urbanSTL

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote:Might be seasonal uptick, and likely to early to tell tbh, but the doomsayers like what they see. Which I guess was the point.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... ca853.html

The data is pretty messy at this point, but if they actually get the payment systems right, I still believe the perception of safety will lead to increased ridership, and that’s worth the ugly gates to me.

That "data" thus far is some of the worst "data" I've ever read. Boardings are up being ridership is up, not because of the gates. The stations with gates represent 60% of the gains because some of the highest ridership stations have received gates (Grand, CWE, Civic Center, Forest Park, etc). Incidents are down because crime is down, but this is the only point where I feel that the gates might play a marginal role in.

Overall, there is no evidnece the gates are causing any of these, it's the definition of correlation.

Auggie wrote:That "data" thus far is some of the worst "data" I've ever read. Boardings are up being ridership is up, not because of the gates. The stations with gates represent 60% of the gains because some of the highest ridership stations have received gates (Grand, CWE, Civic Center, Forest Park, etc). Incidents are down because crime is down, but this is the only point where I feel that the gates might play a marginal role in.

Overall, there is no evidnece the gates are causing any of these, it's the definition of correlation.

This is somewhat predictably an overly dramatic response… As I said, the data is messy. It’s not some of the worst data you’ve ever read.

They said the data is an encouraging snapshot and they don’t know the full picture yet, which is fair. Ridership is up and it’s up by a larger percentage at the stations with gates. They are talking percentages not absolutes so it’s not as if the fact that those stations already get more riders is driving that.

We’ll see what ends up happening. I stand by my prediction.

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Jul 08, 2025

Auggie wrote:That "data" thus far is some of the worst "data" I've ever read. Boardings are up being ridership is up, not because of the gates. The stations with gates represent 60% of the gains because some of the highest ridership stations have received gates (Grand, CWE, Civic Center, Forest Park, etc). Incidents are down because crime is down, but this is the only point where I feel that the gates might play a marginal role in.

Overall, there is no evidnece the gates are causing any of these, it's the definition of correlation.

This is somewhat predictably an overly dramatic response… As I said, the data is messy. It’s not some of the worst data you’ve ever read.

They said the data is an encouraging snapshot and they don’t know the full picture yet, which is fair. Ridership is up and it’s up by a larger percentage at the stations with gates. They are talking percentages not absolutes so it’s not as if the fact that those stations already get more riders is driving that.

We’ll see what ends up happening. I stand by my prediction.

It's not overdramatic at all. The article/Bi-State is trying to make the case that the turn-stiles are increasing ridership and lowering incidents, but there is no evidnece of that. My point is that you would see these exact results without the turnstiles. Which is why it's horrible data.

I don't disagree that we may see long term ridership gains from some imporived perception, but trying to pin these ridership increases on the turnstiles is hilarious and not based in reality whatsoever.

Auggie wrote:

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Jul 08, 2025

Auggie wrote:That "data" thus far is some of the worst "data" I've ever read. Boardings are up being ridership is up, not because of the gates. The stations with gates represent 60% of the gains because some of the highest ridership stations have received gates (Grand, CWE, Civic Center, Forest Park, etc). Incidents are down because crime is down, but this is the only point where I feel that the gates might play a marginal role in.

Overall, there is no evidnece the gates are causing any of these, it's the definition of correlation.

This is somewhat predictably an overly dramatic response… As I said, the data is messy. It’s not some of the worst data you’ve ever read.

They said the data is an encouraging snapshot and they don’t know the full picture yet, which is fair. Ridership is up and it’s up by a larger percentage at the stations with gates. They are talking percentages not absolutes so it’s not as if the fact that those stations already get more riders is driving that.

We’ll see what ends up happening. I stand by my prediction.

It's not overdramatic at all. The article/Bi-State is trying to make the case that the turn-stiles are increasing ridership and lowering incidents, but there is no evidnece of that. My point is that you would see these exact results without the turnstiles. Which is why it's horrible data.

I don't disagree that we may see long term ridership gains from some imporived perception, but trying to pin these ridership increases on the turnstiles is hilarious and not based in reality whatsoever.

Reread the article and the quotes from Bistate. They aren’t making the case that the turnstiles are increasing ridership and decreasing crime yet. They say directly that it’s too soon to tell.

You’re being reckless in your assumption when you say the results would be the exact same without the turnstiles. You have no data to support that claim.

Go re-read the headline and get back to me.

That's all the evidence I need to support my claim that they're bullshitting.

Auggie wrote:Go re-read the headline and get back to me.

That's all the evidence I need to support my claim that they're bullshitting.

The headline makes no claims that the turnstiles are a driver of any trend with ridership or crime on the metro. The article talks about ridership and crime trends on the train and then talks about the limitations of the data we have and how we can’t yet say that gates are contributing to these trends.

As I’ve told you before, read carefully before you post. You’re the guy that always demands people back up their claims and show data, so be consistent. What’s backing up your claim that you know for certain the turnstiles aren’t currently contributing to increased ridership and decreasing crime?

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Jul 08, 2025

Auggie wrote:Go re-read the headline and get back to me.

That's all the evidence I need to support my claim that they're bullshitting.

The headline makes no claims that the turnstiles are a driver of any trend with ridership or crime on the metro. The article talks about ridership and crime trends on the train and then talks about the limitations of the data we have and how we can’t yet say that gates are contributing to these trends.

As I’ve told you before, read carefully before you post. You’re the guy that always demands people back up their claims and show data, so be consistent. What’s backing up your claim that you know for certain the turnstiles aren’t currently contributing to increased ridership and decreasing crime?

"Boardings rise and ‘safety incidents’ drop at MetroLink stations with turnstiles"

This headline intentionally is written this way to connect the turnstiles with the increase in ridership and decrease in crime. It is very intentional- despite not being true. What the article actually says doesn't matter. 90% of people can't actually read the article because it's paywalled and even more people don't have the time or care to read the entire article, which doesn't actually float around the truth until many paragraphs down. These people know what they are doing, and all I'm saying is that it's bullsh*t.

It also shouldn't be surprising to you that despite MetroLink being a generally very clean and safe transit system, the P-D has virtually never written a positive article about it and almost universally negative articles about crime- until there are turnstiles partially funded by big corporations to link the good news to.

Auggie wrote:

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Jul 08, 2025

Auggie wrote:Go re-read the headline and get back to me.

That's all the evidence I need to support my claim that they're bullshitting.

The headline makes no claims that the turnstiles are a driver of any trend with ridership or crime on the metro. The article talks about ridership and crime trends on the train and then talks about the limitations of the data we have and how we can’t yet say that gates are contributing to these trends.

As I’ve told you before, read carefully before you post. You’re the guy that always demands people back up their claims and show data, so be consistent. What’s backing up your claim that you know for certain the turnstiles aren’t currently contributing to increased ridership and decreasing crime?

"Boardings rise and ‘safety incidents’ drop at MetroLink stations with turnstiles"

This is you not having a response to what I’m telling you. Rarely do you speak with such brevity.

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Jul 08, 2025

Auggie wrote:

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Jul 08, 2025

The headline makes no claims that the turnstiles are a driver of any trend with ridership or crime on the metro. The article talks about ridership and crime trends on the train and then talks about the limitations of the data we have and how we can’t yet say that gates are contributing to these trends.

As I’ve told you before, read carefully before you post. You’re the guy that always demands people back up their claims and show data, so be consistent. What’s backing up your claim that you know for certain the turnstiles aren’t currently contributing to increased ridership and decreasing crime?

"Boardings rise and ‘safety incidents’ drop at MetroLink stations with turnstiles"

This headline intentionally is written this way to connect the turnstiles with the increase in ridership and decrease in crime. It is very intentional- despite not being true. What the article actually says doesn't matter. 90% of people can't actually read the article because it's paywalled and even more people don't have the time or care to read the entire article, which doesn't actually float around the truth until many paragraphs down. These people know what they are doing, and all I'm saying is that it's bullsh*t.

It also shouldn't be surprising to you that despite MetroLink being a generally very clean and safe transit system, the P-D has virtually never written a positive article about it and almost universally negative articles about crime- until there are turnstiles partially funded by big corporations to link the good news to.

I ask you again to go back up your claim that turnstiles are not a driver of increased ridership or decreases in crime. You can’t do that. At least the article was reasonable enough to say they don’t know yet. The article is fair and balanced. The headline isn’t making a claim that can’t be made yet. You’re accusing other people of only reading a headline and making an incorrect assumption. It looks like your the one that’s guilty of that.

If you go back and read what I said, I said that the turnstiles likely have a marginal impact on crime incident decline in like the very first post I made.

Again, I remind you, this is a pay-walled article. The vast majority of people cannot read the article in full and can only read the headline. They know this, which is why it is incredibly misleading at best and false at worst.

In the article, they literally say that crime incidents are down across the board, not just at the turnstiles stations. We also know that crime in general is down, which is likely to reflect on publicly accessible transit. This is all the evidence I need to show that turnstiles are not the driving force behind crime incident declines, and as you said, they even admit that in the article.

