urbanSTL

Ouch

quincunx wrote: ↑

Aug 14, 2021

Ouch
Metro Ridership and FInancials 2021.png

I think Metro's FY 2020 ran from July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020, which would give it nearly 9 months of pre-COVID ridership. So, higher than what you'd expect anything associated with "2020" to have.

Will be interesting to see APTA's 2nd quarter data comparing Q2 2021 to Q2 2020. 

Updated Transit Ridership Nov 2021

https://public.tableau.com/shared/MHT74 ... share_link

Two of the products that inflation has been concentrated in are gasoline and vehicles. One would think that these cost considerations will eventually drive people back to transit, but that will probably have to wait until the pandemic is truly in the rear view mirror. Of course, there is a section of ridership that is just not going to come back, those that are going to be working remotely permanently.

Ebsy wrote: ↑

Jan 21, 2022

Two of the products that inflation has been concentrated in are gasoline and vehicles. One would think that these cost considerations will eventually drive people back to transit, but that will probably have to wait until the pandemic is truly in the rear view mirror. Of course, there is a section of ridership that is just not going to come back, those that are going to be working remotely permanently.

Vehicle prices only matter for the marginal buyers. If you are not trying to buy a car right now, that does not affect you.
Gasoline prices would need to move an order of magnitude more in order for them to affect people's decisions of mode of transportation in a meaningful way. Let's not forget that household incomes have increased across the board by unprecedented amounts.

Shame to cut capacity when it's their opportunity to shine.

Banging my head against the wall with how stupid this is. This is just a dressed up service cut. They won't even save much money cuz there's always 1 driver. Will be confusing on the platforms and harder to use, especially what with how they've continued to keep the doors in front and back of trains closed. Metro actively disdains their ridership, it's disgusting. 

what exactly would they saving by cutting down to one car per train? less staffing? lower upkeep costs? is it significantly cheaper, somehow, to run one car instead of two?

Fewer cars to patrol. I don’t know their security staffing levels but I wouldn’t be surprised if this allows them to have a guard on every car during non-peak night hours.

Could the next phase include cutting service to stations during night hours? Could this leadership propose closing Cortex, Union Station, and 8th & Pine after 9pm?

I guess I can see the practical benefits of this decision but the timing certainly seems odd when gas prices have risen so sharply. It just doesn’t inject confidence in the system.

We recently sold our car to become a zero car family. We bike and metro everywhere.

The funny thing is that in the last several months, ridership has anecdotally seemed very high and consistent to me versus a few years ago which I know isn’t backed up by the data online. It has also felt exceptionally safe even as an occasional 9 or 10pm rider.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To contextualize among Midwestern cities, Minneapolis initially built their light rail system with platforms long enough for 2 cars. They later extended all platforms to accommodate 3 cars, and the line they built between St. Paul and Minneapolis was for 3 car trains. 

Meanwhile, I remember visiting Cleveland where they have a proper subway line (the Red line I believe). Yet they were (as of ~10 years ago) in the process of like right-sizing it. All the non-downtown stations had had their turnstiles removed, and I remember in the evening there was just one car that came to the platform and they had you board it in the front to pay fare like it was a bus. 

Really don't want Metrolink to go down Cleveland's trajectory but I'm not optimistic. Metro plainly does not care about the riding public's opinions. I maybe will submit a comment but unless there's some larger outcry I doubt they will change course. 

With gas prices being so high for the next ??? amount of time and EVs not yet widely adopted this could be a once in a lifetime opportunity to bolster services and get people out of their cars. Hell, Metro should be running ads talking about how great a time it is to sell your car with the chip shortage and all.

Imagine the leap of progress we could make with free Metrolink and Metro Bus RIGHT NOW. This could be the summer that revitalizes the system. We have the money for it, whether it's the Rams money, infrastructure money, or repurposed turnstile money. Cities build themselves around their transportation systems, what kind of city do we want to build?

This sounds like a good idea and a good move by Metro.

This could mean safer trains, less energy use per train, less mechanical maintenance, and less cleaning maintenance. So a more efficient system overall. All good reasons to give it a try. Ridership in Q3 2021 was down about 52% from Q3 2019. Gas prices have spiked before, in 2008 and 2011-2014, which helped ridership, but not a whole lot. Nothing on the magnitude of what has been lost in the last two years.

Why keep it at two cars? Because it's more impressive? Because you like sitting further away from the horn? Because you don't think transit riders will know where to stand on the platform? Because they've always done it that way? Because you don't admire Cleveland? Those aren't valid reasons for a transit agency to expend its increasingly limited resources. What folks should want is an efficiently run, fiscally sound Metro, that can maintain its level of service and is willing to experiment (through a PILOT PROGRAM) to optimize its operations. Maintaining the highest possible frequency and making riders feel safer actually could "inject confidence in the system."

Maybe they'll miss a Blues game! Maybe they'll close 8th & Pine after 9pm! Such alarmism is uncalled for. A nimble and responsive system that's willing to experiment is not a bad thing. If the pilot program shows that one car is sufficient, great! If it shows that one car is inadequate, also great!

wabash wrote: ↑

Mar 10, 2022

Why keep it at two cars? Because it's more impressive? Because you like sitting further away from the horn? Because you don't think transit riders will know where to stand on the platform? Because they've always done it that way? Because you don't admire Cleveland? Those aren't valid reasons for a transit agency to expend its increasingly limited resources. What folks should want is an efficiently run, fiscally sound Metro, that can maintain its level of service and is willing to experiment (through a PILOT PROGRAM) to optimize its operations. Maintaining the highest possible frequency and making riders feel safer actually could "inject confidence in the system."

^This is a terrible argument. As a (carless) St. Louisan, what, do I not have the right to have an opinion about this? What about reducing service inspires confidence in the system? 

It makes it harder to use Metrolink!! And it's not alarmism to be concerned that this sets a precedent for Metro to reduce Metrolink service, I mean I don't know if you've ridden the system in the last year or two wabash but they're frequently cutting back service here & there like no blue line service east of Forest Park at night almost all the time. 

PeterXCV wrote: ↑

Mar 10, 2022

wabash wrote: ↑

Mar 10, 2022

Why keep it at two cars? Because it's more impressive? Because you like sitting further away from the horn? Because you don't think transit riders will know where to stand on the platform? Because they've always done it that way? Because you don't admire Cleveland? Those aren't valid reasons for a transit agency to expend its increasingly limited resources. What folks should want is an efficiently run, fiscally sound Metro, that can maintain its level of service and is willing to experiment (through a PILOT PROGRAM) to optimize its operations. Maintaining the highest possible frequency and making riders feel safer actually could "inject confidence in the system."

^This is a terrible argument. As a (carless) St. Louisan, what, do I not have the right to have an opinion about this? What about reducing service inspires confidence in the system? 

It makes it harder to use Metrolink!! And it's not alarmism to be concerned that this sets a precedent for Metro to reduce Metrolink service, I mean I don't know if you've ridden the system in the last year or two wabash but they're frequently cutting back service here & there like no blue line service east of Forest Park at night almost all the time. 

What is your reason for wanting to keep two cars? To maintain the same number of doors opening onto the platform? This doesn't seem that strange - the Boston T green line changes length, Baltimore and Pittsburgh run single cars sometimes, Brooklyn's G train is 1/2 the length of its platforms. This type of optimization - longer trains during rush hour, shorter trains in off hours - seems like a pretty normal transit agency strategy.

The difference between one and two cars is even less impactful than switching from an articulated bus to a standard bus. Ridership is around 1/2 what it was two years ago. They're going to try cutting the number of cars in 1/2 for most trains. So the amount of space per rider should be about the same as it was two years ago. That's more like maintaining the level of service than cutting it.

The timing of this reduction is really odd. According to apple mobility trends transit use in St. Louis is finally coming back to pre-2020 levels.  This is a real screenshot from kmov just now. There's a disconnect here. Seems like a perfect time to restore service that was reduced in 2020, not cut it more. 

wabash wrote:This sounds like a good idea and a good move by Metro.

This could mean safer trains, less energy use per train, less mechanical maintenance, and less cleaning maintenance. So a more efficient system overall. All good reasons to give it a try. Ridership in Q3 2021 was down about 52% from Q3 2019. Gas prices have spiked before, in 2008 and 2011-2014, which helped ridership, but not a whole lot. Nothing on the magnitude of what has been lost in the last two years.

Why keep it at two cars? Because it's more impressive? Because you like sitting further away from the horn? Because you don't think transit riders will know where to stand on the platform? Because they've always done it that way? Because you don't admire Cleveland? Those aren't valid reasons for a transit agency to expend its increasingly limited resources. What folks should want is an efficiently run, fiscally sound Metro, that can maintain its level of service and is willing to experiment (through a PILOT PROGRAM) to optimize its operations. Maintaining the highest possible frequency and making riders feel safer actually could "inject confidence in the system."

Maybe they'll miss a Blues game! Maybe they'll close 8th & Pine after 9pm! Such alarmism is uncalled for. A nimble and responsive system that's willing to experiment is not a bad thing. If the pilot program shows that one car is sufficient, great! If it shows that one car is inadequate, also great!

