urbanSTL

^ It's from John Nations



http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/crime- ... 8e18c.html

dbInSouthCity wrote:^ It's from John Nations

So you're saying it's definitely not true.

Yeah, I didn't think there was any data supporting it.

Why has there not been more consideration of gold standard BRT, anyways? I think most of us here would be very open to settling for that.

But I think the issue with BRT is that we all fear shortcuts will be taken and that it will nothing more than bus service by a different name rather than anything measuring up to fixed rail.

^That is my concern too. That BRT would be watered down that its not much more than normal bus service in terms of operational function.

You don't think guy in charge of metro has data and he is just throwing numbers out of his back end?

dbInSouthCity wrote:You don't think guy in charge of metro has data and he is just throwing numbers out of his back end?

Well, given that Metro officially published contrary ridership data, it's a bit unclear to me.

MarkHaversham wrote:

dbInSouthCity wrote:You don't think guy in charge of metro has data and he is just throwing numbers out of his back end?

Well, given that Metro officially published contrary ridership data, it's a bit unclear to me.

maybe published data in reports is always rosier and he had a slip up in the interview of the real data, who knows...either way metro is down 5 to 15% and the trend since early 2000s is going in the wrong direction...so before we consider $1.5B expansion, lets make sure the current system is running to cap or cut the waste.

The metro link system is 1.5 lines. I'd take MetroLink much more frequently if it went to more destinations - specifically south city.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dbInSouthCity wrote:

MarkHaversham wrote:

dbInSouthCity wrote:You don't think guy in charge of metro has data and he is just throwing numbers out of his back end?

Well, given that Metro officially published contrary ridership data, it's a bit unclear to me.

maybe published data in reports is always rosier and he had a slip up in the interview of the real data, who knows...either way metro is down 5 to 15% and the trend since early 2000s is going in the wrong direction...so before we consider $1.5B expansion, lets make sure the current system is running to cap or cut the waste.

We're talking about data that's at least partly factual, not projected, right? The head of Metro casually mentioning that published ridership data is off by 15-20% seems like a pretty big deal, to me.

In any case, under-utility of the existing system is a reason to add lines, not remove them. Arguing we can't add a north-south line until the east-west line is at capacity doesn't make any sense to me.

I think cost-worthiness is debatable, but it's really a moving target that depends on matching funds, TOD potential, cost/benefit of viable alternatives like BRT, etc.

The annual reports and APTA data are definitely more accurate than a remark accredited to the head of Metro by the Post-Dispatch with no context (The article is about Stenger adding County cops to Metrolink, is the 15% supposed to apply to Metro as a whole including MetroBus and Call-a-Ride or just Metrolink which the article is about? I'm sure the P-D didn't know when they wrote it.). It's just completely unsubstantiated.

dbInSouthCity wrote:the trend since early 2000s is going in the wrong direction

Systemwide ridership in 2014 (the last year for which Metro published an Annual Report) was lower than in 2000 and '01 and higher than in '02, '03, '04, and '05. Metrolink ridership in 2014 was higher than any year before 2007 - because of the opening of Cross County.

If ridership is down 5-6% in year of the Ferguson unrest I don't see that as a reason to abstain or avoid significant transit investment. Also, every part of the system running to capacity should not be a prerequisite to transit expansion - it isn't for just about every other city in the country laying track.

per EWG Long Range Plan.

^A drop in the bucket.

What differentiates Tier 1 and 2? A little surprised by the streetcar cost from downtown to CWE. Is IL3 to I70 a new bridge across the river?

That $2B we're spending on MSD bond interest would sure be handy.

$1.5B for a new road on the east side. Just what they need. That'll turn around ESTL.

Found it on their website:
http://www.ewgateway.org/trans/longrgpl ... ed2045.pdf

Based on a technical evaluation of the projects, and after applying the fiscal constraint, 28 priority projects, costing nearly 4 billion, were selected for the investment plan and allocated to one of three implementation periods: 2016-2025, 2026-2035, or 2036-2045. (Those project costs do not include the $27 billion required over the next 29 years simply to maintain existing transportation assets and operations.)

Projects that did not fit within the region’s financial resources were placed in the illustrative list, which was divided into Tier I and II categories. Tier I designates those projects that should advance first into the priority list if additional funding becomes available.

Basically they haven't found funding for any of these through 2045 but they would build in that order if they found the money.

Thanks, I see it now. I was looking at the wrong part of it.

Bi-State Board approved its 3 year budget for metro, (2017-2019) projecting less ridership and less fare-box
recovery and higher wage costs

Here is the whole thing (metro starts at page 106 of the PDF)

http://www.bistatedev.org/wp-content/up ... EVISED.pdf

mill204 wrote:^ How is it that expenses are expected to rise 14% in just 2 years with zero growth in the operating characteristics of the transit system? And MetroLink used to have a farebox recovery ratio of 30%; now it may fall to 20%?

Suffice to say: Metro, we have a problem!

You'd think the cheap gas that's undermining ridership would help noticeably on the expense side.

^ it did, spending on fuel and lube went down from $17m to $13.5m.
Wages up $5.7m (adding 58 employees+ raises for current). Also parts + supplies up $3.8m
Services up $3m