Pat, I would call EWG to see if it's open to the public. I think they plan to have some area for observation. I think the thinking is since all these projects are already in either MoDOTs long range plan, onestl, grg plan, metro plan ect where the general public has already been involved, this process is mostly for those people with technical expertise and knowledge about the projects and they would be involved with implementation in someway if the projects are selected.
Looking at that list of people, I don't see anyone being left out.quincunx wrote:And thus a lesson in being on the offense. You get to set the table. A big advantage.
My point is that we're talking about how to spend the money instead of the more fundamental questions.
So what? The table was open for the park over the highway stuff and it was a sham. Time will tell.
The doc says public will be involved in the workshops.
So what? The table was open for the park over the highway stuff and it was a sham. Time will tell.
The doc says public will be involved in the workshops.
I think a lack of "balls" by some pols ruined park over the highwayquincunx wrote:My point is that we're talking about how to spend the money instead of the more fundamental questions.
So what? The table was open for the park over the highway stuff and it was a sham. Time will tell.
The doc says public will be involved in the workshops.
- 933
If it were actually the entire three blocks as originally proposed, it would be pretty awesome.
Agreed. It's worth seeing how this will pan out. I've learned in my short career that those in charge have long ago decided on the projects they want, and the "process" is less for those with knowledge/expertise but much more for convincing the masses. I hope I'm wrong.
That worries me a bit with this, that the EWG board (local elected pols) will do a lot of back room dealing but I think the process is pretty transparent that I can't imagine a lot of that happening and the timeline is also pretty quick that this isn't something they will have a lot of time to ruinpat wrote:Agreed. It's worth seeing how this will pan out. I've learned in my short career that those in charge have long ago decided on the projects they want, and the "process" is less for those with knowledge/expertise but much more for convincing the masses. I hope I'm wrong.
As far as modot , I have a lot of friends there and it's apparent that in the last few years they have had a come to Jesus moment about being a compete transportation org and changing needs of the public, so I think they will go with the flow of what people want but I understand their hands are tied with current funding/laws
If it comes off the top it will be bonded, but it won't come off the top unless the regions around it have it on their priorities listquincunx wrote:Where does the I70 redo money come from?
I think tolling will have to decide very soon, Missouri is one of few states that got federal exemption to toll and MO hasn't decided yet and now other states are asking the Feds to yank the MO exemption and let them use it.thats 2nd half info, I'm not really well versed in tolling and how it works
I reject the idea that this will be a Santa Claus list to make everyone happy. The projects will be prioritized according to the themes from MoDOTs and EWG long range plans, themes that Missourians told those two orgs how they want their transportation system for the next 20 years and future generations.quincunx wrote:And that's the problem. It's Santa Claus coming to town. Give everyone something to get it passed instead of what's right, what's the best ROI, what kind of transportation system do we want for generations to come.Knowitall wrote:I have no doubt that what the region selects for st.louis is what will ultimately be on that final List, modot knows this has to be a across the mode list to pass. Transit community has to be happy, bike/ped, st.charles (mostly highways ) so this will be a very robust list of projects.
Look up MoDOTs 4 long range plan themes
And EWG 10 themes for their plan
You may not agree or like those but that's what the majority of people said should be considered when selecting transportation related projects.
- 8,155
What will happen is that the opponents will say its unfair the urban areas get to do transit while they can't get their needs taken care of. -- We're just getting a pittance while Saint Louis gets to waste money on transit which only criminals use! -- General resentment of urban areas and transit won't be going away and the many opponents of this proposed tax increase won't be shy of using the race/transit card.Knowitall wrote:You mean rural Missouri? Those parts will pick their own projects based on their allocationroger wyoming II wrote:^^ what's funny is that rural opponents will hold out the transit projects in Saint Louis and Kansas City as reasons to vote against.
I don't think so. Rural regions won't have st.louis list of projects. They will have their own when they go to vote. They will get their share and if they want 100% highways, that's their choiceroger wyoming II wrote:What will happen is that the opponents will say its unfair the urban areas get to do transit while they can't get their needs taken care of. -- We're just getting a pittance while Saint Louis gets to waste money on transit which only criminals use! -- General resentment of urban areas and transit won't be going away and the many opponents of this proposed tax increase won't be shy of using the race/transit card.Knowitall wrote:You mean rural Missouri? Those parts will pick their own projects based on their allocationroger wyoming II wrote:^^ what's funny is that rural opponents will hold out the transit projects in Saint Louis and Kansas City as reasons to vote against.
- 8,155
^ Of course they'll know what the various proposed projects will be across the state. This is Politics 101 and the anti-tax opposition to this will use all the arguments they think can work. If you don't think anti-city resentment works in the rural areas, your understanding of the state is much different than my experience. Just sayin.
