How much would this cost as a modern streetcar.
Close to $150M per mile, so $1.7B for the lines shown here. Green Line was going to be over $220M per mile by the time it was ready to go, $2.4B. Just a guesstimate.
The blue alignment is significantly better IMO. Going along Florrisant is way better than N Jefferson, will make Old North transit accessible. My only real gripe (other than it being BRT) is that I'd prefer it to go through Downtown West more than along Tucker, take like 18th St through and then MLK over to Tucker. Still happy it isn't going further east though.
The blue as LRT would be a dream but would obviously be "too expensive" even though it would be well worth.
This comes out to more than $38 million/mile, which is more than 3x the cost of IndyGo's Purple Line. So I have to wonder where in the world that money is going? Are they going to straight up build a light rail alignment with no rails or wires? I know inflation is a factor but not 300%.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
The blue as LRT would be a dream but would obviously be "too expensive" even though it would be well worth.
This comes out to more than $38 million/mile, which is more than 3x the cost of IndyGo's Purple Line. So I have to wonder where in the world that money is going? Are they going to straight up build a light rail alignment with no rails or wires? I know inflation is a factor but not 300%.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
I prefer the blue/North Florissant alignment as well.StlAlex wrote: ↑5:07 PM - 20 days agoThe blue alignment is significantly better IMO. Going along Florrisant is way better than N Jefferson, will make Old North transit accessible. My only real gripe (other than it being BRT) is that I'd prefer it to go through Downtown West more than along Tucker, take like 18th St through and then MLK over to Tucker. Still happy it isn't going further east though.
The blue as LRT would be a dream but would obviously be "too expensive" even though it would be well worth.
This comes out to more than $38 million/mile, which is more than 3x the cost of IndyGo's Purple Line. So I have to wonder where in the world that money is going? Are they going to straight up build a light rail alignment with no rails or wires? I know inflation is a factor but not 300%.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
And re: the cost, I believe it's high precisely because they wanted to imitate MetroLink service/aesthetics as much as possible.
I looked into the Indianapolis cost a bit further. The Purple Line is 15.2 miles but only ~9.3 miles of that was new with the other 6 miles shared with the initial Red Line. That brings the per mile cost to $20M. Adjust for inflation since 2022 and the gap is smaller. I also noted that much of the Purple Line corridor didn't include resurfacing, new sidewalks, curbs, lighting. I feel pretty confident that if N Florissant is involved it will include a full rebuild sidewalk to sidewalk.
More important is what Indianapolis is estimating the Blue Line will cost. They claim it's 24 miles for $400M but a good chunk is just interstate travel or roads that won't be adjusted. In actuality is 14-15 miles of new infrastructure and my sources (transit planner in Indy) thinks the total cost will exceed $400M. So you're approaching $25M-$30M per mile.
More important is what Indianapolis is estimating the Blue Line will cost. They claim it's 24 miles for $400M but a good chunk is just interstate travel or roads that won't be adjusted. In actuality is 14-15 miles of new infrastructure and my sources (transit planner in Indy) thinks the total cost will exceed $400M. So you're approaching $25M-$30M per mile.
Regarding the routes, the blue will have higher ridership. I don't see the point in deviating down Clark to Tucker Boulevard other than traffic calming. I would prefer it just stay on 14th through Downtown.
Agree.addxb2 wrote:Regarding the routes, the blue will have higher ridership. I don't see the point in deviating down Clark to Tucker Boulevard other than traffic calming. I would prefer it just stay on 14th through Downtown.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
Did they have an explanation for why ridership declined significantly after opening the Pueple Line?addxb2 wrote:I looked into the Indianapolis cost a bit further. The Purple Line is 15.2 miles but only ~9.3 miles of that was new with the other 6 miles shared with the initial Red Line. That brings the per mile cost to $20M. Adjust for inflation since 2022 and the gap is smaller. I also noted that much of the Purple Line corridor didn't include resurfacing, new sidewalks, curbs, lighting. I feel pretty confident that if N Florissant is involved it will include a full rebuild sidewalk to sidewalk.
More important is what Indianapolis is estimating the Blue Line will cost. They claim it's 24 miles for $400M but a good chunk is just interstate travel or roads that won't be adjusted. In actuality is 14-15 miles of new infrastructure and my sources (transit planner in Indy) thinks the total cost will exceed $400M. So you're approaching $25M-$30M per mile.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
I didn't verify any of this but Google AI says:StlAlex wrote: ↑8:43 PM - 19 days agoDid they have an explanation for why ridership declined significantly after opening the Pueple Line?addxb2 wrote:I looked into the Indianapolis cost a bit further. The Purple Line is 15.2 miles but only ~9.3 miles of that was new with the other 6 miles shared with the initial Red Line. That brings the per mile cost to $20M. Adjust for inflation since 2022 and the gap is smaller. I also noted that much of the Purple Line corridor didn't include resurfacing, new sidewalks, curbs, lighting. I feel pretty confident that if N Florissant is involved it will include a full rebuild sidewalk to sidewalk.
More important is what Indianapolis is estimating the Blue Line will cost. They claim it's 24 miles for $400M but a good chunk is just interstate travel or roads that won't be adjusted. In actuality is 14-15 miles of new infrastructure and my sources (transit planner in Indy) thinks the total cost will exceed $400M. So you're approaching $25M-$30M per mile.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
Indianapolis bus ridership declined despite the Purple Line's launch in October 2024 primarily due to a 20% drop in Red Line ridership. Factors include broader national trends like increased remote work, higher car ownership, and the competition from ride-hailing services, alongside specific local issues like limited signal prioritization. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- Red Line Falters: While the Purple Line became the top route, the Red Line experienced a 20% reduction in trips as of early 2025. [1]
- Infrastructure Gaps: Earlier assessments of rapid transit in Indy noted limited signal priority in certain areas and poor pedestrian infrastructure (lack of sidewalks/streetlights) around stations, which hampered ridership growth. [1]
- Wider Trends: Nationwide, transit agencies are struggling with the shift towards remote work and lower gas prices. [1]
- Service Changes: The introduction of the Purple Line involved restructuring routes, which can temporarily decrease overall system ridership
The lack of traffic signal prioritization makes BRT far less useful (it would also obviously hurt in-street light rail).
- 1,628
No new riders are getting on this. LRT gets people to ditch their cars, at least occasionally.
This is a half billion dollar boondoggle. STL walks backwards. At least Bashville made the same stupid mistake not going for light rail. Not the only idiots in the neighborhood.
This is a half billion dollar boondoggle. STL walks backwards. At least Bashville made the same stupid mistake not going for light rail. Not the only idiots in the neighborhood.
My question was kind of rhetorical. Red Line ridership dropped because the Purple Line shares a portion, meaning on the shared trunk, some riders are now hopping on Purple Line buses if they're going to a destination along the shared trunk. Regular bus ridership dropped because the Purple Line just merges a couple of the higher ridership bus lines. And it wouldn't shock me if they had to cut frequency on other lines to run the Red and Purple at 15 minute frequencies.stldotage wrote:I didn't verify any of this but Google AI says:StlAlex wrote: ↑8:43 PM - 19 days agoDid they have an explanation for why ridership declined significantly after opening the Pueple Line?addxb2 wrote:I looked into the Indianapolis cost a bit further. The Purple Line is 15.2 miles but only ~9.3 miles of that was new with the other 6 miles shared with the initial Red Line. That brings the per mile cost to $20M. Adjust for inflation since 2022 and the gap is smaller. I also noted that much of the Purple Line corridor didn't include resurfacing, new sidewalks, curbs, lighting. I feel pretty confident that if N Florissant is involved it will include a full rebuild sidewalk to sidewalk.
