Expecting parties in St. Louis to over promise and under deliver on big projects is a safe bet. On the other hand, if certain events in November come to pass there could be a lot of stimulus spending over the next few years, and being prepared to get your hands on some of that cash would be good.Unfortunately, I can't get too excited as I read this as one more study with a minimal amount of funds committed. Another couple of years keeping some consultants and experts busy.
- 991
I knew you would. So they could basically start on BRT today, and assuming (absolute guess on my part here) it takes two years to get it fully built out, bonds would only have to be for like 10 years to cover the initial costs. The more I learn about what gold-star BRT can be and how cost efficient it is compared to light rail, the more I wish the city would just pivot to having multiple BRT lines.
- 805
It fits our history as a street car city better anywayLaife Fulk wrote:I knew you would. So they could basically start on BRT today, and assuming (absolute guess on my part here) it takes two years to get it fully built out, bonds would only have to be for like 10 years to cover the initial costs. The more I learn about what gold-star BRT can be and how cost efficient it is compared to light rail, the more I wish the city would just pivot to having multiple BRT lines.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
According to this article in the Business Journal the city is about $210 million short of funding for capital costs. I would think a consortium of wealthy private interests in this town could come up with that money. Do I think they will? Not necessarily and I'd probably lean more towards no. But it was just something I thought of. The new Cortex station was a P3, albeit on a significantly smaller scale, it's not like these things can't be done. The M1 rail in Detroit is another, much larger, example.quincunx wrote: ↑Aug 18, 2020How do you figure?sc4mayor wrote: ↑Aug 18, 2020Or a major contribution from the private sector. It did say they plan on searching for funding for N/S light rail...I doubt they’ll find enough but there are plenty of wealthy folks and businesses in St. Louis where a P3 would probably be feasible.goat314 wrote: ↑Aug 18, 2020Were definitely going to be getting BRT. Unfortunately, light rail is just not feasible without a major contribution from the county. With that said, I would like to see a mix of streetcar and BRT in north and south city.
The Taylor's and their foundation have donated close to $200 million just to Forest Park Forever. They'll spend more than that on their soccer stadium. There's a little old Cargill heiress that lives in Des Peres worth $4.9 billion, there are 14 Fortune 1000 headquarters here...I'm not claiming any of these people would be interested in funding something like this (like I said, I doubt they'll find enough money to complete N/S as currently envisioned)...but if the city and Bi-State really wanted to get innovative and get something done there might be some money out there.
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... 9SeSiqzA64A news release said the city wants ideas for how to close a funding gap that exists to construct and operate a light rail expansion "as currently conceived." A 2018 study said the cost of a north-south light rail expansion, with vehicles running on the street, could be about $950 million, with 50% required in local funding. It also said based on current revenue streams, the city would come up short by $210 million for fulfilling those capital costs. Operating the new route would cost another $24 million annually, it said. That would be just for an 8-mile route within the city, running from Grand Boulevard near Fairground Park to Chippewa Street; a full 17-mile route, running into St. Louis County, would come in a subsequent phase.
- 9,565
* $210m short for the City’s half of the $950m total cost. So we are $450m + $210m short = $660m. There is this almost throw away though that if we can get our 50% it automatically kicks in 50% fed. That’s not how it works. Fed money is hard to get because it’s a very competitive program with hundreds of applications and that’s before you consider the Trump admin not wanting to fund transit. I believe the current program is spent it’s allocation until mid 2020s.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Aug 18, 2020According to this article in the Business Journal the city is about $210 million short of funding for capital costs. I would think a consortium of wealthy private interests in this town could come up with that money. Do I think they will? Not necessarily and I'd probably lean more towards no. But it was just something I thought of. The new Cortex station was a P3, albeit on a significantly smaller scale, it's not like these things can't be done. The M1 rail in Detroit is another, much larger, example.quincunx wrote: ↑Aug 18, 2020How do you figure?sc4mayor wrote: ↑Aug 18, 2020
Or a major contribution from the private sector. It did say they plan on searching for funding for N/S light rail...I doubt they’ll find enough but there are plenty of wealthy folks and businesses in St. Louis where a P3 would probably be feasible.
The Taylor's and their foundation have donated close to $200 million just to Forest Park Forever. They'll spend more than that on their soccer stadium. There's a little old Cargill heiress that lives in Des Peres worth $4.9 billion, there are 14 Fortune 1000 headquarters here...I'm not claiming any of these people would be interested in funding something like this (like I said, I doubt they'll find enough money to complete N/S as currently envisioned)...but if the city and Bi-State really wanted to get innovative and get something done there might be some money out there.
