MetroLink Conversations on the Road

November 6, 2008

MetroLink Conversations on the Road

This morning, I had the pleasure of driving my brother Ben and his wife Jenna to the airport. Ben and Jenna are a bright pair of semi-newlyweds with a two-story on the Hill and a little dog named Rocco. Ben is a resident at Barnes Jewish Hospital, and Jenna works in deaf education at the Central Institute for the Deaf. Naturally, the pair care a great deal about St. Louis and their community.

With the election still fresh in all of our minds, politics was the topic of discussion — more specifically, Proposition M. At some point, right around Eager and I-64, the two were surprised to hear that I was not shedding tears for the half-cent sales tax’s failure to pass.

While I tried to defend my position, noting how Metro has a poor history of managing funds, the possible reallocation of crime, and, of course, how just because you throw tax money at something doesn’t mean the problem will be solved. But, to my brother and sister-in-law, they saw no possible downside to public transportation.

There are always externalities, whether they are positive or negative. Yes, public transportation does lower carbon emissions and can lower our dependence on foreign oil, but I bet shop owners in the Galleria would say those benefits do not justify the costs of increased shoplifting.

Are there ways around this negative externality? Sure. The Galleria has already put into effect an age limit and curfew for young shoppers. Anyone younger than 16 is required to be accompanied by a parent after 3 p.m. How about on the Metro side? Is the honor system truly cost effective? I rode the MetroLink twice a day this summer for three months, and not once was I asked for a ticket. In fact, the first time I was asked for a ticket was this Monday. New York and Chicago have turnstiles and gates for their public trains. Would increased security in St. Louis be too big of a hurdle?

I see three occurrences that might result from adding new security infrastructure. First, people who need to ride the MetroLink and already buy tickets would continue to do so with little or no effect on their commutes. Second, people who frequent the Metro on a semi-regular basis, who sometimes buy a ticket and sometimes do not, will find only a minimal increase to their MetroLink costs. Third, individuals who often abuse the honor system — constituting a majority of the free rider problem — will either finally pay for their passes or use a different form of transportation. Either way, the only real cost Metro would incur is the initial installation of turnstiles and gates, and whatever maintenance and upkeep costs they require.

While Ben and Jenna are devoted to keeping public transportation cheap and available, I hope I can convince them that there are alternatives to a tax hike that might achieve the same end. I agree that any cuts in line service would be devastating to some people, but it is not up to the taxpayers to dig Metro out of trouble they put themselves in. Apparently, judging by the election results, a majority of people agree with me.

« Read Previous Entry Read Next Entry »

9 Comments »

Metro uses the honor system, ultimately, because of cost savings. Transit agencies around the nation use this system – and the statistics from audits say that less than 1% of people riding, ride without fare. The cost to add new fare media, install turnstiles that can ‘read’ fare cards, personnel to supervise the turnstiles, personnel to maintain them, and the physical implantation of them at 38 stations is quite high – and ultimately the reason why it has not been initiated. While losing less than 1% of fares is a loss, these additions tend to be a much larger expense.

But I can understand the public’s perception regarding the honor system. And if people would be more comfortable with an added security infrastructure, I say go for it. Unfortunately, with the loss of Proposition M, there is no funding to even maintain current bus routes and MetroLink schedules – so an added security infrastructure, or newer buses, or any other improvements are on the back burner at this point.

Comment by Boomer — November 7, 2008 @ 4:03 p.m.
I am curious as to how the 1% of free rider statistic is found. Is it an estimate or was some sort of survey conducted. And perhaps turnstiles could be used at the highest populated stations?

Comment by Jacob Voss — November 7, 2008 @ 4:08 p.m.
The audits are regularly conducted by all transit agencies. In the end, even with 100% fare collection, that barely puts a drop in the bucket that is building, maintaining & operating a public transit system. The truth is that just like roads, the real costs of transit are higher than could be supported through user fees alone. But just like roads, transit is a public good. I urge you to educate yourself about Metro, how it is set up and how it is run, and you will see why the only real chance Metro had at funding this time around was the County sales tax. Metro, for better or worse, is not part of the state government. It is not part of any city’s government. It is an entity unto itself. The major decisions are made by East-West Gateway Council of Governments, and Metro must implement them, overseen by the unelected, outside-the-agency Board of Commissioners. If anything goes wrong, however, Metro takes the heat from the public and the Council and Commissioners fade into the background. I think people are going to feel it when the cuts are implemented. Right now, Metro is feverishly working to secure some kind of stop-gap funding to avoid cutting those services. Unfortunately, the service cuts weren’t a threat. However, now that the public has rejected the tax it is possible the City and County will step up & contribute more of their money – but then they’ll just be raising their taxes and the people who rejected the Metro tax are going to pay more anyway. The difference is that the money will still be trickling in to Metro on the whim of the City and County instead of having a stable funding source. It’s a real problem.

Comment by Jenniferwhatnot — November 11, 2008 @ 8:41 a.m.
I don’t want to seem snippy, but I can assure you that we know all about how Metro is set up, how it runs, and how it is funded. The City of St. Louis has no more money to give Metro, they already give 100% of their 1/2 cent transportation sales tax over to Metro. The county does indeed have more money it might choose to give Metro. They have traditionally given half of their transportation sales tax to Metro and kept 1/2 for county roads. Last year, perhaps in anticipation of the tax increase passing, they decreased the percentage given to Metro. So they could buck up for Metro if they so desired, and a return to the 50-50 split seems very reasonable.

Metro does have a stable funding source in the form of the 1/4 cent transit sales tax collected in both the city and county that is always given directly to Metro. The issue at hand is that the current taxes are not enough to expand MetroLink at all, and without significant increased aid from the county or state not enough to avoid service cuts. The voters have spoken – they seem to prefer service cuts to sales tax increases. I personally hope this crisis, for lack of a better word, opens up more opportunities to privatize parts of the transit system in St. Louis, and Kansas City as well for that matter.

Comment by David Stokes — November 11, 2008 @ 10:19 a.m.
I don’t mean to sound rude but were you riding in the ride free zone? The metrolink is free downtown midday weekdays. I am only asking because I have been without a car multiple times since I moved here and have used the train a ton and my experience has been that they check for tickets/passes about 75% of the time.

The Galleria thing drives me crazy. It is no easier to get to the Galleria now than it was pre-metrolink expansion. Before the new track there was a shuttle called the Clayton Bee that ran from the Forest Park Metrolink station (Where you have to transfer now to get on the metro that go nears the Galleria) through downtown Clayton to the Galleria. It dropped you off CLOSER to the Galleria than the metrolink does now! The kids have always had the ability to get to the Galleria. It is not fair to blame the expansion of the Metrolink for kids going crazy.

Comment by Sarah Anne — November 20, 2008 @ 3:18 a.m.
I rode the Metro every morning at 7:30 and every afternoon at 5 and was not asked for a ticket once. I rode it from Grand to 8th & Pine. That’s a total of… let’s see… 5 stations.

As for the free ride program, from Metro’s website:

“Metro operates a Ride-Free-Zone between the Arch-Laclede’s Landing Station and Union Station between 11:30-1:30, Monday-Friday. This means you may ride between those Stations during that time without paying a fare. However, you must complete your trip by 1:30 p.m. or buy a fare to complete the trip even though you are traveling within the Zone.”

I beleive in these kids’ minds, it’s far easier to get to the Galleria now than before the expansion. They don’t even need to transfer trains anymore, much less catch a shuttle as well, which if they are free riders, would be much harder to use. And it is no coincidence that after the Galleria enacted their curfew these kids started hanging out at the Loop instead. It is just a few more stations down the line. I’m interested to see where the crime will relocate to after.

Comment by Jacob Voss — November 20, 2008 @ 1:03 p.m.
There could be a point to be made about an all Metrolink route if they are free riders. However since many of these kids are actually coming from North County they do have to change trains to get to the Galleria. You also have to change trains to go from the Galleria to the Loop. You would need to take the train from the Galleria to the Forest Park Metrolink station then transfer to the train that runs to the airport to get to the Loop metrolink station.

