Giving Away Parking at City Hall
Saturday April 2nd I noticed the main portion of the parking lot south of city hall was full while the part closer to 14th St was empty. Â The Cardinals had an away game this day so I’m not sure why all the cars. Â I thought it was good to see the parking lot bringing in revenue on a Saturday rather than just sit vacant.
But wait, the gates are wide open! Of course on a Saturday there probably isn’t enough turnover to staff the booth. Â The Treasurer’s Office needs to enter the 21st century and get technology to automate the process to collect the parking fee. Of course the Treasurer also has downtown parking meters at no charge on weekends but some [refer lots and would pay.
– Steve Patterson
Which gets to the crux of the argument – should government use variable parking charges, including “free” (meters and/or lots), to maximize revenues OR to maximize the number of available spaces? I doubt it’s a staffing issue or a technology issue, it’s a basic supply and demand issue – if the city tried to charge for parking at this lot on this day at this time, demand would be near zero, since onstreet meters were already “free”. Any revenue collected would be less than the cost to collect it, so the next/only decision is whether to leave the gates down or up, along with weighing the perceived value of an increase in “free” parking.
A similar situation happens at the zoo – limited free parking is available on park roads, while limited pay parking is available directly across from the main entrance. Both get used because users have different priorities (and knowledge) and are willing to pay different amounts.
Whether it’s city hall, the CWE or South Grand, are you advocating for longer hours and stricter enforcement, to increase revenues for a cash-strapped city? And/or, are you advocating for longer hours and stricter enforcement to encourage / force people out of their vehicles, onto their feet or public transportation? Be (very) aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences – people have choices. People will pay for parking only if they have to, in association with another activity the want or need to do. There is only one place to watch Cardinals games, deal with some city departments and, for some, to go to work. There are many places to grab a burger, a beer or to lose money in a slot machine . . . .
Which gets to the crux of the argument – should government use variable parking charges, including “free” (meters and/or lots), to maximize revenues OR to maximize the number of available spaces? I doubt it’s a staffing issue or a technology issue, it’s a basic supply and demand issue – if the city tried to charge for parking at this lot on this day at this time, demand would be near zero, since onstreet meters were already “free”. Any revenue collected would be less than the cost to collect it, so the next/only decision is whether to leave the gates down or up, along with weighing the perceived value of an increase in “free” parking.
A similar situation happens at the zoo – limited free parking is available on park roads, while limited pay parking is available directly across from the main entrance. Both get used because users have different priorities (and knowledge) and are willing to pay different amounts.
Whether it’s city hall, the CWE or South Grand, are you advocating for longer hours and stricter enforcement, to increase revenues for a cash-strapped city? And/or, are you advocating for longer hours and stricter enforcement to encourage / force people out of their vehicles, onto their feet or public transportation? Be (very) aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences – people have choices. People will pay for parking only if they have to, in association with another activity the want or need to do. There is only one place to watch Cardinals games, deal with some city departments and, for some, to go to work. There are many places to grab a burger, a beer or to lose money in a slot machine . . . .
Technology could collect fees 24/7 and could even vary the price depending upon demand. Street parking was full and like your zoo example, some would rather pay than search for a spot on-street.
I agree that technology should be used to collect fees… whether its 24/7 or not depends on the demand. I contacted the mayor’s office about the free parking at meters on opening day, and they called it a “city’s celebration” that warranted the policy. I disagreed, seeing no other city that did that. Seems odd that our city gives away parking for free and then complains about missing revenues.
You still haven’t answered my question – the people getting free parking are happy, and the city is apparently satisfied – you’re the only one that sees a problem or an issue – do you think we can generate more revenue or do you think that downtown needs less free parkings, especially at night and on weekends?
I agree that technology could increase revenues; the question is at what cost. The most likely scenario would be either meters or pay stations. That still requires enforcement. The city gets $2/hour on a weekday. Assuming $20/hour (wages and benefits) for the collector or the enforcer, and another $30/hour for a supervisor, you’d need to generate at least $50/hour in revenue. Assuming 25 cents an hour in income, per vehicle, that 200 vehicles an hour; 50 cents an hour is 100 vehicles. Sometimes, it just makes more sense to just leave the gates ope, and bank the goodwill . . . .
All the free parking does nothing to encourage car pooling or the use of transit. Nothing is free, everything has a cost. By offering free parking the city is competing with private parking, not a good position to be in.
What do you suppose the reaction would be if Metro decided to not charge a fare because of a “city celebration?”
A lot of extra, probably new, and definitely happy riders!