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... 9SeSiqzA64A news release said the city wants ideas for how to close a funding gap that exists to construct and operate a light rail expansion "as currently conceived." A 2018 study said the cost of a north-south light rail expansion, with vehicles running on the street, could be about $950 million, with 50% required in local funding. It also said based on current revenue streams, the city would come up short by $210 million for fulfilling those capital costs. Operating the new route would cost another $24 million annually, it said. That would be just for an 8-mile route within the city, running from Grand Boulevard near Fairground Park to Chippewa Street; a full 17-mile route, running into St. Louis County, would come in a subsequent phase.
I think this study will end up pointing the city toward high end BRT over anything else in the long run. But in the event they still propose some version of the North/South light rail I got to thinking about what a modified line might look like. Phase 1 as currently planned is about 8 miles long running between North Grand and Chippewa, via downtown, with a cost of ~$650 million (as of 2018). Why not just cut the downtown portion out and run it straight down Jefferson? That would cut Phase 1 as planned down to 5.5 miles and would shave tens of millions of dollars off the cost. An infill station would have to be built at Jefferson on the existing MetroLink line to facilitate transfers though. Still probably cheaper than building all that track through downtown since I would guess downtown construction would be more costly and disruptive than on fairly wide Jefferson.
I also think north/south travel would be more convenient without having all those turns through downtown. I imagine not everyone traveling between the two sides of the city wants to spend all that time stopping and turning thru downtown streets.
This rudimentary map I've made here shows a 9.75 mile line with no downtown portion, about a mile longer than then the current Phase One plan. I would guess a fairly similar cost too. Starting right around the city limits in the north and ending just before 55 in the south. The stations are what were proposed on the original alignment, except for Jefferson between Cass and Chouteau, I had to take a guess at those.
![]()
Pros:
More convenient north/south travel.
Probably more cost-effective (depending on initial length).
Better access to Downtown West, Wells Fargo and MLS Stadium.
Still have access to downtown via MetroLink (we transfer between lines at Forest Park, we can do it here too).
Cons:
Two seat ride to downtown with a transfer at Jefferson.
An infill station at Jefferson would be close to the Union Station stop. Though not as close as Union Station and Civic Center.
Anyway, I'm just spitballing. I think St. Louis could rock a few solid BRT lines, honestly. But a part of me still wants that N/S trunkline for MetroLink.
I also think north/south travel would be more convenient without having all those turns through downtown. I imagine not everyone traveling between the two sides of the city wants to spend all that time stopping and turning thru downtown streets.
This rudimentary map I've made here shows a 9.75 mile line with no downtown portion, about a mile longer than then the current Phase One plan. I would guess a fairly similar cost too. Starting right around the city limits in the north and ending just before 55 in the south. The stations are what were proposed on the original alignment, except for Jefferson between Cass and Chouteau, I had to take a guess at those.
Pros:
More convenient north/south travel.
Probably more cost-effective (depending on initial length).
Better access to Downtown West, Wells Fargo and MLS Stadium.
Still have access to downtown via MetroLink (we transfer between lines at Forest Park, we can do it here too).
Cons:
Two seat ride to downtown with a transfer at Jefferson.
An infill station at Jefferson would be close to the Union Station stop. Though not as close as Union Station and Civic Center.
Anyway, I'm just spitballing. I think St. Louis could rock a few solid BRT lines, honestly. But a part of me still wants that N/S trunkline for MetroLink.
- 6,123
^That's not a terrible plan. I'd long ago decided the planned alignment created a lot of more or less redundant stations downtown and that moving the downtown portion west to Tucker would create more utility. But Jefferson might work almost as well, and the cost savings could make it worthwhile. I suppose I can see the logic of having the thing behaving more like a bus being something more like a bus. The 70 bus works pretty dang well, really. It's a good complement to Metrolink. I may have to reverse my original stance. I do like the permanence of rail, but some of that is just an old rail-buff failing to adapt to the current realities. Start with what works and save more money for trains later. For shorts spurts between close stations on a medium density route a better bus might serve just fine.
I think that's a great solution. Personally, I'd still advocate for Gravois and a turn at Jefferson. Seems like you'd hit a lot more population vicinity. I know it's a state route, though, so not likely possible.
