urbanSTL

A transportation line that provides poor utility won’t generate the demand necessary to sustain development.

Using Minneapolis' planned "arterial" BRTs as a baseline, it would cost roughly $79 million to merge the #11 and #4 along the 11 mile planned corridor with features like off-board fare collection, improved frequency, a more limited number of bus stops; improvements to those bus stops like bump outs, raised sidewalks, shelters, and arrival time signs; some transit signal priority, and some sections of bus lanes at more congested parts of the line.

This could be done by the city/metro with no need for federal aid, with no financing, and be opened by 2029. We would get 95% of the benefits of BRT but for less than a quarter of the cost. Is the extra $350 million really worth it to be able to pretend its LRT?

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

7:08 PM - 2 days ago

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?

This.

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

5:52 PM - 2 days ago

ldai_phs wrote: ↑

10:51 PM - 3 days 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.

Heavy rail transit (ie subway or rapid transit) requires the separation. FRA regulated railroads (ie. PATH or commuter rail) can share

StlAlex wrote: ↑

8:23 PM - 2 days ago

Using Minneapolis' planned "arterial" BRTs as a baseline, it would cost roughly $79 million to merge the #11 and #4 along the 11 mile planned corridor with features like off-board fare collection, improved frequency, a more limited number of bus stops; improvements to those bus stops like bump outs, raised sidewalks, shelters, and arrival time signs; some transit signal priority, and some sections of bus lanes at more congested parts of the line.

This could be done by the city/metro with no need for federal aid, with no financing, and be opened by 2029. We would get 95% of the benefits of BRT but for less than a quarter of the cost. Is the extra $350 million really worth it to be able to pretend its LRT?

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Sure, this sounds great. It does seem like that (estimated) $79 million would need to come from somewhere other than the Metrolink sales tax though. So how does it get across the finish line?

I am not trying to debate theoretical scenarios here. I am trying to discuss the proposal at hand, with an eye to how we got here.

The beginning of the effort to construct light rail that serves both North and South City began in the mid-2000s and culminated in the 2008 study. That effort eventually died but route planning was picked back up in the mid-2010s, resulting in the 2018 study of the Northside-Southside Corridor. The 2008 version went from Stratford/Goodfellow on the far North Side down to Bayless in South County. 

The 2018 version was significantly pared back due to cost concerns and uncertainty with County coordination, ending at Grand/Natural Bridge on the north, looping through downtown with a couplet along 9th and 10th Street, before finding its way to Jefferson and ending at Chippewa in the south.

Tishaura's Metrolink Hail Mary stripped that 2018 version down further to bypass downtown and just run along Jefferson, as we know. All of that is detailed here.

None of these efforts succeeded for a variety of reasons, but I'd argue one of the biggest reasons is that regional planners/government officials don't see public transit as a worthy investment, especially at a higher price tag. This is a Catch 22 because light rail corridors need extensive planning and to serve as much of the dense portions of the city as possible to justify the expense, but also the price tag rises heftily with each extra mile and station. So either you propose a $2 billion line that serves the entire City and some of the County, but get rejected because it's too much of an ask in a car-centric region, or you dilute that ask and build a less useful rail line that is itself far less competitive  in the FTA grant process. Let's not also forget transit planning in this region post-1993 has been fraught. The Blue Line went over budget, was delayed several times, contractor lawsuits, etc. Then the Loop Trolley sucked a lot of air out of the "rail spurs development" argument.

An amazing compromise, right at our feet here, would be to deliver on light rail amenities in this exact same long-studied corridor - but at a cost that we could fund and build quite soon. The other option is to throw away the two decades of planning and studies away--and then, if past is prologue, maybe see a large light rail expansion by 2046?

I'll get personal here for a second. I'm 40 years old now...I've been on this forum since the early 2000s when I was a young aspiring urban planner. I've personally seen each one of the above proposals come and go. These are Herculean efforts in terms of political, social, and financial capital. If you all want to chase away a tangible improvement that was promised to us because the busses *might* not fit more than 3 strollers and it *might* be expensive "for a bus," then that is your prerogative. I personally am tired of Waiting for Godot here.

stldotage wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

8:23 PM - 2 days ago

Using Minneapolis' planned "arterial" BRTs as a baseline, it would cost roughly $79 million to merge the #11 and #4 along the 11 mile planned corridor with features like off-board fare collection, improved frequency, a more limited number of bus stops; improvements to those bus stops like bump outs, raised sidewalks, shelters, and arrival time signs; some transit signal priority, and some sections of bus lanes at more congested parts of the line.

