977
Super MemberSuper Member
977

PostNov 02, 2023#951


PostNov 02, 2023#952

Debaliviere91 wrote:https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/crime ... 82747ea954


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Their original reporting indicated a shooting on the train. They have since revised it to say a man was stabbed near the station.

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostNov 02, 2023#953

Did KSDK ask MoDOT if it had anything to do with I64?

977
Super MemberSuper Member
977

PostNov 02, 2023#954

quincunx wrote:Did KSDK ask MoDOT if it had anything to do with I64?
It doesn’t appear that they asked a lot of probing questions at all

2,678
Life MemberLife Member
2,678

PostNov 15, 2023#955

Assuming this is accurate and assuming those who don’t pay will still use the service, best case scenario is that the turnstile project captures $800,000 to $1.2MM annually. 48-65 years to pay off.

Not including any indirect theoretical benefit of creating a “safer” user experience.



977
Super MemberSuper Member
977

PostNov 15, 2023#956

addxb2 wrote:Assuming this is accurate and assuming those who don’t pay will still use the service, best case scenario is that the turnstile project captures $800,000 to $1.2MM annually. 48-65 years to pay off.

Not including any indirect theoretical benefit of creating a “safer” user experience.


Im not in the camp that chasing after fare compliance is really worth it, but I just can’t imagine that 95% number is accurate in my experience.

1,792
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,792

PostNov 15, 2023#957

Debaliviere91 wrote:
Nov 15, 2023
addxb2 wrote:Assuming this is accurate and assuming those who don’t pay will still use the service, best case scenario is that the turnstile project captures $800,000 to $1.2MM annually. 48-65 years to pay off.

Not including any indirect theoretical benefit of creating a “safer” user experience.


Im not in the camp that chasing after fare compliance is really worth it, but I just can’t imagine that 95% number is accurate in my experience.
Why can't it be accurate.  that would just mean 1 in 20 cheats, which seems reasonable.  Also they don't do audits at times like during cardinals game when i'll wager there may be more fare evasion, but as a percentage i think it might holdup.

Fare compliance on the buses should be high as well since there is a driver there to enforce it.

Honestly its a little heartwarming to know people are generally pretty damn honest.  It also highlights that turnstiles are a very poor investment.

977
Super MemberSuper Member
977

PostNov 15, 2023#958

STLEnginerd wrote:
Debaliviere91 wrote:
Nov 15, 2023
addxb2 wrote:Assuming this is accurate and assuming those who don’t pay will still use the service, best case scenario is that the turnstile project captures $800,000 to $1.2MM annually. 48-65 years to pay off.

Not including any indirect theoretical benefit of creating a “safer” user experience.


Im not in the camp that chasing after fare compliance is really worth it, but I just can’t imagine that 95% number is accurate in my experience.
Why can't it be accurate.  that would just mean 1 in 20 cheats, which seems reasonable.  Also they don't do audits at times like during cardinals game when i'll wager there may be more fare evasion, but as a percentage i think it might holdup.

Fare compliance on the buses should be high as well since there is a driver there to enforce it.

Honestly its a little heartwarming to know people are generally pretty damn honest.  It also highlights that turnstiles are a very poor investment.
Turnstiles are only worth it if they increase the perception of safety, and thus the number of riders.

I’m a regular rider. I get many people could be prepaying or using passes from the hospital/WashU/etc programs, but I never see people buying tickets at the station before riding and I never see them checking for tickets. I just don’t see how it could be at 95% compliance. At least when I am riding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2,678
Life MemberLife Member
2,678

PostNov 16, 2023#959

MetroLink probably recorded between 350,000 and 400,000 unlinked passenger trips in that period of October 17th- November 6th. Based on last year’s numbers.

8,500 is about 2% of riders. Hard to know what share of that was university pass holders.


2,327
Life MemberLife Member
2,327

PostNov 16, 2023#960

You have to show a pass or pay to ride the bus, so that’s at 100%. And that’s how 95% of Metrolink riders get to a station.

1,868
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,868

PostNov 16, 2023#961

Debaliviere91 wrote:
Nov 15, 2023
STLEnginerd wrote:
Debaliviere91 wrote:
Nov 15, 2023
Im not in the camp that chasing after fare compliance is really worth it, but I just can’t imagine that 95% number is accurate in my experience.
Why can't it be accurate.  that would just mean 1 in 20 cheats, which seems reasonable.  Also they don't do audits at times like during cardinals game when i'll wager there may be more fare evasion, but as a percentage i think it might holdup.

Fare compliance on the buses should be high as well since there is a driver there to enforce it.

Honestly its a little heartwarming to know people are generally pretty damn honest.  It also highlights that turnstiles are a very poor investment.
Turnstiles are only worth it if they increase the perception of safety, and thus the number of riders.

I’m a regular rider. I get many people could be prepaying or using passes from the hospital/WashU/etc programs, but I never see people buying tickets at the station before riding and I never see them checking for tickets. I just don’t see how it could be at 95% compliance. At least when I am riding.
I know bars and fences make me feel safe. Whenever I drive through a neighborhood with bars on all the windows I think "what a safe neighborhood this is".

