urbanSTL

ldai_phs wrote: ↑

1:50 PM - May 20

addxb2 wrote:

stldotage wrote: ↑

1:38 PM - May 20

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?

Kansas City relied on the same process with their Metropolitan Planning Org -- MARC (Mid-American Regional Council). Kansas City is 45% of the population of the Missouri side of its region though. Much more so than St. Louis City, it dominates the transit discussion in its region.

I do wonder what that highest quality means exactly. When I think of highest quality in the US (that I've been on) I think of the Healthline in Cleveland, had its own lanes in the center of the road, platforms with level boarding, felt very modern, high frequency; and yet they had way too many stops. Apparently they just kept all the same stops as the old bus line which meant it wasn't that fast. 

As I mentioned earlier, the Metrobus system in Mexico City is something to behold. With that they have center platforms in the streets with ticket machines and turnstiles to enter the platform, platform screen doors which open as the buses arrive, and several of the lines are also Trolleybuses. And it's pretty fast too. 

PeterXCV wrote: ↑

2:56 PM - May 20

I do wonder what that highest quality means exactly. When I think of highest quality in the US (that I've been on) I think of the Healthline in Cleveland, had its own lanes in the enter of the road, platforms with level boarding, felt very modern, high frequency; and yet they had way too many stops. Apparently they just kept all the same stops as the old bus line which meant it wasn't that fast. 

As I mentioned earlier, the Metrobus system in Mexico City is something to behold. With that they have center platforms in the streets with ticket machines and turnstiles to enter the platform, platform screen doors which open as the buses arrive, and several of the lines are also Trolleybuses. And it's pretty fast too. 

The stations for this STL Green Line BRT proposal are about 2/5 - 1/2 mile apart (for example, Jefferson/Arsenal to Jefferson/Gravois is ~2,200 feet or 0.4 miles). Per Google AI, Cleveland's Healthline stops are 1/5th mile apart on average.

addxb2 wrote: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.
  

-Better be high quality for $450M, I'd love to be proven wrong (recently I've been proven wrong about the Cardinals to my pleasure)

-I would expect, with it basically combining two of the busier bus lines, to have a very healthy ridership projection.

-Tucker + Florrisant is the obviously better option that needs to be chosen (it's also the more expensive option)

-I'd be interested in what improvements Bi-State could make to GTC if they had control, like what differneces might we see. Makes sense for it to be managed by them seeing that they manage so many other transportation related things in the city.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

The updated locally preferred alternative will be considered by EWG tomorrow. Voted on next week. If approved, the project can request to continue to 30% engineering which must be requested by June 2027 to prevent restarting FTA approvals. 

I’d love it if it were rail! I like the northside integration


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I love austerity

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

2031 according to HNTB is when the line could begin operating. 

For those disappointed, I recommend focusing on right-of-way improvements. This updated route will improve West Florissant, Tucker Boulevard, Clark Street, and of course South Jefferson. This project is the quickest way to boulevard Tucker and enhance Clark Street, frequently highlighted gaps.  West Florissant through Old North will be unrecognizable. North Jefferson just received a significant upgrade. 

addxb2 wrote: ↑

1:31 AM - 1 day ago

2031 according to HNTB is when the line could begin operating. 

For those disappointed, I recommend focusing on right-of-way improvements. This updated route will improve West Florissant, Tucker Boulevard, Clark Street, and of course South Jefferson. This project is the quickest way to boulevard Tucker and enhance Clark Street, frequently highlighted gaps.  West Florissant through Old North will be unrecognizable. North Jefferson just received a significant upgrade. 

It's absolutely insane that a bus with a painted lane and bus shelters cost that much money. When you're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on transit project you'd expect much more bang for your buck.

I will also say that BRT is essentially the death kneel for expanded Metrolink in our region. At least in our lifetime.

goat314 wrote: ↑

1:39 AM - 1 day ago

addxb2 wrote: ↑

1:31 AM - 1 day ago

2031 according to HNTB is when the line could begin operating. 

For those disappointed, I recommend focusing on right-of-way improvements. This updated route will improve West Florissant, Tucker Boulevard, Clark Street, and of course South Jefferson. This project is the quickest way to boulevard Tucker and enhance Clark Street, frequently highlighted gaps.  West Florissant through Old North will be unrecognizable. North Jefferson just received a significant upgrade. 

It's absolutely insane that a bus with a painted lane and bus shelters cost that much money. When you're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on transit project you'd expect much more bang for your buck.

I will also say that BRT is essentially the death kneel for expanded Metrolink in our region. At least in our lifetime.

Sure, that would be true if it were just a painted lane. It's 11+ miles of street and sidewalk replacement likely including significant replacement of aging utilities along the way.  Every intersection will include new crosswalks, street lighting, timed traffic signals. Tucker Boulevard vision from Downtown STL Mobility Plan will be implemented. Clark improvements are much needed. 

