urbanSTL

JMedwick wrote:Perhaps the real problem is that all the ideas revolve around taking what amount to already highly sucessful bus lines and making them streetcar lines, something that would clearly increase ridership, but might not offer the type of increases that justify the extra costs.

The next logical step might then be to consider lines with great, but under utilized potential...the idea would be creating lines with a maximum of potential developable land around some stations and provides service that might otherwise require transfers.

Maybe a combination of the two might be best. A line or two with high established ridership hitting well-developed areas and a line or two that would be considered more "development" lines.

These could include a large loop system that ran both on Kingshighway and Grand, but looped on Natural Bridge and Chippewa? Or maybe a line that involved Chouteau and Manchester, or a line that concected Soulard, Lafeyett Sq and downtown.

I would personally be in favor of starting with a couple of lines that hit areas we want tourists to see and would also be used heavily by locals. I think the Landing/Grand Center line fulfills this, and I'm also intrigued by the near south side line that you and others have mentioned. It could hit A-B, soulard, layfayette square. let's talk about what streets this type of line might take. down broadway? tucker/gravois? or west on a new market st., south on Jefferson, and east on Arsenal?



As far as the bigger kingshighway-chippewah-grand-nat. bridge line, this would be exciting, but I think the relative lack of tourist areas vs. the large amount of track would keep it from being one of the first lines. In other words, I don't think just getting us locals around will be a good enough argument in the beginning. Once people see a couple of smaller lines that are successful it may increase support for a larger loop like the one you're talking about.

There are mainly two problems with streetcars: speed and equity.



Speed: Since running in mixed traffic, streetcars travel at the same speed, if not slower, as buses. As such, there is no improvement in travel time, a critical measure of importance to the Federal Transit Administration. And federal money for rail transit is extremely competitive, meaning any major project must show travel time savings.



Equity: Since operating like a bus, but costing significantly more, there is a loss of service and opportunity cost in switching from buses to streetcars. For example, say you converted Grand to a streetcar. Right now, Grand operates at 7-minute peak and 12-minute off-peak headways for maximum frequency. Despite having higher capacity per vehicle, a streetcar would likely run at a maximum service level of 10-minute headways. Plus, an initial line might only cover a core section of Grand, say from Delmar to Chippewa. Hence, you're not only talking about a longer wait, but fewer stops and a "forced tranfer" for those patrons who ride buses beyond any core segment.



Speed and Equity: Since operating in mixed traffic, streetcars and buses operate within the same lanes. Hence, in the Grand example above (modern streetcar) or even in the Delmar Loop (vintage trolley), streetcars share roadway lanes with other traffic, including buses. Plus, the streetcars and buses are competing for the same short-distance patrons. However, with a light-rail median, buses operate in mixed traffic alongside medians. Thus, along Natural Bridge, faster in-median trains make less frequent stops, while buses make all stops, providing both regional (MetroLink) and local (MetroBus) service within the same right-of-way.



Opportunity Cost: Mentioned under equity above was the concern for opportunity cost. Yes, even light-rail has an opportunity cost, but it operates at a higher fare recovery rate and improves travel time savings. But in terms of transportation, streetcars add little, if any, travel benefit over buses, thus, a high opportunity cost, or lost opportunity to instead improve more bus routes for the same cost of one streetcar line. Granted, streetcars can be an economic development tool. For that reason, streetcars should be financed by more localized tax mechanisms, since streetcars really are economic tools, not improvements in regional transportation.

Good points sslider, I would also argue for local and state funding for these projects, with maybe a private component as well



As stated before when you look at just the numbers, the investment may not be worth it. But I would argue the benefit to local tourism, as well as putting St. Louis into a different ?league? of cities (those with streetcars) would be worth the investment. It would be nice to be able to tell potential conventions not only about the great things in downtown and along metrolink, but about the near neighborhoods their patrons could explore; and the improved ?atmosphere? streetcars bring these neighborhoods will only make them look more attractive than if explored by bus or cab. I?m going to keep arguing for these benefits that can?t be measured.

Expat wrote:

Bastiat wrote:Do we want to be Hong Kong/Dubai or do we want to be Pyongyang?

None of those places appeal to me as a role model. I would rather be a Boston, London, or Barcelona.

Toronto retains the largest traditional streetcar system in North America. Recently Toronto actually added a streetcar line.

If you look at the overall benefit of adding a fixed streetcar line into certain, neighborhoods, the economic impact would be good for our smaller pockets, and it would be cheaper than installing light rail.



For example, I think you look to connect the popular areas of St. Louis that don't have a current connection with light rail, and places that aren't being looked at for lines in the near future. So if we begin to study the main neighborhoods (business centers) and how to best connect these places, I think the vision that we would have for potential streetcar lines becomes more apparent.



First, I think you focus on downtown, because IMO that is where it will have the most impact. With the tourism that we get, as well as major sporting events, plus with new thriving neighborhoods and with being the CBD, I think this is just the most logical place to start.



