urbanSTL

Totally. Feels like that could catalyze (some) develop in/around Old North, which has a lot better existing bones as the JVL etc. But down for whatever leads to good ridership and any development

This may be a hot take, but this watered down bus route is simply not thinking big enough.  Having a shiny new metro train and route, with updated infrastructure is the only way they are going to generate any new development along the route.  Tourists, most residents and visitors aren't going to take the bus in STL city, and it will be run down within a year with almost nothing to show for it.

I dunno man, by that metric the stigma around existing Metrolink is almost as bad.

STL1223 wrote: ↑

12:08 AM - Feb 05

This may be a hot take, but this watered down bus route is simply not thinking big enough.  Having a shiny new metro train and route, with updated infrastructure is the only way they are going to generate any new development along the route.  Tourists, most residents and visitors aren't going to take the bus in STL city, and it will be run down within a year with almost nothing to show for it.

Can't lie this may be one of the worst public policy decisions I've seen in STL for a while. BRT in the US has not been shown to catalyze any meaningful development. Also, $400M for 5 miles of busses with painted "dedicated" lanes seems like a horrible use of public funds. I would rather shelve this idea and just let the money accumulate until the county comes to the table for a regional line or maybe even seriously look into modern streetcar like KC. 

Gonna take a while for me to get on board with this. So many studies just thrown in the trash by a brash decision. county/city divide continue to haunt, Hard to believe there’s any reason for me to care about studies they will throw away in a couple years

Let's get real, with a declining city population it doesn't even make sense for the federal government to give priority to a line in St Louis vs a line in other cities with stable population or actual strong demand. It seems to me the strong support here to a line is based on principle that public transportation should be supported, and I agree but it needs to make economic sense.

I strongly disagree with the view of some that these public lines can be used as a catalyst for growth, sure they can have positive impact on the immediate area of a station, but there needs to be enough demand.

Rick Prieto wrote: ↑

4:14 PM - Feb 05

Let's get real, with a declining city population it doesn't even make sense for the federal government to give priority to a line in St Louis vs a line in other cities with stable population or actual strong demand. It seems to me the strong support here to a line is based on principle that public transportation should be supported, and I agree but it needs to make economic sense.

I strongly disagree with the view of some that these public lines can be used as a catalyst for growth, sure they can have positive impact on the immediate area of a station, but there needs to be enough demand.

St Louis is still a region of nearly 3 million people. Basing infrastructure investment on localized decline is shortsighted and will do nothing to help reverse certain trends. American regions have spent billions of dollars on highway infrastructure in farm land on the fringes with the hope of catalyzing development. 

goat314 wrote: ↑

5:47 PM - Feb 05

Rick Prieto wrote: ↑

4:14 PM - Feb 05

Let's get real, with a declining city population it doesn't even make sense for the federal government to give priority to a line in St Louis vs a line in other cities with stable population or actual strong demand. It seems to me the strong support here to a line is based on principle that public transportation should be supported, and I agree but it needs to make economic sense.

I strongly disagree with the view of some that these public lines can be used as a catalyst for growth, sure they can have positive impact on the immediate area of a station, but there needs to be enough demand.

St Louis is still a region of nearly 3 million people. Basing infrastructure investment on localized decline is shortsighted and will do nothing to help reverse certain trends. American regions have spent billions of dollars on highway infrastructure in farm land on the fringes with the hope of catalyzing development. 

But that line was basically within city limits of less than 300k, people don't move out of the city because of lack of public transportation, so building a metrolink line won't make much of a difference. 

None of this would be an issue if the City of St. Louis were a municipality within St. Louis County. County leaders would be willing to spend transit revenue in the core of the region, even if the project never touched today's St. Louis County. 

To me for this to be a success on day one it needs to A) connect to downtown in a meaningful way (i.e. Metrolink connection at Civic Center but also other major ridership drivers, whether that's Energizer Park/Union Station, stations at Washington Ave/downtown proper, etc) and B) stretch as far north/west and as far south as feasible and terminate at densely populated areas or a major commercial node/transport connection/employment zone to give people a reason to actually use it. If the only true destination on the route is the downtown connection then it's not much more useful than a normal bus route. 

