Share
710
Senior MemberSenior Member
710

PostApr 27, 2006#101

the BRT line in Kansas City is not bad, not great, but it is a definite improvement over what was there before. it has specific 'stations' and has digital readouts with arrival times,







it is supposed to extend green lights (though it doesnt always seem like it) also it has a dedicated lane, which sometimes has cars parked in it when they arent supposed to be. but anyway, its certainly quicker than a regular bus line.



oh, it also has a fancy paint job-







helps it go faster...



sometimes it feels like tokenism because we don't have light rail, but its still better than nothing.
2,953
Life MemberLife Member
2,953

PostApr 27, 2006#102

Sometimes we throw out acronyms without ever thinking that there are some that don't know what they are. It's like the first time you had to ask somebody what LOL meant. Sorry, mark. :wink:



I'm not in favor of BRT over light rail or modern streetcars, but as something we could do to improve transit in the short term, I wouldn't turn it down. I just think that we are 15-20 years from having the metro-link system that we want (at least), and maybe less from having several dedicated lines for streetcars (outside Delmar). BRT could be a positive step towards making our city less car dependent in a shorter time span.
2,331
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,331

PostApr 27, 2006#103

^Trent, I agree to a point. But, we need to be careful in allowing them to implement BRT until we can get LRT (light rail). There is a danger in it. Pittsburgh has a LRT line that goes into the southern suburbs. They built a BRT line to the Eastern side. They claimed years ago that the Eastside BRT was a temporary solution until they could afford a LRT. Now all these years later, they are no closer to getting the upgrade. Because BRT serves the purpose (to a degree), it makes the argument for upgrade more difficult. Yet, despite serving the purpose, I think the Eastside neighborhoods of Pittsburgh would be a lot better off with fixed-rail. I guess what I am saying, they got used to the crutch.



This would be like putting in a North/Southside BRT. Ten years from now, the people would say, "why spend the money to upgrade to LRT, the northsiders & southsiders already have pretty good means to get downtown?" while ignoring what could have been in North & South St. Louis with complete rail lines.



As far as I am concerned, the Northside/Southside rail lines are crucial in completing the system and making it really work to its full potential. It should be first priority. Any money spent to implement BRT in these areas would be better spent towards LRT.



I would support BRT in a suburb that needs something better than a regular bus to connect to the nearest Metrolink station, but does not have the density to support a full rail line.
508
Senior MemberSenior Member
508

PostApr 27, 2006#104

southslider wrote:However, since all things take time, I still think building a north-south regional light-rail line takes priority.


I can see the logic in Metrolink expansion being a higher priority. This would serve not only some of the near city neighborhoods we?re talking about, but the rest of the region as well. But due to the fact streetcars and Metrolink would likely have different funding structures, and be run by different organizations, I don?t see why both couldn?t be pursued at the same time. Judging from the Metrolink expansion plans that I?ve seen, it seems streetcar lines down Chouteau and to the near Northside may be redundant. But you still have heavily populated and vibrant areas directly south of downtown which don?t seem likely to receive service from the southside alignment, this is where a near southside line makes sense. Ditto with Grand Center. Therefore, these are the two that I would propose would offer the most benefit relative to their capital costs.



Every time I head towards downtown on Broadway now I imaging a modern, red streetcar heading up and down the street. I think they would fit quite nicely on this street and catalyze a lot of development along the riverfront east of Broadway.
2,331
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,331

PostApr 27, 2006#105

Jefferson, you are right on.
1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostApr 27, 2006#106

Well then, maybe once the MetroLink routes are finalized in the City as part of this latest "North-South Study," it will be easier to see which neighborhoods, such as Soulard or Midtown, will still lack a direct link to Downtown, a factor then helpful in prioritizing streetcar routes. From the timeline off its website, it looks like the latest MetroLink study will be completed within a year from now.
1,067
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,067

PostApr 27, 2006#107

Pardon my ignorance: How much support for a new streetcar line is there outside of this forum? I know about Joe Edward's plan around Delmar to Forest park, but has he (or others) expressed the desire to incorporate the streetcars into the fabric of downtown and proximal neighborhoods?