No, they would have to cut bus service the next day. These are not fair examples. We include parking in development costs when they should be separated and paid through user fees also known has higher parking costs.
Very well put. I’ll just add that free parking is a great incentive for people who commute to downtown and in-turn spend money downtown. Even thought the cost is sometimes minimum to park at meters its still an inconvenience to pay to park and I’ll add that what you pay for is a parking spot that is not always safe (three buddys of mine had there cars broken into on different occasions) but that’s a separate problem. If you would like for people from the county areas and beyond to spend money downtown – lets figure out a way to have free parking – not penalize them for driving to the city to spend money!
The whole issue here is gross revenue versus net revenue. If it costs more to collect a fee than it brings in, then why even bother?! Leaving the gates open for the weekend costs virtually nothing. Parking is a classic case of supply and demand pricing. While the supply is finite, demand is highly variable, and prices, both charged and received, reflect this, in both the public and private sectors. Unless the city is willing to charge for metered street parking on the weekend, they’re already competing with private parking lots.
Steve, I understand your desire to change the public’s behavior, in this case, using the “stick” approach. I’ve always believed that using a “carrot” is much more effective. On the weekends, you actually have more carpooling happening, since more people are going downtown with dates, buddies and/or families – why penalize them? As for transit, the issue isn’t so much the cost, it’s the unfamiliarty with the system and the reduced service levels that don’t mesh with a lot of recreational schedules. Fix those, and you’ll attract more riders, especially ones that plan on drinking.
No one should be able to park free downtown. Not even City employees. Not even if it’s a “celebration” and especially since Slay cut the amusement tax for the Cardinals. His whole argument for the new Stadium was that we needed it to collect revenue from suburban visitors.
If we valued our urban land we would not offer free parking. If we care about transit then we have to increase the cost of parking. People are not going to use transit until driving and parking becomes a luxury which most people don’t want to pay.
So let’s just build a fence around downtown and charge admission . . . good luck with that!
I think we already do with our high sales tax and earnings taxes. People still come. Probably because it’s a unique place to be. What kind of person pays others to be their friend?
Technology could collect fees 24/7 and could even vary the price depending upon demand. Street parking was full and like your zoo example, some would rather pay than search for a spot on-street.
Very well put. I’ll just add that free parking is a great incentive for people who commute to downtown and in-turn spend money downtown. Even thought the cost is sometimes minimum to park at meters its still an inconvenience to pay to park and I’ll add that what you pay for is a parking spot that is not always safe (three buddys of mine had there cars broken into on different occasions) but that’s a separate problem. If you would like for people from the county areas and beyond to spend money downtown – lets figure out a way to have free parking – not penalize them for driving to the city to spend money!
I agree that technology should be used to collect fees… whether its 24/7 or not depends on the demand. I contacted the mayor’s office about the free parking at meters on opening day, and they called it a “city’s celebration” that warranted the policy. I disagreed, seeing no other city that did that. Seems odd that our city gives away parking for free and then complains about missing revenues.
You still haven’t answered my question – the people getting free parking are happy, and the city is apparently satisfied – you’re the only one that sees a problem or an issue – do you think we can generate more revenue or do you think that downtown needs less free parkings, especially at night and on weekends?
I agree that technology could increase revenues; the question is at what cost. The most likely scenario would be either meters or pay stations. That still requires enforcement. The city gets $2/hour on a weekday. Assuming $20/hour (wages and benefits) for the collector or the enforcer, and another $30/hour for a supervisor, you’d need to generate at least $50/hour in revenue. Assuming 25 cents an hour in income, per vehicle, that 200 vehicles an hour; 50 cents an hour is 100 vehicles. Sometimes, it just makes more sense to just leave the gates ope, and bank the goodwill . . . .
All the free parking does nothing to encourage car pooling or the use of transit. Nothing is free, everything has a cost. By offering free parking the city is competing with private parking, not a good position to be in.
What do you suppose the reaction would be if Metro decided to not charge a fare because of a “city celebration?”
A lot of extra, probably new, and definitely happy riders!
The whole issue here is gross revenue versus net revenue. If it costs more to collect a fee than it brings in, then why even bother?! Leaving the gates open for the weekend costs virtually nothing. Parking is a classic case of supply and demand pricing. While the supply is finite, demand is highly variable, and prices, both charged and received, reflect this, in both the public and private sectors. Unless the city is willing to charge for metered street parking on the weekend, they’re already competing with private parking lots.
