A Voice for All Transit Riders in St. Louis
Today, on the 62nd anniversary of the formation of the Bi-State Development Agency, we are pleased to announce the formation of the Transit Riders Union of St. Louis (TRUSTL) which will fight for the public transit needs of the citizens of the St. Louis Metropolitan Area riding MetroBus, MetroLink, Call-A-Ride or Madison County Transit.
Members of the TRUSTL steering committee began meeting a few months ago to address a growing need for a unified voice for all transit riders in the St. Louis region. As riders, we have all complained to Metro about one thing or another sometimes getting positive results, other times as if our needs were falling on deaf ears. We decided the time to organize as transit riders was now to insure the needs of all riders are heard and respected.
We want to have a way to hear what other transit riders have to say about the quality of the service and insure Metro listens and responds appropriately to our needs.
TRUSTL’s purpose is to promote and defend public transit in order to:
- restore urban vitality
- ensure transportation equality
- improve overall quality of life
TRUSTL has established a Transit Riders’ Bill of Rights which we will use as a guide to our actions. We believe all transit riders in the St. Louis Metro Area have the right to:
- Equitably reliable, affordable and efficient transit for all riders
- Cooperation between all transit agencies in the region to allow for fluidity and simplicity of travel
- Transparent and easily used lines of communication between transit agencies and riders with mechanisms in place to address and respond to rider concerns
- Helpful, courteous service from employees of all regional transit agencies
- Safe, clean and regularly maintained transit facilities throughout the entire Metro region
- Accurate signage and up to date transit information made available aboard all buses, trains, transit stations and connecting bus stops
- Current schedules, routes and ridership data available online
Members of the TRUSTL Steering Committee include:
- Justin Chick (Transit Turning Point)
- Herbie Markwort (Gateway Streets & Next STL)
- Steve Patterson (Urban Review STL)
- Charles Purnell (STL Legend)
- Eddie Williams (Formally of MATRA-STL)
See you in transit!
-Justin, Herbie, Steve, Charles & Eddie
No member from Paraquad?
No member from Paraquad?
I’m not affiliated with Paraquad, but I am disabled and use transit with my wheelchair.
I’m not affiliated with Paraquad, but I am disabled and use transit with my wheelchair.
This is going to sound cynical, but who appointed you guys? I’m guessing that you’re all passionate about the issue, but if you’re going to claim to speak for “all riders”, shouldn’t there be a way for us riders to say “Yeah, we want you to represent me/us”? There are already ways for riders to access the agency, both directly and through groups like Citizens for Modern Transit. Metro is putting together a new citizens advisory committee ( http://www.nextstopstl.org/4398/metro-transit-to-receive-input-from-new-citizen-advisory-group/#comments ) and, in theory, we’re represented by appointed board members. How should we riders expect you all to be more effective or to provide a better vehicle to represent my specific interests and concerns?
This is going to sound cynical, but who appointed you guys? I’m guessing that you’re all passionate about the issue, but if you’re going to claim to speak for “all riders”, shouldn’t there be a way for us riders to say “Yeah, we want you to represent me/us”? There are already ways for riders to access the agency, both directly and through groups like Citizens for Modern Transit. Metro is putting together a new citizens advisory committee ( http://www.nextstopstl.org/4398/metro-transit-to-receive-input-from-new-citizen-advisory-group/#comments ) and, in theory, we’re represented by appointed board members. How should we riders expect you all to be more effective or to provide a better vehicle to represent my specific interests and concerns?
We saw a need and took steps to fulfill that need.
You have a number of good points and we hope to clarify the reasons for our formation in the coming weeks. In short, though, we were unhappy with the existing means of representation for transit riders and felt that forming TRUSTL was necessary to provide a new and different voice in the existing transit conversation.
