The single car makes a bit of sense at off peak times but not to handle 2 trains worth of people at 6pm, there were predictably plenty of riders to comfortably fill out 2 cars and Metro should have anticipated that.addxb2 wrote: ↑Nov 02, 2023Then they’ve succeeded at their goal. Cutting the blue line to a shorter distance allows them to keep some kind of frequency with fewer operators. Limiting to a single car keeps a crowd and “eyes on the street”, theoretically increasing safety.
I dislike both but MetroLink ridership is not rebounding fast enough. They need to keep finding ways to be creative.
It's needlessly inconvenient to riders to stop trains at Forest Park to accommodate work downtown. There are plenty of stations on the system between the tunnels and Forest Park that could have worked as the cutoff point and allowed more riders to have a faster, single-seat journey. Instead Metro chose the easiest option at the expense of providing poorer service to their riders.eee123 wrote: ↑Nov 02, 2023The no blue line east of Forest Park after 6pm is supposedly for work on the downtown tunnels, according to their blog. It's been a thing for huge stretches of the year since long before COVID/worker shortages.
I thought the one-car pilot deal was supposed to be done by the end of October.
https://www.metrostlouis.org/nextstop/m ... -30-nov-3/
Yeah, I agree with you.
Although I don’t believe they can just turn the blue line around anywhere. I think the only options in the area are Forest Park and Grand.
Although I don’t believe they can just turn the blue line around anywhere. I think the only options in the area are Forest Park and Grand.
- 6,118
^That's a lovely thing to see. Much better use of money than turnstiles and cages.
A waste of money that would have been better spent on improving bus stops and routes to them
- 9,541
It’s not a waste of money, most of the money is going towards construction jobs. Metro isn’t lacking money for its bus services. It’s lacking people who want to drive buses despite offering more money than ever before for drivers including $5000 bonuses
I wasn't talking about drivers, maybe read my comment. People are dying trying to access bus stop. Improving them and routes to them creates construction jobs too. Very few people will ride the train to Mid America, and it will add time and miles to the trains. It will add maintenance liabilities to Metro for something that will be barely used. They could run an express buss from Emerson Park that would be faster and cheaper.
Mid-America Shuttle Info
^^Fun fact, there is a shuttle already in place, that circulates between Shiloh-Scott and the airport. The new Metrolink extension will replace this.
^^Fun fact, there is a shuttle already in place, that circulates between Shiloh-Scott and the airport. The new Metrolink extension will replace this.
- 991
Just to be clear, are you saying that all MetroLink expansion is bad then? You could apply this same argument to the North - South project. Why build any new train lines if busses would be faster and cheaper (and more flexible since you could adjust the routes as demand increases or changes)?
Honestly, if metro had 850 million in its bank account and could choose between the Jefferson alignment or instead creating a systemwide network of high quality bus routes where every stop gets a good shelter, I would choose the latter. The Jefferson alignment is pretty cool but not worth it at any cost (3x the rams settlement!) especially considering it’s going to get stuck at intersections like a normal bus. there needs to be structural changes to bring down the costs of infrastructure projects. The way the federal govt grant is structured encourages big train projects vs more pragmatic improvements.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 1,792
^Yeah personally i would put it toward making bus rides free. I really think there is just an unfair stigma against buses that isn't really rational. There is some validity when you think about energy efficiency or service life of capital investment but balanced out with the cost of the vehicles & rail improvement its definitely debatable on a pure cost per passenger mile comparison.
The question is how do you overcome a stigma... Making it free seems like it might make a dent in peoples perception.
The question is how do you overcome a stigma... Making it free seems like it might make a dent in peoples perception.
I think there’s a stigma because not much effort is put into making them appealing and there are a lot of mentality Ill people floating around the system. I don’t support free buses as I think the bus fare isn’t really much anyways. Metro also needs to be financially stable.
We are redoing a bunch of major arterials anyways so metro should be involved, ensuring that all stops on major routes have shelters with route maps and real time transit info, and that the roads are pleasant and safe to walk along and across. Then do a form based code along those routes to ensure streamlined urban development.
We are redoing a bunch of major arterials anyways so metro should be involved, ensuring that all stops on major routes have shelters with route maps and real time transit info, and that the roads are pleasant and safe to walk along and across. Then do a form based code along those routes to ensure streamlined urban development.