This could be done by the city/metro with no need for federal aid, with no financing, and be opened by 2029. We would get 95% of the benefits of BRT but for less than a quarter of the cost. Is the extra $350 million really worth it to be able to pretend its LRT?

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Sure, this sounds great. It does seem like that (estimated) $79 million would need to come from somewhere other than the Metrolink sales tax though. So how does it get across the finish line?

I am not trying to debate theoretical scenarios here. I am trying to discuss the proposal at hand, with an eye to how we got here.

The beginning of the effort to construct light rail that serves both North and South City began in the mid-2000s and culminated in the 2008 study. That effort eventually died but route planning was picked back up in the mid-2010s, resulting in the 2018 study of the Northside-Southside Corridor. The 2008 version went from Stratford/Goodfellow on the far North Side down to Bayless in South County. 

The 2018 version was significantly pared back due to cost concerns and uncertainty with County coordination, ending at Grand/Natural Bridge on the north, looping through downtown with a couplet along 9th and 10th Street, before finding its way to Jefferson and ending at Chippewa in the south.

Tishaura's Metrolink Hail Mary stripped that 2018 version down further to bypass downtown and just run along Jefferson, as we know. All of that is detailed here.

None of these efforts succeeded for a variety of reasons, but I'd argue one of the biggest reasons is that regional planners/government officials don't see public transit as a worthy investment, especially at a higher price tag. This is a Catch 22 because light rail corridors need extensive planning and to serve as much of the dense portions of the city as possible to justify the expense, but also the price tag rises heftily with each extra mile and station. So either you propose a $2 billion line that serves the entire City and some of the County, but get rejected because it's too much of an ask in a car-centric region, or you dilute that ask and build a less useful rail line that is itself far less competitive  in the FTA grant process. Let's not also forget transit planning in this region post-1993 has been fraught. The Blue Line went over budget, was delayed several times, contractor lawsuits, etc. Then the Loop Trolley sucked a lot of air out of the "rail spurs development" argument.

An amazing compromise, right at our feet here, would be to deliver on light rail amenities in this exact same long-studied corridor - but at a cost that we could fund and build quite soon. The other option is to throw away the two decades of planning and studies away--and then, if past is prologue, maybe see a large light rail expansion by 2046?

I'll get personal here for a second. I'm 40 years old now...I've been on this forum since the early 2000s when I was a young aspiring urban planner. I've personally seen each one of the above proposals come and go. These are Herculean efforts in terms of political, social, and financial capital. If you all want to chase away a tangible improvement that was promised to us because the busses *might* not fit more than 3 strollers and it *might* be expensive "for a bus," then that is your prerogative. I personally am tired of Waiting for Godot here.

The disconnect here is that you (and a few others) think it's worth it to spend an extra few hundred million dollars to on largely useless infrastructure just so you can pretend that it's as good as LRT.

Again, look at Indy's BRT vs Minneapolis' BRT lite. Mpls has several BRT lite lines that have significantly better ridership than either of Indy's expensive BRTs, one of them has higher ridership than both combined. The reality is that giving people a bus and telling them it's "basically light rail" does not work.

I would have a different view if there was ample evidence that what the city is pushing was actually a good use of $400M+, but I cannot find any evidence that it's a worthy expenditure. This is a prime example of something politicians want to be able to point at and say they did, even if it doesn't meaningfully change things, in STL's case, it probably guarantees no future light rail expansion for the rest of our lives.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

This is a prime example of something politicians want to be able to point at and say they did, even if it doesn't meaningfully change things, in STL's case, it probably guarantees no future light rail expansion for the rest of our lives.

I really do understand this sentiment but I just disagree. As I've said numerous times, BRT accomplishes every goal of the Northside-Southside study and could be built. 

