urbanSTL

addxb2 wrote: ↑

7:39 PM - Jul 27

There is no way of involving the County geographically without tripling the cost and the County's low density does not generate equivalent ridership to justify doing so. The money you unlock from St. Louis County would not outpace math of $ per rider. Best solution is St. Louis County support whatever line the City draws and agrees to redirect their revenue to that regardless of whether it involves the County. As we all know, that isn't happening. 

Even in Biden's infrastructure prime, the 2023 Jones administration route for Northside Southside was uncompetitive. Needed 50-100% more ridership than even the best projections and still further cost reductions. 

Places like Charlotte have been rapidly expanding their light rail system. The city of Charlotte is around the density of St. Louis County without the city. So I don't think the density argument checks out with LRT. Plus the inner ring suburbs it would touch in North County and South County are definitely dense enough to support LRT. The problem is not density. The problem is lack of regional cooperation, a federal government that thinks austerity is the order of the day, and lack of will from St. Louis leadership. Really that's it. If St. Louis wanted it, it would happen. Just like everything else it chooses to do.

goat314 wrote:

addxb2 wrote: ↑

7:39 PM - Jul 27

There is no way of involving the County geographically without tripling the cost and the County's low density does not generate equivalent ridership to justify doing so. The money you unlock from St. Louis County would not outpace math of $ per rider. Best solution is St. Louis County support whatever line the City draws and agrees to redirect their revenue to that regardless of whether it involves the County. As we all know, that isn't happening. 

Even in Biden's infrastructure prime, the 2023 Jones administration route for Northside Southside was uncompetitive. Needed 50-100% more ridership than even the best projections and still further cost reductions. 

Places like Charlotte have been rapidly expanding their light rail system. The city of Charlotte is around the density of St. Louis County without the city. So I don't think the density argument checks out with LRT. Plus the inner ring suburbs it would touch in North County and South County are definitely dense enough to support LRT. The problem is not density. The problem is lack of regional cooperation, a federal government that thinks austerity is the order of the day, and lack of will from St. Louis leadership. Really that's it. If St. Louis wanted it, it would happen. Just like everything else it chooses to do.

Charlotte can do things in part because they are in the county and have access to the entire county's tax base to do things and the city has annexed most of the county as is.

The idea adding the county's tax base to a transit tax wouldn't help things is completely delusional and not based in any semblance of reality.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

StlAlex wrote: ↑

2:33 AM - Jul 28

goat314 wrote:

addxb2 wrote: ↑

7:39 PM - Jul 27

There is no way of involving the County geographically without tripling the cost and the County's low density does not generate equivalent ridership to justify doing so. The money you unlock from St. Louis County would not outpace math of $ per rider. Best solution is St. Louis County support whatever line the City draws and agrees to redirect their revenue to that regardless of whether it involves the County. As we all know, that isn't happening. 

Even in Biden's infrastructure prime, the 2023 Jones administration route for Northside Southside was uncompetitive. Needed 50-100% more ridership than even the best projections and still further cost reductions. 

Places like Charlotte have been rapidly expanding their light rail system. The city of Charlotte is around the density of St. Louis County without the city. So I don't think the density argument checks out with LRT. Plus the inner ring suburbs it would touch in North County and South County are definitely dense enough to support LRT. The problem is not density. The problem is lack of regional cooperation, a federal government that thinks austerity is the order of the day, and lack of will from St. Louis leadership. Really that's it. If St. Louis wanted it, it would happen. Just like everything else it chooses to do.

Charlotte can do things in part because they are in the county and have access to the entire county's tax base to do things and the city has annexed most of the county as is.

The idea adding the county's tax base to a transit tax wouldn't help things is completely delusional and not based in any semblance of reality.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I completely agree. We have to come to the realization at some point that it's going to be increasingly harder to accomplish big regional projects like major transit expansions, securing another major league franchise, major city changing redevelopment projects, etc. until the city and county are a single entity or atleast function in a more cooperative manner. Regional progress is severely hampered by fragmentation and metros that don't work together will increasingly become less competitive with metros that are more unified.

goat314 wrote: ↑

2:17 AM - Jul 28

addxb2 wrote: ↑

7:39 PM - Jul 27

There is no way of involving the County geographically without tripling the cost and the County's low density does not generate equivalent ridership to justify doing so. The money you unlock from St. Louis County would not outpace math of $ per rider. Best solution is St. Louis County support whatever line the City draws and agrees to redirect their revenue to that regardless of whether it involves the County. As we all know, that isn't happening. 

Even in Biden's infrastructure prime, the 2023 Jones administration route for Northside Southside was uncompetitive. Needed 50-100% more ridership than even the best projections and still further cost reductions. 

Places like Charlotte have been rapidly expanding their light rail system. The city of Charlotte is around the density of St. Louis County without the city. So I don't think the density argument checks out with LRT. Plus the inner ring suburbs it would touch in North County and South County are definitely dense enough to support LRT.  The problem is not density. The problem is lack of regional cooperation, a federal government that thinks austerity is the order of the day, and lack of will from St. Louis leadership. Really that's it. If St. Louis wanted it, it would happen. Just like everything else it chooses to do.

It's not just "where there's a will there's a way" operating here when you're comparing places like Charlotte and St. Louis, though.
It's population growth, fiscal health/financial outlook, and regional cooperation.

In the first category, population growth, the Charlotte region went from a minor regional economy to surpassing St. Louis since 1980.

(I didn't look into how much of the metropolitan growth was driven by the addition of counties to the Charlotte MSA versus organic growth but either way it's grown explosively).

In the second category I decided to take a brief Google AI-look into municipal revenues to get a sense of how much each city brings in:

So, Charlotte has about 3x St. Louis's population right now and also 3+x the revenue. Not terribly surprising, but it obviously makes a big difference, especially given that St. Louis's infrastructure is so much older and so much more costly. Managing vast swaths of vacant land and buildings is a problem Charlotte does not deal with.

Finally, the third piece, I had no clue on re: Charlotte but is a HUGE difference. Apparently the city of Charlotte operates the region's transit system (CATS), as a municipal department. Per Google:

Since its creation in 1999, CATS has been uniquely integrated into Charlotte's municipal infrastructure. Unlike most cities that rely on external regional authorities, Charlotte operated its transit system internally: [1, 2, 3, 4]

• Funding & Staff: CATS workers are employees of the City of Charlotte. Its multi-million dollar operating budget is approved directly by the Charlotte City Council as an "enterprise fund" within the city's total budget. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Regional Input: To ensure nearby suburbs had a voice, an oversight panel called the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) helped guide long-range planning. However, the city itself maintained day-to-day administrative and operational control. [1, 2, 3]

St. Louis hasn't failed to build light rail for lack of trying -- East-West Gateway has formally advanced 6 studies (see below) in the last 25ish years within the region, with all but one of them at least touching City limits. That figure isn't even counting that Tishaura's 2022 Green Line proposal was a revision of 2018 efforts and that the current BRT push is a revision of the 2022 one (utilizing the same 2018 study effectively).

• Cross-County Corridor – 1999
• 3-Corridor Study
  • Daniel Boone, Northside, and Southside – 2000
• MetroSouth DEIS – 2005
• Madison County – 2005
• Northside-Southside Corridor – 2008
• Northside-Southside Corridor – 2018

Light rail projects are ridiculously expensive and a lot of the regions building them are growing like weeds, with revenue in hand that they are not obligated to use to fix compounding infrastructure problems. And yes, our regional structure is obviously a huge detriment to not just transit but any coordinated regional strategy.

To all of this I'd say: let's relentlessly push for wins, even seemingly small ones. This might sound ridiculously overwrought, but to me, seeing the improvements made as a part of the Tower Grove Connector project has made that portion of South City feel especially alive, invested, and improved. It feels like a new city. Technically and reductively speaking, it's a wide sidewalk with new lights. But the feeling of the area has changed as a result of a relatively small infrastructure improvement. If maintained, it will add tremendous value over time to the surrounding neighborhoods and the city as a whole.

On that same note, I say let's build a very respectable BRT system (since we appear to be lagging other cities on even that effort). We have a dedicated pool of money and can build it. Let's improve the infrastructure around the BRT line akin to the Tower Grove Connector. Let's leverage the recent state of MO legislation and work on reversing the narrative around our downtown (the BRT line portion running downtown could help reshape streets like Tucker). Let's get the W here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MetroTransit/s/ObEOpVyP8m

Minneapolis continues to improve their lite BRT infrastructure while we are still pretending it's a worthy expenditure of $400M for an 11 mile bus line that basically already exists.

Minneapolis D Line opened in 2022 and cost $75M for 18.5 miles, or just over $4M per mile. It sees over 13,000 weekday rirders and is 25% faster than the previous line.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

StlAlex wrote: ↑

3:29 AM - 3 days ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/MetroTransit/s/ObEOpVyP8m

Minneapolis continues to improve their lite BRT infrastructure while we are still pretending it's a worthy expenditure of $400M for an 11 mile bus line that basically already exists.

Minneapolis D Line opened in 2022 and cost $75M for 18.5 miles, or just over $4M per mile. It sees over 13,000 weekday rirders and is 25% faster than the previous line.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

That project runs almost entirely in mixed traffic and did not build any new dedicated transit right of way. After inflation, it was effectively $2m+ per station with some selective transit signals and skipping existing stops to increase speed- nothing like the full corridor transformation the Green Line will do.

And I'd argue that while yes there are (relatively low frequency) bus routes on Natural Bridge and Jefferson, it is currently impossible to cross from North City to South City without a tediously timed, lengthy transfer at a Transit Center - so it does not "basically already exist".

kg2024 wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

3:29 AM - 3 days ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/MetroTransit/s/ObEOpVyP8m

Minneapolis continues to improve their lite BRT infrastructure while we are still pretending it's a worthy expenditure of $400M for an 11 mile bus line that basically already exists.

Minneapolis D Line opened in 2022 and cost $75M for 18.5 miles, or just over $4M per mile. It sees over 13,000 weekday rirders and is 25% faster than the previous line.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

That project runs almost entirely in mixed traffic and did not build any new dedicated transit right of way. After inflation, it was effectively $2m+ per station with some selective transit signals and skipping existing stops to increase speed- nothing like the full corridor transformation the Green Line will do.

And I'd argue that while yes there are (relatively low frequency) bus routes on Natural Bridge and Jefferson, it is currently impossible to cross from North City to South City without a tediously timed, lengthy transfer at a Transit Center - so it does not "basically already exist".

The point is $400M on a pretend light rail is a complete waste of money lol.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

StlAlex wrote: ↑

6:40 PM - 2 days ago

kg2024 wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

3:29 AM - 3 days ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/MetroTransit/s/ObEOpVyP8m

Minneapolis continues to improve their lite BRT infrastructure while we are still pretending it's a worthy expenditure of $400M for an 11 mile bus line that basically already exists.

Minneapolis D Line opened in 2022 and cost $75M for 18.5 miles, or just over $4M per mile. It sees over 13,000 weekday rirders and is 25% faster than the previous line.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

That project runs almost entirely in mixed traffic and did not build any new dedicated transit right of way. After inflation, it was effectively $2m+ per station with some selective transit signals and skipping existing stops to increase speed- nothing like the full corridor transformation the Green Line will do.

And I'd argue that while yes there are (relatively low frequency) bus routes on Natural Bridge and Jefferson, it is currently impossible to cross from North City to South City without a tediously timed, lengthy transfer at a Transit Center - so it does not "basically already exist".

The point is $400M on a pretend light rail is a complete waste of money lol.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

The only "pretend light rail" is the now imaginary, multi-billion $, unfunded, low projected ridership, no longer being planned for, former Green Line plan that was cancelled a year ago.

kg2024 wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

6:40 PM - 2 days ago

kg2024 wrote: That project runs almost entirely in mixed traffic and did not build any new dedicated transit right of way. After inflation, it was effectively $2m+ per station with some selective transit signals and skipping existing stops to increase speed- nothing like the full corridor transformation the Green Line will do.

And I'd argue that while yes there are (relatively low frequency) bus routes on Natural Bridge and Jefferson, it is currently impossible to cross from North City to South City without a tediously timed, lengthy transfer at a Transit Center - so it does not "basically already exist".

The point is $400M on a pretend light rail is a complete waste of money lol.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

The only "pretend light rail" is the now imaginary, multi-billion $, unfunded, low projected ridership, no longer being planned for, former Green Line plan that was cancelled a year ago.

THE FUNNIEST PART IS THAT YOUR $400M BUS IS NO MORE FUNDED THAN THE CANCELLED LIGHT RAIL

You people crack me up. I try to take you people seriously and debate and point to other, actually successful BRT projects that treat the bus like a bus and make it a good bus, and you are so ***** lost you just can't engage in it at all. We have the answer, but you're too worried about playing pretend. Like how stupid do you have to be to actually act like Minneapolis' lite BRT has not transformed the routes they've been built on? What a stupid thing to say. And then act like $1B on a train wouldnt obviously be better than $400M on a bus that already exists.

NYC is undergoing a $600M bus improvement plan that seeks to improve 50 different bus lines. And here you seriously think $400M on one line is a worthy expenditure? Insane. Just delusionally insane.

I make your argument for you and you just blindly walk off the cliff of pretending a bus is a train.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

StlAlex wrote: ↑

7:31 PM - 2 days ago

kg2024 wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

6:40 PM - 2 days ago

The point is $400M on a pretend light rail is a complete waste of money lol.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

The only "pretend light rail" is the now imaginary, multi-billion $, unfunded, low projected ridership, no longer being planned for, former Green Line plan that was cancelled a year ago.

THE FUNNIEST PART IS THAT YOUR $400M BUS IS NO MORE FUNDED THAN THE CANCELLED LIGHT RAIL

You people crack me up.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Yes it is? It's more than 1/3 funded in cash alone that has been accruing. Finding $250M is surely easier than $1B 

I'm disappointed in the cancelation of Metrolink. Unfortunately, I think we missed our chances in the Slay administration before costs got absolutely out of control. With that said, the the nominee for county executive is apparently interested in exploring the BRT extension option in the county. He also seems to be interested in increasing density around the currently underdeveloped metrolink stations in the county. We will see.

the nominee for county executive
which one?  And where is it quoted hes interested in the BRT extension?

BarryGlick wrote:the nominee for county executive
which one?  And where is it quoted hes interested in the BRT extension?

https://www.stlmag.com/news/better-road ... ns-agenda/

The Republican, as normal, with a completely removed from reality answer on transit and road safety. Just advocating for the further destruction of America.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

kg2024 wrote: ↑

7:36 PM - 2 days ago

StlAlex wrote: ↑

7:31 PM - 2 days ago

kg2024 wrote: The only "pretend light rail" is the now imaginary, multi-billion $, unfunded, low projected ridership, no longer being planned for, former Green Line plan that was cancelled a year ago.

THE FUNNIEST PART IS THAT YOUR $400M BUS IS NO MORE FUNDED THAN THE CANCELLED LIGHT RAIL

You people crack me up.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Yes it is? It's more than 1/3 funded in cash alone that has been accruing. Finding $250M is surely easier than $1B 

The problem is that until and unless the law is changed the cash you are discussing is legally mandated to be used for a different project; specifically, the old Green Line light rail project. The bus is for present 0% funded, while the rail was maybe 20% funded. (A solid local match.) Maybe the bill to reallocate the funding will pass, but I plan to vote against it. We shall see. In any event, nothing is happening on that project right now, and nearly all of the benefit could be created with a fraction of the funding of BRT by simply changing bus routes and increasing frequency. I really don't see the advantage of the BRT over the no. 70 as it once was. Barely even as it now is. (The no. 70 is a pretty decent bus line. BRT sure looks like a silly extravagance by comparison.)

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

2:21 AM - 2 days ago

kg2024 wrote: ↑

7:36 PM - 2 days ago

StlAlex wrote: ↑

7:31 PM - 2 days ago

THE FUNNIEST PART IS THAT YOUR $400M BUS IS NO MORE FUNDED THAN THE CANCELLED LIGHT RAIL

You people crack me up.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Yes it is? It's more than 1/3 funded in cash alone that has been accruing. Finding $250M is surely easier than $1B 

The problem is that until and unless the law is changed the cash you are discussing is legally mandated to be used for a different project; specifically, the old Green Line light rail project. The bus is for present 0% funded, while the rail was maybe 20% funded. (A solid local match.) Maybe the bill to reallocate the funding will pass, but I plan to vote against it. We shall see. In any event, nothing is happening on that project right now, and nearly all of the benefit could be created with a fraction of the funding of BRT by simply changing bus routes and increasing frequency. I really don't see the advantage of the BRT over the no. 70 as it once was. Barely even as it now is. (The no. 70 is a pretty decent bus line. BRT sure looks like a silly extravagance by comparison.)

A valid point yes, if the language of the sales tax use does end up needing to be changed (as introduced by Aldridge and Green in Board Bill 59) then the money can't be used until that tentative decision in April 2027.
My questions to people that say they plan to vote no: A) Are you comfortable with sending all of this back to the drawing board yet again, wasting more years and planning dollars, B) Are you comfortable with the additional multiple years of inflation cost on even the projected low performing 5.1 mile Green Line route, C) Is the assumption that the route will be further expanded and made more competitive and subsequently requiring multiple billion $ from federal/other sources, D) If the route/plan/mode does drastically change back to light rail after this speculative vote are you comfortable with completion to reach likely into the mid/late 2030s or early 2040s?
Of course like I've said I was disappointed with the delays and indecision over the last 25 years that ultimately led to the cancellation of light rail expansion, but in our current reality, I'm not really comfortable with all of additional wasted time and money to switch back to rail to achieve N/S rapid transit in St. Louis.

We wonder as Americans, why is our transit so bad? And then we smart up and realize it's because we think $400M on a single bus line is a worthy expenditure. It all starts making sense, and then you smart up even more and move to a city that actually wants to succeed.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

It’s always been interesting that the bill language allows for complete flexibility in corridor but not mode.

Mayor could slap “North South MetroLink” on a two mile streetcar that stays exclusively Downtown and there’d be no legal recourse.

In fact, I hope that’s what this campaign narrative comes to. Make St. Louisans choose between a Downtown streetcar (vote no) or transit dependent households on the Northside (vote yes).

A very sizeable chunk of the $400 million figure is going to go to station infrastructure and streetscape redesign and improvements, all of which would have been required for rail.

There aren't many streets as dilapidated as North Florissant in other cities building BRT lines (none that I know of in Minneapolis, for instance).

There are definitely 2 mile corridors downtown that would have a far greater net benefit to the city than what is currently proposed.

Can't believe it's 2026 and the mainstream opinion on here is "well theyre gonna repave a road" as if several other corridors haven't been rebuilt without using transit money.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

If BRT fails, I assume the orange is what will take its place as the streetcar arm. $100M a mile assumption. 50/50 local and federal funds. Civic Center to St. Louis Avenue along 14th and Florissant. Olive/ Lindell alignment being a phase 2 8-10 years after. 

It is pretty simple.  Build a metro on the Oak Hill rail tracks that run through South City.  It runs through some of most populous / dense parts of the city with a rider base who would use the line.  No brainer.  

dylank wrote: ↑

8:25 PM - 1 day ago

Untitled3.jpgIf BRT fails, I assume the orange is what will take its place as the streetcar arm. $100M a mile assumption. 50/50 local and federal funds. Civic Center to St. Louis Avenue along 14th and Florissant. Olive/ Lindell alignment being a phase 2 8-10 years after. 

Old North is only a little over 3 miles from Soulard. I think because of the gaps in development and railyards it psychologically feels much further. I really wish we took the KC model and incrementally built out a modern streetcar feeder system, but I think the Loop Trolley really made it to where we will likely never see a streetcar in St. Louis again.

stldotage wrote:A very sizeable chunk of the $400 million figure is going to go to station infrastructure and streetscape redesign and improvements, all of which would have been required for rail.

There aren't many streets as dilapidated as North Florissant in other cities building BRT lines (none that I know of in Minneapolis, for instance).

Has there ever been a case where BRT was converted to rail and all they had to do was drop in tracks? Everything I’ve seen was pretty much a complete rebuild.

kg2024 wrote: ↑

4:02 PM - 2 days ago

My questions to people that say they plan to vote no: A) Are you comfortable with sending all of this back to the drawing board yet again, wasting more years and planning dollars, B) Are you comfortable with the additional multiple years of inflation cost on even the projected low performing 5.1 mile Green Line route, C) Is the assumption that the route will be further expanded and made more competitive and subsequently requiring multiple billion $ from federal/other sources, D) If the route/plan/mode does drastically change back to light rail after this speculative vote are you comfortable with completion to reach likely into the mid/late 2030s or early 2040s?
Of course like I've said I was disappointed with the delays and indecision over the last 25 years that ultimately led to the cancellation of light rail expansion, but in our current reality, I'm not really comfortable with all of additional wasted time and money to switch back to rail to achieve N/S rapid transit in St. Louis.

Yes, I'm comfortable sending this back to the drawing board. I'm very strongly concerned that BRT is in a bit of an uncanny valley, where the construction costs are a substantial percentage of light rail, the ongoing operating costs might even be higher per passenger mile, and the benefits in terms of time, development, and passenger experience could be little better than ordinary bus service. I'm willing to accept that the Green line as it most recently stood might not be optimal, and maybe something better is possible. I can even think of some problems with it myself. (The requirement for different cars is problematic, for instance, and the speeds were not optimal.)

Maybe there are some assumptions that we've allowed to have baked into the planning that we should abandon. Sure, waiting longer is frustrating. But I think it's worth it if what we ultimately get provides a better service and better value to our region. And right now, I think there's a pretty good chance that the funding outlook will improve and the materials costs will recede somewhat in the next administration, so waiting might actually be more cost effective as well.