urbanSTL

And . . . 

"The curse of 'white oil': electric vehicles' dirty secret"

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/d ... et-lithium

Streetsblog - Op-Ed: Car Dependency is An Unequal Burden

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/12/24/ ... al-burden/

Considering discussion going on of removing at least part of the raised section of I-44 downtown (stretch in front of the north riverfront - I think I got the interstate designation right), Forest Parkway & Grand at grade intersection, and or revived interest in getting N-S line going I the following question.  

Does the city and region have any major infrastructure projects at least in preliminary planning & would have a good chance at stimulus funds whether it be Port/River, Freight Rail, Transit, Airport and or Highway if stimulus does materialize?  N-S and or Daniel Boone lines are biggies but not sure if truly in position to move forward and wonder if their is a good list outside of metrolink expansion.     

My thoughts is that most likely to be on the list are Freightway projects that Gone Corporate & others have frequently provided updates on.   I'm assume MoDOT has some long term projects which they could accelerate.  

STL Bi State Region priority list starts in Chapter 3  (pg 33 of doc / 37 of pdf)
First one on the list (270 north county) is already funded and under construction
https://www.ewgateway.org/wp-content/up ... 082819.pdf

Anything on the “illustrative” list is hopes and dreams with no real engineering/pre planning work done

^ adding highway lanes and capacity well into the 2040s, i see. not an encouraging list of projects.

Nextstl - Connected2045 Highlights Disconnect in St. Louis Transportation Planning

https://nextstl.com/2015/03/connected20 ... -planning/

^^ Thanks

^ I can see your point Urban but what is scary in the report is transit trips having a significant downward trend over two decades with a fare share of reasons (including the sprawl and corporations not supporting the core)   Makes it that much tougher for the big enchilada of N-S gaining support/competing on the national level for dollars in my opinion.  In some respects, I think the focus on any fixed transit or BRT really should be on corridors in city where you can make a good case that the ridership will be there.  Whether it be N-S streetcar or reviving the Lindell/St Loius city modern streetcar line modeled around the KC approach (no fares) or similar Grand Ave BRT or maybe even a new Jeff Ave BRT/new Jeff Ave metrolink station combo (tying in more NGIA investment).  

Pete did really well today and the team being built at DOT is very strong.

Let’s hope STLs best and brightest are front and center ready to snatch new money for non-highway projects.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

^ Unfortunately I think the reality is not as good for St. Louis in near term especially on transit because I think a lot of funding will go to projects that have been identified and have already came off the wishlist with some decent studies, preliminary planning/environment work/engineering and a strong stakeholder groups behind the projects.   For St Louis I think is mostly highway work, the work behind the regional freightway projects and the one non highway bright spot with greenways.   Just can't see N-S metrolink getting the big funding boost with the City and County not being on same page for years & having to complete national for a big ticket items.   Think everything from new Hudson River Tunnel, to Cali High Speed Rail to IL & MI lining up for more Amtrak dollars on their respective routes to WI and MN interests to expand Hiawatha & Empire Service to Virginia & NC pursuing a major upgrade to S line to every other major metro with a big ticket transit item on their list as well.   

Hopefully someone can elaborate more and I'm way off base with my Debbie downers view for region in near term.  

  

^Did not Obama DoT personnel come and tour the N/S route sometime over the summer of 2016? Or am I remembering that wrong? We had the thing reasonably well teed up at least in town. Lots of studies. Good local funding instruments. A solid plan. It was a fairly complete presentation with lots of community engagement. (I went to a thing over at the library and posted pictures of most of the plan sections myself before they were released as a PDF.) Now that the assorted regional boosters are joining forces I would think it would be fairly easy to blow the very slight layer of dust off. I rather thought it was still an active plan, at least on paper. The one hangup was that the population density on the northern half of the route was a little low, but with the new administration's more socially proactive policies maybe that will be less of a big deal than it was. It's a pretty good working class route, but for a small bit of sexy downtown. And there will be lots of jobs on the north side of the route and there are lots of people on the south. It won't be a gimme, but I would hope local boosters can at least make a good solid pitch without too much additional work.

Recently I took part in a discussion about integrating BRT into St Louis. Now, I am no fan of buses. Not by a long stretch. For a multitude of reasons. In this discussion, many were pro-BRT. And many were for nixing any further expansion of the Metrolink system. I think it's fairly obvious how poorly thought out the Metrolink system was from conception. And BRT too has its limitations and detractions...However, I think a plausible happy medium can be found between either option. And thankfully, it already exists. And has yet to be implemented in the United States. I am a big proponent of ART (Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit). Click to read about ART tech here . 