Ironically, opposing this planning effort and starting over will just make this another blue link on the East-West Gateway page of a failed transit enhancement for this corridor. To start the planning process over (all while arguing a BRT system can never be worth it), is certainly a death knell for a transformative transit project in City limits.

I would have a different view if there was ample evidence that what the city is pushing was actually a good use of $400M+, but I cannot find any evidence that it's a worthy expenditure.

We don't have station designs, vehicle information, streetscape enhancement info...really any idea yet on how the money would be spent exactly. That should be coming soon. Keep an open mind.

PeterXCV wrote: ↑

7:25 PM - 2 days ago

Sounds like the loop trolley model of transportation investment

I know ***** about public transit (except that I like it), but this is the thought that occurred to me trying to read through this thread.

I have a bleak opinion. I don't think St. Louis has the political capital to bring a multi-billion dollar public transportation project across the finish line. The City and County are on different pages. Missouri legislature is not going to lead or assist. Federally, neither republican senator is going to support a $1B+ public transportation project while also looking for tornado and airport money. This is compounded by the lack of County+City strategic transit plan that should be championed by lobbyist and business sector. Rep Bell does not have a voice in the democratic party, let alone influence across the aisle. 

Step 1 is engaging St. Louis County, City of St. Louis, St. Clair County and Chamber in a fresh start analysis of the region's transportation needs, resulting in a 20 year vision. Once that is complete you need an inter-governmental agreement that prevents either party from suddenly backing away from the vision. You need Greater St. Louis Inc to coordinate business engagement and build excitement. You need the business community to prevent the State from interfering and republican Senators + MO1 representative to understand the vision and know that they're fighting for a project that has broad support. 

None of that exists. It did in 2010 but has been depreciating ever since. It's the biggest difference between all the successful projects mentioned and STLs reality. 

"but but but all the other studies and planning work" .... It sounds unfortunate, but planning/studies are sunk cost. Continuing to fumble, even at best effort, is not relevant to modern day reality. 

addxb2 wrote:I have a bleak opinion. I don't think St. Louis has the political capital to bring a multi-billion dollar public transportation project across the finish line. The City and County are on different pages. Missouri legislature is not going to lead or assist. Federally, neither republican senator is going to support a $1B+ public transportation project while also looking for tornado and airport money. This is compounded by the lack of County+City strategic transit plan that should be championed by lobbyist and business sector. Rep Bell does not have a voice in the democratic party, let alone influence across the aisle. 

Step 1 is engaging St. Louis County, City of St. Louis, St. Clair County and Chamber in a fresh start analysis of the region's transportation needs, resulting in a 20 year vision. Once that is complete you need an inter-governmental agreement that prevents either party from suddenly backing away from the vision. You need Greater St. Louis Inc to coordinate business engagement and build excitement. You need the business community to prevent the State from interfering and republican Senators + MO1 representative to understand the vision and know that they're fighting for a project that has broad support. 

None of that exists. It did in 2010 but has been depreciating ever since. It's the biggest difference between all the successful projects mentioned and STLs reality. 

"but but but all the other studies and planning work" .... It sounds unfortunate, but planning/studies are sunk cost. Continuing to fumble, even at best effort, is not relevant to modern day reality. 

Is there a particular reason St. Louis isn't/can't do TIF/property tax districts or use a city-wide property tax hike to pay for transit infrastructure? KC uses the TTD, Chicago has a TIF district, Austin is using property taxes, etc.

I understand Missouri's asinine approval requirements for raising taxes even marginally, but the city could really use a property tax hike in general for infrastructure improvements. Have part of it go towards transit related capital improvements (such as MetroLink, buses, etc) and part of it go towards city infrastructure.

Edit: Could something like revenue raised from airport privatization be used to fund transit expansion? In theory.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I'm thinking at this point local officials should reach out to the Chinese for the funding of this, tornado recovery, and other economic development. Basically as a way to call out the state and federal government for not helping the city. 

