Experiencing Bus Rapid Transit
Long-time readers know I love streetcars — rail vehicles on fixed rail in the street. Â I love other forms of rail transit: light rail and heavy rail. Â Bus I’ve also come to appreciate the rubber tire bus that replaced streetcars in St. Louis. Â When I visited Kansas City earlier this month I used their local public transit, which included a newish BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) line.
Kansas City Area Transportation Authority implemented its first Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line, called the Metro Area Express, or MAX, in July 2005. MAX was an instant success, with ridership in this corridor increasing more than 50%. While Kansas City’s MAX line was not the first BRT line in the United States, its immediate success and affordable execution have garnered recognition across the country. In fact, the Federal Transit Administration holds it up as a model BRT line.
MAX is a six-mile linear route linking the vibrant River Market, downtown, Union Station, Crown Center and Plaza. As the region’s most significant new public transportation project in decades, MAX provides quick, convenient public transportation that helps reduce traffic congestion and auto emissions.
MAX features distinct characteristics that incorporate state of the art technology to deliver customers a high level of reliability, speed and comfort. For instance, dedicated lanes help give MAX vehicles a rapid, smooth ride, and special traffic signalization holds a green light longer to keep MAX on schedule. Limited stops mean that MAX can keep moving to key destinations.
By design, a unique identity was created for MAX, including unique vehicles and easily identifiable “stations,” not “stops.” Each station features an 18-foot marker that is well lit at night, serving as a beacon from blocks away. The new, modern shelters were designed to provide protection from the elements with a roof that is 80% opaque, providing needed shade in the summer, yet allowing 20% of the light through to break the chill in the winter. One of the most popular features of the stations is the real-time arrival signs. Customers know exactly when the next MAX will arrive, taking the guesswork out of riding. (Source)
Do these changes make a difference in the perception of the bus? Based on my experience & observation, a big yes!
The Kansas City MAX line on Main St. gets transit-optional & tourist riders, something regular bus lines just don’t get. Â Don’t get me wrong, I still prefer fixed rail but I was shocked at how much I liked the limited-stop BRT concept now that I’ve ridden one.
The following is a promotional video from the Kansas City Transportation Authority:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8Pj4uAHk2E
I rode conventional bus lines in Kanas City as well, easy to navigate with Google Maps on your phone. Â But with limited stops, the map of the entire MAX line is clear & easy to understand.
Earlier this year Metro mentioned BRT when asking St. Louis County voters to approve a tax to help fund transit. Â The question is, what corridors are ideal for BRT?
– Steve Patterson
When I travel to KC (about once a month) I try to situate near the Max. It gets me everywhere fast.
KC's MAX is really enhanced/quality bus, not BRT. Still, enhanced/quality bus would be good for many high-ridership corridors in St. Louis. Metro already identified Grand as one. The other corridors identified by Metro for BRT would truly be enhanced/quality EXPRESS bus. BRT requires a dedicated guideway. I'm not sure if any St. Louis corridors make sense, however, for true BRT.
True, it's really more like BRT-Lite. There is no off-board fare collection, it mostly runs in mixed traffic, and the “stations” are really just nicer versions of regular bus shelters. And the route through the Loop is meandering and confusing.
However, MAX is still a huge improvement. It's boosted transit ridership in the central corridor by 20-30%, provided a great new service linking many tourist destinations, and started to change the image of transit for many people.
A second MAX line (The Green Line) debuts January 1 on Troost Avenue, currently the city's busiest bus route.
I like BRT, as well, having lived with it in Denver and experiencing LA's extensive Rapid (Rapide?) system in California, and I can see it working well here, too. The three issues I see here are getting a clear definition of BRT (it varies from city to city), identifying the best corridors and getting past the perception among many locals that the Metro bus isn't for them / is just for “those” people.
Some cities have dedicated busways for BRT, some cities have onstreet enhancements that benefit the bus. Some cities have fancy bus shelters, some don't. We seem to be unable to coordinate our existing traffic signals to move regular traffic, so adding priority for buses will likely be a bigger challenge than anyone wants to admit. Then there's the issue of balancing the number of stops against travel time – everyone wants “their” stops to be outside their door, the challenge is that our region has fairly low density, with few high-density employment centers. Using Metrolink as an example, there are two stops for Wash U, two for UMSL, two for Clayton and three for downtown – how convenient are they for potential riders? With buses, there will be more pressure for more stops and more route deviations.
Defining corridors requires balancing density (of housing/parking and jobs/destinations), as well as addressing the local issue of viewing transit as a collection of parts, not as an integrated system to get from Point A to Point B. Metro has already (and continues to) constructed transit (transfer) centers across the region. MoDOT has constructed park-and-ride lots in suburban areas. Connecting these dots with BRT and coordinating schedules to allow seamless transfers should be the first priority, since it would leverage both existing investments and tie into multiple local bus routes, for that “last mile” challenge.
