Light Rail, Streetcars and Transit Time
I’m still having a hard time justifying the time and expense of MetroLink light rail over streetcars.
Others have made good arguments in favor of light rail, including the ability to move large numbers of people at high speeds which results in substantially lower travel time.
While I have some interest in MetroLink making its way into various parts of the county surround the City of St. Louis it is here in the city where I’m mostly concerned. I assume we still have the greatest population density of the region and we can certainly handle an increase in population. I see an excellent in-city transit system as a means of attracting more city residents. Transit as a means of shuttling suburbanites the 20 miles from their split-level ranch to downtown is a lesser priority for me. Yes, I know that if we get them on rail it is one less car (or SUV) they’ll drive into the city.
But I want a first class transit system in the City of St. Louis. And first class doesn’t include buses. The Northside and Southside MetroLink routes currently being planned include much of their route at grade — that is in dedicated medians in the center of streets such as Chouteau and Natural Bridge. These routes will also make a loop around downtown at grade.
Here is a good opportunity to look at what would happen if we substituted streetcars on the route exactly as planned. First myth we have to dispel is that streetcars run in the street and have to compete with traffic. Not true. Look at New Orleans and you’ll see a couple of routes that run mostly on dedicated medians but running in the street as needed. The same is true of San Francisco with their streetcar lines. Ditto for Portland.
Portland’s streetcars have a modern look — not retro lines as in New Orleans and San Francisco. On the surface you’d be hard pressed to tell the difference between Portland’s streetcars and light rail. But when you look closer it becomes more apparent:
The Portland Streetcar is designed to fit the scale and traffic patterns of the neighborhoods through which it travels. Streetcar vehicles are 2.46 meters (about 8 feet) wide and 20 meters long (about 66 feet), about 10 inches narrower and 1/3 the length of a MAX (TriMet’s light rail system) double car train. They run in mixed traffic and, except platform stops, accommodate existing curbside parking and loading. The Portland Streetcar is owned and operated by the City of Portland.
Size is a big factor in that streetcars are narrower and shorter than a typical light rail train. This allows for them to maneuver through the streets. Metrolink’s planned loop through downtown at grade certainly means they’ll have to pick a different car stock than our current system. The narrower and shorter trains also mean fewer passengers per run (but still greater than a bus).
At this point an in-median streetcar system and in-median light rail look very similar. Both are operating on a dedicated right of way and are most likely similar in size to each other. I’m far from an expert on these systems so at this point I’m speculating but rail type and speed are probably the main differences. Portland brags about how its system required little in the way of construction but light rail is certainly a bigger undertaking because of the speeds. The bed for the rail is more massive and crossings require gates. Money aside, fewer crossings for light rail verses streetcars means those walking or bicycling will have fewer places to cross the lines. This is a net reduction in our interconnectedness.
My problem with in-street MetroLink is that it not friendly to other modes of transportation. The cost of street crossings is high enough that pedestrians, bicyclists, scooterists and auto drivers will all have to make right turns coming from side streets until they get to the next crossing. With streetcars in the same median you could have crossings not necessarily every block but certainly more often. The downside is a slowing of transit time. Compared with bus service on the street and stopping every block, streetcars are a good middle solution between buses and light rail.
The number of stops affects transit time but also convenience. In particular the Northside route has the potential to renew interest in a long-neglected part of the city. The number of proposed stops along Natural Bridge is more frequent than our current system, ranging between 0.4 miles to 0.9 miles. I’d argue that the in-street/median portions of these routes should be designed more like the streetcar lines in New Orleans and San Francisco where they are easily crossed by pedestrian, bike or car. When they get into the old rail right-of-way let them pick up speed there. Think of it has a hybrid streetcar/light rail system.
– Steve
Portland Street Cars Rock! The city has a nice combination of Street Cars and Light Rail — perhaps that’s the direction St. Louis should go.
The proposed MetroLink northside/southside line is such a hybrid. In the downtown loop, trains must travel less than 25 mph and share the streets with cars. Along Chouteau and Natural Bridge, trains travel travel at about 35 mph in an exclusive median, only crossing streets at major intersections, but doing so with parallel traffic. Finally, in exclusive right-of-way, on elevated sections or that paralleling the UP Railroad, trains can travel at about 50 mph with full grade separation or cross-gates at limited cross-streets.
All light-rail systems in the US other than St. Louis have partial in-street running. Even Portland’s MAX has a in-street downtown loop, while in exclusive right-of-way elsewhere. Cross-County will run partially at-grade in the middle of Forest Park Parkway between Skinker and Big Bend, but since there are no intersections, it is not considered street-running.
