urbanSTL

kg2024 wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

4:43 PM - 9 days ago

stldotage wrote:  Again, StlAlex, I'll mostly just respond with "agree to disagree" on most of your points. This final one, though, and matguy's comment below it should be addressed.

The former Green Line Metrolink proposal was not ever proposed as "light rail" in the sense of the Metrolink we know, of course. In-street "light rail" is a streetcar -- i.e., slower with more frequent stops than a light rail system (and lower capacity vehicles).

A Metrolink actual-light rail station is, at its absolute narrowest, 50 feet wide. The proposed Green Line stations would have been much more compressed than that, given that not even the most overly wide city street is built to accommodate that width (Forest Park Avenue, for example). Jefferson just north of Lafayette is ~90 feet wide.

Also with stations spaced under a mile apart, the top speed of the proposed Metrolink would have topped out at, what, 25 mph? Maybe 30 for a stretch with a longer gap in stops? (And arguably it should not go faster than that without obtrusive fencing that would impede the pedestrian experience along the route).

So when we really compare apples to apples here, with the old Green Line Metrolink proposal we have:

• a street-running vehicle, 
• small/compressed stations compared to an actual dedicated Metrolink right of way 
• smaller cars
• more frequent stops than the Red/Blue lines
• slower average speed
• ...and hopefully dedicated lanes, signal priority, and pre-board payment. 

Does that sound familiar? It's BRT, but with rails. Rails are not a magic transit performance-enhancing drug. The rail line must still connect to important transfer points (i.e., not skirt downtown) and be extensive enough to serve more than a handful of neighborhoods--and be faster/better than a bus to attract new riders along the route. So, we're not actually comparing LRT vs. BRT here. We're comparing Streetcar v. BRT....both of which would cannibalize (funny way to pronounce "improve", but okay) existing bus service.

Everything I mentioned as an advantage of LRT over BRT absolutely still applies to the Green Line, stuff like acceleration, consistency in station gaps, comfort, capacity, etc.

KC's streetcars have a capacity of 327. New Flyer's longest articulated bus has a designed capacity of 116.

Every rendering we saw of the LRT, yes I'm aware none of it was actual design it was just concept, had "obtrusive" barriers separating the tracks from the driving lanes. On the website it also described that it would be grade separated with either fencing or a curb. So far, none of the BRT concept renderings include any barrier to make the bus lanes separated from tbe car lanes. The technology the Green Line was using was most similar to the Pheonix Valley Metro, which has a max speed of 35 MPH, runs all in-street, widest stations are 40 ft, has stations 0.5 to 0.75 miles apart, etc. This was, in fact, one of the examples on the LRT website too.

We are comparing in-street light rail to BRT. Not a downtown streetcar, not a 1900s streetcar, modern in-street light rail.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

KC's streetcars have a capacity of 150 (mostly standing packed like sardines) (https://kcstreetcar.org/faq/what-is-the-capacity-of-the-kc-streetcar/) not 327. 

The Green Line LRT plan was going to include full "secure platform" fencing and gates on the same 11' wide station islands which would have made them look like ridiculous jail cells in the the center of the road. This is not the case with the BRT plan which will reduce cost and make the stations much more visually appealing and welcoming. Also lets face it, metal fencing along any curbline directly adjacent to traffic lanes would face endless damage and maintenance issues. 

Every rendering and diagram of the BRT concept has shown curbs separating the lanes from traffic if you would look at them:Image (27).pngImage (28).jpg

1) I was using the manufacturer's website, which states 327. Maybe that meant for 2 trains attached together.

2) In your concept rendering, you can clearly see at the bottom there is no curb between tne bus lane and the driving lane, and there are plenty more renderings that show no curb seperation.

3) The Secure Platform project is a totally separate discussion from this one. But you know people will argue the BRT is unsafe, just like they argue current buses and trains are unsafe.

4) I can't believe we have fallen to the level of arguing that fencing will raise maintenance costs while you're advocating for a system as inefficient and costly to maintain as buses.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

kg2024 wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

4:43 PM - 9 days ago

stldotage wrote:  Again, StlAlex, I'll mostly just respond with "agree to disagree" on most of your points. This final one, though, and matguy's comment below it should be addressed.

The former Green Line Metrolink proposal was not ever proposed as "light rail" in the sense of the Metrolink we know, of course. In-street "light rail" is a streetcar -- i.e., slower with more frequent stops than a light rail system (and lower capacity vehicles).

