Skip to main content

Build a network of Bus Rapid Transit corridors across St. Louis

From "Ideas Portal"

Go to the project

The biggest problem with our current transit system is the lack of bus frequency. Most of our routes are stuck at 30 or 60-minute headways, which is unacceptable. It's claimed that the reason for this is the operator shortage.

However, by working to improve our existing bus infrastructure to improve bus speeds, we can massively improve the usefulness of our transit system, even considering the labor shortage. Consider that if we were able to improve bus speeds by 30%, we can correspondingly increase frequencies by 30%, leading to a 69% (i.e. 130%*130%) improvement in our system, without having to hire a single extra operator!

We should focus on building bus infrastructure like transit signal priority, bus queue jumps, off-board fare collection (or free fares), and stop consolidation along our highest ridership corridors. These measures alone will get us most of the way to a 30% increase in bus speeds and 30% increase in frequency, as shown in other cities. These four initiatives are very cheap to build and will lead to very little backlash politically.

Dedicated bus lanes are even more useful, but require more political care. Ideally, these should be implemented using tactical trial periods, rather than drawn-out expensive studies. Because our road system was designed for a city with twice our current population, we have a lot of excess road capacity which can be used for bus lanes.

We should implement these kinds of bus infrastructure on our highest ridership transit corridors, e.g. Grand, Kingshighway, Hampton, Goodfellow, Gravois, Broadway, Chippewa, Lindell, MLK, Natural Bridge, and Florissant. We've already decided to dedicate lanes along Jefforson to transit, and we should continue along this path.

By focusing on building a network of efficient and useful bus routes which cover the city, we will massively improve the throughput of our roads, reduce carbon emissions, improve safety, and help our citizens who cannot afford to drive.

Comments(29)

Please to comment.
Most recent comments have loaded.
I agree 100% we need better bus service, but I think the settlement money should be spent on long lasting projects. Because when this money is gone the buses will go back to crappy service.
  • no likes
@Paula Kyla Oudshoorn Haha, maybe so. But then again, there are ways to make the money have a lasting effect on bus service. For example, some of the money can serve as an endowment for the bus system; rather than spending it right away, it can be invested and the interest can be used for hiring and improved wages.
  • no likes
I used to ride an express bus every day, and I loved it. However, the COVID staffing problems led Metro to shut down the express lines; there weren't enough willing drivers. I hope the city will try again to bring back the express buses, improving driver salaries to fix the hiring problem. This was a great service and it kept many cars off the road.
  • no likes
Can we investigate how other cities are able to run sections of their mass transit for free? Kansas City is one that comes to mind.
  • 1 like
Profile of JP Nash
Posted by:JP Nash
3 years ago
I love the idea of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). I think we need dedicated lanes with proper automated enforcement (cameras at intersections, buses equipped with cameras to automatically report cars parking or idling. I think we should prioritize N-S bus lanes that feed into the incredibly reliable and frequent MetroLink, with some select E-W lanes along major corridors further from the Central Core. Given the overbuilt roads Downtown, perhaps one lane that starts at Olive/Tucker and runs down Olive/Lindell to WashU. Other E-W routes could be Bates/Eichelberger, Chippewa, Arsenal, Chouteau, MLK/Page, Delmar, and St. Loius Ave. N-S routes could be Broadway, 12th/Tucker/Florissant, Jefferson, Grand, Gravois, Southwest (from Hampton)/Vandeventer (until Lindell), Kingshighway, Hampton, Morganford, Jamieson/Loughborough, Union, Deballiviere/Goodfellow, and McCausland/Skinker/Kienlen. This will improve safety/perception of safety on all public transit, especially the MetroLink, and help connect the many walkable "islands" of St. Louis neighborhoods. Proximity to reliable transit has been shown to increase investment, especially when paired with infrastructure investments. Nationwide polling shows that the majority of the U.S. supports living in walkable neighborhoods, and Americans under 28 overwhelmingly want walkable cities, car-lite lifestyles, and public transit. BRT is quicker to build, simpler to design, and cheaper to maintain than light rail. We could make a significant impact to the future of our city almost immediately if we build out a better transit network. This is a one-time opportunity to uplift the fortunes of many while unleashing economic development across the city. Paired with a significant increase in pay for drivers (and a push for automation on the MetroLink), this would be extremely beneficial to our City and region.
  • 1 like
I came across your proposal / post and see possible connections between our projects. I am interested in collaborating with you to explore any visions and commitments we might share. Public Personal Rapid Transit Consortium (PPRTC) would like to collaborate in accomplishing your goals in St. Louis. By reducing emissions, using multiple forms of energy collection, and incorporating recent advances in transportation technology, it is possible to move goods, people, and telecommunications effectively with a rapid speed, electro-magnetic propulsion system that is carbon neutral. Imagine elevated guideways and Rapid Alternative Freight & Transit (RAFT) Centers which provide a cluster of power options, transit choices, charging stations, EV availability, and community activities. Please view the proposal submitted by Post Carbon Communities of Practice and consider ways in which you might contribute to its fulfillment. David P. Lehmann Public Personal Rapid Transit Consortium
  • no likes
Posted by:unknown author
3 years ago
Just run more buses. The frequency is embarrassingly low, compared to real cities.
  • 1 like
I do not deny that this issue needs some attention, but I feel other issues are far more urgent. Secondly, I would ask anyone who has made a comment about the bus system and traffic if they are current bus operators or riders? But all of us need the roads paved and water lines updated.
  • 1 like
They should have built a central train line down 40 which would relieve the 40 traffic jam between Kingshighway and 170.
  • 1 like
I have not ridden a bus in years so this question is not from personal experience, but what is the ridership on buses? Are they full, half full, etc. Could smaller buses be used more effectively?
  • 1 like
@Mike Hofmeister From my experience, the more-frequent routes such as Grand Blvd can be jam-packed, and Metrobus has at times increased frequency not only to improve convenience but also to alleviate the crowding. Suburban lines aren't so packed and can sometimes see minimal usage. Yet a major part of the problem is that if buses are not frequent enough, then people do not use them. So, ironically, to some extent you have to build up the system in order to gain riders, rather than being able only to build up in response to existing ridership. Back before COVID, the express bus routes saw significant use as well. The route I rode had I believe 3 buses in the morning. The earliest one was nearly empty, because few people commuted so earely. The last bus, however, could be packed full, especially because it brought a lot of riders to Barnes/Children's, Wash U, and SLU. Unfortunately, the COVID staffing shortage led them to kill the express routes. I have no doubt that riders would return to the express routes if they came back. Metrobus's switch to the Transit app a few years ago has likely improven their data-collection abilities and made them more able to predict where improved services might either support current riders or invite new ones. Prior to this switch, fare collection allowed them to see where riders typically boarded the bus, but it did not at all give them a picture of where riders would disembark.
  • no likes
Total likes: 157, total dislikes: 16
. Sign in to react.. Sign in to react.

Share

Current status

viewed