More important is what Indianapolis is estimating the Blue Line will cost. They claim it's 24 miles for $400M but a good chunk is just interstate travel or roads that won't be adjusted. In actuality is 14-15 miles of new infrastructure and my sources (transit planner in Indy) thinks the total cost will exceed $400M. So you're approaching $25M-$30M per mile.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
Indianapolis bus ridership declined despite the Purple Line's launch in October 2024 primarily due to a 20% drop in Red Line ridership. Factors include broader national trends like increased remote work, higher car ownership, and the competition from ride-hailing services, alongside specific local issues like limited signal prioritization. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- Red Line Falters: While the Purple Line became the top route, the Red Line experienced a 20% reduction in trips as of early 2025. [1]
- Infrastructure Gaps: Earlier assessments of rapid transit in Indy noted limited signal priority in certain areas and poor pedestrian infrastructure (lack of sidewalks/streetlights) around stations, which hampered ridership growth. [1]
- Wider Trends: Nationwide, transit agencies are struggling with the shift towards remote work and lower gas prices. [1]
- Service Changes: The introduction of the Purple Line involved restructuring routes, which can temporarily decrease overall system ridership
The ultimate reason for the drop in ridership is because no one new is choosing the ride the $188 million bus over taking their car. They do not view it as fundamentally different than the bus lines it replaced. Which brings into question why we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on infrastructure that does not actually attract new riders or change how people are living their lives. This is my exact fear with the Green Line.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
My question is not rhetorical. Why would a train with fewer stations that serves fewer areas and requires a transfer to get to any job center automatically attract more riders? Leaning 100 percent into the anti-bus bias and using it as a reason to not pursue bus-based transit seems like a classic self-fulfilling prophecy.StlAlex wrote: ↑10:03 PM - 19 days agoMy question was kind of rhetorical.stldotage wrote:I didn't verify any of this but Google AI says:StlAlex wrote: ↑8:43 PM - 19 days agoDid they have an explanation for why ridership declined significantly after opening the Pueple Line?
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
Indianapolis bus ridership declined despite the Purple Line's launch in October 2024 primarily due to a 20% drop in Red Line ridership. Factors include broader national trends like increased remote work, higher car ownership, and the competition from ride-hailing services, alongside specific local issues like limited signal prioritization. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- Red Line Falters: While the Purple Line became the top route, the Red Line experienced a 20% reduction in trips as of early 2025. [1]
- Infrastructure Gaps: Earlier assessments of rapid transit in Indy noted limited signal priority in certain areas and poor pedestrian infrastructure (lack of sidewalks/streetlights) around stations, which hampered ridership growth. [1]
- Wider Trends: Nationwide, transit agencies are struggling with the shift towards remote work and lower gas prices. [1]
- Service Changes: The introduction of the Purple Line involved restructuring routes, which can temporarily decrease overall system ridership
...
The ultimate reason for the drop in ridership is because no one new is choosing the ride the $188 million bus over taking their car. They do not view it as fundamentally different than the bus lines it replaced. Which brings into question why we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on infrastructure that does not actually attract new riders or change how people are living their lives. This is my exact fear with the Green Line.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
Now, in a perfect world where we could focus on a route with maximal efficiency and need (say, a 5.8 mile light rail line on Gravois in South City to downtown OR cutting costs by using a pre-existing rail line like the MO Pacific), I would be in agreement with the rail side of the equation.
You're comparing 2 different things now. I think the 5.6 mile Green Line LRT would have higher ridership than a 5.6 mile BRT along the same route. I also think 11 miles of LRT along the blue alignment would have more ridership than a BRT. But the 11 mile BRT *should* have more ridership than the 5.5 mile LRT (though we've seen BRT in Minneapolis and Indianapolis have terrible ridership numbers).stldotage wrote:My question is not rhetorical. Why would a train with fewer stations that serves fewer areas and requires a transfer to get to any job center automatically attract more riders? Leaning 100 percent into the anti-bus bias and using it as a reason to not pursue bus-based transit seems like a classic self-fulfilling prophecy.StlAlex wrote: ↑10:03 PM - 19 days agoMy question was kind of rhetorical.stldotage wrote: I didn't verify any of this but Google AI says:
Indianapolis bus ridership declined despite the Purple Line's launch in October 2024 primarily due to a 20% drop in Red Line ridership. Factors include broader national trends like increased remote work, higher car ownership, and the competition from ride-hailing services, alongside specific local issues like limited signal prioritization. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- Red Line Falters: While the Purple Line became the top route, the Red Line experienced a 20% reduction in trips as of early 2025. [1]
- Infrastructure Gaps: Earlier assessments of rapid transit in Indy noted limited signal priority in certain areas and poor pedestrian infrastructure (lack of sidewalks/streetlights) around stations, which hampered ridership growth. [1]
- Wider Trends: Nationwide, transit agencies are struggling with the shift towards remote work and lower gas prices. [1]
- Service Changes: The introduction of the Purple Line involved restructuring routes, which can temporarily decrease overall system ridership
...