A Metrolink actual-light rail station is, at its absolute narrowest, 50 feet wide. The proposed Green Line stations would have been much more compressed than that, given that not even the most overly wide city street is built to accommodate that width (Forest Park Avenue, for example). Jefferson just north of Lafayette is ~90 feet wide.

Also with stations spaced under a mile apart, the top speed of the proposed Metrolink would have topped out at, what, 25 mph? Maybe 30 for a stretch with a longer gap in stops? (And arguably it should not go faster than that without obtrusive fencing that would impede the pedestrian experience along the route).

So when we really compare apples to apples here, with the old Green Line Metrolink proposal we have:

• a street-running vehicle, 
• small/compressed stations compared to an actual dedicated Metrolink right of way 
• smaller cars
• more frequent stops than the Red/Blue lines
• slower average speed
• ...and hopefully dedicated lanes, signal priority, and pre-board payment. 

Does that sound familiar? It's BRT, but with rails. Rails are not a magic transit performance-enhancing drug. The rail line must still connect to important transfer points (i.e., not skirt downtown) and be extensive enough to serve more than a handful of neighborhoods--and be faster/better than a bus to attract new riders along the route. So, we're not actually comparing LRT vs. BRT here. We're comparing Streetcar v. BRT....both of which would cannibalize (funny way to pronounce "improve", but okay) existing bus service.

Everything I mentioned as an advantage of LRT over BRT absolutely still applies to the Green Line, stuff like acceleration, consistency in station gaps, comfort, capacity, etc.

KC's streetcars have a capacity of 327. New Flyer's longest articulated bus has a designed capacity of 116.

Every rendering we saw of the LRT, yes I'm aware none of it was actual design it was just concept, had "obtrusive" barriers separating the tracks from the driving lanes. On the website it also described that it would be grade separated with either fencing or a curb. So far, none of the BRT concept renderings include any barrier to make the bus lanes separated from tbe car lanes. The technology the Green Line was using was most similar to the Pheonix Valley Metro, which has a max speed of 35 MPH, runs all in-street, widest stations are 40 ft, has stations 0.5 to 0.75 miles apart, etc. This was, in fact, one of the examples on the LRT website too.

We are comparing in-street light rail to BRT. Not a downtown streetcar, not a 1900s streetcar, modern in-street light rail.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

KC's streetcars have a capacity of 150 (mostly standing packed like sardines) (https://kcstreetcar.org/faq/what-is-the-capacity-of-the-kc-streetcar/) not 327. 

The Green Line LRT plan was going to include full "secure platform" fencing and gates on the same 11' wide station islands which would have made them look like ridiculous jail cells in the the center of the road. This is not the case with the BRT plan which will reduce cost and make the stations much more visually appealing and welcoming. Also lets face it, metal fencing along any curbline directly adjacent to traffic lanes would face endless damage and maintenance issues. 

Every rendering and diagram of the BRT concept has shown curbs separating the lanes from traffic if you would look at them:Image (27).pngImage (28).jpg

The packed like sardines capacity is somewhere around 200 per when I asked the streetcar staff 10 years ago.

stldotage wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

6:49 PM - 9 days ago

stldotage wrote: Costs are going up, up, up while our city's population and employment numbers are going down. The city of St. Louis is now less than 10 percent of regional population and even less than that in land area. It is becoming more difficult, not easier, to justify expensive transit projects that touch no other counties/stakeholders in the decision-making process (KC doesn't have that problem).

On top of that, COVID hangover, rideshare, Waymo, work from home...pick your headwind. Transit infrastructure with an eye-popping price tag is going to be an uphill battle even in places where it truly makes sense...and I'm certain a 5-mile NGA Express to Cherokee Street isn't the sensible option to pursue given the costs.

Naturally, the only other option is to spend $400M+ on a bus that actually already exists.

Can you stop arguing in bad faith? Good Lord. NO ONE ON HERE IS ARGUING FOR THE FINAL ALIGNMENT OF THE GREEN LINE. Obviously you have no case, which is why you keep going back to that.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Ahhh okay...so now we're starting the entire planning process over and building a dream rail line that is longer and $2 billion+? Good to know the argument has left the realm of reality.