We have a long range transportation plan- Connected2050.

https://www.ewgateway.org/transportatio ... cted-2050/

quincunx wrote:We have a long range transportation plan- Connected2050.

https://www.ewgateway.org/transportatio ... cted-2050/

This document is a lot of words but means almost nothing. What he is referring to is a transportation plan that includes defined capital improvements, such as new LRT lines or BRT lines, bus expansion, etc, that the region can meaningfully work towards. Such as those seen in LA, Charlotte, Columbus, Seattle, etc.

A vital part of this is a funding mechanism, which the 2010 "plan" didn't have at all.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I didn't say it was a good plan, lol.

I think Great Rivers Greenway is a good example. They have a strategic vision. I can go to their website right now and see a map full of imaginary lines. Piece by piece, grant by grant, they implement their strategic vision. 

Who has that authority for transit? East West Gateway gets close but the legislative dynamics between them and Bi-State is advisory in nature, not authoritative. Bi-State does not take orders from East West Gateway. Funding really isn't the problem. Both City and County collect taxes for operations and capital improvements. Someone, with transit users interest at heart, needs to be in charge of revenue collected for capital improvements (NS 2017 included). 

St. Louis has the ability to form a TDD to fund a rail transit project. IIRC, KC's Streetcar started when a citizens group crowdfunded the development of an initial plan, drew a TDD map, and managed their own petition to put it on the district ballot. Getting that starter line in the ground as a proof of concept got the broader populace on board and I really they just opened their second extension yesterday. Omaha did something very similar to KC where they drew a TIF around their entire line and pledged all excess revenues to their streetcar bonds. They didn't seek any federal grants which allowed them to build faster and cheaper.

I've always though that St Louis should try and do a similar starter line to Tower Grove or Soulard. It was being studied here locally shortly after KC approved theirs.

https://danbrassil.com/st-louis-streetcar/

addxb2 wrote: ↑

1:41 AM - 1 day ago

I think Great Rivers Greenway is a good example. They have a strategic vision. I can go to their website right now and see a map full of imaginary lines. Piece by piece, grant by grant, they implement their strategic vision. 

Who has that authority for transit? East West Gateway gets close but the legislative dynamics between them and Bi-State is advisory in nature, not authoritative. Bi-State does not take orders from East West Gateway. Funding really isn't the problem. Both City and County collect taxes for operations and capital improvements. Someone, with transit users interest at heart, needs to be in charge of revenue collected for capital improvements (NS 2017 included). 

Great Rivers Greenway will finish their entire vision before we get a new Metrolink line.

addxb2 wrote: ↑

1:41 AM - 1 day ago

Who has that authority for transit? East West Gateway gets close but the legislative dynamics between them and Bi-State is advisory in nature, not authoritative. Bi-State does not take orders from East West Gateway. Funding really isn't the problem. Both City and County collect taxes for operations and capital improvements. Someone, with transit users interest at heart, needs to be in charge of revenue collected for capital improvements (NS 2017 included). 

For projects involving federal funding, East-West Gateway must be consulted.  It's extremely difficult to imagine a fully locally-funded light rail line of any decent size/scale (bypassing East-West Gateway) given the number of infrastructure priorities both the City and County have.

stldotage wrote: ↑

1:38 PM - 1 day ago

addxb2 wrote: ↑

1:41 AM - 1 day ago

Who has that authority for transit? East West Gateway gets close but the legislative dynamics between them and Bi-State is advisory in nature, not authoritative. Bi-State does not take orders from East West Gateway. Funding really isn't the problem. Both City and County collect taxes for operations and capital improvements. Someone, with transit users interest at heart, needs to be in charge of revenue collected for capital improvements (NS 2017 included). 

For projects involving federal funding, East-West Gateway must be consulted.  It's extremely difficult to imagine a fully locally-funded light rail line of any decent size/scale (bypassing East-West Gateway) given the number of infrastructure priorities both the City and County have.

Yes and no. EWG is necessary for funding but they essentially take direction from the City/County on the locally preferred alternative. They will be consulted again when this LPA is complete and they'll approve it without much issue.  STL needs an organization that is looking at the data (EWG does well) then dictates the capital improvements and expansions. 

addxb2 wrote:

stldotage wrote: ↑

1:38 PM - 1 day ago

addxb2 wrote: ↑

1:41 AM - 1 day ago

Who has that authority for transit? East West Gateway gets close but the legislative dynamics between them and Bi-State is advisory in nature, not authoritative. Bi-State does not take orders from East West Gateway. Funding really isn't the problem. Both City and County collect taxes for operations and capital improvements. Someone, with transit users interest at heart, needs to be in charge of revenue collected for capital improvements (NS 2017 included). 