Finally, we have significant perception issues to overcome. We live in an area where racism and segregation seem to color every discussion, no pun intended. Metrolink gets blamed for increasing crime at the Galleria and is viewed by many people in St. Charles County as just a way for thugs to come out and steal their flat screen TV's. People waiting at bus stops are out in the heat or the cold and don't look all that happy as we drive by. We hear about people being assaulted on Metrolink platforms and robbed or shot at bus stops. And while these are all true, the vast majority of the trips made every day are uneventful, so they're not newsworthy, but perception is reality. Getting people to try transit, to see that it actually can work, is the biggest challenge, followed by keeping it uneventful.
Getting the first corridor(s) right is critical. If all it does is move existing riders in the city more quickly (along Grand or MLK, for example), it will be viewed as just something that'll work in the city. If it's put in from Arnold to downtown and fails to attract riders, then it'll be viewed as a failed experiment. I'd start by defining specific viable density points (employment, education, transit centers, park-and-rides), then figuring out how to best connect the dots – don't let the tail wag the dog. Metrolink is compromised because much of it is built along abandoned railroad rights-of-way – there's a reason they were abandoned in the first place. With BRT we can (and must) provide more direct connections. To pry people out of their cars, and to charge them for the privilege, we need to be quicker, just as/more convenient. and frequent enough that schedules aren't too important!
I'd like to put the 70 Grand route on the MetroLink route map. It wouldnt' be that big of a difference, but it'd change perceptions quite a bit. As the Grand bus transitions into BRT, it's profile and ridership will increase, and putting it on the MetroLink map will help people to see it as part of the bigger system.
Great thought. The plus side of Grand is that you got some very identified landmark/destinations/institutions just as the KC line reflects. Looking at Metro line & adding Grand Center/SLU/Cardinals Childern Hospital/South Grand & Tower Grove Park is a win win situation for Metro.
As far as Metro, I really think they should be putting out a Grand Center BRT concept as soon as possible. They don't have to use the same definition as other cities in my mind. But they do need to come up with a tangible concept that separates it from bus service – something that combine with or separate from Express Bus service on I-55/I-44/I-64/I-70. Maybe a three tier color coded system
Local – Red for frequest stops (why not be upfront with reality of service)
BRT – Yellow for limited stops
Express – Green for Direct service
The answer in Denver for a similar situation was to keep the Route 15 on Colfax and add a Route 15-LTD (Limited), with stops at major cross streets and destinations, on the same major street (like Grand).
After reviewing the long range plan for Metro, I think that we should put BRT from Halls Ferry in North County, down Florissant to Downtown and then all the way out to South County on Gravois. There is right of way to dedicate a lane on each side and still have four travel lanes. The dedicated BRT right of way could also be used by bicycle commuters. The population and employment density along these old streetcar routes is considerable and the opportunity for redevelopment of the areas (including a large number of historic buildings) is phenomenal.
You'd have to have a death wish to mix BRT and bicycle comuters!
Not so, many communities are adopting this mix, with good results! See http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/e… for more information.
Don't bike in the bus lane and the bus will stay out of the shared/bike lane.
This doesn't seem to even be a problem. The bus lane is only occupied by the bus every 15 minutes or so and rarely has auto traffic even when it is allowed. Plus, with the buses frequent stops, many cyclists can keep up with city buses. And I am way more trusting of a bus driver than most of the car drivers along some of the other roads. I really think that the bus lane is a great way for cyclists to use Main St. and shorten the trip through midtown.
The MAX bus lanes are actually de facto bike lanes already. Many cyclists use them because Main Street is a direct link between Downtown and Midtown, and a lot of cars stay out of the bus lanes 24/7, even though they are only in effect during rush hour.
Paris has a great implementation of BRT/bus lanes. The lanes are physically separated from traffic with a curb, and their 16 foot width leave plenty of room for buses to pass bikes within the same lane.
As both Eric and the link note, “lane width is an important issue. The city of Madison likes to use 16 foot lanes to allow a clear three feet of separation between the bicyclist and a passing bus”. Unless there is either a loss of onstreet parking or planted medians, the only way to get 16' on most streets around here would be to convert two existing general-use travel lanes to one shared bike and bus lane. There are only a few major vstreets with 3-4 lanes in each direction that would fit that criteria, and, specifically, while parts of Grand could have, recent additions of medians and bulbouts will make creating new 16' commuter lanes either impossible or will require removal of these recent investments. That's why I'll repeat that you'd have to have a death wish to mix 8.5'-9' wide BRT vehicles and bicycle commuters in a standard 10'-12' travel lane – 1'-3' between a passing bus and either the curb or parked vehicles is a recipe for disaster (speaking as someone who has commuted in a dedicated 3' wide bike lane next to a regular tavel lane shared with buses – more than once I was squeezed between the bus and the curb as the bus pulled over to make a stop).
