JCity wrote:wow. now those are some facts. How long does it take from the Forsyth Station to get downtown say (eighth and pine)? Peak times and regular during the day, bus dad?
21 minutes according to the Metro website.
21 minutes according to the Metro website.
WEEKDAY in May 2007
7,228 Central West End Station
5,929 Forest Park Station
4,863 Grand Station
4,687 North Hanley Station
3,645 Convention Center Station
3,415 Lambert Main Terminal
3,368 8th & Pine Station
3,178 Delmar Station
3,146 Union Station
3,041 5th & Missouri Station
2,974 Civic Center Station
2,801 Emerson Park Station @ 15th Street
2,637 Rock Road Station
2,513 Shrewsbury Metrolink Station
2,354 Stadium MetroLink Station
1,801 Fairview Heights Station @ Route161
1,799 Wellston Station
1,577 East Riverfront Station
1,521 Shiloh-Scott Station
1,489 UMSL South Station
1,463 Arch Laclede's Landing
1,281 Clayton Metrolink Station
1,261 Brentwood I-64 Metrolink Station
1,244 UMSL North Station
1,234 J J K Center Station @ 25th Street
1,182 Belleville Station @ Sheel Street
1,166 College Stat @ Southwest IL College
1,129 Skinker Metrolink Station
1,043 Washington Park Sta @ Kingshighway
1,016 Richmond Heights Metrolink Station
982 Swansea Station @ Route 159
943 U City Big Bend Metrolink Station
846 Maplewood Manchester Metrolink Station
775 Memorial Hospital Station @ Fington
770 Lambert East Terminal
636 Forsyth Metrolink Station
450 Sunnen Metrolink Station
APC Data:
64,265 Missouri:
17,121 Illinois:
81,386 Total:
Brentwood Garage will open on June 12th (Public ceremony on Monday, June 11th at 8:30 am.
May Ridership including bus, rail and paratransit will exceed 5 million for first time for many years.
Long term parking will be announced for Brentwood garage and Shrewsbury effective June 12th.
7,228 Central West End Station
5,929 Forest Park Station
4,863 Grand Station
4,687 North Hanley Station
3,645 Convention Center Station
3,415 Lambert Main Terminal
3,368 8th & Pine Station
3,178 Delmar Station
3,146 Union Station
3,041 5th & Missouri Station
2,974 Civic Center Station
2,801 Emerson Park Station @ 15th Street
2,637 Rock Road Station
2,513 Shrewsbury Metrolink Station
2,354 Stadium MetroLink Station
1,801 Fairview Heights Station @ Route161
1,799 Wellston Station
1,577 East Riverfront Station
1,521 Shiloh-Scott Station
1,489 UMSL South Station
1,463 Arch Laclede's Landing
1,281 Clayton Metrolink Station
1,261 Brentwood I-64 Metrolink Station
1,244 UMSL North Station
1,234 J J K Center Station @ 25th Street
1,182 Belleville Station @ Sheel Street
1,166 College Stat @ Southwest IL College
1,129 Skinker Metrolink Station
1,043 Washington Park Sta @ Kingshighway
1,016 Richmond Heights Metrolink Station
982 Swansea Station @ Route 159
943 U City Big Bend Metrolink Station
846 Maplewood Manchester Metrolink Station
775 Memorial Hospital Station @ Fington
770 Lambert East Terminal
636 Forsyth Metrolink Station
450 Sunnen Metrolink Station
APC Data:
64,265 Missouri:
17,121 Illinois:
81,386 Total:
Brentwood Garage will open on June 12th (Public ceremony on Monday, June 11th at 8:30 am.
May Ridership including bus, rail and paratransit will exceed 5 million for first time for many years.
Long term parking will be announced for Brentwood garage and Shrewsbury effective June 12th.
- 923
^ Wow.
Look at how low clayton is. Why the hell did they build the CC extension again? The second largest job center gets only 1,281 (I assume this is boardings) a day? That's downright embarrassing. Who did the trip origin/destination calculations? This looks awful.
Look at how low clayton is. Why the hell did they build the CC extension again? The second largest job center gets only 1,281 (I assume this is boardings) a day? That's downright embarrassing. Who did the trip origin/destination calculations? This looks awful.
Hu, I looked at it and thought the exact opposite. Linking BJC to more people is boosting (along with a few other factors) the total ridership numbers. Besides, as I said before, I think the Clayton stations will see higher ridership numbers when metro lines go north and west from Clayton. The fact that Clayton has been linked by highways north and west for the better part of 25 or more years (70 and 170) must have had an effect on where Clayton workers live.
Hu, I looked at it and thought the exact opposite. Linking BJC to more people is boosting (along with a few other factors) the total ridership numbers. Besides, as I said before, I think the Clayton stations will see higher ridership numbers when metro lines go north and west from Clayton. The fact that Clayton has been linked by highways north and west for the better part of 25 or more years (70 and 170) must have had an effect on where Clayton workers live.
The projected total ridership on Metrolink for 2025 as part of the No Build option for Metro South estimated 83,107 boardings for an average day. (Average day is annual ridership divided by 280.
The average day for the month of May 2007 was 84,xxx boardings which is higher than the projected 2025 number. (Its only one month however, and the average day over the first nine months is running about 15 % behind the 20 year projection. However, even modest gains will get us to the 2025 numbers in a few years.
Boardings on all of the nine new stations are running about 40 % behind the projected numbers. Clayton is way below its target for several reasons. First the bus ridership is much lower in Clayton than estimated. The plan implemented was different than the system used in the model. The number of Clayton workers using Metrolink is lower than anticipated. This will take some time to develop. I don't think we are going to get to 5,000 boardings per day, but I think we could reasonably get to 2,500 boardings per day.
We are at about 10,000 boardings per day on the nine new stations. It is very reasonable that we will increase to 18,000 per day over the next five or six years. That's way before 2025.
- 8,912
UMSL update
After numerous meetings and conversations, the University and Metro have been able to reach an agreement for the Metro student pass program. The passes will available for purchase during the 2007/2008 academic year to any student, regardless of age, taking nine credit hours or more, at a cost of approximately $60. Eligible students will be able to charge this fee to their student accounts.
During the next academic year, the University will continue conversations with Metro and the campus community in order to ensure availability of the best program model for our students. Also, Metro has expressed interest in meeting with the student body to discuss the program and the options for the future.
As always, Student Affairs encourages student feedback and you may do such by contacting us at Student_Affairs@umsl.edu.
Thank you!
JMedwick wrote:Hu, I looked at it and thought the exact opposite. Linking BJC to more people is boosting (along with a few other factors) the total ridership numbers. Besides, as I said before, I think the Clayton stations will see higher ridership numbers when metro lines go north and west from Clayton. The fact that Clayton has been linked by highways north and west for the better part of 25 or more years (70 and 170) must have had an effect on where Clayton workers live.
I too am surprised by how low the Clayton stations are. But I just never saw Clayton businesses and residents as the type of people who rode Metrolink. Maybe the addition of a few more office and residential towers will help.
But if you've even been on a morning train that come from the Shrewsbury extension and pulls into the CWE, you'll see the mass exodus. I've seen trains with all seats full and a decent standing crowd loose half the riders at CWE.
Even though it would have been a lot more expensive, I still think they should have continued underneath Forsyth to Brentwood, to 170. The Clayton stations are a little to far from the heart of Clayton. YES, it's only a few blocks, but clearly this has an effect on people using the system. I think a lot more will use it when 40 closes. How cool would a station under Forsyth and Central have been?
JCity wrote:Even though it would have been a lot more expensive, I still think they should have continued underneath Forsyth to Brentwood, to 170. The Clayton stations are a little to far from the heart of Clayton. YES, it's only a few blocks, but clearly this has an effect on people using the system. I think a lot more will use it when 40 closes. How cool would a station under Forsyth and Central have been?
I agree. Both Clayton stations are on the periphery of the business district. There are a lot of daily commuters between downtown and Clayton, and there's no doubt people would be more apt to use MetroLink if the stations were more centrally located. If a Clayton lawyer had a 2:00 meeting downtown, he (or she) could decide to walk 10 minutes to the nearest station and maybe wait 7-10 minutes for a train, or he could hop in his car, get downtown in half the time, and maybe pay $6 to park.
In many ways, St. Louis' compactness is a little too convenient for driving, and in comparison rapid transit ends up being anything but.
That said, my dad commutes from Clayton to downtown every single day on MetroLink. He walks 14 minutes from his condo to the Central station and enjoys the morning exercise as well as his iPod, Blackberry, and morning paper rather than dealing with the hassles of driving.
- 710
my office is on st. louis countys olive blvd corridor. while i drive all over the metro with equipment for my job, there are days i know i'll be in my office...but obviously metrolink is out of the question. does anyone here, however, take the 91 bus from st. louis city (debaliviere) to olive and 270? olive obviously could benefit from a well done BRT line....
