urbanSTL

Transfer penalties are one of the most-studied topics in ridership modeling, and the research is fairly consistent on direction even if the magnitudes vary by context. Riders perceive a transfer as costing more than just the actual wait and walk time. Models typically express this as equivalent minutes of in-vehicle time, with most estimates falling between 5 and 25 minutes per transfer, and a commonly cited central value around 10 to 15 minutes. In ridership terms, requiring one transfer typically reduces the probability of choosing transit by 15 to 30% (most studies cluster around 20 to 25%) for a given origin-destination pair. Two transfers compound non-linearly, with reductions often in the 35 to 50% range, since riders are especially averse to multi-leg trips.

Ridership elasticity to transfers follows the same pattern: choice-rider markets in car-dependent regions can see 30 to 45% reductions for transfer-dependent OD pairs, while dense transit markets often see closer to 10 to 20%. 

Sources:

• Liu, Pendyala, and Polzin (1997), Transportation Research Record
• TCRP Report 95, Chapter 10 (Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes)
• Guo and Wilson (2011), Boston (transit-rich), found ~15 min penalty but explicitly noted lower values where the network was densest
• Chu (2018), Transportation Research Record, compared transfer penalty estimates across U.S. metros and documented systematically higher penalties in lower-frequency, auto-oriented systems
• Schakenbos et al. (2016), Transportation Research Part A, Dutch rail/bus, transit-rich context, lower penalties
• Currie (2005), Journal of Public Transportation, Australian/Melbourne context, captures the choice-rider sensitivity
• Iseki and Taylor (2009), review explicitly discusses regional and demographic variation
• TCRP Report 165 (Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd ed.), frequency and network effects on transfer tolerance

addxb2 wrote:The argument you're having is regarding "rail bias" or "rail premium" which has less alignment amongst transit professionals. Most estimates put the premium somewhere between 15% and 40% more ridership for LRT compared to a similar BRT line. The reasons aren't fully settled, but common explanations include perceived permanence, smoother ride quality, easier wayfinding, stronger land-use response around stations, and the stigma still attached to bus service in many places. A good chunk of the literature pushes back on this though. Several studies argue that once you really control for service quality (things like dedicated right-of-way, station spacing, frequency, fare integration, and vehicle quality), the mode-specific premium drops a lot, sometimes down to 5 or 10%, and occasionally it disappears altogether.

So when you control for everything that makes LRT better, BRT is competitive but often still falls short. Nice.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Sure, but these are not similar lines, the BRT option is double the length and half of the cost as the LRT option.  And the BRT option goes through more established Northside neighborhoods while still providing ample space for infill and redevelopment.  I don't know why you're acting as though you know with absolute certainty that the LRT line will perform so much better than the BRT?  We have comparative case studied, but none of the BRT lines we've been discussing are anything like the conditions in the catchment zones of the STL project.

I understand the appeal and benefits of LRT over BRT...although I believe that LRT is an expensive "middle mode" between buses and heavy rail, and not very cost-effective in that position.  What I would love to see is a BRT network, maybe 3 branch lines to begin, that plots a course for the future that will help to integrate an improved system throughout the city and surrounding region.

I would LOVE to get someone like Jarrett Walker to consult our city/region on the best way to increase ridership and enhance connections in a cost-effective way.  His "Human Transit" website and all the work that I have seen are incredible.  If only we could listen to experts and individuals that consistently "Show Me", with data, what improvements are the most successful.

addxb2--
Several studies argue that once you really control for service quality (things like dedicated right-of-way, station spacing, frequency, fare integration, and vehicle quality), the mode-specific premium drops a lot, sometimes down to 5 or 10%, and occasionally it disappears altogether.

This exactly. The BRT critics on this forum assume an inferior end product. IF that is the case--that Metrolink amenities are not matched--then I am also anti-BRT. 

StlAlex--
So when you control for everything that makes LRT better, BRT is competitive but often still falls short. Nice.

So a 5-10 percent ridership premium for rail is worth a 144 percent higher cost ($450 million compared to $1.1 billion)?

dblarsen314--
I understand the appeal and benefits of LRT over BRT...although I believe that LRT is an expensive "middle mode" between buses and heavy rail, and not very cost-effective in that position.  What I would love to see is a BRT network, maybe 3 branch lines to begin, that plots a course for the future that will help to integrate an improved system throughout the city and surrounding region.

Great point here too. Green Line LRT backers could have switched to a different route or pressed for an existing rail corridor like Mo-Pac to be used to address cost concerns but instead the same route was doubled down on with little justification (with fewer stations, too).

They change the routes since last night. 

^How so?

I think there was just a mistake on one of the maps -- the station was labeled "18th and Chouteau" (misspelled too) but was actually at 14th and Chouteau. I believe that map showed a Chouteau to 14th to Clark to Tucker alignment...instead of 18th.

I attended the Fox Park event last night and the map they showed for that particular alternative no longer showed the line on 14th.

Unless you're referring to something different?

