^^ jstreibel, the board of directors is really solid centrist that again aren't going to be too much of rock-the-boaters.... Good people for sure and nice to have on a board, but ones not really able (and some not even desiring) to fight for a substantial shift in regional transportation priorities. Les Toenges and Musick for example want to build build build and want to see highway construction continue at a great clip.
- 8,924
I think Tom's Linkedin page says it all.
After working for 22 years at Citizens for Modern Transit, advocating for the building of light rail and a more robust transit system in St. Louis, Tom retired and with his wife Debra formed a consulting firm, Avvantt Partners LLC. Their goal was to take both their experiences to help local governments, transit agencies and not-for-profits, educate their constituents about the benefits of better transit. This involves the nuts and bolts of coalition building, communications, planning and execution in addition to preparing voters to support a transit referendum. Since forming Avvantt in 2010, Tom and Debra have done work in the Twin Cities, Fort Worth, Jackson County, Boston and Cobb County, GA.
After working for 22 years at Citizens for Modern Transit, advocating for the building of light rail and a more robust transit system in St. Louis, Tom retired and with his wife Debra formed a consulting firm, Avvantt Partners LLC. Their goal was to take both their experiences to help local governments, transit agencies and not-for-profits, educate their constituents about the benefits of better transit. This involves the nuts and bolts of coalition building, communications, planning and execution in addition to preparing voters to support a transit referendum. Since forming Avvantt in 2010, Tom and Debra have done work in the Twin Cities, Fort Worth, Jackson County, Boston and Cobb County, GA.
- 9,674
Shall we take friendly/bragging rights guesses on pass/fail %? I'll go with pass with 53%, voter turn out 30%
- 3,762
^ i'm going to feel anything but friendly if this regressive, industry-coddling nonsense passes.
also, i wish you would just admit that you're voting for it and you're trying to convince others to vote for it. nobody who "isn't sure" posts as much pro propaganda as you do.
not trying to be confrontational; just an observation.
also, i wish you would just admit that you're voting for it and you're trying to convince others to vote for it. nobody who "isn't sure" posts as much pro propaganda as you do.
not trying to be confrontational; just an observation.
After struggling to get a super-majority to pass the big tax cut are any MO conservatives for this bill?
Metro raises its rates to maximize revenue from users. Highways should do the same: through tolls or gas taxes.
Metro raises its rates to maximize revenue from users. Highways should do the same: through tolls or gas taxes.
- 9,674
I started as not sure, last week I posted as to why I probably will in a long post and explaining my reasoning. As for the propaganda comment, feel free to point out anything I've said on here about this that isn't factual true. Everything I've posted can easily be found online if you just take the time to research it, so I do and I posted it here and people can make up their own mind about it, but to call it propaganda is a bit out there.urban_dilettante wrote:^ i'm going to feel anything but friendly if this regressive, industry-coddling nonsense passes.
also, i wish you would just admit that you're voting for it and you're trying to convince others to vote for it. nobody who "isn't sure" posts as much pro propaganda as you do.
not trying to be confrontational; just an observation.
Do NOT believe anything CMT says, particularly if it involves a number. Chances are they are lying or willfully attempting to mislead you.
For example, in the latest letter to the editor, they claim Amendment 7 will provide the St. Louis region $145 million in funding for public transportation. The reality, only $82 million. How do they come up with $145 million? By including the local match funds the City and County will have to expend of their own dollars for the various Amendment 7 projects. This is the same way CMT claims Amendment 7 will provide $800 million for public transportation statewide when the reality is about $370 million.
CMT also makes great effort to mention that the state of Missouri provides Metro with only $400,000 to support transit operations. Problem, Amendment 7 won't do a single thing to help this.
For example, in the latest letter to the editor, they claim Amendment 7 will provide the St. Louis region $145 million in funding for public transportation. The reality, only $82 million. How do they come up with $145 million? By including the local match funds the City and County will have to expend of their own dollars for the various Amendment 7 projects. This is the same way CMT claims Amendment 7 will provide $800 million for public transportation statewide when the reality is about $370 million.
CMT also makes great effort to mention that the state of Missouri provides Metro with only $400,000 to support transit operations. Problem, Amendment 7 won't do a single thing to help this.
- 9,674
^ I get $101 million for transit, there is a $19m station improvement/connections to other modes from those stations that's labeled bike ped but I would count it towards transit
Only way I see cmt getting to $142 is if it's
counting on fed Feds for $20m for each of the brt routes, ie small starts or other fed grants
Only way I see cmt getting to $142 is if it's
counting on fed Feds for $20m for each of the brt routes, ie small starts or other fed grants
^ Yeah, I omitted that project item as many of the sub-projects are decidedly not transit oriented or things I don't understand why they aren't already funded by the future Loop Trolley.
Delmar/ Forest Park-DeBaliviere MetroLink Station Area improvements.
Delmar/ Forest Park-DeBaliviere MetroLink Station Area improvements.
- Bike, pedestrian, transit station, and vehicular improvements.
- Widen sidewalks, construct ADA ramps, & improve lighting along Hodiamont from Delmar to Skinker.
- Narrow Hodiamont & install multi-use path alongside.
- Road diet on Delmar from Hodiamont to Goodfellow with parking lanes (coincides with Loop Trolley design).
- Enhance DeGiverville & Des Peres as pedestrian gateways linking Stations
- Re-establish vehicular connections between Hodiamont and Enright, Clemens, Cates, and Maple.
- Pedestrian bridge over MetroLink tracks to connect west side of Pershing to existing Metro parking lot.
- Connect Ackert Walkway to Delmar Station.
- Connect Ruth Porter Trail to Forest Park Station and Forest Park, per TOD Plan done by H3 Studio with Bernardin Lochmueller & Associates and M3 Engineering (2013).
Smart ad. Doesn't mention any details of the proposal other than the money only goes for transportation, doesn't say tax increase. Simple - roads are broken, makes a values play, you can fix them by taking action and vote yes, especially if you want emergency vehicles to get to you.
- 9,674
Springfield News Leader and Columbia Tribune say Yes, along with KC post. So that's 3/4 of the biggest papers in the state saying yes.
Seems that the News-Leader is singing a familiar tune. They don't like the tax hike or the way it's structured, but they think the legislature has left it as the only option for investing in infrastructure. Sad to see editorial boards caving to legislators instead of calling them out and standing up to them.
From the News-Leader:
"A .75-cent sales tax hike is not the way we would have liked to see the state support its transportation systems. We would prefer a mechanism that ensures that those who use the roads and cause the most wear and tear on our bridges pay the most. But the methods that would accommodate that have been rejected by Missouri voters and legislators over the years."
Also, the day after their "yes" opinion piece, they published a contributor's "no" article:
http://www.news-leader.com/story/opinio ... /12870215/
From the News-Leader:
"A .75-cent sales tax hike is not the way we would have liked to see the state support its transportation systems. We would prefer a mechanism that ensures that those who use the roads and cause the most wear and tear on our bridges pay the most. But the methods that would accommodate that have been rejected by Missouri voters and legislators over the years."
Also, the day after their "yes" opinion piece, they published a contributor's "no" article:
http://www.news-leader.com/story/opinio ... /12870215/
Sick of hearing this. Gas tax revenues are down mainly due to inflation. To the extent fuel economy is having an effect, just raise it all that more to make up for it.
with increasing fuel efficiency, Missouri and the country are seeing that source of revenue drying up. Congress is grappling with the same problem as the federal Highway Trust Fund nears bankruptcy.
- 9,674
^ that's part of it but look at gallons sold in early 2000s and 2013 in Missouri, I think it's gone from 4+ billion gallons (including diesel) to low 3 something
Haven't local and state general sales tax revenues also declined pretty significantly due to lost revenue on internet sales? The decline in gas sales tax revenue could be greater over the next ten years compared to that of general sales tax revenue, but at least the gas tax revenue is much more predictable and projectable compared to a regular sales tax over ten years. The gas tax could be phased gradually to account for projected declines. you can't really do that with the volatility of a regular sales tax. I suppose there are just positives and negatives to any public funding mechanism. this just doesn't seem to be the right fit for this particular problem to me.
I'm well aware. Note there is also fewer VMT in addition to higher fuel economy in there. It's not even down 10% from peak while inflation has eaten up about a third of the gas tax's buying power since 1996. It would have generated $350M more in 2013 had it been indexed with inflation as well as generated more every year in between. Compound that with the fact that construction costs have risen faster than inflation. Citing fuel economy and leaving out this bigger effect is annoying to me.
![]()
- 9,674
^ no doubt that they are simplifying the issue/message. Do you think an average person would understand all of that? 
once you start talking about inflation, cost of during business, matching fed funds, cost of goods going up you lose everyone in the room...
once you start talking about inflation, cost of during business, matching fed funds, cost of goods going up you lose everyone in the room...- 182
You can simplify a lot of the points against raising the sales tax. The biggest being if you don't want toll roads, then the next best approximate for usage is a gasoline tax and the assumptions on that need to be tweaked to reflect reality. We can't keep building new roads without paying for them plus interest plus maintenance.
It does get a bit complicated, but I think people do get the obviousness of paying for roads with the gas tax and do know what inflation is. Overwhelming people with graphs and spreadsheet won't be very effective, but just saying 17 cents bought more in 1996 than today is something most understand. Jon Stewart didn't have a problem explaining it
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/46mu9k/shabby-road
The themes in the broadest messaging certainly are dumbed-down- "Pass Amend 7 or your kids will die" "We fix things that are broken" "More Jobs" "Biggest tax increase ever" "Taxes bad"
To really look in-depth is supposed to be the role of legislators, but as we see on this issue they fell short. I'm probably being pollyannish, but I hope if this fails we might look at reform first then funding. A system that builds this is broken.
![]()
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/46mu9k/shabby-road
The themes in the broadest messaging certainly are dumbed-down- "Pass Amend 7 or your kids will die" "We fix things that are broken" "More Jobs" "Biggest tax increase ever" "Taxes bad"
To really look in-depth is supposed to be the role of legislators, but as we see on this issue they fell short. I'm probably being pollyannish, but I hope if this fails we might look at reform first then funding. A system that builds this is broken.
- 9,674
Is that farmington?quincunx wrote:A system that builds this is broken.
I am all for raising the gas tax but 15 or so cents, spread it over 5 years with 3 cents each year (i think that way you may be able to avoid the vote of the people) BUT nobody is proposing that.ajwillikers wrote:You can simplify a lot of the points against raising the sales tax. The biggest being if you don't want toll roads, then the next best approximate for usage is a gasoline tax and the assumptions on that need to be tweaked to reflect reality. We can't keep building new roads without paying for them plus interest plus maintenance.
- 182
Ha. It really is a "government of the people" in the "But I don't wanna..." sense when it comes to pain. I'm more of the Band-Aid approach: Just get your lumps over with and people will change their behaviors to adjust more quickly rather than a silly indirect revenue source.
I think opposition could make hay with an advertisement that has a couple in a car driving and they go over a pothole and get angry saying "Someone should really do something about that." And then the other says "We'll need to buy some shoes or something." "Why?" "Because that's how sales tax works."
I think opposition could make hay with an advertisement that has a couple in a car driving and they go over a pothole and get angry saying "Someone should really do something about that." And then the other says "We'll need to buy some shoes or something." "Why?" "Because that's how sales tax works."
That would be a brilliant ad.ajwillikers wrote:Ha. It really is a "government of the people" in the "But I don't wanna..." sense when it comes to pain. I'm more of the Band-Aid approach: Just get your lumps over with and people will change their behaviors to adjust more quickly rather than a silly indirect revenue source.
I think opposition could make hay with an advertisement that has a couple in a car driving and they go over a pothole and get angry saying "Someone should really do something about that." And then the other says "We'll need to buy some shoes or something." "Why?" "Because that's how sales tax works."
That's in Jasper County. Takes the Farmington Flyovers to a new level.dbInSouthCity wrote:Is that farmington?quincunx wrote:A system that builds this is broken.
Here's Farmington
- 9,674
anyone reasoning on why they built it? tho to me it doesn't really matter, each district gets is own pot of money.