this is all thats made public about it.quincunx wrote:How does Prop A raise $48M while a 1/4% raises $33M? Is the rest of Prop A going to debt service?
I still don't understand the $400M loan. Can someone explain it?
Interesting reading the nextSTL Prop A quote. What happened and what didn't/hasn't. N/S line 5-10 years. Metrloink frequencies didn't return to previous levels. The cost of the current BRT proposals is much more that the 500k-1M per mile.
maybe one excludes some items and other doesn't?quincunx wrote:How does Prop A raise $48M while a 1/4% raises $33M? Is the rest of Prop A going to debt service?
.
Is some portion of Prop A held by the county and they're loaning that to Metro? That would also account for the Prop A $48M 1/4% 33M bit.dbInSouthCity wrote:this is all thats made public about it.quincunx wrote:I still don't understand the $400M loan. Can someone explain it?
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/05/22/ ... o-transit/
loaning it or keeping it as a pay back for the $400M loan? I think metros budget shows ALL of the proceeds from Prop A.quincunx wrote:Is some portion of Prop A held by the county and they're loaning that to Metro? That would also account for the Prop A $48M 1/4% 33M bit.dbInSouthCity wrote:this is all thats made public about it.quincunx wrote:I still don't understand the $400M loan. Can someone explain it?
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/05/22/ ... o-transit/
If we were average (31.22cents instead of 17.30) - it would bring in an additional $528,960,000 a year in gas tax.... 70.5% would go to MoDOT or $372,916,800 and the other $156,043,200 to cities and counties.dweebe wrote:So now that we voted the sales tax increase down with a resounding "NO!"; where do we go from here?
We don't need more sprawl-inducing highways: but we've got to maintain/fix what we have and I-70 really does need upgrading very badly. Missouri has an astonishingly low state fuel tax rate: do we need to raise the rate to be more in line with the rest of the nation? Does the legislature even have the balls to suggest this?
http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas- ... soline-tax
I'd say they've lost some of their direction ever since Tom Shrout retired from the organization back in late 2010. Don't forget that it was CMT that led the campaign for Proposition A earlier that year. From a post on UrbanReviewSTL:bprop wrote:Citizens for what now? Wow, they've really become irrelevant in the past ten or so years.Ebsy wrote:The biggest loser is probably Citizens for Modern Transit. They obviously had almost no impact in the St. Louis Media Market.
Tom had the foresight for CMT to bank more than 8 miles of right-of-way for future expansion. This proved critical for the Cross county line. It was through his foresight and guidance, the CMT Board took a major financial risk this year to subsidize the educational campaign – “Some of us Ride it, All of us Need it” even though many said the campaign was naïve. The campaign was a huge success with people quoting it on the streets, in speeches, Facebook and everywhere we turned. Prop. A passed with 63 percent of the votes – all with Tom leading the public education charge.
State Transportation:So now that we voted the sales tax increase down with a resounding "NO!"; where do we go from here?
We don't need more sprawl-inducing highways: but we've got to maintain/fix what we have and I-70 really does need upgrading very badly. Missouri has an astonishingly low state fuel tax rate: do we need to raise the rate to be more in line with the rest of the nation? Does the legislature even have the balls to suggest this?
I don't think it does. Where did the $400M that the county had to loan come from?dbInSouthCity wrote:loaning it or keeping it as a pay back for the $400M loan? I think metros budget shows ALL of the proceeds from Prop A.quincunx wrote:Is some portion of Prop A held by the county and they're loaning that to Metro? That would also account for the Prop A $48M 1/4% 33M bit.dbInSouthCity wrote:
this is all thats made public about it.
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/05/22/ ... o-transit/
I believe by tapping into the revenue that was beyond operations... i.e. the revenue that largely would have gone into expansion.quincunx wrote:Where did the $400M that the county had to loan come from?
Didn't they recently remove the state letter designations from Ballas and Clayton Roads in the County? How was that done and why can't it be done on a wider scale?quincunx wrote:I'd rather pay for things than pay for things plus interest especially when the ROI of new and expanded roads is declining.
Can MoDOT divest itself of some of the 36,000 miles of roads it's liable for on its own? If not can the state legislature? If voters refuse to raise any tax isn't that what has to happen? Then more roads are county and city responsibilities and they can determine how valuable they are amongst themselves, just as we do with transit.
They would have to get rid of their entire multimodal section then.moorlander wrote:Should MODOT change their name to MODOH?
and by state law their hands are tied to highways and to administer federal transit funds