This is one of the few times that KC will ever get positive press for its transit system. Admittedly, as resident of the city, I have never used MAX because I live on a local bus route and have never found a good excuse to ride any of the MAX lines. But with a more frequent timetable than any of the other local routes, I am sure MAX is great. Unfortunately it serves such a narrow slice of the city.
I really hope the concept will continue to expand in the future as it could be a way to usher in more demand for rail. At the very least KC needs a much more reliable bus system and MAX could be the alternative to rail for the near future.
Personally, I think high-speed bus is the wave of the future: http://www.theonion.com/video/…/
I've used the MAX in KC a couple of times. When i lived in KC there were several times i voted for bond issues to support a light rail, they all failed, i'm assuming the MAX is the alternative (maybe better?).
It's hard to identify a single corridor in STL that could benefit. Most of the “attraction areas” are along that linear corridor along main street. In st louis there's the CWE, South Grand, the Loop, laclede's landing/Washington, stadiums, forest park, etc.. it seems like if we were to go the BRT route, there would be a need for 2-3 lines at least.
Related, but on a different note. If i was an eccentric billionaire, I would love to finance a street car that started at Grand Center, went through South Grand, turned down Cherokee, and went all the way to Broadway (where of course it would connect with another street car line going the distance of Broadway).
One of those light rail tax initiatives actually passed in a public vote it just contained so much weird stuff (e.g. the gondola… yes an alpine style gondola from Union Station to Liberty Memorial) and a very ambitious starter line that the promised project was projected to have a several billions dollar shortfall. So the city council nixed it and put a more reasonable project on the ballot with the same price tag. The voters were miffed by such a reduced starter project (although a feasible one)that they voted it down. I think there was also a ballot initiative prior to the one that passed but I am not totally sure on the chronology of that.
So many good comments and ideas here.
I really love the BRT/MAX concept. It is clear, fast and efficient. I would use such a system in St. Louis and would prefer it to some to of the light rail ideas floated to connect the riverfront/downtown with the CWE/Forest Park/Delmar Loop. So much cheaper!
One issue with bus ridership for me is that bus routes are detailed and can be confusing. Trains/subways are usually much more simple and easier to navigate IMO. The MAX system is clear and direct and with signage the same. The stops almost look and feel like train stops.
And money wise, busses are the clear choice. I'm not sold on all of the benefits of fixed rail lines. Busses are flexible, don't impact traffic as much and, with the money saved over trolley or light rail lines, could run with much greater frequency.
But let me add that I love Metrolink and use routinely to go from downtown to the airport. I really wish and hope it expands throughout the region to quickly connect the further reaches of the metro area.
I am no expert on ridership versus transit type, but I do recall reading in a few places that even though fixed rail is a more expensive than a comparable bus line the rail line will draw more riders. And that rail transit draws more riders per dollar spent than traditional bus. But I think the BRT concept is a great alternative and in some cases sees ridership comparable to some rail lines (which may refute my last claim!).
Additionally, one issue that many cities are experiencing with rail is that the transit authority generally goes after the low hanging fruit when building light rail. They build the line in abandoned corridors and so the line doesn't run through densely populated areas and thus ridership is complete crap for the investment. The streetcar style tends to have the best ROI. At least this is what I have read.
Partly true, and somewhat interrelated. Successful transit needs density and frequent service; the actual vehicle/mode is somewhat secondary, although fixed rail is less expensive to operate when it's running at or near capacity. It's all about tradeoffs and land use, smart or not so smart. With lower densities (like much of our region), transit struggles to attract enough riders to justify adequate, frequent service, and the downward spiral continues . . .
Right, there are always questions about tradeoffs…Reading the study I cited in my response above, the mode of transportation does play a role, sometimes significant, sometimes not, though clearly increased ridership will generate more funds and allow a system to make money and therefore survive.
According to American Public Transit Association's Ridership Reports Statistics, St. Louis' Metrolink is actually in the top 10 nationally based on ridership with almost 56,000 daily boardings. And is considered a success and model for other municipalitites looking at light rail. And all of this despite shaky public financing.
“increased ridership will generate more funds and allow a system to make money” Um, no – ALL public transit systems are subsidized with public tax dollars! More riders gets more people off the streets and highways and goes a long way toward maintaining the subsidy, but “make money”, no!
I do agree that the perceived quality of the vehicle does make a diference. A clean, new bus is more attractive than a dirty, broken-down, old one. A light rail vehicle is more attractive than a streetcar, that's more attractive than a bus. But, reality check, the primary reason people choose public transit is because it's quicker or cheaper. Denver's busiest bus route is also its shortest and is considered to be BRT since it operates on a dedicated busway, the 16th Street Mall. The vehicle description, however, sucks, but is the best solution for the specific use – unairconditioned buses with a top speed of 30 mph! They stop every block, so top speed is irrelevent. They're not air conditioned because the three (!) boarding doors spend half their time open. Do people ride 'em? Hell, yeah! They're free, they run every 70 seconds (at peak times – no schedule required), and they're quicker than walking 3 or 7 blocks. They also connect all the downtown light rial lines and two major bus transfer facilities. Plus the convention center, most hotels and most office buildings are all within two blocks, so there's a huge built-in customer base.
