Area.
For South County I'm not so sure. Many older commercial streets are very suburban but could be rebuilt in a new urbanist vein if they had a streetcar line.
These are in numerical order, not order of importance:
#4: Connect downtown to UMSL via W. Florrissant/Natural Bridge
#10: Connect downtown to terminal at Gravois & Hampton, via Gravois
#13: Connect CWE to Cemetaries via Union
#32: Connect 14th St Civic Plaza to St. Charles MetroLink via MLK
#70: Connect north Water Tower to Carondelet park via Grand
#97: Connect downtown to loop via Washington/Delmar.
I'd like others such as the #40 Broadway but I'm not sure they'd be able to have as much development along the route. My thinking is where do we need to move people efficiently and where can we stimulate higher density development along the routes.
I would then use MetroLink light rail to connect UMSL (north or south) to North County (Florrisant Community College). This would get north county folks into the system (they are most supportive). I would also use light rail to connect the existing Wellston MetroLink stop to head west to the Westport Area.
For South County I'm not so sure. Many older commercial streets are very suburban but could be rebuilt in a new urbanist vein if they had a streetcar line.
- 1,026
I think we're all overlooking one of the primary benefit of a streetcar line (or any fixed rail line) - its PERMANENT and thus attracts development. Yes - a bus can transport people almost as well as a street car - but a bus route can change at the drop of a hat. Why would anyone be lured into building in an area because it happens to be near a bus route that could change tomorrow? A rail line is different - for obvious reasons. Thus rail lines increase denisty - and thats what "urban" is all about
- 282
markofucity wrote:I think we're all overlooking one of the primary benefit of a streetcar line (or any fixed rail line) - its PERMANENT and thus attracts development. Yes - a bus can transport people almost as well as a street car - but a bus route can change at the drop of a hat. Why would anyone be lured into building in an area because it happens to be near a bus route that could change tomorrow? A rail line is different - for obvious reasons. Thus rail lines increase denisty - and thats what "urban" is all about
Yes, thank you for making this important point! Even the BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) lines that utilize GPS to control traffic signals do not generate the same sense of assurance to developers and buyers that a fixed rail solution provides.
With so many informative posts lately... IMHO
Streetcars and lightrail are both more inviting to Tourists/Conventioniers than bus routes. The advantange of a bus line to a resident is it's very disadvantage to tourists. Bus lines offer too many options/lines and can be intimidating to many tourists.
Tourists often know "what" they want to see but not "where" it is. Streetcars or lightrail (at least often) tend to "connects the dots" between major destinations rather connect everything as buses do.
Streetcars and lightrail are both more inviting to Tourists/Conventioniers than bus routes. The advantange of a bus line to a resident is it's very disadvantage to tourists. Bus lines offer too many options/lines and can be intimidating to many tourists.
Tourists often know "what" they want to see but not "where" it is. Streetcars or lightrail (at least often) tend to "connects the dots" between major destinations rather connect everything as buses do.
I think we're all overlooking one of the primary benefit of a streetcar line (or any fixed rail line) - its PERMANENT and thus attracts development.
Based on comments like this one, I'm curious: has anyone quantified the development attracted by the original MetroLink line?
- 1,026
yes. citizens for modern transport keep those statistics
don't know how reliable they are....
don't know how reliable they are....
Thanks for the reminder about CMT, Mark. They have a lot of useful information on their site, but they're cagey about how much development has been spurred specifically by MetroLink.
Obviously, these things are difficult to quantify. But if we're going to pitch fixed-rail transit as a spur for economic development, shouldn't we have reasonably solid figures to help us quantify the development impact such transit projects have?
As an example, some people point out that property developers advertise the fact that their new condos are close to a MetroLink station. That's cool, but the same developer might also say their condos are close to shopping malls like the Galleria, or Highway 64/40. So we're left to assume that uninspired projects like shoppings malls and highways are spurring development, too.
One other point: St. Louis Centre has a MetroLink station ten yards away from the front door. Did that fact do anything to halt the mall's decline?
Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of MetroLink and I also like streetcars, but I'm skeptical about the "economic development" claims that boosters of such projects are fond of making. (South Grand is already coming on strong without streetcars.) And I worry that when it comes to touting the benefits of fixed-rail transit, we are inflating people's expectations unjustifiably.
