Gateway City, yes, and on these seriously overly wide streets such as Jefferson and Gravois, there is easily room for a dedicated streetcar lane as well as room to provide segregated bike lanes. BTW, it has been a while since I've been back, are there any segregated bike lanes in existence now? I'm not talking about a painted lane, but actually sectioned off, such as between the parking lane and the sidewalk.
- 3,762
^ i'm pretty sure there's not a single protected bike lane in STL yet.
- 933
There are more than enough areas where there is grass between the sidewalk and road that we could replace those with bike lanes. Also, if we put a streetcar on Gravois, the only way to make it work would be to completely remove on-street parking. I have no problem with this, but some people will.
- 8,155
Can you elaborate?Gateway City wrote:Also, if we put a streetcar on Gravois, the only way to make it work would be to completely remove on-street parking.
Isn't Gravois 8 lanes? Six of traffic and two parking? That could easily be made 2 lanes each way with the third lanes being turned over to bikes/streetcars and the fourth for parking. Am I wrong?
Urban_dilettante, correct, there aren't any protected bike lanes, yet. Supposedly, Macklind from Oakland to Manchester will be be the first parking protected bike lane in St. Louis and will be striped later this year as part of Bike St. Louis phase 3. (self-made map)
Gateway City, there's nothing about streetcars that makes them faster than buses. As you point out, the only way that's possible is if streetcars are given a dedicated lane, but there's no reason why you couldn't give buses the same dedicated lane, either.
Gateway City, there's nothing about streetcars that makes them faster than buses. As you point out, the only way that's possible is if streetcars are given a dedicated lane, but there's no reason why you couldn't give buses the same dedicated lane, either.
Mill204, that is a quite a small stretch, but I guess a beginning eh?
LA got it's first stretch a few months ago and it was through a short tunnel downtown-probably a shorter distance than that. These examples show me how extremely difficult it is to get things like this done.
I see all these bike lanes being painted on the driver's side of the vehicles and think it wouldn't be that much more difficult to do so on the passenger's side near the curb. But, I guess it would make a difference if it was in a metered area wouldn't it?
LA got it's first stretch a few months ago and it was through a short tunnel downtown-probably a shorter distance than that. These examples show me how extremely difficult it is to get things like this done.
I see all these bike lanes being painted on the driver's side of the vehicles and think it wouldn't be that much more difficult to do so on the passenger's side near the curb. But, I guess it would make a difference if it was in a metered area wouldn't it?
- 933
The dedicated lane is very important.mill204 wrote:Urban_dilettante, correct, there aren't any protected bike lanes, yet. Supposedly, Macklind from Oakland to Manchester will be be the first parking protected bike lane in St. Louis and will be striped later this year as part of Bike St. Louis phase 3. (self-made map)
Gateway City, there's nothing about streetcars that makes them faster than buses. As you point out, the only way that's possible is if streetcars are given a dedicated lane, but there's no reason why you couldn't give buses the same dedicated lane, either.
- 3,762
personally, i won't use a "protected" bike lane that runs between the curb and the passenger side of parked cars unless there's an additional barrier or lots of space between me and the parked cars. on the driver's side you can swerve at the last minute if a door gets thrown open. on the passenger side you're screwed unless there's ample room.
urban_delettante, that is a good point! I'm very timid about any lane that isn't separated from traffic however. I'm sure there is some data out there somewhere that could show which is safer statistically.
Gravois is a state (MoDOT owned) road and I'm sure MoDOT would gladly hand it over to the city but there is no chance the city would take it because it takes serious $ to maintain that road which the city doesn't have.
- 1,792
I thought HOV lanes were illegal in Missouri. Does this rule apply to buses and streetcars as we'll.mill204 wrote:
Urban_dilettante, correct, there aren't any protected bike lanes, yet. Supposedly, Macklind from Oakland to Manchester will be be the first parking protected bike lane in St. Louis and will be striped later this year as part of Bike St. Louis phase 3. (self-made map)
Gateway City, there's nothing about streetcars that makes them faster than buses. As you point out, the only way that's possible is if streetcars are given a dedicated lane, but there's no reason why you couldn't give buses the same dedicated lane, either.