My fear is that BRT here is a solution in search of a problem. Can the 70 Grand route be improved, enough, with just more frequent service and removing some little-used bus stops? Will an investment in new shelters, new vehicles, signal prioritization and/or dedicated bus lanes actually attract XX% more riders? How many people would park their cars at I-64 & Ballas and ride an express bus route downtown (to avoid the hassles of driving and parking)? How many more would if we (could?) built a dedicated bus lane down I-64? Can we convert the reversible lane on I-70 to an HOV or HOT* lane and run frequent express bus service between the North Hanley Station and downtown? Or, does Metrolink already provide the better option?
Just because a street or highway seems to have “extra” lanes available is not enough justification to increase bus service. In LA, their BRT is supplementing existing high-usage routes, with established ridership demand. Metro needs to make sure their first BRT line is equally successful. I'm not opposed to giving BRT a try on a route like 70 Grand. I just see little need to do something different just for the sake of being different!
*HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle, HOT = High Occupancy Toll
Those are good questions…
I'm not aware of anyone suggesting “let's use up the empty lanes.” I believe what is driving the discussion are ways to increase ridership and improve the life of St. Louisans.
There is a lot of talk of trolley lines, with monies actually being allocated for developement of a Delmar Loop trolley system. Some of the addtional reading that I have done seems to indicate that overall, the costs of building and maintaining a trolley or light rail system are larger than doing the same for a typical BRT systems. Like everything, numbers are debateable, I'm sure, but intuitively it makes sense to me that the less infrastructure for a BRT system equals less cost.
Regardless, I see these BRT lines as primarily benefiting City residents and tourists/visitors to the City. It really seems to be a good way to move City residents between high traffic areas as well as move tourists between and through 'hot' corridors of the City.
Integration with the county certainly makes sense with express bus service. I'm quite sure you wouldn't need service between these far reaching destinations to run every 10 or 12 or 15 minutes. These trips tend to be during morning and evening rush hours and clearly wouldn't make stops along the way, and so, are a different animal from high frequency routes that it seems a BRT system serves best.
It seems to me that it would make sense to figure out which route would make the most sense for BRT and try it. For the further reaches of the metro area, I do believe light rail makes the most sense given perception, speed and, frankly, success to this point of existing Metrolink lines.
Rail, especially electric-powered, is, by definition, more expensive, on the capital side, than a bus, unless you're also building a new, dedicated, separate busway. With rail, in addition to the vehicles, you need to pay for right of way and track, something you avoid by using existing roadways. The big savings with rail is on the operations side, when you're moving a large number of passengers. Going from memory, the maximum “crush” load (sitting and standing) on a standard transit bus is around 60, with the maximum crush load on an articulated bus of about 100. Compare that to one of our light rail vehicles, that can also carry 100 passengers in one car, or 200 in one consist of two vehicles. Each mode requires a unionized operator, so the more people you can move with one operator, the lower your per-passenger costs become. Unfortunately, due to the size of our Metrolink stations (length of their boarding platforms), we can only do two; Denver can do four, and that's limited by the length of a city block, where part of their system operates downtown, and I think Chicago does 8 or on the El. Most streetcars are more closely related to buses in size and capacity, and I'm not aware of any plans for using multiple units on the proposed Delmar line.
As for your last thought, that “For the further reaches of the metro area, I do believe light rail makes the most sense”, you run into the hard financial reality that light rail typically costs three times as much to build as light rail, and more miles just compounds the cost challenges. One option that probably makes more sense, balancing the desire for rail with limited finances are DMU's, diesel multiple unit vehicles – see http://www.usrailcar.com/ for more details – since the cost of electrification is avoided.
Don't get me wrong, I want to see BRT work here. Part of the problem is that BRT is somewhat mushy in definition, meaning different things to different people in different places. But from my experience, branding and “something different” does help attract new riders, but the way to really keep them is to provide frequent service – once you can go from worrying about a schedule to knowing that the most you're going to wait is 10 minutes, then any system, be it light rail or bus, becomes a LOT more attractive. Boulder gets that, and is willing to subsidize their HOP service to the tune of more than a million dollars a year, on top of the regular transit taxes they pay.
“Unfortunately, due to the size of our Metrolink stations (length of their boarding platforms), we can only do two;”
I'd rather have a 2-car Metrolink train running every 15 minutes (as is the case now) than a 4-car train every 30 minutes. The St. Louis area simply is not dense enough to support 4-car trains every 15 minutes.
That wasn't my point – I only wish we had the demand for more-frequent service, with 4-car trains being needed every 5 or 7 minutes during rush hour. You nailed it, “The St. Louis area simply is not dense enough”, and until it/we become denser, transit is going to continue to struggle. And no, that doesn't mean everyone needs to live in apartments, it means accepting that we're no longer a manufacturing economy, and focus on densifying our office-based structures and employment and education nodes. What's killing us is that our suburban office parks and colleges (community, Maryville, Lindenwood, etc.) only work for drivers, they don't work for pedestrians or people who want to use transit. You can create virtual density on the residential end of the trip (with park-and-ride lots), but if you can't walk to work or class every day, using transit really isn't a viable option. And yes, accessing shopping and entertainment by transit is a good thing, as well, but it's that regular, daily commuter use that really justifies ongoing public investments in transit.
I think this 'lack of density' is a bit of a myth. The RTD's light rail in Denver covers an area that is similar in density as Metrolink's coverage area and it supports 4 cars every 15 minutes. They just don't run a train every 15 minutes into the outer zones in the 'burbs.
Just because you add cars doesn't mean that you have to cut service times.
It is all about ROI in my view, ESPECIALLY if this is taxpayer funded. I found a great study done by an Australian University http://www.infrastructureaustr…
They talk about some the cost analysis you mention that I was not aware of as well as other very good points.
Mentioned in the study is that rail in general has, in dense traffic areas, a much greater on-time perception and traffic priority perception. I mean that busses stop at red lights, get hung up in traffic while a rail line is perceived as rolling right on through to its destination. Of course many light rail lines are involved in street traffic and so lose popularity according to the study.
The simplicity and the easy to find/slightly more substantial bus stops make something like the MAX system a good option IMO. Again, for whatever reason, I would in a heart beat jump on a bus in the MAX system to go from my downtown condo to the CWE, Loop, S Grand, or even Soulard/Benton Park/Cherokee St. I'm aware that I could do this now with the Metro bus system, but I guess its the frequency and simplicity that make the difference for me? I just wouldn't wanna get stuck just missing a bus after lunch in the Loop and have to wait another hour.
I've ridden BRT in Guadalajara and loved it. They are what I would consider the St. Louis of Mexico, having only two subway lines and a BRT line. At first I was confused on how to catch the bus if it was only driving in the far left lane of the road, but I soon realized it was a BRT line and I just wasn't at one of it's stops.
Los Angeles Metro's Orange and Silver Lines are BRT line and I hope to check them out sometime soon.
There are several streets in the St. Louis area that I think would be perfect (Grand, Big Bend, I-55, Hampton, The New Mississippi River Bridge) but on streets like Grand, there's little room. BRT might serve as a good alternative to the Metrolink extensions to South and North Counties that people have been talking about over the past few years.
I've ridden BRT in Guadalajara, and I hope to check out Los Angeles Metro's Orange and Silver lines soon.
There are several area in STL that I think would be ideal: Grand, Hampton, Big Bend, I-55, The new Mississippi River Bridge… but on many streets such as Grand, there's little room.
Perhaps, BRT would be a good alternative to the North and South County extensions people have been talking about for the past few years.
Are New Yok's new bike lanes working? Some interesting thoughts: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfor…
For BRT or enhanced bus to happen on Grand Blvd:
1. The city has to want it. Citizens, businesses, and politicians.
2. The city needs to demand that East-West Gateway and Metro study it and prove to the FTA that it's a good idea and worthy of a federal grant.
3. The city has to commit money (say 30%) to attract a federal capital grant to build it and Metro must demonstrate that they can afford to operate it.
The process requires grass roots support, a strong political champion, and money.
The riders sure seem to be there already, as anyone who has seen the 70 Grand bus lately can attest.
Enhanced bus would be great to roll out with the new Grand Ave. bridge in a couple of years.
St. Louis is not a transit model for anything. First and foremost gasoline prices have risen again recently and I saw the usual talking heads, blaming the usual factors, broken refinery in Europe, China and India demanding more oil for their cars and so on.
A plan must be devised to conserve oil, its obvious, and has been for some time, but still, other than here and a few other places on the internet there is little to no discussion about other directions. The Main Stream Media (MSM), with their partners in government want to control the discussion, and for the most part they do (If you refer to your post on length of service of the aldermen about the failure of creativity and ideas, it is the rest of the problem).
So the magnificently obvious need for comprehensive transit planning to offset the need for oil is a nonissue in the MSM and government. The wrong people have the power, it is simple.
A few points.
1. Transit planning requires coordination with city planning, if BRT is determined to be a solution you build a route around the BRT, in other words it generates density, connections and a developing city plan. Piecemeal planning where you pick a route, drop the BRT or whatever down and hope it works is how things now happen. If coordinated planning does not occur transit will have trouble succeeding. The methodology now in place is the methodology of failure.
