Share
297
Full MemberFull Member
297

Post1:38 PM - 1 day ago#2551

^A word of warning to the wait-and-see approach, symphonicpoet:

Name of Metrolink Study Year Completed City of St. Louis Population St. Louis MSA Population City as Pct. Of MSA
Daniel Boone, Northside, and Southside 2000 348,189 2,698,687 12.9%
Northside-Southside Corridor 2008 309,864 2,801,319 11.1%
Northside-Southside Corridor 2 2018 302,838 2,805,465 10.8%
Northside-Southside Corridor 3 (BRT) 2025 278,445 2,814,421 9.9%

I'm personally thinking that seizing the opportunity to build a gold-standard BRT line while the stars are aligned for it to actually get built, unlike any of the past light rail studies above, is wise given this trajectory. 


St. Louis's best rail corridor has already been utilized (the Central Corridor) and that is where any substantial population growth and densification is likely to occur in the near term. Plus, the region dropped the ball with the Loop Trolley, damaging public perception of in-street rail projects. I'd rather our next federal funding award be for a different transit mode (that St. Louis completely lacks right now) that could shift the narrative away from failures and missteps.
1,170
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,170

Post2:35 PM - 1 day ago#2552

I agree, I've waited too long for north-south metrolink to believe in it. I remember being excited about it as a teen in 2008 and now I'm in my 30s. It's not gonna happen.
2,891
Life MemberLife Member
2,891

Post3:56 PM - 1 day ago#2553

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑
6:22 AM - 1 day ago
 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.
I work in public transportation at a national scale and personally know the executive leadership of the largest transit agencies in the US. None of that is projected to happen. Funding outlook is bleak and rapidly worsening. Trump administration has done irreparable harm to the Federal Transit Administration and Department of Transportation. The amount of programmatic knowledge that has escaped will take almost a decade to rebuild. From what lobbyist are saying, there is no appetite among republicans or democrats to fund another infrastructure bill. Material costs are projected to worsen. Agency capital plans project 2-4% annually through 2030 on labor and materials with some components reaching 10% annually. 

I hate that I've taken the role as BRT proponent for St. Louis. I've been on UrbanSTL since I was 16 dreaming of light rail in St. Louis. I just don't know if everyone has come to terms with how devastated the American public transportation industry is following Trump 1 + COVID + Trump 2. 
297
Full MemberFull Member
297

Post4:03 PM - 1 day ago#2554

addxb2 wrote: ↑
3:56 PM - 1 day ago
 I hate that I've taken the role as BRT proponent for St. Louis. I've been on UrbanSTL since I was 16 dreaming of light rail in St. Louis. I just don't know if everyone has come to terms with how devastated the American public transportation industry is following Trump 1 + COVID + Trump 2. 
I feel this statement acutely...~2006 stldotage would be appalled at 2026 stldotage 😄 .
6,669
AdministratorAdministrator
6,669

Post5:19 PM - 1 day ago#2555

With all due respect, anyone that thinks material and labor costs (which are the two main components of construction costs) are ever going down are selling themselves a fairy tail.

Post5:26 PM - 1 day ago#2556

stldotage wrote: ↑
4:03 PM - 1 day ago
addxb2 wrote: ↑
3:56 PM - 1 day ago
 I hate that I've taken the role as BRT proponent for St. Louis. I've been on UrbanSTL since I was 16 dreaming of light rail in St. Louis. I just don't know if everyone has come to terms with how devastated the American public transportation industry is following Trump 1 + COVID + Trump 2. 
I feel this statement acutely...~2006 stldotage would be appalled at 2026 stldotage 😄 .
Ugh. Same... 😅😢🙃
948
Super MemberSuper Member
948

Post5:36 PM - 1 day ago#2557

MattnSTL wrote:With all due respect, anyone that thinks material and labor costs (which are the two main components of construction costs) are ever going down are selling themselves a fairy tail.
The private contractors would never let that happen but don't mention that part

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Post10:21 PM - 1 day ago#2558

The paradox of BRT support:

-Have you looked into other ways to raise revenue?

"No."

