I know this is a minor drop in the "funding" bucket, but do so few actual companies really want to advertise to transit riders? Most of the ads I see on buses and MetroLink are for government and quasi-government agencies - the Library, Zoo, HIV testing, public health clinics, WIC program, a few colleges, Metro itself, "Foundation for a Better World", and so on. Surely these can't pay as much as a 'real' company?
- 542
TIABstl wrote:but I won't stand 30 mins or more baking in the STL summer at a bus stop.
Speaking of which. Metro could see to it that people aren't running the overhead heaters at FP/DeB every time the temperature drops below 77 degrees. Hell, take them out. This is a fairly warm climate, and I'm capable of wearing a coat in the winter.
- 1,054
I guess it is my turn to be the pessimist
Say the tax passes, will there be enough money to build extensions North, West, and South without federal dollars?
One funding idea:
Municipalities and counties have capital improvement budgets that are used to construct roads, sidewalks, etc. Why not chip in to the necessary improvements at and around stations in their vicinity?
To people in South County:
Would you prefer an extension of Shrewsbury towards Affton or Lemay? I know the alternative to Lemay is cheaper, but better served by roads where the route to Affton would make up for the lack of I-170 south of I-64/40. Is there another route?
Say the tax passes, will there be enough money to build extensions North, West, and South without federal dollars?
One funding idea:
Municipalities and counties have capital improvement budgets that are used to construct roads, sidewalks, etc. Why not chip in to the necessary improvements at and around stations in their vicinity?
To people in South County:
Would you prefer an extension of Shrewsbury towards Affton or Lemay? I know the alternative to Lemay is cheaper, but better served by roads where the route to Affton would make up for the lack of I-170 south of I-64/40. Is there another route?
I would just like a reasonable mass transit option between my house on Hartford and my workplace 15 miles away in Town and Country. 
As it stands now I could technically get to work using mass transit (bus) at a cost of $4.50 round trip. This is more (but not by much) than I pay for fuel now using a car that gets 30 mpg. Moreover, mass transit would require 1h29min travel time via bus instead of 25min via car. Not to mention the mile of walking required if by bus.
I realize there are other environmental, economic, and societal benefits to mass transit than just time and fuel efficiency, but considering those alone, mass transit doesn't seem a viable choice for me.
Obviously working in Town and Country limits my mass transit choices but what should I expect a 15 mile commute to and from the exurbs to consist of, cost and time wise? Is it reasonable to expect mass transit to be as fast and cost efficient as the other alternatives?
As it stands now I could technically get to work using mass transit (bus) at a cost of $4.50 round trip. This is more (but not by much) than I pay for fuel now using a car that gets 30 mpg. Moreover, mass transit would require 1h29min travel time via bus instead of 25min via car. Not to mention the mile of walking required if by bus.
I realize there are other environmental, economic, and societal benefits to mass transit than just time and fuel efficiency, but considering those alone, mass transit doesn't seem a viable choice for me.
Obviously working in Town and Country limits my mass transit choices but what should I expect a 15 mile commute to and from the exurbs to consist of, cost and time wise? Is it reasonable to expect mass transit to be as fast and cost efficient as the other alternatives?
Say the tax passes, will there be enough money to build extensions North, West, and South without federal dollars?
In todays dollars, tax includes 1/4 cent to fund current options. The tax includes 1/4 cent for expansion.
A 1/4 cent tax generates roughly $40 million in St.Louis County. It is not sufficient to build three extensions even with Federal funds. In fact, due to the fact that the current prop m is tied up for most of the next 30 years, you need to reserve some of the new Prop M for funding operations.
If we could pay off the existing prop M tax, it possible that you could fund more than one extension, but it would take a lot of time.
In every case, Metro would need federal funds to accomplish the project. I do not believe that Metro will do any more extensions without Federal funds.
- 542
Everyone (here and other boards) talks about public transit's cost to the rider in terms of trip-by-trip buying or at best day passes.
I get a month pass for $60 and it covers me everywhere all the time. (i.e., basically $2/day). It ends up being like 20 or 40 cents per one-way trip on train or bus becuase I always use it. Once you've got it, it's sunk cost, so you use Metro whenever you can. The cost of each trip is a lot lower than $2.00 or $2.25 when you use it all the time.
I do realize sometimes the poor can't afford the one-time outlay on month pass, so there's that.
I get a month pass for $60 and it covers me everywhere all the time. (i.e., basically $2/day). It ends up being like 20 or 40 cents per one-way trip on train or bus becuase I always use it. Once you've got it, it's sunk cost, so you use Metro whenever you can. The cost of each trip is a lot lower than $2.00 or $2.25 when you use it all the time.
I do realize sometimes the poor can't afford the one-time outlay on month pass, so there's that.
- 196
I'm going to be moving back to my roots in StL after an 8 year stint elsewhere in MO. What exactly is this new proposal? I tried reading all the posts....
Is there a vote coming to continue the Metrolink to go farther south than Shrewsbury? That would be awesome...or Lemay too? I'd sure like to see that happen....is there talk of doing that soon?
Is there a vote coming to continue the Metrolink to go farther south than Shrewsbury? That would be awesome...or Lemay too? I'd sure like to see that happen....is there talk of doing that soon?
- 1,610
^It's my understanding that the vote is for an additional half-cent sales tax increase in the County (perhaps kicking in a previously approved quarter-cent in the City?) going to sustained Missouri operations and ONE MetroLink extension. That's because Metro won't pay off Cross-County for decades with a 1990's approved quarter-cent, and the County wants to use even more of a 1970's approved half-cent for road projects.
Whether it's likely one extension or many new lines, you can bet the top political pick will be Clayton to Westport, aka "Daniel Boone." A close second is branching off North Hanley to Florissant/I-270. But a distant third is South County, whether Bayless, Reavis or Butler Hill. Former Congressman Gephardt may have helped a South County extension reach the most advanced engineering and analysis of any option on the table, but South County reactionaries and West County backers have guaranteed that Shrewsbury will be a terminus for decades.
Whether it's likely one extension or many new lines, you can bet the top political pick will be Clayton to Westport, aka "Daniel Boone." A close second is branching off North Hanley to Florissant/I-270. But a distant third is South County, whether Bayless, Reavis or Butler Hill. Former Congressman Gephardt may have helped a South County extension reach the most advanced engineering and analysis of any option on the table, but South County reactionaries and West County backers have guaranteed that Shrewsbury will be a terminus for decades.
05.30.2008 9:01 pm
Sunday editorial: Metro’s money mess
By: Editorial Board
It was that noted transportation visionary Larry E. Salci who two years ago predicted that the St. Louis region was headed for a “surface transportation crisis.” Little did he know that his own actions would help set the date for the start of that crisis: Jan. 1, 2009.
That’s when Robert J. Baer, who succeeded Mr. Salci as president of the Metro transit agency, says Metro will have impose steep fare increases and/or service cuts and layoffs to bring its $221 million operating budget into balance. Mr. Baer delivered the bad news Friday to Metro’s board of commissioners.
In a meeting Thursday with Post-Dispatch editorial writers, Mr. Baer said Metro was at a “tipping point.” The region must decide whether it wants to invest in a public transportation system that can be the backbone of its economic future or see Metro collapse into a smaller system that carries fewer people at higher cost to fewer places.
Why should this be of concern to those who don’t use public transportation — which describes more than 95 percent of the people in our region, according to Census Bureau estimates?
Because those who do use public transit do a lot of the heavy lifting for those who don’t, Mr. Baer said. They work at malls and retail stores, hospitals and clinics, restaurants and other service industries. The advent of MetroLink trains, which attract riders who wouldn’t ride a bus on a bet, is changing Metro’s ridership profile somewhat. But the system still is heavily geared to those......continued.
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-pl ... ess/print/
Sunday editorial: Metro’s money mess
By: Editorial Board
It was that noted transportation visionary Larry E. Salci who two years ago predicted that the St. Louis region was headed for a “surface transportation crisis.” Little did he know that his own actions would help set the date for the start of that crisis: Jan. 1, 2009.
That’s when Robert J. Baer, who succeeded Mr. Salci as president of the Metro transit agency, says Metro will have impose steep fare increases and/or service cuts and layoffs to bring its $221 million operating budget into balance. Mr. Baer delivered the bad news Friday to Metro’s board of commissioners.