2. The evidence is that the automobile is subsidized at an equal or even much higher rate than mass transit. There are many, many indirect costs, such as police traffic departments, ambulances and so on. In any case analysis will show there is no financial advantage for the automobile, especially if city planning is coordinated to maximize the efficiency of transit.
3. Hong Kong has a for profit transit system, the government is involved and Hong Kong is much different than St. Louis, but maybe not so much as you might imagine. Also early transit in America was profitable. The degenerate form of capitalism currently practiced in the United States might make for profit ventures impossible.
More than police and ambulance, highway construction costs are by far the biggest subsidy of private cars!
Eric and gm – we're arguing semantics and apples and oranges here – on the macro level, public investment mirrors public demand. Highways predate public transit, and many forms of public transit directly benefit from highway improvements. The challenge with any rail-based system is that it's typically single-user, not shared with other users, the only exception being Amtrak sharing tracks with freight railroads. And the real chicken-or-egg question is whether our embrace of the single-occupant vehicle is a result of convenient parking that defines the suburban model, or vice versa? Or, if using public transit weren't such a pain the a**, would more people choose to use it? Our acceptance and embrace of non-dense, non-walkable land use in and around St. Louis makes viable public transit increasingly difficult to implement successfully.
Hong Kong and NYC have good transit because driving really isn't a viable option for many people. Metro works for many people downtown and at BJC, and to a lesser degree, for people in Clayton, Wash U and UMSL. Density is the key – it drives both higher frequencies and more route options. The challenge now is that there is no obvious next corridor that really justifies a huge investment in rail, and BRT needs to be shown that it can and will work here to serve our secondary nodes.
Wrong. Public investment reflects the demands of decades of the auto makers & road building lobby.
At most, 3%-4% of the population uses public transit; everyone else chooses (or is forced to use) the single-occupant vehicle. Why is it so surprising that most public spending goes to highways? It's the same circular argument – it takes a large investment to provide frequent service, and it takes frequent service to attract new riders and justify the investment. You may be happy waiting a half hour for a bus or train to show up; most people aren't that patient. The SOV is the most cost-effective way for most people to get from Point A to Point B (and to say nothing of points C, D, X and Z). Yes, public transit serves a real need, just don't expect the SOV to disappear anytime soon . . .
Like Steve says above the oil cartel has been setting policy for 50 years or more for St. Louis and much of America. SOV is not more efficient, I ditch my car when I hit a town with good transit. Its not just me, many cities around the world have people who prefer to use transit, not because they have to.
I thought you were an architect, you should understand the value of good design. Poor design chases people away, it is true of a building as well as a mass transit system. Good design enhances peoples lives. You act like transit is this undesirable option that only the most desperate utilize. The truth is much different all over the world.
The real problem is that attitudes like yours are prevalent in government and business to this day. There is no creative leadership. In fact there is no real political and economic leadership, only parrots for established thinking that have put America into a no win situation. Make no mistake, the situation is serious and the need for change critical.
A discussion on how to integrate BRT into the transit of St. Louis is an element of that change, but to blow it off because everyone already uses cars is unconscionable.
Nor are automobiles cost effective, it is a dream world to think so, and only poor leadership can make it a fact. Then the phoo-bahs wonder why St. Louis and Missouri have fewer Congressional seats.
I heard Charlie Brennan tonight on Donneybrook, it must be the Unions. Yeah it is the workers fault. There is no accountability in the MSM and for the political and business leadership presiding over the past 50 years of decline. As the press dutifully reports they are absolved of all, and perhaps infallible like the Pope.
Their solution is to make Missouri a right to work state, no doubt that will solve all problems.
But as I was saying, I like the idea of BRT, but unless it is integrated with a city plan that responds to it, and to a comprehensive and connective transit plan that involves the rest of the city and region, it will have difficulty succeeding.
First, I completely agree with your last statement. Second, as an architect, I do appreciate good design. Third, I served 5 years on the Regional Transportation District Board in Denver, so I know a lot about how transit really works, including what it takes to plan and fund a comprehensive system expansion. Fourth, I'm a pragmatist. I want to work on viable solutions, not some pie-in-the-sky ideas that over-promise and under-deliver. Fifth, I agree that we need stronger leadership on both urban planning and transit. Sixth, until we better define what we're trying to do (move people between points A and B), it's premature to be selecting any certain technology. And seventh, if you want to believe that there is, or was, some giant conspiracy forcing people to buy their own automobiles, so be it.
Buying a monthly pass on Metro is a lot less expensive than a car payment, and you certainly don't need to pay for gas, repairs, tires or insurance – it's more rational. Buying a bicycle is even less expensive. So why are so many of us willing to spend two or three times as much, or more, every month to buy and operate a car, truck or SUV? Could it be because it gives us more freedom, is more comfortable and is quicker?! Are we irrational? Totally brainwashed? Or, are each of us weighing the pros and cons, for us, and deciding what works best, for each of us? In spite of the negatives?
