urbanSTL

quincunx wrote: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.

10cent gas tax increase wouldn't raise enough to get anything meaning done.

Listen most people don't know transportation financing, state match, transportation bills, ect and I don't blame them, I don't know anything about heart surgeries but I don't pretend like I do. What I do know very well is transportation funding. Funding for transportation is MO sucks, I mean that's evident by transit not being supported by the state. We as a state have a short window to solve it that window closes this November until 2018 most likely, if we don't solve it by then we WILL lose hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds that will get passed on to states who can provide the 20% match for them

Like I said this has been brewing for 5 years and there is only one proposal on the table and the person leading that proposal is a conservative, go figure

No, 3.9 billion gallons of fuel were taxed last year in MO. 10 cents = $390M. $312M for highways, $78M for other things. plus whatever the I-70 toll would raise ~$100M/yr.

quincunx wrote:No, 3.9 billion gallons of fuel were taxed last year in MO. 10 cents = $390M. $312M for highways, $78M for other things. plus whatever the I-70 toll would raise ~$100M/yr.

That would never fly, again this isn't about just highways....what could $78 million a year statewide do? Stl region would get $26m a year for transit, bike/ped, ports and aviation....metro alone just got $15m this year from the CMAQ program to buy buses....so great we got some new buses and $11 million left. complete streets Manchester is about $6m ....so now we can do 1 complete street a year and have 5 million left for ports, aviation and ADA

This 1 % may not be perfect but it's the best option that has a chance to go anywhere, like I said transit and bike/ped can do every well but it's put to transit and bike ped groups to push for their projects

Nothing stopping the legislature from funding more stuff through general revs. That's how the Amtrak subsidy is funded, as well as the match for the siding near California and the additional Osage river bridge. And I'd give counties and munis the freedom to add their own gas taxes for their priorities.

quincunx wrote:Nothing stopping the legislature from funding more stuff through general revs. That's how the Amtrak subsidy is funded, as well as the match for the siding near California and the additional Osage river bridge. And I'd give counties and munis the freedom to add their own gas taxes for their priorities.

Lobbyist for groups that get general rev are stopping them, there is a proposal in MO senate that would take half percent of existing sales take for transportation and it isn't going anywhere

I think knowitall has a point that any possibility of much needed transportation funding in the foreseeable future is going to live or die on the Sales tax proposition and how it is written. Just as important, this is probably the only mechanism by which you will see transit funding happen though state legislation let alone keeping Missouri from losing out on a large amount of federal funds. Not a fan of a statewide transportation sales tax, but point that Knowitall is making is very much valid

It comes down to the political reality that MO statehouse refuses simply on idealogical grounds to increase the gas tax and tolling even though the state has one of lowest gas taxes in the region and even conservative states such as Kansas and Indiana have tolling on a couple major stretches of freeway. While I can understand Quincunx and rather see MO follow through with his points on transportation funding, I have not read or seen one thing out of the MO statehouse that would ever suggest those would happen. Which is maddening considering that the same MO conservatives who argue no free lunch or against tax credits refuse to make those who use the freeways pay for it.

Hopefully a resounding no on the sales tax will change the legislature's attitude.

We can't nor should we expect or try to use general funds to support transportation projects such as Amtrak or the Osage bridge mentioned above. If the economy has a set back, any type of transportation funding will be the first to be robbed.

I like the idea in this law of creating a transportation fund that can't be touched for general revenues. That's a good guarantee for future work.

The idea of raising the gas tax in noble and easier on St. Louisans, but it's just not going to happen. One, you're not going to convince a legislature that drives everyday to raise that tax. Two, you're going to hear opposition from the trucking industry which is big for MO. Three, gas use is declining. Why create a tax that encourages the elimination of its own funds?

Whether we like it or not, as a state, the sales tax is easier to stomach, and the urban areas will carry the burden. I would like it much better if we could get some sort of percentage requirement for transit, but I'm not sure if that's possible.

There's a great series on transportation funding at strongtowns.org. I encourage everyone to read it

http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2014 ... ystem.html

Interesting... From my consumption, I will be purchasing a new car where the average mpg was around 22 to a 44mpg. So that is a 20% drop in one year.

Factor in that the general car population gets turned over at a rate of around 1/10th per year, and that seems to fit with the projection.

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

I guess to me, that's one of the big things about this process which I am unsure of.

You say that because you know how the state highways and transportation commission will score the projects that are recommended to them to place them on the ballot for the tax, you are confident that the projects which are selected to be funded by this tax proposal will be representative of the desires of the St. Louis public. That's great for you, but for me, most of the people on this board, and all other regular people who care about transit funding in STL, we have no idea how this commission will score and select the projects. We can attend these EWGateway public meetings (just as we have for dozens of other public meetings over the years) to lend our voices, but we will have no authority over what the local pols from all over the region that oversee EWGateway will recommend, nor does this bill say anything about how those recommendations will actually be heeded.