That said, my dad commutes from Clayton to downtown every single day on MetroLink. He walks 14 minutes from his condo to the Central station and enjoys the morning exercise as well as his iPod, Blackberry, and morning paper rather than dealing with the hassles of driving.
It makes me wonder if transportation were actually run for a profit how much more enjoyable mass transit would be. Given that more ridership would mean higher profits, I'll bet that the people running the trains would try to make their product appear better than the competition (driving).
These thoughts ran through my head everytime I used the El in Chicago last December. Especially when I about froze to death (well not literally) waiting for a train in Uptown. Are those puny halogen heaters the best that they can do? I almost lost a finger or two to frostbite. It seems that it would not be in the best interests for a company to leave its customers exposed to the elements like that (and thus more likely to opt for the competition).
There is also the issue that there is nothing to do but sit and wait at stations. Waiting 10 minutes for a train is one thing, but to have absolutely nothing to do is even worse.
What would stations look like in if a someone had a financial incentive to attract as many riders as possible? I could see stations with a sort of newstand to allow business commuters to save time grabbing a cup of coffee and the morning paper. Free WiFi? Is this offered already? Is it offered on the trains?
I think we should have turnstiles as well. The honor system is constantly violated. It would also probably keep more undesireables off of the trains. Maybe the owners would demand a certain level of cleanliness of its customers. I made the mistake of a getting on an El train that had the worst smelling homeless woman I have ever seen. She had trash in her pockets. It smelled so bad that I and about half of the car got out at the next stop and switched cars. People that smell like this should not be allowed on the train. Similarly, people don't like being hassled by panhandlers. They should be removed at the first stop possible if they attempt to harass anyone.
Also, I know that the trains have to be serviced or whatever, but I bet that someone could figure out a way that there could be trains that ran until 3am on the weekends at least. I know that there is a HUGE market for this. Most people who go out do not like to drink and drive, but have no other option. This needs to be fixed.
- 1,054
I too wish Metrolink could be subway through Clayton since it is a busy CBD. However, the cost may have been even greater and its more popular to build light rail at lower costs compared to subway or elevated.
It will be fascinating to see how the Clayton to Westport line will be designed and its merger into the existing line. It seems that it would have to wye off the CC with the main station being in FPP.
I bet the Westport line will add a good many people to the Clayton station.
It will be fascinating to see how the Clayton to Westport line will be designed and its merger into the existing line. It seems that it would have to wye off the CC with the main station being in FPP.
I bet the Westport line will add a good many people to the Clayton station.
It makes me wonder if transportation were actually run for a profit how much more enjoyable mass transit would be. Given that more ridership would mean higher profits, I'll bet that the people running the trains would try to make their product appear better than the competition (driving).
Modern mass transit systems are not built and run for profit because they would never be profitable for the company that ran them. There isn't a single public mass transit system in the country that runs a profit and if it were simply left to the free market, they would never be built at all. Mass transit can only be argued to become profitable at the macro scale of the city, at which point, it can spur development and can allow areas to become denser. Which is why cities build them and not individuals.
- 923
Bastiat -
I suspect they couldn't do a subway just because of all the lower level parking garages and piping under the scyscrapers. You'd have to go a long way down to avoid all that - maybe 150 feet in some places? Heckuva lot more than the subway under the parkway. That would have added hundreds of millions onto the cost - no joke.
Your newsstands idea is a good one - they have it here in melbourne at the big stations. Too bad metro hasn't developed any retail space in their stations. They'd make a mint. Maybe.
The honor system should stay though. I don't like it anymore than anyone else does, but it's the cheapest way to keep people riding. If they had mandatory tunstiles, it'd add huge costs to they system, because you'd have nstall the turnstiles, and man the stations to make sure people didn't jump. That's an astronomical addition to the annual upkeep, which would just get passed to the riders. Metro is already horribly overpriced at $2 a ride - add those expenses and you can bet you'd see it jump to $3.
I suspect they couldn't do a subway just because of all the lower level parking garages and piping under the scyscrapers. You'd have to go a long way down to avoid all that - maybe 150 feet in some places? Heckuva lot more than the subway under the parkway. That would have added hundreds of millions onto the cost - no joke.
Your newsstands idea is a good one - they have it here in melbourne at the big stations. Too bad metro hasn't developed any retail space in their stations. They'd make a mint. Maybe.