To be fair, Metro is somewhat deserving of alarmism. They have not done a great job building public confidence and measures like Metro Reimagined, which were marketed as increased efficiency, quickly became decreased service.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SeattleNative wrote: ↑

Mar 10, 2022

wabash wrote:This sounds like a good idea and a good move by Metro.

This could mean safer trains, less energy use per train, less mechanical maintenance, and less cleaning maintenance. So a more efficient system overall. All good reasons to give it a try. Ridership in Q3 2021 was down about 52% from Q3 2019. Gas prices have spiked before, in 2008 and 2011-2014, which helped ridership, but not a whole lot. Nothing on the magnitude of what has been lost in the last two years.

Why keep it at two cars? Because it's more impressive? Because you like sitting further away from the horn? Because you don't think transit riders will know where to stand on the platform? Because they've always done it that way? Because you don't admire Cleveland? Those aren't valid reasons for a transit agency to expend its increasingly limited resources. What folks should want is an efficiently run, fiscally sound Metro, that can maintain its level of service and is willing to experiment (through a PILOT PROGRAM) to optimize its operations. Maintaining the highest possible frequency and making riders feel safer actually could "inject confidence in the system."

Maybe they'll miss a Blues game! Maybe they'll close 8th & Pine after 9pm! Such alarmism is uncalled for. A nimble and responsive system that's willing to experiment is not a bad thing. If the pilot program shows that one car is sufficient, great! If it shows that one car is inadequate, also great!

To be fair, Metro is somewhat deserving of alarmism. They have not done a great job building public confidence and measures like Metro Reimagined, which were marketed as increased efficiency, quickly became decreased service.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Okay, that's fair. And I wholeheartedly agree that actual decreases in service - e.g., frequency or stations served - should be advocated against and admonished. I just don't see a pilot program to determine if one car can handle current demand during non-rush hour as constituting a service cut. Even if the program were implemented full time, "the train is smaller" doesn't really materially change the level of service, especially when ridership is down "around 40%". As an example, if Metro Reimagined had simply implemented smaller buses along the same routes and stops I don't think the same criticism would necessarily be warranted. 

wabash wrote: ↑

Mar 10, 2022

SeattleNative wrote: ↑

Mar 10, 2022

wabash wrote:This sounds like a good idea and a good move by Metro.

This could mean safer trains, less energy use per train, less mechanical maintenance, and less cleaning maintenance. So a more efficient system overall. All good reasons to give it a try. Ridership in Q3 2021 was down about 52% from Q3 2019. Gas prices have spiked before, in 2008 and 2011-2014, which helped ridership, but not a whole lot. Nothing on the magnitude of what has been lost in the last two years.

Why keep it at two cars? Because it's more impressive? Because you like sitting further away from the horn? Because you don't think transit riders will know where to stand on the platform? Because they've always done it that way? Because you don't admire Cleveland? Those aren't valid reasons for a transit agency to expend its increasingly limited resources. What folks should want is an efficiently run, fiscally sound Metro, that can maintain its level of service and is willing to experiment (through a PILOT PROGRAM) to optimize its operations. Maintaining the highest possible frequency and making riders feel safer actually could "inject confidence in the system."

Maybe they'll miss a Blues game! Maybe they'll close 8th & Pine after 9pm! Such alarmism is uncalled for. A nimble and responsive system that's willing to experiment is not a bad thing. If the pilot program shows that one car is sufficient, great! If it shows that one car is inadequate, also great!

To be fair, Metro is somewhat deserving of alarmism. They have not done a great job building public confidence and measures like Metro Reimagined, which were marketed as increased efficiency, quickly became decreased service.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Okay, that's fair. And I wholeheartedly agree that actual decreases in service - e.g., frequency or stations served - should be advocated against and admonished. I just don't see a pilot program to determine if one car can handle current demand during non-rush hour as constituting a service cut. Even if the program were implemented full time, "the train is smaller" doesn't really materially change the level of service, especially when ridership is down "around 40%". As an example, if Metro Reimagined had simply implemented smaller buses along the same routes and stops I don't think the same criticism would necessarily be warranted. 

Agreed, I think frequency of service is the most important thing.

In some ways I think shorter trains may help feelings of security and comfort for some riders through the eyes on the street effect. Essentially the same number of people in a smaller space could give the impression of more popularity/energy and also security than sitting in an emptier car with only a couple other riders. Just a theory though, in the end I have no problem with Metro running shorter trains off-peak as long as they keep their schedule up and don't run into overcrowding by trying to run the smaller units during peak times.

I always sit in the front car due to the presence of the driver serving to discourage mischief. Not sure if it is actually "safer" but it certainly feels like I am less likely to be hassled, have pot smoke blown in my face, etc.