- 1,868
Regarding stigma I think frequency is more important than cost. With 30min frequency it's extremely inconvenient to ride the bus, thus only poor people with no alternative ride it, thus it's "for poor desperate people". Of course I don't know how we get there when Metro doesn't even have the money to pay drivers for the current system.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Nov 06, 2023^Yeah personally i would put it toward making bus rides free. I really think there is just an unfair stigma against buses that isn't really rational. There is some validity when you think about energy efficiency or service life of capital investment but balanced out with the cost of the vehicles & rail improvement its definitely debatable on a pure cost per passenger mile comparison.
The question is how do you overcome a stigma... Making it free seems like it might make a dent in peoples perception.
In 2022, operating expenses for MetroLink were $92.3 MM. On that, Bi-State captured $8.1M in fare revenue or 9%. It cost $14.25 per passenger trip on 6.5 million trips. $377.86 per vehicle per hour of revenue service.
Light Rail Operations (cost per vehicle per hour)
Pittsburgh: $618.80
Seattle: $492.41
St. Louis: $377.86
Minneapolis: $274.76
Baltimore: $260.91
Also in 2022, operating expenses for MetroBus were $151.5 MM. On that, Bi-State captured $11.3M in fare revenue or 7%. It cost $12.96 per passenger trip on 11.7 million trips. $152.59 per vehicle per hour of revenue service.
Bus Operations (cost per vehicle per hour)
Denver: $255.22
Minneapolis: $198.63
Cincinnati: $159.05
St. Louis: $152.58
San Antonio: $134.25
Light Rail Operations (cost per vehicle per hour)
Pittsburgh: $618.80
Seattle: $492.41
St. Louis: $377.86
Minneapolis: $274.76
Baltimore: $260.91
Also in 2022, operating expenses for MetroBus were $151.5 MM. On that, Bi-State captured $11.3M in fare revenue or 7%. It cost $12.96 per passenger trip on 11.7 million trips. $152.59 per vehicle per hour of revenue service.
Bus Operations (cost per vehicle per hour)
Denver: $255.22
Minneapolis: $198.63
Cincinnati: $159.05
St. Louis: $152.58
San Antonio: $134.25
- 1,792
^probably fair point especially for the market segment you really want which is the person who lives in the city and WANTS to use the bus as their primary. I think free bus rides attacks it from a different angle of getting people to TRY the bus out. If you had the hypothetical money i would say attack both issues. Alternatively I could see a pilot program such as going buses free on weekends to see if there is a net bump in ridership.
I will say people aren't perfectly rational so "free" could get butts in seats, and fares make up a pretty small portion of the overall budget. According to 2021-2022 financial report 17.9M of the 337.7M total revenue was fares (some of which was rail or call a ride). How much additional ridership do you get with "free" service. Plus you eliminate need for enforcement of fare collection. You eliminate need to maintain fare collection equipment. From a pure financial perspective I suspect it is actually almost a wash though even if it wasn't i personally still think it would be a worthy investment because the impact would be most significant on those who need it most.
https://massbudget.org/2021/03/24/the-dollars-sense-of-free-buses/
also a fairly even handed analysis citing pros & cons from CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/08/business/free-buses-us-public-transit/index.html
I will say people aren't perfectly rational so "free" could get butts in seats, and fares make up a pretty small portion of the overall budget. According to 2021-2022 financial report 17.9M of the 337.7M total revenue was fares (some of which was rail or call a ride). How much additional ridership do you get with "free" service. Plus you eliminate need for enforcement of fare collection. You eliminate need to maintain fare collection equipment. From a pure financial perspective I suspect it is actually almost a wash though even if it wasn't i personally still think it would be a worthy investment because the impact would be most significant on those who need it most.
https://massbudget.org/2021/03/24/the-dollars-sense-of-free-buses/
also a fairly even handed analysis citing pros & cons from CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/08/business/free-buses-us-public-transit/index.html
Also i do realize the color of money is different and there is inflation over time and all but on a very rudimentary level I am saying if we could I would trade the 800M for new train line for 45 years of fare free service (18Mx45yrs=810M) for current bus system....
Which helps the most people?
Which helps the most people?
I feel like this would create an incentive to avoid routes that feed into the metrolink, since that would still cost 2.50, which I do think is a bit steep.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 1,792
I don't know if i care as long as they are using transit. I am on board with making metro link free too but it doesn't have quite the stigma or at least didn't until the last few years.
I also think that more people would "try" the bus if it were free - particularly people who could easily afford the fares to begin with. I would. I've never been on a Metro bus, but I've ridden the MetroLink a few dozen times. The headways still suck, but I might be willing to be more flexible if I had $0 skin in the game.
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.
The fact that fares make up less than 10% of Metro's budget is insane to me. What an obtrusive hurdle to cover a measly 7-9% of Metro's budget.
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.
The fact that fares make up less than 10% of Metro's budget is insane to me. What an obtrusive hurdle to cover a measly 7-9% of Metro's budget.
I understand that it seems small, but consider that one of the following would need to occur.Tim wrote: The fact that fares make up less than 10% of Metro's budget is insane to me. What an obtrusive hurdle to cover a measly 7-9% of Metro's budget.
1) Sales tax increase in both City and County: Fare recovery is $20 million annually, RIGHT NOW. Prior to COVID it’s closer to $35 to 45 million annually. By comparison, the half percent sales tax for Jefferson MetroLink raises $12 to $15 million annually in the city. You’d need an additional half cent in both the city and county.
Or
2) Cut to Services: 7% cut in service levels for MetroLink or 10% cut in service levels for Metro Bus.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
“Kansas City did it, why can’t St. Louis?”
Two reasons. First, KCATA is a municipal agency. One governing body controls the purse and decision making. St. Louis city might get onboard with free fares for busses but does it really matter if MetroLink and St. Louis County can’t/wont?
SECOND…
Kansas City has a much smaller transit system broken across multiple govs. As of 2022, there are 136 busses delivering service throughout metropolitan Kansas City. These 136 busses provide 476,905 hours of revenue service for 10,150,339 trips costing $92 million.
St. Louis agencies operate 395 busses. These 395 busses delivered 1,199,319 hours of revenue service for 12,806,958 trips costing $176,670,400 annually.
+ MetroLink, 42 light rail vehicles, 244,240 hours of revenue service for an additional 6,477,715 trips costing $92 million.
Two reasons. First, KCATA is a municipal agency. One governing body controls the purse and decision making. St. Louis city might get onboard with free fares for busses but does it really matter if MetroLink and St. Louis County can’t/wont?
SECOND…
Kansas City has a much smaller transit system broken across multiple govs. As of 2022, there are 136 busses delivering service throughout metropolitan Kansas City. These 136 busses provide 476,905 hours of revenue service for 10,150,339 trips costing $92 million.
St. Louis agencies operate 395 busses. These 395 busses delivered 1,199,319 hours of revenue service for 12,806,958 trips costing $176,670,400 annually.
+ MetroLink, 42 light rail vehicles, 244,240 hours of revenue service for an additional 6,477,715 trips costing $92 million.
- 1,792
^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.
Good points but here are some thoughts in responseaddxb2 wrote: ↑Nov 09, 2023I understand that it seems small, but consider that one of the following would need to occur.Tim wrote: The fact that fares make up less than 10% of Metro's budget is insane to me. What an obtrusive hurdle to cover a measly 7-9% of Metro's budget.
1) Sales tax increase in both City and County: Fare recovery is $20 million annually, RIGHT NOW. Prior to COVID it’s closer to $35 to 45 million annually. By comparison, the half percent sales tax for Jefferson MetroLink raises $12 to $15 million annually in the city. You’d need an additional half cent in both the city and county.
Or
2) Cut to Services: 7% cut in service levels for MetroLink or 10% cut in service levels for Metro Bus.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
35M is still only ~ 10% of operating expenses. The COVID number were particularly low so i agree probably don't make sense to baseline.
~One option was free Metro Bus only means Metrolink fare collection continues. This means the people just using it for the occasional trip to the airport or trips to cardinals games would still have to pay. Free Metrobus is most likely to benefit residents. Metrolink more likely to benefit tourists. Hard to parse out of the financial at a glance but i'd be willing to guess bus fares is roughly 1/2 of the overall fare collection revenue. SO we are talking ~20M now in this scenario.
Removal of fare collection would reduce board times, lower maintenance costs and generally result in a better user experience.
If there is a significant growth in ridership i would expect the metro link to see a measurable increase in ridership as well so that should drive some revenue growth in that mode.
How the Bi-State organization responds to such a proposal would be a lynch pin. I think you would want to establish a base amount to compensate the revenues lost and lock in that number regardless of passenger count growth. Tie it to miles driven. Tie it to inflation. If passenger counts triple you don't want to be stuck tripling the payments to Bi-State for no-additional service.
If they were able to negotiate terms where by the city could compensate them from some other means to go bus fare free in the city limits i think it would be more apt to see success. The county might want to tag along but i wouldn't bet on it. Also the revenue numbers include the counties uptake so there a few more million you are not loosing from revenue. Maye we are at 15M?
Passing an additional sales tax is one funding path. They could also do it via property tax. My recommendation would be to pilot it for 3 years using either rainy day or rams funds. Then put it on the ballot to see if the people want to keep investing there clear numbers to support the social benefit of the program.
- 977
Perhaps 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.