It's like you haven't read any of what the LRT advocates have said in this thread whatsoever. Literally making stuff up because you don't know how to justify spending $400M+ on a bus that basically already exists.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

StlAlex wrote: ↑

6:49 PM - 9 days ago

stldotage wrote:

goat314 wrote: ↑

5:09 PM - 9 days ago

KC spent about $100 million per mile to build it's streetcar. I just don't see how St. Louis couldn't get creative and build 6 mile Green Line for around $600m. With some creative TDD and bonding the sale tax out, maybe even some fundraising from our corporate and philanthropic community. I could see us being able to build something that with streetcar that would be way more transformative than the current BRT proposal. I hope when this goes to vote some community organizations shut this proposal down and tell leadership to get more creative.

Costs are going up, up, up while our city's population and employment numbers are going down. The city of St. Louis is now less than 10 percent of regional population and even less than that in land area. It is becoming more difficult, not easier, to justify expensive transit projects that touch no other counties/stakeholders in the decision-making process (KC doesn't have that problem).

On top of that, COVID hangover, rideshare, Waymo, work from home...pick your headwind. Transit infrastructure with an eye-popping price tag is going to be an uphill battle even in places where it truly makes sense...and I'm certain a 5-mile NGA Express to Cherokee Street isn't the sensible option to pursue given the costs.

Naturally, the only other option is to spend $400M+ on a bus that actually already exists.

Can you stop arguing in bad faith? Good Lord. NO ONE ON HERE IS ARGUING FOR THE FINAL ALIGNMENT OF THE GREEN LINE. Obviously you have no case, which is why you keep going back to that.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Can you clarify for me what your specific case is then? What are you arguing for here then if not that a mistake was made in not pursuing the Green Line as a rail line? And was that rail line that was cancelled to the chagrin of many on this forum NOT the one that was almost certainly the most likely alignment/station layout to actually get constructed?

stldotage wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

6:49 PM - 9 days ago

stldotage wrote: Costs are going up, up, up while our city's population and employment numbers are going down. The city of St. Louis is now less than 10 percent of regional population and even less than that in land area. It is becoming more difficult, not easier, to justify expensive transit projects that touch no other counties/stakeholders in the decision-making process (KC doesn't have that problem).

On top of that, COVID hangover, rideshare, Waymo, work from home...pick your headwind. Transit infrastructure with an eye-popping price tag is going to be an uphill battle even in places where it truly makes sense...and I'm certain a 5-mile NGA Express to Cherokee Street isn't the sensible option to pursue given the costs.

Naturally, the only other option is to spend $400M+ on a bus that actually already exists.

Can you stop arguing in bad faith? Good Lord. NO ONE ON HERE IS ARGUING FOR THE FINAL ALIGNMENT OF THE GREEN LINE. Obviously you have no case, which is why you keep going back to that.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Can you clarify for me what your specific case is then? What are you arguing for here then if not that a mistake was made in not pursuing the Green Line as a rail line? And was that rail line that was cancelled to the chagrin of many on this forum NOT the one that was almost certainly the most likely alignment/station layout to actually get constructed?

I have said multiple times what my preference is/was/will be. My preference has always been:

1) Make the alignment better, so not degrade the technology. I've previously said that I like the blue BRT option.

2) Seek more ways to generate revenue, such as a transit tax district and property tax increases, maybe even have data center developers donate to it for all that I care.

3) Work with the county to develop a long term, funded transit plan that spans both the city and county.

*IF* we are doing BRT and there's no way around it, then my preference would be:

1) Merge the #4 and #11 into a 15-min frequency bus (though I'd want it to take the Florrisant alignment, I really like that).

2) Reduce the total number of bus stops to ensure they are not stopping every block.

3) Buff up the remaining stops to all have shelters, system maps, trash cans, maybe arrival signs, and raised/extended concrete sidewalks for easier boarding. What I'm imagining is this (below) bus stop on the D50 (14th St Line) in Washington DC.

The D50 runs every 10-15 mins, 24 hours, and had 15k daily weekday riders pre-covid. And it didn't cost $400M+.

This could be done for far cheaper than $400M, it could be done without worrying about federal aid, and it probably could be done with money we already have collected from the tax. In fact, I'd also want this done for the 70 and the 10. Our high frequency regular bus lines could and should look like this, you'd get most to all the benefits of BRT but not spending an insane amount of money on it. Call it eBRT or "BRT lite", I don't care. Rebrand the buses as "Metro Rapid". Whatever. It's very doable and easy, it would boost ridership, and it wouldn't cost $400M+, or anywhere close.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Public vote to repurpose the money will happens most likely next spring either March or April.

Thanks for the intel.  Can't wait to vote it down.