The main issue I have for the plan overall is that the premise for BRT historically is relieving buses of overcrowded streets in dense areas to speed up service and to act as a trunk line for heavily used bus corridors. In St. Louis this is not the case; N Jefferson/Florissant/Natural Bridge are essentially freeways already and there is little existing route coverage or ridership in much of the proposed alignments. When this was fixed rail, I can understand that the perceived permanence and quality of service could be enough to draw riders and development, but not when there's simply a bus flying through this corridor. This is a pessimistic view but I can already feel the embarrassment of seeing the image of the terminus station sitting in front of an abandoned Walgreens at Kingshighway & Natural Bridge or at the abandoned Hardee's site along i55 and S Broadway on opening day.

kg2024 wrote:To me for this to be a success on day one it needs to A) connect to downtown in a meaningful way (i.e. Metrolink connection at Civic Center but also other major ridership drivers, whether that's Energizer Park/Union Station, stations at Washington Ave/downtown proper, etc) and B) stretch as far north/west and as far south as feasible and terminate at densely populated areas or a major commercial node/transport connection/employment zone to give people a reason to actually use it. If the only true destination on the route is the downtown connection then it's not much more useful than a normal bus route. 

The main issue I have for the plan overall is that the premise for BRT historically is relieving buses of overcrowded streets in dense areas to speed up service and to act as a trunk line for heavily used bus corridors. In St. Louis this is not the case; N Jefferson/Florissant/Natural Bridge are essentially freeways already and there is little existing route coverage or ridership in much of the proposed alignments. When this was fixed rail, I can understand that the perceived permanence and quality of service could be enough to draw riders and development, but not when there's simply a bus flying through this corridor. This is a pessimistic view but I can already feel the embarrassment of seeing the image of the terminus station sitting in front of an abandoned Walgreens at Kingshighway & Natural Bridge or at the abandoned Hardee's site along i55 and S Broadway on opening day.

Not a pessimistic view at all, you're just describing the future if this goes forward.

Goat314 has the correct view, sit on the money and continue letting it accumulate. Make the current plan BETTER instead of totally gutting it. Especially since the BRT plan still will rely on federal funding.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

kg2024 wrote: ↑

7:41 PM - Feb 05

To me for this to be a success on day one it needs to A) connect to downtown in a meaningful way (i.e. Metrolink connection at Civic Center but also other major ridership drivers, whether that's Energizer Park/Union Station, stations at Washington Ave/downtown proper, etc) and B) stretch as far north/west and as far south as feasible and terminate at densely populated areas or a major commercial node/transport connection/employment zone to give people a reason to actually use it. If the only true destination on the route is the downtown connection then it's not much more useful than a normal bus route. 

The main issue I have for the plan overall is that the premise for BRT historically is relieving buses of overcrowded streets in dense areas to speed up service and to act as a trunk line for heavily used bus corridors. In St. Louis this is not the case; N Jefferson/Florissant/Natural Bridge are essentially freeways already and there is little existing route coverage or ridership in much of the proposed alignments. When this was fixed rail, I can understand that the perceived permanence and quality of service could be enough to draw riders and development, but not when there's simply a bus flying through this corridor. This is a pessimistic view but I can already feel the embarrassment of seeing the image of the terminus station sitting in front of an abandoned Walgreens at Kingshighway & Natural Bridge or at the abandoned Hardee's site along i55 and S Broadway on opening day.

This is just politics trying to appease the electorate about "something" being done. Just look at this forum, people just want to invest in public transportation for the sake of investing in public transportation . I agree in general that's needed, I use public transportation whenever I can and I support for example investing in high-speed trains to connect cities, upgrade services, buy electric buses, install gates at metrolink stations. But there's low demand in STL so it's not every public transportation project is a good idea.

BRT as you say are useful when you have overcrowded streets and speeding up service is a benefit to riders. It would be better to invest in other services that have shown issues as water infrastructure, trash pick-up and recycling. If frequency of buses is not good enough and that affects demand, then let's invest in more buses so the frequency can improve, buses are old? let's renew them and even buy electric ones to reduce carbon footprint. I'm not against investing in public transportation in STL. I support it, but when it makes sense. 

A unique alternative that was probably never considered would've been to abandon the idea of a single line going north AND south. I think the actual demand for point-to-point trips between North and South St. Louis is low. Jefferson is the best density route in South City but Kingshighway is the better density route in North City. It would be interesting to see if that increased ridership. 

