urbanSTL

https://cmt-stl.org/app/uploads/2018/09 ... 018-v3.pdf

Updated presentation..Construction 2025 to 2029, so i guess 2030 opening? (page 20)
By the consultants own estimates this would score medium low to medium for the Federal funding (page 21)

can we please end this madness now and start building BRT and getting better bus frequency

DB you don't know what you're talking about. BRT would fail in North City. LRT would be a game changer aimed at rebuilding the City. BRT doesn't rebuild cities.

TransportMe wrote: ↑

Sep 15, 2018

DB you don't know what you're talking about. BRT would fail in North City. LRT would be a game changer aimed at rebuilding the City. BRT doesn't rebuild cities.

North City cant wait til 2030 or 2032 when this is open.

I'd say, just like I said above, that it's not a bus. Bus screams archaic sprawl serving mass transit to me, no matter how modern the bus is. Plus, they're loud and slow. LRT makes a place feel more urban and built, with confidence and support behind it. It might just be all perception, but that's why I'd rather another LR line be installed. There is noise associated with it, of course, though just the same.

Anyways, why wouldn't there be a short lane divider if this was running along the street to keep cars from entering the lane? I'm assuming a BRT lane would be treated the same.

Personally I like LRT for its urbanity, but a quick search seems to suggest that the economic and development benefits of BRT are much better documented than those of LRT. Even though it is not my field of expertise, I have seen plenty of economists presenting results on the benefits of BRT albeit typically in the context of cities in developing countries (it could be argued that St Lous has more socio-economic characteristics in common with cities in South America than with cities in Europe however).

STLEnginerd wrote: ↑

Sep 15, 2018

Sense of permanence...? Really an entirely dedicated lane of traffic doesnt scream permanence to you...? Tell me how you feel the next ti e a car breaks down across the tracks... Is there any other inherent quality of LRT that makes it superior to BRT?

No, a dedicated lane of traffic doesn't scream permanence to me. You can create a dedicated lane of traffic with paint and signs. Now, if you want to build what amounts to a dedicated street within a street (which is not an uncommon option) that's more permanent. But it also suffers from the same problems when a car breaks down and blocks it. You're BRT vehicle, reliant on platforms (and possibly catenary) cannot go around a breakdown much if any more easily than a train.

There are several things that make light rail better: the rolling resistance of steel wheels on a steel surface is much lower, allowing much greater efficiency. Higher speeds with less power and hence less noise. The maintenance is lower. It's just plain more reliable. Steel wheels last longer. Heavy axles last longer. You can use larger, heavier, more comfortable cars since the road surface will take more weight per axle. Positive directional control gives more predictability, and helps make larger vehicles more efficient. There are fewer accidents. There's much less chance a vehicle will sideswipe a platform or curb blowing a tire or breaking an axle. It also gives some unexpected flexibility, as it's easier to slap a couple extra cars on a train using a single operator than a bus.

All of these things are even more true with electrification, as large electric motors are enormously more reliable and efficient than small diesel motors. Electric transmission eliminates moving parts.

There are, of course, advantages to BRT as well, but . . . it's note remotely one sided. You really do get something for that higher initial investment. The benefits are every bit as real as the cost. It's just a matter of measuring both accurately. (Which I will not claim to have done.) And again, I am personally unaware of how much land value appreciation you see with either of the two, though you should take that into account as well. (Along with capacity and predicted ridership.)

I don't know a lot about these things but is there a way to do BRT where you have:
1. Two dedicated lanes, one each direction, offset from traffic by a divider.
2. Electric buses powered by overhead cables (or OLEVs) while they are in these dedicated lanes.
3. Buses that can also run outside of those lanes off battery power for short distances to serve stops in an area slightly off the main route.
4. In the future, the dedicated lanes can be converted to light rail if ridership levels make that viable.

Just wondering because a lot of the objection to BRT seems to be that buses generate exhaust, are loud and are hard to maintain. Electric buses lessen all of those concerns and the initial build out would seem to have a more reasonable price tag than light rail.

Metro has electric buses now and is getting more, no need for overhead cables

It's absolutely possible to power busses of catenary or batteries or both. You can add dedicated lanes blocked off by kerbs, islands, railings . . .

The less it looks like an ordinary bus service expansion and the more it looks like light rail the more it will cost and the slower it will be to build. You'll lose some degree of flexibility in exchange for some of the light rail benefits. It's surely a sliding scale.

