Most Bus Stops On A St. Clair County Route Not Designed For Pedestrians

Last week I decided to visit downtown O’Fallon IL so I could see & photograph their old city hall — which is for sale. It is just a 24-28 minute drive from my loft in downtown St. Louis but my husband and I share a car, which he uses has for work. Transit was my best option, but it would be 90 minutes each way. The first half via MetroLink light rail, the second via MetroBus.

The MetroLink stations/platforms are all wheelchair accessible, as are all MetroBus vehicles. The weak link is MetroBus stops. With thousands of stops throughout the region, a transit agency can only do so much to improve municipal/county rights-of-way. I assumed I’d be ok once I reached downtown O’Fallon so I didn’t look ahead at the stops along the way.

But on the bus I began to snap pictures as the bus stopped — in some cases as we went past stops. For those unfamiliar with riding a bus, they don’t stop at every bus stop. If you want off you must pull the cord to let the driver know you wan the next stop. A bus also stops for those waiting to board. Light rail, however, stops at every stop because they’re limited and spaced far apart.  Still, the bus stops are needed because throughout the day each and every stop will likely be used at least once.

Below are some of the images I took from the #12 MetroBus heading East from the Fairview Heights IL MetroLink station to the O’Fallon City Hall. The bus was near seated capacity when we departed the station.

I reviewed the entire route on Google Street View, my stop in downtown O”Fallon was the 82nd stop after leaving the Fairview Heights MetroLink station. We traveled through Fairview Heights, Shiloh, O’Fallon, and likely unincorporated St. Clair County.

If you care to take a look, here’s a link to all the stops. Only a few I’d consider to be ADA-compliant.

• 1st stop
• 2nd stop
• 3rd stop
• 4th Stop
• 5th Stop
• 6th
• 7th
• 8th
• 9th — sorta ok grass
• 10th (grass)
• 11th ok
• 12th ok/grass
• 13th no sidewalk/grass
• 14th no sidewalk/grass ditch
• 15th no sidewalk/grass
• 16th sorta ok, grass between sidewalk & curb
• Left onto Commerce Lane
• 17th no sidewalk/grass
• 18th bad curbs/grass
• 19th no sidewalks/grass
• 20th no sidewalk/mulch
• Turn left onto Plaza Dr
• 21st — awful between road & interstate highway
• turn right onto N Ruby Ln
• Turn right onto Ludwig Dr
• 22nd — hotels, sidewalk this side only, narrow grass
• 23rd sidewalk this side only, narrow grass restaurants
• 24th more restaurants, sidewalk both sides
• 25th ditto
• 26th sidewalk ends at bus stop, Drury planter
• 27th no sidewalk, just grass & curbs. Drury
• Turn right onto IL-159
• 28th — shoulder, worn grass sloping down
• turn left onto St. Clair Square
• 29th mall entry, shelter. No route to outparcals
• 30th — no sidewalk, grass curbs not accessible at all
• turn left onto Lincoln highway
• 31st ditto
• 32nd no sidewalk up to stop, little at corner
• 33rd — sidewalk, tiny grass strip
• 34th ditto
• 35th ditto
• 36th ditto, in O’Fallon
• 37th ditto
• 38th ditto
• 39th ditto
• 40th ditto
• 41st ditto
• 42nd ditto
• 43rd ditto taco bell
• 44th no sidewalk grass curbs
• turn right on Hartman Lane
• turn left on Central Park
• 45th sidewalk grass strip restaurants
• 46th ditto Chevy’s
• 47th sidewalk grass strip retail
• 48th ditto
• 49th ditto
• 50th no sidewalk this side, grass curbs can’t reach
• 51st sidewalk Menard’s
• 52nd no sidewalk this side, curbs/grass can’t reach
• Shiloh IL, Sturm left on Green Mountain Road
• 53rd no sidewalk, sloping grass shopping center
• pedestrian
• Turn left on Regency Park, back in O’Fallon
• 54th new construction
• 55th sidewalks, no access to businesses
• 56th sidewalk this side, not other. no access to hotel
• 57th sidewalk this side only, hotels
• 58th – no sidewalks either side, curbs/grass
• 59th sidewalks, grass strip
• turn right on us 50
• 60th shoulder drainage ditch
• follow 50 right curve
• 61st ditto
• 62nd — wide grass strip, new ramps to CVS
• 63rd wide grass strip between street & sidewalk
• 64th grass strip
• Turn right onto Cambridge
• 65th ditto
• 66th ditto
• 67th ditto
• 68th narrow grass strip
• 69th ditto
• 70th wide grass strip
• Turn right onto Green Mount
• 71st ditto
• 72nd ditto
• Right onto State at traffic circle
• 73rd — no sidewalk, just shoulder & drainage ditch
• 74th ditto
• 75th ditto
• 76th no sidewalk this side, curb & grass.
• 77th ditto
• Entering downtown O’Fallon
• 78th good — attached sidewalk
• 79th ditto
• 80th ditto
• Turn into bus transfer center
• 81st good — attached sidewalk
• Turn right onto S. Vine
• Turn right onto 3rd
• 82nd wasn’t able to exit here.