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

12:14 AM - 5 days ago

Public vote to repurpose the money will happens most likely next spring either March or April.

Public vote for funds going towards BRT vs. future MetroLink expansion? Sorry, I have not been following this. What is the vote specifically for?

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

11:54 AM - 3 days ago

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

12:14 AM - 5 days ago

Public vote to repurpose the money will happens most likely next spring either March or April.

Public vote for funds going towards BRT vs. future MetroLink expansion? Sorry, I have not been following this. What is the vote specifically for?

A vote to repurpose the ~$100 million collected since the 2017 sales tax ballot measure (language below) to fund the proposed Bus Rapid Transit line instead of light rail:

(Proposed by Ordinance) Shall the City of St. Louis impose a sales tax at a rate of one half of one percent for economic development purposes including (1) North/South Metrolink, (2) neighborhood revitalization, (3) workforce development; (4) public safety, and (5) to upgrade the city's infrastructure, with annual public audits?

A vote against repurposing the money is not a vote for future Metrolink lines though...or at least not anytime soon. Without restarting the process over and adding an additional 2+ years of planning/environmental studies, any Metrolink rail line would need to substantially use the Jefferson/Natural Bridge corridors. The whole reason the BRT solution was developed is because the FTA is extremely unlikely to fund an expensive rail line with low projected ridership. So, how we get a Metrolink on Jefferson across the finish line for an acceptable price tag without starting fresh in planning/design is the rub there.

stldotage wrote:

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

11:54 AM - 3 days ago

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

12:14 AM - 5 days ago

Public vote to repurpose the money will happens most likely next spring either March or April.

Public vote for funds going towards BRT vs. future MetroLink expansion? Sorry, I have not been following this. What is the vote specifically for?

A vote to repurpose the ~$100 million collected since the 2017 sales tax ballot measure (language below) to fund the proposed Bus Rapid Transit line instead of light rail:

(Proposed by Ordinance) Shall the City of St. Louis impose a sales tax at a rate of one half of one percent for economic development purposes including (1) North/South Metrolink, (2) neighborhood revitalization, (3) workforce development; (4) public safety, and (5) to upgrade the city's infrastructure, with annual public audits?

A vote against repurposing the money is not a vote for future Metrolink lines though...or at least not anytime soon. Without restarting the process over and adding an additional 2+ years of planning/environmental studies, any Metrolink rail line would need to substantially use the Jefferson/Natural Bridge corridors. The whole reason the BRT solution was developed is because the FTA is extremely unlikely to fund an expensive rail line with low projected ridership. So, how we get a Metrolink on Jefferson across the finish line for an acceptable price tag without starting fresh in planning/design is the rub there.

If you read my long explanation to what I'd ideally like to see done, you'd know how to do it without wasting money on a fancy bus. But you ignored it aftee specifically asking me to explain what I'd like to see.

Will be voting "no".

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

StlAlex wrote: ↑

4:59 PM - 3 days ago

stldotage wrote:

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

11:54 AM - 3 days ago

Public vote for funds going towards BRT vs. future MetroLink expansion? Sorry, I have not been following this. What is the vote specifically for?

A vote to repurpose the ~$100 million collected since the 2017 sales tax ballot measure (language below) to fund the proposed Bus Rapid Transit line instead of light rail:

(Proposed by Ordinance) Shall the City of St. Louis impose a sales tax at a rate of one half of one percent for economic development purposes including (1) North/South Metrolink, (2) neighborhood revitalization, (3) workforce development; (4) public safety, and (5) to upgrade the city's infrastructure, with annual public audits?

A vote against repurposing the money is not a vote for future Metrolink lines though...or at least not anytime soon. Without restarting the process over and adding an additional 2+ years of planning/environmental studies, any Metrolink rail line would need to substantially use the Jefferson/Natural Bridge corridors. The whole reason the BRT solution was developed is because the FTA is extremely unlikely to fund an expensive rail line with low projected ridership. So, how we get a Metrolink on Jefferson across the finish line for an acceptable price tag without starting fresh in planning/design is the rub there.

If you read my long explanation to what I'd ideally like to see done, you'd know how to do it without wasting money on a fancy bus. But you ignored it aftee specifically asking me to explain what I'd like to see.

Will be voting "no".

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I did read it and just disagreed silently lol. What you're suggesting amounts to tearing up all Greenline plans (BRT or rail) and starting over. That's an option, sure. But I'd rather see transit improved sooner and not throw out all of this effort, as each failed effort makes the next one more difficult given our demographic and fiscal situation.

This version of the Green Line could be constructed and operational by 2029 vs. starting anew, which would put any new proposal (rail, bus, etc.) well into the mid-2030s.

Yeah its not that we haven't read your long posts, its that it seems unrealistic. Its not like the N-S Metrolink line was cut back for no reason, light rail construction costs are exploding and we're not the only city struggling to pay for expansion. 

stldotage wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

4:59 PM - 3 days ago

stldotage wrote: A vote to repurpose the ~$100 million collected since the 2017 sales tax ballot measure (language below) to fund the proposed Bus Rapid Transit line instead of light rail:

(Proposed by Ordinance) Shall the City of St. Louis impose a sales tax at a rate of one half of one percent for economic development purposes including (1) North/South Metrolink, (2) neighborhood revitalization, (3) workforce development; (4) public safety, and (5) to upgrade the city's infrastructure, with annual public audits?

A vote against repurposing the money is not a vote for future Metrolink lines though...or at least not anytime soon. Without restarting the process over and adding an additional 2+ years of planning/environmental studies, any Metrolink rail line would need to substantially use the Jefferson/Natural Bridge corridors. The whole reason the BRT solution was developed is because the FTA is extremely unlikely to fund an expensive rail line with low projected ridership. So, how we get a Metrolink on Jefferson across the finish line for an acceptable price tag without starting fresh in planning/design is the rub there.

If you read my long explanation to what I'd ideally like to see done, you'd know how to do it without wasting money on a fancy bus. But you ignored it aftee specifically asking me to explain what I'd like to see.

Will be voting "no".

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I did read it and just disagreed silently lol. What you're suggesting amounts to tearing up all Greenline plans (BRT or rail) and starting over. That's an option, sure. But I'd rather see transit improved sooner and not throw out all of this effort, as each failed effort makes the next one more difficult given our demographic and fiscal situation.

This version of the Green Line could be constructed and operational by 2029 vs. starting anew, which would put any new proposal (rail, bus, etc.) well into the mid-2030s.

There is no scenario where anything will be built and operational by 2029. We are talking 2032 at the absolute earliest for even the most scaled back BRT. Funding won't even be secured until mid-2029 at best. And I can tell you didn't read what I said because I didn't say to go back to the drawing board at all. What's funny is that what the city chose is literally going back to the drawing board with the BRT.

The problem with "disagreeing silently" is that you specifically asked what my view was after you repeatedly made out my position to be something it was not, I gave it, and then I went beyond that by offering an objectively better bus improvement option that doesn't spend $400M+ on mostly useless infrastructure.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

StlAlex wrote: ↑

6:53 PM - 3 days ago

stldotage wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

4:59 PM - 3 days ago

If you read my long explanation to what I'd ideally like to see done, you'd know how to do it without wasting money on a fancy bus. But you ignored it aftee specifically asking me to explain what I'd like to see.

Will be voting "no".

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I did read it and just disagreed silently lol. What you're suggesting amounts to tearing up all Greenline plans (BRT or rail) and starting over. That's an option, sure. But I'd rather see transit improved sooner and not throw out all of this effort, as each failed effort makes the next one more difficult given our demographic and fiscal situation.

This version of the Green Line could be constructed and operational by 2029 vs. starting anew, which would put any new proposal (rail, bus, etc.) well into the mid-2030s.

There is no scenario where anything will be built and operational by 2029. We are talking 2032 at the absolute earliest for even the most scaled back BRT. Funding won't even be secured until mid-2029 at best. And I can tell you didn't read what I said because I didn't say to go back to the drawing board at all. What's funny is that what the city chose is literally going back to the drawing board with the BRT.

The problem with "disagreeing silently" is that you specifically asked what my view was after you repeatedly made out my position to be something it was not, I gave it, and then I went beyond that by offering an objectively better bus improvement option that doesn't spend $400M+ on mostly useless infrastructure.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I said "could" be built. And this BRT push is just the latest effort to salvage preexisting work. Starting over and attempting to slap together a less extensive rail line for under a billion dollars is...a choice. A bold one, even. It's not what I would choose if I ever wanted to live to see construction start lol.