Your thoughts, crowd? How do you feel about Bi-State/ Metro shifting focus to this sort of trackless tech, that provides the flexibility of bus routing, with the design and passenger capacity of a light-rail vehicle? Personally, the notion of having trackless, sensor guided light-rail rail-less vehicles criss-crosing throughout our neighborhoods is profoundly fabulous. I envision a future where the Metro system converts heavily to these ART vehicles and does the following eventually: 

• Sells off entire old Metrolink fleet for scrap and also metro buses. 
• Does one of two things with current Metrolink alignment: either use the system alignment as a future springboard for bringing back commuter style rail, expanding rail reach to Webster, Kirkwood, Chesterfield, Florissant, Ferguson, St Charles, Wentzville etc. (requiring investment in a totally new style of train) OR selling off the Metrolink right of way back to a shipping/logistics entity for a pretty penny, reverting the rails back to their initial function.
• Takes Tiger grant from N/S Metrolink expansion, as well as revenue from the sale of the light-rail and bus vehicles and revenue from the sale of Metrolink track, (assuming the idea of commuter rail to the suburbs is not considered in this alternate reality), to invest in ART and initiate its sole usage.

Of course, that brings to mind the obvious question: How are they going to do all that and still provide transit options to citizens through transition? To that I say, using a phased approach. Clearly, it would be stupid to put all eggs in one basket, put the cart before the horse and etc etc. I say, use the Tiger grant funds to invest in a test fleet of ART trams. Then in the meantime, keep using the Metrolink system and buses, only replacing select routes of Metrobus with ART, (preferably the highest trafficked routes at first), and nailing down contractually a solid buyer for the old fleet.. And the old metrolink right of way..should scenario #2 be preferred over exploring commuter.

SRQ2STL wrote:Recently I took part in a discussion about integrating BRT into St Louis. Now, I am no fan of buses. Not by a long stretch. For a multitude of reasons. In this discussion, many were pro-BRT. And many were for nixing any further expansion of the Metrolink system. I think it's fairly obvious how poorly thought out the Metrolink system was from conception. And BRT too has its limitations and detractions...However, I think a plausible happy medium can be found between either option. And thankfully, it already exists. And has yet to be implemented in the United States. I am a big proponent of ART (Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit). Click to read about ART tech here . 

Your thoughts, crowd? How do you feel about Bi-State/ Metro shifting focus to this sort of trackless tech, that provides the flexibility of bus routing, with the design and passenger capacity of a light-rail vehicle? Personally, the notion of having trackless, sensor guided light-rail rail-less vehicles criss-crosing throughout our neighborhoods is profoundly fabulous. I envision a future where the Metro system converts heavily to these ART vehicles and does the following eventually: 

• Sells off entire old Metrolink fleet for scrap and also metro buses. 
• Does one of two things with current Metrolink alignment: either use the system alignment as a future springboard for bringing back commuter style rail, expanding rail reach to Webster, Kirkwood, Chesterfield, Florissant, Ferguson, St Charles, Wentzville etc. (requiring investment in a totally new style of train) OR selling off the Metrolink right of way back to a shipping/logistics entity for a pretty penny, reverting the rails back to their initial function.
• Takes Tiger grant from N/S Metrolink expansion, as well as revenue from the sale of the light-rail and bus vehicles and revenue from the sale of Metrolink track, (assuming the idea of commuter rail to the suburbs is not considered in this alternate reality), to invest in ART and initiate its sole usage.

Of course, that brings to mind the obvious question: How are they going to do all that and still provide transit options to citizens through transition? To that I say, using a phased approach. Clearly, it would be stupid to put all eggs in one basket, put the cart before the horse and etc etc. I say, use the Tiger grant funds to invest in a test fleet of ART trams. Then in the meantime, keep using the Metrolink system and buses, only replacing select routes of Metrobus with ART, (preferably the highest trafficked routes at first), and nailing down contractually a solid buyer for the old fleet.. And the old metrolink right of way..should scenario #2 be preferred over exploring commuter.

Im with you on adding some form of BRT or potentially ART, but I think it would be unwise to rip up what is already a successful light rail system. No reason it shouldn’t be kept. Doesn’t mean you can’t run a BRT line down Lindell and Chouteau, too, though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^^ It's not clear from what you wrote that ART would be any better than the existing combination of Metrolink and bus, let alone the addition of a few strategic BRT routes. 

