The question of deadheading buses is really best answered by our planning department; I’m just unsure of the history and planning decisions in regards to that question. Will get back to you as soon as I can.

Thanks,
Courtney

That’s a very good point you made about deadheading buses. Bi-State used to utilize their buses on some of their routes in that manner, by allowing a bus to remain in revenue service on its way to the garage, after completing its final run, and that bus was about to be taken out of service, or when that route was shutting down for the day. It can work in just the opposite manner before buses begin their run for the day

That makes good economic sense by getting the most out of their resourses, in addition to the fact that it provides additional service which is made available to potential riders. That’s a great way to encourage and generate new ridership, as well as selling a good product by providng the type of service that is user friendly. Why wasn’t that portion of your comment responded to?

Currently the Planning Department is looking to split the #57 Manchester service so that the heaviest-use section runs on its own route and shortens the route length. The bus procurement is a work in progress…we can put ourselves on waiting list for brand new buses, lease buses from other agencies, bring older buses back, and looking at smaller, van-like buses. I will let everyone know when we add more new buses to the fleet.

The defeat of Prop. M resulted in cuts in Metrobus service, which resulted in the loss of passenger boardings, because Metrobus service became no longer available to serve those former passengers. The Passage of Prop A, will now generate the funds necessary to eventually restore previously loss service. For starters, the ripple affect of the service cuts now has to be reversed by gradually restoring service back to the same levels which existed prior to the cuts. This will make Metro service available once again for passengers who were affected by the cuts, and hopefully encourage them to return back to using public transit, so that ridership may begin to peak toward the same levels enjoyed by Metro prior to the service cuts.

Now that funding will become available as the result of passing Prop. A, after the previous level of service has been restored, I hope that Metro will impliment the plan it had promised in 2008, when campaigning for Prop. M. To win back former riders, and in order to encourage new riders to use public transit, Metro, to a great extent, will probably have to sell itself as well as their their product, in order to regain public trust. The product can sell itself by providing efficient and reliable public transportation. I think the public is tired of campaign promises. They want results.

In response to downtown bus service, there is currently no Sunday service. Part of Metro’s original committment, upon passage of Proposition A, was to eventually restore bus service to the bus stops, where service was discontinued, when Proposition M was defeated.

Regular bus service should be restored in the downtown core area east of Tucker Blvd, to give that area of downtown more of a big city downtown feel. I think restoring service to that area is important in the further revitalization of downtown, and making it a more competitive area in our region.

Also, prior to the voting of Proposition M, in addition to future service expansion, Metro had also committed themselves to providing service enhancements to bus service at the level which existed at the time, prior to the voting of Prosition M (re: article on St. Louis Region at a Crossroad printed in the Post Dispatch in August or Sept. 2008).

Now that Metro has our support in tax dollars, I hope they make good on their committments.