Steve, I understand your desire to change the public’s behavior, in this case, using the “stick” approach. I’ve always believed that using a “carrot” is much more effective. On the weekends, you actually have more carpooling happening, since more people are going downtown with dates, buddies and/or families – why penalize them? As for transit, the issue isn’t so much the cost, it’s the unfamiliarty with the system and the reduced service levels that don’t mesh with a lot of recreational schedules. Fix those, and you’ll attract more riders, especially ones that plan on drinking.
Heaven forbid the City does something like free parking or free meters on Opening Day “just because.” Sometimes goodwill flies in the face of long-term problems.
Heaven forbid the City does something like free parking or free meters on Opening Day “just because.” Sometimes goodwill flies in the face of long-term problems.
This day was well after opening day and the Cardinals were in San Diego.
This day was well after opening day and the Cardinals were in San Diego.
Cost leaders are often used to attract business. That being said I like the idea mentioned by Tom Shrout about making transit free. Oil prices have ballooned again (everyone surprised raise your hand). It will only get worse as time moves on.
Promotions for transit free days, maybe free weeks, especially something consistent (free a certain day of the week for instance) are important in removing ourselves from oil. Society needs to experiment, to see what changes and solutions are possible. Business as usual is absurd and a dangerous approach.
Actually I am probably less concerned about the city offering free parking than taxing surface parking lots to reflect their true cost to society.
However without a healthy mass transit system as an alternate to parking and the auto it is a losing battle trying to make cars, parking and oil pay their true costs. Parking is a dominant feature of downtown. The infrastructure changes to make mass transit the dominant feature instead takes years to accomplish.
Transit could alleviate (but not cure) oil problems. Demand for parking will fall, reducing the need for lots. (Part of redesigning the city to favor transit will require the elimination of lots also).
Free transit instead of free parking is a good response for promoting the city.
Cost leaders are often used to attract business. That being said I like the idea mentioned by Tom Shrout about making transit free. Oil prices have ballooned again (everyone surprised raise your hand). It will only get worse as time moves on.
Promotions for transit free days, maybe free weeks, especially something consistent (free a certain day of the week for instance) are important in removing ourselves from oil. Society needs to experiment, to see what changes and solutions are possible. Business as usual is absurd and a dangerous approach.
Actually I am probably less concerned about the city offering free parking than taxing surface parking lots to reflect their true cost to society.
However without a healthy mass transit system as an alternate to parking and the auto it is a losing battle trying to make cars, parking and oil pay their true costs. Parking is a dominant feature of downtown. The infrastructure changes to make mass transit the dominant feature instead takes years to accomplish.
Transit could alleviate (but not cure) oil problems. Demand for parking will fall, reducing the need for lots. (Part of redesigning the city to favor transit will require the elimination of lots also).
Free transit instead of free parking is a good response for promoting the city.
Transit free days in order to entice suburban white voters who can pay the fare? No thanks. We have poor people who depend upon transit. If these free days mean budgetary cuts in other areas then we should not do it. Urban transit users, who pay a flat fare and take shorter trips, already subsidize suburban ones who take longer trips. What else do suburban people want? I have an answer: they want it all with no cost to them.
You miss the point, which is to promote transit. What better way than to encourage people to use it? This experiment could supply information about possible changes that are needed, in fact I would suspect the use would be heaviest in the city and inner suburbs, pointing to the focus of transit resources into areas willing to make use of it.
Maybe try out some new routes at the same time, experiment, explore options to help find ways to create a viable transit system for all.
I’m not sure about the point of the divisive language. This is not about suburban white voters. It is about a nation that has real problems. It is likely the suburbs eventually will have to be modified to meet new realities.
Budgetary cuts are not the issue, the issue is to find solutions and new ways to do things. Obviously it will take a large financial commitment to rebuild the transit infrastructure as I mention above, so clearly I am talking about greater public investment in transit, not less. In any case if the promotion works it should increase ridership and revenue, that’s the idea of a promotion.
Experimenting with free rides could be a way to build public acceptance. A public that believes it is in their best interest to support transit is essential.
I personally think the lack of leadership will continue with business as usual and we’ll have to wait for some unknown future collapse to finally take action, hopefully it will not be too late.
Tom Shrout brought up transit because if Metro had a free day they would be publicly blasted for giving away service whereas the city regularly gives away parking and that is celebrated. People still think all parking should be free but transit riders should pay a fare to cover the full unsubsidized cost of their trip.
Yeah and those people who criticize transit are suburban white voters who get their own light rail and ‘trolley’ systems. Metro is doing a lot to get them as a constituency. Which is fine as poor people don’t vote and the mission of transit today is getting cars off the road – poor people already don’t have cars.
Though it’s ironic again that we would be offering free days for people who can pay the fare especially again as urban riders do subsidize the fare of suburban riders.
Doug, it’s the suburban taxpayers who are subsidizing transit service, for both the urban poor and the suburban commuters. 80% of Metro’s budget comes from taxes, only 20% comes from fares and advertising. Less than 5% of the trips made in the region are on public transit, more than 95% are in private vehicles. If you throw the tax-paying, non-transit-riding, suburban folks a bone once in a while, they may be more inclined to pay more in taxes, and they may even view Metro as a viable alternative – it’s called marketing. RTD in Denver offers free service on New Years Eve (gives drunks an option), Volusia Transit in Daytona Beach offers free rides on election day (so people can get to the polls). Yes, a 100% subsidy is more than an 80% subsidy; the difference is one would be “given out” 2 or 3 days a year, the other is already “given out” every day!
I don’t know whether free rides would have marketing value or not. I do agree with others that it would stir up lots of anti-Metro ranting.
However, there are lots of other ways to promote Metro. The easiest would be for businesses and institutions to just tell people how to get there by Metro. They already spend a lot of effort telling people how to get there by auto– what exit to take, where to park, free parking tokens, etc.
On a per trip basis urban inner city buses recovers more revenue at the farebox than suburban rail systems. People who use inner city buses typically take more trips than suburban buses or suburban rail due to density and shorter distances to their destinations. Although Metrobus does have lower farebox revenue than Metrolink, if you looked at individual city buses individually this would not be the case when looking at the entire bus system in aggregate as Metro does in their CAFR.
Before we offer free days how about we offer off peak discounts for the poor and elderly and perhaps distance based fees so those who take longer trips actually pay for their service?
When every trip is already subsidized to the tune of 75%-85%, it’s hard to justify additional discounts, plus the elderly already qualify for half-price fares at all times. The challenge for discounted off-peak fares is two-fold, one, the buses are typically less full, so they’re generating less revenue, and two, more fare complexity creates more confusion and potential conflicts between operators and patrons. The real penalty some poor face is that they can’t scrape together the funds a monthly pass requires, so they miss out on that existing discount, while middle-class commuters actually pay less than the poor dropping money in the farebox for each trip.
Distance-based fares are a mixed bag. The challenges including how finely to slice them and how to fairly collect them. They’re easier to implement on express bus routes and light and heavy rail lines, with few stops. Some properties use fare boundaries to create zones – pay one fare within the zone, pay a higher fare when you cross into another zone. That works fairly well if you’re near the center of a zone, it sucks if you’re near the border and have to cross it multiple times, even for short trips.
Many “local” bus routes are as long, or longer, than some express routes, but passengers are free to board and deboard anywhere along the route, travelling 10 blocks or 10 miles. And unlike taxis, revenues are highly variable, mile to mile, time of day or day of week. Then there are the fixed hourly costs – vehicle, fuel, tires, maintenance, operator pay and benefits – that are there whether there are two passengers or forty-two on the bus.
I’m a big believer in KISS – to attract more riders, Metro should have one flat basic fare for all buses and Metrolink, and should hand out free transfers (not charge 75 cents for the “privilege”). If you check out their website, http://www.metrostlouis.org/FaresPasses/FareChart.aspx , you’ll see that you can already pay $2.00 (single bus), $2.25 (Metrolink) or $2.75 (two buses) to get between certain Metrolink stations, or you can get discounts for bulk purchases or passes.
Metro doesn’t seem to get that they’re a transit SYSTEM, not a bunch of discrete elements. People want to get from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible, and will transfer, even multiple times, to complete the trip. Not everyone wants to go downtown. In fact, the busiest Metrolink Station is the CWE one, and the busiest bus route is the one on Grand!
I realize Tom Shrout was saying everyone would yell about free Metro, I just liked the idea and ran with it.
Free metro could offer opportunities for transit improvements in ways free parking never will. This would be especially true if coupled with experimenting with new routes. Fridays Free for the month of June is a promotion that could be especially effective and important if gas prices keep rising. Offering free transit for some period of time (thousands of variations), demonstrates to the public how transit has a role in solving the energy crisis. This while supplying the tools to help build a beautiful and useful city.
Anyway a few points
1. There seems to be little confidence in the public role of transit with the expressed fear of blowback if free transit is offered. It isn’t the marketing that is necessarily the only failure; design of the system itself is weak, for more reasons than can be pursued here.
2. Dividing “suburban white” transit users from everyone else is not only counterproductive, it destroys the main function of transit which is to serve all of the people. Successful transit around the world includes heavy use by all classes of people. Transit is and should be democratic.
3. This leads to city planning. Collecting transit at public spaces, using public spaces for transit identity is why city planning must embrace transit, and vice versa. If you are not moving people to places, what are you doing? This integration of city with transit is poor in St. Louis and the region.
4. Economic development is easy to spur with these free days also. Plazas are commonly the focus of transit collection all over the world. These plazas (just an open space at its most basic) often have individual vendors selling wares, vegetables and other items. Small scale opportunity is created (the dreaded capitalism). This is all very cheap to set up as an experiment, one or more new routes, free transit, a plaza and so on.
5. This is all part of a larger discussion about what actions are going to occur to limit oil usage in America? (global warming, wars, economies). It is puzzling this is not a major point of discussion in the mainstream media. If reasonable ideas concerning transit are advanced to the public. It is almost certain they will listen, it is getting to the point there is no choice.
6. The Paul McKee project on the Northside is a perfect example of the ruling establishment ignoring completely much needed debate about the outcome of major urban plans. Where is St. Louis headed in the 21st century? How do we begin to address urgent and even dangerous concerns surrounding oil usage? How is this and the needs of citizens reflected in his plan?
Free parking, not so much, I think free Metro is worth a try.
A lot of good ideas. The only real problem with free is the Law of Unintended Consequences. Besides an expected increase in ridership / lack of capacity, buses can become a haven for the homeless seeking shelter and/or for teens looking for a place to hang out / get into trouble. Probably better to cut fares to a dollar, to minimize the riff-raff . . . .
You are probably right about the riff-raff, but it would be interesting and instructive to see what happens on a free day. I would try anything and free fridays sounds better than 1/2 price fridays (just kidding, okay, but true).
There are two ways to approaching a problem such as this, one is to let every solution be burdened by suburban vs urban costs, rich vs poor, distance vs local, and numerous other economic or social limitations. The other is to strive for concepts, ideas, visions that escape boundaries and then boundaries are only inserted later as the concept is implemented.
America and St. Louis need ideas, not preconceived straight jackets of thought.
Just to follow up on a free transit day with new routes and a plaza. The Corinthian column water tower on North Grand already has transit surrounding it, it has vacant land mostly owned by the City, but also a nonprofit. This is the plaza. New direct routes, I don’t know, to downtown, Clayton and/or Forest Park can be used as for an experiment for the day. The down side is the neighborhood, which is why it sits in a difficult situation. A one day art fair, farmers market etc. will emphasize the value of artistic design, using monuments (and location) to create public space. That is the value of this site. Many other sites in St. Louis are possible for this approach.
It is cheap, experimental, and a tremendous learning device in an effort to make transit more useful and widely used in society. I firmly believe the public would think that such actions are valuable and contribute to the welfare of society we all live in if presented in a manner of learning and discovery.
Free parking does not address these kinds of difficult issues, it is only a promotion with few ramifications for the future. In fact you could argue that free parking does little to promote St. Louis, especially when already conceived trips, as to a Cardinals ball game, are undertaken.
I have absolutely no problem with free days as a marketing tool, I was referring to making Metro free every day.
FYI, the 16th Street Mall Shuttle in Denver is free, but since it only runs about 14 blocks, stopping every block, it’s a different animal, and not very attractive to the riff-raff. A more interestig comparison would be if the new Delmar Loop streetcar were free on weekend nights – would it be a part of the problem or part of the solution for the current unruly crowds?
I like free metro/transit days going all of the time better yet. That would take a public commitment far beyond possibility today. Tomorrow can be different, and transit may all of a sudden be a necessity.
Information as from sites like the oildrum
http://www.theoildrum.com/
which do extensive analysis of energy support asking questions about just when and what point does gasoline prices (or availability) become a game changer for St. Louis.
There is another problem unrelated to transit when youths do not respect their fellow citizens. I can only paraphrase, but the Tao-Te-Ching says something like that when the leaders are corrupt the people do not follow the law.
I would say the unruly crowds have nothing to do with the streetcars, or transit in general, but that being said streetcars contribute in a positive sense if the complimentary of transit is public space and by extension democracy. It is an American system that has developed (in my view) to exclude so many people that they no longer respect social life, that is reflected in the design of cities and transit systems, St. Louis being a case in point.
Be positive, create a hang out for teens along the streetcar line instead of banning them further and turning them away. Thieves are no good, but mischief at this age is not unusual (if anybody remembers their youth).
Attempts at positive approaches may be more useful in the long run.
And get rid of free parking except for me.
This is getting pretty cerberal / esoteric, but here goes – the difference between free parking and free transit is that one is a 10′ x 20′ piece of asphalt and the other involves vehicles and moving parts. It’s a lot easier to discourage and/or control unruly behavior on an inanimate, immoble parking space than it is on a moving vehicle. That said, there are some logical arguments for reducing or eliminating fares completely, including the costs associated with fareboxes and monthly passes. Back in the day, I’m guessing that streetcar fares and tolls to use a bridge to cross the Mississippi were pretty similar. Since then, most bridges (and parking) have been subsidized enough to be(come) free, while transit continues to collect fares. Unfortunately, majority rules, and most folks have no desire to pay higher taxes, especially for transit . . .
. . . and the urban poor don’t “want it all with no cost to them”?!
No, they would have to cut bus service the next day. These are not fair examples. We include parking in development costs when they should be separated and paid through user fees also known has higher parking costs.
No one should be able to park free downtown. Not even City employees. Not even if it’s a “celebration” and especially since Slay cut the amusement tax for the Cardinals. His whole argument for the new Stadium was that we needed it to collect revenue from suburban visitors.
If we valued our urban land we would not offer free parking. If we care about transit then we have to increase the cost of parking. People are not going to use transit until driving and parking becomes a luxury which most people don’t want to pay.
Transit free days in order to entice suburban white voters who can pay the fare? No thanks. We have poor people who depend upon transit. If these free days mean budgetary cuts in other areas then we should not do it. Urban transit users, who pay a flat fare and take shorter trips, already subsidize suburban ones who take longer trips. What else do suburban people want? I have an answer: they want it all with no cost to them.
You miss the point, which is to promote transit. What better way than to encourage people to use it? This experiment could supply information about possible changes that are needed, in fact I would suspect the use would be heaviest in the city and inner suburbs, pointing to the focus of transit resources into areas willing to make use of it.
Maybe try out some new routes at the same time, experiment, explore options to help find ways to create a viable transit system for all.
I’m not sure about the point of the divisive language. This is not about suburban white voters. It is about a nation that has real problems. It is likely the suburbs eventually will have to be modified to meet new realities.
Budgetary cuts are not the issue, the issue is to find solutions and new ways to do things. Obviously it will take a large financial commitment to rebuild the transit infrastructure as I mention above, so clearly I am talking about greater public investment in transit, not less. In any case if the promotion works it should increase ridership and revenue, that’s the idea of a promotion.
Experimenting with free rides could be a way to build public acceptance. A public that believes it is in their best interest to support transit is essential.
I personally think the lack of leadership will continue with business as usual and we’ll have to wait for some unknown future collapse to finally take action, hopefully it will not be too late.
Tom Shrout brought up transit because if Metro had a free day they would be publicly blasted for giving away service whereas the city regularly gives away parking and that is celebrated. People still think all parking should be free but transit riders should pay a fare to cover the full unsubsidized cost of their trip.
So let’s just build a fence around downtown and charge admission . . . good luck with that!
I think we already do with our high sales tax and earnings taxes. People still come. Probably because it’s a unique place to be. What kind of person pays others to be their friend?
Yeah and those people who criticize transit are suburban white voters who get their own light rail and ‘trolley’ systems. Metro is doing a lot to get them as a constituency. Which is fine as poor people don’t vote and the mission of transit today is getting cars off the road – poor people already don’t have cars.
Though it’s ironic again that we would be offering free days for people who can pay the fare especially again as urban riders do subsidize the fare of suburban riders.
Doug, it’s the suburban taxpayers who are subsidizing transit service, for both the urban poor and the suburban commuters. 80% of Metro’s budget comes from taxes, only 20% comes from fares and advertising. Less than 5% of the trips made in the region are on public transit, more than 95% are in private vehicles. If you throw the tax-paying, non-transit-riding, suburban folks a bone once in a while, they may be more inclined to pay more in taxes, and they may even view Metro as a viable alternative – it’s called marketing. RTD in Denver offers free service on New Years Eve (gives drunks an option), Volusia Transit in Daytona Beach offers free rides on election day (so people can get to the polls). Yes, a 100% subsidy is more than an 80% subsidy; the difference is one would be “given out” 2 or 3 days a year, the other is already “given out” every day!
. . . and the urban poor don’t “want it all with no cost to them”?!
I don’t know whether free rides would have marketing value or not. I do agree with others that it would stir up lots of anti-Metro ranting.
However, there are lots of other ways to promote Metro. The easiest would be for businesses and institutions to just tell people how to get there by Metro. They already spend a lot of effort telling people how to get there by auto– what exit to take, where to park, free parking tokens, etc.