Basically this is largely impossible for those of us who are disabled, but a miserable experience for the able-bodied. None of this was built with any consideration for pedestrians — everyone is expected to drive everywhere.  The reality is not everyone can drive. Physical, mental, emotional, and financial issues are some of the reasons why not everyone drives.

Sadly, this is the rule — not the exception. We’ve built so much that’s hostile to pedestrians and impossible for some of us. Tomorrow a similar example from St. Louis County.

— Steve Patterson

St. Louis Shouldn’t Build Light Rail, Modern Streetcar, or Bus Rapid Transit; Rapid Streetcar May Be The Answer

There are several camps in the transit world:

• Light rail advocates
• Bus rapid transit advocates
• Streetcar advocates

These don’t mix — build their classic model or nothing. However, in the last decade a new group has emerged advocating a hybrid of these: The Rapid Streetcar. For example, Portland is looking at Rapid Streetcar for future expansion of its streetcar line.

The rapid streetcar concept aims to combine the best features of streetcars and light rail transit (LRT) to achieve faster commute/travel times than streetcars and lower system costs than light rail. Streetcars are typically designed to go shorter distances in central cities, densely populated mixed-use centers and neighborhoods. Streetcars are also typically designed to operate in mixed traffic, preserving street traffic patterns.

LRT typically functions as regional high-capacity transit (HCT), generally traveling in a separated right-of-way with relatively fast-moving, larger-capacity vehicles designed to rapidly transport large numbers of people between suburban and urban centers.

The rapid streetcar concept would apply some of the LRT features to streetcars to improve travel times while keeping capital costs lower. It would combine features of a semi-exclusive transitway and transit priority features within the street right- of-way to achieve faster travel times and maintain lower system capital costs. This could introduce two new levels of service to Portland’s system.

Several corridors under consideration for the Streetcar System Concept Plan are prime candidates to introduce Enhanced Local Service. These corridors are major arterials with 4 to 5 lanes and on-street parking such as NE Sandy Boulevard and SE Foster Road.

In Portland there are potential corridors for introducing priority service. Currently, the region is undertaking a study to extend the existing streetcar system along a former railroad right-of-way from the South Waterfront District, through Johns Landing and south to Lake Oswego. SE Foster Road and 122nd Avenue are also candidates where there may be sufficient right-of-way width to introduce streetcar priority lanes.

Drawing from the experiences from other cities around the world, enhancements to the streetcar operations can significantly increase average speeds:

Service/average Speeds

• Urban Circulator Service:10 to 15 mph
• Enhanced Local Service:  15 to 25 mph
• Rapid Streetcar: 20 to 35 mph

(City of Portland, p14)

According to Wikipedia, our light rail has an average speed of 24.7 mph — within the same range as a rapid streetcar.

Streetcars are cheaper [than light rail] because of their lower infrastructure requirements. Often there is no need to relocat[e] utilities, right of way does not need to be purchased and the stops are smaller and the vehicles more pedestrian oriented. Streetcar stops are also closely spaced if the goal is to be a circulator or short line transport mode. However if a longer distance transit mode that mimics light rail is what you’re looking for, but your city is on a budget, the rapid streetcar might be your choice.

Many cities have taken up the mantle of the rapid bus to be their cost effective alternative to light rail, but only do this based on cost, not because its what the citizenry wants. Recent Rapid Bus movements in Oakland, San Francisco, and Charlotte have shown that people really want light rail on a budget but haven’t been able to engineer their systems to reduce costs and are therefore left with an inferior transit mode for their stated goals.

But by using streetcars in center lanes with single tracking and passing sidings at stations you can get the same performance as light rail on 10 minute headways. Streetcars aren’t single vehicles either. Skoda streetcars have couplers on them as well that would make them multiple car consists. The lighter vehicles are about 66 feet long as opposed to 90 foot LRVs yet you can still get increased passenger capacity and lower infrastructure needs. (The Overhead Wire)

Typically streetcars & light rail have double track — one per direction. But like BRT, if passing is done at stops, money can be saved by using single track in between.

From the person who presented this idea in 2004, Lyndon Henry:

North American planners only thought of streetcars as a slow, circulatory mode competing with pedestrians. Meanwhile, de facto high-performance streetcars were taking Europe by storm, and it was clear that streetcar technology could approach the service capabilities of “full” light rail transit (LRT) — in fact, streetcars could be deployed as a kind of “junior LRT”.