In a meeting Thursday with Post-Dispatch editorial writers, Mr. Baer said Metro was at a “tipping point.” The region must decide whether it wants to invest in a public transportation system that can be the backbone of its economic future or see Metro collapse into a smaller system that carries fewer people at higher cost to fewer places.
Why should this be of concern to those who don’t use public transportation — which describes more than 95 percent of the people in our region, according to Census Bureau estimates?
Because those who do use public transit do a lot of the heavy lifting for those who don’t, Mr. Baer said. They work at malls and retail stores, hospitals and clinics, restaurants and other service industries. The advent of MetroLink trains, which attract riders who wouldn’t ride a bus on a bet, is changing Metro’s ridership profile somewhat. But the system still is heavily geared to those......continued.
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-pl ... ess/print/
The simple fact is the transit agency is underfunded. It gets almost nothing from state government — “The state ought to be kicked in the ass for not doing more,” Mr. Baer said — and federal mass transit contributions are shrinking. Farebox revenues pay for only about 21 percent of the costs; most of the rest comes from county and city taxpayers.
^ Even though it was comical, that he said that. I have to somewhat agree. It is disgraceful how the state of Missouri sticks St. Louis when it comes to public funds. If you were to take the St. Louis metropolitan area out of the state of Missouri, the quality of life (health, education, safety.) would go down, because they couldn't use St. Louis tax dollars to support the little rural towns.
The idea of tightly re-focusing the transit system and cutting bus lines to far-flung suburbs is interesting.
I'm a daily user and of reasonable fiscal intelligence. But I don't see or hear clear key messages from Metro. I still don't understand their financial picture. No, I'm not going to read the annual reports and begin to attend board meetings.
It's Metro's responsibility to develop and implement a good communication plan. The recent advertisement and marketing plans are fun but do littel to inform me about fiscal issues.
A start would be a simple one-page brief explaining why there's a problem--written at the 6th grade reading level. I'd include a simple Sources and Uses balance sheet too.
I'm a daily user and of reasonable fiscal intelligence. But I don't see or hear clear key messages from Metro. I still don't understand their financial picture. No, I'm not going to read the annual reports and begin to attend board meetings.
It's Metro's responsibility to develop and implement a good communication plan. The recent advertisement and marketing plans are fun but do littel to inform me about fiscal issues.
A start would be a simple one-page brief explaining why there's a problem--written at the 6th grade reading level. I'd include a simple Sources and Uses balance sheet too.
This:
explains this:
In all seriousness, clarity in communicating the issue in plain language should be of paramount importance. Getting the story in the news is a good start, but more could be done.
That said, you're always going to get a subset of folks who use Metro's past transgressions as an excuse not to subsidize increasing costs of fuel and maintainance of a necessarily expanding transit system. Perhaps Metro can acknowledge those, and state what's being done to better manage expenses now and in the future ie: lawsuit = sunk costs and is paid for. xx processes have been streamlined. Salaries maintained level despite increased costs of living. Newer equipment is more reliable, cheaper to maintiain. and so forth). If that's done, then perhaps those whose views are negative, but not set in stone, could be swayed to support the bill.
-RBB
Matt wrote:I'm a daily user
explains this:
littel
In all seriousness, clarity in communicating the issue in plain language should be of paramount importance. Getting the story in the news is a good start, but more could be done.
That said, you're always going to get a subset of folks who use Metro's past transgressions as an excuse not to subsidize increasing costs of fuel and maintainance of a necessarily expanding transit system. Perhaps Metro can acknowledge those, and state what's being done to better manage expenses now and in the future ie: lawsuit = sunk costs and is paid for. xx processes have been streamlined. Salaries maintained level despite increased costs of living. Newer equipment is more reliable, cheaper to maintiain. and so forth). If that's done, then perhaps those whose views are negative, but not set in stone, could be swayed to support the bill.
-RBB
As long as metro is looking for ways to cut costs: How about suspending service at the Sunnen Metro station?
It's kind of a joke, and it would speed things up for all of the Shrewsbury commuters. Shrewsbury is clearly a successful station whereas Sunnen seems doomed to irrelevance.