They now take 18th Street north from Chouteau, versus 14th Street. They then turn onto Clark to run parallel with MetroLink between Union Station and 14th Street. Then return to original plan, either turn up 14th to Olive or continue down Clark to Tucker. Tucker north and out of Downtown. 

stldotage wrote:

addxb2--
Several studies argue that once you really control for service quality (things like dedicated right-of-way, station spacing, frequency, fare integration, and vehicle quality), the mode-specific premium drops a lot, sometimes down to 5 or 10%, and occasionally it disappears altogether.

This exactly. The BRT critics on this forum assume an inferior end product. IF that is the case--that Metrolink amenities are not matched--then I am also anti-BRT. 

StlAlex--
So when you control for everything that makes LRT better, BRT is competitive but often still falls short. Nice.

So a 5-10 percent ridership premium for rail is worth a 144 percent higher cost ($450 million compared to $1.1 billion)?

dblarsen314--
I understand the appeal and benefits of LRT over BRT...although I believe that LRT is an expensive "middle mode" between buses and heavy rail, and not very cost-effective in that position.  What I would love to see is a BRT network, maybe 3 branch lines to begin, that plots a course for the future that will help to integrate an improved system throughout the city and surrounding region.

Great point here too. Green Line LRT backers could have switched to a different route or pressed for an existing rail corridor like Mo-Pac to be used to address cost concerns but instead the same route was doubled down on with little justification (with fewer stations, too).

1) You are assuming St. Louis is going to do something basically seen nowhere else in America. I am assuming the BRT will look similar to their examples on the website, which do not instill much hope.

Indianapolis' 24 miles of BRT gets between 6 and 7,000 riders per day. If the Green Line reflects that ridership, it would get 3,200 daily riders, probably all from the #11, #4, and #74 buses as well. That just is not worth $400 million in any world.

2) I have repeatedly said other routes should have been looked at and said the Green Line's route was not perfect. The city government did not and is now illegally trying to use tax dollars for something no one voted for. I would have been strongly in favor of Spencer pushing for re-routing, seeking more funding mechanisms, and working with the county on making it closer to the 2017 vision. She did none of that. If the yellow line is chosen, there will be very little alignment change, she didn't push for any other funding mechanisms, meaning we are still fully reliant on 60% federal funds, and she didn't work with the county on future extensions.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

addxb2 wrote:They now take 18th Street north from Chouteau, versus 14th Street. They then turn onto Clark to run parallel with MetroLink between Union Station and 14th Street. Then return to original plan, either turn up 14th to Olive or continue down Clark to Tucker. Tucker north and out of Downtown. 

Last Night Yellow:


Today Yellow


Last night blue


Today blue



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1) You are assuming St. Louis is going to do something basically seen nowhere else in America. I am assuming the BRT will look similar to their examples on the website, which do not instill much hope.

I am assuming that a project to improve transit similar to a Metrolink level of service versus a regular bus line would do the following: match Metrolink headways, have unique branding and vehicles, raised platforms, real-time arrival signage, pre-board payment, dedicated lanes, and traffic signal prioritization. All of that would have to exist for an in-street rail project anyhow. And all of that is planned for the Green Line BRT. What, specifically, would instill hope?

Indianapolis' 24 miles of BRT gets between 6 and 7,000  riders per day. If the Green Line reflects that ridership, it would get 3,200 daily riders, probably all from the #11, #4, and #74 buses as well. That just is not worth $400 million in any world.

Okay...well, I fear this is the reality of building transit in any non-fast-growing area. Ridership will shift and there will be a large degree of cannibalization. Light rail absorbs a lot of bus rider demand too. You're implying that BRT generates 0 new riders (because of Indianapolis' examples?). You're also implying a rail line--any rail--would generate enough new riders to justify a 144 percent price increase? I don't buy it in either case.

Light rail is also not doing as well post-COVID, especially in the Midwest:

Regional Ridership Trends (First Half 2025 vs. 2019)

Region [1, 2]	City / System	Recovery Rate (% of 2019 Levels)
West	San Diego Trolley	114%
	LA MetroRail (A, C, E, K)	85%
	SLC TRAX (Salt Lake City)	78%
	Sacramento RTD	70%
	Denver Light Rail	45%
Midwest	St. Louis MetroLink	58%
	Twin Cities Metro (Minneapolis)	54%
	Cleveland Light Rail	53%
South	DART (Dallas)	78%
	Charlotte LYNX	74%
	Houston METRORail	73%

As to your final point, the reason they're overlapping/reusing the Jefferson alignment is precisely to avoid restarting the whole process from step 1, as noted here in a prior BRT meeting slide as to why Grand was not chosen for BRT:

This was meant to deliver on the goals of the Green Line project - expanding rapid transit service to the North and South Sides - without throwing all of the existing work out. Notably, as I mentioned above, the pared down Green Line barely served the North Side, failing at a key project goal. To act like the two light rail stations serving NGA are even within the same league as 10 BRT stations across the entire length of North City is not really defensible.