urbanSTL

symphonicpoet wrote:

MarkHaversham wrote:Kirkwood was a streetcar suburb, but Florissant was an old village that didn't really become a suburb until after WWII.

You're quite correct that Florissant was initially an independent community, but I don't think you're correct on when it became a suburb. There was a narrow gauge passenger line connecting Florissant to St. Louis as early as 1878. And it remained in service into the 30s. Florissant may have been a bit less developed than places south, west, or east of it, but I don't think you could accurately characterize it as an independent community inside the twentieth century. I seem to recall the railroad station there is among the oldest surviving in the state.

Florissant was certainly within St. Louis' sphere of influence, but there was little development there pre-WWII; the population actually shrank significantly between its heyday as a predominantly French-speaking village when the station was built, and 1920. I would tend to think of a suburb as an area sold by developers as a residential community near the city, as Kirkwood was, and as Florissant was after WWII.

dredger wrote: You guys are taking the context of metrosouth the wrong way. Metrosouth is about serving Clayton Business district and to lesser extent central corridor.

I think that is right from a political perspective, but from a system perspective it makes no real sense as any kind of priority. Many more people in South County would use metrolink to get to downtown than to Clayton.

All that said, I think light rail or streetcar makes much more sense if your goal is promoting density. Commuter rail would probably be more use for alleviating congestion, but that's such a small problem here compared to something like Chicago. Or even Atlanta, really. I'd rather see Metrolink expansion first. But since the subject had come up . . .

I agree. But Metrolink is already our commuter rail. Its the way to get around the region on transit. I don't think it can really serve urban density like a lot of us would like. I think in order to do that, it would have to be underground where it has an ability to get closer to people. Look at how most of the metrolink stations are set up. A lot are parking lots, others are under bridges or in "moats" (Grand, Union Station, Civic Center, Stadium). Very few of metrolink stations are right next to retail/residential/job clusters.

We have some very large, underutilized roads in the city (Jefferson, parts of Grand, Florissant, Broadway, MLK, Page, maybe Chippewa). That excessive right of way can be better utilized and shared with mass transit like BRT or Streetcars. These roads already hit most of the city's dense neighborhoods, retail areas, and job areas. That type of transit has a much better ability to get people directly next to retail/residential/clusters. Having that type of transit interwoven with metrolink does a much better job of connecting people to places, IMO. Give it its own ROW so its fast, connect it to areas that people want to go to, and connect it to the regional system (Metrolink) so those commuters can get easy access as well.

GoHarvOrGoHome wrote:Neither of the proposed routes by the county really do anything help the city outside of the MetroSouth route which serves minimal density along with a couple cemeteries. Should N/S fall through I would like to see the city take on a piecemeal approach to building itself a truly functional streetcar network, similar to the way Kansas City is doing things. Instead of taking on a massive projects every 10 years, build a 2-5 mile stretch of track every 5 (Loop Trolley is 2.2)

I'm visiting Kansas City right now and their streetcar is something that's for sure. I rode it a couple times today and to see all the development that's occurring along side of it is impressive. From the river district and other places. Lofts being built right on the line. It's a shame our leaders don't see it the same way. Instead we get car dealerships next to a metrolink stop

^ I agree... we're being foolish for not taking Saint Louis Streetcar seriously.

btw, KC Biz Journal just had an (sub) article on this building being the latest along the line to announce a residential conversion...

joelo wrote:

GoHarvOrGoHome wrote:Neither of the proposed routes by the county really do anything help the city outside of the MetroSouth route which serves minimal density along with a couple cemeteries. Should N/S fall through I would like to see the city take on a piecemeal approach to building itself a truly functional streetcar network, similar to the way Kansas City is doing things. Instead of taking on a massive projects every 10 years, build a 2-5 mile stretch of track every 5 (Loop Trolley is 2.2)

I'm visiting Kansas City right now and their streetcar is something that's for sure. I rode it a couple times today and to see all the development that's occurring along side of it is impressive. From the river district and other places. Lofts being built right on the line. It's a shame our leaders don't see it the same way. Instead we get car dealerships next to a metrolink stop

My problem with the KC Streetcar is that its inefficient in it's current form. I was in KC last week and from what I could see, they only have 3 cars total on the line, which made it quite inconvenient.

Yes but the sense of place you get riding the KC streetcar is amazing. As a tourist it was great to be able to use the streetcar to get to the various attractions along the strip opposed to having to walk in the heat. I think that it does an incredible job and is already working wonders on the Main Street corridor, especially in the River Market District and south of I-670. It was incredibly full as well, and I rode it around noon on a Wednesday.

The KC Streetcar makes me really excited about the prospect of a modern STL streetcar system, it would work wonders on our central corridor and downtown.