It's kind of a joke, and it would speed things up for all of the Shrewsbury commuters. Shrewsbury is clearly a successful station whereas Sunnen seems doomed to irrelevance.
Wabash wrote:As long as metro is looking for ways to cut costs: How about suspending service at the Sunnen Metro station?
It's kind of a joke, and it would speed things up for all of the Shrewsbury commuters. Shrewsbury is clearly a successful station whereas Sunnen seems doomed to irrelevance.
Sunnen is moderately busy during rush hours with the bus connections. I suppose you could make the argument to put them at another station, but then you add extra time to those commutes and would probably lose some of them. They already sped up CC 2 minutes; I don't think the Sunnen stop adds too much more, right?
Ideas: how about decreasing the ratio of bus stops to blocks--instead of one per block, go to one per three blocks.
Lots of national news reports in the past few days on the huge increases in ridership and other demands placed on public transit.
Who should be feeling the pressure most? Employees/commuters or employers?
Idea: push back against the business community (employers) and get them to back public transit.
Idea: pundits are talking about a magic tipping point -- if gas reaches $4.00 a gallon, commuters will start to stop the waste.
This energy crisis may be the best thing to happen since WWII to the nation's communities, neighborhoods and cities. Could it be the savior of the housing market?
Lots of national news reports in the past few days on the huge increases in ridership and other demands placed on public transit.
Who should be feeling the pressure most? Employees/commuters or employers?
Idea: push back against the business community (employers) and get them to back public transit.
Idea: pundits are talking about a magic tipping point -- if gas reaches $4.00 a gallon, commuters will start to stop the waste.
This energy crisis may be the best thing to happen since WWII to the nation's communities, neighborhoods and cities. Could it be the savior of the housing market?
Matt wrote:Idea: pundits are talking about a magic tipping point -- if gas reaches $4.00 a gallon, commuters will start to stop the waste.
I distinctly remember hearing pundits talk about $3.00 being the last straw, but that didn't get us anywhere either.
Before you'll get people using transit more, I think we'll need to see some serious investment in usability. Getting route maps onto Google Transit and off of the antiquated tripfinder is a start. So is implementing stored value cards.
Metro needs to make a clear cut commitment to excellence here and put it out in front of voters. To admit that mistakes were made with Cross County and the lawsuit and it won't happen again. To lay out a clear roadmap for what investments and enhancements will be made if the measure passes. Threatening people who are already displeased will get them nowhere.
.Metro needs to make a clear cut commitment to excellence here and put it out in front of voters. To admit that mistakes were made with Cross County and the lawsuit and it won't happen again. To lay out a clear roadmap for what investments and enhancements will be made if the measure passes. Threatening people who are already displeased will get them nowhere
Several points. In terms of finding stable funding, neither Google or Stored value (or Smart Cards) will have any significant benefit.
Metro will implement the Google Transit trip finder, but at this point we are so busy with other critical efforts that it will be slightly deferred. 18 months ago we already tested Metro data with the Google transit team. We were unable to obtain management commitment to go forward at that time due to support resources. The opposition is no longer an issue, but time is.
Second, Metro is negotiating a firm to develop specifications for a new fare system that will likely bring smart cards to St.Louis.
Metro staff are working intensively on two strategic directions. First, Metro is preparing a reduced transit and rail network. Its the way will show the system we can no longer afford to operate and the one we can afford at least temporarily to operate. (The system we can afford in Missouri will cost at least $70 million less than the current system.
Second, Metro is developing the basic message that it will present along with the "reduced" system, if new revenue is provided. This will include backing for Metrolink Extension I270. Priority I would be a western extension toward Westport and I-270. Extensions beyond that would be something north off the Lambert Branch and something south off of Shrewsbury.
A 1/2 cent tax will NOT pay for all these extensions, Metro believes that the region should identify these are the eventual network. To accomplish significant Metrolink extension will require "retiring" the debt of Cross County.
Augmenting this long term Metrolink County footprint will be a commitment for enhanced express bus service in the I-64 Corridor, I-55 corridor and I-44 corridor which would over time add significant capital investments for Park Ride, pedestrian walkways, and several transit centers constructed in collaboration with MoDot.
The objective of this will be to reduce express travel time significantly, add physical "stations" to expand destinations and entry points to these routes. (Ie...eventual connection with I-44 expresses and Shrewsbury without a major time penalty.
A financial plan will be developed to show what is needed to complete this expanded system. This will be complex and will likely show that a full build out will require that Missouri begin (in time) to invest in modes other than highways.
The community will be shown these two systems...the one we can afford with the existing funds and the system we could afford with the additional revenue of the referendum.
For the taxpayer make an intelligent decision, they must know what the significance of a "no vote" will be and what the significance of a "Yes" vote will mean. The reduced system is NOT a threat. It is merely reality if revenue isn't found. The expanded system isn't a pipe dream, but it will take time and both federal, state and local leadership that doesn't currently exist.
I will tell you that, in 34 years of public transit work, I have never seen such a receptiveness to the use of public transportation. This includes buses, rail, and transferring and walking. People are beginning to make changes. People are moving, shifting jobs, walking, biking, and taking the bus to avoid high gasoline prices. If it keeps up, it may change things radically.
- 466
so with the issue of rising fuel costs, what is metro doing to perhaps use alternative fuels? there is an interesting solution in san fransisco where they are going to collect grease from restaurants to make an hybrid fuel.
read here
what does something like this take to be done? there are plenty of fast food joints in this town that it could make a huge dent in the amount of diesel fuel needed.
read here
what does something like this take to be done? there are plenty of fast food joints in this town that it could make a huge dent in the amount of diesel fuel needed.
Busdad wrote: In terms of finding stable funding, neither Google or Stored value (or Smart Cards) will have any significant benefit.
Perhaps not directly, but it would buy a lot in terms of eliminating the opinion among non-riders or infrequent riders (who make up the majority of voters, I would suspect) that the system is difficult to navigate or gives you a fistful of dollar coins if you should dare to pay your train fare with a $20. Why should people vote for something they perceive as too hard to use?
Perhaps not directly, but it would buy a lot in terms of eliminating the opinion among non-riders or infrequent riders (who make up the majority of voters, I would suspect) that the system is difficult to navigate or gives you a fistful of dollar coins if you should dare to pay your train fare with a $20. Why should people vote for something they perceive as too hard to use?
There are a lot of issues here. Smart Card system will increase the cost of operation without a doubt. Using Credit cards increases the cost of collecting fares.
Some studies suggest the opposite, but the transaction processing costs either though the per transaction fee of Master Card and Visa, or the process to hire a firm to process the fares for the Atlanta/Charlie Card systems are very high.
The payoff rests in increasing revenue or indirect cost reductions. First, can we reduce significantly the amount of fare abuse of media reselling, media sharing? Secondly can Metro switch to a system of per transaction charges (like New York City) where you may much more for a monthly card or for a day card, or alternatively pay for each transaction? Third, can we shift an ID based system for reduced fare passengers (E/D) rather than depending upon fare inspectors and drivers to enforce the reduced fare? What we mean here..is that everyone hoping to pay a reduced fare will have to get an ID Smart card that pre authorizes the reduced fare.
Finally, can the judicious use of barriers at key downtown, CWE and Forest Park Stations allow some reduction of fare enforcement costs?
Most of the focus group studies done before starting a smart card system indicate that the new technologies are more complicated and confusing that a simple cash system. It takes training and cash incentives to get people to give up cash for a card based system. In otherwords, pay a higher fare for cash without a smart card or pay less if you put cash on a card?
Metro is testing debit/credit cards now and should have been up an running in February. We still are having problems with the network communications which must be fast to work. If you don't use some method of pre-authorizing transaction, some transit systems have found fraud use of cards up over 30% of all transactions. (Stolen or expired cards)
The Illinois machines do not have smart card capability and may have to be replaced. They are only eight years old so we would have to buy out the federal share to get ride of them. Also, St. Clair County transit would have to agree to pay for the local match on the new machines if we used federal grants.
The Google trip finder is a good tool, but it is missing features that nearly every other system provides by having an alternative trip finder in conjunction with Google. (Look at Dallas's trip finder.)
But in all due respect, does the non transit user even know that Google has a trip finder?
In my discussions with non users, the perceptions of efficiency-non effiiciency is more typically based around "why not purchase smaller buses"? "I see buses in Wildwood or Chesterfield with only one or two people on the bus?"