Next, I would like to start connecting dots. Looking at Soulard (A-B and more), Lafayette Square (including Bohemian Hill), ONSL, Benton Park (and BPW), Midtown (Grand Centre/SLU, AG Edwards Complex), South Grand, the CWE, Hyde Park, the Fairgrounds, St. Louis Hills...you get the idea.



Finally, I would start identifying thoroughfares that would get the biggest boost from a fixed line, while not hampering the current economic status of the other main areas. Maybe you don't run a line down Grand, instead running a line down Gravois. Instead of running a line down Market, maybe you run it down Chouteau.



By the time those lines would be finished and established, I'm confident that the ridership increases as well as the public discussion would bring a lot more lines to the neighborhoods that we would all want them in.

Good point Loftlover. We should look to Toronto to get ideas on what lines are popular, what types of neighborhoods they serve, etc.

Toronto was slow in responding to the trend for cities to abandon their street car networks in the 50s and 60s. When they finally started to drop lines, several action groups stepped in to stop it, thereby leaving much of their traditional network in tact. Ridership remains very strong and therefore it is cost effective when compared to buses on busy routes. There are still problems, including safety issues associated with a lack of private rights of way and poor handicap accessibility. But it works in Toronto not only because of their density and ridership, but because its part of their urban fabric and Torontonians feel strongly about supporting and retaining this part of the city's heritage.

I did a little research on Portland's situation yesterday, it seems they rely heavily on the economic development/redevelopment argument. The city-owned streetcar company essentially uses the new line as a carrot to get developers to take on major brownfield projects. In return, the developers build to certain density and mixed-use standards. Under this sort of a setup the Grand line doesn't make as much sense.



Some have mentioned a Chouteau line, this makes more sense. A line could be used to connect Chouteau?s Landing/Lake and maybe FPSE, encouraging investment in both of these areas.



There is a document on the website portlandstreetcar.org called Portland Streetcar: Development Oriented Transit. It has a great deal of information that pertains to our discussion I would suggest anyone interested give a read to help get some ideas flowing.



Document here



Here?s an interesting stat from the document:

Prior to 1997, land located within one block of the streetcar alignment captured 19% of all development. Since the streetcar alignment was identified, 55% of all new development within the CBD has occurred within one block of the streetcar.

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.



As far as federal funding goes, it looks like they got a $900,000 HUD grant. And I found an interesting comment on nycsubway.org: ?There are efforts in the US Congress to create federal matching fund programs for small-scale rail systems like the Portland Streetcar.? So there may be hope in the future.



Here are the priorities we should consider, as I see them, from most important to least important



Development/redevelopment potential of line

Connecting tourist areas

?getting the locals around? (i.e. replacing successful buslines)

Again, the only way to sell streetcars is economic development, as their travel benefits are quite limited.



Back to equity, current bus patrons could maybe sue Metro if opted for streetcars. Heck, some have wanted to sue over MetroLink. But at least with light rail, one can demonstrate significant improvements in travel time savings, a clear benefit.



Sure, economic development provides benefits, by attracting new retail and services. But current urban constituencies also fear land value increases, higher taxes and gentrification.



In other words, if I'm a poor City resident who currently rides the bus, why would I support a streetcar? At least with MetroLink, you can get some places faster, but many aren't exactly thrilled with making multiple transfers.

southslider wrote:Again, the only way to sell streetcars is economic development, as their travel benefits are quite limited.

I agree with you 100% here, that's why I listed it as the most important factor, and replacing buslines as the least important (in fact probably not realistic).



So what are some of the big brownfield projects people think could be redeveloped with the use of a streetcar? Portland's example cited a greenway (for us: Chouteau's lake) and a historic brewery (Lemp?).



I don't mean to harp on the portland example, but I haven't gotten around to looking at Toronto or other cities in depth yet. If anyone has info on these other cases and what might help us, please share.

This is why I mentioned looking at Chouteau. It's already an area that is getting some flashes of development (from Laf. Sq), so why not attack this head on and really push for streetcars along this line. Not only would it improve that immediate area, but it also might help development in the FPSE are, and possibly even further out, looking to connect to Maplewood (switching over the Manchester, instead of following Chouteau after the new bridge).

southslider wrote:Back to equity, current bus patrons could maybe sue Metro if opted for streetcars. Heck, some have wanted to sue over MetroLink.

Really? I can't imagine any group wanting to be seen as standing in the way of the redevelopment of an eyesore like Chouteau's landing/lake; but maybe to help allay these groups? concerns about land value increases, the city could require any mixed-use development along the line to require a certain percentage of affordable housing.

A couple thoughts:



There are a handful of posts I wanted to respond to but I was late finding this thread. So instead I'll just post some things I've been thinking about.



