A question for those knowledgeable about municipal tax law in Missouri, or anyone who isn't but wants to take a best guess anyway:



Could concerned St. Louisans through initiative petition place on the ballot a proposed fuel tax that would fund exclusively construction (not operation!) of new fixed-track mass transit projects in the city?



If yes, this would be a great grass-roots way of building a big pot of money to build trolley lines on Delmar from Skinker east; on Grand between Midtown and Grand/Gravois or thereabouts; or from the Landing to Midtown. Or it could be used for my personal pet project, an elevated Metro running down Tucker, along Gravois and out to Affton. With the exception of Bevo Mill, the Southside Nat'l Bank and St Francis de Salles, Gravois is a hideous street anyway and an elevated train couldn't make it look worse.



But the real point is that, whatever the money is spent on, the effort would be brought before voters whether Metro or the mandarins of City Hall/Civic Progress/RCGA/Downtown Now wanted it or not. Once the money starts piling up in the bank, I suspect that even politicians who objected to the tax would want to spend it. Obviously, there would have to be safeguards in the referendum lingo to make sure the money doesn't go in Metro's general revenues or other projects.



So could this be done? Legally, that is.

^You can get almost anything on a ballot. You need a petition with alot of signatures. As far as a gas tax only in the city good luck with that. I don't know how fair it is to ask only city residents to pay higher gas prices(we already pay extra city taxes like "City Tax" aka 1% of your pay) so people from the suburbs can come and leach off of it. The entire metro area should pay for this.

Sorry, I don't think I was clear. I think I confused my post needlessly by carping about my dream of a Gravois el.



The tax would be city only, and the money would be used for city-only projects, too. Regionalism and a $1.75 will get you on the MetroLink, but this would allow the city to pursue two tracks, so to speak. It could cooperate with East-West Gateway, or whatever its current name is, on big MetroLink expansion projects. It also could pursue its own internal mass transit projects (trolley lines, etc.) that the rest of the region would be unlikely to support.



Also, the tax would not have to be very large. Just a steady stream of a few million dollars of dedicated revenue. I don't know how many gallons of gas are sold in City of St. Louis (or, more appropriately, would be sold after tax went into effect), but ideally the tax shouldn't be more than twopence on the dollar at most. That should keep the city gas stations competitive, and generate a tidy sum after a few years. Maybe. I think. But then again, not really sure.

Municipalities or counties do not have the power to levy a fuel tax in Missouri.

St. Charles County funds many of their road projects with a half cent sales tax which was recently extended. To get around this a Transportation Development District could be created. TDD's can be created in Missouri and would necissitate a vote only for residents within the district's boundary. In some cases a TDD doesn't need to go to vote, but that is usually for new developments. For example, the failed Manchester Rd TDD a couple years ago went to vote in Brentwood, Glendale, Kirkwood, Warson Woods, and Maplewood. This would have instituted a half cent sales tax in the district to fund improvements to Manchester Rd like burying powerlines, replacing sidewalks, landscaping, replacing curb& gutters, etc.

well, from a post on another thread by our tansit buff southslider, the city pays most of the taxes on transit to begin with. where he was saying that the future of metro is in the hands of the county to beef up and pay more and the state gives nothing, essentaly? which is unacceptable. it's obvious that we want it, it gets used, not as much as a new york city, but for what we have, it's busy. so since the new federal budget does not give any more for tansit, and jeff city will not buck up, and if the county does not give in either, i say we discontuine all county metro projects, except the metrolink to the airport, owned by the city, and keep in the limits. i may be streaching this thin. and i've had a few too. it's bed time.

haha, don't drink and post bikin_man.



punishing the county doesn't help the problem, the folks out there help fund metro as well. The issue is that the state needs to pick up the slack in funding public transit in MO's big cities.

The County contributes more to Metro in total dollars, but the City does give all of its city-wide transportation sales tax receipts to Metro, while the County withholds over half of a one-half cent levy first enacted in 1973. The additional City-County quarter-cent passed in 1994 is off-limits to operations, since exhausted for debt-financing on Cross County bonds.



The main problem with the City going it alone (in addition to Metro needing the County to continue paying what it does, even if it's diverting much of its tax receipts to roads) is that increased taxes don't go very far.



Each additional quarter-cent if passed by both the City and County would only collectively raise about $50 million a year over ten years. However, if such a tax were passed in only the City (current legislation requires a favorable vote in both City and County), such City-exclusive quarter-cent would only raise less than $20 million a year, which sadly is easily less than what the County currently withholds from the half-cent tax already being paid by County shoppers.



Finally, Metro is in the business of building and operating a regional system. As such, our region's lead transit agency only seeks to build what it can afford to operate, and only seeks to expand the system, where there are benefits to numerous regional citizens. For this reason, the Loop Trolley, or really any streetcar line, has too localized of a benefit and lacks cost-effectiveness for Metro to be its builder and/or operator.