First, I agree with and support most of your goals / bullet points. The only problematic one may be “ensure transportation equality”/ “the right to . . . equitably reliable, affordable and efficient transit for all riders”. The other ones should be no-brainers / the way any good business is run. Second, after being a part of grassroots political efforts for a quarter century, on both sides of the table, I’m leery of any small group of vocal ideologues claiming to represent large numbers of the public. And in this world of instant websites and political action committees, I’m even more suspicious – there’s a real difference between “a new and different voice” and “a unified voice for all transit riders in the St. Louis region”. A “steering committee” that consists of 5 bloggers certainly isn’t a movement. Heck, it’s not even very good ridership on one bus!
My background – before moving here, I spent 5 years serving on the board of Denver’s Regional Transportation District, a property that’s probably 3 times the size of Metro, so I’m well versed on the intricacies of running and growing a public transit system. And one significant difference between RTD and Metro is that RTD’s board is directly elected by the voters, not appointed, like the one is here. As a result, there seems to be much greater access to decision makers and responsiveness to many rider concerns in Denver. RTD originally had an appointed board, but a voter initiative changed that, and doing something similar here might be a great first step / goal for your group. (In Denver, I had regular, direct contact with my constituents [much like an alderman]; here, it’s virtually impossible to contact any of our board members directly.)
As for “transportation equality”, do you all envision equal service levels, equal equipment, equal infrastructure investments, equal budgets, equal taxes, equal fares, equal what? Should all neighborhoods be served equally? Or, should areas with more actual riders receive more / better service? Should Metro increase service in suburban areas while reducing service in urban areas? That, in a perverse way, would be more “equitable”. And define “affordable”. Is it based on one’s ability to pay or what one wants to pay? Transit is already one of the cheapest ways to get around, outside of walking or biking, yet it’s still not very “affordable” for many poor riders. Bottom line, we all make budget and spending choices all day, every day, and most of us wouldn’t mind paying less for pretty much anything, Unless we as a community are willing to pay more in taxes, transit will remain constrained by current, limited budgets. And with that comes the ongoing challenge of balancing increasing demand with stagnant or declining resources.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t not want you all to succeed. I just think that there’s more to be figured out. Great ideas and plans without funding will remain dreams. Engaging actual riders will take more than websites in the blogosphere. And idealistic goals / terms need to be carefully parsed. There is no one, “typical” transit rider, so creating a “unified voice” is going to be nearly impossible to accomplish. Someone with a disability has different needs than a poor, transit-dependent rider who has different needs than daily commuter who has different needs from someone who only rides Metrolink to Cardinals games. Urban design decisions impact how well transit can work – should less-dense areas be penalized for past choices? Good luck!
Do you take the bus? It’s clearly not treated equal to Metrolink.
I ride both and I agree that they’re not treated equally, nor are they even perceived as being equal by many people, and that’s precisely my point. One of TRUSTL’s three stated goals is to “ensure transportation equality”. Equality in transit means significantly different things to different people. The fundamental question is should Metro attempt to match service levels to current demand (the current model, but inherently unequal) or should they deploy equal amounts of service uniformly across the region (in hopes of attracting more people out of their single-occupant vehicles, in theory, much more “equal”)? I’m not trying to be contrary, either, I’m just a big believer in having precision in any mission statement – without precise goals, how can you validly claim success?!
As Herbie notes, there are multiple paths worth exploring. There’s also that hard financial reality that Metro does not have unlimited resources, so, by default, compromise is and will continue to be a part of every decision the agency has made and will make in the future. Two issues that should probably be at forefront of any initiative are balancing route productivity against other metrics and addressing the perceptions and the reality of a transit system versus a collection of discrete parts.
Route productivity measures the cost of providing service against the number of riders served. It’s also a reflection of the opportunity cost of putting service out on the street or the rails – the cost of running a bus or train is fairly consistent whether it’s nearly empty or packed with standees. One example would be whether it would be a better investment, assuming Metro could find the money, to add more buses to the Grand route or to add more buses serving Earth City? The former would address an established need, while the latter could yield a bigger percentage increase in riders.
