urbanSTL

^The Metrobus system in Mexico City is impressive.

PeterXCV wrote:^The Metrobus system in Mexico City is impressive.

LA, Bogota, Mexico City, etc all get high ridership on their BRT

"On the planet" is a stretch. Latin America has some pretty good BRTs, but there's reasons for that and in some cases it looks good just because it's on a corridor that demands a metro. Lots of factors you'd have to control for that ultimately reveal why these BRTs appear so good.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

At this point, since we decided to scrap all the work we had on the street running rail, why not go back to developing the previous 25 years of metrolink studies that worked through branches off of the existing metro link and the UP right of way that would be dedicated rail that weaves through south city

Then, study a streetcar that connects downtown with Soulard

Increase bus frequencies. BRT is not what voters wanted and would not be the improvement the region, city and downtown needs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we used the UP right of way that runs through south city shouldn't it be as easy as adding heavy rail cars and creating subway stops at the appropriate locations?  It seems like the cost would insignificant compared to light rail.  

STLAPTS wrote:If we used the UP right of way that runs through south city shouldn't it be as easy as adding heavy rail cars and creating subway stops at the appropriate locations?  It seems like the cost would insignificant compared to light rail.  

You now have to build a crash barrier between the right rail and passenger (or run them at different times of day ala San Diego)

I'd personally like to see a cost estimate for buying that ROW and making it a light metro style like the current MetroLink. Would also be interested in a cost estimate on upgrading it to do what they do in San Diego.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

StlAlex wrote:I'd personally like to see a cost estimate for buying that ROW and making it a light metro style like the current MetroLink. Would also be interested in a cost estimate on upgrading it to do what they do in San Diego.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

San Diego shares the tracks with freight but freight only runs over night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Any idea what the cost savings would be ?  It definitely seems worth discussion especially since it hits so many different South City neighborhoods and is grade separated. 

ldai_phs wrote:

StlAlex wrote:I'd personally like to see a cost estimate for buying that ROW and making it a light metro style like the current MetroLink. Would also be interested in a cost estimate on upgrading it to do what they do in San Diego.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

San Diego shares the tracks with freight but freight only runs over night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You'd make a deal like that here too. Afaik most traffic on that branch happens at night too anyway.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Newbie anon commenter: The Oak Hill branch is a terrible idea that really only serves to build rail for rail's sake. South of Southwest it basically only skirts by industry and strip malls and the very edges of neighborhoods and I really, really do not think the TOD would be successful and it serves very few fixed attractions reasonably.

If you want to grow existing Metrolink rail, resurrect the Daniel Boone/Westport line proposal from before the recession and extend to Dorsett/270 and get a county exec with balls to put in a sales tax/TDD/public private. That line adds another stop in Clayton, hits several new(ish) apartment complexes, is "close enough" with a potential partner cycletrack down Warson to Bayer and Donald Danforth, thousands if not over 10000 office and industrial jobs, the rest of Westport (which could be built up into a more important area), a Fortune 500 and a Top 25 Private (by revenue). It would also add frequency on the Downtown trunk and do it slightly better since it would diverge from Clayton station, not Grand.

It would be quite expensive by STL standards but dirt cheap by US rapid transit standards. It would require collaboration with railroad, MoDOT, Ameren, GRG, and some corporate property, though.

I have a developed idea along these lines, and I should hash it out to atleast resurrect the idea.

tnsnruler wrote:Newbie anon commenter: The Oak Hill branch is a terrible idea that really only serves to build rail for rail's sake. South of Southwest it basically only skirts by industry and strip malls and the very edges of neighborhoods and I really, really do not think the TOD would be successful and it serves very few fixed attractions reasonably.

If you want to grow existing Metrolink rail, resurrect the Daniel Boone/Westport line proposal from before the recession and extend to Dorsett/270 and get a county exec with balls to put in a sales tax/TDD/public private. That line adds another stop in Clayton, hits several new(ish) apartment complexes, is "close enough" with a potential partner cycletrack down Warson to Bayer and Donald Danforth, thousands if not over 10000 office and industrial jobs, the rest of Westport (which could be built up into a more important area), a Fortune 500 and a Top 25 Private (by revenue). It would also add frequency on the Downtown trunk and do it slightly better since it would diverge from Clayton station, not Grand.

It would be quite expensive by STL standards but dirt cheap by US rapid transit standards. It would require collaboration with railroad, MoDOT, Ameren, GRG, and some corporate property, though.

I have a developed idea along these lines, and I should hash it out to atleast resurrect the idea.

This thread is specifically talking about a north-south line of some kind, paid for in part by a city sales tax. In the context of this thread, nothing in the county matters.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

He's right about the Oak Hill ROW though

Our current Metrolink alignment is great because it links a ton of jobs, attractions, and institutions. What it doesn't do as well is actually connect PEOPLE. The Oak Hill ROW goes through a ton of pretty dense neighborhoods and properly placed stops would have excellent one mile catchment areas + tons of options for TOD.

I also have a pipe dream of extending the Grant's Trail to connect to the Brickline via this corridor - somebody did a write up about it a few years ago.

