urbanSTL

Right now what we need is improved frequencies, not half-baked Metrojunk. Hire more drivers. Increase operator pay. Add frequencies to the routes we have now, both bus and rail. And plan for expansion when next the wind shifts, which it always does.

The uncomfortable fact is that the Jefferson corridor of North St. Louis doesn’t support rail at $200M a mile. The density is well below where it needs to be. Cut the project down to South City to Downtown and it’s competitive.

addxb2 wrote: ↑

6:04 PM - Feb 07

The uncomfortable fact is that the Jefferson corridor of North St. Louis doesn’t support rail at $200M a mile. The density is well below where it needs to be. Cut the project down to South City to Downtown and it’s competitive.

In no politcial reality could a rail expansion go south and not north. With that said there is still a good amount of density around Fairground Park. The most bombed out portion of the Northside is literally the sections north of Downtown, where it looks like a bomb was literally exploded from the former site of Pruitt Igoe. I think any meaningful N-S expansion eventually goes from Natural Bridge and Kingshigway to Jefferson and Chippewa. 

I’m sorry, but BRT blows. I just don’t see the good in this.

What places have higher population and more demand for transit than the current Green Line proposal? I would think adding more lines where there is demand would be a better plan. I don’t think Metro is a bad system. It’s better than the systems a lot of similar sized cities have. I just don’t see where the population demand is there for the north part of the Green Line BRT or not. I’d rather build a line to higher population parts of the county and serve NGA with electric buses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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 like this. And then a "phase 3" could be a line down Lindell-Olive to connect the two. And another branch to near-north

dylank wrote: ↑

6:04 PM - Feb 13

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 like this. And then a "phase 3" could be a line down Lindell-Olive to connect the two. And another branch to near-north

Isn't the problem with this would be the support infrastructure for storage and maintenance of rolling stock? Would require two maintenance areas unless other ways of moving between lines exist and that would raise cost a lot.

Also isn't BRT more suitable by means of upgrading the existing bus line along Grand?

Should be a focus more on improving the frequency on existing metrolink and bus routes aiming to have more routes of 15 minutes or less headway.

Well 1) Unlike trains, buses can drive to a maintenance garage, even if its not on their route

2) Much of Grand is 1 traffic lane in each direction, the part you could fit bus lanes into runs from about Lindell down to Arsenal. There may be some merit to upgrading the 70 route as it has the highest ridership in the city, but that's a big constraint to making it rapid

For the record, I do agree with you that if I were in charge of this I'd put increasing frequencies on existing buses & metrolink first, in part because that could be done in short order and also because any future BRT or Metrolink expansion will perform much better if there's a frequent bus service backbone

BTW, we know other places they built BRT instead of rail, the line is at capacity and overpopulated.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I just think the whole pivot to BRT from LRT is shortsighted, lacks imagination, and indicative of the problem with St. Louis as a whole. The N-S Metrolink as a concept was just as much as about changing the physical infrastructure of St. Louis and catalyzing redevelopment as it was about transporting people. It's about how the city and region views itself and as St. Louis a major metropolitan area or not? Cities that believe in their futures make these type of generational investments and it's what St. Louis needs. 

goat314 wrote:I just think the whole pivot to BRT from LRT is shortsighted, lacks imagination, and indicative of the problem with St. Louis as a whole. The N-S Metrolink as a concept was just as much as about changing the physical infrastructure of St. Louis and catalyzing redevelopment as it was about transporting people. It's about how the city and region views itself and as St. Louis a major metropolitan area or not? Cities that believe in their futures make these type of generational investments and it's what St. Louis needs. 

Not only that but we are 21st Century America lmao. HOW can St. Louis build rail in the 1990s and a new subway tunnel in the 2000s but magically can't build a short in-street streetcar? We were building this stuff in the 1800s. Anyone saying we "can't" build LRT have given up on building a better society and we may as well leave STL since we admit it will never have the accomadations it deserves.

It is a profound failure of this country that we have relegated ourselves to technology and vision for the future that is less than what was demanded at every other era in this country's history. And you can't blame it all on Trump. This problem spans well further than him.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

StlAlex wrote: ↑

3:49 AM - Mar 18

BTW, we know other places they built BRT instead of rail, the line is at capacity and overpopulated.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Can you cite where you're talking about please? That's not true everywhere and by that same token there's plenty of half empty light rail lines in Cleveland, San Jose, Norfolk, Denver, Baltimore, etc.

I'm not against expanding metrolink but let's try to be objective here.

PeterXCV wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

3:49 AM - Mar 18

BTW, we know other places they built BRT instead of rail, the line is at capacity and overpopulated.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Can you cite where you're talking about please? That's not true everywhere and by that same token there's plenty of half empty light rail lines in Cleveland, San Jose, Norfolk, Denver, Baltimore, etc.

I'm not against expanding metrolink but let's try to be objective here.

Los Angeles G Line. I'm literally the most objective person here.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

The Green Line website says they have two route options for public comment, I assume they will be revealed at the Open Houses on May 5-7. No idea when this was put on the website.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

public comment Geez more talk and talk and talk grrrr