I don't think Metro needs support from the state or anyone. It's incredibly inefficient and has zero incentive to get more efficient.
^Don't agree with you on the funding part, Missouri should provide transit funding like most states do, but I do agree on the bad management. Metro's board is thoroughly insulated from public opinion, there's actually a negative side to being a bi-state agency. I doubt any of them have taken a bus or Metrolink for anything more than an occasional photo op in years.
Not sure how much more you want when they're fiscally stable and not in the process of making massive cuts because federal pandemic money is running out.flipz wrote: ↑Feb 04, 2025I don't think Metro needs support from the state or anyone. It's incredibly inefficient and has zero incentive to get more efficient.
Transit agencies in America don't really have the ability or benefit to "be efficient" beyond being stable.
Hire some engineers and install tech that has existed for decades to remove metro drivers. Charge more for tickets and at least make the rail lines break even financially and use this to push for new lines on the busiest bus routes. Maybe they are handcuffed by legislation on what they can do but I don't think they have much vision besides waiting for additional tax money.
Charging more for tickets is not a good move (it is already overpriced now in my opinion), transit is a service not a business, financial profit should not be a primary goal. Encouraging ridership by providing reliable, efficient service should be the goal.flipz wrote: ↑Feb 04, 2025Hire some engineers and install tech that has existed for decades to remove metro drivers. Charge more for tickets and at least make the rail lines break even financially and use this to push for new lines on the busiest bus routes. Maybe they are handcuffed by legislation on what they can do but I don't think they have much vision besides waiting for additional tax money.
There are no automated train systems with at-grade crossings. Would require massive amounts of money actually to completely grade-separate metrolink in order automate it.flipz wrote: ↑Feb 04, 2025Hire some engineers and install tech that has existed for decades to remove metro drivers. Charge more for tickets and at least make the rail lines break even financially and use this to push for new lines on the busiest bus routes. Maybe they are handcuffed by legislation on what they can do but I don't think they have much vision besides waiting for additional tax money.
That would be incredibly expensive, not possible for a non-grade separated system, and the idea that they can "break even" is insane. Their ticket revenue is like $30M out of their $300M+ budget.flipz wrote: ↑Feb 04, 2025Hire some engineers and install tech that has existed for decades to remove metro drivers. Charge more for tickets and at least make the rail lines break even financially and use this to push for new lines on the busiest bus routes. Maybe they are handcuffed by legislation on what they can do but I don't think they have much vision besides waiting for additional tax money.
It's a lot cheaper than most systems. Hasn't been raised in over 10 years too._nomad_ wrote: ↑Feb 04, 2025Charging more for tickets is not a good move (it is already overpriced now in my opinion), transit is a service not a business, financial profit should not be a primary goal. Encouraging ridership by providing reliable, efficient service should be the goal.flipz wrote: ↑Feb 04, 2025Hire some engineers and install tech that has existed for decades to remove metro drivers. Charge more for tickets and at least make the rail lines break even financially and use this to push for new lines on the busiest bus routes. Maybe they are handcuffed by legislation on what they can do but I don't think they have much vision besides waiting for additional tax money.
Not in the Midwest region, for example it's (slightly) more expensive than Chicago's CTA for a lot less extensive and frequent of a service.Auggie wrote: ↑Feb 05, 2025It's a lot cheaper than most systems. Hasn't been raised in over 10 years too._nomad_ wrote: ↑Feb 04, 2025Charging more for tickets is not a good move (it is already overpriced now in my opinion), transit is a service not a business, financial profit should not be a primary goal. Encouraging ridership by providing reliable, efficient service should be the goal.flipz wrote: ↑Feb 04, 2025Hire some engineers and install tech that has existed for decades to remove metro drivers. Charge more for tickets and at least make the rail lines break even financially and use this to push for new lines on the busiest bus routes. Maybe they are handcuffed by legislation on what they can do but I don't think they have much vision besides waiting for additional tax money.
STL: $5 (OK train, good bus)
CHI: $5 (Great train, Great bus)
MSP: $4 (OK train, great bus)
MIL: $5 (good bus)
DET: $5 (good bus)
CLE: $5 (bad train, good bus)
COL: $4.50 (bad bus)
CIN: $5 (good bus)
IND: $4 (bad bus)
These are the day passes for all major Midwestern cities. KC is free so I excluded them.
*MSP will be good train once the Green Line extension opens.
St. Louis fits right in. And Midwestern transit is cheaper than pretty much everywhere else, so yes STL is cheaper than most.
CHI: $5 (Great train, Great bus)
MSP: $4 (OK train, great bus)
MIL: $5 (good bus)
DET: $5 (good bus)
CLE: $5 (bad train, good bus)
COL: $4.50 (bad bus)
CIN: $5 (good bus)
IND: $4 (bad bus)
These are the day passes for all major Midwestern cities. KC is free so I excluded them.
*MSP will be good train once the Green Line extension opens.
St. Louis fits right in. And Midwestern transit is cheaper than pretty much everywhere else, so yes STL is cheaper than most.
Why not? The barriers already come down via some sort of automation so there is a controller at each intersection. Cars have to stop and you can put a camera like on street lights to check for obstruction on tracks.PeterXCV wrote: ↑Feb 04, 2025There are no automated train systems with at-grade crossings. Would require massive amounts of money actually to completely grade-separate metrolink in order automate it.flipz wrote: ↑Feb 04, 2025Hire some engineers and install tech that has existed for decades to remove metro drivers. Charge more for tickets and at least make the rail lines break even financially and use this to push for new lines on the busiest bus routes. Maybe they are handcuffed by legislation on what they can do but I don't think they have much vision besides waiting for additional tax money.