As someone who lives right off Jefferson, I'd kill for a main station at 64 and Jefferson. Seems odd there isn't one there, but then again there is one just over at Grand. Still a good distance though.
As someone who lives right off Jefferson, I'd kill for a main station at 64 and Jefferson. Seems odd there isn't one there, but then again there is one just over at Grand. Still a good distance though.
I've always heard the reason Gravois isn't considered for light rail is because of its width. But after doing a little spot checking, Gravois between Jefferson and Grand is about as wide and in some cases wider than Jefferson between Russell and South Broadway. Gravois drops below 60 feet wide (curb to curb) south of Grand. But I'm not even sure that prohibits light rail. 14th Street, the currently planned alignment downtown, is only 53 feet wide at Clark Avenue.bwcrow1s wrote: ↑Aug 22, 2020I think that's a great solution. Personally, I'd still advocate for Gravois and a turn at Jefferson. Seems like you'd hit a lot more population vicinity. I know it's a state route, though, so not likely possible.
As someone who lives right off Jefferson, I'd kill for a main station at 64 and Jefferson. Seems odd there isn't one there, but then again there is one just over at Grand. Still a good distance though.
I'm not sure the State would stand in the way, outside of their lack of funding. The current routing for North St. Louis is on Natural Bridge, which is State Route 115.
I came up with another map...and I think I like this alignment better. It covers much more of the city's denser neighborhoods and Dutchtown could use a boost. Plus a future County extension could run in the existing UP right-of-way thru Carondelet Park then along 55 into the suburbs.
- 805
Catherine Gilbert Hamacher mentioned on twitter recently that there had been a grassroots effort to give Gravois a road diet a few years back and the state was pretty dismissive of the idea.sc4mayor wrote:I've always heard the reason Gravois isn't considered for light rail is because of its width. But after doing a little spot checking, Gravois between Jefferson and Grand is about as wide and in some cases wider than Jefferson between Russell and South Broadway. Gravois drops below 60 feet wide (curb to curb) south of Grand. But I'm not even sure that prohibits light rail. 14th Street, the currently planned alignment downtown, is only 53 feet wide at Clark Avenue.bwcrow1s wrote: ↑Aug 22, 2020I think that's a great solution. Personally, I'd still advocate for Gravois and a turn at Jefferson. Seems like you'd hit a lot more population vicinity. I know it's a state route, though, so not likely possible.
As someone who lives right off Jefferson, I'd kill for a main station at 64 and Jefferson. Seems odd there isn't one there, but then again there is one just over at Grand. Still a good distance though.
I'm not sure the State would stand in the way, outside of their lack of funding. The current routing for North St. Louis is on Natural Bridge, which is State Route 115.
I came up with another map...and I think I like this alignment better. It covers much more of the city's denser neighborhoods and Dutchtown could use a boost. Plus a future County extension could run in the existing UP right-of-way thru Carondelet Park then along 55 into the suburbs.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
^ Well they did it anyway:
https://www.modot.org/gravois-roadway-improvements
Also included bike lanes in some sections, new crosswalks, and other improvements. MoDot originally wanted to close off several cross-streets, essentially creating a limited access roadway through the city, but the community fought that and won. Much like the Natural Bridge corridor, if the community selected Gravois for a transit line of some kind, I imagine MoDot would come to the table.
https://www.modot.org/gravois-roadway-improvements
Also included bike lanes in some sections, new crosswalks, and other improvements. MoDot originally wanted to close off several cross-streets, essentially creating a limited access roadway through the city, but the community fought that and won. Much like the Natural Bridge corridor, if the community selected Gravois for a transit line of some kind, I imagine MoDot would come to the table.
Take a look at the Bevo Great Streets plan (2019-20), it shows how open minded the state has become recently.
https://www.ewgateway.org/wp-content/up ... ne2019.pdf
They’re also using data from Gravois restripping success (i think reduction in avg speed of 25-30%) when planning Natural Bridge.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.ewgateway.org/wp-content/up ... ne2019.pdf
They’re also using data from Gravois restripping success (i think reduction in avg speed of 25-30%) when planning Natural Bridge.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 9,565
sc4mayor wrote: ↑Aug 22, 2020^ Well they did it anyway:
https://www.modot.org/gravois-roadway-improvements
Also included bike lanes in some sections, new crosswalks, and other improvements. MoDot originally wanted to close off several cross-streets, essentially creating a limited access roadway through the city, but the community fought that and won. Much like the Natural Bridge corridor, if the community selected Gravois for a transit line of some kind, I imagine MoDot would come to the table.