-Have you considered "lite" BRT as seen in Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Kansas City, or regular bus lines in NYC, Philadelphia, and DC that carry nearly all of the benefits of full BRT at a fraction of the cost?

"No."

-Surely the BRT plan you have doesn't cost nearly half of the LRT plan you scrapped, right?

"No it's nearly half the cost."

-Okay then surely it doesn't cost more than Kansas City's extremely succesful streetcar that is starting to become a hybrid of a streetcar and LRT line?

"No it actually costs more."

-Okay then this must be like a really long 20+ mile corridor, maybe even on new ROW (such as the $500M Minneapolis Gold Line)?

"No actually most of the added length is just entirely replacing a pre-existing bus line."

-Okay.....then surely the public is super strongly in favor of this sudden change in plans? Right?

"No actually the proponents of the change are so unsure about public support, they didn't mention it all in the last election and tried to push it through without public approval of the shift in funding."

-So what is the point of this? It costs an extreme amount of money, it's not state of the art technology, there is not overwhelming evidence that it will boost system ridership, raise property values, or generate significant new development....?

"Well, it will repave one of the most neglected roads in the region."

This is so St. Louis the words don't exist to describe it properly.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

539
Senior MemberSenior Member
539

Post12:13 AM - Today#2559

PeterXCV wrote: ↑
2:35 PM - 1 day ago
I agree, I've waited too long for north-south metrolink to believe in it. I remember being excited about it as a teen in 2008 and now I'm in my 30s. It's not gonna happen.
📠
6,188
Life MemberLife Member
6,188

Post5:41 AM - Today#2560

Deleted and replaced with something clearer. Maybe. Hopefully.

Post1:42 PM - Today#2561

Before I say anything else, I do want to say I think the temperature has gotten a little high here. We're talking past one another. I think there are good arguments in favor of building, waiting, of BRT, of LRT, and even of simply expanding bus service. I think people can respectably hold any of the above positions.
addxb2 wrote: ↑
3:56 PM - 1 day ago
I work in public transportation at a national scale and personally know the executive leadership of the largest transit agencies in the US. None of that is projected to happen. Funding outlook is bleak and rapidly worsening. Trump administration has done irreparable harm to the Federal Transit Administration and Department of Transportation. The amount of programmatic knowledge that has escaped will take almost a decade to rebuild. From what lobbyist are saying, there is no appetite among republicans or democrats to fund another infrastructure bill. Material costs are projected to worsen. Agency capital plans project 2-4% annually through 2030 on labor and materials with some components reaching 10% annually. 
2030 is a pretty short term prediction. I wouldn't anticipate any kind of quick turnaround. But to say that everything is going to forever remain at the present bleak level is . . . decidedly pessimistic. We're in the middle of what is probably the worst global instability since WWII. I don't expect it will turn around quickly, but I don't think we're stuck here forever.

And yes, Trump has made a mess of everything, and it will take a long time to fix it. Decades, in some cases. But it's not irreparable. Anything you can build once you can build again. And honestly, I'd rather wait until 2050 for something beneficial than waste money on something that doesn't help now.

Maybe BRT is the right answer, but it's expensive and I don't think it's clear that its advantages outweigh those costs. Which is very much true of light rail as well. It's all a question of where the costs and benefits fall. That's really where I'm not completely convinced yet.
stldotage wrote: ↑
1:38 PM - 1 day ago
 St. Louis's best rail corridor has already been utilized (the Central Corridor) and that is where any substantial population growth and densification is likely to occur in the near term. Plus, the region dropped the ball with the Loop Trolley, damaging public perception of in-street rail projects. I'd rather our next federal funding award be for a different transit mode (that St. Louis completely lacks right now) that could shift the narrative away from failures and missteps.
There are certainly problems with the Green Line as proposed, and the fact that it doesn't extend beyond city limits in its initial phases always made it a tough sell to the county, whose buy-in we really need. And while I don't necessarily think the Oak Hill line is optimal, it's worth keeping in mind that the Wabash UD line that serves as the bulk of the initial Metrolink buildout was just as much an in-service line when it was sold to Bi-State. It's honestly a very close parallel. The only difference I can immediately think of is the lack of passenger service to Moberly and the presence of it a few times a week on the Iron Mountain line, a line to which there is a readily available alternative. You may be right that none of them are quite as good, but some are close, and there are quite a lot more out there in service as trails, lightly used railroad lines, and even abandoned lines whose right of way isn't completely built over yet.
MattnSTL wrote: ↑
5:19 PM - 1 day ago
With all due respect, anyone that thinks material and labor costs (which are the two main components of construction costs) are ever going down are selling themselves a fairy tail.
Forgive me, but I think you mean a fairy tale. Fairies don't have tails, but they do make good yarns. Anyway . . . kindly ignore that.

You don't think ending tariffs would make a difference?

Inflation is a thing, so in an absolute sense, no, costs aren't likely to ever go down, at least until the dollar collapses. But adjusted for inflation things do quite often get cheaper, and that's really the only thing we care about here. The absolute cost of a thing at a specific instant in time is pretty much irrelevant. The only thing that matters is its cost relative to income and the other things you could do with the money.
74
New MemberNew Member
74

Post47 minutes ago#2562

StlAlex wrote: ↑
10:21 PM - 1 day ago
The paradox of BRT support:

-Have you looked into other ways to raise revenue?

"No."

-Have you considered "lite" BRT as seen in Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Kansas City, or regular bus lines in NYC, Philadelphia, and DC that carry nearly all of the benefits of full BRT at a fraction of the cost?

"No."

-Surely the BRT plan you have doesn't cost nearly half of the LRT plan you scrapped, right?

"No it's nearly half the cost."

-Okay then surely it doesn't cost more than Kansas City's extremely succesful streetcar that is starting to become a hybrid of a streetcar and LRT line?

"No it actually costs more."

-Okay then this must be like a really long 20+ mile corridor, maybe even on new ROW (such as the $500M Minneapolis Gold Line)?

"No actually most of the added length is just entirely replacing a pre-existing bus line."

-Okay.....then surely the public is super strongly in favor of this sudden change in plans? Right?

"No actually the proponents of the change are so unsure about public support, they didn't mention it all in the last election and tried to push it through without public approval of the shift in funding."

-So what is the point of this? It costs an extreme amount of money, it's not state of the art technology, there is not overwhelming evidence that it will boost system ridership, raise property values, or generate significant new development....?

"Well, it will repave one of the most neglected roads in the region."

This is so St. Louis the words don't exist to describe it properly.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
If we are going to be fair and make our arguments in good faith, let's please make fair and true statements:

"Have you considered "lite" BRT as seen in Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Kansas City, or regular bus lines in NYC, Philadelphia, and DC that carry nearly all of the benefits of full BRT at a fraction of the cost?"
Yes I have, and I do not agree that they have "nearly all the benefits of BRT" these examples run in mixed traffic and are more incremental upgrades to existing high ridership services. Ultimately most of these examples boil down to expensive stations and paint (which of course are great for riders not denying that), but without dedicated right of way and full signal prioritization, then it does not achieve the most important aspect of both BRT or LRT which rapid transit, which is the true goal of this project. Not "slightly faster and slightly more comfortable", but fully dedicated to being as efficient as possible to get people where they need and want to be.

"Surely the BRT plan you have doesn't cost nearly half of the LRT plan you scrapped, right?"
It does not, it is roughly 35-40% of the cost of the LRT plan for 225% more route length.

"Okay then surely it doesn't cost more than Kansas City's extremely successful streetcar that is starting to become a hybrid of a streetcar and LRT line?"
A) It does not. KCs full streetcar line with extensions cost $567M in today's dollars for a line about half as long as proposed Green Line BRT. B) By definition KCs Streetcar will never be considered LRT because it runs in mixed traffic and stops at nearly every intersection. It is popular and effective in KCs linear layout yes, but it is slow and not considered rapid transit.

"Okay then this must be like a really long 20+ mile corridor, maybe even on new ROW (such as the $500M Minneapolis Gold Line)?"
It will be fully on dedicated ROW, on overly wide streets that have not been significantly updated in over half a century. If the county would get on board and assist in funding as well, it could easily become a 20+ mile corridor, but with the current political buy in, the route is as long as possible within city limits. The Minneapolis Gold Line in question is 9 miles long (78% of proposed Green Line length). Like I've said before, this is not just "replacing a pre-existing bus line", it is creating a fully new corridor that currently is inconsistantly covered by 5+ bus lines today of varying low frequency and do not cross the N/S divide of the city. 

The rest of your statements were pretty pointed and surely are up for debate.. who truly knows what the impacts on development will be between LRT and BRT, especially in most of North City which has been so starved of investment and development in the last 75 years that it's hard to imagine. However what we do know is that the people of this city were avowed decades ago a rapid and reliable connection between North and South City that also connects them to the jobs and services Downtown provides as well as the broader connections MetroLink provides. We have squandered that so far, and I do not wish to be part of any further denying that promise when there is a clear path forward that achieves those goals with the public's support in order to satisfy a desire to require steel rails and overhead wires to make it happen.
297
Full MemberFull Member
297

Post43 minutes ago#2563

StlAlex wrote: ↑
10:21 PM - 1 day ago
The paradox of BRT support:

-Have you looked into other ways to raise revenue?

"No."
Can I stop you right there? I'm not aware of any supporter on this forum who is a planner for this project. Supporting an existing proposal is not the same as opposing all alternatives -- those just aren't on the table. As I've noted on this thread before, the hypothetical perfect project will always beat the studied, real proposal.

-Have you considered "lite" BRT as seen in Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Kansas City, or regular bus lines in NYC, Philadelphia, and DC that carry nearly all of the benefits of full BRT at a fraction of the cost?
See above. Also, building a top-of-the-line BRT line could be the basis for eventually building a BRT lite feeder network, no?

-Surely the BRT plan you have doesn't cost nearly half of the LRT plan you scrapped, right?

"No it's nearly half the cost."
The ~$400 million figure is an estimate of a current project. The $1.1 billion price tag for the shortened, 10-station Green Line Metrolink proposal of 2022 would certainly be a higher figure now and $400 million is considerably less than half of that already -- for a much, much wider service area.

"No actually most of the added length is just entirely replacing a pre-existing bus line."
You simply must realize that new light rail lines primarily draw riders from existing bus lines, right? And also that pre-existing transit lines (of any mode) are typically designed around passenger demand/system efficiency (i.e. that a hypothetical novel, non-bus-line-overlapping line probably isn't of great passenger utility, at least not without a system redesign)?

"No actually the proponents of the change are so unsure about public support, they didn't mention it all in the last election and tried to push it through without public approval of the shift in funding."
This is a fair point (I think? I don't follow local politics as much as I used to) but regardless, the operative word here is "unsure" re: public support. Anecdotally I've heard a good bit of support for it.

Your concluding sentences really need to be broken down carefully though...

-So what is the point of this? It costs an extreme amount of money, ...
It's a lot of money for a BRT, yes. This may be a sidebar here, but hearing transit advocates say "don't spend so much on a transformational transit project" sounds very self-defeating.

it's not state of the art technology...
A) It's difficult to argue both that a ridiculous sum of money will be spent on a project and that it will be somehow be a behind-the-times investment. Also St. Louis has light rail technology currently -- where it needs it and quite a bit of it, actually-- and lacks BRT in any form.

there is not overwhelming evidence that it will boost system ridership...
This begs the question of where the overwhelming evidence of boosted ridership is for an actual light rail proposal? Because the Green Line had poor ridership projections -- that's what doomed it. And those were likely optimistic to begin with.

...raise property values, or generate significant new development....?
Perhaps "repaving one of the most neglected roads in the region" could raise some property values? And as many have pointed out here for decades now, Metrolink-based TOD took its sweet time and was no immediate boon (and of course, is feverishly and negatively covered by the crime beat of local "media").

And look, I know responding line-by-line comes off as extremely sarcastic and aggressive. That's honestly not my point. My point is to civilly discuss the BRT proposal and put forth an honest argument.
Read more posts (-12 remaining)
Share