urbanSTL

dbInSouthCity wrote:Kick off for the city study is next week I believe

There won't be a streetcar considered.

End result may give segmented build options, it could give no build option based on ridership etc. looking forward to some of those projections that AECOM comes up with.

Future projections for ridership may also be based on transit oriented development potential from what I heard. Shouldn't we also take transit ridership projections with a grain of salt? They have been historically way too low when compared to highway traffic projections. Also, I have no idea why a streetcar wouldn't be considered, seems like a lack of foresight to me. A streetcar line from Kingshighway to Cherokee seems like a no-brainer if we cant afford the big boy system.

^ not my assumptions. It's from the 2008 study. showed northside with 9000 daily riders and south side between 18-20k. It's one of the reasons it kinda died down (along with the bad economy). Those ridership projections also had city population declining to 327,000 in 2030, we've blew past that 6 6 years ago

dbInSouthCity wrote:focus should be on smaller segments and segments that can be successful with ridership, those are in the south end of the NS. Is there political will to push for that? doubtful

I think BRT might be worth another look. It seems like it would be easier to implement on an incremental basis. Also, overhauling the bus system in general to be more efficient and effective. And city-county merger as long as I'm wishing for stuff.

Alex Ihnen wrote:^ That's the most insane thing I've read in quite some time.

I can't speak for Imperial, but I think N/S and tearing up the system are both, like, 1% likely.

MarkHaversham wrote:

dbInSouthCity wrote:focus should be on smaller segments and segments that can be successful with ridership, those are in the south end of the NS. Is there political will to push for that? doubtful

I think BRT might be worth another look. It seems like it would be easier to implement on an incremental basis. Also, overhauling the bus system in general to be more efficient and effective. And city-county merger as long as I'm wishing for stuff.

Alex Ihnen wrote:^ That's the most insane thing I've read in quite some time.

I can't speak for Imperial, but I think N/S and tearing up the system are both, like, 1% likely.

Problem with "BRT" is that it has not had a proven track record of attracting development and we will likely not get the "gold standard" that makes BRT a worthy investment. For the amount it cost to build a true BRT route, we might as well build a streetcar. I know people are looking at Metrolink from a strictly transit perspective, which is fair, but the city is looking at it as a tool for neighborhood revitalization and economic development, right or wrong. If it was simply about transportation and moving people across the landscape as fast as possible, I would advocate for the use of the DeSoto ROW in South City and the I-70 Express Lane ROW for North City.

goat314 wrote: For the amount it cost to build a true BRT route, we might as well build a streetcar.

Yes, but you can capitalize BRT incrementally in a way that you can't with streetcars. Of course, you have to trust political institutions to follow through on those incremental improvements, which may be a problem.

MarkHaversham wrote:

goat314 wrote: For the amount it cost to build a true BRT route, we might as well build a streetcar.

Yes, but you can capitalize BRT incrementally in a way that you can't with streetcars. Of course, you have to trust political institutions to follow through on those incremental improvements, which may be a problem.

St. Louis cant even maintain Washington Avenue.

Why Monorails Are the Future (Really This Time)
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... -this-time

My favorite part: "Of course, monorails aren't perfect. They tend to be slower and carry fewer passengers than traditional rail . . ." I don't see what advantages they have over streetcars. The plusses he cites are all true of streetcars, and electrified busses for that matter. They can be built with little interruption of existing transportation networks, with tight curvatures and steep grades: Check. They're less expensive than subways: Extra double check. The truth is monorails require a rather expensive and complicated fixed way, which is typically elevated, adding even more expense. They're pretty. Like any form of mass transit they can be useful if traffic density calls for it. But they're a more costly option than anything we are now considering. Think of them as a futuristic elevated line. And there's really no reason you can't do everything a monorail does with one rail more cheaply with two of the more traditional sort. This isn't akin to mag-lev. It's physical wheels rolling on physical rails. So if you have two rails you can make each of them smaller and lighter and you can avoid all the balance issues of standing on one foot. And turnouts and cross overs are ever so much simpler.

StlToday - Mayor pushes tax proposals for MetroLink expansion, neighborhood development and soccer stadium

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 8d2d6.html

So $10 million a year giving us $250 million in bonds and hopefully matching federal dollars. How short of a route will that be?

joelo wrote:http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 8d2d6.html

So $10 million a year giving us $250 million in bonds and hopefully matching federal dollars. How short of a route will that be?