The county tax passed in 1973 was never intended just for mass transit although many people assumed that. Metro gets 40-45 millon a year from the sales tax depending renvue which about 50 percent of the tax. i do support routing all to mass transt but that would basically preseve exisiting service for the next few years. The county did say before voters appoved it would be roads and transit. Metro would proably need part of any tax increase passed for operatins even if the county giviing all the tax to metro.

A couple of points to consider. The current City prop M tax generates only $8.5 million annually. The City 1/2 sales tax generates roughly $16 million annually once the TIF diversions are complete. (The 1/4 th Prop M is not "TIF able".) The total County half cent sales tax generates less than $80 million annually because of TIF diversions. Metro receives something around $45 million meaning that highway receipts are actually less than $35 million. ( I will double check these figures but I look at them every month so I am not off terribly.)



The 1/4th cent sales tax in both the City and the County would generate about $48 to $50 million but you can see that the bulk of the money is from the County.



I agree with Southsider that Metro's focus for the County really needs to target on speed for county passenger and more Metrolink like service if fundable. Since there are few ROW options availablel, that could include incremental extensions to the existing alignment north of N. Hanley using the Springdale Y to get up to I-270 and perhaps Hanley. An extension west off the Shrewsbury extension (from Clayton or Richmond Heights) as far west as Westport using I-170 and the rail alignment west would be pretty strong. Finally perhaps something slightly South off Cross County might be possible but based upon past electoral support...something north and lightly west might be more logical.





However, even to extend off of the current alignments would be very expensive and would likely require some substantial investments to shorten the track circuits to permit closer headways. Some sections of third tracks would be useful for some express trains.



Finally, adding more street car or trolley style service adds some substantial fixed costs. The City is unable to afford the annual cost escalation of the current system let alone adding a network of street cars. Bus service today costs roughly $90 per hour. Metrolink costs $420 per hour and only about 40 % of the costs vary with the number of hours. Approximately 70 % of the cost of the service varies with the number of hours. Street cars would add much of the same cost structure as Metrolink but not much speed.



The process will begin in a month to create two Fy08 budgets. One will make the assumption that a new revenue stream will come on for FY08. The second will include three alternatives to cut the budget by at least $28 million. However, even this cut is propped up by CMAC funds for the next three years so additional cuts will loom in FY10. Metro is also plowing about $16 million in its 5307 capital funds into maintenance which is really essentially an operating expense. This means Metro has only about $8 million annually in actual capital funds for bus and other capital reinvestment. That decision, made gradually over the past 10 years, will result in an eventual deterioration of the facilities and increased costs. We need about $12 million annually just for bus replacements.



The looming cuts will also reduce the future 5307 funds since they are nationally allocated based upon revenue miles and passenger miles. So in other words the next round of cuts will start a spiral of decline that will get worse and worse.



Finally, FTA will never never put any money into expanding Metro if the region cuts its current system to pieces. We will have proven for a decade or more than we as a community are unable or unwilling to support public transit. There are many other cities and states ready, willing and able to invest their own resources in improved public transit including light rail.



The future is gloomy. Without strong State leadership from the governor and bipartisan leadership from both houses, its unlikely that the state will be much help in the short run. I have never heard the Governor even mention public transit.



The future of what type of transit system we will retain rests primarily with St. Louis County voters. For that reason, the discussions of what type of future transit needs to really focus on St. Louis County. If the City gets any more dollars from Prop M (second 1/4th cent) it will need to go to support what the city already has.



Communities that make these types of investments usually have very strong local and state leadership. These leaders are willing to take a risk and put their reputation on the line.



Do you see that leadership here today in St. Louis City, St. Louis County or in the State of Missouri? Are any of you St. Louis County residents ready to start the effort to preserve what we already have built?

Effectively, the County collects 6/10 of a cent for Metro, whereas the City collects 3/4 of a cent entirely for Metro. However, despite its retaining over half of the 1973 half-cent tax for roads, the County still provides more than double the revenue that the City provides. And since the 1994-passed quarter-cent tax is now going just to the debt financing of Cross County, effectively only 3/10 of a cent in the County and 1/2 cent in the City are going towards Missouri operations of Metro's light-rail and bus system.



Over the last 20 years, the federal government has gotten out of the business of subsidizing transit operations, now only providing grants for major capital projects, vehicle acquisition and other capital costs. In most states with major urban areas, state and local governments have picked up the responsibility that the feds have handed off. However, in Missouri, less than 1% of Metro's operations is covered by state contributions. Instead, all Missouri operations fall on City-County sales tax revenues that have recently been flat. As a result, as operational costs rise, despite higher fare recovery, Metro faces a growing deficit in its immediate future.



So then, what are the realistic tax options?