The honor system should stay though. I don't like it anymore than anyone else does, but it's the cheapest way to keep people riding. If they had mandatory tunstiles, it'd add huge costs to they system, because you'd have nstall the turnstiles, and man the stations to make sure people didn't jump. That's an astronomical addition to the annual upkeep, which would just get passed to the riders. Metro is already horribly overpriced at $2 a ride - add those expenses and you can bet you'd see it jump to $3.
- 11K
BT wrote:It makes me wonder if transportation were actually run for a profit how much more enjoyable mass transit would be. Given that more ridership would mean higher profits, I'll bet that the people running the trains would try to make their product appear better than the competition (driving).
Modern mass transit systems are not built and run for profit because they would never be profitable for the company that ran them. There isn't a single public mass transit system in the country that runs a profit and if it were simply left to the free market, they would never be built at all. Mass transit can only be argued to become profitable at the macro scale of the city, at which point, it can spur development and can allow areas to become denser. Which is why cities build them and not individuals.
^ The great thing about this is that the exact same thing can be said for roads and highways - and the auto industry - but we willingly and enthusiastically subsidize these at every turn.
- 1,610
As studied in 1999, the low-cost option to build at-grade through the heart of Clayton was 86'd by the late Buzz Westfall, may he RIP, with the biggest opposition coming from the Ritz Carlton. However, that option would have provided an at-grade station on Carondelet between Central and Meramec, where the street is today closed between the County Administration and Courts buildings. Also a board member of East-West Gateway, Buzz convinced that regional planning body responsible for early MetroLink planning to approve an alignment along the Parkway.
However, the original design was still for the north edge of the Parkway with more level access. Metro would later approve a design change that would move the alignment to the middle of the Parkway. As a result, it's today not only a walk to many Clayton businesses (E-W Gateway's poor Parkway decision), but now also a climb out of the station (Metro's poor median-running decision). Finally, by switching to the median of the FPP, it's also now harder to design a track-wye branching to the northwest for a future Westport extension.
However, the original design was still for the north edge of the Parkway with more level access. Metro would later approve a design change that would move the alignment to the middle of the Parkway. As a result, it's today not only a walk to many Clayton businesses (E-W Gateway's poor Parkway decision), but now also a climb out of the station (Metro's poor median-running decision). Finally, by switching to the median of the FPP, it's also now harder to design a track-wye branching to the northwest for a future Westport extension.
- 11K
It's always interesting how one bad decision can lead to another! 
Bastiat wrote:I could see stations with a sort of newstand to allow business commuters to save time grabbing a cup of coffee and the morning paper. Free WiFi? Is this offered already? Is it offered on the trains?
Hmmm. Surely, Metro, can at least, make money renting space out to those with a profit motive. I once saw a kiosk sized mini-McDonalds in Chile that perhaps took up only a 4'x6' space selling beverages and ice-cream. Perhaps mini-Starbucks, etc.
Several years ago Metro averaged 44,000 daily boardings. Now we are averaging 70,000 daily boardings with peaks over 80,000. Four years ago Metro was transporting 10,000 daily boardings in Illinois. In FY07, we are averaging 14,500 with peaks over 17,000. The Central West End is now the absolute busiest station with daily boardings over 7,200 passenger. It isn't inconceivable that we will hit 100,000 daily boardings on Metrolink even with the current system in 10 years.
The Meridian Development, adjacent to the Brentwood Station, will start building a seven story office building next to the current structure this week. A three story building will come after that. These are significant developments being build around our light rail line. Five years from now, ridership from the Brentwood Station will be double or triple the current boardings. Its rumored that a developer is planning a large development adjacent to the Richmond Heights Station (Bowling alley area) with a desire for a close pedestrian access to the Station. I wouldn't be surprised to see more density around the Sunnen Station in the future because of what competing developers see around other stations.
Developers are expressing real interest development around the N. Hanley Station and covet a Springdale Station (I'm not so positive on that however.)
My point is that light rail is a long term investment that we will not see the full payoff immediately.
The Meridian Development, adjacent to the Brentwood Station, will start building a seven story office building next to the current structure this week. A three story building will come after that. These are significant developments being build around our light rail line. Five years from now, ridership from the Brentwood Station will be double or triple the current boardings. Its rumored that a developer is planning a large development adjacent to the Richmond Heights Station (Bowling alley area) with a desire for a close pedestrian access to the Station. I wouldn't be surprised to see more density around the Sunnen Station in the future because of what competing developers see around other stations.
Developers are expressing real interest development around the N. Hanley Station and covet a Springdale Station (I'm not so positive on that however.)
My point is that light rail is a long term investment that we will not see the full payoff immediately.
BT wrote:It makes me wonder if transportation were actually run for a profit how much more enjoyable mass transit would be. Given that more ridership would mean higher profits, I'll bet that the people running the trains would try to make their product appear better than the competition (driving).
Modern mass transit systems are not built and run for profit because they would never be profitable for the company that ran them. There isn't a single public mass transit system in the country that runs a profit and if it were simply left to the free market, they would never be built at all. Mass transit can only be argued to become profitable at the macro scale of the city, at which point, it can spur development and can allow areas to become denser. Which is why cities build them and not individuals.
Are you aware that St. Louis once had the world's largest trolley system courtesy of private mass transit companies and that the vast majority of the NYC subway was built by competing train companies? Or are you saying that they would not be profitable when up against the subsidized roads and highways (as Grover points out)?
I could see your point that a company probably would not try to compete with highways and roads and build its own infrastructure, but I think that a company could easily run a profit on Metrolink if they were to buy the existing tracks from the city. I think the reason that we don't see private mass transit these days is that it is much more lucrative for these rail building companies to raid the public treasury where there is less accountability than to put their own money on the line.
- 476
They had a piece on Fox 2 tonight about the Brentwood station and parking garage. They interviewed some people from the suburbs who said they would park there and ride metro to work. When the highway construction starts they were predicting a LARGE increase in ridership. Who knows, after a few years of riding metro, some of these people will have decided/figured out that its alot cheaper to keep doing this even when the highway is funished.
- 11K
Bastiat wrote:BT wrote:It makes me wonder if transportation were actually run for a profit how much more enjoyable mass transit would be. Given that more ridership would mean higher profits, I'll bet that the people running the trains would try to make their product appear better than the competition (driving).
Modern mass transit systems are not built and run for profit because they would never be profitable for the company that ran them. There isn't a single public mass transit system in the country that runs a profit and if it were simply left to the free market, they would never be built at all. Mass transit can only be argued to become profitable at the macro scale of the city, at which point, it can spur development and can allow areas to become denser. Which is why cities build them and not individuals.
Are you aware that St. Louis once had the world's largest trolley system courtesy of private mass transit companies and that the vast majority of the NYC subway was built by competing train companies? Or are you saying that they would not be profitable when up against the subsidized roads and highways (as Grover points out)?
I could see your point that a company probably would not try to compete with highways and roads and build its own infrastructure, but I think that a company could easily run a profit on Metrolink if they were to buy the existing tracks from the city. I think the reason that we don't see private mass transit these days is that it is much more lucrative for these rail building companies to raid the public treasury where there is less accountability than to put their own money on the line.
I don't think this jives with what I've read. The examples you cite were very heavily subsidized by government at many levels. Also, government had yet to begin very heavily subsidizing road building/auto industry/oil. And people lived in communities much more dense that we today think is tolerable.
Bastiat wrote:
Are you aware .... and that the vast majority of the NYC subway was built by competing train companies?
Actually much of the NYC Subway system was built by the city and then leased to either the IRT or the BMT - the two independent line that ran in NYC.
On Saturday, July 16th, Metrolink had 99,300 boardings. The Race for Cure boardings were estimated at 42,000 boardings on that day. Converting this to "people", approximately 21,000 individuals used Metrolink for Race for the Cure.
If the Race organizers were correct that 65,000 people participated in the Race, Metrolink provided transportation for about 1/3 of the participants, which is pretty significant from my perspective.
The new Shrewsbury stations attracted slightly more boardings that the Lambert (Delmar to Main Terminal Stations).
I worked as a volunteer ambassador at the Brentwood Station. The number of totally new non transit patrons dominated the boardings that day.
If the Race organizers were correct that 65,000 people participated in the Race, Metrolink provided transportation for about 1/3 of the participants, which is pretty significant from my perspective.
The new Shrewsbury stations attracted slightly more boardings that the Lambert (Delmar to Main Terminal Stations).
I worked as a volunteer ambassador at the Brentwood Station. The number of totally new non transit patrons dominated the boardings that day.
That is great. I took MetroLink to the FPSE House Tour that day. I was heading eastbound as all the Race for the Cure people were coming back west. Every westbound train I saw had lots of people in them. I was wondering how much those trains must smell with so many sweaty runners in them.