Also, I totally agree about Broadway. The Brewery to the Bottle District seems like a no brainer. This is a perfect route to suite the needs of residents and tourists alike. How great would it be (especially with out of town friends) to take metrolink to Busch, pregame at the Village, then jump on a streetcar to Soulard for the postgame? Hopefully....
282

PostMay 15, 2006#108

How does the idea of a concrete median down Gravois, Grand or Natural Bridge sound? Let's build a wall and make it so you can't cross the street except only at certain breaks in the wall. Don't try to turn left onto these streets because of that median. Of course, we should accept this wall because those who chose to live far away in suburbia need to have a quick way to get downtown (other than actually living closer in).



Sorry, I'm not interested in building any dividing elements down the middle of any of our streets. Let them do all the planning and have all the meetings they want.



While they spend years planning the far more costly & intrusive MetroLink we need to think about modern streetcars to provide real city level transportation.
1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostMay 15, 2006#109

Again, it's about trade-offs and compromise. You want a line fast enough to attract long-distance riders (ultimately, Metro is a regional transit authority, with most of its tax base in the County) yet with as many neighborhood stations as possible within the City. While someone coming from east of Grand may not care if it's a slow streetcar ride downtown, those traveling further distances would prefer as few stops as possible. A line along Gravois with stops every quarter- to half-mile allows more neighborhoods in South City to be served (than say a fully exclusive line along I-55), while a reserved median with crossings only at major intersections still adds speed for the long-distance commuter.



And frankly, Gravois, Natural Bridge and North Florissant, in their present state are wide raceways that already act as a barrier. A median for trains could act as a pedestrian refuge, helping people cross one half of Gravois or other wide streets at a time, and calm motorized traffic with narrower lanes.
247
Junior MemberJunior Member
247

PostMay 16, 2006#110

Grand is the heaviest line ranging from a low of 11,000 daily boardings to as high as 16,000 depending upon the month. The various high schools have a huge impact on the total daily ridership.



Over the past five years the 70 has changed with the south end (Iron Branch) becoming the real monster for ridership. The north and south end Max load locations are just prior to the Metrolink Station (Lindell on the north and Chouteau on the south)



Ridership jumped up noticeably after Metro put the route on a weekday 10 minute headway scheduled inbetween the trains. The 10 minute service allowed 20 minute frequency on the Iron Branch which has become the most popular branch.



The next line is 95 Kingshighway in the 6,000 passenger per day range. It was over 10,000 at one time. Kingshighway has dropped substantially over since 1986 but Grand has increased. The south end of 95 is nothing like the south end of the Grand. There is a substantiallly diifferent demographic on the south end.



After that, 11 Chippewa is the heaviest. It has been one of the stronger lines since 1986 with substantial reverse flow ridership to Crestwood. With the addition of the Shrewsbury Station to this line it is anticipated that this route will increase in ridership from the west end.



Then probably Clayton South County with around 5,500 passengers although its an combination of the old Forest Park and the Carondelet combined to save a bus out of the cycle.



Then Natural Bridge although its has dropped now that Northwest Plaza was put on the 49 Lindbergh. I can bring the total list if someone wants them.



Averaqe daily Metro bus ridership ranges from 120,000 to 110,000 passengers per day. Metrolink ranges from 35,000 to 55,000 depending upon the time of year. April through October is substantially higher than November through March. On several special event days, Metrolink ridership approached 95,000 passengers. Metro reported higher ridership but but that was in the days that they just guessed at special event ridership. The current APC's are pretty accurate on the train.