There seems to be a semantics question over streetcar vs. light-rail and in-street vs. exclusive right-of-way. Light-rail is indeed a form of a streetcar, but generally travels faster and in more exclusive right-of-way than streetcars. Using medians, where trains still cross at-grade in full intersections, is only semi-exclusive right-of-way.
The old Hodiamont line (interesting enough the last local line to close in 1966) had mostly exclusive right-of-way. The famed New Orleans St. Charles streetcar in its median has a semi-exclusive in-street right-of-way. The 2000 conceived MetroLink line in the City has in-street shared lanes like the traditional streetcar in downtown, semi-exclusive medians on Chouteau or Natural Bridge, and exclusive right-of-way along the UP RR or near the Interstates.
Steve, What you are saying makes perfect sense and should be considered for St. Louis. It does seem like there is a fine line betweens streetcars and light rail – as you describe it. When I think of streetcars, I think of the streamlined single streetcars my mom used to ride. I always assumed the Portland cars were pretty much exactly like Metrolink cars. In Baltimore, the light-rail is similar to Metrolink, and it does travel down Howard Avenue while downtown. As far as I know, a jaywalker could cross the tracks. But, the cars are not narrow and they do take up quite a bit of the street. To be honest, you have caused me to consider rethinking the whole thing. But, give me some time.
As a confirmed, ticketed (in Seattle) jaywalker (I beat the rap), I can say — yes you can jaywalk across the tracks in downtown Baltimore — I did it just 2 weeks ago on my way to the Lexington Market to have the best crab cake in town before the Boston-Baltimore game at Camden Yards. The tracks are well marked and the trains loud and bell ringing as they approach — but outside of downtown they enjoy exclusive right of way for the most part — I like this hybrid idea — keeps the McMansions happy and serves the downtown.
Some important things to remember about transit are:
In todayÂ’s society, a majority of its funding comes from taxes, not from the farebox.
Most taxpayers don’t ride transit. Yes, it’s “their choice”, and maybe not a wise one, but it’s a fact.
Transit agencies, especially smart ones, pick the right “tool” to get the job done. No one answer is right for every situation.
It ainÂ’t rocket science, but clean, well-maintained buses combined with friendly operators go a long way in keeping existing riders, if not attracting new ones. Combine that with meeting schedules with regularity and you have the makings of an attractive system.
There are three disparate groups of riders that primarily use transit, the transit dependent, choice commuters and people attending “special events”. The first group includes the poor, the young, the old and the disabled. And yes, it also includes a small number of folks who choose to make public transit their primary (or secondary, in the case of cyclists) means of transportation even though they have the resources to own a car, but it remains a very small group. The second group typically includes office or factory workers that go to the same place for eight or so hours every day and either don’t want to pay to park and/or don’t want to put up with driving in rush hour traffic, and don’t need a car during the day. The final group is typically suburbanites who are going “downtown” for a professional sporting event or a concert, and choose transit for many of the same reasons as the daily commuter. (Metro was “penny wise and pound foolish” when it cancelled the special services to Rams games this year – these are the swing voters when it comes to passing increases in transit taxes!)
Unless youÂ’re transit dependent, it makes little sense to expect to use transit for shopping. You donÂ’t know the schedules and the routes for these random trips, and you sure donÂ’t want to be carrying a lot of purchases home on public transit. The same argument can be made for taking Metro to Lambert. Few people live near a rail station and even fewer want to transfer between a bus and the train with their luggage to get to the airport. The only reason for running a train (or a bus) to any airport or mall is to serve the airportÂ’s or the mallÂ’s workers. It wonÂ’t affect the number of conventions you land, itÂ’ll bring a miniscule number of new shoppers, and it sure wonÂ’t make Mid-America or Spirit of St. Louis airports viable commercial facilities!
Transit requires density, either real or virtual, to work well / function at all. Downtown St. Louis and Clayton both offer enough density and are “rewarded” with multiple transit routes. The Central West End, given the presence of Barnes Hospital, is another “dense” area. Manchester Road and Grand Avenue offers linear density but suffer from a really slow ride. “Virtual” density is created by park-and-rides, especially along rail lines, where the non-transit-dependent can drive to a point with “free” or low-price parking with the expectation that they can access frequent transit service, likely to travel a “real” dense place.
The biggest impediment to greater use of public transit is a lack of frequent service (“frequency”). Unless you’re transit dependent, every missed connection and every half-hour (or longer!) wait for the next bus or train is an argument against using transit. The most successful routes, both bus and rail, serve more-densely populated areas and offer frequent service. The least-successful routes are the ones that are run primarily for political reasons, and because of lack of riders (and income), continue to be scaled back.
The next biggest challenge, both with rail and bus, is “station/stop creep”. Every stop slows down the larger route, but everyone wants a stop close (but not too close) to where they live and work. Much like 4-way stops, too many become counter-productive. Transit agencies need to balance the impact transit has on neighborhoods, especially between stops, with the benefits transit offers a neighborhood’s residents. Los Angeles seems to be having a fair amount of success with their “Rapid” service, a form of bus rapid transit. Any northern extension of light rail here will face a lot of political pressure to have a stop every half mile, when more riders will benefit from having fewer stations combined with improved feeder bus service. (Beyond a quarter-mile walk, walking becomes less and less attractive.)
Transit agencies face opposition from taxi companies when they try to offer flexible, non-fixed-route services, even when these services will better serve their riders. Around Denver, Colorado, their Regional Transportation District is increasing the use of “call-n-Ride” services in many suburban areas, where one or two small buses and drivers with cell phones can replace fixed routes that attract few riders. These services allow the few random riders to be picked up at home, transported to and from a park-n-Ride, and connect with more-frequent bus and rail services. This is a win-win situation, even though the cost-per-rider is high, because the overall cost is less than running “empty” buses on fixed routes. It addresses the real needs of the few riders that use it, and it addresses two critical political issues of “What am I getting for the taxes I pay?” and “Why am I paying taxes to run empty buses?” Metro would be wise to push for more of these services around here.
Transit can support development, but unless it’s rail, it won’t “drive” development. It’s the old chicken or the egg conundrum, combined with political reality. There ain’t enough money in Metro’s budget to run existing routes, so how can new routes be established or extended without impacting existing riders? And without density and frequency, how do you attract many new riders? The biggest current missed opportunity is the apparent lack of transit-oriented development around Metro’s light rail stations. For whatever reason, governments aren’t using their planning and economic development tools to create real density at these stops. Yes, some stops are in existing areas where big jumps in density would be inappropriate. But there are other stops where the opportunities are ripe but the will appears to be MIA.
Trolleys are cute but work only in very limited situations. Whether or not there was a concerted GM conspiracy to eliminate trolleys, the reality is today most people donÂ’t want to see them come back. Residents donÂ’t want the poles and wires. Drivers donÂ’t like dodging the vehicles. Bicyclists have a problem with the tracks and the trolleys donÂ’t come with bike racks. TheyÂ’re no quicker than the buses they replace, and in many cases, are actually slower. They require a dedicated maintenance facility close to the line, many times in conflict with the vision residents and planners have for the area. They work well as tourist attractions (see San Francisco, Memphis, New Orleans and Tampa, to name a few), but donÂ’t work well for most daily commuters who value speed over cute. Yes, Portland has a successful new system, but how much of that success is a result of the trolley and how much of it is a result of larger real estate market dynamics? Did DenverÂ’s LoDo area take off because Coors Field was built there or was the real estate market ripe for redevelopment? Is Washington Street taking off here as a trendy loft area because of the street and streetscape changes or because the empty industrial buildings are finally being appreciated and/or the real estate economics finally make sense? Unfortunately, there are no easy answers, and while every component plays a part, no one item is truly the sole reason for success or failure!
Finally, Metro needs to get better at managing both their governmental partners and their large construction projects. A lot of money is being spent on the Cross-County extension to bury a light rail line, even in areas (like north of 40) where there will be absolutely no change in noise levels on what was a heavy rail line for many, many years. I’m sure NIMBY is the reason, but it’s a) giving a “quality” preference to wealthier areas at the expense of taxpayers elsewhere, and b) will continue to require higher maintenance costs for many years to come! It sets a bad precedence, and will make any future construction more expensive. The courts will ultimately figure out who actually created the current construction fiasco, but my gut feeling is that politics will ultimately be blamed. Design build requires a good starting point combined with strong management. If Metro can be blamed for anything, it can be blamed for inadequate investigation and documentation of existing conditions (not doing so is obviously a blank check to increase costs) combined with splitting the contract into multiple parts – does the term “herding cats” mean anything?
MetroLink is being “buried” near Highway 40 due to the future reconstruction of I-64. The new MetroLink line is considerably lower than the old rail line so that the rise and climb between the current highway bridge over the rail line and that under Hanley may be more level. IOW, it wasn’t buried for NIMBY interests. Also, the tunnel between Forsyth and just east of Big Bend was long planned, for only the tunnel at Skinker was added due to public outcry against mixed traffic at this busy intersection.
NIMBY interests have, however, limited station access along the line. Most notably, Clayton-Central will only have access to the north and Richmond Heights station only to the west, both due to local resident opposition. But in these cases, accommodating NIMBY interests actually lowered the capital costs of the project.
One of the issues with bus service in STL today is that except for a few lines like Grand/Kingshighway, etc, most run at only 30 minute intervals. You have to schedule around the bus in such intervals. At least with Metrolink, you know it runs every 10 minutes (used to be 7-8) and missing one wasn’t a big deal. Missing a bus that only runs every 30 minutes is a much bigger problem.
Have noticed that both the bus and Metrolink have been much, much more crowded recently.
I’m one of the discretionary transit riders. We’ve been able to get by on 1 car for the 5+ years we’ve lived here, and the savings there have been tremendous. It’s an inconvenience every once in a while, but the plusses outweigh the negatives by a wide margin.
Being relatively new to town, I don’t know the long (and I assume tortured) history of Cross-County . . . thanks for the info! (I moved here last year after nearly 30 years in Denver.)
Steve has a valid point about MetroLink lines reducing interconnectedness for pedestrians. Although it would, theoretically, be possible to cross them on foot in places where there is not a designated crossing, you’d probably get arrested if you did so.
So I’m a little annoyed at the way that section between Big Bend and Skinker along Forest Park is being designed. In an area with HEAVY pedestrian traffic due to the nature of the campus and the adjacent residential areas, plus the attraction of the Loop a few blocks north, there traditionally have been numerous pedestrian crossing locations.
For example, you could cross the Parkway at-grade at Hoyt Drive, under the pedestrian overpass for Ackert Walkway, or at Throop Drive. I’m not absolutely sure, but it looks like now all pedestrian traffic will be funneled onto the newly extended, even more elevated pedestrian overpass. While I’m glad the new overpass is ADA-compliant, it still suggests a serious demarcation between the campus and the neighborhoods to the north.
For example, even during the early days of MetroLink construction, I would frequently cut across the parkway from Eliot Hall at WashU, near Throop Drive, and walk north on Kingsland Avenue in Ames Place to access the St. Louis Bread Company on Delmar for lunch. Now, I have to walk several blocks out of my way, either to Big Bend or to the overpass. That’s just not worth it, if I have a tight lunch schedule.
I hope I’m wrong, and that there will be several grade crossings along this stretch. But I haven’t seen evidence of that yet.
And don’t even get me started on the new pedestrian overpass at Des Peres Avenue, which has been closed permanently for automobile access to Lindell.
The walkway between Skinker and Big Bend was placed near Melville, instead of Throop/Kingsland to line up with the Ackert Walkway, which is more so centralized in the U-City Loop than Kingsland at its western end. Students may also walk up Skinker to the City section of the Loop.
Limited pedestrian access between the Hilltop Campus and the Loop, however, certainly did not begin with MetroLink. The parkway always posed a barrier, but the gated streets of Ames Place along Big Bend and Parkview Place along Skinker also limited access. Thus, for a long time, the campus has been connected via a one-block isthmus of apartments between Melville and Kingsland, from the parkway north to Delmar.
I’ll only comment on one tiny aspect of Jim’s commentary.
Rail service to the airport DOES NOT not serve only airport employees. I am one of those mythical people who use the Metrolink to go to and from the airport. I make a rule of traveling only with one or two bags, so luggage isn’t a problem. And, I can assure you that I’m not the only person doing this.
I even instruct visiting friends and relatives to take the train from the airport to the Metrolink station closest to my house. No one has complained about luggage problems, and it eliminates the hassles of parking and security at the airport. People actually like not having to try to find me in a sea of people or having to wait on a curb. Meeting them at the station just off the Loop has the added benefit of readily available food and shopping.
I also use light rail transit whenever possible when I attend conventions and conferences. DC, Chicago, even Memphis’ new streetcars. In cities with this form of cheap, easy transportation, conventioneers are far more likely to venture out to sight-see and shop.
If I were an outsider who came to St. Louis for a conference, the ideal would be to be able to use rail transit to move among airport, downtown hotel, and places like the Delmar Loop.
Will these uses alone pay for the daily expenses of rail? No. Would they help? Certainly. And they’d make visitors more likely to spend money in the area and to come back again.