1) Concerning private/public development: We can't forget that something like 80% of the funds that pay for highways and "free" parking come from our federal and state income taxes. That is a HUGE subsidization. There is no way mass transit solutions can compete with this. Our only hope (free market-wise), without changing policy and tax structure, is for gas prices to reach such high levels that mass transit can compete again. The best solution, imo, is to shift highway taxes off of income/sales/property/etc. and onto a single tax on gasoline. That way the free market is not distorted in favor of more highways. I am convinced that streetcars and lightrail (and even buses!) could compete economically in a "true" free market. Until the market distortions are removed, I'm in favor of HEAVY subsidies for mass transit systems. It's only fair.



2) 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? This benefit is exactly what Portland recognized and capitalized on. This economic benefit alone should be worth the increased upfront cost. (As a side note, I've read that Streetcars cost more initially but have lower operating costs ? another reason to favor them ?for the long run?.)

For those who doubt anyone would want to stand in the path of urban revitalization catalyzed by new rail lines or the improved transportation they provide, there are numerous opponents. While strange bedfellows, rail opponents largely fall into two camps.



One camp, and the more commonly known, is affluent motorists that don't see any value in expanding transit. These affluent constituents don't want to be taxed for anything they see as not benefitting themselves (seeing it as waste), and especially fight against projects near their homes (seeing it as disruptive or having negative impacts).



The other, less visible camp is actually current transit users, largely transit-dependents. These constituents of limited economic means want more bus service, not rail service. Like the affluent opponents, however, these opponents also fail to see how rail will benefit their current transit use, and also fight against projects near their homes, but for more fear of gentrification or displacement.



Ironically, both affluent and poorer opponents fear outsiders. But in St. Charles, poor transit riders are feared, while in North City, yuppies are feared.

Is it true that NONE of the gas tax money can legally be used for mass transit per MO law?

Amendment 3 has no transit provision.

A-3" would give a tiny 1% increase to "multi-modal" (the only source of state funds for aviation, rail, transit and water ports). It is estimated this increase amounts to less than one million dollars a year. State funds for multi-modal were $13.8 million in Fiscal Year 2004. In comparison, MoDOT received over one and one-half billion dollars for highways in Fiscal Year 2004. In addition, this proposed amendment clarifies that moneys deposited in the state road bond fund or state road fund shall not be used for multimodal purposes and thus reinforces the present neglect of alternative forms of transportation.

But you also have to consider that A-3 diverted tens of millions from the general fund. So any additional support from that fund for transit, as unlikely as it was to begin with, has probably dried up.

here are some of the main sources of funding for the Portland system:

Streetcar operations and construction are funded by fares, an annual contribution from TriMet, a special taxation zone along the route, car and station sponsorship, and parking meter revenues.

TriMet is the regional transit agency, so I guess that would be analogous to Metro or East-West gateway redirecting some federal or state transit money to the project. As stated previously, and from some of the discussion of A-3 above, competition for this money is extremely tight. Portland also received a HUD grant for the project.



There are some efforts in congress to create federal matching fund programs for small-scale rail systems like a modern streetcar. Also interesting, under the most recent federal transportation bill, $4.5M has been allocated for construction of a U.S.-manufactured streetcar vehicle. The purpose of this is to allow cities using these federal matching funds to comply with the 60% U.S. content provision of the ?Buy America? act. So obviously, some in Washington see a future for these kinds of projects.

I would definately be interested in some line to the near south side. it's tough to hit all the areas you would want to without making the line into one big loop, which might really increase the cost. I would love to link the line to some kind of redevelopment of the Lemp brewery complex, which would also hit Cherokee antique row. Heading straight down 7th/broadway would hit soulard market, A-B, Lemp, and antique row, and technically put you within walking distance to Benton Park, although probably not for most people. You would miss Lafayette Sq. though, and it might also be nice to see it go through the heart of Soulard.

As others have noted, a streetcar or electric bus system should be faster than regular traffic. It also should encourage development in areas that need just a little boost.



With that in mind, I would avoid Washington entirely, or at least avoid it west of Tucker. Instead, the line should follow Locust, which is far wider than it needs to be. This line would jump-start redevelopment of the low-density commercial strip (the soon to be cleaned-up area with all the abandoned auto warehouses and hobo prostitutes). That stretch, I think, has just as much retail potential as Washington. It's also close enough to Washington that the line would serve that area nicely as well. Locust could be made one-way again with parking on one side of the street only. That would leave two lanes for electric buses or streetcars where cars would be physically prevented, not just legally prohibited, from driving.



On the debate over streetcars versus fancy buses, I have no strong opinion. It would be nice to distinguish ourselves from other cities, but I'm not sure we should pay through the nose for nostalgic cachet. But if streetcars are feasible, I would rather avoid the old-timey St. Louis streetcars entirely (to me they always seemed like ugly buses without wheels) and go for a more European looking, long and slinky tram that would be 2-3 cars long. Like the older Berlin or Vienna Stadtbahn systems.