Other than Grand in the city, the largest percentage increases in bus ridership has been on routes in the North and Northwest county areas. Reverse flow commuters and demographic shifts to North County have contributed to this increase. Chambers increased from 680 daily passengers to nearly 1,500 daily passengers since it was connected to the North Hanley Metrolink Station last June. Other major increases occurred on the 45 Hazelwood, 47 Cross County, 32 MLKing, and 74 Florissant routes in the past yea
508
Senior MemberSenior Member
508

PostMay 16, 2006#111

^ Thanks for that info, I've been wondering what the top few buslines were after Grand.



In response to sslider's post, I agree that limited medians down these roads won't have that big of an impact on connectivity in the area, as he points out these are fairly high speed roads at present and so they act as a barrier already. I think some of the problems people have with Metrolink is that some future lines look like they're trying to be both intra-urban streetcar and longer distance commuter line...and as a result don't fully achieve either. I think Metrolink can provide perhaps 80% of our rail transit needs, with room for a couple true streetcars at the short end of the spectrum and 1 or 2 true commuter trains at the longer end.
1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostMay 16, 2006#112

When looking at fare recovery, the top five bus lines with the least subsidy, in order, are Grand, Kingshighway, MLK-Wellston, Natural Bridge and Chippewa. But with the future connection to the new Cross County line at Shrewsbury, as another poster noted, the Chippewa bus will only likely continue to grow in ridership, as many southside bus routes have.



And medians for north-south MetroLink lines on our present-day wide streets would have to indeed be limited. Anywhere you see a traffic signal on these wide streets like Gravois today, such crossing would likely be maintained. It's all the intersections without signals that may become right-turn only access, but quite a number of these streets already have the ugly and disruptive "Schoemehl-pot" barriers closing them off.



Plus, many of these wide streets, including Gravois, are lined with underutilized or vacant auto-oriented businesses. By limiting curb cuts along these wide thoroughfares to right-turn only access, maybe more pedestrian-oriented development would be encouraged with the benefit of more continuous sidewalks not chopped up by driveways and parking lots. For example, Urban Review ironically dislikes the future parking lot west of Hodak's having a curb-cut on Gravois. But if a median were in place today, access would have to be from the alley or nearby sidestreet, with the intersection of McNair maintained as a crossing, where there already is a traffic signal today.
40
New MemberNew Member
40

PostJun 11, 2006#113

Well, you don't have to worry about kidos being hit by a trolley or trolley-bus these days, you can thank Sony Playstation and Microsoft XBox for that, and other useless electronic distractions.



I visited Dayton---Ohio last summer (Wright Patterson AFB Museum), and well downtown Dayton was like---new. It was obviously a great idea put in action. Picture Clayton business district and river Des Peres (but with water) and put those two side by side and you get this: (see link below)



http://www.jimspangler.com/dayton%20profile.jpg







The history I believe, is that the Trolley buses have been in operation since 1888, whether or not the buses had the appearence of the 20th century (metro look) or not, I doubt it, but that's a long time, this little town of 160k really hasn't been altered by the effects of the 1920's (Ford) etc, and look, its got a great trolley bus system that runs every corner of the downtown districts, and connects the surrounding metropolitan counties creating a spider web of mass transport happiness....



Alas, athsetically, (spelling?), they're really unattractive, and from what I could tell, the noise was audible (very audible) and well, being the environmentalist freak I am, seeing a huge black puff of smog coming from the bus-trolley everytime it accelerates just makes my blood boil.











http://www.mvrta.org/maps/System_map.pdf
74
New MemberNew Member
74

PostSep 16, 2006#114

LouLou wrote:Today's urbanists often seem to overlook an important fact about the urban environments of the past: They were by-products of the huge industrial growth the U.S. experienced in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In most cases, they were a means to an end.


Some portions of the city are less well planned than others, and their plans are suited for various times and various modes of transit. The Landing is different from Soulard, and from the Central West End. The entire city is not monolithic, and it is probably good to remember that much of what is now in ruins, especially in North St. Louis, USED to be thriving, moderately high density communities. Not everything about the city is worth saving. Much is worth destroying. The best portions of the City, Lafayette Square Park, Central West End, Soulard, The Loop, even downtown Clayton, all follow a very common pattern - they allow for maximum pedestrian traffic and a variety of interesting things that catch your attention. This is not an accident.



The autocentric developement since WWII has lead to suburban sprawl - which has its costs subsidized heavily by tax dollars (Highways arent free to build, or rebuild, either) and by hidden environmental costs, such as huge parking lots (land use issues in disguise) and traffic congestion.



The Central West End and the Loop had trolley systems well into the 1960s. The pictures from that period attest to just how functional they were. There is no reason that with an upgraded system we cannot expect similar results.




stlmike wrote:I just want to clarify, I'm not against streetcars. I just think don't think its the kind of thing we should be spending money on at this point.


Actually, after looking at the initial results of the nearly 700 million dollar MetroLink expansion, I actually feel that we would have been better off going with the MUCH cheaper per mile projects. Cover more area, 'catch' more people, and do it all relatively cheaply. Someone (Busdad?) mentioned that it cost 75 million per mile of MetroLink and about 25 mil per mile per trolley line.



I would have spent it on Trolleys myself; just because they represent permenant investments that encourage further local developement. Buses provide a service; trolleys and trains represent investments.



See here: http://stlouismetrolinkcomments.blogspot.com/ for closer look at design problems on the new expansion.




jefferson wrote:So maybe it?s tough to say what?s a result of the streetcar and what isn?t, but it seems something?s going on there


What got me was the quote "properties located closest to the streetcar line have experienced the largest share of developement - and the Floor Area Ratios (FARs) that more closely approach the properties' zoned potential - than properties situated further from the streetcar alignment."





That to me was the dinger! Investment in infrastructure creates incentive for permanent capital to move in. Again. Buses provide a service, streetcars seem to represent infrastructure that encourages (catalyst for?) high density growth.


tjacorn wrote: Concerning BRT vs. Streetcar: Although both are better than nothing, the streetcar provides many economic benefits to the local economy, which would be far less in a BRT. Land values will tend to rise more around streetcar stops because it is a "permanent" structure. A BRT is still a bus and doesn't offer the subconscious feeling of solidarity. In other words, people and business are more likely to relocate to areas around a street car/light rail stop since it's "not going anywhere". A bus stop could easily be moved in the future, but a rail stop has a higher "staying" power. Make sense?


Does to me!


trent wrote:One of my main questions regarding this whole charette is the future of MetroLink. Where are these lines going to go? What is MetroLinks overall purpose, vs. the current bus system (future streetcar system) purpose? And what is the difference?


I see the bus system as "legacy" in the world of Peak Oil. I can easily see transit supporting density developing in portions of the City. Developement seems to follow such direct capital investment. If this were a highway off ramp - there would be little argument.


soutslider wrote:Joe Edwards, the man behind the Loop Trolley. Ironically, the area will already have three MetroLink stations, and development has already picked up. Yet, because in this corner of our region, everyone is on board and there is a visible leader, even more rail transit may be in the area's future.


I think you read the politics correctly. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen where the wheels are already moving.



And even then, the FUNDING issues loom large.
923
Super MemberSuper Member
923

PostSep 16, 2006#115

I'm going to use yet another Australian example here, and aska few questions, but work with me.



Sydney has what is widely considered by australians to have the 'worst' public transit in australia, which is in my opinion total crap. They have a MASSIVE commuter rail system, buses that literally reach every suburb, a light rail line and a monorail (both more for tourists than locals).



Melbourne by comparison has trains, trams, and buses.



