Bus Stop Evaluation Program: #110 Affton and #44 HazelwoodReturn to Blog
This Friday brings us beautiful weather and falling leaves, and another round of MetroBus stops for evaluation. Please note: none of the routes listed are being eliminated, but your feedback on specific stops is encouraged and greatly appreciated. Below is the new list of proposed MetroBus stops under consideration for removal for the following routes:
These stops are being proposed for elimination as part of Metro’s Bus Stop Evaluation Program to make the system more efficient and faster.
Please submit your comments for the #110 Affton and #44 Hazelwood by Monday, October 24, 2011.
Please submit your comments for the #13 and #47 by Monday, October 10, 2011.
NS – Nearside of the street-before you cross the street
FS – Farside of the street-after you cross the street
MB – Midblock after the street midway down
9 thoughts on “Bus Stop Evaluation Program: #110 Affton and #44 Hazelwood”
The #110 Affton line isn’t seeing much customers because it’s not running at the time the people need it. And there isn’t that much people advertising the line. But if we expand the line and get the word out such as passing out timetables to banks, grocery stores, etc., then riders would use it. It has a good connection with two bike trails and to the Tower Tee Golf Course, Heege Road is really a danger to walk on so that the service is really needed. So it’s best to add more runs onto the line.
Patrick, thanks for your feedback. I will send your comments regarding the #110 to Planning.
For the #44, I am trying to picture the stop at N Lindbergh and Bruce that is being considered for elimination. I know where Bruce is, but cant picture the stop. Of course, eliminating the stop at Charbonier and Loekes essentially forces anyone coming off the 44 trying to get to Old Florissant to either walk from Sunridge or cross the busy intersection at Patterson.
Apologies for the double post, but there isnt an edit button.
Your other option is of course to take the 44 to North Hanley, then catch either the 45 or 47 – which is both time-consuming and inefficient.
good luck with the idea of more #110 service since more metro cuts are on the way next month its already an express route i foresee the route being eliminated in the near future
I just finished reviewing the service changes scheduled for November which indeed featured service reductions, and the elimination of at least one route (the #14). I also foresee service reductions and eliminations as an ongoing trend in our region’s transit future which is looking dimmer by the moment.
This is the thanks that we get from Metro for our support in passing Prop. A. Instead of moving transit forward as they promised with the passage of this measure, they are proceeding to return bus service back towards the pre-restoration levels.
I’m still trying to understand the logic behind with proposed stop eliminations for those that are considered “underused”. How can these particular stops that are being targeted have an impact on the run time of buses, when most of the time buses are actually passing up these stops anyway?
Mike, the elimination of the #14 was based on ridership, and a lot of feedback from customers who missed a direct connection from the Central West End to Tower Grove South and South Morganford. When we moved the #8 Bates from a CWE connection to downtown, a lot of customers were concerned. This was an attempt to keep the connection between the two areas timely, so that more people want to utilize that route.
As for the bus stop program, a good way to think about it is an express bus vs. a local route. An express bus can cover a longer route in a shorter amount of time, why? Because of fewer stops. Each stop the bus must pull over, pick up a passenger, pay the fare, and merge back into traffic. If these stops are being passed up most of the time, then they are a drain on maintenance and operations cost in addition to potential pulls on headways. But many stops are also being evaluated because they were deemed unsafe by either operators or passengers as well. Two of the stops that I use frequently are being eliminated; I understand I’ll have to walk a block further, but more people will use the existing stops, and honestly, one of my stops is a block from a major intersecting stop, so its really not terribly useful. And we are working with customers who have specific concerns, such as a person with disabilities that uses that stop, etc. I hope this clarifies things for you; let me know if it does not.
Adding to my previous comments, the drafted version of the proposed schedule changes shows the changes are based on customer feedback. I find it hard to believe that the changes involving the cuts in service, proposed for several of the bus routes, are based on customer feedback.
I totally agree in removing the bus stops that are deemed unsafe. As for the concept of removing bus stops to improve the running time of buses, the example you provided is conceivable if the stops slated for removal are stops that are heavily patronized and spaced closely together, and not those that are lightly used, since buses seldom stop to serve them, since they are lightly used. Except for safety reasons, I don’t agree with removing any stops, whether they are lightly used or heavily used, because they are still valuable to those who have to rely them, even if it doesn’t matter to Metro whether these stops are important. Removing these stops would only add to the inconvenience in using the bus system in our region, since customers would have to end up walking even further to catch a bus. It’s like adding insult to injury.
In addition, Metro’s plan of streamlining these routes by removing bus stops, may result in Metro taking on the characteristics of running a commuter type bus system, with stops that are spaced out like express or limited stop service, rather than retaining a system that is, and I bite my tougne when I say this, a bit more user friendly such as it is, then it would be if these stops are removed.
If Metro is vying for new riders, especially for those who option to ride buses, having access to buses, especially from their homes, should almost be as easy, when possible, as having access to their vehicles from their homes. That convenience comes in handy when dealing with the extremes of STL-type weather.
In summary, I don”t believe removing these bus stops will result in any appreciable improvement with the run time of the buses on the routes being affected. Buses still have to deal with traffic patterns, traffic conditions, detours, extreme weather conditions, and other unforeseen circumstances that can affect traffic conditions, that Metro has no control of.