The dedicated lane is very important.
^Depends on how the law is written, but I would think it does not apply to buses and streetcars. They are operated by government entities not everyday people. Plus buses already operate on state roads and highways. We also would have heard something about it during the BRT discussion currently going on for the I-70 or I-64 corridors.
The Gravois route was not chosen for the N-S light rail line for a couple of reasons: complex intersections, auto-oriented development, and lack of direct access for South County. I feel like Gravois offers a lot of opportunities though in particular because of its width and ability to offer faster transit to SW city eventually. The biggest problem with Grand avenue is that it seems that most desire to narrow it down, which I'm not opposed to doing, but there's no room for transit-specific lanes on a three lane road. I would still be in favor of a Grand streetcar because of the increased quality and capacity it could bring to the corridor but it would likely not improve transit times much if at all.
So, the route running along Chouteau and down Jefferson and I-55 is a done deal? I didn't know if it had been officially selected.
Gravois is overly wide and does have a lot of car-oriented development, but again, I think those are perfect reasons to push for 14th to Gravois to Jefferson. It skirts a lot of important neighborhoods and areas as I pointed out in my previous post and offers opportunities to foster more urban-oriented development along Gravois.
As far as Grand is concerned, it seems perfect for a streetcar, but didn't they reduce it to two lanes in areas?
What are the chances of the city constructing a shorter N/S alignment on its own, perhaps independent of Metro? Would it even be feasible politically, economically and would people have an interest in it? I feel that even a short line would bring attention, investment and improvement, which would later help streetcars to gain momentum. Perhaps the Loop Trolley will bring more interest once it gets on track hehe.
Gravois is overly wide and does have a lot of car-oriented development, but again, I think those are perfect reasons to push for 14th to Gravois to Jefferson. It skirts a lot of important neighborhoods and areas as I pointed out in my previous post and offers opportunities to foster more urban-oriented development along Gravois.
As far as Grand is concerned, it seems perfect for a streetcar, but didn't they reduce it to two lanes in areas?
What are the chances of the city constructing a shorter N/S alignment on its own, perhaps independent of Metro? Would it even be feasible politically, economically and would people have an interest in it? I feel that even a short line would bring attention, investment and improvement, which would later help streetcars to gain momentum. Perhaps the Loop Trolley will bring more interest once it gets on track hehe.
Where do you guys get the impression that Gravois is overly wide? It's actually quite narrow for an arterial with so many lanes. East of Grand, Gravois has a 100' wide right-of-way; west of Grand, the right-of-way is only 80' wide. Even with 100' of r-o-w, it's very difficult to included dedicated transit lanes while squeezing in 4 lanes of traffic and a left-turn lane never mind space for parking. Note that in this example, to squeeze in everything I had to shrink the size of the sidewalk to a teeny 9' wide.
^ And Eastward, yes, Goodfellow/Natural Bridge/14th/Chouteau/Jefferson was the locally preferred alternative that came out of the North-South MetroLink study. However, given how long it has been since the study was completed, I wouldn't necessarily call it a done deal, though it is the most "shovel ready".
^ And Eastward, yes, Goodfellow/Natural Bridge/14th/Chouteau/Jefferson was the locally preferred alternative that came out of the North-South MetroLink study. However, given how long it has been since the study was completed, I wouldn't necessarily call it a done deal, though it is the most "shovel ready".
- 388
Gravois is very wide between i-55 and Grand .. It becomes narrow from grand and further southwest....
It may not be physically too wide per your comments, but it's certainly too wide for the amount of traffic that uses it.Where do you guys get the impression that Gravois is overly wide? It's actually quite narrow for an arterial with so many lanes. East of Grand, Gravois has a 100' wide right-of-way; west of Grand, the right-of-way is only 80' wide. Even with 100' of r-o-w, it's very difficult to included dedicated transit lanes while squeezing in 4 lanes of traffic and a left-turn lane never mind space for parking. Note that in this example, to squeeze in everything I had to shrink the size of the sidewalk to a teeny 9' wide.
I think most streets could use a diet. Sure, reducing lanes creates the possibility of some congestion, but it can be argued that that congestion adds to the density and walkability of the area and helps to encourage use of transit, localism and positive growth.
Instead of relying on the old ways of getting traffic from point A to point B as quickly as possible, the goal of St. Louis should be to create more sense of place. Its pretty obvious what has been done over and over hasn't worked. You can probably tell that traffic engineers aren't high on my list.
That said, there is a place for large arteries to carry traffic, however it seems Gravois has too many lanes for the amount of traffic on it. What they've done over on Grand is marvelous IMO and should be replicated on many other streets-but segregated bike lanes should be a part of any such design.
Instead of relying on the old ways of getting traffic from point A to point B as quickly as possible, the goal of St. Louis should be to create more sense of place. Its pretty obvious what has been done over and over hasn't worked. You can probably tell that traffic engineers aren't high on my list.
That said, there is a place for large arteries to carry traffic, however it seems Gravois has too many lanes for the amount of traffic on it. What they've done over on Grand is marvelous IMO and should be replicated on many other streets-but segregated bike lanes should be a part of any such design.
- 3,429
How can light rail cost so much per mile? 10 miles at $40 million per mile is $400 million. We could buy 200,000 Segways for that cost I think, right?, at $2,000 each. That's close to one Segway per adult in the city.mill204 wrote:^^ It's a typo. Copy/pasted numbers from Metro's estimated BRT costs. The estimated cost of the St. Louis streetcar is $218-$271 million for 7 miles of track, or $31-$39 million per mile. Tough to say how many miles Northside-Southside MetroLink is supposed to be as different termini have been thrown around in recent years, but the cost was estimated at about $80 million per mile (guessing based on memory).
The most expensive roller coaster ever at King Island is expected to cost $24 million total. The new roller coaster at Coney Island is $10 million. Maybe we should look into building a few roller coasters over the 10 mile stretch. That would liven up the old commute to work everyday.
It just seems like an inordinate amount of money. Is there a lighter light rail available? How did the street cars ever get built in the old days without that kind of money?
- 388
Thats what i meant it's just a bit wide for the lack of traffic thats on it.. Now a road that should be widen some is Kingshighway and also parts of Hampton seem a bit busy for the width they are.. Chouteau is a Rd that needs and extreme road diet there's nothing on it but anyways im off subject. Do you think a Metro link line on Grand would make things more congested?? Where will it begin and end ?
^ Ideally, I think it would be wonderful to have a streetcar traveling the entire distance from Carondolet Park north to College Hill. In lieu of that, the proposed BRT would serve the route equally well. The new streetscape improvements on South Grand wouldn't really accommodate a streetcar would it?
As a whole, the most 'congested' places tend to also be the most dense and walkable. I wouldn't suggest widening any roads, as studies suggest the wider a road becomes, the more traffic that uses it and that width is also very anti-urban in that it doesn't create a place, which is conducive to walking.
As a whole, the most 'congested' places tend to also be the most dense and walkable. I wouldn't suggest widening any roads, as studies suggest the wider a road becomes, the more traffic that uses it and that width is also very anti-urban in that it doesn't create a place, which is conducive to walking.
MetroLink is $60m a mile I believe or $1.6 billion for both of the N-S phases.
In reference to gary kreie, that does seem outrageous. So, $1.6 billion for N/S? And, going up all the time I assume. I don't see that money being available anytime soon 
Could get half of it from Federal Transit Admin thru the new starts programEastward wrote:In reference to gary kreie, that does seem outrageous. So, $1.6 billion for N/S? And, going up all the time I assume. I don't see that money being available anytime soon
So now we are at 800m short, could probably get $400m out of the state sales tax for transportaion that will most likely go on a ballot in novermber, the stl region would get about $2.4 billion over 10 years, I'm sure if the pols push hard enough they can get 400m for this, so now we are $400m short that's all on Metro to caugh up
http://www.fta.dot.gov/12304_14366.html