As for disagreeing silently ( lol), I think you'd get a more respectful response if you didn't lob accusations like "bad faith argument" or "illogical" when you disagree with someone. It's not a "bad faith" argument to compare this Green Line BRT proposal to the previous iteration (Green Line Metrolink, 5.8 mile, 10-stop version) since that is the iteration that was actually proposed for funding (i.e., is a more realistic window into the scale of what any new rail-based proposal would look like). Of course it's hard to argue FOR bus rapid transit against a magically low-cost, ideally-planned, maximum-service light rail line that is purely hypothetical/wishful thinking. 

By all means, feel free to silently disagree with me here (lol).

Look, I understand the frustration with a Metrolink Expansion line that passed a vote no longer being pursued and a potential BRT line taking its place.  The line and stations that were originally on the ballot had been significantly altered and, for me and others, that was incredibly frustrating.

We all are passionate about this city and region and are having these discussions because we want what is best for the area.  But each of our opinions is as valuable as the next persons, and until we have a Public Transit & Development expert chiming in, that view won't change for me.

If you care about the potential beneficial spill-over impacts from this transport investment, you shouldn't water it down even further to just an increased frequency bus line.  The Green Line, as initially proposed and voted-on, is degraded technology, as well.  These are trains riding not grade-separated but in-street with drivers, not gold-plated LRT at all.  And the DC example is not an apples to apples comparison...obviously DC has a much more robust and utilized transit network and denser build environment.

Let's keep the conversation constructive, agree to disagree, and hopefully we can aid in this project becoming the best possible outcome.

I think we can indeed agree to disagree politely and let the ballot box decide. As for me, I remain convinced that this is an expensive half measure that's unlikely to be substantially better than simply expanding bus service, while it will clearly be much, much more expensive. I'd personally rather simply bank the tax money and wait. Conditions will improve, but if we build this now it will be very, very difficult to build something better later. Just expand bus service, build some decent shelters, and wait.

stldotage wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

6:53 PM - 3 days ago

stldotage wrote: I did read it and just disagreed silently lol. What you're suggesting amounts to tearing up all Greenline plans (BRT or rail) and starting over. That's an option, sure. But I'd rather see transit improved sooner and not throw out all of this effort, as each failed effort makes the next one more difficult given our demographic and fiscal situation.

This version of the Green Line could be constructed and operational by 2029 vs. starting anew, which would put any new proposal (rail, bus, etc.) well into the mid-2030s.

There is no scenario where anything will be built and operational by 2029. We are talking 2032 at the absolute earliest for even the most scaled back BRT. Funding won't even be secured until mid-2029 at best. And I can tell you didn't read what I said because I didn't say to go back to the drawing board at all. What's funny is that what the city chose is literally going back to the drawing board with the BRT.

The problem with "disagreeing silently" is that you specifically asked what my view was after you repeatedly made out my position to be something it was not, I gave it, and then I went beyond that by offering an objectively better bus improvement option that doesn't spend $400M+ on mostly useless infrastructure.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I said "could" be built. And this BRT push is just the latest effort to salvage preexisting work. Starting over and attempting to slap together a less extensive rail line for under a billion dollars is...a choice. A bold one, even. It's not what I would choose if I ever wanted to live to see construction start lol.

As for disagreeing silently ( lol), I think you'd get a more respectful response if you didn't lob accusations like "bad faith argument" or "illogical" when you disagree with someone. It's not a "bad faith" argument to compare this Green Line BRT proposal to the previous iteration (Green Line Metrolink, 5.8 mile, 10-stop version) since that is the iteration that was actually proposed for funding (i.e., is a more realistic window into the scale of what any new rail-based proposal would look like). Of course it's hard to argue FOR bus rapid transit against a magically low-cost, ideally-planned, maximum-service light rail line that is purely hypothetical/wishful thinking. 

By all means, feel free to silently disagree with me here (lol).

"Of course it's hard to argue FOR bus rapid transit against a magically low-cost, ideally-planned, maximum-service light rail line that is purely hypothetical/wishful thinking."

Maybe stop being bad faith and I'll consider not calling out your bad faith. Like you realize the whole idea that you can just build a bus and pretend it's LRT or just as good as LRT is the definition of wishful thinking.

A great example of your bad faith is how you haven't even tried addressing what I said about an alternative, cheaper BRT "lite" that could get most to all of the BRT benefits without spending $400M+.

Should we take a look at Minneapolis' BRT "lite" lines?