The other issue is a pet peeve of mine. Coming from Denver, I was surprised to find Metro charging for transfers, both between buses and rail and between separate bus routes. RTD wants to be considered as an integrated system – you choose whichever mode of transportation that moves you most efficiently, be it rail, bus or demand-responsive paratransit. Here, Metro still seems stuck with the legacy of multiple independent transit companies that don’t seem to know how to play well together and wanting to penalize riders who “choose” (but are most likely forced) to change vehicles to complete a trip. Sure, any of us will choose a single-seat ride when we can, but most people will be just as happy transferring IF it saves time, there are no additional costs and the transfers are relatively seamless and safe.
JZ71, you have a lot of good points, too many actually to address properly in this space. But I would like to comment on one of your points:
— there’s a real difference between “a new and different voice” and “a unified voice for all transit riders in the St. Louis region”.
I agree that the two phrases can mean different things. But for TRUSTL, the phrases are used purposely and knowingly that there does not exist an organization in the St. Louis are that is willing to advocate for -all- transit riders and that in this case, both phrases can be embodied by and describe the purpose of a single group.
We saw a need and took steps to fulfill that need.
You have a number of good points and we hope to clarify the reasons for our formation in the coming weeks. In short, though, we were unhappy with the existing means of representation for transit riders and felt that forming TRUSTL was necessary to provide a new and different voice in the existing transit conversation.
First, I agree with and support most of your goals / bullet points. The only problematic one may be “ensure transportation equality”/ “the right to . . . equitably reliable, affordable and efficient transit for all riders”. The other ones should be no-brainers / the way any good business is run. Second, after being a part of grassroots political efforts for a quarter century, on both sides of the table, I’m leery of any small group of vocal ideologues claiming to represent large numbers of the public. And in this world of instant websites and political action committees, I’m even more suspicious – there’s a real difference between “a new and different voice” and “a unified voice for all transit riders in the St. Louis region”. A “steering committee” that consists of 5 bloggers certainly isn’t a movement. Heck, it’s not even very good ridership on one bus!
My background – before moving here, I spent 5 years serving on the board of Denver’s Regional Transportation District, a property that’s probably 3 times the size of Metro, so I’m well versed on the intricacies of running and growing a public transit system. And one significant difference between RTD and Metro is that RTD’s board is directly elected by the voters, not appointed, like the one is here. As a result, there seems to be much greater access to decision makers and responsiveness to many rider concerns in Denver. RTD originally had an appointed board, but a voter initiative changed that, and doing something similar here might be a great first step / goal for your group. (In Denver, I had regular, direct contact with my constituents [much like an alderman]; here, it’s virtually impossible to contact any of our board members directly.)
As for “transportation equality”, do you all envision equal service levels, equal equipment, equal infrastructure investments, equal budgets, equal taxes, equal fares, equal what? Should all neighborhoods be served equally? Or, should areas with more actual riders receive more / better service? Should Metro increase service in suburban areas while reducing service in urban areas? That, in a perverse way, would be more “equitable”. And define “affordable”. Is it based on one’s ability to pay or what one wants to pay? Transit is already one of the cheapest ways to get around, outside of walking or biking, yet it’s still not very “affordable” for many poor riders. Bottom line, we all make budget and spending choices all day, every day, and most of us wouldn’t mind paying less for pretty much anything, Unless we as a community are willing to pay more in taxes, transit will remain constrained by current, limited budgets. And with that comes the ongoing challenge of balancing increasing demand with stagnant or declining resources.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t not want you all to succeed. I just think that there’s more to be figured out. Great ideas and plans without funding will remain dreams. Engaging actual riders will take more than websites in the blogosphere. And idealistic goals / terms need to be carefully parsed. There is no one, “typical” transit rider, so creating a “unified voice” is going to be nearly impossible to accomplish. Someone with a disability has different needs than a poor, transit-dependent rider who has different needs than daily commuter who has different needs from someone who only rides Metrolink to Cardinals games. Urban design decisions impact how well transit can work – should less-dense areas be penalized for past choices? Good luck!