I'm more focussed on Sydney here, as their light rail is really just a method of gettin tourists from point a to b, while locals rely on the buses or trains. My question is, is this what we want from our streetcars? Do we want them to be tourist movers, or really functional? I like Joe Edwards, but really, does the CBA show that a streetcar would be better than say, a new dedicated bus? Has U-City? If so, I'd like to see the results



More to the point - I like light rail, I think for st. louis it's a good, first small step. But if the goal is of public transportation is to lessen dependency on cars, then why doesn't Metro market themselves better? I have a bus that would come within a 15 min walk of my house when I was home in west county, but would never in a million years take it because well, the wide public connotation with riding the bus. Why hasn't Metro tried to change this image? If public perception is Buses are for poor scary people and trains are for the middle/upper class, aren't we robbing peter to pay paul? I mean, we're losing bus routes that served these areas anyways to a degree, no?



A better US example would be San Francisco. Yes, they have BART, but the real way to get around the city is by fixed guideline buses. They're not pretty, but they're amaxingly effective, and they're packed with hobos threatening to kill each other (my first ever big city bus experience I might add :shock: ), tourists, locals, corporate types, etc. I think if Metro had spent half of what they spent on the new CC line on advertising, PR, new fancy BRT buses, and resetting the lines, it would have been far more cost-effective than the running rail lines. Do we need rail? absolutely. But why build light rail that can effectively be served by buses when we could build real heavy commuter rail lines, with twice the carrying capacity of light rail, and do it right the first time?



Taxpayers get all overly excited about the new line, which is all fine and good, but they don't understand what they've actually gained (and why should they? They're not planners). I still think Metro should really try to better use the good system of buses they have instead of chasing this light rail unicorn across west county, raise the revenue and fill those half-empty buses, and then when they have enough money and support, build a full commuter system.
1,026
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,026

PostSep 16, 2006#116

I agree I agree. See my earlier post. I love Joe Edwards and I march right along with him in virtually all of his ideas ... but I have to disagree with his vision for the street car. Its a TOURIST ATTRACTION .. not a transit option. I lived in th eloop for years ... and I can't remeber ONE time when I would have needed the use of a train/tram/car to take me 2 miles up the loop and to the hostory museum. Its ONLY use is to ferry tourists back and forth from the metro to the loop ... how many times do actual residents need to get to the history museum? .... he shoudl go one step larger and make it a FUNCTIONAL transit system by extending it down lindell to Euclid. THEN locals could and would use it ... that line would make sense. It would allow people to get back and forth between the west end and the loop. .... does anyone know Joe Edwards' e-mail address .....
74
New MemberNew Member
74

PostSep 16, 2006#117

markofucity wrote:he shoudl go one step larger and make it a FUNCTIONAL transit system by extending it down lindell to Euclid. THEN locals could and would use it ... that line would make sense. It would allow people to get back and forth between the west end and the loop. .... does anyone know Joe Edwards' e-mail address .....


The project now is a very small project with a relatively "possible" budget (40 mil range).



If you want a street car to go from The Loop to Euclid, that will balloon the costs into the 100 mil and over range. Not impossible, but the scale is different.



I'm for a new trolley system that connects the Loop to the Forest Park station.



It is possible to do, probably the easiest portion to do since there used to be a system operating in exactly the same location. And it will likely bring significant redevelopement opportunities for certain streets (Delmar and DeBalivier) portions of which are on the cusp of becoming more vibrant areas.



The goal, for me, is to build a high density, ultra vibrant mixed use district in St. Louis that stretches from the Loop to Central West End. Currently, we're 70% of the way there.



Busdad Why, in your opinion, do Buses not get the respect that Trolley's do? What is is about fixed transit systems that are so much more appealing than buses?
1,067
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,067

PostOct 13, 2006#118

Practical, probably not, but since many renderings of propositions have made there way to the forum today, I thought I'd add one. Had a cool mental picture: A streetcar that runs down Spruce. A car heading right for the main entrance at Busch would make for a great sight. Connecting Scottrade and Busch down the growing Cupples Corridor seems like a good move (alternative to metro's circuitous route) It could turn and go south down 8th to serve near south.
Read more posts (-7 remaining)
Share