A Line: 4.1k weekday riders
B Line: 9.7k weekday riders ($65M for 13 miles)
C Line: 5.7k weekday riders
D Line: 13.6k weekday riders
E Line: 6.2k weekday riders ($60M for 13 miles)
F Line: Planned ($98M for 13 miles)
G Line: Planned ($80M for 11 miles)
H Line: Planned ($118M for 17 miles)

So Minneapolis has 41 miles of BRT lite planned for less than $300M. If these lines just match the existing BRT lite lines' ridership/mile, they will carry ~5.67 million weekday riders per year.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

StlAlex wrote: ↑

11:00 PM - 3 days ago

stldotage wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

6:53 PM - 3 days ago

There is no scenario where anything will be built and operational by 2029. We are talking 2032 at the absolute earliest for even the most scaled back BRT. Funding won't even be secured until mid-2029 at best. And I can tell you didn't read what I said because I didn't say to go back to the drawing board at all. What's funny is that what the city chose is literally going back to the drawing board with the BRT.

The problem with "disagreeing silently" is that you specifically asked what my view was after you repeatedly made out my position to be something it was not, I gave it, and then I went beyond that by offering an objectively better bus improvement option that doesn't spend $400M+ on mostly useless infrastructure.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I said "could" be built. And this BRT push is just the latest effort to salvage preexisting work. Starting over and attempting to slap together a less extensive rail line for under a billion dollars is...a choice. A bold one, even. It's not what I would choose if I ever wanted to live to see construction start lol.

As for disagreeing silently ( lol), I think you'd get a more respectful response if you didn't lob accusations like "bad faith argument" or "illogical" when you disagree with someone. It's not a "bad faith" argument to compare this Green Line BRT proposal to the previous iteration (Green Line Metrolink, 5.8 mile, 10-stop version) since that is the iteration that was actually proposed for funding (i.e., is a more realistic window into the scale of what any new rail-based proposal would look like). Of course it's hard to argue FOR bus rapid transit against a magically low-cost, ideally-planned, maximum-service light rail line that is purely hypothetical/wishful thinking. 

By all means, feel free to silently disagree with me here (lol).

"Of course it's hard to argue FOR bus rapid transit against a magically low-cost, ideally-planned, maximum-service light rail line that is purely hypothetical/wishful thinking."

Maybe stop being bad faith and I'll consider not calling out your bad faith. Like you realize the whole idea that you can just build a bus and pretend it's LRT or just as good as LRT is the definition of wishful thinking.

A great example of your bad faith is how you haven't even tried addressing what I said about an alternative, cheaper BRT "lite" that could get most to all of the BRT benefits without spending $400M+.

Should we take a look at Minneapolis' BRT "lite" lines?

A Line: 4.1k weekday riders
B Line: 9.7k weekday riders ($65M for 13 miles)
C Line: 5.7k weekday riders
D Line: 13.6k weekday riders
E Line: 6.2k weekday riders ($60M for 13 miles)
F Line: Planned ($98M for 13 miles)
G Line: Planned ($80M for 11 miles)
H Line: Planned ($118M for 17 miles)

So Minneapolis has 41 miles of BRT lite planned for less than $300M. If these lines just match the existing BRT lite lines' ridership/mile, they will carry ~5.67 million weekday riders per year.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Yeah, okay. I think everyone is sick of back-and-forth on this leading nowhere. 

We've both stated our positions on this. I respect your thought process and your willingness to defend your positions, but I disagree wholheartedly.  You fundamentally see BRT as an inferior "product" and I think it will deliver every benefit that its next-most-likely-to-have-been-built model (Green Line Metrolink as proposed pre-Spencer) would have at half the cost and double the service area. Best of all, it has a strong chance of actually being built and impacting lives.

That's all I say about this until we get more info on either the vote or further info on the specific BRT proposal. (At which point, my views could change).

As of right now, I'll be enthusiastically voting "yes" and almost everyone I have spoken to, including my urbanist/leftist/cycle-and-transit-everywhere friends, luckily agree and will do the same.

Is it going to be a light rail or some sort of bus thing?  

stldotage wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

11:00 PM - 3 days ago

stldotage wrote: I said "could" be built. And this BRT push is just the latest effort to salvage preexisting work. Starting over and attempting to slap together a less extensive rail line for under a billion dollars is...a choice. A bold one, even. It's not what I would choose if I ever wanted to live to see construction start lol.

As for disagreeing silently ( lol), I think you'd get a more respectful response if you didn't lob accusations like "bad faith argument" or "illogical" when you disagree with someone. It's not a "bad faith" argument to compare this Green Line BRT proposal to the previous iteration (Green Line Metrolink, 5.8 mile, 10-stop version) since that is the iteration that was actually proposed for funding (i.e., is a more realistic window into the scale of what any new rail-based proposal would look like). Of course it's hard to argue FOR bus rapid transit against a magically low-cost, ideally-planned, maximum-service light rail line that is purely hypothetical/wishful thinking. 

