State support for transit: 2016 is a big year

dbInSouthCity · PostFeb 20, 2016#12016-02-20T18:25+00:00

Warning: I'll be using a lot of transportation bill jargon. You can google it all later

When the last transportation bill came out, MAP-21, it called for national and state level performance measures for the first time ever in a transportation bill. States and regions (ewg in our case) have to develop performance measures in varies areas like asset management, congestion reduction, transit performance ect. MAP-21 has been out for a long time and now there is a new bill for the next 6 years called Fast Act but the performance measures from MAP-21 will continue and this year most of the rule making for those will be done.

EWG will be developing this regions measures and they have things like more vibrant downtown, more choices, maintain current system in good condition ect. There is no penalty if the state/region doesn't meet its goal except that Feds can say you aren't meeting your transit goals therefore for next 5 years 10% of federal transportation $ allocated to Missouri has to go towards transit. I went to Jeff city last week for a meeting and had a chat with a planner from the FTA, he said that's exactly how the Feds plan to force states to spend on transit it they don't voluntarily. Should be an interesting year and 2017

More on TPM &Map 21
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/about/index.cfm

goat314 · PostFeb 20, 2016#22016-02-20T18:58+00:00

^ Sounds good. I believe that Missouri will definitely be one of the states that gets forced to allocate the 10%, which will be interesting indeed. I'd imagine an influx of $100M/yr over the next 5 years would allow Metro to do some cool things. Not just better service and frequency, but maybe we start the expansion talks again, maybe infrastructure gets laid for TOD. At the very least I could see Metro reviving BRT and probably Westport....not too optimistic about N-S, but I think the St. Louis Streetcar will eventually take its place in the city, with a BRT overlay to NoCo/SoCo.

What are your predictions? I bet Metro and CMT-STL are salivating at the prospects. The #1 reason major transit plans were scrapped from our last regional transportation plan was because we lacked state support $$$. I was told a few years ago that Metro could build out its system over a 20-30 year time frame if MoDOT guaranteed them about $50M a year, because it would allow them to do some bonding for the local match. I dont know how true that is, but it sounded feasible...doing something like Denver where you build it now with bonds and pay for it over 30 years. I'd imagine the construction trades would be all in on that, lord knows it would create thousands of jobs, but we need leadership with vision.

CarexCurator · PostFeb 20, 2016#32016-02-20T21:22+00:00

^Don't forget about Kansas City and the rest of the state. Metro isn't the only thing going on. There's also the call a ride service in almost every country in the state.

goat314 · PostFeb 20, 2016#42016-02-20T21:45+00:00

This is true, but I would think Metro would get anywhere from a third to half of that money. Also, maybe MoDOT and the Moleg would be willing to negotiate a deal to help St. Louis build its transit system and avoid paying out the big bucks.

CarexCurator · PostFeb 21, 2016#52016-02-21T00:24+00:00

Or at least bury the blue line between Sinker and Forest Park....

I'm not keen on expanding MetroLink until they can pay for it while maintaining service throughout the rest of the system. Putting the mayor of chesterfield in charge was a weird decision, but I'm glad Metro started aiming at a balanced budget. Many transit systems (Chicago and New York for instance) fall far behind in maintaining tracks and paying down debts. I'm glad Metro can take a look at Eads Bridge and repair as needed and so on.

There's a lot Metro can do before it jumps into expanding MetroLink. We need to do that, but there's also a lot of low hanging fruit to take care of.

They could double frequency on Grand by running the 70 more often and letting other bus routes run for longer stretches along the same route. I ride the 70 Grand everyday and the regular buses no longer fit everybody. If they're not running the electric articulated buses, then they need to at least double frequency or run doubledeckers.

Metro also needs to work on fare integration with the loop trolley and help that effort find a sustainable way forward that doesn't become a burden down the road. Ideally, finding a new maintenance facility and putting the one on Delmar up for lease or sale could be a cash positive affair at some point.

quincunx · PostFeb 21, 2016#62016-02-21T01:22+00:00

CarexCurator wrote:Or at least bury the blue line between Sinker and Forest Park....

River Des Peres is in the way.

CarexCurator · PostFeb 21, 2016#72016-02-21T02:59+00:00

Ok, bury the blue line and daylight the river des peres. That would not be a Metro project alone... The river des peres has to resurface at some point. It is absurd that Forest Park's water system should be structured around constantly flowing tap water.

PeterXCV · PostFeb 21, 2016#82016-02-21T03:30+00:00

I don't understand what point burying the blue line would serve, that land isn't going to be developed and i'm sure it would cost horrendous amounts of money. I think a good starting point for this money would be to run 15 minute headways for metrolink during the daytime (between rush hours, currently only every 20 minutes) and during the early evening + 15 minute headways for the top non-grand bus lines like the 11, 95, and 10 with 20 at night. Right now even on the 11 chippewa/jefferson it's only every 40 minutes after 7pm.

CarexCurator · PostFeb 21, 2016#92016-02-21T03:52+00:00

I'm just a bit nostalgic about being able to casually walk down Des Peres Avenue into the park. Access from the Skinky-D neighborhood to Forest Park is blocked by the MetroLink and the backyards of the wealthy. Forest Park Parkway has been walled off as a place unfit for people. The sidewalk there is brutal and once you are on it you can't hop back to the alley unless you jump a fence. What is that sidewalk even for if it deadends before you get to Kayaks?

I'd settle for a pedestrian bridge more similar to the one Wash U is about to tear down and replace.

ajwillikers · PostFeb 22, 2016#102016-02-22T14:29+00:00

CarexCurator wrote:I'd settle for a pedestrian bridge more similar to the one Wash U is about to tear down and replace.

I cross Forest Parkway at Des Peres for bicycle commuting and it can be brutal. The people making a left hate you because they've been waiting forever at that light. And even if you wait for the light, I've experienced tons of red light running cars going 50 (and not even the close yellow ones. Like I have the walk sign and Des Peres has green so you know they ran it).

I would love a bridge over there or calm the traffic with design as the road really "Doesn't know what it's supposed to be" between Big Bend and Debaliviere. What's the point of a 40mph speed limit with the frequent lights? It's no wonder drivers run the Red at Des Peres, if they just sat at Skinker and got back up to the speed limit (and let's be real another +10mph). It's unsafe for everyone as is.

dredger · PostFeb 22, 2016#112016-02-22T18:39+00:00

Extend cross county line from Shrewsbuy to I55. This line was never intended to dead end @ Shrewsbury. River Des Peres Greenway provides a RoW as well as the opportunity to add transit to both S. County and South City while at the same time you use your dedicated funds on a transit expansion instead of trying to put money into the South County Connector.
.
However, my bet is maybe some better bus frequencies for the city, more call a ride access for seniors & such in rural areas and St. Louis County pushing hard to use some funds for Daniel Boone line and KC doing a streetcar extension.

CarexCurator · PostFeb 22, 2016#122016-02-22T18:44+00:00

Seems reasonable to me to just add one station at a time rather than laying out grand plans for cross-regional expansion. I'd settle for one more stop after Shrewsberry or a turn off the blueline from Civic Center or Stadium down to Soulard.

imperialmog · PostFeb 22, 2016#132016-02-22T19:15+00:00

also it would be helpful if they know where the corridors would be to try to get those lined up even if they won't build immediately, since they could be used as recreation paths in the meantime. And short extensions could work, especially if its where they know the alignment for that segment, but not sure on alignment after a point.

moorlander · PostFeb 22, 2016#142016-02-22T19:46+00:00

It's a stretch to say the state supports transit. And we wonder why everyone drives in StL. Our neighbor to the east spends 736 times more per capita on public transit than Missouri does.

dredger · PostFeb 22, 2016#152016-02-22T20:38+00:00

^ What amazes me about that visual is you take the six conservative states bordering north to west to south and average out the numbers it comes to 20 times the amount of Missouri. These are states that should have same political leanings.

Nextstl also has a nice write up on gas tax and summarizes proposed state transportation bills. Missouri is in a state of denial with transportation funding and policy across the board even when you compare with neighboring states of similar political leanings. The saving grace for KC and STL metro areas is that they are both ideally tied to the nation's private freight rail network and STL area benefits immensely from having a lock and almost always ice free river route to the Gulf. The downfall is the state will only be able to do the minimal with interstate system, will put no money into transit whether it better bus frequencies for urban work force or better dial a ride for seniors in rural areas while metro areas not having a means to invest properly in lettered highways for multi-modal uses.

pat · PostFeb 22, 2016#162016-02-22T20:52+00:00

Another correlation, in most of those states, the largest city is also the capital. Des Moines, Lincoln is practically a suburb of Omaha, Topeka, Oklahoma City, Nashville, Little Rock. Those politicians voting for transit funding are also the most likely to be served by that transit

dbInSouthCity · PostFeb 22, 2016#172016-02-22T22:31+00:00

Also to consider is how the state is funding those...gas tax? Sales tax, general revenue? Also do most of their cities have a regional sales tax that raises $200,000,000 year for that regions transit agency. And how much do transit agencies there recover per ride. Metro is about 14%

Some around the world

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio

mill204 · PostFeb 23, 2016#182016-02-23T04:29+00:00

^ I think you confused St. Louis with Dallas. Metro's systemwide farebox recovery ratio is around 22%. The biggest recent disappointment is MetroLink with a farebox recovery ratio that has fallen about 5% from a high near 30% just a few years ago.

imthewiz · PostFeb 23, 2016#192016-02-23T13:53+00:00

moorlander wrote:It's a stretch to say the state supports transit. And we wonder why everyone drives in StL. Our neighbor to the east spends 736 times more per capita on public transit than Missouri does.

Where did you find this map?

PostFeb 23, 2016#202016-02-23T13:53+00:00

[/quote]

Where did you find this map?

dbInSouthCity · PostFeb 23, 2016#212016-02-23T14:57+00:00

Actually Metro is at about 19% but you are right, Dallas is AWFUL at farebox recovery.

moorlander · PostFeb 23, 2016#222016-02-23T15:25+00:00

imthewiz wrote:
moorlander wrote:It's a stretch to say the state supports transit. And we wonder why everyone drives in StL. Our neighbor to the east spends 736 times more per capita on public transit than Missouri does.

Where did you find this map?

Cmt posted it on fb

mill204 · PostFeb 25, 2016#232016-02-25T01:03+00:00

So on March 14, Metro is restructuring most of its bus routes due to the opening of its new North County Transit Center.

Metro is also rerouting a number of routes downtown due to the impending closure of the Civic Center Transit Center. Particularly, whereas many buses would travel down 14th St on their way to Civic Center, all of these buses will now travel down 18th St starting from as far north as Carr St.

Is anybody else concerned with the downtown reroutes? I've complained on my blog how the current system almost completely ignores the downtown core; the reroutes just move the buses even further from the core.

Oh, and the 99 Downtown Trolley, while it is getting extended west to Jefferson from Union Station, will now have 20 minute peak headways, a reduction in service from 14 minutes today and 10 minutes when it first started in 2010.

PeterXCV · PostFeb 25, 2016#242016-02-25T01:36+00:00

^I've been pretty concerned, I think Metro has been making incredibly poor decisions ever since Proposition A, which at least personally makes me feel almost betrayed that I knocked on doors for them to just cut bus routes and make very unwise transit decisions. Cutting up bus routes, rerouting them out of the urban core all just to have schedule adherence? I don't think John Nations has been a good influence on them.

quincunx · PostFeb 25, 2016#252016-02-25T01:40+00:00

There's tension between convenience (frequency) and extent (serving a huge area). Extent sames to be winning lately.