When I give tours to non users (and I do a lot), they are generally astounded at what it takes to run a transit operation and how efficient and technologically advanced that we are?
what does something like this take to be done? there are plenty of fast food joints in this town that it could make a huge dent in the amount of diesel fuel needed.
Metro uses 20 % biodiesel (Soybean oil) in our Brentwood diesel buses. Nearly 50 Brentwood buses at CNG buses (The Neoplans), but we will probably not continue that type of fuel.
Debaliviere uses regular ultra low sulfur diesel and Illinois has 2 % biodiesel (required by law).
Metro is engaged in a federal test of biodiesel versus ultra low sulfur diesel with the National Center for Alternative Energy.
There are a number of side effects to bio diesel (stuff growing in your fuel systems) that have to be treated with herbicides at considerable expense).
We have done a very limited test of hybrids, but so far have found less miles per gallon for the hybrids we have tested than our ultra low sulfur diesel. At $500,000 per bus versus $337,000, it does not yet seem to make financial sense unless you save a lot of money on fuel.
Haven’t had much time recently, but I wanted to chime in with some thoughts and questions on the Metro funding issue, given some of the choices laid out in this thread thus far:
1.Higher Fares- My preferred method for preserving higher levels of service in the face of the proposed tax increases failing. While it might not be popular with some, I believe that with most County residents facing higher gas costs, at the least they want to see Metro users pay higher fares to cover the increased cost of operation. In fact, given the County’s plan to divert some of the tax funds for roadway expansion, I think even if the tax passes, Metro must strongly consider raising fares anyway, enough to ensure that Metro gets two Metrolink extensions (plus improved bus service) out of the tax increase. In the aftermath of the cost over-runs on the Cross-County, getting two lines plus other improvements out of a tax increase that will allow Metro to provide services and stay out of the public’s radar for 5 to 10 years would be a big positive in seeking larger funding increases in the long-term.
2.Leverage the value of Metro Properties- This is the biggest complaint I have about Metro. While it may not own much land or facilities, it doesn’t seem to maximize the revenue potential of the ones it does. Given the system’s dire financial straits, it seems logical that Metro should sell its Laclede’s Landing building and combine operations in an alternative location. Additionally, given that Metro owns the air rights to prime pieces of land such as the air over the CWE station, the trench along Clark in downtown and west of the Stadium, Metro should be doing more to participate in development of these parcels and gain additional revenues from such development.
3.Fare Evasion- I am glad to hear that Metro is working on a smart card system and hopefully that will result in higher fare recovery. I know Metro officials always say that the number of folks riding for free is low, I just don’t believe that to be the case. Any improvement that lowers fare enforcement costs (and ideally those lowered costs and employees could be funneled into increased system security) and increases fare recovery is a good move.
4.Closing Stations- Never the preferred idea, but given the very low ridership at some stations shuttering some for the time being might be a good idea (East Terminal, UMSL North, Sunnen if the TOD doesn’t occur). In fact, given the proximity downtown between the Union Station and Civic Center stations, I think the Union Station stop should be closed (ideally with a new station opened in the future west of Union Station to support a more urban 22nd Parkway and Highway 40 interchange and associated development).
5.Cutting Bus Service- While it sounds likes warehouse facilities west of 270, particularly in the Earth City area, are becoming major transit destinations, I support the idea of cutting off most bus service west of 270 (well either that or creating a distance based fare system).
And three questions for Busdad-
1.Looking at the fare recovery numbers of bus (18.7%) vs. rail (32%), has Metro been able to realize cost savings by switching service from bus to rail with the opening of Metrolink expansions in the past?
2. Has fare box recovery number improved for Metrolink with the completion of each expansion?
3.Has Metro considered a distance based universal fare system for Metrolink and Metro Bus?
1.Higher Fares- My preferred method for preserving higher levels of service in the face of the proposed tax increases failing. While it might not be popular with some, I believe that with most County residents facing higher gas costs, at the least they want to see Metro users pay higher fares to cover the increased cost of operation. In fact, given the County’s plan to divert some of the tax funds for roadway expansion, I think even if the tax passes, Metro must strongly consider raising fares anyway, enough to ensure that Metro gets two Metrolink extensions (plus improved bus service) out of the tax increase. In the aftermath of the cost over-runs on the Cross-County, getting two lines plus other improvements out of a tax increase that will allow Metro to provide services and stay out of the public’s radar for 5 to 10 years would be a big positive in seeking larger funding increases in the long-term.
