urbanSTL

ldai_phs wrote: ↑

1:50 PM - Today

addxb2 wrote:

stldotage wrote: ↑

1:38 PM - Today

For projects involving federal funding, East-West Gateway must be consulted.  It's extremely difficult to imagine a fully locally-funded light rail line of any decent size/scale (bypassing East-West Gateway) given the number of infrastructure priorities both the City and County have.

Yes and no. EWG is necessary for funding but they essentially take direction from the City/County on the locally preferred alternative. They will be consulted again when this LPA is complete and they'll approve it without much issue.  STL needs an organization that is looking at the data (EWG does well) then dictates the capital improvements and expansions. 

Why are they necessary when KC set up their own new entity for the streetcar and served as the grant applicant themselves?

Kansas City relied on the same process with their Metropolitan Planning Org -- MARC (Mid-American Regional Council). Kansas City is 45% of the population of the Missouri side of its region though. Much more so than St. Louis City, it dominates the transit discussion in its region.

I do wonder what that highest quality means exactly. When I think of highest quality in the US (that I've been on) I think of the Healthline in Cleveland, had its own lanes in the center of the road, platforms with level boarding, felt very modern, high frequency; and yet they had way too many stops. Apparently they just kept all the same stops as the old bus line which meant it wasn't that fast. 

As I mentioned earlier, the Metrobus system in Mexico City is something to behold. With that they have center platforms in the streets with ticket machines and turnstiles to enter the platform, platform screen doors which open as the buses arrive, and several of the lines are also Trolleybuses. And it's pretty fast too. 

PeterXCV wrote: ↑

2:56 PM - Today

I do wonder what that highest quality means exactly. When I think of highest quality in the US (that I've been on) I think of the Healthline in Cleveland, had its own lanes in the enter of the road, platforms with level boarding, felt very modern, high frequency; and yet they had way too many stops. Apparently they just kept all the same stops as the old bus line which meant it wasn't that fast. 

As I mentioned earlier, the Metrobus system in Mexico City is something to behold. With that they have center platforms in the streets with ticket machines and turnstiles to enter the platform, platform screen doors which open as the buses arrive, and several of the lines are also Trolleybuses. And it's pretty fast too. 

The stations for this STL Green Line BRT proposal are about 2/5 - 1/2 mile apart (for example, Jefferson/Arsenal to Jefferson/Gravois is ~2,200 feet or 0.4 miles). Per Google AI, Cleveland's Healthline stops are 1/5th mile apart on average.

addxb2 wrote:Listening to Scott Ogilvie on webinar about BRT. 
- Goal to build the highest quality BRT in the US. 
- This project as BRT is very competitive. 
- Priority in rerouting was to connect to the Civic Center. 
- Tucker + Florissant scores better. 
- Submitting to EWG in coming months (maybe June).
- 30% by mid-2027. 
- Bi-State is looking into taking a larger role with GTC/Amtrak. Very early talks.
  

-Better be high quality for $450M, I'd love to be proven wrong (recently I've been proven wrong about the Cardinals to my pleasure)

-I would expect, with it basically combining two of the busier bus lines, to have a very healthy ridership projection.

-Tucker + Florrisant is the obviously better option that needs to be chosen (it's also the more expensive option)

-I'd be interested in what improvements Bi-State could make to GTC if they had control, like what differneces might we see. Makes sense for it to be managed by them seeing that they manage so many other transportation related things in the city.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk