Carrying my thoughts along this conversation and the fact that the farther you got out into the county the politics of it makes it difficult to have a fare free transit in the St Louis region. So I can see where having fare on metrolink service makes sense as I don't believe it is very expensive relatively speaking to other metro areas, say my BART ride to SFO, and why not recover the fare from say someone who takes metrolink to the Blues game or airport but most likely use their car to work, it will be the cheapest item on the list for that particular trip. I might be completely off base but I base it on my back of napkin thought of a SFO worker might have to give up 2 hours of his or her work day to pay BART fare where as Lambert worker might give an hour or maybe slightly less.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Nov 09, 2023^Thanks, this type of scenario is why i was advocating this idea. There are probably several other scenarios i could imagine playing out from different socioeconomic levels that would result in wider use of the system. Wider use results in greater public support which means more support for public funding.For me, a portion of the reason I don't use public transit is because of the "sunk-cost fallacy". I own a personal vehicle. I pay to insure and maintain it. I have a parking pass at my work. So, why would I pay MORE to ride transit while my vehicle is sitting at home? Now, if the bus/metro was free, I would certainly reconsider. And, perhaps I could be convinced that I don't really need that personal vehicle anymore
Transit is one of those progressive things that when funded publicly results in the most benefit going to those with the least. It also a vital necessity for the working poor.
Well we are spending 50 Million to stop fare evasion that is like 10M a year at most. Also that 50M is hyper focused on a few metrolink stops so their is no way it capture all the 10M. Generous estimates would be it gets back 5M annually. So a decade and a half to pay for the capital investment minimum.TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑Nov 10, 2023Besides that we can't go free on Metrolink because we are paying in excess of 50 million to stop fare evasion. Sunk cost factuality: If everyone can ride for free then the "we are making it safe narrative" holds no water, and then the securing of platforms becomes a massive boondoggle that requires someone to hold the bag.
I think means-based testing of benefits is generally penny-wise and pound-foolish.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Nov 09, 2023Perhaps a more feasible route would be to fund free fares for those below a certain income level. Similar to the reduced fares given to Seniors and those with disabilities.
Or you could get the money through other means...addxb2 wrote: ↑Nov 15, 2023Facing budget shortfall by $11 million, KCATA considers reintroduction of bus fares
https://www.kmbc.com/article/kansas-cit ... l/45842546
After years of free bus fare, Kansas City is studying whether to charge for rides again
https://www.kcur.org/news/2023-11-10/af ... ides-again
For a region with lofty goals of spending $2-3B extending light rail to the airport or their suburban stadium complexes, $220MM over 20 years is definitely critical.
Seems like its working. I would recommend they look into something like increasing local sales tax on gasoline or even better a boost property taxes by a fraction of a penny per sqft on commercial surface parking infrastructure foot print within the city. The goal should be to size the tax increase to cover the shortfall in fare collection. Hypothetically as ridership increases the need for parking will continue to decline.So far this year, nearly 9 million people have ridden on KCATA. Last year, there were 10 million total riders. The KCATA saw its best year in ridership in 2012, when the agency saw nearly 15 million riders. In September 2023, the most recent month of data available from the KCATA, there were 1,066,966 bus riders — slightly more than the number of bus riders in September 2019.
“We are above a million rides per month,” Jarrold said. “We are pre-COVID ridership levels and we believe zero fare had a role to play in that positive impact on ridership.”
$11 million could easily be covered by the state if we lived in a state that cared about transit and/or its cities. Instead we're wasting billions on highway widening.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Nov 15, 2023Or you could get the money through other means...addxb2 wrote: ↑Nov 15, 2023Facing budget shortfall by $11 million, KCATA considers reintroduction of bus fares
https://www.kmbc.com/article/kansas-cit ... l/45842546
After years of free bus fare, Kansas City is studying whether to charge for rides again
https://www.kcur.org/news/2023-11-10/af ... ides-again
For a region with lofty goals of spending $2-3B extending light rail to the airport or their suburban stadium complexes, $220MM over 20 years is definitely critical.
From the same article...
Seems like its working. I would recommend they look into something like increasing local sales tax on gasoline or even better a boost property taxes by a fraction of a penny per sqft on commercial surface parking infrastructure foot print within the city. The goal should be to size the tax increase to cover the shortfall in fare collection. Hypothetically as ridership increases the need for parking will continue to decline.So far this year, nearly 9 million people have ridden on KCATA. Last year, there were 10 million total riders. The KCATA saw its best year in ridership in 2012, when the agency saw nearly 15 million riders. In September 2023, the most recent month of data available from the KCATA, there were 1,066,966 bus riders — slightly more than the number of bus riders in September 2019.
“We are above a million rides per month,” Jarrold said. “We are pre-COVID ridership levels and we believe zero fare had a role to play in that positive impact on ridership.”
Free bus fare probably generates more value for KC than either LRT to the airport and suburban stadiums....
Not only can't be trusted, they don't care. The only publicly stated aim of this opaque study is to look at "operational efficiency." They don't care about rider experience or driving people away if it means they can save a couple bucks.PeterXCV wrote: ↑Nov 17, 2023I've been saying, Metro can't be trusted.
Flixbus is a much MUCH better company than greyhound. If the stop moves, so be it. Let them save the money there and invest it into a safe, affordable, and frequent bus system.hebeters wrote: ↑Nov 24, 2023Greyhound stations are leaving downtowns after sale to notorious investment firm
https://www.axios.com/2023/11/18/greyhound-alden-bus-stations-close
Problem is that Flixbus doesn't own the stations, only the service. In the hands of this private equity company, those stations are as good as gone.stl07 wrote: ↑Nov 27, 2023Flixbus is a much MUCH better company than greyhound. If the stop moves, so be it. Let them save the money there and invest it into a safe, affordable, and frequent bus system.hebeters wrote: ↑Nov 24, 2023Greyhound stations are leaving downtowns after sale to notorious investment firm
https://www.axios.com/2023/11/18/greyhound-alden-bus-stations-close