2.Leverage the value of Metro Properties- This is the biggest complaint I have about Metro. While it may not own much land or facilities, it doesn’t seem to maximize the revenue potential of the ones it does. Given the system’s dire financial straits, it seems logical that Metro should sell its Laclede’s Landing building and combine operations in an alternative location. Additionally, given that Metro owns the air rights to prime pieces of land such as the air over the CWE station, the trench along Clark in downtown and west of the Stadium, Metro should be doing more to participate in development of these parcels and gain additional revenues from such development.
3.Fare Evasion- I am glad to hear that Metro is working on a smart card system and hopefully that will result in higher fare recovery. I know Metro officials always say that the number of folks riding for free is low, I just don’t believe that to be the case. Any improvement that lowers fare enforcement costs (and ideally those lowered costs and employees could be funneled into increased system security) and increases fare recovery is a good move.
4.Closing Stations- Never the preferred idea, but given the very low ridership at some stations shuttering some for the time being might be a good idea (East Terminal, UMSL North, Sunnen if the TOD doesn’t occur). In fact, given the proximity downtown between the Union Station and Civic Center stations, I think the Union Station stop should be closed (ideally with a new station opened in the future west of Union Station to support a more urban 22nd Parkway and Highway 40 interchange and associated development).
5.Cutting Bus Service- While it sounds likes warehouse facilities west of 270, particularly in the Earth City area, are becoming major transit destinations, I support the idea of cutting off most bus service west of 270 (well either that or creating a distance based fare system).
And three questions for Busdad-
1.Looking at the fare recovery numbers of bus (18.7%) vs. rail (32%), has Metro been able to realize cost savings by switching service from bus to rail with the opening of Metrolink expansions in the past?
2. Has fare box recovery number improved for Metrolink with the completion of each expansion?
3.Has Metro considered a distance based universal fare system for Metrolink and Metro Bus?
And three questions for Busdad-
1.Looking at the fare recovery numbers of bus (18.7%) vs. rail (32%), has Metro been able to realize cost savings by switching service from bus to rail with the opening of Metrolink expansions in the past?
That is a good question. Certainly Metrolink allowed some cost savings. Consider the Illinois operation where all routes were truncated at Metrolink Station. The Belleville and O'Fallon expresses, which used to take a lot of resources, were ended with the extension to College.
In Missouri, the initial alignment resulted in the truncation of a few express routes which saved money.
With Cross County, the objective was to reallocate bus miles to support an expansion of bus service to parts of the county that had limited service, but some potential for ridership. Cross County allowed Metro to radically shift the Brentwood Garage from "pullout pull in driver relief." By using the trains for shift changes, we reduced deadhead miles substantially, but we reallocated these deadhead miles to improved frequency on key routes like 15 minute service between CWE and Wash U residential neighborhoods, expanded frequency on several express corridors (40X, 240X)), adding expanded fenton shuttle to Metrolink Shrewsbury (210).
Remember in 2001, Metro cut approximately 11% of our miles and hours in Missouri. This resulted in major passenger losses. Most of the savings from Metrolink were reallocated to restore night, weekend, and improved frequency in different parts of the county. (61 Chambers), creating the 45 Hazelwood, etc.
?2. Has fare box recovery number improved for Metrolink with the completion of each expansion
No. Adding all of the miles in Illinois in 2001 and 2003 reduced productivity and ultimately farebox recover. Illinois has excellent commuter flow loads and special event usage. It does not have strong reverse flow usage or off peak usage. It has been improving but really needs substantial development around Illinois stations.
Cross County has resulted in some improvement. We reduced midday frequency on the Lambert alignment (from 10 minute to 15 minute) and allocated some of the savings to the Cross County alignment which has brought new usage. Cross County, while not as strong as Lambert, is only two years old. It is growth.
