Ray Friem: Dear Julie,

Two seperate questions, lets address the 33 (Dorsett/Lackland) first. The 33 has been targeted to see some enhancement in late August or early September. The thinking is similar service between Lackland and Craig and Rock Road Station. We're still looking at ridership levels, but initial thoughts are to return to pre March 30, 2009 headways (time between buses).

As for the 66 Clayton Airport, Again, we're looking at ridership numbers and believe there is a possibility of some mid-day and peak adjustments, although perhaps not to the same service levels as before the reductions occured. No changes in the routing are currently being contemplated.

Ray Friem: Dear Pipe Organist,

Again, two seperate route questions we'll break into two.

First the #56 Kirkwood/Webster will likely be modified in late August or September to provide service between the Shrewsbury MetroLink station and Meramac College with changes made to the old route to serve streets like Lockwood, Adams (in Kirkwood), Kirkwood (past the old St. Joseph Hospital) and onto the college.

We are also contemplating a new route (no number yet). We are calling it Big Bend, and it would serve attractions like Webster University, Sunnen MetroLink station, possibly Maplewood Commons, and the MetroLink station at I-64. We are studying the possibility of adding Des Peres Hospital and Meramac College as well. It's very conceptual right now, but those are our thoughts. Rush Hour service will continue to Des Peres by way of Big Bend and I-270.

As for the #99 Downtown Circulator, we have a number of service options we are exploring including altering the loop to serve Market St. Broadway, 4th street, Washington and 16th street. This would place this route at the City Museum.

Comments to service modifications and enhancements can still be made to our hotline at 314-335-3433 or by email to restoration2010@metrostlouis.org.

As far as your pass, different department, please call 314-231-2345 and let them know your issue. We will chase it down for you.

Ray Friem: Dear Herbie3,

The Metro board of Commissioners has decided to put off the July fare increase until some future time. We are completely focused on service restoration and rebuilding passenger base, activities that generate far more revenue than the proposed fare increase could recover. Fare increases are necessary to provide the system with additional stability. All fares collected are spent on operating or enhancing the system. Historically we have held the line on fares until the system is so strained it becomes unavoidable. Then the rate of the hike is so substantial that it impacts system users very significantly. We are modelling more regular but less substantial fare hikes that we believe are more in line with consumer expectation and provide for more stability for the system.

Ray Friem: Dear Jaye,

Some of our MetroLink stations are patrolled by third party security organizations (such as UMSL or Airport Security). in these areas we do provide roving patrols.

We agree that passenger safety is job one, and for that reason we modified our contract with the St. Louis County Police Department to provide onboard patrols instead of carborne support.

We are also looking at new methods of providing customer service at those joint MetroLink / MetroBus facilities not only for security, but for general customer service.

Ray Friem: Dear Joeesing,

The answer is yes, and yes. The success of Proposition-A will make the St. Louis region much more competitive with other cities for this grant and many other similar grants authorized annually in the federal highway bill. We are already working to get a project list in front of the funding entities. Much work remains however.

We are looking at several projects, including some structural repairs around Union Station, some additional bus transfer facilities in St. Louis County, and of course replacement rolling stock (buses). Local funds should not be an issue here, the merits of the submittals between St. Louis and the hundreds of competing city will be more of the determining factor.

Ray Friem: Dear Pipe Organist,

Currently there are no plans to borrow rolling stock from other cities. We believe we can implement the majority of the restorations with equipment we have on hand, and our manufacturer is doing a splendid job of finding production time in their factory to expedite new bus deliveries. In fact we are confident that we can minimize the disruption caused by funding in recent years, and rejoin our regular fleet replacement program (The fleet turns over every 14 years) by 2013. This is a key element of business planning, matching up both your capital expenditures and you maintenance costs so you make investments in the buses throughout its life to maximize its utility to the customers. Its also the most cost effective model for managing life cycle costs.

Ray Friem: Our standard urban bus design will not change. We will have a discussion about different passenger amenities, seat types etc. when we get more into Bus Rapid Transit studies. I will definitely want to have the type of rolling stock most accepted by the potential client base for that service. Remember however, that all equipment must be accessible, and steps on buses are always problematic.

Ray Friem: Dear Pipe Organist,

#68 sounds like a fine number with historical ties. I'll pass that suggestion on.

Ray Friem: Dear Herbie3,


The matter will be officially acted on in the May Board of Commissioners meeting where a full budget presentation will be made.

Ray Friem: Dear Pipe Organist,

The #17 Oakville is being reviewed for existing and future ridership potential. Transit investments need to occur with a keen eye on return on investment. No decisions have been made for this route as yet.

As far as dual passenger doors on Call-A-Ride vans, that would only be possible if we bought a larger van, or were willing to surrender significant passenger carrying capability. Making the vans larger is very problematic as we serve many small out of the way alleys and back streets with these vans, streets that larger transit buses could not possibly operate on.