I no longer understand what points you're trying to make. You have to just be lying because you just can't read "Boardings rise and ‘safety incidents’ drop at MetroLink stations with turnstiles" and not see the false story they are trying to tell.

This is the correct, factual headline:
"Boardings rise and ‘safety incidents’ drop at MetroLink stations"

From the Transportation and Commerce Committee - June 25, 2025:

In response to a question from Alderwoman Anne Schweitzer about Roach’s previous statements saying fare gates would increase ridership and sharing her own negative experiences as a transit rider:

Taulby Roach: “The ridership numbers at Emerson Park went up 40% when we put the gates in 
Alderwoman Schweitzer: “Wow.” 
Roach: “It was significant.
Schweitzer: “Can I ask is that because you now know people are buying tickets and therefore it's like a… the ridership didn't actually increase but now you're knowing for sure that people have tickets on the…”
Roach: “I think it's a combination of both.”
Schweitzer: “Okay.”
Roach: “I think that no matter what we need to see our product as something that people are willing to invest in that they feel, “hey I feel safe and therefore I will buy a premium ticket to be on it” right and that security goes all the way from folks who live in the nicest neighborhoods to folks who who are working class. Folks, most of whom are on our system right now who deserve to have
a safe ride. So we do believe then that once we establish that fundamental customer service piece that feels safer, that'll allow us also to move our ridership up.”

Even Bistate can't confirm if ridership is up and they admit that they didn't have accurate ways to track before the gates. This isn't to say more people are buying tickets either, based on his comments later in the meeting. And they can't prove they're helping with safety, as the drops are minimal and the cameras likely account for that. They admit gates are just a PR campaign. 

Taulby Roach: I do get challenged, very correctly, with those numbers and people ask “Is safety and security a marketing program to increase transit ridership?” You want to call it that? It's okay with me, because I need more ridership.

Metro gave the station door openers a shack and this guy at Union Station was so out of his he was snoring

If they're not asleep, they're usually on the phone and might as well be asleep. 

Just a really sad and violent story leading to really sad and violent online discourse.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/23 ... rcna229817

Wait so now right wing people like Ukrainian refugees?

Sad story. It will be made about race. It’s really about society is hard to manage and sometimes we mess up, so we need a better system to get it right more often. Surprised there hasn’t been a tweet from a local news station with a link and caption “Woman Murdered On Metro” because they do that sometimes and it’s frustrating. The resulting discourse from this incident will be negative for our country overall unfortunately

Terrible. Did the murderer have a record? Let out early? How do they imagine they would have "handled that" to prevent this?

"The more vile the threat, the more vociferously the Democrat Party works to protect and enable it."

Like domestic abuse, pollution, climate change, viruses, corporate greed, workplace safety, product safety, Epstein, etc amiright?

Will this damage Charlotte's image? Of they get to use 900k as the denomenator for crime rates.

Right wing people will only "defend" a marginalized group if it allows them to be used as a prop to sh*t on something/someone else they don't like

IE they all suddenly care about women's and LGBTQ rights when talking about disliking muslims

quincunx wrote: ↑

Sep 08, 2025

Terrible. Did the murderer have a record? Let out early? How do they imagine they would have "handled that" to prevent this?

"The more vile the threat, the more vociferously the Democrat Party works to protect and enable it."

Like domestic abuse, pollution, climate change, viruses, corporate greed, workplace safety, product safety, Epstein, etc amiright?

Will this damage Charlotte's image? Of they get to use 900k as the denomenator for crime rates.

He had a long pretty mundane "criminal" history. Had only a couple violent crimes that he spent 6 years in prison for. The punitive theory of justice failed again, like it always does.

He was also diagnosed with schizophrenia and his family wanted him institutionalized, but North Carolina doesn't have a well funded mental health system.

Secretary of DOT launching investigation into Charlotte Area Transit System due to incident. The ugly baboon secretary expects to find a problem from the investigation that will force him to withdraw federal funding from the regions public transportation system. The idiot nazi bootlicker secretary also expects to turn attention to other agencies.  

You know the online discourse is really ***** bad when addxb2 is calling Sean Duffy a nazi. I love to see it, but hate that this county has so many nazis.

If this girl was struck and killed by a car, like thousands of people are every year, none of these wannabe nazis would be talking at all. Because violence on trains is NOT normalized and that's a good thing, but violence on roads is so normalized, multiple car accidents on our local highways everyday is something to be expected and it's abnormal if there aren't any.

The Duffman still hasn't commented on the two people burned alive by a driver. Not even so much as a thoughts and prayers, smh.