Another factor was the “gold-plating” disease—over-design—with each new LRT startup trying to “one-up” the last new start in another city. LRT railcars were getting bigger and beefier, and station designs were escalating from originally simple shelters into “palaces.”

This led me to recall the original inspiration of LRT—Europe’s invention of a rather bare-bones upgrade of ordinary mixed-traffic streetcars into a faster mode with lots of dedicated lanes, reservations, and exclusive alignments, only occasionally running in street traffic. This notion was expounded in the 1960s and early 1970s by transit visionaries like H. Dean Quinby and Stewart F. Taylor; interestingly, Taylor branded his version of the concept a “Rapid Tramway.” (Railway Age)

We shouldn’t cling to a mode from the past, we need to build a north-south transit line by establishing goals then designing a line to meet those goals. At the same time I’d look at doing what Houston did — redesign all transit routes & schedules from scratch.

— Steve Patterson

Three Track Types For Street-Running Transit

Many of us agree we should invest in better North-South transit, most likely rail-based. But details such as route, track type, speed, spacing of stops, etc is where there’s disagreement. Today I want to review three track options for street-running rail transit:

1. Ballasted track
2. Embedded track, shared lane
3. Embedded track, protected lane

I’m going to use photos from Dallas to demonstrate these.

Ballasted track

This is the traditional type of railroad track.

Track ballast forms the trackbed upon which railway sleepers (UK) or railroad ties (US) are laid. It is packed between, below, and around the ties. It is used to bear the load from the railroad ties, to facilitate drainage of water, and also to keep down vegetation that might interfere with the track structure. This also serves to hold the track in place as the trains roll by. It is typically made of crushed stone, although ballast has sometimes consisted of other, less suitable materials. The term “ballast” comes from a nautical term for the stones used to stabilize a ship. (Wikipedia)

Our light rail uses this type of track in its exclusive right-of-way, with wood ties in the original 1993 line and concrete ties in later extensions. Obviously, this is not used in places where cars drive in the same space. With railroads they are completely separate but when used in the public right-of-way (streets) it requires physical barriers to keep cars off the track.

This is the least costly and fasted type of track. To achieve the highest speeds it’s important to have few conflict points (crossings) and greater distances between stops.

Embedded track

Embedded track is more costly to install than ballasted track, and vehicles operate at slower speeds.

Where a rail is laid in a Road surface (pavement) or within grassed surfaces, there has to be accommodation for the flange. This is provided by a slot called the flangeway. The rail is then known as grooved rail, groove rail, or girder rail. The flangeway has the railhead on one side and the guard on the other. The guard carries no weight, but may act as a checkrail.

Grooved rail was invented in 1852 by Alphonse Loubat, a French inventor who developed improvements in tram and rail equipment, and helped develop tram lines in New York City and Paris. The invention of grooved rail enabled tramways to be laid without causing a nuisance to other road users, except unsuspecting cyclists, who could get their wheels caught in the groove. The grooves may become filled with gravel and dirt (particularly if infrequently used or after a period of idleness) and need clearing from time to time, this being done by a “scrubber” tram. Failure to clear the grooves can lead to a bumpy ride for the passengers, damage to either wheel or rail and possibly derailing. (Wikipedia)

This type of track is more common where vehicles & pedestrians are in the same space as the track.

Embedded track, shared lane

Dallas’ light rail doesn’t share lanes with vehicles, where it uses streets not in a median cars are banned.

This is common for light rail. However, Dallas does have embedded track with shared lanes — their new tramway (aka streetcar).

Embedded track, separate lane

With a separate lane the transit vehicle can move slightly faster than it can when sharing a lane.

Each of these has their place, depending upon the situation and desired speed. I can see using ballasted track in auto-centric suburban medians, but not within the City of St. Louis or even inner-ring suburbs. The more separate ballasted track you have, combined with fewer stops, the faster the transit vehicle will get from A to B.

Those advocating more rail transit in St. Louis need to think about these track types and the implications of each.

— Steve Patterson

Another Downtown/CBD Traffic Study In The Works, Looking Back At The 2005 Study

I recently learned that a traffic study will be done for downtown’s Central Business District (CBT), a good thing.  But then I thought about the last CBD traffic study. A search of this blog turned up posts from a decade ago:

• 12/6/2005: Initial Thoughts on CBD Traffic Study
• 12/7/2005: CBD Traffic Study Presentation Available Online

I’m a digital packrat, so I saved the presentation:

You can view the presentation and draw your own conclusions — I want to call attention to some of my thoughts at the time along with how things have changed, or stayed the same:

Doug Shatto, President of the consulting firm Crawford, Bunte, Brammeier did an excellent job of explaining the tradeoffs between various methods such as one-way vs. two-way streets. I felt he understands what it takes to create a pedestrian & retail-friendly environment. What I didn’t get was a sense that he will fight for that. Instead I think he’ll do whatever the city tells him.

Shatto has changed jobs.

Washington Avenue East of Tucker. While they say that on-street parking has not been ruled out I’m suspicious. They hinted at allowing parking except during peak hours. I pointed out after the meeting to Doug Shatto how KitchenK will not use their sidewalk cafe license until they have a row of parked cars to make sidewalk dining more hospitable to their patrons. I also pointed out that Copia is allowed to take a traffic lane for valet parking. If we can take a lane for a valet we can certainly take the balance of the lane for parking as the flow is already restricted. I still want to see on-street parking all the way from Tucker to at least Broadway.

Ah yes, a decade ago parking wasn’t allowed on Washington Ave East of Tucker. I did a number of posts at the time about this, finally we got limited parking on the EB block between 11th & Tucker and 10th-11th in both directions –except during morning & afternoon rush. On-street parking is still needed East of 10th, but it hasn’t happened. It’s needed to separate pedestrians from moving vehicles, reduce drive lines from four to two. The anticipated long line of WB cars turning right onto Tucker toward the new bridge never materialized, yet the rentire WB right lane from 11th to Tucker remains no-parking. Why?

I asked at the end of the meeting about Cole street being abel to take some of the traffic off Washington Avenue. Shatto did indicate that if Washington Avenue was restricted from four lanes to two lanes through drivers would likely alter their route and use the nearly vacant Cole. Another factor that may reduce some traffic on Washington Avenue is people going around the block due to one-way streets. They are recommending changing 8th & 11th from one-way to two-way (more later).

• Streets they deemed “appropriate” to change from one-way to two-way were 8th, 11th (North of Market only), and Walnut (from Tucker to either to 4th or Broadway).

• Streets they deemed “inappropriate” to change from one-way to two-way were 9th, 10th and Pine.

• Streets they deemed “inappropriate but viable” to change from one-way to two-way were 6th, 7th, and Locust.

• One-way streets not even mentioned were Broadway or Chestnut.

Balpark Village did cause portions of some one-way streets to become tw0-way again. Downtown remains confusing with one-way, two-ways, and streets that don’t go through because of vacations of blocks here and there. Decades of butchering the grid has created a nightmare.

• The immediate plan (2006) is to change the controllers for the existing signals. This will allow them greater flexibility in controlling the signals via computer. This might include changing the timing for game days or setting the signals to flash after a certain time. I think changing the timing makes sense as this could help with special events. I’m not sure how I feel about the flashing signals after hours. Does this say we have so little going on that we don’t need normal timing? Or does it say that we change over to a pedestrian environment after hours?
  

Presumably the controllers were changed. Many signals themselves remain the same. Many intersections still lack any type of pedestrian signal, others need countdown timers.

• They mentioned trying to change Missouri law to allow a left turn on red on one-way streets. Apparently this is allowed in 16 or so states but not Missouri. It is commonplace downtown to see drivers do this.

I posted about this in June — Missouri law still doesn’t allow left turns on red.

• I think they did an excellent job of evaluating pedestrian concerns and will do a good job upgrading the system and reducing conflicts. One of the changes it to go to a simple two-phase system where pedestrians are permitted to cross with the flow of traffic. Currently some intersections are considered scrambled where pedestrians can cross any direction while cars wait. While this sounds good that also means that they are generally not allowed to cross with the flow. It seems more natural to have the simpler system.

The pedestrian experience downtown is horrible — highly inconsistent from one block to the next. With the Arch parking garage gone we’re expecting visitors to parking in garages in the CBD and walk to the new downtown-facing entry. The pedestrian experience doesn’t seen to have been given the scrutiny that traffic flow & space availability has.

Hopefully once a new plan is complete we can actually take some action!

– Steve Patterson

Reduced Fare Smart Card For Chicago, Still Waiting On St. Louis

Metro St. Louis is busy working on smart cards for paying transit fares, some have been testing the new technology. Meanwhile, we’ve been using the Ventra smart card for nearly 2 years when visiting Chicago. See Contactless Transit Smart Cards from February 2014. Last month I finally decided to apply for a reduced fare card.

Both cards are now on one online account, allowing me to login to add value. My husband will use the full fare while I use the reduced fare with my picture. I applied in person in Chicago and the card was mailed to me in about a week. Both are “contactless” which means the user just taps it at the reader, both have a magnetic strip on the back. The same card works for all three Chicagoland systems: CTA, Metra, & Pace. It doesn’t appear my new reduced fare card can be used as a debit card — that won’t matter to me but it might to others.

In St. Louis, our Metro isn’t going to have a debit card connection — deemed too costly. I’m told existing reduced fare ID holders like myself will automatically receive a new reduced fare smart card — once ready. New applicants will apply in person but leave with the card rather than have it mailed. Since my current Metro reduced fare ID expires in February 2016 I’ll need to renew it once more before I get a smart card version.

— Steve Patterson