However saying it’s no coincidence that they moved to the Loop after the Galleria enacted a curfew hurts your argument that the kids started going to the Galleria and acting out because of Metro access w/o transfer to a bus or shuttle. If that’s the case then why weren’t they in the Loop before? There has been access by Metrolink w/o transfer to the Loop since 1993. I feel the media has done a disservice to the community by making the story “are these kids using public transportation to get together and be punks” instead of making the story- “why did the youth of St. Louis all decide to get together this year and be punks”.

Comment by Sarah Anne — November 21, 2008 @ 4:19 a.m.
Ah, see I was assuming the crime was migrating from East St. Louis rather than North County, in which case they would take the new Shrewbury line to get to the Galleria. Perhaps transfers are not the factor of importance here.

Comment by Jacob Voss — November 21, 2008 @ 1:54 p.m.
East St. Louis always had access as well. The 1993 line runs from the airport into IL. When they built the expansion they kept the original full length of Metro trains (Lambert to Shiloh Scott) and then had the new Shrewsbury ones terminate sooner on the IL side (I forget what station). Most of the identified kids have been from Jennings/Berkley/Bellfefontaine. But regardless of whether they were coming from the East Side or North county they’ve always been able to metro to the Loop and we didn’t have wild gangs of youths in the Loop before.

Comment by Sarah Anne — November 25, 2008 @ 1:26 p.m.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Categories

Metro uses the honor system, ultimately, because of cost savings. Transit agencies around the nation use this system – and the statistics from audits say that less than 1% of people riding, ride without fare. The cost to add new fare media, install turnstiles that can ‘read’ fare cards, personnel to supervise the turnstiles, personnel to maintain them, and the physical implantation of them at 38 stations is quite high – and ultimately the reason why it has not been initiated. While losing less than 1% of fares is a loss, these additions tend to be a much larger expense.

But I can understand the public’s perception regarding the honor system. And if people would be more comfortable with an added security infrastructure, I say go for it. Unfortunately, with the loss of Proposition M, there is no funding to even maintain current bus routes and MetroLink schedules – so an added security infrastructure, or newer buses, or any other improvements are on the back burner at this point.

Comment by Boomer — November 7, 2008 @ 4:03 p.m.

I am curious as to how the 1% of free rider statistic is found. Is it an estimate or was some sort of survey conducted. And perhaps turnstiles could be used at the highest populated stations?

Comment by Jacob Voss — November 7, 2008 @ 4:08 p.m.

The audits are regularly conducted by all transit agencies. In the end, even with 100% fare collection, that barely puts a drop in the bucket that is building, maintaining & operating a public transit system. The truth is that just like roads, the real costs of transit are higher than could be supported through user fees alone. But just like roads, transit is a public good. I urge you to educate yourself about Metro, how it is set up and how it is run, and you will see why the only real chance Metro had at funding this time around was the County sales tax. Metro, for better or worse, is not part of the state government. It is not part of any city’s government. It is an entity unto itself. The major decisions are made by East-West Gateway Council of Governments, and Metro must implement them, overseen by the unelected, outside-the-agency Board of Commissioners. If anything goes wrong, however, Metro takes the heat from the public and the Council and Commissioners fade into the background. I think people are going to feel it when the cuts are implemented. Right now, Metro is feverishly working to secure some kind of stop-gap funding to avoid cutting those services. Unfortunately, the service cuts weren’t a threat. However, now that the public has rejected the tax it is possible the City and County will step up & contribute more of their money – but then they’ll just be raising their taxes and the people who rejected the Metro tax are going to pay more anyway. The difference is that the money will still be trickling in to Metro on the whim of the City and County instead of having a stable funding source. It’s a real problem.

Comment by Jenniferwhatnot — November 11, 2008 @ 8:41 a.m.

I don’t want to seem snippy, but I can assure you that we know all about how Metro is set up, how it runs, and how it is funded. The City of St. Louis has no more money to give Metro, they already give 100% of their 1/2 cent transportation sales tax over to Metro. The county does indeed have more money it might choose to give Metro. They have traditionally given half of their transportation sales tax to Metro and kept 1/2 for county roads. Last year, perhaps in anticipation of the tax increase passing, they decreased the percentage given to Metro. So they could buck up for Metro if they so desired, and a return to the 50-50 split seems very reasonable.

Metro does have a stable funding source in the form of the 1/4 cent transit sales tax collected in both the city and county that is always given directly to Metro. The issue at hand is that the current taxes are not enough to expand MetroLink at all, and without significant increased aid from the county or state not enough to avoid service cuts. The voters have spoken – they seem to prefer service cuts to sales tax increases. I personally hope this crisis, for lack of a better word, opens up more opportunities to privatize parts of the transit system in St. Louis, and Kansas City as well for that matter.

Comment by David Stokes — November 11, 2008 @ 10:19 a.m.

I don’t mean to sound rude but were you riding in the ride free zone? The metrolink is free downtown midday weekdays. I am only asking because I have been without a car multiple times since I moved here and have used the train a ton and my experience has been that they check for tickets/passes about 75% of the time.

The Galleria thing drives me crazy. It is no easier to get to the Galleria now than it was pre-metrolink expansion. Before the new track there was a shuttle called the Clayton Bee that ran from the Forest Park Metrolink station (Where you have to transfer now to get on the metro that go nears the Galleria) through downtown Clayton to the Galleria. It dropped you off CLOSER to the Galleria than the metrolink does now! The kids have always had the ability to get to the Galleria. It is not fair to blame the expansion of the Metrolink for kids going crazy.

Comment by Sarah Anne — November 20, 2008 @ 3:18 a.m.

I rode the Metro every morning at 7:30 and every afternoon at 5 and was not asked for a ticket once. I rode it from Grand to 8th & Pine. That’s a total of… let’s see… 5 stations.

As for the free ride program, from Metro’s website:

“Metro operates a Ride-Free-Zone between the Arch-Laclede’s Landing Station and Union Station between 11:30-1:30, Monday-Friday. This means you may ride between those Stations during that time without paying a fare. However, you must complete your trip by 1:30 p.m. or buy a fare to complete the trip even though you are traveling within the Zone.”

I beleive in these kids’ minds, it’s far easier to get to the Galleria now than before the expansion. They don’t even need to transfer trains anymore, much less catch a shuttle as well, which if they are free riders, would be much harder to use. And it is no coincidence that after the Galleria enacted their curfew these kids started hanging out at the Loop instead. It is just a few more stations down the line. I’m interested to see where the crime will relocate to after.

Comment by Jacob Voss — November 20, 2008 @ 1:03 p.m.

There could be a point to be made about an all Metrolink route if they are free riders. However since many of these kids are actually coming from North County they do have to change trains to get to the Galleria. You also have to change trains to go from the Galleria to the Loop. You would need to take the train from the Galleria to the Forest Park Metrolink station then transfer to the train that runs to the airport to get to the Loop metrolink station.

However saying it’s no coincidence that they moved to the Loop after the Galleria enacted a curfew hurts your argument that the kids started going to the Galleria and acting out because of Metro access w/o transfer to a bus or shuttle. If that’s the case then why weren’t they in the Loop before? There has been access by Metrolink w/o transfer to the Loop since 1993. I feel the media has done a disservice to the community by making the story “are these kids using public transportation to get together and be punks” instead of making the story- “why did the youth of St. Louis all decide to get together this year and be punks”.

Comment by Sarah Anne — November 21, 2008 @ 4:19 a.m.

Ah, see I was assuming the crime was migrating from East St. Louis rather than North County, in which case they would take the new Shrewbury line to get to the Galleria. Perhaps transfers are not the factor of importance here.

Comment by Jacob Voss — November 21, 2008 @ 1:54 p.m.

East St. Louis always had access as well. The 1993 line runs from the airport into IL. When they built the expansion they kept the original full length of Metro trains (Lambert to Shiloh Scott) and then had the new Shrewsbury ones terminate sooner on the IL side (I forget what station). Most of the identified kids have been from Jennings/Berkley/Bellfefontaine. But regardless of whether they were coming from the East Side or North county they’ve always been able to metro to the Loop and we didn’t have wild gangs of youths in the Loop before.

Comment by Sarah Anne — November 25, 2008 @ 1:26 p.m.

November 6, 2008