I don’t think anyone is calling for a preference of technology; I take Steve’s post on BRT as a discussion of possibilities, based on the study of an actual application in Kansas City. In fact, in my view BRT makes more sense than sending a train to Chesterfield for instance. But yes, a comprehensive understanding of transit and the city is essential to proceed. Then the technology is matched with the needs, no doubt.
As far as conspiracy goes, no one said that but you, on the other hand it was an oil cartel that bought up streetcar lines nationwide (National City Lines), including St. Louis and shut them down. With all the evidence now available, it has to be clear to everyone, that whatever you call it, major corporate interests have been setting policy through their agents in government in many fields including city planning and mass transit. The goal is their personal wealth, not the best interests of the citizens. It is why we are in the situation we are in now.
Nor are people forced to buy autos, what I am saying is that design matters, and if you design a city or region and make transit difficult to use, people will choose cars every time.
Another Fox News one liner, “pie-in-the-sky ideas†tries to make out pragmatism as the answer. The truth is vision is needed. Pragmatism gets bogged down and accomplishes little, the evidence being the state of the city and mass transit. Proposals like the Radiant City of Le Corbusier or Broadacre City by Frank Lloyd Wright would certainly spur debate and discussion, especially along more comprehensive lines which you seem to agree is needed.
In fact Rick Bonasch reports on his blog http://stlrising.blogspot.com/ on Wednesday that the Highway Department is designing a major project in South County. I read the news regularly and never have seen anything about this. It is planning under the radar. I have to agree with Rick, do we need another major road project without a discussion of what the hell we are trying to accomplish in the region?
How are we ever going to change this maddening rush to self destruction if we cannot step back and determine the best way to spend all transit money? The beneficiaries of the South County project will be the concrete, oil and real estate interests, not the people of the region.
While you meant it in a derogatory manner, yes we need some “pie-in-the-sky†visionary thinking. What is being done now is a business as usual dead end. Fractured projects that are not part of an overall plan impede the development of the region as a whole to enrich a few insiders.
It is beyond time that it stops.
Aragornman and Robby Dodson both advocated for BRT in their responses. But that's getting into the word parsing that you seem to revel in. You're the one who threw out the inflamatory statement, “the oil cartel has been setting policy for 50 years or more for St. Louis and much of America”, I didn't. To me, that sounds like the exact definition a conspiracy!
I do agree that “that design matters, and if you design a city or region and make transit difficult to use, people will choose cars every time.” I also know that if you design a city or region, either by fiat or through natural economic growth, and make the SOV difficult to use, people will tend to either use public transit OR will move somewhere else.
Life is full of choices, including evolving options in mobility. When St. Louis was founded, the options were feet (human or horses) or boats (human, wind or current-propelled). Our built infrastructure reflected that. Thirty years later, steam power brought railroads and steamboats, both of which shaped our region and our economy. Fifty years after that, the automobile and the first primitive trucks arrived, changing the dynamic again. Twenty-five years later, commercial air travel began, twenty five years after that, the interstate highway system started being built – more changes in both options and expectations. Did private investors benefit from each of these changes? Absolutely! Are our individual lives better because of all of these? I certainly think so – I wouldn't want to go back to the 1950's, 1920's, or earlier. And are there compromises and unintended consequences, as well? Yes, certainly, there always are. But I do believe, in total, that our lives have improved, significantly.
I don't quite get “Another Fox News one liner, “pie-in-the-sky ideas†tries to make out pragmatism as the answer. The truth is vision is needed. Pragmatism gets bogged down and accomplishes little, the evidence being the state of the city and mass transit. Proposals like the Radiant City of Le Corbusier or Broadacre City by Frank Lloyd Wright would certainly spur debate and discussion, especially along more comprehensive lines which you seem to agree is needed.” Proposals like New Town St. Charles and McKee's Northside development also “spur debate and discussion”, and they're certainly comprehensive, as well.
Pragmatism is not “another Fox News one liner”. Vision needs to work hand in hand with pragmatism to create viable projects. We can dream all we want, but if we can't make it happen, it ain't gonna happen! We can “debate and discuss” until we either get bored or pass out, but talk is cheap and results speak for themselves.
I knew about the meeting on the South County Connector because it was in the media, on this blog and I'm on MoDOT's email list (it's easy to sign up for, if you're interested). Are they being transparent about their intentions? No. But it's pretty apparent that they want to build a new road and interchange and that transit isn't really being considered.
We have local zoning and local master plans. We have East-West Gateway doing regional planning. We have Metro tasked with implementing the dictates from EWGCOG, but with inadequate funding with way too many strings attached. We have rampant NIMBYism and, as you noted, “Fractured projects that are not part of an overall plan”. They all conspire to create our current built environment, and, in the end, we have only ourselves to either blame or congratulate.