Either way, if the city EVER gets the opportunity to purchase this corridor it should move heaven and earth to do so

Trololzilla wrote: ↑

7:06 AM - 1 day ago

stldotage wrote: ↑

1:38 PM - 3 days ago

.  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.

Can you back this up with any kind of numbers, though? I haven't head of any BRT system on the planet that hasn't been beset by problems and pie in the sky predictions of success. It's the 21st century equivalent of the Springfield Monorail from what I've seen.

Can I reframe your question and ask you, "What would the BRT not do?"...i.e., in what substantial ways would its services or benefits differ from a feasible Metrolink replacement?

I don't see this proposal as issuing any "pie in the sky" predictions...it's just attempting to connect the same area as the Northside-Southside study recommended with the same service frequency and amenities as rail (see below). In order to not argue in "bad faith", I'm comparing to the previous Metrolink line once again because it was studied and gives a window into a feasible Metrolink alternative that could theoretically be built instead of BRT/with collected sales tax monies. In other words, the previous proposal is a stand-in for any future one.

If one agrees with my conclusions here, but is still opposed BRT, then essentially you'd be saying BRT isn't worth it because of 1) higher ridership potential due to the premium riders place on rail versus a bus as well as 2) bus vehicles being lower capacity/less comfortable than train cars.

But therein lies the Catch 22. If it costs double the amount to build half of a Metrolink route compared to BRT and is less politically/economically feasible to build, then is the No Build scenario that is the likely outcome of pressing for rail instead truly better than a substantially similar project that accomplishes nearly everything the Metrolink proposal does?

I'm also thinking with a $450 million dollar price tag, some very fancy busses could be purchased for this line in order to differentiate it, but we're not there yet design-wise and if I had to guess, they'd want vehicles that integrate with the existing fleet.

Finally, there was some discussion earlier about whether fencing would exist for in-street light rail and I found this rendering showing Jefferson/Cherokee:


Just conceptual to be sure, but I'd definitely not prefer Jefferson to be fenced off in the center, visually/aesthetically speaking.

And here's that same intersection, but with a BRT instead:



There just isn't an earth-shattering difference in the rail versus bus proposal for the Green Line that would justify the costs, IMHO.

Edit: Re: Oak Hill/Missouri Pacific ROW, I'd agree that it's not "ideal" but neither was the existing ROW used by the original Metrolink Red Line. Arguably, a street-running Red Line would never have been built though and this could be a similar scenario, where an industrial ROW is shoehorned to fit a transit corridor due to cost savings.

How feasible would it be to build the BRT in a way that it could convert to light rail in the future? I know other places do have lines that are designed with that in mind. Isn't a lot of the cost difference related to rolling stock and maintenance facilities?

As for the Oak Hill ROW, would that be more suited for any regional rail proposals? Also since Amtrak uses that corridor for the Texas Eagle route.

imperialmog wrote: ↑

3:44 PM - 1 day ago

How feasible would it be to build the BRT in a way that it could convert to light rail in the future? I know other places do have lines that are designed with that in mind. Isn't a lot of the cost difference related to rolling stock and maintenance facilities?

As for the Oak Hill ROW, would that be more suited for any regional rail proposals? Also since Amtrak uses that corridor for the Texas Eagle route.

Based on what I've read before and what AI says (below), I'm guessing chances would be very low (but not impossible).

Only one full Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to light rail conversion has ever been completed in the United States: the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel in Washington. [1, 2, 3]

The Conversion: Seattle

• The Original System: The 1.3-mile tunnel originally opened in 1990 as a bus-only transitway, utilizing dual-mode buses that ran on overhead trolley wires underground and diesel engines on the surface. [1, 2, 3]
• The Upgrade: To accommodate the growing Link Light Rail (now the 1 Line), the tunnel was closed in 2005 for a massive retrofit. It reopened in 2009 for both light rail trains and buses. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Full Light Rail Conversion: In 2019, the tunnel was converted to be exclusively for light rail, with all bus routes moved to surface streets, finalizing the full conversion of the original BRT-style spine. [1, 2]

Why are there so few?

While transit planners often build high-capacity BRT corridors with the intention or structural provisions for future rail upgrades, actual conversions are exceptionally rare. The process usually requires costly overhauls to stations, the addition of overhead catenary wires, the installation of tracks, and lengthy service disruptions. [1, 2, 3]
In many cases, US cities choose to build BRT as a permanent, cost-effective alternative to light rail. For example, the Los Angeles Metro G Line (formerly the Orange Line BRT) has been evaluated for light rail conversion, but no work has started. Similarly, cities like St. Louis are currently pivoting planned light rail expansions into BRT to save on construction and federal funding challenges. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

ldai_phs wrote: ↑

10:51 PM - 1 day ago

STLAPTS wrote:If we used the UP right of way that runs through south city shouldn't it be as easy as adding heavy rail cars and creating subway stops at the appropriate locations?  It seems like the cost would insignificant compared to light rail.  