According to the link you provided there is a single ART line in operation and it opened 7 weeks ago.
 

wabash wrote: ↑

Jan 24, 2021

^^ It's not clear from what you wrote that ART would be any better than the existing combination of Metrolink and bus, let alone the addition of a few strategic BRT routes. 

According to the link you provided there is a single ART line in operation and it opened 7 weeks ago.
 

  I guess the point I am grandiosely attempting to make here is..yes. ART is a VERY new form of transportation technology. That clearly is seeking to combine, in a hybrid fashion, light-rail and BRT services. Is it proven yet? Not yet. But the technology DOES exist and it is now implemented in a fairly dense environment. And it did have to be tested first of course.

  I view it as a golden opportunity for St Louis to be that pioneering North American market for the ART vehicles. How else will this product be a success without real-world application? We have a street system that this would work well in. It's flexible in usage, it has better capacity than a bus, and provides a street grade accessibility not requiring a platform to be built. It's modern and intuitive with its sensor-based system. Lastly, it can bring transit equity to our most underserved areas without nary a rail being laid in road or a BRT platform being built. 

  Am I waaaay overexcited about ART? You betcha'. That's because I see the bigger picture with it. That in, how it can benefit our region and be a much cheaper option than maintaining the underutilized, over expired Metrolink fleet or having to create BRT accomodating amenities. With ART, you have the best of both worlds. Flexible route rapid transit with a streetcar design. It's a beautiful thing. The potential is high. 

SRQ2STL wrote: ↑

Jan 24, 2021

.....it has better capacity than a bus, and provides a street grade accessibility not requiring a platform to be built.....Lastly, it can bring transit equity to our most underserved areas without nary..... a BRT platform being built. 

The only ART system in existence uses platforms, comparable to those for BRT:

wabash wrote: ↑

Jan 24, 2021

SRQ2STL wrote: ↑

Jan 24, 2021

.....it has better capacity than a bus, and provides a street grade accessibility not requiring a platform to be built.....Lastly, it can bring transit equity to our most underserved areas without nary..... a BRT platform being built. 

The only ART system in existence uses platforms, comparable to those for BRT:

Yes, I saw that. But that's China being extra AF. A platform that nice is not necessary. Much less a platform at all...save for at specifically identified hub spots. A dedicated platform-style station such as this makes sense in the downtown core or in high-density/high demand locations like the central west end. But it's not necessary in say.. Old North, Gravois Park, The Ville, etc. A simple stop designated and placed in the median zone of a wider roadway, at an intersection with pedestrian amenities connecting it to both shoulders or at a shoulder itself with a lit sign doesn't require a huge investment. Not as big of an investment, compared to some of the overelaborate BRT stops I have seen in other cities in this country or full-on light-rail stations. Implementing ART would not require long construction timelines or major disruption. I just think something out of the box and new like this is worth exploring as an alternative to the same ideas that have been floating around since forever. This could get rolling in St Louis much faster, rather than waiting for infinity on N/S Metrolink or these elusive BRT stops on Grand. It's really not a terrible option at all for a market like ours. Kansas City is known for their fixed-track streetcar. ART is just the liberated form of that streetcar. 

One of the ideas behind ART as I understand it is that it has a fixed route, even if it doesn't appear to, which provides all the directional control and that the operator controls only power and braking, rather like on a train or streetcar. This makes it a sort of hybrid between light rail and BRT, which is itself already a hybrid between bus and light rail. That means that it has some of the advantages of both . . . and some of the disadvantages. And you can probably adjust the thing a bit to maximize where on the spectrum you want to fall, but it will probably always be a spectrum. If you want the speed and capacity of light rail you'll have to have a completely separated system, an light rail like number of stops, and larger and longer equipment, which means you'll need at least minimal platforms to allow that volume of people to get on and off the thing quickly and safely.

You'll never have the fuel efficiency of rail, since the rolling resistance of rubber on pavement will always be higher than steel on steel. You'll never have the flexibility of a bus, since you don't have a steering wheel. But everything else can probably be moved around on a kind of sliding scale to suit the sort of operation you want. Speed and capacity are less of an issue than frequency and proximity? Okay. Make it more of a streetcar running in and with traffic. You want fast, frequent, and high capacity service between high volume destinations? Make it more separated and with larger platforms and higher capacity equipment and relatively few stops. And since creating the "track" might be as simple as striping the road (or laying down RFID strips) so that the system can follow it changing the routing will be much easier than with light rail, even if it is still slightly more involved than putting out a few new signs and benches for a bus. It's in between.