^ no doubt. KC Streetcar has been an overwhelming success and even when ridership begins to drop off with tourist season ending, it still will be a great year-round asset helping to build up a truly vibrant greater downtown. Saint Louis Streetcar could definitely help speed up things here as well and help patch up some major holes.

What if we just spent $500 million dollars getting people to use the non-BRT buses we already have? Some combination of improvements to the bus system and advertising/branding, perhaps. Does anyone think there's any room to make an impact that way?

^ I think a well-designed investment would make an impact on ridership and we certainly can't neglect the workhorse bus system, but the questions would be how enduring and how big would the payoff be as well as the opportunity cost of not pursuing a well-designed rapid transit investment. Certainly on the real estate end I don't think there'd be much return on a bus only investment.

edit... also of course sources of funding would be a major factor in what alternatives can get done.

STLrainbow wrote:^ I think a well-designed investment would make an impact on ridership and we certainly can't neglect the workhorse bus system, but the questions would be how enduring and how big would the payoff be as well as the opportunity cost of not pursuing a well-designed rapid transit investment. Certainly on the real estate end I don't think there'd be much return on a bus only investment.

edit... also of course sources of funding would be a major factor in what alternatives can get done.

Yep, you're right that not all the same funding would be available, which is why I threw out $500m instead of $1bil, but who knows (not me) what the actual amount might be. It's more of a thought exercise than anything, anyway. But my thinking is, a functional and well-used bus system would multiply the effectiveness of any rapid transit in addition to being useful in and of itself. It's also a path that could be funded in pieces matching the available cashflow, rather than requiring capitalization. With or without Metrolink, StL should have buses coming every 15 minutes for the majority of riders, and those routes should be made obvious to casual users.

Cities Need More Public Transit, Not More Uber and Self-Driving Cars
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/3 ... iving-cars

The key issue is that many people can't afford access to self-driving cars or Uber, and so still benefit from and rely on public transit.

The Train That Saved Denver
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... nate=false

MarkHaversham wrote:The key issue is that many people can't afford access to self-driving cars or Uber, and so still benefit from and rely on public transit.

I don't think self-driving cars are going to be expensive to access, but I'm kind of worried they'll be used as an excuse not to expand mass transit in Missouri. We need both. I'm also worried, we'll leave suburban land use policies in place as our cities become richer and the suburbs grow poorer. North County is aging badly with little resources to change it, and perhaps worse little desire to do so.

They'll be expensive and also displace mass transit, thus becoming the worst of all worlds.

Cities Need More Public Transit, Not More Uber and Self-Driving Cars

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/3 ... iving-cars

matguy70 wrote:You can ride the bus faster for the measly 2 miles on KC's streetcar line. It was given unbelievable amount of money and financing for 2 miles and is slower than molasses. I much prefer our rail system - fast - convenient - all 42 miles. Metro spawned major development when it began 23 years ago.

KC streetcar it definitely suited more for tourists but seeing everyone using it is something. I mean it did 233,000 passengers in July. For a measly 2 mile line that's insane.

KC streetcar it definitely suited more for tourists but seeing everyone using it is something. I mean it did 233,000 passengers in July. For a measly 2 mile line that's insane.

Don't get your hopes up. I used to live there. It's the shiny new toy at the moment. It'll fizzle out here in a matter of months.

i too lived in KC for a while. this was late 90's early 2000's. different time then. I was not a fan but i think it had to do with a certian someone rather then the city it self, but it did have it's fair share of issues then as well. that being said, it's different now. it seems like the KC streetcar is doing exactly what we are hoping to have happen here. i for one am going to hope for it's success.

that last comment reminded me of a friend from kc that came to vist and said that st louis is not deserving of an airport. there is already an urban/rural split, we can work on healing the urban/urban split.

^ It'll be good to see what the KC Streetcar ridership numbers are once tourism season fades and fall/winter come along, but they are so far ahead of projections there's no reason to suspect it will be a dismal failure. And it will pick up again in Spring.

duckman wrote:
that last comment reminded me of a friend from kc that came to vist and said that st louis is not deserving of an airport. there is already an urban/rural split, we can work on healing the urban/urban split.

That is so typical of KC people. As far as I can tell, STL folks seem supportive of them, but KC folks always strike me of jealous of anything that has to do with STL.

survivor147 wrote:

duckman wrote:
that last comment reminded me of a friend from kc that came to vist and said that st louis is not deserving of an airport. there is already an urban/rural split, we can work on healing the urban/urban split.

That is so typical of KC people. As far as I can tell, STL folks seem supportive of them, but KC folks always strike me of jealous of anything that has to do with STL.

This is actually a mindset seen all over the Kansas City area. Many refuse to believe that the St Louis area is more populous. I've encountered a few that actually believe the Arch should be in KC. Not even kidding.