There's really no reason beyond money you couldn't expand service immediately with ordinary city busses as construction is ongoing, perhaps even removing non-bus traffic from selected construction impacted routes for the duration of the project. (That might be best whichever way you go.)

On the other hand, I prefer the idea of high platform LRT compatible with the current system, which isn't even being considered, so far as I am aware.

IIRC, the Silver Line in Boston run on electricity and diesel, sometimes on its own ROW, some portions not

Nothing too ground breaking, but the city did have CBB draw up N/S MetroLink concepts in January of 2020 for convention center redevelopment site RFP.

At least it’s still on their radar.

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... eid=817874

Those turns really slow things down and they have to add cost. I realize the importance of convention center expansion but it's really a pretty big failure that they haven't forced out the parking garage and expanded to the east. 

aprice wrote: ↑

May 13, 2020

Those turns really slow things down and they have to add cost. I realize the importance of convention center expansion but it's really a pretty big failure that they haven't forced out the parking garage and expanded to the east. 

I'm sure this has been discussed before but why not run the N-S line only down 14th or Tucker through downtown? Why curve further into the CBD if it drastically slows the trains down? 

Disclaimer: I'm not a transit expert by any means so this is a genuine question. Do they want stations in the heart of the CBD? More connections to the other E-W lines other than at Civic Center?

I think they want the new N-S stations to be close to existing Red and Blue line stations for transfers. 

addxb2 wrote: ↑

May 13, 2020

Nothing too ground breaking, but the city did have CBB draw up N/S MetroLink concepts in January of 2020 for convention center redevelopment site RFP.

At least it’s still on their radar.

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... eid=817874

So it looks like the trains will run on their own ROW? Am I reading that right?

^ my two cents on above discussion,  the N-S downtown portion looks and is designed a lot like a streetcar and the outer edges try to be a light rail line and will fail trying to do both in my humble opinion.  I still think St Louis City should go all in on a N-S streetcar with this alignment.   Either that, or go in on a Jeff Ave north south street car as Sc4mayor outlines.   Make any streetcar fare free like KC did

In the meantime.  City/County could build a separate light rail line splitting off existing spline in downtown and follow UP RoW in the city to South County/I55 that would tie into a Cross County Extension down Des Peres River greenway.   Could also take Daniel Boone extension and have future extension hang a right to the north long I270 and come back around to the airport.   

STL Metro will never reach its full potential without going fare free. Right now it largely only serves the carless (which in STL is almost synonymous with poor) and those commuting to expensive paid parking areas (such as a game or working in downtown/CWE.) 

The 2.50 fare makes using metro for everyday trips lose the competition against cars in almost every scenario, especially if you are travelling with more than one person. 

Round trip costs:
1 person: $5
2 people: $10
3 people: $15
4 people: $20
5 people: $25

You can see what I'm talking about. As your group size grows, other less efficient solutions become inherently better. Suddenly uber/lyft is cheaper, or paying for ballpark parking is cheaper. We have designed a mass transit system that is inherently bad at transporting groups of people.

St. Louis is largely a city for cars, with only relatively small areas where going car free makes sense. If we are to grow these areas we need to make using transit a better deal for all trips. Free transit means people would go out of there way to use it for trips to the grocery store, the park, or the bar. Paid transit in STL just seems like a half measure that hurts our system more than the revenue is worth.

Yes we would miss the farebox revenue, but even a reasonable level of state funding would cover a large portion of the difference. Paid transit just doesn't make sense in modern America anymore outside of our biggest and densest cities. We messed everything up by accommodating cars for the past 70 years, if we want to get people out of them and grow our walkable neighborhoods it's going to take some incentivization. 

Metro would need to make up about $60M a year if it went fare-free, i did the math once. 

What we have more influence over locally is building transit-compatible places. We should focus policies, spending, subsidies towards that.

quincunx wrote: ↑

May 14, 2020

What we have more influence over locally is building transit-compatible places. We should focus policies, spending, subsidies towards that.

You can expand metrolink all you want but while parking remains readily available anywhere you could possible want to go in the St. Louis region, Bi-State will continue to lose riders. A large percentage of bus riders in this region want a car more than anything else. A lot of people are paying for cars they can't afford. Land Use Policy is Transportation Policy. 

Watch out for the highway lobby getting huge make work funding from Congress. Bike/ped infrastructure and rehabbing buildings would create more jobs. Imagine if all the LRA-owned buildings got rehabbed?