For projects involving federal funding, East-West Gateway must be consulted.  It's extremely difficult to imagine a fully locally-funded light rail line of any decent size/scale (bypassing East-West Gateway) given the number of infrastructure priorities both the City and County have.

Yes and no. EWG is necessary for funding but they essentially take direction from the City/County on the locally preferred alternative. They will be consulted again when this LPA is complete and they'll approve it without much issue.  STL needs an organization that is looking at the data (EWG does well) then dictates the capital improvements and expansions. 

Why are they necessary when KC set up their own new entity for the streetcar and served as the grant applicant themselves?

ldai_phs wrote: ↑

1:50 PM - 1 day ago

addxb2 wrote:

stldotage wrote: ↑

1:38 PM - 1 day ago

For projects involving federal funding, East-West Gateway must be consulted.  It's extremely difficult to imagine a fully locally-funded light rail line of any decent size/scale (bypassing East-West Gateway) given the number of infrastructure priorities both the City and County have.

Yes and no. EWG is necessary for funding but they essentially take direction from the City/County on the locally preferred alternative. They will be consulted again when this LPA is complete and they'll approve it without much issue.  STL needs an organization that is looking at the data (EWG does well) then dictates the capital improvements and expansions. 

Why are they necessary when KC set up their own new entity for the streetcar and served as the grant applicant themselves?

MPOs (like East-West Gateway) do not provide the funding. They manage a regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and a long-range Metropolitan Transportation Plan, and a project has to be included in those documents to be eligible for FTA funding. The Locally Preferred Alternative is selected by the project sponsor through the federal environmental review process, not by the MPO, but the MPO must incorporate that LPA into its fiscally constrained long-range plan and program the project into the TIP. So if KC used federal funding for its streetcar, MARC (the region's MPO) would have had to adopt the LPA into the regional plan and include the project in its TIP for the funding to move forward.

addxb2 wrote: ↑

1:47 PM - 1 day ago

stldotage wrote: ↑

1:38 PM - 1 day ago

addxb2 wrote: ↑

1:41 AM - 1 day ago

Who has that authority for transit? East West Gateway gets close but the legislative dynamics between them and Bi-State is advisory in nature, not authoritative. Bi-State does not take orders from East West Gateway. Funding really isn't the problem. Both City and County collect taxes for operations and capital improvements. Someone, with transit users interest at heart, needs to be in charge of revenue collected for capital improvements (NS 2017 included). 

For projects involving federal funding, East-West Gateway must be consulted.  It's extremely difficult to imagine a fully locally-funded light rail line of any decent size/scale (bypassing East-West Gateway) given the number of infrastructure priorities both the City and County have.

Yes and no. EWG is necessary for funding but they essentially take direction from the City/County on the locally preferred alternative. They will be consulted again when this LPA is complete and they'll approve it without much issue.  STL needs an organization that is looking at the data (EWG does well) then dictates the capital improvements and expansions. 

There is a regional pot of money though. There are scorecards and other such ways to assess projects, but it's not like the City can just automatically get its preferred project approved. In practice, the City and County often do get to determine their priorities (the Loop Trolley made it through the process after all). But it's not as if you can dream up a $2 billion streetcar that runs through the City only and automatically have that approved by the E-W Gateway board. There is still a vote (from Googling, it looks like the old Metrolink Green Line proposal passed 14-5, with St. Charles County voting no).

Listening to Scott Ogilvie on webinar about BRT. 
- Goal to build the highest quality BRT in the US. 
- This project as BRT is very competitive. 
- Priority in rerouting was to connect to the Civic Center. 
- Tucker + Florissant scores better. 
- Submitting to EWG in coming months (maybe June).
- 30% by mid-2027. 
- Bi-State is looking into taking a larger role with GTC/Amtrak. Very early talks.