Once this clears the house and senate and is on a ballot, I think the pro money will drown out the opposition in campaigning in all honesty
The measure bans tolls on highways existing before Jan 1 2014Knowitall wrote:I think tolling will have to decide very soon, Missouri is one of few states that got federal exemption to toll and MO hasn't decided yet and now other states are asking the Feds to yank the MO exemption and let them use it.thats 2nd half info, I'm not really well versed in tolling and how it works
Yes, unlike cigarette tax hikes, the pro tax lobby will be huge. "Safe roads and good jobs!" "What you want people to die and do'nt want jobs for people?!"Knowitall wrote:Once this clears the house and senate and is on a ballot, I think the pro money will drown out the opposition in campaigning in all honesty
Could go to the metro playbook and cut service before the prop A ... I mean, does anyone really think metro didn't pull a fast one with that stuntquincunx wrote:Yes, unlike cigarette tax hikes, the pro tax lobby will be huge. "Safe roads and good jobs!" "What you want people to die and do'nt want jobs for people?!"Knowitall wrote:Once this clears the house and senate and is on a ballot, I think the pro money will drown out the opposition in campaigning in all honesty
So when Bob Bear went to the legislature and begged for $12M that was a made up lie to get Prop A passed?Knowitall wrote:Could go to the metro playbook and cut service before the prop A ... I mean, does anyone really think metro didn't pull a fast one with that stunt
- 8,155
They'll have a money advantage no doubt but this will be at best a squeaker for proponents... fwiw conservative talking head Reardon on KMOX says this will go down big time. My guess is a narrow win or loss.Knowitall wrote:Once this clears the house and senate and is on a ballot, I think the pro money will drown out the opposition in campaigning in all honesty
Also, that actual ballot language is aggravating... it says that bridge and road maintenance is to be prioritized but unless I'm missing something there is no mechanism to enforce that. And of course no mention of the big I-70 project.
quincunx wrote:So when Bob Bear went to the legislature and begged for $12M that was a made up lie to get Prop A passed?Knowitall wrote:Could go to the metro playbook and cut service before the prop A ... I mean, does anyone really think metro didn't pull a fast one with that stunt
You have 2 options here, they cut service to make prop a more pressing or they are totally incompetent when it comes to their finances, I say a bit of both
I'll finish with this, knowing much about how this will work and projects scored, transit and bike ped type of projects have a great opportunity here because EWG 10 principles and MoDOTs LRP themes will be the bases for project scoring. Now it's time for transit folks to be bold and go for it. But they won't they'll play it safe
Good news is that after the 10 year sunset, people will have a chance to renew it with new list of projects, hopefully metro will be ready for n/s in 2025
Good news is that after the 10 year sunset, people will have a chance to renew it with new list of projects, hopefully metro will be ready for n/s in 2025
I'm sure they'll think they are meeting there goals. When we point out that the proportion going to highways is too great, they'll say hey we gave you X you ungrateful hipsters!
Kind of like how CityArchRiver thinks it's solving the problem, but no they're pretending to not see the real problem out of some false sense of urgency and backward transportation thinking.
Kind of like how CityArchRiver thinks it's solving the problem, but no they're pretending to not see the real problem out of some false sense of urgency and backward transportation thinking.
The threat in 2008 was that trains would stop running after 8 pm, implying you wouldn't be able to get home from the Cardinals game. They didn't follow through.Knowitall wrote:You have 2 options here, they cut service to make prop a more pressing or they are totally incompetent when it comes to their finances, I say a bit of both
W have two options here. Believe that the sky is falling and pass a sales tax to pay for transportation most of which will undermine our property values and communities and burden us with even more infrastructure that won't pay off or continue asking questions, defeat this monstrosity, and then start a holistic conversation about our transportation funding future.
Not going to get in a pissing match with you here, but nobody else has proposed any other option. If you raise the gas tax or car reg tax, you can't fund transit or bike ped or anything but roads and bridges. Considering that, this is the best option on the table to fund all modes
I don't know where you have been but this 1% thing started in early 2009, so 5 years ago. Back then it was stickily funding for MoDOT and .5 % 1% 1.5 were looked at, raising the gas tax ect all was looking at, over the 5 years it evolved into this 1% all modes are fair game.
I don't know where you have been but this 1% thing started in early 2009, so 5 years ago. Back then it was stickily funding for MoDOT and .5 % 1% 1.5 were looked at, raising the gas tax ect all was looking at, over the 5 years it evolved into this 1% all modes are fair game.
My proposal: raise the gas tax 10 cents and index it for inflation. 8 cents for roads which would put it at its 1996 inflation adjusted value. 2 cents for other forms. Allow counties and munis to add their own gas taxes. Toll the rebuilt i-70 at a price to at least recover half the cost.
Political calculus lead to the sales tax proposal, not a holistic conversation. MoDOT and lobbyists are enticing us with shiny new things to pass the sales tax instead of talking with the public about how best to fund transportation.
If the legislature wants to abdicate its responsibility, avoid owning a tax increase, and make us citizen legislators, at least give us better choices.
Political calculus lead to the sales tax proposal, not a holistic conversation. MoDOT and lobbyists are enticing us with shiny new things to pass the sales tax instead of talking with the public about how best to fund transportation.
If the legislature wants to abdicate its responsibility, avoid owning a tax increase, and make us citizen legislators, at least give us better choices.