It will always have some of the advantages . . . and disadvantages of both. If you can maximize the former while minimizing the latter it will work. If you can't you could end up in what the philosophs call the "uncanny valley." That middle spot always sounds great, but it doesn't always work out so well. Depends on the situation.

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Jan 24, 2021

One of the ideas behind ART as I understand it is that it has a fixed route, even if it doesn't appear to, which provides all the directional control and that the operator controls only power and braking, rather like on a train or streetcar. This makes it a sort of hybrid between light rail and BRT, which is itself already a hybrid between bus and light rail. That means that it has some of the advantages of both . . . and some of the disadvantages. And you can probably adjust the thing a bit to maximize where on the spectrum you want to fall, but it will probably always be a spectrum. If you want the speed and capacity of light rail you'll have to have a completely separated system, an light rail like number of stops, and larger and longer equipment, which means you'll need at least minimal platforms to allow that volume of people to get on and off the thing quickly and safely.

You'll never have the fuel efficiency of rail, since the rolling resistance of rubber on pavement will always be higher than steel on steel. You'll never have the flexibility of a bus, since you don't have a steering wheel. But everything else can probably be moved around on a kind of sliding scale to suit the sort of operation you want. Speed and capacity are less of an issue than frequency and proximity? Okay. Make it more of a streetcar running in and with traffic. You want fast, frequent, and high capacity service between high volume destinations? Make it more separated and with larger platforms and higher capacity equipment and relatively few stops. And since creating the "track" might be as simple as striping the road (or laying down RFID strips) so that the system can follow it changing the routing will be much easier than with light rail, even if it is still slightly more involved than putting out a few new signs and benches for a bus. It's in between.

It will always have some of the advantages . . . and disadvantages of both. If you can maximize the former while minimizing the latter it will work. If you can't you could end up in what the philosophs call the "uncanny valley." That middle spot always sounds great, but it doesn't always work out so well. Depends on the situation.

That was an excellent deduction. I agree. ART wouldn't solve every little finite problem. From what I understand about it, it's sensors follow what guidance is given on the road surface, in the form of dibbit like markings. That requires likely the same amount of resources as say...painting traffic lines. As it's essentially the same thing. You could find limitations at first with that aspect because obviously, it is dependant on these road marks. It'll go as far as you decide it seems. But if this thing were to hypothetically be funded and brought to St Louis, I would hope that preparation would consist of, besides naturally painting the guide lines on the most necessary high demand routes, also painting guides on alternate routes in close proximity to the main lines. In the occurrence of the unforeseen but likely variables, such as traffic jams, accidents, fire trucks taking lanes to fight fire and all the above...from what I read about these ART trams, they have the smart tech to suggest alternate routes to avoid major issues and delays. 

The key facts about this technology that stand out as reason enough to seriously consider it for our transit future in St Louis far outweigh the negatives to me:

• $2.2 million per vehicle, with 3 carriages and a capacity of 300 passengers.
• A Lane Departure Warning System helps to keep the vehicle in its lane and automatically warns if it drifts away from the lane. A Collision Warning System supports the driver in keeping a safe distance from other vehicles on the road and if the proximity reduces below a given level, it alerts the driver by a warning sign. The Route Change Authorization is a navigation device, which analyzes the traffic conditions on the chosen route and can recommend a detour to avoid traffic congestion. The Electronic Rearview Mirrors work with remotely adjustable cameras and provide a clearer view than conventional mirrors including an auto-dimming device to reduce the glare.
• powered by lithium–titanate batteries and can travel a distance of 25 miles per full charge. The batteries can be recharged via current collectors at stations. The recharging time for a 1.9 to 3.1 mi trip is 30 seconds, for a 16 mi trip, 10 minutes.
• no permanent track enables flexible operations according to traffic conditions, e.g. by suggesting detours in the case of road traffic accidents or ongoing construction work. The vehicle-based system interacts with an intelligent signal communication feature enabling priority pass at traffic lights.
• quick charge batteries reduce the need for overhead lines en route between the stations and produces no exhaust gases within urban areas.
  
  AND check out the turn radius on these things! As demonstrated here in this video: ART key features

^ I absolutely want to see this when complete and have been on the same wavelength!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

^I did something like that for a Cyberpunk style game I wanted to run in the early 90s. Back when 2004 still felt like a decent near-future date. I keep thinking about doing it again. I suppose I should. We can form a transit-fantasy club. Like fantasy baseball, but cooler. You get points for routes that eventually get run, maybe.