By all means, feel free to silently disagree with me here (lol).

"Of course it's hard to argue FOR bus rapid transit against a magically low-cost, ideally-planned, maximum-service light rail line that is purely hypothetical/wishful thinking."

Maybe stop being bad faith and I'll consider not calling out your bad faith. Like you realize the whole idea that you can just build a bus and pretend it's LRT or just as good as LRT is the definition of wishful thinking.

A great example of your bad faith is how you haven't even tried addressing what I said about an alternative, cheaper BRT "lite" that could get most to all of the BRT benefits without spending $400M+.

Should we take a look at Minneapolis' BRT "lite" lines?

A Line: 4.1k weekday riders
B Line: 9.7k weekday riders ($65M for 13 miles)
C Line: 5.7k weekday riders
D Line: 13.6k weekday riders
E Line: 6.2k weekday riders ($60M for 13 miles)
F Line: Planned ($98M for 13 miles)
G Line: Planned ($80M for 11 miles)
H Line: Planned ($118M for 17 miles)

So Minneapolis has 41 miles of BRT lite planned for less than $300M. If these lines just match the existing BRT lite lines' ridership/mile, they will carry ~5.67 million weekday riders per year.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Yeah, okay. I think everyone is sick of back-and-forth on this leading nowhere. 

We've both stated our positions on this. I respect your thought process and your willingness to defend your positions, but I disagree wholheartedly.  You fundamentally see BRT as an inferior "product" and I think it will deliver every benefit that its next-most-likely-to-have-been-built model (Green Line Metrolink as proposed pre-Spencer) would have at half the cost and double the service area. Best of all, it has a strong chance of actually being built and impacting lives.

That's all I say about this until we get more info on either the vote or further info on the specific BRT proposal. (At which point, my views could change).

As of right now, I'll be enthusiastically voting "yes" and almost everyone I have spoken to, including my urbanist/leftist/cycle-and-transit-everywhere friends, luckily agree and will do the same.

And you just don't support your position at all. It's great and all that you "think" that but you fail to support it. Would get an F if this was a high school paper.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

StlAlex wrote: ↑

5:47 PM - 2 days ago

And you just don't support your position at all. It's great and all that you "think" that but you fail to support it. Would get an F if this was a high school paper.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Really? Is this in anyway helpful or productive to the discussion?

dblarsen314 wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

5:47 PM - 2 days ago

And you just don't support your position at all. It's great and all that you "think" that but you fail to support it. Would get an F if this was a high school paper.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Really? Is this in anyway helpful or productive to the discussion?

How about you ask those who like to engage in arguments without explaining why their alternative is a worthy use of generational amounts of money.

Gotta love the double standards from people on here. "Is this helpful?" they ask the guy who's actively worked to provide real world evidence and examples to support his argument.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Y'all gotta understand this guy is a troll. Every time you engage with him, you add fuel to the fire. Click on his profile, scroll down, and click "add foe." It'll hide his posts. 

You seem to struggle with the difference between constructive and destructive criticism/feedback/discussion.  I understand that we live in the age we do, and these forums have become looser and include more personal attacks than they may have in the past, and I'm not suggesting that you can't speak freely (beyond the forum rules that are specified).  As I've stated earlier, I truly believe that we all care about these topics for the right reasons and just want to make investments to see the city and region succeed.  I don't know, I guess I just wish we could have a higher level of respect for one another while we debate these topics.  Your real work evidence and examples are very helpful, your "would get an F if it was a high school paper" comment is not.  You understand that, right?

All of this is speculative to a certain extent...we don't know what ridership numbers will be, we don't know the redevelopment that will occur from any transit investment will be.  The comparisons that you (you've have presented plenty of data, which I appreciate) and others (maybe more anecdotal, but still worth discussing ) are of cities and metros that are similar to STL in many ways, but all are very different in others.  St. Louis, especially the areas in the study, have no equal in the US or world.  I have lived in 6 different major metros in the US, growing up in St. Louis and now currently living here.  As much as I've tried to draw similarities, this place I will always call home is unique in so many ways.  We need to keep this citizen-developer community strong to help guide our progress, and we need to be open to creative solutions that may only work here, or create a new paradigm to be exported.