Everything is incredibly expensive when you design it that way. Certainly possible if they try. I guarantee that metro has employment bloat on the office side of things. If they made it more cost effective more people would be on board with expanding service.Auggie wrote: ↑Feb 05, 2025That would be incredibly expensive, not possible for a non-grade separated system, and the idea that they can "break even" is insane. Their ticket revenue is like $30M out of their $300M+ budget.flipz wrote: ↑Feb 04, 2025Hire some engineers and install tech that has existed for decades to remove metro drivers. Charge more for tickets and at least make the rail lines break even financially and use this to push for new lines on the busiest bus routes. Maybe they are handcuffed by legislation on what they can do but I don't think they have much vision besides waiting for additional tax money.
If you do things the same way as everyone else then nothing will ever change.Auggie wrote: ↑Feb 05, 2025It's a lot cheaper than most systems. Hasn't been raised in over 10 years too._nomad_ wrote: ↑Feb 04, 2025Charging more for tickets is not a good move (it is already overpriced now in my opinion), transit is a service not a business, financial profit should not be a primary goal. Encouraging ridership by providing reliable, efficient service should be the goal.flipz wrote: ↑Feb 04, 2025Hire some engineers and install tech that has existed for decades to remove metro drivers. Charge more for tickets and at least make the rail lines break even financially and use this to push for new lines on the busiest bus routes. Maybe they are handcuffed by legislation on what they can do but I don't think they have much vision besides waiting for additional tax money.
- 2,653
Right now Metro is in a decent place financially, and is on a slow but steady growth tragectory back towards 2019 numbers. We are re-entering the virtuous cycle: More people riding = more tickets sold = better service = more people riding=etc
Raising prices at this point could seriously impact this trajectory. In the city where the nearly everybody has a car, the value proposition of paying take transit vs driving an already owned car is dubious in most situations. We can't make it even worse.
Raising prices at this point could seriously impact this trajectory. In the city where the nearly everybody has a car, the value proposition of paying take transit vs driving an already owned car is dubious in most situations. We can't make it even worse.
You can't do things that are impossible.flipz wrote: ↑Feb 05, 2025If you do things the same way as everyone else then nothing will ever change.Auggie wrote: ↑Feb 05, 2025It's a lot cheaper than most systems. Hasn't been raised in over 10 years too._nomad_ wrote: ↑Feb 04, 2025Charging more for tickets is not a good move (it is already overpriced now in my opinion), transit is a service not a business, financial profit should not be a primary goal. Encouraging ridership by providing reliable, efficient service should be the goal.
- 6,152
Why do you think that? Metro Transit currently has a staff of just over two thousand people. Of that, about 240 are working in operational support, which is nearly all of your office jobs. That includes your middle and even upper management, their staff, IT, HR, Procurement, Project Management, Finance . . . pretty much everything but drivers, dispatchers, mechanics, and security. I don't really get the feeling they're particularly topheavy. It's a big system. They do need some people with the overhead view of the whole thing, There's two people managing training, one person doing pension and benefits, one emergency manager . . . I sure wouldn't want any fewer.flipz wrote: ↑Feb 05, 2025I guarantee that metro has employment bloat on the office side of things.
Metro is at the "f*ck it" stage now where they can do whatever they want.quincunx wrote: ↑Feb 05, 2025If only it was a highway bridge collapse.
https://www.metrostlouis.org/nextstop/u ... er-notice/
They have been at that stage for years. Metro does not care about its riders or providing efficient transportation. It sees its service the same way a lot of the public does: as something only people that have no other mobility options will use therefore Metro does not care about minimizing headways or transfers or otherwise making the system an attractive option compared to other choices.dweebe wrote: ↑Feb 05, 2025Metro is at the "f*ck it" stage now where they can do whatever they want.quincunx wrote: ↑Feb 05, 2025If only it was a highway bridge collapse.
https://www.metrostlouis.org/nextstop/u ... er-notice/
You've lost the plot when you take "we can't run trains because it's literally unsafe" as "we don't care about our passengers".
If and when someone takes that leap then I'd agree, until your hypothetical becomes reality we can discuss Metro's inadequate efforts to minimize disruptions to riders
I asked Metro why specifically the 3rd track and crossover immediately east of Emerson Park station (pictured here) could not be used in the same way the Forest Park station is being used to turn around Blue Line service. This would return headways to 10 minutes for the system's highest ridership stations with major bus connections (Central West End, Grand, Civic Center, etc). The exact response was: "Your suggestion is unfeasible due to the fact that it is necessary to limit Blue line trains between Shrewsbury and Forest Park during this single track operation to avoid inaccurate schedules and excessive delays." This shows, to me at least, that Metro isn't willing to implement anything different than what always has been done and continues to not consider simply moving the same exact maneuvering operation that is happening at Forest Park east to Emerson Park (and is choosing to not elaborate further as to why this would or wouldn't be possible to avoid any dispute over it). Also, the only reasoning being that this proposal would create "inaccurate schedules and delays" is comical considering the current indefinite situation is exactly that.
What it shows is that you still don't know the specifics, nor does anyone on here.
Really dude? Does everything have to be an attack? Either minor or full on?Auggie wrote: ↑Feb 06, 2025What it shows is that you still don't know the specifics, nor does anyone on here.
How am I attacking? People are attacking Metro based on completely circumstantial evidence of what they want to believe. Literally all I did was state reality: No one on here knows details about the situation.
I'm sorry that offended you...?