Do you take the bus? It’s clearly not treated equal to Metrolink.
JZ71, you have a lot of good points, too many actually to address properly in this space. But I would like to comment on one of your points:
— there’s a real difference between “a new and different voice” and “a unified voice for all transit riders in the St. Louis region”.
I agree that the two phrases can mean different things. But for TRUSTL, the phrases are used purposely and knowingly that there does not exist an organization in the St. Louis are that is willing to advocate for -all- transit riders and that in this case, both phrases can be embodied by and describe the purpose of a single group.
I ride both and I agree that they’re not treated equally, nor are they even perceived as being equal by many people, and that’s precisely my point. One of TRUSTL’s three stated goals is to “ensure transportation equality”. Equality in transit means significantly different things to different people. The fundamental question is should Metro attempt to match service levels to current demand (the current model, but inherently unequal) or should they deploy equal amounts of service uniformly across the region (in hopes of attracting more people out of their single-occupant vehicles, in theory, much more “equal”)? I’m not trying to be contrary, either, I’m just a big believer in having precision in any mission statement – without precise goals, how can you validly claim success?!
As Herbie notes, there are multiple paths worth exploring. There’s also that hard financial reality that Metro does not have unlimited resources, so, by default, compromise is and will continue to be a part of every decision the agency has made and will make in the future. Two issues that should probably be at forefront of any initiative are balancing route productivity against other metrics and addressing the perceptions and the reality of a transit system versus a collection of discrete parts.
Route productivity measures the cost of providing service against the number of riders served. It’s also a reflection of the opportunity cost of putting service out on the street or the rails – the cost of running a bus or train is fairly consistent whether it’s nearly empty or packed with standees. One example would be whether it would be a better investment, assuming Metro could find the money, to add more buses to the Grand route or to add more buses serving Earth City? The former would address an established need, while the latter could yield a bigger percentage increase in riders.
The other issue is a pet peeve of mine. Coming from Denver, I was surprised to find Metro charging for transfers, both between buses and rail and between separate bus routes. RTD wants to be considered as an integrated system – you choose whichever mode of transportation that moves you most efficiently, be it rail, bus or demand-responsive paratransit. Here, Metro still seems stuck with the legacy of multiple independent transit companies that don’t seem to know how to play well together and wanting to penalize riders who “choose” (but are most likely forced) to change vehicles to complete a trip. Sure, any of us will choose a single-seat ride when we can, but most people will be just as happy transferring IF it saves time, there are no additional costs and the transfers are relatively seamless and safe.
I agree with the concept. An independent set of people that debate and hopefully set transit policy is a good thing. Democracy is experimental, it is worth a try over the current tripe. I would like to point out the so called appointed citizen boards are often nothing but rubber stamps as corrupt as the faux leadership that can’t solve any problems.
I especially want to speak to the limited resources argument (we can’t do anyhing, we have no money!) Democracy is ideas, the money comes later, if the idea is dynamic, real the money will be forthcoming, the public will support it through their belief. If it is the same pablum we get every day, then who really cares anyway?
There is an obvious need for St. Louis to improve its transit system. It is serious, it is war, not some polite conversation where everybody sits around having useless discussions. The fate of St. Louis and the nation may rely on ridding ourselves from oil. No matter what, oil will be gone soon, in decades, not centuries.
One fault of the blogs is their inability to build sustained policies. I have suggested many times that the London Unitary Plan as a great model for online city building. The format can be focused on transit easily. Most importantly it will give readers the ability to see and debate conclusions reached. (A history so to speak).
Unlike JZ I find the self appointed transit authorities beautiful. It is great. Based on transit solutions that are being used today, St. Louis needs a creative, artistic, jolt. Congratulations on the new venture and good luck.
I agree with the concept. An independent set of people that debate and hopefully set transit policy is a good thing. Democracy is experimental, it is worth a try over the current tripe. I would like to point out the so called appointed citizen boards are often nothing but rubber stamps as corrupt as the faux leadership that can’t solve any problems.
I especially want to speak to the limited resources argument (we can’t do anyhing, we have no money!) Democracy is ideas, the money comes later, if the idea is dynamic, real the money will be forthcoming, the public will support it through their belief. If it is the same pablum we get every day, then who really cares anyway?
There is an obvious need for St. Louis to improve its transit system. It is serious, it is war, not some polite conversation where everybody sits around having useless discussions. The fate of St. Louis and the nation may rely on ridding ourselves from oil. No matter what, oil will be gone soon, in decades, not centuries.
One fault of the blogs is their inability to build sustained policies. I have suggested many times that the London Unitary Plan as a great model for online city building. The format can be focused on transit easily. Most importantly it will give readers the ability to see and debate conclusions reached. (A history so to speak).
Unlike JZ I find the self appointed transit authorities beautiful. It is great. Based on transit solutions that are being used today, St. Louis needs a creative, artistic, jolt. Congratulations on the new venture and good luck.
Thanks for your support. It looks like the City of London Unitary Development Plan of 2002 (http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Environment_and_planning/Planning/Planning_policy/udp.htm) has been replaced by the Local Development Framework (http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Environment_and_planning/Planning/Local_Development_Framework/)
I think you’re confusing self-appointed transit “authorities” and appointed transit boards. Most transit systems in our country, including here, are run by boards appointed by politicians. Denver is unique, along with a couple of others, in having a system that is run by a board elected directly by the voters. I also don’t have a problem with the creation of a transit riders union. My only concern is that TRUSTL is claiming to speak for ALL transit riders, when there’s no way they can do that effectively or equitably. I want to pick who’s going to represent me and my views (and odds are I’ll find a lot of common ground with TRUSTL). But it’s no different than the Tea Party or the KKK or the Democrats claiming to speak for “everyone” – they represent certain segments of our population, NOT everyone!
As for the money side, we obviously disagree. Yes, we need a better vision, and yes, we need to invest more in transit locally. But, in the short run, over the next 5-10 years, the funding available for transit, from both local and federal sources, is finite. The voters in the region aren’t going to support another tax increase without some tangible results from their positive vote a year ago. Given that huge constraint, any discussion WILL include trade-offs and compromises. The most fundamental one will be whether to improve service on established routes, primarily in urban areas, or to add new routes, primarily in suburban areas? How and where TRUSTL lands on which side of the divide will define them as an organization.
Thanks for your support. It looks like the City of London Unitary Development Plan of 2002 (http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Environment_and_planning/Planning/Planning_policy/udp.htm) has been replaced by the Local Development Framework (http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Environment_and_planning/Planning/Local_Development_Framework/)
I think you’re confusing self-appointed transit “authorities” and appointed transit boards. Most transit systems in our country, including here, are run by boards appointed by politicians. Denver is unique, along with a couple of others, in having a system that is run by a board elected directly by the voters. I also don’t have a problem with the creation of a transit riders union. My only concern is that TRUSTL is claiming to speak for ALL transit riders, when there’s no way they can do that effectively or equitably. I want to pick who’s going to represent me and my views (and odds are I’ll find a lot of common ground with TRUSTL). But it’s no different than the Tea Party or the KKK or the Democrats claiming to speak for “everyone” – they represent certain segments of our population, NOT everyone!
As for the money side, we obviously disagree. Yes, we need a better vision, and yes, we need to invest more in transit locally. But, in the short run, over the next 5-10 years, the funding available for transit, from both local and federal sources, is finite. The voters in the region aren’t going to support another tax increase without some tangible results from their positive vote a year ago. Given that huge constraint, any discussion WILL include trade-offs and compromises. The most fundamental one will be whether to improve service on established routes, primarily in urban areas, or to add new routes, primarily in suburban areas? How and where TRUSTL lands on which side of the divide will define them as an organization.