You now have to build a crash barrier between the right rail and passenger (or run them at different times of day ala San Diego)

With light rail you'd need physical or scheduling separation, but not with heavy rail. That's one of the definitional differences: heavy rail equipment meets USDOT crash standards allowing interoperability with the national network. Light rail doesn't, so it can only be used on "insular" systems. You couldn't use Metrolink's Siemens stuff on the Oak Hill line. But if you used different equipment there's nothing that would really prevent passenger operations alongside freight. Obviously Amtrak is already doing just that. You'd have to string wire, build stations, and buy the right equipment. And there'd be some real advantages to getting freight off the line, both in terms of scheduling and in terms of track geometry. But it's not impossible to have both.

So the comparison I most want to see is not BRT vs. LRT, but BRT vs. expanded bus service. What does BRT give us that bus service does not? How much does it improve trip times over existing conditions? Could you achieve similar results with better headways? What's the biggest barrier to transit use, and will BRT address that?

Well, the point of my table was to show that, other than cost and vehicle size, there's not a huge difference between street-running light rail and a BRT bus. So headways would be similar to light rail, since they both would be operating in a dedicated line with traffic signal priority.

A lot of the costs involved in the BRT construction are in the station designs and streetscape overhauls. Those would be necessary with light rail too. 

Without dedicated lanes, pre-board payment, and signal priority, an "enhanced" bus line's headways are going to be affected by the usual bus slowdowns -- chiefly traffic, but also accidents and wheelchair boardings. You could reduce the total number of stops to increase frequency/decrease headways but that would only go so far and it would be highly unpredictable with traffic conditions still. Just like a light rail vehicle on its own dedicated ROW, a BRT bus could (and should) arrive at almost the exact scheduled time.

Unless BRT is a fairly significant advantage over the No. 70 bus we'll be wasting our money and it would indeed be better to do nothing.

We'd have to define "advantage" with that statement but I'd consider upgrading two of the city's busiest bus routes to BRT/Metrolink-esque service/amenities to be a big benefit for existing riders for sure. 

I think people are debating this as a transit project when that’s not really the point. The purpose of building something like this is not primarily to move large numbers of people from south city to north city, there is no justifiable demand for that at all, even with NGA. The real purpose is to attract development and investment along the corridor.

If the goal is simply transportation, then standard bus service or BRT can accomplish that at a lower cost. But if the goal is long-term private investment, redevelopment, and creating confidence for developers to build along Jefferson, then fixed rail becomes a very different conversation.

A bus route can be changed, reduced, or rerouted relatively easily. Even BRT is still ultimately bus infrastructure. Light rail, on the other hand, creates a permanent corridor that developers and investors can plan around decades into the future.

So the question shouldn’t be “How many people are taking transit from Arsenal to North City and how to best move them?” The question is “What kind of infrastructure is most likely to generate sustained corridor investment and redevelopment?

Sounds like the loop trolley model of transportation investment

A bus route can be changed, reduced, or rerouted relatively easily. Even BRT is still ultimately bus infrastructure.

While this is true, and long-term maintenance needs to be planned for, it's much more than just "bus infrastructure" that could disappear at any time. Dedicated lanes, often painted throughout, level boarding platforms, ticketing kiosks, much more elaborate station designs...those sunk costs, most of which are also required for in-street light rail, aren't going anywhere.

So the question shouldn’t be “How many people are taking transit from Arsenal to North City and how to best move them?” The question is “What kind of infrastructure is most likely to generate sustained corridor investment and redevelopment?

Well, to start, having a maintained roadway with improved lighting, better sidewalks, art/murals, landscaping, etc...is step one to corridor planning. I don't think there is a world in which light rail (or BRT) fixes the accumulated issues of North City or elsewhere in the city, but any large-scale investment on these corridors is going to modernize them and thereby improve their investment prospects considerably. Jefferson/Florissant/Natural Bridge were all built for huge daily car traffic counts, so re-orienting a large portion of space on these roadways to transit (of any kind) is going to speak to the city's priorities going forward.

Regarding rail specifically, I would be interested to get an opinion poll conducted on City residents in general and then a wider regional one asking, "What is your view of Metrolink?" -- Favorable, Unfavorable, No Opinion/Don't Know. If I had to guess, even the City of St. Louis would barely eke out a favorable rating due to the number of people who never use it and only consume negative media articles. I'm almost certain the region at large would have a sizeable net negative favorability rating. That old Riverfront Times article "Blood on the Tracks" (circa 2008) is still talked about to this day from people I know, who absorbed its point that Metrolink expansion to the Galleria caused a noticeable decline and that in general rail can be a "conduit of crime". You might say their opinions don't matter, but again, transit project priorities are set at the MPO level, which in our case is East-West Gateway. The Loop Trolley also set the region back decades in rail favorability (even though it's of course dumb to compare a heritage tourist trolley to any actual form of transit -- that nuance doesn't matter to a casual observer, of course).

So, to me, the notion that Metrolink is viewed as an inherent good and that rail transit drives growth (versus crime and disinvestment) is a shaky one anyhow, at least in the context of St. Louis. The fact is -- the infrastructure to build the BRT is specifically planned to look just as nice as that of the planned rail, but, unlike said rail on this particular set of corridors, could get built.