Does anyone know of any development projects in St. Louis City (other than the multimodal center) where MetroLink has been the main reason for going ahead?
I'd like to see an independent study on this, free from the influence of Metro or CMT.
Obviously, these things are difficult to quantify. But if we're going to pitch fixed-rail transit as a spur for economic development, shouldn't we have reasonably solid figures to help us quantify the development impact such transit projects have?
As an example, some people point out that property developers advertise the fact that their new condos are close to a MetroLink station. That's cool, but the same developer might also say their condos are close to shopping malls like the Galleria, or Highway 64/40. So we're left to assume that uninspired projects like shoppings malls and highways are spurring development, too.
One other point: St. Louis Centre has a MetroLink station ten yards away from the front door. Did that fact do anything to halt the mall's decline?
Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of MetroLink and I also like streetcars, but I'm skeptical about the "economic development" claims that boosters of such projects are fond of making. (South Grand is already coming on strong without streetcars.) And I worry that when it comes to touting the benefits of fixed-rail transit, we are inflating people's expectations unjustifiably.
Does anyone know of any development projects in St. Louis City (other than the multimodal center) where MetroLink has been the main reason for going ahead?
I'd like to see an independent study on this, free from the influence of Metro or CMT.
- 1,054
Maybe we do not have any immediate and adjascent spurred projects like the Plano TX station or other TOD's, but Metrolink has directly affected the market where the stations are located. IMHO I would prefer development projects be built in unison with stations to create small public spaces between the two, but currently we are going the organic route.
TO be fair, given the placement of the orginal line , I don't belive that it has spurred that much new development, at least not in the city limits.
The new CC extension though, I think has a much better chance. THe hard part is like most sutdies that try and value economic contribution, it is often hard to say if the development would have been built without the line. THerefore, many groups tend to take the "shoot any thing that flys, and catch anything that falls" route and calls anything that is built near a line transit spured development.
Anyways, I think the CC offers the best chance, as developments at Sunnen, the Brentwood stuff, and maybe the tower in clayton can be chalked up, which are all the type of regionaly recognizable projects and sucesses that could be coralled into an argument that metrolink does supur economic devleopment, when located properly.
The new CC extension though, I think has a much better chance. THe hard part is like most sutdies that try and value economic contribution, it is often hard to say if the development would have been built without the line. THerefore, many groups tend to take the "shoot any thing that flys, and catch anything that falls" route and calls anything that is built near a line transit spured development.
Anyways, I think the CC offers the best chance, as developments at Sunnen, the Brentwood stuff, and maybe the tower in clayton can be chalked up, which are all the type of regionaly recognizable projects and sucesses that could be coralled into an argument that metrolink does supur economic devleopment, when located properly.
- 1,026
I believe economists have a whoel range of tools to tackle this problem .. and each one has its own flaws and strenghts. .. I was always skeptical of those stats too, because they do seem to list EVERYTHING that is built anywhere near the metro line as being directly caused by the metro line ...
I wonder if anyone on this forum has access to more evcen handed statistics ... I would imagine that mass transit could be shown on a national scale to increase deveopment within such and such a range by a certain percent ... just makes sense.
I wonder if anyone on this forum has access to more evcen handed statistics ... I would imagine that mass transit could be shown on a national scale to increase deveopment within such and such a range by a certain percent ... just makes sense.
Look you can come up with those numbers. Simple I-O work can tell you what the creation of a new Metro line can add to the local economy, including construction wages, employment, and the ripples from the work, but as I said before, in many ways the decision of which projects wre directly spured by the line and which would have happened anyway is so so hard to tell.
The same problem exisits with the economic impact studies about the use of tax credits to lure businesses. Sure MO gives Express Scripts money to stay in the state, and I think thats a good thing. But how can you really know the economic impact of the tax incentive since you can't know (unless you are firends with the board of Express Scripts) if the firm would have stayed anyway.
If the frim wouldhave stayed without the tax incentive, then the incentive was a waste of money. If they left, all of a sudden, the credit looks like a valuable economic tool.
