Also, Old North St. Louis (around Crown Candy) and Chouteau’s Landing/Lake, are two other areas I’d like to see served by this type of project. I like your basic premise of a few circular type loops with some straight line routes cutting through.

Steve — I’m quite certain Memphis and Baltimore have fairly modern street car systems, though probably not as modern as Portland’s, which are wonderful. They are reason enough to move there! I like your ideas — and although I’m sure not cheap, we need to develop public will to start building things of this sort or we’ll be in grid lock haven sooner than we think, followed shortly by an inability to get anywhere because we’ve run out of gas. Brad.

[REPLY - Memphis has a streetcar line using vintage/heritage vehicles, not modern ones. It can have some of the same benefits but these are typically geared more as tourist movers than resident movers. The modern systems offer ADA compliance which is a must in my view. - SLP]

When another bird has made a mess for the rest of us, why shouldn’t eminent domain be used to clean up the place? And have I’ve seen some fouled nests…

Saying “no use of eminent domain” gives bad actors a pass.

Fortunately, city leaders were part of a statewide coalition to convince state legislators to preserve eminent domain as a key redevelopment tool.

[REPLY - I've heard that many remaining residents in North St. Louis have a real fear of new development --- that it will force them out. How about no eminent domain (or threat) for occupied homes/businesses but that vacant buildings or land is OK? - SLP]

Portland is consistently ranked as one of most bike-friendly cities in the country, so I guess streetcars aren’t hurting the cyclists too much.

I regularly ride over two railroad crossings to get to my work. You just have to be more carefull especially when it is wet.

Keep Cycling,

One, it’s Grand Boulevard, not Grand Avenue.

Two, on a bicycle, it’s one thing to deal with perpendicular railroad crossings, but it’s a whole lot more challnging to deal with parallel steel grooves.

Three, Concept A is probably the most viable.

Four, Concepts B & D have potential if they have two-way circulation on all streets, otherwise you’ll lose a lot of riders if you expect them to walk several “extra” blocks each day and/or expect them to put up with riding the “long way around” to get to where they want to go. If you can’t or won’t do two-way routes, you’re gonna have to pick one.

Five, Concept C is way too convoluted, making it no more attractive than a direct bus ride is today. It’s essentially what Tampa tried unsuccessfully, a tourist attraction.

Six, Concept E doesn’t really connect much, either existing or proposed. Metro has no money to pay for another station at Jefferson, although there may be a (very slim) possibility that a trolley could use their maintenance facility there.

Seven, St. Louis is not Portland. Portland has strong urban growth boundaries that encourage higher densities. St. Louis is surrounded by multiple cities and counties in two states who will sell their souls for few more sales tax dollars, thus we have ever-increasing sprawl.

Eight, yes, the vehicles can be rubber-tired. Look up trolley buses. They’re all electric and get their power from overhead electric lines. I think Vancouver and San Francisco still use them.

Nine, cost cannot be ignored. Metro cannot afford to run what they have on the streets now, and they’re considering major (20% – 25%) cutbacks in service over the coming few years. Until the citizens of the St. Louis region embrace transit financially (think a dedicated 1% sales tax) these ideas will remain “pie in the sky” dreams. The only other alternative may be a special taxing district where property taxes get higher the closer you get to any new trolley line(s).

Ten, as I’ve said several times before, it’s less about the technology and more about the frequency. If a bus/trolley/light rail car/donkey cart comes by every 5-7 minutes, you may think about using it, especially if you know you’ll need to transfer. Double that time to every 15 minutes and you probably lose 30% – 40% of your potential, discretionary riders. Double that again, to every 30 minutes or more, you need a pretty damn good reason to be standing out there (very poor, DUI, car in the shop, etc.) For the same money it would cost to put in one trolley line, you could probably fund 6, 8 or 10 high-frequency bus routes that would better-serve the needs of the potential development areas that you outlined above:

http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/goboulder/index.htm

http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/goboulder/html/transit/schedules.html

[REPLY - Thanks for the catch on Blvd vs. Ave, not sure why I keep doing that. I guess it just doesn't seem much like a boulevard to me.

I've got some inquiries in to the cycling folks in Portland to get feedback on their lines. Remember, they have in-street light rail, modern streetcar and vintage streetcar.

The routes where I've shown a one-way system with the other direction a block or two away could easily go on just one of the streets. I was trying to spread out the benefit and actually get people to walk. A single block is not a big deal in my view. More than that and you are correct that enough riders would be lost to offset any potential development gains.

You are correct that frequency makes a huge difference. The higher the frequency the more riders you will likely have. But frequency isn't the only factor. Example: MLK has 30 minute bus intervals now. Suppose that was cut to 10 minutes but still serviced by bus. Would developers flock to the area to build high-density housing & retail? Nope! Technology plays just as much of a role as frequency. But, a streetcar with the same 30 minute frequency as the current bus will also have limited success.

I think we can build more densly in the city if we try. Make it incentive driven. The higher the density the longer the tax abatement. Density can be accomplished without urban growth boundaries. - SLP]

Man, those trolley busses look like they suck. They look pretty much just like regular busses. Wikipedia says:

1. “As trolleybuses do not follow a track, it is possible for them to come off the route and hence off the electric powerlines above, and then get stuck.”

and more importantly:

2.In more general terms, trolleybuses suffer from being “neither fish nor fowl” in current transportation planning. Except in the cases mentioned above where they have special advantages, they have difficulty competing with the efficiencies of light rail on the one hand, or the flexibility and low start-up costs of conventional buses on the other. Also, from a public perception point of view, they are viewed little different to conventional buses, unlike trams or “light rapid transit”, which are often viewed more like trains.”

No one is going to see a bus with wires overhead and get excited. I will be interested to see how Portland successfully manages large amounts of bike traffic and in-street light rail.

From the Portland Streetcar website:

http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/contact.php

Automobile, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Tips
• Follow the Streetcar at a safe distance.
• Do not make a turn from the center lane in front of the Streetcar.
• Streetcars run in the same travel lane as cars – keep alert.
• Park your vehicle or truck within the solid white line.
• Check for approaching Streetcar when opening vehicle doors.
• Double parking is illegal.
• Bicyclists need to take care when cycling on Streetcar tracks.
• Caution for Streetcar operations in heavily used pedestrian areas.

Bicyclists need to “take care”?

There has to be a gap between the rail line and the pavement, otherwise, the trolley couldn’t function. The fact that the rails are parallel to the curb, and most likely close to the curb near stops will be problematic. Us skinny-tired freaks will be screwed.

This also from “Better Transit without Trolleys”

http://www.btwt.org/impacts.htm

“Hazard to Bicyclists
Trolley tracks cause bicyclists to fall. If a bicyclist ever lets the front wheel ride alongside a rail, he or she will be unable to prevent the bicycle from falling. This type of fall can occur with any parallel ridge (such as the seam between the gutter and the asphalt roadway in areas that use gutters). The only way to move across the rails safely is to deliberately steer across the rails. This can be done, but it is tricky, especially when the tracks are wet. The tracks also hamper safe traffic operation of bicyclists, since they cannot easily move across the road to prepare a left turn, to overtake slow or stopped traffic, or to avoid a driver pulling out from a side street or parking spot. In addition, the poor surface quality due to the presence of tracks in a cold climate can create further hazards.”

[REPLY - OK, some interesting points. Obviously my fat tire bike is going to have less issues with the track than narrow tires. Ideally our street grid would be complete enough that a cyclist could easily get from a to b without having to deal with lots of track.

But how do you feel about having lanes dedicated for light rail down the center of streets with crossings only every half mile or so? That is the safety solution -- make a big barrier in the middle of streets. This, in my view, would make cycling around town far more of a challenge than the track. - SLP]