The ultimate reason for the drop in ridership is because no one new is choosing the ride the $188 million bus over taking their car. They do not view it as fundamentally different than the bus lines it replaced. Which brings into question why we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on infrastructure that does not actually attract new riders or change how people are living their lives. This is my exact fear with the Green Line.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
Someone at the events should inquire into their plan for connecting with Civic Center. Probably the most important detail is how efficiently someone can connect to MetroLink and other bus routes.
Words to Abolish: “Choice Rider,” “Captive Rider”
https://humantransit.org/2026/05/words- ... rider.html
https://humantransit.org/2026/05/words- ... rider.html
- 1,628
Why does a transfer impact anything. Every good, functional streetcar, light rail or subway system I’ve been on from Chicago to New York, Boston, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Strassburg, Vienna, Milan, Turin, San Fran, Portland, Seattle (the list goes on) - all have transfers. This is commonplace for network connectivity and in no way diminishes ridership.stldotage wrote: ↑11:04 PM - 19 days agoMy question is not rhetorical. Why would a train with fewer stations that serves fewer areas and requires a transfer to get to any job center automatically attract more riders? .StlAlex wrote: ↑10:03 PM - 19 days agoMy question was kind of rhetorical.stldotage wrote: I didn't verify any of this but Google AI says:
Indianapolis bus ridership declined despite the Purple Line's launch in October 2024 primarily due to a 20% drop in Red Line ridership. Factors include broader national trends like increased remote work, higher car ownership, and the competition from ride-hailing services, alongside specific local issues like limited signal prioritization. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- Red Line Falters: While the Purple Line became the top route, the Red Line experienced a 20% reduction in trips as of early 2025. [1]
- Infrastructure Gaps: Earlier assessments of rapid transit in Indy noted limited signal priority in certain areas and poor pedestrian infrastructure (lack of sidewalks/streetlights) around stations, which hampered ridership growth. [1]
- Wider Trends: Nationwide, transit agencies are struggling with the shift towards remote work and lower gas prices. [1]
- Service Changes: The introduction of the Purple Line involved restructuring routes, which can temporarily decrease overall system ridership
...
The ultimate reason for the drop in ridership is because no one new is choosing the ride the $188 million bus over taking their car. They do not view it as fundamentally different than the bus lines it replaced. Which brings into question why we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on infrastructure that does not actually attract new riders or change how people are living their lives. This is my exact fear with the Green Line.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
When we're operating under the assumption that rail transit is a superior product and will attract riders who might otherwise drive, the more transfers/headaches/time you add to a commute, the more likely someone is to choose an alternative. This is especially true in St. Louis, which makes it beyond easy to drive anywhere and everywhere (unlike nearly all of the cities you listed above).TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑10:47 AM - 19 days agoWhy does a transfer impact anything. Every good, functional streetcar, light rail or subway system I’ve been on from Chicago to New York, Boston, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Strassburg, Vienna, Milan, Turin, San Fran, Portland, Seattle (the list goes on) - all have transfers. This is commonplace for network connectivity and in no way diminishes ridership.stldotage wrote: ↑11:04 PM - 19 days agoMy question is not rhetorical. Why would a train with fewer stations that serves fewer areas and requires a transfer to get to any job center automatically attract more riders? .StlAlex wrote: ↑10:03 PM - 19 days agoMy question was kind of rhetorical.
...
The ultimate reason for the drop in ridership is because no one new is choosing the ride the $188 million bus over taking their car. They do not view it as fundamentally different than the bus lines it replaced. Which brings into question why we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on infrastructure that does not actually attract new riders or change how people are living their lives. This is my exact fear with the Green Line.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
Edit: I realize a lot of transit-based commutes require transfers also. That's not the main problem. But the proposed Metrolink Green Line's Jefferson stop would not be a major bus transfer, meaning riders using it to get to bus lines would likely have to get off at Jefferson/Scott, ride the Red or Blue lines two stops east to Civic Center, then get on a bus. Either that or the more likely scenario...avoid taking the Green Line altogether and just use a bus that takes you to Civic Center.