I was thinking the same thing. Maybe the city feels they can tap into some different resources or philanthropy to fund the line. I also had a suspicion for the longest time that this will come in the form of a modern streetcar (think KC streetcar w/ dedicated lanes) than a true Metrolink line. My only hope is that they are not waiting on a miracle (funding from state of MO) or county participation to get this line done, because if they are....this will never get done!

If you use the KC streetcar numbers for comparison, they built a 2.2 mile line with $102 million. With $250 million, that puts at about a 5 mile line. If they get a 50% match from the Feds, that's a 10 mile line. That 10 miles gets you from Broadway and 55 south of Jefferson up to a good portion of Florissant in North City.

pat wrote:If you use the KC streetcar numbers for comparison, they built a 2.2 mile line with $102 million. With $250 million, that puts at about a 5 mile line. If they get a 50% match from the Feds, that's a 10 mile line. That 10 miles gets you from Broadway and 55 south of Jefferson up to a good portion of Florissant in North City.

Light rail is between $75-125M/mile.

to get Fed $ you also need to show you can operate it for the next 30 years....

lets take current 47 miles of metrolink...metro budget says it costs about $85M a year to operate...

85m/47= $1.80M x 10 miles of new line = 18m a year X 30 years = $540M + lets say $60M for inflation other unexpected things = $600M at best metro will have fare box recovery of 30%....that still leaves $420M needed to operate the 10 miles over a 30 year period or $14Million a year

Light rail is between $75-125M/mile.

But those costs are for light rail with dedicated ROW that operates like our current Metrolink. Do you think its going to operate like true light rail? I don't disagree with your costs for light rail, but I don't think people are envisioning a set up for Jefferson/Florissant like Metrolink along Forest Park Parkway. From my understanding, the vision is that it is going to be street running.

Would it necessarily change your operational costs much? Might actually raise them on a per mile basis, because your speeds would be so much lower, thus you'd have more man hours per mile of operation. (Though not necessarily per passenger or even passenger mile, if demand was high enough.) Maintenance might come out about the same, or maybe slightly higher. (More finicky right of way requiring fancier work. Especially if Metro ends up saddled with maintaining the pavement in their lanes, which they might want in order to protect their RoW.) Honestly, I'd guess the building costs would probably be at least as high or maybe higher than the average Metrolink mile, since so many of those were along pre-existing railroad RoW that would have required only minimal adaptation and restoration. Sure, Street running is cheaper than subways. But I'm not sure it's cheaper than just building a surface rail line on unoccupied land. I kind of doubt that, actually.

New site up for N-S Metrolink study.



http://www.northsidesouthsidestl.com/

Looks good! although more expensive, how about build both alignments? Make the NGA option the "Yellow" and the other the "Orange"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would it make sense to just keep the line going down Jefferson or 14th and have a separate "loop" line going from Jefferson or 14th to Broadway or something? Where people could transfer from at 14th and Clark?

Just seems goofy to make people spend the time going through Downtown if they need to get north.

bwcrow1s wrote: ↑

Jun 20, 2017

Would it make sense to just keep the line going down Jefferson or 14th and have a separate "loop" line going from Jefferson or 14th to Broadway or something? Where people could transfer from at 14th and Clark?

Just seems goofy to make people spend the time going through Downtown if they need to get north.

I completely agree that going down Jefferson or 14th would be really great but ultimately, you have to remember that the point of this project is to get people from the neighborhoods into Downtown. In 30 years, should St. Louis find itself to be a great streetcar city once again, a downtown bypass line that runs down Jefferson would be great but in the mean time, getting the route through the heart of downtown is extremely important. Although, personally I'd prefer a Grand line first.

aprice wrote: ↑

Jun 20, 2017

bwcrow1s wrote: ↑

Jun 20, 2017

Would it make sense to just keep the line going down Jefferson or 14th and have a separate "loop" line going from Jefferson or 14th to Broadway or something? Where people could transfer from at 14th and Clark?

Just seems goofy to make people spend the time going through Downtown if they need to get north.

I completely agree that going down Jefferson or 14th would be really great but ultimately, you have to remember that the point of this project is to get people from the neighborhoods into Downtown. In 30 years, should St. Louis find itself to be a great streetcar city once again, a downtown bypass line that runs down Jefferson would be great but in the mean time, getting the route through the heart of downtown is extremely important.