I just think it might help to reframe it. If I was offered a near complete rebuild of Natural Bridge, West Florissant, Tucker Boulevard, Clark Street, S. Jefferson Blvd for $100M of local money. I'd take it. The improvements to those corridors can inspire redevelopment, regardless of LRT/BRT. 

Edit: $100M was an undersell but even given the current administration and congress posture on transit funding St. Louis could receive 50 to 80% covered by feds. Best case scenario $95M local match on $475M midpoint. Realistically closer to $200M. 

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... ea810.html

The P-D article also says the estimated cost is $360M to a whopping $590M. Averaging those two is $475M.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Did you think they were just going to tear up the middle two lanes of West Florissant and lay some track down? This project, regardless of BRT/LRT, was always going to include significant right-of-way improvements in addition to stations and rail. My point is that the benefit from the 5 mile plan and this 11 mile plan is that an even larger share of St. Louis is going to benefit from some serious roadway improvements.  

You're right, thank god our largest transit investment in 20+ years will repave some streets. This is exactly what our 2017 vote was for. This totally makes it worth it.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

StlAlex wrote: ↑

3:01 AM - 1 day ago

You're right, thank god our largest transit investment in 20+ years will repave some streets. This is exactly what our 2017 vote was for. This totally makes it worth it.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I'm still scratching my head how KC is rapidly expanding it's streetcar network and St. Louis has existing rail transit but can't get anything else done. BRT in the US has been nothing more than glorified express busses with shelters and paint on the street. I don't see how anybody can see this is a win. Just St. Louis falling further and further behind peer regions.

addxb2 wrote: ↑

2:22 AM - 1 day ago

Did you think they were just going to tear up the middle two lanes of West Florissant and lay some track down? This project, regardless of BRT/LRT, was always going to include significant right-of-way improvements in addition to stations and rail. My point is that the benefit from the 5 mile plan and this 11 mile plan is that an even larger share of St. Louis is going to benefit from some serious roadway improvements.  

Just a quick note that it is North Florissant. West Florissant is a different street. People do that all the time.

As an actual Old North resident that is very involved and invested in the community here, I am thrilled that a plan that can actually be built and has the length to actually be worth the effort could actually finally happen. We have been promised a Metrolink line for 2 decades, only to see it yanked away for a poorly thought out Jefferson only line. In talking with neighbors, many would still like to see a route along North Florissant, and say they will use it to varying levels. In fact, some have commented that they would prefer BRT over LRT because it will be quieter. Which is an interesting take on the whole thing, but I can see where they are coming from.

There is also a lot of excitement over the potential for desperately needed street, sidewalk, signal, and streetscape upgrades. That was a big part of any LRT system as well, so I don't understand the sudden fury toward that. It's all part of making the system function. In fact, LRT would need much more extensive work related to utility relocation. That's part of why it is so stupid expensive. Since the BRT lanes are still street pavement, the subsurface goings on aren't needing to be altered to the same extent. If you're mad that the streets and sidewalks are going to get rebuilt in part so that riders can walk to the stations, your head is going to explode when you find out how much money went into rebuilding Forest Park Parkway during the Blue line expansion.

As for myself, I live at an approximately 2,000 feet walk to the proposed Madison station. It's a pretty easy walk. We have managed to actually cobble together a sidewalk the full way I would go, and I plant 100 new trees around the neighborhood each year, so it's slowly getting more shady. I'll use the BRT occasionally. It doesn't work for commuting for me as it is hard to move around lots of tools and lumber on a bus or train, and I don't think they will let me hook my Bobcat and trailer onto the bus. But for dinner or a couple drinks in say Downtown, Lafayette Square, or on Cherokee Street, or heading to a game or concert Downtown, it will work great.

goat314 wrote: ↑

3:06 AM - 1 day ago

StlAlex wrote: ↑

3:01 AM - 1 day ago

You're right, thank god our largest transit investment in 20+ years will repave some streets. This is exactly what our 2017 vote was for. This totally makes it worth it.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I'm still scratching my head how KC is rapidly expanding its streetcar network and St. Louis has existing rail transit but can't get anything else done. BRT in the US has been nothing more than glorified express busses with shelters and paint on the street. I don't see how anybody can see this is a win. Just St. Louis falling further and further behind peer regions.

For what it’s worth, KC’s Streetcar system is not going to be expanded for years to come. Studies keep going on, but they return the same findings: cost is too high and revenue generators are too few to justify the extensions.

North-South MetroLink would’ve been a failure with low ridership. It wasn’t worth the costs and the Feds likely never would’ve helped fund it regardless of the administration. When you route it through an area with so low of a population, cut out stops, and chop out going through downtown, the score decreases. And, as we’ve seen, TOD in St. Louis is a slow category.

I can't imagine framing the Green Line as "yanking away" MetroLink in favor of a "poorly thought out plan" while actively supporting a bus that actually yanked away MetroLink that will potentially cost $590M despite the entire bus line already existing and rideable right now.

I also can't imagine comparing the Green Line to the Loop Trolley while implicitly supporting the alternative, which is spending hundreds of millions on a bus.

And despite all of this, not a single one of you BRT shills has addressed my alternative idea to merge the #4 and #11 and spend $100M improving the merged line to BRT "lite" levels, as seen in Minneapolis and Baltimore, with consolidated stops, improved amenities, improved frequency, and some dedicated lanes through busy areas (such as Tucker), and saw large ridership increases. But ofc it feels like a good bus and not a bad train, and it doesn't let you pretend it's gonna change the city, and most of all, it wouldn't repave the entire road, which is apparently a major aspect of why we should be excited about BRT.

So blatantly ***** disingenuous, cannot wait to leave this sh*t ass city like addxb2 and Chris literally did. Go somewhere that actually wants to be better. Notice how both their new cities are actually building new, real transit while they explain why actually a $400M bus is what St. Louis needs . It's like a parody.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I visited Omaha which is in the midst of building their first modern train. I don't love everything about the project but I think there are some things that we could learn and bring to STL.

Omaha is building a $421 million, 3.2 mile streetcar system that will connect their convention center and baseball stadium to downtown and then out towards the end of their commercial core. The project includes major below ground infrastructure upgrades and is being built with no federal funding. The system will be funded by redirecting City parking garage revenues, extending the length of existing TIFs in the urban core and by requiring all new TIF going forward to pledge a portion of their TIF revenues to pay for the project. No public vote was needed and no new taxes. Project is under construction and set to open in 2028.



Tied to the streetcar project, Mutual of Omaha is almost done with a new 800,000 square feet, 677' trophy HQ in downtown Omaha. A portion of MOO's TIF will be a key funding source for the streetcar needed to start construction and MOO stated they would not have moved if not for the streetcar project.



Like KC, Omaha built a BRT-lite line first followed by rail. Omaha's streetcar route runs parallel to the ORBIT BRT system that opened in 2020. The 2016/2025 KC Streetcar lines replaced the KCATA Mainstreet MAX that opened in 2005. Maybe STL should do a lower cost BRT-lite system first instead of a heavy BRT project thats been proposed?

CAF Urbos 3's will be used. Same vehicle used by Kansas City and Cincinnati.

ldai_phs wrote:I visited Omaha which is in the midst of building their first modern train. I don't love everything about the project but I think there are some things that we could learn and bring to STL.

Omaha is building a $421 million, 3.2 mile streetcar system that will connect their convention center and baseball stadium to downtown and then out towards the end of their commercial core. The project includes major below ground infrastructure upgrades and is being built with no federal funding. The system will be funded by redirecting City parking garage revenues, extending the length of existing TIFs in the urban core and by requiring all new TIF going forward to pledge a portion of their TIF revenues to pay for the project. No public vote was needed and no new taxes. Project is under construction and set to open in 2028.



Tied to the streetcar project, Mutual of Omaha is almost done with a new 800,000 square feet, 677' trophy HQ in downtown Omaha. A portion of MOO's TIF will be a key funding source for the streetcar needed to start construction and MOO stated they would not have moved if not for the streetcar project.



Like KC, Omaha built a BRT-lite line first followed by rail. Omaha's streetcar route runs parallel to the ORBIT BRT system that opened in 2020. The 2016/2025 KC Streetcar lines replaced the KCATA Mainstreet MAX that opened in 2005. Maybe STL should do a lower cost BRT-lite system first instead of a heavy BRT project thats been proposed?

CAF Urbos 3's will be used. Same vehicle used by Kansas City and Cincinnati.

Yes STL should do this. Minneapolis is also doing this, building a bunch of "lite" BRT lines for less $5-7M per mile and seeing great results. Could start with merging the #4 and #11, then do the #70, #10, and #95, maybe the #74 too. Far cheaper, similar or the same results.

Omaha, like KC, is also thinking elasticity with how to find funding sources with the TIF and parking revenues instead of dying by the half cent sales tax like STL is and pretending there's no other way to raise money for things that make the city better.

With that being said, this route in Omaha leaves a lot to be desired. It is basically just a downtown line, which has had very limited success nationally. Their projected ridership was only ~1,400 per day, which makes this project far more expensive per rider than the Green Line was projected to be. Omaha is also not a very dense city, about half as dense as south STL and 60% as dense as STL at large. I don't ever like to count trains out, and maybe it will spur tons of development as seen in Charlotte and Kansas City. There's a pretty decent argument to be made that expanding their "lite" BRT would have been a better use of money for a city of their size.

In short, STL needs to emulate the funding mechanisms but apply it to something that looks more like Pheonix's Valley Metro, Minneapolis' Green Line, or Charlotte's Blue Line. I do not think STL needs a 3 mile downtown circulator at such a cost. I'd rather make the #10 better.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk