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.

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.

A lot of extra, probably new, and definitely happy riders!

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.

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.

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.

So let’s just build a fence around downtown and charge admission . . . good luck with that!

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.

. . . and the urban poor don’t “want it all with no cost to them”?!

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!

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 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.

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.