There appears to be a number of many transit-focused and community-focused representatives who have been invited to sit on these EWG workshops, which is great. Let's hope they put a progressive voice forward to support transit funding through this tax proposal. And let's say they do. In any case, these transit groups and community-based nonprofits will not be the ones funding the campaign to get this sales tax proposal passed. The large construction and engineering firms will be funding this campaign. Since the bill offers no insight as to how the commission will select projects for the ballot, who is to say that the ones actually bankrolling the campaign for the tax increase will not have great influence to make sure their desired projects will be selected by the commission for the ballot above pedestrian and transit-oriented projects? On the flip side, Metro and these community nonprofits will also not be bankrolling any campaigns to fight the tax increase if their chosen projects are not put on the ballot. I don't see what legal or political safeguards exist to ensure that this will not just turn out to be a big highway expansion fund, even while transit and pedestrian projects are technically "on the table".

I suppose I can just wait and see when the ballot comes out but what, in your understanding, gives you confidence that the commission will actually give more than pittance to transit projects on this proposed tax increase?

Danny-

The commission won't score or rank the projects. They will receive lists of projects from EWG for stl region, from MARC for KC, from OTO for Springfield, from all of the regional planning commissions around the state, this will happen in the summer. Once they vote to approve those, those projects are their commitment and they will get done, so before you go to the poll you will know that. They will be treated how the commission treats regular statewide transportation improvement plan projects, once it's in there it's a commitment and they hate breaking that and rarely do it, not even rarely, more like never. Friend of mine attended the MoDOT statewide planning partner meeting last week (all the mpo's and regional planning commission s were there) and the message from the MoDOT director is that the commission wants to see transit and other modes not just from stl and KC but all over the state.. That message for more towards rural areas because they know stl and KC will come up with a fair share of transit

Here are the principles on how the projects will be scored.

EWG 10 principles- http://www.ewgateway.org/lrp/guidingprinciples.pdf
(I don't know how anyone even on this forum can disagree with any of those)

Modots themes- economic development, satiety, choices/connections, preservation

Is the final list going to have at least 50% highways and bridges? Probably, I don't care if you sleep in a I heart transit tshirt you have to be insane not to see the need or understand the importance of re doing all bridges over 44 from Murdoch to 55 on 44...building a 22nd street interchange (McKee wants that) major redo of 270, fixing 70 from the new bridge to the airport. Operational issues along 44 from the city thru the county.
With that said, I still see a HUGE chance for transit and bike ped to come out with a lot of of this. Now how much? That's up to metro and grg ect but you can't blame the process if those 2 don't come to the table with what you want, like n/s MetroLink. If MetroLink doesn't bring that to the table or atleast a phase that's a huge tell that metro has no intention what so ever of building that in the next 10-15 years. Anyway. If I hear more ill share

Here's my problem. Even if I buy into the idea that the 1% sales tax really will be used on these projects and not just more roads, I don't have any confidence in these projects being what I want them to be.

I can't trust Metro to support the type of public transit that needs to be happening. So what's the point in funding projects I think are misguided?

^ not sure what to tell you, whatever is on that final list from the east west gateway workshops that's what will be done. People at those workshops are experts in their fields and know what they can or can't deliver. It's easy for us to sit here and arm chair projects all day when we don't really have a clue what it takes to get them done or if in reality there is a need for them. I think metro knows best when it comes to what public transit projects need to be happening. I trust metro that much.

I would have an extremely hard time voting for a 1% increase knowing that our gas tax is one if the lowest in the country.

I drive very little so why should I be penalized when purchasing a meal?

^ I honestly think the ballot measure will fail on that principle. The demographics of your typical voter are older and would be asking the same thing. Why I'm I footing this at the local cafe or hardware store instead of someone who just filled up at the truck stop.

Do we know if any corporations have donated to have this 1% increase instead of a fas hike? I would think companies like YRC and enterprise might want the gas tax to stay low...

With fuel taxes the concern is that increased fuel efficiency eats away at revenue, and those that operate electric cars are not paying any at all. So some other funding mechanism has to be applied in the end. One method that has been discussed is miles traveled and base a rate varying by vehicle, but there are privacy issues involved in it among other logistical issues.

Interesting in terms of transit options besides roads, where I live in Washington, MO one of the big reasons for replacing the Missouri River bridge has to do with bicycling. Though that bridge due to its age and safety issues does need to be replaced, but there is a design for bicycle lanes on the bridge along with an effort to get bicycle lanes on Route 47 from the Missouri River to the Katy Trail. Though I wonder if with the dispute still over Augusta Bottom Road, could it be possible to convert it to a bike trail?