Its the same problem here, and frankly, economists don't have fancy tools to devine that info, only to tell you whatever you tell the model was TOD spured by metrolink.
The same problem exisits with the economic impact studies about the use of tax credits to lure businesses. Sure MO gives Express Scripts money to stay in the state, and I think thats a good thing. But how can you really know the economic impact of the tax incentive since you can't know (unless you are firends with the board of Express Scripts) if the firm would have stayed anyway.
If the frim wouldhave stayed without the tax incentive, then the incentive was a waste of money. If they left, all of a sudden, the credit looks like a valuable economic tool.
Its the same problem here, and frankly, economists don't have fancy tools to devine that info, only to tell you whatever you tell the model was TOD spured by metrolink.
Hmm. Why do I have the feeling that looking for TOD in St. Louis is kind of like looking for WMD in Iraq?
I have to ask. Can any old urban area really define new development as TOD? If they build a skyscraper on top of a Manhattan subway station, can they claim it as TOD anymore than a luxury condo being built next to Metrolink in Clayton or Downtown? Yet, they will benefit from the transit connection and likely add some new riders to the system.
In other words, LouLou, I don't get your point
.
In other words, LouLou, I don't get your point
.I would argue that Manhattan in a unique case, though clearly to make the density that exists there possible, it is largely transit induced.
New Brunswick is a good example. They are currently building a new 20 story high rise residential tower, a 14 story tower, and have plans for another. Clearly some of the development here is spured by the northeast corridor line (NJTRANSIT direct rail service to midtown Penn Station in NYC), but New Brunswick also has Johnson and Johnson's HQ, Rutgers, and the UMDNJ (the state medical school) to support the city and those have been huge parts of the developments as well. Therefore, it is often hard to say how much of a role the presence of a oneseat ride to NYC or Newark, Trenton, or Princeton have on the development in New Brunswick. It clearly plays some roll, but so do the fact that it is a hub for central NJ. Once again its "shoot anything that flys, catch anything that falls," and transit advocates will point and say TOD is fueling New Brunswick, and Rahway, Dover, Linden, Hoboken, and any other number of NJ towns with rail access, but the fact is that no one can cleary say.
New Brunswick is a good example. They are currently building a new 20 story high rise residential tower, a 14 story tower, and have plans for another. Clearly some of the development here is spured by the northeast corridor line (NJTRANSIT direct rail service to midtown Penn Station in NYC), but New Brunswick also has Johnson and Johnson's HQ, Rutgers, and the UMDNJ (the state medical school) to support the city and those have been huge parts of the developments as well. Therefore, it is often hard to say how much of a role the presence of a oneseat ride to NYC or Newark, Trenton, or Princeton have on the development in New Brunswick. It clearly plays some roll, but so do the fact that it is a hub for central NJ. Once again its "shoot anything that flys, catch anything that falls," and transit advocates will point and say TOD is fueling New Brunswick, and Rahway, Dover, Linden, Hoboken, and any other number of NJ towns with rail access, but the fact is that no one can cleary say.
Expat wrote:I have to ask. Can any old urban area really define new development as TOD? If they build a skyscraper on top of a Manhattan subway station, can they claim it as TOD anymore than a luxury condo being built next to Metrolink in Clayton or Downtown? Yet, they will benefit from the transit connection and likely add some new riders to the system.
In other words, LouLou, I don't get your point
I certainly hope that an "old urban area" can define new development as TOD. Otherwise, there are a lot of people at Metro and Citizens for Modern Transit that are wasting their breath!
My concern is that "economic development" is often used as a justification for building expensive projects like streetcars. But since we seem to lack hard data on such developments, at least in STL, what's really happening is that we're being asked to accept these sales pitches for fixed-rail transit at face value.
I hope our resident expert, southslider, doesn't mind adding his point of view to this debate!
I'll accept pitches for fixed-rail transit at face value because I know any serious city has some form of rapid transit. St. Louis was built for transit, and we need to hook this mother up.
I agree with all of you who suggest Grand Ave. for a streetcar line. I was on Grand last night and the buses were standing room only. It's a no-brainer.
I agree with all of you who suggest Grand Ave. for a streetcar line. I was on Grand last night and the buses were standing room only. It's a no-brainer.