urbanSTL

ldai_phs wrote:

StlAlex wrote:

ldai_phs wrote:For those of us a little out of the loop, what was the pathway to every building a meaningful amount of north / south lrt?

If ~300,000 people across Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania had voted differently, there was a solid 60-70% chance STL would have gotten the federal grant for the Green Line.

So should America remain a semblance of a democracy come 2028 and Democrats win control of Congress and the Presidency again, there's a pretty decent shot lots of transit funding will become available again. So the argument would be to largely sit on the Green Line for the next 3 years, maybe make refinements and improvements here and there, maybe work with the county to try and have a larger line under planning, so comd 2029, STL is ready to apply and receive funding ASAP.

If we had done that from 2017-2021, we would have been ready for Biden-era funding, but we weren't at all.

As for why it makes no sense to do BRT, what they've floated is about twice as long but costs over $400M+ based on their current estimate. The Bi-State CEO also said it would utilize ~$250M in federal funding through, I'm pretty sure, the same grant program as the LRT would get money from.

So, 1) we are admitting STL will never expand MetroLink on the MO side ever again, 2) we are willingly making all the money we spent planning the Green Line mostly wasted (to the tune of millions of dollars) and 3) we still have to wait 3+ more year and apply/rely on federal funding regardless.

Beyond all that, it will become another example anti-transit leeches and conservatives will point to for why STL is poorly run and wastes money. And in this case, they'd be right and we'd have no one but ourselves to blame.

I don't disagree with Spencer's view that the Green Line is way less than what the original pitch was in 2017. But she is also being completely bad faith to act like this wasn't just phase one, and her comments about it on the Overarching podcast pretty much show she has no clue what she's talking about (for example, one of her concerns was that there would be a transfer station where you have to go down or up to the other train....as if this doesn't exist literally everywhere including STL right now). It shows incredible lack of vision and a surrender to austerity to instead of trying to make the LRT plan better, downgrade it to BRT. And then to do it in an undemocratic and sleazy way just makes it even worse. And during the election cycle, we now know why her answers on transit were so obtuse and indirect. She actually was worried she'd lose some support by openly opposing the Green Line.

And as good as BRT *can* be, it is not what we should be using for this alignment. If we want to do BRT, we should do "lite" BRT along high ridership bus lines like Minneapolis and suburban Chicago do. The 70 Grand is effectively a BRT line as it is, just with less than ideal amenities. You don't need to look any further than Indianapolis to see IndyGo's ridership dropped over 4.2% as of Q325 despite opening the $188M Purple Line.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

Again only asking because I’be not followed this project as closely. If this line didn’t get much federal traction under Obama, Trump 1, and Biden, what changed that makes you soo confident that it would have advanced under Kamala,

Best,
Liam

quincunx wrote: ↑

12:38 AM - Jan 22

Don't forget Stenger

quincunx wrote: ↑

5:56 PM - Jan 30

NextSTL - Green Line BRT community engagement begins next week, Metro needs to rebuild trust first

https://nextstl.com/2026/01/green-line- ... ust-first/

PeterXCV wrote:^The funding situation should be better, for sure, but I think we can acknowledge that and also recognize that Metro really does not care that much about providing quality public transit to riders or have any kind of vision for STL as a car-optional city. I seriously don't know what you could point to as a sign that the agency "does a fairly good job for the position they're in."

quincunx wrote:Never said Metro is in a vacuum, and that others don't have a hand in these issues too. There is plenty of blame to go around.

1. Yes. I expect them to care about bus riders to not put them in obvious danger. I've notified them of the dangerous bus stop several times. They mustered the effort and resources for their half-baked gates in the name of safety.

2. Of course the developer doesn't care. They wanted tax dollars to subsidize parking. That's why we have government. The BoA is to blame too. They should have inssted when considering the CID bill. 

3. The WashU student group has brought up the bus stop. Like I said Metro should be working on these with municipalities and property owners, instead of not caring.

4A) and has come at a great opportunity cost to other things Metro should be doing. This is why we should tax and not let private interests call the tune.

4b) Right, so let's see similar effort for the safety of bus riders.

5. Agreed, failure at many levels, as I stated in my article.

PeterXCV wrote:I don't really get the point that because metro has an unelected board less pressure should be applied to them. The metro board members and taulby have been happy to have "public input meetings" over the years and ignore what they hear. Because they are unelected they are insulated from criticism and accountability, and I don't think they need to be defended.

dylank wrote:Florissant Route 2B looks like the smoothest, most efficient route. I'll take that over the Jefferson alignment for North STL