Steve…….what….no women on TRUSTL? I’d be interested in the demographics of the metro area transit rider…it’s gotta be 40/60 or 50/50 women to men I’d suspect.  When I was notified that my “department” was moving downtown (from the MoDOT Transportation building) I was determined not to pay the monthly parking rate of $85 or $60 if willing to walk a couple more blocks and not be in a covered garage. I also had a real problem with putting over 50 miles a day on my vehicle. I committed to the bus and I had two buses from which to choose….both considered “express”. I was an outspoken advocate of mass transit….so much so that I caught the attention of Metro’s PR Department and when CNN came out to do a story……they spent some time on “my bus”. Then the tax initiative failed and Metro…..in their infinite wisdom……decided that anyone west of 270 didn’t really need to be served. Still determined…..I, and several of my bus riding friends, took very quick action (and commitment) and started a new van pool. When they restored some of the routes…I’m guessing about 40% of the schedule from 141 and 44……most of the other riders abandoned the van and went back to the bus as it was just as convenient…….for them. Switched to another van…..the last one I understand created when they cut our service originally……but 6:30 a.m., 20 minutes from my home….became too much for this overworked single mom of three with sleep apnea. I’ve dropped out of that Van and with winter coming and my lack of enthusiasm for driving and parking everyday I’m opting for a bus pass again. Metrolink? you ask. Shrewsbury is half way to work !!! So…..I don’t have time to spare for a role on your steering committee (and you haven’t asked) but I would…….as you know I can…..want to share my thoughts and ideas looking forward. I’ll probably be the only one commenting from West of 270 !!!
Steve…….what….no women on TRUSTL? I’d be interested in the demographics of the metro area transit rider…it’s gotta be 40/60 or 50/50 women to men I’d suspect. When I was notified that my “department” was moving downtown (from the MoDOT Transportation building) I was determined not to pay the monthly parking rate of $85 or $60 if willing to walk a couple more blocks and not be in a covered garage. I also had a real problem with putting over 50 miles a day on my vehicle. I committed to the bus and I had two buses from which to choose….both considered “express”. I was an outspoken advocate of mass transit….so much so that I caught the attention of Metro’s PR Department and when CNN came out to do a story……they spent some time on “my bus”. Then the tax initiative failed and Metro…..in their infinite wisdom……decided that anyone west of 270 didn’t really need to be served. Still determined…..I, and several of my bus riding friends, took very quick action (and commitment) and started a new van pool. When they restored some of the routes…I’m guessing about 40% of the schedule from 141 and 44……most of the other riders abandoned the van and went back to the bus as it was just as convenient…….for them. Switched to another van…..the last one I understand created when they cut our service originally……but 6:30 a.m., 20 minutes from my home….became too much for this overworked single mom of three with sleep apnea. I’ve dropped out of that Van and with winter coming and my lack of enthusiasm for driving and parking everyday I’m opting for a bus pass again. Metrolink? you ask. Shrewsbury is half way to work !!! So…..I don’t have time to spare for a role on your steering committee (and you haven’t asked) but I would…….as you know I can…..want to share my thoughts and ideas looking forward. I’ll probably be the only one commenting from West of 270 !!!
We do need females on the steering committee! We had four originally and we expanded to five to widen the perspective. We discussed how to add some women to the steering committee but we decided it was best to go forward until we met women that shared our passion and expand then. We figure there will be changes as more transit riders come forward.
We do need females on the steering committee! We had four originally and we expanded to five to widen the perspective. We discussed how to add some women to the steering committee but we decided it was best to go forward until we met women that shared our passion and expand then. We figure there will be changes as more transit riders come forward.