And the broader point: arguing for a 5.8-mile, $1.1 billion dollar rail line with 10 stations (Real Option #1) instead of an 11-mile, $500 million BRT line with 23 stations (Real Option #2) is a tough one to win.
Option 1 essentially doesn't serve the North Side at all...just NGA, which obviously exists where it is precisely because the neighborhood was primarily vacant lots. The whole Northside-Southside Metrolink project was initially meant to create a North-South axis for the Metrolink system within the City and actually connect non-Central Corridor neighborhoods to downtown. Option 1 would have succeeded doing so on the South Side but not the North and would have also deemphasized downtown proper. This all at the well-known price tag north of a billion.
Option 2 specifically does not ignore half the goal (connecting North Side to Central Corridor), improves existing bus service frequency, connects with downtown, and is much more easily expandable into the County in the future (which could actually get funded). It also aims to mimic Metrolink amenities and aesthetics...at half the price and double the service area.
Option 1 essentially doesn't serve the North Side at all...just NGA, which obviously exists where it is precisely because the neighborhood was primarily vacant lots. The whole Northside-Southside Metrolink project was initially meant to create a North-South axis for the Metrolink system within the City and actually connect non-Central Corridor neighborhoods to downtown. Option 1 would have succeeded doing so on the South Side but not the North and would have also deemphasized downtown proper. This all at the well-known price tag north of a billion.
Option 2 specifically does not ignore half the goal (connecting North Side to Central Corridor), improves existing bus service frequency, connects with downtown, and is much more easily expandable into the County in the future (which could actually get funded). It also aims to mimic Metrolink amenities and aesthetics...at half the price and double the service area.
Transfers absolutely impact ridership. Frequency of service and trip time are the most important functions of good public transportation. A transfer impacts both.
Listing a bunch of high density places where owning a car is more challenging doesn’t help that case. In St. Louis, requiring a transfer diminishes choice riders by 25-50%.
Listing a bunch of high density places where owning a car is more challenging doesn’t help that case. In St. Louis, requiring a transfer diminishes choice riders by 25-50%.
If we are just throwing out random numbers with absolutely nothing to support it, making this a bus instead of a train will result in 25-50% less ridership than if it was a train.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
- 1,628
^Haha
While a transfer might affect trip time, I see headways is way more impactful on trip time and therefore ridership. I currently really have to plot out my walk to make a train at cortex, if it was 7-10 minute headways it’s a non issue.
While a transfer might affect trip time, I see headways is way more impactful on trip time and therefore ridership. I currently really have to plot out my walk to make a train at cortex, if it was 7-10 minute headways it’s a non issue.
Option 1 will not create new ridership while option 2 would. That's all that ultimately matters at the end of the day. Indy spent $288M on buses that don't attract riders, Madison spent $195M on a bus that doesn't attract riders. Minneapolis spent $505 million on a bus that gets less than 2k riders per day. I don't get what's so hard to understand. Buses are not trains, they never will be, you can't pretend that they are.stldotage wrote:And the broader point: arguing for a 5.8-mile, $1.1 billion dollar rail line with 10 stations (Real Option #1) instead of an 11-mile, $500 million BRT line with 23 stations (Real Option #2) is a tough one to win.
Option 1 essentially doesn't serve the North Side at all...just NGA, which obviously exists where it is precisely because the neighborhood was primarily vacant lots. The whole Northside-Southside Metrolink project was initially meant to create a North-South axis for the Metrolink system within the City and actually connect non-Central Corridor neighborhoods to downtown. Option 1 would have succeeded doing so on the South Side but not the North and would have also deemphasized downtown proper. This all at the well-known price tag north of a billion.
Option 2 specifically does not ignore half the goal (connecting North Side to Central Corridor), improves existing bus service frequency, connects with downtown, and is much more easily expandable into the County in the future (which could actually get funded). It also aims to mimic Metrolink amenities and aesthetics...at half the price and double the service area.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk