EGR 599 SEAM Thesis Proposal &
Project Charter
Student Names with Majors:
Charlie Allen, Civil Engineering; Team Intermediary/PM
Jack Ballard, Accounting, DC Team
Jacob Crawford, Mechanical Engineering, DC Team
Luke Fulkerson, Civil Engineering, St. Louis Team
Staeton Sanders, Management & Marketing, St. Louis Team
Working Title of Honors Thesis: Metro Boomin’: Metro St. Louis vs. Washington Metro
Thesis Proposal Summary (250 words):
Our topic concerns the organization, efficiency, and services provided by the Metro in St. Louis
and the Washington Metro in Washington, DC. In this case, we are treating Metro St. Louis as an
engineering failure and the Washington Metro as an engineering success, even though both are currently
in operation today. The United States is not known to have the most robust public transportation in the
world, so Metro St. Louis was chosen to represent more than just a single city, but the disparity between
the best and worst public transportation systems across the country. Washington Metro, on the other hand,
is a strong contender for the best public transportation system within the US for its ridership return (the
amount of money generated by each individual rider), multimodal transit approach (including buses,
heavy rail, biking, and parking), and its general innovation tackling the multifaceted problems within
public transportation. Metro St. Louis, on the other hand, is known to be lacking in all of the same areas,
with generally poor ridership return, limited use of multimodal transit, and a lack of innovation, all of
which affect many attempts to bring useful public transportation to cities across the country. Because this
is such a national issue, there is a lot of data across the internet about the performance of these systems
that can be compared in depth to show the successes in DC and the failures in St. Louis. This data is made
available by each city’s own website, as well as third party organizations, which will provide a balanced
supply of data for both sides of our thesis.
Teams plan for equitable distribution of workload:
Each person will have a role as listed above. Their duties are also described in the assignment;
however, we have agreed to help each other, when necessary, rather than being set in our roles. Our roles
are listed
. Additionally, during our weekly meetings, we will continuously share updates on our weekly tasks and
goals. If a member is slacking, we can form a plan to work together and get back on track as soon as
possible.
Team plan for weekly meetings:
Tentative weekly meetings on Tuesday from 11-12 PM. If this needs to be changed or
rescheduled, the five group members will decide on an alternate time. Any necessary work not completed
within the allotted time will be delegated, and a due date will be given before the end of the meeting.
Team plan for method of sharing documents:
OneDrive and/or the Microsoft Teams file sharing service will be used for all document sharing.
Student Signature: ____________________________________
Date: 09/08/2023
Student Signature: ____________________________________
Date: 09/08/2023
Student Signature: ____________________________________
Date: 09/08/2023
Student Signature: ____________________________________
Date: 09/08/2023
Student Signature: ____________________________________
Date: 09/10/2023
Student Signature: ____________________________________
Date:______________
Faculty Advisor: ________________________________Department: ___________________________
Faculty Email: ________________________________________
For Faculty
____ I have read the proposal, approve of this project, and agree to support the student as described in the
proposal.
____ I can verify that the length and scope of this project is appropriate for an Honors thesis from my
discipline.
____ I understand that I will be asked to grade this project and confirm completion of the oral
presentation.
Faculty Signature: ___________________________ Date:__________
LHC Director of Undergraduate Studies Decision:
LHC Director of Undergraduate Studies Signature:
Approved:
Not Approved: