A transportation line that provides poor utility won’t generate the demand necessary to sustain development.
Using Minneapolis' planned "arterial" BRTs as a baseline, it would cost roughly $79 million to merge the #11 and #4 along the 11 mile planned corridor with features like off-board fare collection, improved frequency, a more limited number of bus stops; improvements to those bus stops like bump outs, raised sidewalks, shelters, and arrival time signs; some transit signal priority, and some sections of bus lanes at more congested parts of the line.
This could be done by the city/metro with no need for federal aid, with no financing, and be opened by 2029. We would get 95% of the benefits of BRT but for less than a quarter of the cost. Is the extra $350 million really worth it to be able to pretend its LRT?
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
This could be done by the city/metro with no need for federal aid, with no financing, and be opened by 2029. We would get 95% of the benefits of BRT but for less than a quarter of the cost. Is the extra $350 million really worth it to be able to pretend its LRT?
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
- 135
This.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑7:08 PM - 1 day agoI think people are debating this as a transit project when that’s not really the point. The purpose of building something like this is not primarily to move large numbers of people from south city to north city, there is no justifiable demand for that at all, even with NGA. The real purpose is to attract development and investment along the corridor.
If the goal is simply transportation, then standard bus service or BRT can accomplish that at a lower cost. But if the goal is long-term private investment, redevelopment, and creating confidence for developers to build along Jefferson, then fixed rail becomes a very different conversation.
A bus route can be changed, reduced, or rerouted relatively easily. Even BRT is still ultimately bus infrastructure. Light rail, on the other hand, creates a permanent corridor that developers and investors can plan around decades into the future.
So the question shouldn’t be “How many people are taking transit from Arsenal to North City and how to best move them?” The question is “What kind of infrastructure is most likely to generate sustained corridor investment and redevelopment?
Heavy rail transit (ie subway or rapid transit) requires the separation. FRA regulated railroads (ie. PATH or commuter rail) can sharesymphonicpoet wrote: ↑5:52 PM - 1 day agoWith light rail you'd need physical or scheduling separation, but not with heavy rail. That's one of the definitional differences: heavy rail equipment meets USDOT crash standards allowing interoperability with the national network. Light rail doesn't, so it can only be used on "insular" systems. You couldn't use Metrolink's Siemens stuff on the Oak Hill line. But if you used different equipment there's nothing that would really prevent passenger operations alongside freight. Obviously Amtrak is already doing just that. You'd have to string wire, build stations, and buy the right equipment. And there'd be some real advantages to getting freight off the line, both in terms of scheduling and in terms of track geometry. But it's not impossible to have both.ldai_phs wrote: ↑10:51 PM - 1 day agoYou now have to build a crash barrier between the right rail and passenger (or run them at different times of day ala San Diego)STLAPTS wrote:If we used the UP right of way that runs through south city shouldn't it be as easy as adding heavy rail cars and creating subway stops at the appropriate locations? It seems like the cost would insignificant compared to light rail.