We already have a major investment in Metrolink. It has yet to result in significant redevelopment. Counting on BRT to push development would be even more “pie-in-the-sky”. For transit to work well, we need higher densities, and density don't fly with the NIMBY crowd. And with our tax structure that favors sales taxes above all else, most jurisdictions would rather bet on retail than on the office uses that really drive transit use. Should we then abandon BRT? No. It's a good concept, but it's still a tool to move people, like every other option in the world of public transit . . .
The crux of the problem is included in an article in the 12/26 Post-Dispatch:
“Driving to work is a lonely occupation for most Missouri workers.
82.3 percent of workers over age 16 drive to work alone. The national average is 75.9 percent.
Just 2.5 percent of Missourians take transit, while 5 percent of all U.S. workers use public transportation.
Slightly more than one-third of us work outside the counties where we live — compared to 23.6 percent in the U.S. overall. And 7.8 percent of us cross a state line to get to work, compared to 3.8 percent nationally.”
The point of the story is clear, St. Louisans drive to work. I'm not sure how much can be read into the comparisons though, as the national average includes rural areas with no public transit, heavily built out transit metro areas and everything in between. I bet KC has an even bigger percentage of driving workers? Comparing metro areas would be even more helpful in seeing where we stand.
I wonder if the high percentage of drivers is simply a function of function of available public transit options? Where our light rail system runs, it gets use. I have to believe if Metrolink ran more extensively through the Metro East and into the western suburbs linking employment centers, we'd see these numbers change. I could definitely see some folks chosing a train ride over fighting traffic on the regions bridges.
You're essentially correct. The best comparison I can offer is between St. Louis and Denver – similar sized MSA's, yet Denver's Regional Transportation District has more than twice as many buses, a (currently) similar-sized light rail system, and is building 122 miles of new commuter rail and light rail, 18 miles of bus rapid transit, and adding 21,000 new parking spaces at light rail and bus stations as a part of their FasTracks iniative: http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/m…
Definitly sounds like Denver has a model to study. My biggest question would be how the system is financed. I would imagine Denver politics are more progressive, too? IDK.
I have read a bit on the MARTA system in Atlanta and it seems they have run into a brick wall on any further expansion due to funding and rejection by some of the wealthier suburbs. I guess people in Gwinnett Co (Atlanta's NE suburb) don't mind hours behind the wheel of a car to get to jobs and recreation in the City of Atlanta or N Fulton Co? There's nothing quite like crawling on an 8-lane highway to go 10 miles in just under an hour with no other transportation options.
Funding comes from a dedicated sales tax, federal grants and bonding. It did take a region-wide consensus among multiple jurisdictions, but the biggest incentive was designing a comprehensive system, where each part of the district received something(s) tangible (local “earmarks'?). Atlanta is probably closer to St. Louis, where they're trying to decide where the “next” line should be built (while 80%-90% of the region won't be getting much, if anything, “new” for 20+ years), combined with overt and closeted racism/economic segregation. Thinking small makes it a lot easier to say no, since “There's nothing in it for me!”
Certainly makes sense to make sure everyone can see a benefit.
I too believe that race is one of many factors in shaping the state of public transit in St. Louis and Atlanta. I feel though that the race card can get overblown. There's plenty of racism and segregation in built out, highly used public transit communities. But the trains lines still were built and are used.
I believe its primarily political leadership and will that accomplish well constructed public transit. It is possible to build concensus over time on this issue with the many benefits to quality of life and the environment that well thought out public transit creates.
And I personally feel its embarrassing and sad that the Boone, Poplar St., Chain of Rocks, etc. bridges and 64, 44 and 55 flowing in from the W and S don't have don't have trains rushing by gridlocked autos.
good article: Light Rail Transforming Cities and Guiding Development http://www.npr.org/2010/12/27/…
Rock Road could use a BRT line. And then when you want to go to the mall, just connect with a different bus.
Or honestly, if they would just run 35 more often and get a bigger bus, then it wouldn’t be so problematic. But try getting on that bus. It gets standing room only before it even leaves the station. By the time it finally gets off of Rock Road, only then does the bus look empty.
Rock Road could use a BRT line. And then when you want to go to the mall, just connect with a different bus.
Or honestly, if they would just run 35 more often and get a bigger bus, then it wouldn’t be so problematic. But try getting on that bus. It gets standing room only before it even leaves the station. By the time it finally gets off of Rock Road, only then does the bus look empty.
Also, KC’s MAX doesn’t make up for its lack of proper transit. People there think its good transit that it takes 3 buses to get to where you need to go.
Also, KC’s MAX doesn’t make up for its lack of proper transit. People there think its good transit that it takes 3 buses to get to where you need to go.