urbanSTL

StlAlex wrote:

ldai_phs wrote:

StlAlex wrote:That's neat, maybe you can ask them for some consultation on why IndyGo saw bus ridership decline after opening their $188 million Purple Line.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

The failure of Indy BRT means STL LRT would have had high ridership how?

The fact they're using Indy BRT as a model for our BRT means our BRT will fail lol. The 3 examples they have on the website are:

IndyGo: $188 million for less than 3k riders, ridership declined after opening it

Minneapolis Gold Line: $505 million for less than 2k riders

Albuquerque: Just isn't a city we should be modeling our transit off of.

If these are what we are modeling, it absolutely will fail.

For comparison, the LRT's models were Portland, Pheonix, and Minneapolis Green Line.





Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

This is a comparison of physical infrastructure and operations. By your own logic, is the alternative to spend 10x more $ on LRT for 3x more riders than BRT a good choice?


I think STL’s mistake was saying that they can only build rail if one specific route is followed. South City only or an east/west streetcar would have had enough ridership to get off the ground a decade ago. I know why it’s the case so no need to lecture me.

ldai_phs wrote:

StlAlex wrote:

ldai_phs wrote: The failure of Indy BRT means STL LRT would have had high ridership how?

The fact they're using Indy BRT as a model for our BRT means our BRT will fail lol. The 3 examples they have on the website are:

IndyGo: $188 million for less than 3k riders, ridership declined after opening it

Minneapolis Gold Line: $505 million for less than 2k riders

Albuquerque: Just isn't a city we should be modeling our transit off of.

If these are what we are modeling, it absolutely will fail.

For comparison, the LRT's models were Portland, Pheonix, and Minneapolis Green Line.





Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

This is a comparison of physical infrastructure and operations. By your own logic, is the alternative to spend 10x more $ on LRT for 3x more riders than BRT a good choice?


I think STL’s mistake was saying that they can only build rail if one specific route is followed. South City only or an east/west streetcar would have had enough ridership to get off the ground a decade ago. I know why it’s the case so no need to lecture me.

Actually yes spending significantly more on a transit system that actually improves the city, grows ridership, reduces car dependency, and simulates economic development is absolutely worth it compared to a cheaper branded bus that has a similar effect as the 70 Grand.

$1.1 billion LRT would have a lower long term operation cost per rider, have MORE ridership, it wouldn't destroy the roads the way buses do, and would have a larger impact on the local economy and resident population.

So yes I'd much rather spend more now for a better product than spend half the cost for a far inferior product that will have similar ridership to the 70 Grand. Funnily enough, our line maybe would do better than IndyGo's simply because it would connect to the MetroLink- a technology so good that it may pull up a waste of money like BRT.

Edit: My preferred south side route would be to purchase the Carondelete subdivision and turn it into a grade separated LRT using our current technology. But I agree it would not be feasible with the political environment in STL. Maybe it would be if we had leaders who seriously cared about the plight of North City, but we don't so anything that focuses on the south side is impossible.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

My argument for keeping LRT is that it gets STL closer to the dream of comprehensive rail. It's not a dream that I will likely live to realize, but getting that N/S spine built will change how the city is built and operates for the next hundred years. I'm not convinced that BRT will have that level of effect, especially after inevitably being value engineered away from the high quality BRT that is being promised.