I generally assume most riders are regulars using monthly passes or something unless there's a major sporting event happening, but maybe I'm wrong.

474
Full MemberFull Member
474

PostNov 16, 2023#962

addxb2 wrote:
Nov 15, 2023
Assuming this is accurate and assuming those who don’t pay will still use the service, best case scenario is that the turnstile project captures $800,000 to $1.2MM annually. 48-65 years to pay off.

Not including any indirect theoretical benefit of creating a “safer” user experience.


I rode metrolink in the time range every single day but I was never checked for fare. Last time someone checked my fare was prior to pandemic.

2,419
Life MemberLife Member
2,419

PostNov 25, 2023#963

I've had my fare checked numerous times post-pandemic. It's certainly not every time I ride, but I've definitely had it happen in recent months. 

692
Senior MemberSenior Member
692

PostNov 26, 2023#964

I don't ride that often and I've had mine "checked" (by looking at my Gateway Card without scanning it to verify I've paid) post-pandemic.

9,549
Life MemberLife Member
9,549

PostNov 26, 2023#965

Metrolink crime through Q3

Over half of the “violent crimes” involved no victim but metro police proactively arresting people for illegal guns on the system.
IMG_7184.jpeg (221.83KiB)

977
Super MemberSuper Member
977

PostDec 18, 2023#966

BART's new fare gate installation begins at West Oakland station

https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/ne ... d-station/

474
Full MemberFull Member
474

PostJan 08, 2024#967

What do you folks think about Metros plans to stop ads on exteriors and lose at least million in revenue.



For me, safety trumps aesthetics and perception - no brainer.

I would LOVE for the metro to have security personnel ride trains all the time..

977
Super MemberSuper Member
977

PostJan 08, 2024#968

stlurbanist wrote:What do you folks think about Metros plans to stop ads on exteriors and lose at least million in revenue.



For me, safety trumps aesthetics and perception - no brainer.

I would LOVE for the metro to have security personnel ride trains all the time..
It will be nice to not see giant ads of ambulance chasing lawyers, but I don’t know if that’s worth giving up $1.5M in profit when we are still trying to find funds for things like increasing driver pay to attract more of them and increase routes.

474
Full MemberFull Member
474

PostJan 08, 2024#969

Debaliviere91 wrote:
Jan 08, 2024
stlurbanist wrote:What do you folks think about Metros plans to stop ads on exteriors and lose at least million in revenue.



For me, safety trumps aesthetics and perception - no brainer.

I would LOVE for the metro to have security personnel ride trains all the time..
It will be nice to not see giant ads of ambulance chasing lawyers, but I don’t know if that’s worth giving up $1.5M in profit when we are still trying to find funds for things like increasing driver pay to attract more of them and increase routes.
I totally agree. There are so many things they can use that $$ for. 

2,678
Life MemberLife Member
2,678

PostJan 08, 2024#970

I’ll be the devils advocate. I bet advertising was a pain to manage and probably did more damage to the vehicles than you would expect. Also, $1.5M isn’t nearly as much as I would have expected.

I see benefits in a clean system.

12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostJan 09, 2024#971

I hate the ads. Good riddance.

1,607
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,607

PostJan 09, 2024#972

I think it's disingenuous to say "we are losing 1.5 mil USD in revenue" without knowing the details of the profit margin after overhead from sales, ongoing management and upkeep/damage to vehicles as addxb2 points out. 

I think this advertisement modality is a fossil in the age of the cell phone (though lawyers wouldn't do it if they weren't getting a return) and the clean look buses create a better perception.  jmo

977
Super MemberSuper Member
977

PostJan 09, 2024#973

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote:I think it's disingenuous to say "we are losing 1.5 mil USD in revenue" without knowing the details of the profit margin after overhead from sales, ongoing management and upkeep/damage to vehicles as addxb2 points out. 

I think this advertisement modality is a fossil in the age of the cell phone (though lawyers wouldn't do it if they weren't getting a return) and the clean look buses create a better perception.  jmo
I’m reasonably familiar with ad costs. At $1.5M in revenue, they are giving up $1M in pure profit at a minimum. This seems short sited for an organization that I don’t even think runs at a profit and has had to cut bus/train routes and frequency.

2,678
Life MemberLife Member
2,678

PostJan 09, 2024#974

Imagine if Forest Park came with a dozen billboards for personal injury lawyers along 64?

I probably shouldn’t but I trust CEO Roach on this. He has no reason to impulsively stop advertising at Metro. He’s been (annoyingly) pressured to operate a budget positive organization, he wouldn’t do this if it weren’t negligible when considering indirect or unmeasured costs.

977
Super MemberSuper Member
977

PostJan 09, 2024#975

addxb2 wrote:Imagine if Forest Park came with a dozen billboards for personal injury lawyers along 64?

I probably shouldn’t but I trust CEO Roach on this. He has no reason to impulsively stop advertising at Metro. He’s been (annoyingly) pressured to operate a budget positive organization, he wouldn’t do this if it weren’t negligible when considering indirect or unmeasured costs.
How can you compare a park and a bus? And you’re right, you shouldn’t trust CEO Roach on this.

Read more posts (161 remaining)