(a bit devil's advocate) If sending MetroLink through downtown is such a great idea, then why don't we have any buses doing that today?

Is having the line zig-zag through Jefferson, Chouteau, 14th, and downtown any faster than having a straight line down Jefferson with a transfer where it goes over the red/blue? I would think it would be cheaper and a faster route to have it go straight down Jefferson.

If having it go downtown is that critical, then I think having the line go down Gravois/Tucker or Broadway from Jefferson would be better.

pat wrote: ↑

Jun 20, 2017

Is having the line zig-zag through Jefferson, Chouteau, 14th, and downtown any faster than having a straight line down Jefferson with a transfer where it goes over the red/blue? I would think it would be cheaper and a faster route to have it go straight down Jefferson.

If having it go downtown is that critical, then I think having the line go down Gravois/Tucker or Broadway from Jefferson would be better.

You're talking about Gravois though, which is a MoDot street, yes? I doubt that happens.

Basically what I was saying, is that you could still have the downtown line -- just have it be a train switch for passengers, so that anyone who wants to go straight through downtown can. Then that downtown line would be able to serve more nuanced stops, like closer to the riverfront, Busch, Kiener, etc.

The amount of time it has taken to get to this point with N/S, I don't see another line like Grand, Kingshighway, or Broadway for a very long time.

I do agree though that a line going from Jefferson & Gravois down Gravois and/or Broadway would be great.

^Right. This is all hypothetical anyway. They've got their mind more or less made up on the route. Its been the same proposal for years. I don't see them changing it.

I don't see other lines happening either unless there is a huge change in state and federal government funding. But I would like to see the city do something with bus routes that gives them the effect of acting like rail lines. You could easily take the most popular bus routes and tweak them with improvements so they run close to light rail or BRT. Give them dedicated lanes where possible, add off-board fare pay stations, up the frequency, downsize the amount of stops, give those bus routes free transfers to Metrolink. Operate them like BRT. Not everywhere. Just the major ones - Grand, Kingshighway, Hampton, Natural Bridge, Chippewa, etc.

bwcrow1s wrote: ↑

Jun 20, 2017

pat wrote: ↑

Jun 20, 2017

Is having the line zig-zag through Jefferson, Chouteau, 14th, and downtown any faster than having a straight line down Jefferson with a transfer where it goes over the red/blue? I would think it would be cheaper and a faster route to have it go straight down Jefferson.

If having it go downtown is that critical, then I think having the line go down Gravois/Tucker or Broadway from Jefferson would be better.

You're talking about Gravois though, which is a MoDot street, yes? I doubt that happens.

Basically what I was saying, is that you could still have the downtown line -- just have it be a train switch for passengers, so that anyone who wants to go straight through downtown can. Then that downtown line would be able to serve more nuanced stops, like closer to the riverfront, Busch, Kiener, etc.

The amount of time it has taken to get to this point with N/S, I don't see another line like Grand, Kingshighway, or Broadway for a very long time.

I do agree though that a line going from Jefferson & Gravois down Gravois and/or Broadway would be great.

Gravois is a city owned, controlled street that MoDOT maintains. City has total control over it.

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Jun 20, 2017

bwcrow1s wrote: ↑

Jun 20, 2017

pat wrote: ↑

Jun 20, 2017

Is having the line zig-zag through Jefferson, Chouteau, 14th, and downtown any faster than having a straight line down Jefferson with a transfer where it goes over the red/blue? I would think it would be cheaper and a faster route to have it go straight down Jefferson.

If having it go downtown is that critical, then I think having the line go down Gravois/Tucker or Broadway from Jefferson would be better.

You're talking about Gravois though, which is a MoDot street, yes? I doubt that happens.

Basically what I was saying, is that you could still have the downtown line -- just have it be a train switch for passengers, so that anyone who wants to go straight through downtown can. Then that downtown line would be able to serve more nuanced stops, like closer to the riverfront, Busch, Kiener, etc.

The amount of time it has taken to get to this point with N/S, I don't see another line like Grand, Kingshighway, or Broadway for a very long time.

I do agree though that a line going from Jefferson & Gravois down Gravois and/or Broadway would be great.

Gravois is a city owned, controlled street that MoDOT maintains. City has total control over it.

Thanks for the clarification.