On a per trip basis urban inner city buses recovers more revenue at the farebox than suburban rail systems. People who use inner city buses typically take more trips than suburban buses or suburban rail due to density and shorter distances to their destinations. Although Metrobus does have lower farebox revenue than Metrolink, if you looked at individual city buses individually this would not be the case when looking at the entire bus system in aggregate as Metro does in their CAFR.
Before we offer free days how about we offer off peak discounts for the poor and elderly and perhaps distance based fees so those who take longer trips actually pay for their service?
I realize Tom Shrout was saying everyone would yell about free Metro, I just liked the idea and ran with it.
Free metro could offer opportunities for transit improvements in ways free parking never will. This would be especially true if coupled with experimenting with new routes. Fridays Free for the month of June is a promotion that could be especially effective and important if gas prices keep rising. Offering free transit for some period of time (thousands of variations), demonstrates to the public how transit has a role in solving the energy crisis. This while supplying the tools to help build a beautiful and useful city.
Anyway a few points
1. There seems to be little confidence in the public role of transit with the expressed fear of blowback if free transit is offered. It isn’t the marketing that is necessarily the only failure; design of the system itself is weak, for more reasons than can be pursued here.
2. Dividing “suburban white†transit users from everyone else is not only counterproductive, it destroys the main function of transit which is to serve all of the people. Successful transit around the world includes heavy use by all classes of people. Transit is and should be democratic.
3. This leads to city planning. Collecting transit at public spaces, using public spaces for transit identity is why city planning must embrace transit, and vice versa. If you are not moving people to places, what are you doing? This integration of city with transit is poor in St. Louis and the region.
4. Economic development is easy to spur with these free days also. Plazas are commonly the focus of transit collection all over the world. These plazas (just an open space at its most basic) often have individual vendors selling wares, vegetables and other items. Small scale opportunity is created (the dreaded capitalism). This is all very cheap to set up as an experiment, one or more new routes, free transit, a plaza and so on.
5. This is all part of a larger discussion about what actions are going to occur to limit oil usage in America? (global warming, wars, economies). It is puzzling this is not a major point of discussion in the mainstream media. If reasonable ideas concerning transit are advanced to the public. It is almost certain they will listen, it is getting to the point there is no choice.
6. The Paul McKee project on the Northside is a perfect example of the ruling establishment ignoring completely much needed debate about the outcome of major urban plans. Where is St. Louis headed in the 21st century? How do we begin to address urgent and even dangerous concerns surrounding oil usage? How is this and the needs of citizens reflected in his plan?
Free parking, not so much, I think free Metro is worth a try.
When every trip is already subsidized to the tune of 75%-85%, it’s hard to justify additional discounts, plus the elderly already qualify for half-price fares at all times. The challenge for discounted off-peak fares is two-fold, one, the buses are typically less full, so they’re generating less revenue, and two, more fare complexity creates more confusion and potential conflicts between operators and patrons. The real penalty some poor face is that they can’t scrape together the funds a monthly pass requires, so they miss out on that existing discount, while middle-class commuters actually pay less than the poor dropping money in the farebox for each trip.
Distance-based fares are a mixed bag. The challenges including how finely to slice them and how to fairly collect them. They’re easier to implement on express bus routes and light and heavy rail lines, with few stops. Some properties use fare boundaries to create zones – pay one fare within the zone, pay a higher fare when you cross into another zone. That works fairly well if you’re near the center of a zone, it sucks if you’re near the border and have to cross it multiple times, even for short trips.
Many “local” bus routes are as long, or longer, than some express routes, but passengers are free to board and deboard anywhere along the route, travelling 10 blocks or 10 miles. And unlike taxis, revenues are highly variable, mile to mile, time of day or day of week. Then there are the fixed hourly costs – vehicle, fuel, tires, maintenance, operator pay and benefits – that are there whether there are two passengers or forty-two on the bus.
I’m a big believer in KISS – to attract more riders, Metro should have one flat basic fare for all buses and Metrolink, and should hand out free transfers (not charge 75 cents for the “privilege”). If you check out their website, http://www.metrostlouis.org/FaresPasses/FareChart.aspx , you’ll see that you can already pay $2.00 (single bus), $2.25 (Metrolink) or $2.75 (two buses) to get between certain Metrolink stations, or you can get discounts for bulk purchases or passes.
Metro doesn’t seem to get that they’re a transit SYSTEM, not a bunch of discrete elements. People want to get from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible, and will transfer, even multiple times, to complete the trip. Not everyone wants to go downtown. In fact, the busiest Metrolink Station is the CWE one, and the busiest bus route is the one on Grand!
A lot of good ideas. The only real problem with free is the Law of Unintended Consequences. Besides an expected increase in ridership / lack of capacity, buses can become a haven for the homeless seeking shelter and/or for teens looking for a place to hang out / get into trouble. Probably better to cut fares to a dollar, to minimize the riff-raff . . . .
You are probably right about the riff-raff, but it would be interesting and instructive to see what happens on a free day. I would try anything and free fridays sounds better than 1/2 price fridays (just kidding, okay, but true).
There are two ways to approaching a problem such as this, one is to let every solution be burdened by suburban vs urban costs, rich vs poor, distance vs local, and numerous other economic or social limitations. The other is to strive for concepts, ideas, visions that escape boundaries and then boundaries are only inserted later as the concept is implemented.
America and St. Louis need ideas, not preconceived straight jackets of thought.
Just to follow up on a free transit day with new routes and a plaza. The Corinthian column water tower on North Grand already has transit surrounding it, it has vacant land mostly owned by the City, but also a nonprofit. This is the plaza. New direct routes, I don’t know, to downtown, Clayton and/or Forest Park can be used as for an experiment for the day. The down side is the neighborhood, which is why it sits in a difficult situation. A one day art fair, farmers market etc. will emphasize the value of artistic design, using monuments (and location) to create public space. That is the value of this site. Many other sites in St. Louis are possible for this approach.
It is cheap, experimental, and a tremendous learning device in an effort to make transit more useful and widely used in society. I firmly believe the public would think that such actions are valuable and contribute to the welfare of society we all live in if presented in a manner of learning and discovery.
Free parking does not address these kinds of difficult issues, it is only a promotion with few ramifications for the future. In fact you could argue that free parking does little to promote St. Louis, especially when already conceived trips, as to a Cardinals ball game, are undertaken.
I have absolutely no problem with free days as a marketing tool, I was referring to making Metro free every day.
FYI, the 16th Street Mall Shuttle in Denver is free, but since it only runs about 14 blocks, stopping every block, it’s a different animal, and not very attractive to the riff-raff. A more interestig comparison would be if the new Delmar Loop streetcar were free on weekend nights – would it be a part of the problem or part of the solution for the current unruly crowds?
I like free metro/transit days going all of the time better yet. That would take a public commitment far beyond possibility today. Tomorrow can be different, and transit may all of a sudden be a necessity.
Information as from sites like the oildrum
http://www.theoildrum.com/
which do extensive analysis of energy support asking questions about just when and what point does gasoline prices (or availability) become a game changer for St. Louis.
There is another problem unrelated to transit when youths do not respect their fellow citizens. I can only paraphrase, but the Tao-Te-Ching says something like that when the leaders are corrupt the people do not follow the law.
I would say the unruly crowds have nothing to do with the streetcars, or transit in general, but that being said streetcars contribute in a positive sense if the complimentary of transit is public space and by extension democracy. It is an American system that has developed (in my view) to exclude so many people that they no longer respect social life, that is reflected in the design of cities and transit systems, St. Louis being a case in point.
Be positive, create a hang out for teens along the streetcar line instead of banning them further and turning them away. Thieves are no good, but mischief at this age is not unusual (if anybody remembers their youth).
Attempts at positive approaches may be more useful in the long run.
And get rid of free parking except for me.
This is getting pretty cerberal / esoteric, but here goes – the difference between free parking and free transit is that one is a 10′ x 20′ piece of asphalt and the other involves vehicles and moving parts. It’s a lot easier to discourage and/or control unruly behavior on an inanimate, immoble parking space than it is on a moving vehicle. That said, there are some logical arguments for reducing or eliminating fares completely, including the costs associated with fareboxes and monthly passes. Back in the day, I’m guessing that streetcar fares and tolls to use a bridge to cross the Mississippi were pretty similar. Since then, most bridges (and parking) have been subsidized enough to be(come) free, while transit continues to collect fares. Unfortunately, majority rules, and most folks have no desire to pay higher taxes, especially for transit . . .
Cardinals had a home game in the afternoon that day vs. the Padres. I can see my car in the top picture. $10 to park in the lot, collected by individuals.
Cardinals had a home game in the afternoon that day vs. the Padres. I can see my car in the top picture. $10 to park in the lot, collected by individuals.
I must have read the schedule wrong. Were the individuals working for the city or taking advantage?
I must have read the schedule wrong. Were the individuals working for the city or taking advantage?