Modot doesn’t own Gravois, the city does. Modot only has curb to curb maintenance responsibility because the city can’t afford it but any final decision is the city’s to make.
That map does look good. Really the part of the Gravois that needs the biggest road diet would be past Meramec and on. And then by the time you hit Grand, it starts to really turn into a highway. My only thought is that Grand doesn't feel wide enough past Dutchtown either.
Oh well. Not that anyone who has spent years on these studies are going to listen to me I suppose. I enjoy the pie-in-the-sky-ing.
Oh well. Not that anyone who has spent years on these studies are going to listen to me I suppose. I enjoy the pie-in-the-sky-ing.
- 339
Really good stuff, SC4! I much prefer this alignment over the proposed N/S variation. I wonder how possible running an E/W line along Chippewa is. Is it too thin? Not straight enough? Too hilly? I'm not exactly knowledgeable when it comes to BRT. As much as I like light rail, I really think BRT is the best option for St. Louis.
Well I'm not an engineer either so I don't think they'll be listening to me lol. But I also enjoy the pie-in-the-sky-ing. So I did a few other spot measurements and came up with these estimates. Grand would be somewhat tight but doable I would imagine. Plus you could stagger the platforms, so like here at Delor the southbound platform could be on the south side of Delor and the northbound platform on the opposite side. At intersections with Delor, Bates, etc swap the parking lanes for a center turn lane. Grand at Delor is roughly 76' wide including both sidewalks.bwcrow1s wrote: ↑Aug 23, 2020That map does look good. Really the part of the Gravois that needs the biggest road diet would be past Meramec and on. And then by the time you hit Grand, it starts to really turn into a highway. My only thought is that Grand doesn't feel wide enough past Dutchtown either.
Oh well. Not that anyone who has spent years on these studies are going to listen to me I suppose. I enjoy the pie-in-the-sky-ing.
Away from major intersections it drops to around 70' including sidewalks. I left parking on the outside since these are mostly homes.
I also took a look at Gravois. Here's Jefferson where Gravois is about 100' wide including sidewalks. I have the platforms across the street from each other here because they fit, but they could also be staggered for more room. I also included a protected cycle-track as a hypothetical extension to the proposed Tucker cycle-track.
Typical Gravois cross-section between Jefferson and Grand, also about 100' wide including sidewalks:
And finally here is an alternative for Gravois:
^ Thanks, Elek! I don't think there are too many hills within the city limits that would prohibit LRT or BRT. Same goes for any sharp turns, certainly not on Chippewa. Including sidewalks, its width looks to be similar to South Grand. So it could be workable. Here's a BRT alternative:
Wow. Thanks for the visuals. Send this to Metro! Really illustrates how abysmal some of the street widths are.
- 9,565
Please don’t send this to metro.....this reminds me of a Seinfeld episode when Kramer calls the fire dept to tell them best routes from the fire station
^ I wouldn’t sent it to Metro anyway...they don’t plan the lines. Like I said in previous posts...these are just ideas. Hence the words like “spitballing,” “pie-in-the-skying,” “estimates,” and “I’m not an engineer.”
Not all of us have your level of expertise DB. But thanks for the insult just the same.
Thanks for the kind words bwcrow.
Not all of us have your level of expertise DB. But thanks for the insult just the same.
Thanks for the kind words bwcrow.
- 9,565
I was making a Seinfeld joke to bwcrows suggestion.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Aug 24, 2020^ I wouldn’t sent it to Metro anyway...they don’t plan the lines. Like I said in previous posts...these are just ideas. Hence the words like “spitballing,” “pie-in-the-skying,” “estimates,” and “I’m not an engineer.”
Not all of us have your level of expertise DB. But thanks for the insult just the same.
Thanks for the kind words bwcrow.
- 2,929
Pretty sure Metro people will see this whether anyone sends these to them or not. Lots of people get on this site, right?
- 339
That's a super cool program! It would be nice if something like this was considered by bi-state. Speaking of which, I wonder if we'll ever see a line running through North County up to Alton. That would sure as heck be pricey, but if they removed a lane of highway in each direction and designated it as BRT like they do in South America, I could see it helping stitch together MO and Illinois.