I brought this topic up in an earlier post, but figured it's get mroe play here.



Basically, I want to know what people think about Metro totally revitalizing the bus system? By this I mean:



Massive marketing campaign to promote bus transit, options of taking the buses, distributing timetables, advertising on TV, radio, etc.



Lobby cicy councils and procure park and ride space from local shopping centers, then advertising potential park and ride locations (probably step 1)



Purchasing all new bus fleet, replace any buses older than 10 years, buy new articulated buses for BRT options.



Create city circulator routes that just run loops of downtown (potentially midtown to cwe and cwe to loop/clayton as well)



Creation of larger, more visibly identifiable primary bus stops (at termini and major intersections)



Now folks, don't get excited over money issues, just address the concept as if this would be better for metro overall vs. continuing to spend hundreds of millions on a rail system that takes longer to plan and impliment.

I think a bus is a bus is a bus. BRT is really just a concept of better bus service rather then a change in the actual vehicles. Like you said, decent scheduling and visibility of stops is a key to a good bus system, but even then people view buses as temporary and inferior to fixed-route.



The strength of a bus system lies in the fact that buses can make many stops along a given stretch of road, and make for a good feeder system, but I don't think you're going to convince people to park-n-ride to a bus stop.



Have you tried the "Silver Line" in Boston? It seems (from my limited exposure) that people eschew it for the rails. I heard one couple say they missed it because they were looking for a metro station. I also have a picture of it stuck in a traffic jam.



btw there are hardly any buses left that are 10 years old or greater. Most are 00, 01, 02, and 04's it seems.

BRT, like the MAX line in Kansas City, often looks still like a bus, but some modern "guided buses" in Europe can do a pretty good job of looking like a train, such as this

guided bus in Padua, Italy.



But rather than call them a guided bus in their transit study, Milwaukee is calling these futuristic vehicles "guided street trams."



In a recent post, urb-blogger Steve Patterson has picked up on Milwaukee's financial sense in opting for "GST" over LRT. Thus, a practical question, as posed by Steve Patterson, is whether the street-running north-south line in St. Louis currently under study could consider this cheaper technology, since it would still retain the feel for riders of a modern streetcar or street-running low-floor LRV.

Oh, where to begin with the buses...



I could write pages on that subject but in order for St Louis to have a functional and efficent bus system, our population density will have to increase, job locations more centralized, and the cost of owning a car will have to go up.



More funding, whether STATE(wink wink) or local, is also going to have to come in place. I love public transport and am a big supporter, but my useage of the system will come to a screeching halt if I have to pay $2 or more to ride a slow bus with terrible headways.



I wouldn't mind paying a fare in that range if we had a large, frequent transport system, but the current one is a joke for that price. So many cities similar to our size have similar systems but their fares are nowhere near ours. Perhaps they are in a state that is properly run or have an additonal source of funding, but something needs to be done. ASAP!!

I, on the other hand, ride METRO buses when I can - and I usually find the drivers very pleasant, friendly, and clean buses overall. I like the bike racks on most routes too.