The extension to Fairview Heights will again reduce productivity with new miles and limited reverse flow ridership. It may ultimately prove to be a good decision, but initially it will reduce productivity and farebox recovery.
3.Has Metro considered a distance based universal fare system for Metrolink and Metro Bus?
Not really seriously. If you are considering a system like WMATA, we would have to go to a totally barrier based system requiring fare validation both entering and exiting the station. Switching to a barrier system will be costly on a capital cost and continuing operating costs. Google LA's conversion to a barrier system. The capital cost would cost up to $41 million with annual operating costs of $1.2 million to maintain barriers. It does save some fare enforcement costs.
LA estimates 5 % evasion. If we had this level of evasion at Metro and we collected 100% of evaded fares, it could add $1 million to the bottom line. Add to that some reduction in fare enforcement, maybe you gain $1.4 million. Now then subtract from that the annualized cost of the capital costs and the annual maintenance of the barriers. It is questionable if there is any net revenue to the good. We will restudy this entire issue when we do our smart card business analysis this year.
Metro's estimate of evasion is less than 5 %. How much evasion to you estimate and what is your basis of that estimate?
The FY10 shortfall is $48 million. The cost for Missouri service today is $182 million including $37 million for Metrolink Missouri, and $25 for call a ride.
Tell me how to cut $48 million out of that?
The problem for FY10 is basically as follows:
Loss of $10 million from Federal CMAC Cross County Startup Funds
Loss of $2 million Federal I-64 Metrobus Mitigation funds
Loss of $1.5 million Federal Funds from MoDOT for I-64 ridership incentive
Loss of $10 million in St.Louis County 1/2 cent Sales tax revenue to highways
Loss of $8 million in Prop M taxes to Bond Principal repayment
Cost of $10.5 million in other retiree benefits (OPEB) (GASPY requirement)
$6 million in annual inflation.
If we try to cut $48 out of service, revenue losses will exceed $15 million. These include lost Formula Federal funds and farebox revenue.
To cut $48 million would likely require reducing the number of buildings (Landing is possible), but initial closure costs might initially increase costs. Sell landing, but then you would need to spend money to move people, install IT infrastructure, construct office space, set up phones.
The system that is left would be a shell of its current self.
Cutting service in the County would eliminate the growth market we have experienced in the past two years. City ridership hasn't increased. Ridership has increased in Illinois and in St. Louis County. County bus service allows city, Illinois and other County employees to get to the jobs.
55% of Metro's Missouri service now operate in St. Louis County.
Look at San Diego today. They have experienced several years of declining ridership. They think the reason is that they have not modified their system to serve the jobs outside the core. They are going to change 90 out of 100 bus routes to do that.
Come to the public hearings in September 2008 and weigh in a possible expansion plan and the possible contraction plan.
Tell me how to cut $48 million out of that?
The problem for FY10 is basically as follows:
Loss of $10 million from Federal CMAC Cross County Startup Funds
Loss of $2 million Federal I-64 Metrobus Mitigation funds
Loss of $1.5 million Federal Funds from MoDOT for I-64 ridership incentive
Loss of $10 million in St.Louis County 1/2 cent Sales tax revenue to highways
Loss of $8 million in Prop M taxes to Bond Principal repayment
Cost of $10.5 million in other retiree benefits (OPEB) (GASPY requirement)
$6 million in annual inflation.
If we try to cut $48 out of service, revenue losses will exceed $15 million. These include lost Formula Federal funds and farebox revenue.
To cut $48 million would likely require reducing the number of buildings (Landing is possible), but initial closure costs might initially increase costs. Sell landing, but then you would need to spend money to move people, install IT infrastructure, construct office space, set up phones.
The system that is left would be a shell of its current self.
Cutting service in the County would eliminate the growth market we have experienced in the past two years. City ridership hasn't increased. Ridership has increased in Illinois and in St. Louis County. County bus service allows city, Illinois and other County employees to get to the jobs.
55% of Metro's Missouri service now operate in St. Louis County.
Look at San Diego today. They have experienced several years of declining ridership. They think the reason is that they have not modified their system to serve the jobs outside the core. They are going to change 90 out of 100 bus routes to do that.
Come to the public hearings in September 2008 and weigh in a possible expansion plan and the possible contraction plan.