This is six miles.

addxb2 wrote: ↑

8:40 PM - Feb 05

A unique alternative that was probably never considered would've been to abandon the idea of a single line going north AND south. I think the actual demand for point-to-point trips between North and South St. Louis is low. Jefferson is the best density route in South City but Kingshighway is the better density route in North City. It would be interesting to see if that increased ridership.

Based off of conversations I've had with others at the Green Line public meeting yesterday, I think people are definitely open to seeing more alternatives like this, based off of actual density and demographic data. I understand they have to make the choices digestible for the general populace, but I was frustrated at this first round of public meetings that there was zero data or thought process shown to back up any of the decisions made regarding the routes. All this study for decades and they're back to the point of drawing dashed lines just to see how people feel about them with no data or real-world conditions to base it off of. And of course the engineering/city representatives won't give any additional insight beyond "pretty much everything is up for discussion right now".

addxb2 wrote:A unique alternative that was probably never considered would've been to abandon the idea of a single line going north AND south. I think the actual demand for point-to-point trips between North and South St. Louis is low. Jefferson is the best density route in South City but Kingshighway is the better density route in North City. It would be interesting to see if that increased ridership. 

This is six miles.

I hadn’t really considered this before but it’s a great point. Very few people will be taking transit from North City to South City, and visa versa. The main considerations for alignments should bell which routes would get the highest number of people from North City and South City into the central corridor, AND what routes would allow people in the central corridor to easily access other retail/business corridors throughout the city.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The #11 route down Jefferson and Chippewa has the 2nd highest frequency (and ridership, i presume) after the 70 Grand.  Addxb2 is right that the more densely populated neighborhoods of north city are along N Kingshighway, along with the O'Fallon neighborhood.

addxb2 wrote: ↑

8:40 PM - Feb 05

A unique alternative that was probably never considered would've been to abandon the idea of a single line going north AND south. I think the actual demand for point-to-point trips between North and South St. Louis is low. Jefferson is the best density route in South City but Kingshighway is the better density route in North City. It would be interesting to see if that increased ridership. 

This is six miles.

I'm with it.  If we can piecemeal lines that permeate nodes of existing density, seems like a recipe for solid success.

I truly feel like the proper trade-off if we're not getting an expansion of Metrolink would be for the to be a BRT Network, or at least a few lines for the initial phase.  Designate 3 N-S Routes, some of which have current ridership demand, some that this plan could spur development.  Let's be clear, Metrolink alone has NOT spurred development or redevelopment compared to other peer cities that have made similar investments.  I live in Maplewood and the fact that we don't have required TRD around the stations and attempt to fully integrate the built environment with these investments is mind-boggling, and limits this infrastructure from being as transformational as we all desire.

How can Metro think big and deliver something that pushes us to make general streetscape and utility improvements alongside transit investment (we generally have the ROW)?  What can we do to hold their feet to the fire and demand investment that isn't just trying to placate us and imply that "they're doing something", when in actuality it is not a real commitment to transit, just lipstick on the pig?

gone corporate wrote: ↑

5:08 PM - Feb 06

Just a quick note of context for everyone - like me - that would prefer to see the Green Line be built... Reminder that the most important rail project in the entire country, the reconstruction of the New York/New Jersey Tunnel under the Hudson River, just had its funding pulled, and that all work on the project stops today. Truly, there's no way that the Green Line could ever have been funded with federal support. This isn't necessarily my support for anything BRT, but a reminder for how we should be setting our expectations in this current environment. Strive for more, of course, but don't expect what's truly impossible. 

That's why I think pivoting to BRT right now is a bad choice. Just let the money accumulate. I never understood the calculus from this administration that BRT would be more likely to get funding than LRT. There is no indication that this administration is interested in funding any major transit projects. It seems like a mostly political decision to me from Spencer. Seems like she wants to be the anti-Tishuara administration, but she's most likely headed towards being a one term mayor. 

addxb2 wrote: ↑

8:40 PM - Feb 05

A unique alternative that was probably never considered would've been to abandon the idea of a single line going north AND south. I think the actual demand for point-to-point trips between North and South St. Louis is low. Jefferson is the best density route in South City but Kingshighway is the better density route in North City. It would be interesting to see if that increased ridership. 

This is six miles.

I really like this for BRT. Would make a lot more sense. Great proposal