Plan A: Have the County just pass the 1997 quarter-cent tax that passed in the City but never went into effect due to County defeat. Pros: This measure would keep Metro from going broke and would be a small levy. Cons: The levy wouldn't provide enough funding for any MetroLink expansion, and voters may not want to tax themselves more for just system preservation.



Plan B: Have the County pass a roads sales tax and shift all of the 1973 half-cent tax to transit. Pros: A roads-only tax is the most likely to pass in the County and Metro is quietly saved from going broke. Cons: Anti-tax groups would likely point out how strategy is a "shell game," and again, no MetroLink expansion could be funded.



Plan C: Have the County and City pass a half-cent sales tax. Pros: Metro keeps from going broke and MetroLink expansion is possible. Cons: Parochial nature of St. Louis could prevail over patience for prioritized, incremental expansion, and Metro could still go broke in trying to provide extensions to every geopolitical section of the City-County.



In the end, I think any of the three options above could work, but require proper execution and a strong campaign. If Plan A, Metro needs to stress that preservation also includes MetroLink (maintaining desirable headways and addressing the needs of an aging system) and promise to make buses more efficient (ITS, signage). If Plan B, Metro would still need to make promises to the County Council, if not County voters. But in Plan C, Metro needs to work extensively with regional leaders and East-West Gateway in clearly outlining a realistic, incremental expansion plan that can be easily understood by the public.



Realistically, everyone knows that west has the greatest political pressure. Despite the City's dense ridership, the tax-rich County must likely see an extension first in order for a half-cent levy to succeed. Perhaps, if the City could see Bus Rapid Transit or just system-wide bus improvements occuring prior or simultaneously with a westward light-rail extension in the County, then City voters wouldn't feel like they are being overlooked.

From the center of the City, of the four cardinal directions, far west (county/ St. Charles County) has the least coverage (we all know why St. Chuck is without). I am in favor of two western lines (eventually), first one to Westport (and eventually Harrahs Casino/ St. Charles), and much later one down I-44 (eventually to 6 flags?). I know both areas have rail lines (both active I am pretty sure) so it might make it more feasible to do it in the correct manner - ROW...



I am in favor of plan C or even more, * including the entire meto (who ALL benefit) in the 1/2 cent tax*. If it fails, lets drop the amount of service to those districts that voted against it, like make 1 bus run for every 5 that use to exist. That way the people who vote for it will get what they want.

^One problem with dropping service based on how County townships vote against a new half-cent levy is that reverse commuters would be penalized for working in areas where residents did not vote to support Metro. For example, a majority of Sunset Hills residents would likely vote against a tax, but reverse commuters from the City or inner-ring County areas still wish to use transit to access retail jobs in Sunset Hills.



However, service cuts based on votes has been done before. After St. Charles County's twice defeat of a tax in 1996, Bi-State did cut bus service in 2001. But while I can understand bitter feelings, I don't know why Metro couldn't just charge a fare surcharge in areas not contributing sales taxes, similar to planned service to Arnold this fall with an added 50-cent per ride passenger surcharge above standard fare. That, or Metro could have explored whether the City of St. Charles (not the County) would be interested in contracting with Metro for an express bus to/from North Hanley, as St. Charles Area Transit already provides, but at a higher operational cost to the City of St. Charles.



Raising fares again this late August, Metro has recently bled as much as they can out of their riders. But perhaps fare zones based on distance would help as well. Bus routes like Eureka and Twin Oaks Expresses have the highest subsidy due to their long mileage, so maybe charge a higher fare based on distance. The 270/255 beltway would make an easy-to-understand boundary for fare zones and yet still include much of the St. Louis and St. Clair Counties and virtually all of St. Louis City. Thus, transit-dependent households, who largely live within the beltway, would not be penalized for traveling within the core fare zone. To compensate for transit-dependents making a reverse commute to outside the beltway, however, employer-sponsored reduced-cost pass programs would be encouraged. Otherwise, specific employment destinations outside the beltway could be stops exempt from the fare boundary.



From the recorded votes in 1997 by township, we already know that support for Prop M was higher in North and Mid County than it was in West or South County. Hopefully, since 1997, the County has become more urban, or at least North and Mid County could now carry the County to the needed majority for a tax increase. Also, more West Countians will soon realize how auto-dependent they are when New I-64 starts, and South Countians will soon benefit from new service to Shrewsbury. While these changed minds in West and South County likely won't be enough to change their townships to winning majorities for a new tax, every margin of change will count in what surely would be a close vote county-wide. IOW, St. Louis County just needs to gradually become more urban like St. Louis City, and then a transit tax is more likely to pass. But while such rationale points to the County being ever closer to the needed urban voting bloc to support transit, St. Charles has a much longer ways to go.

JMedwick wrote:In some ways, cutting service from far flung counties like St. Charles and Jefferson make no sense. I am sure the state argument against state wide funding for Metro or the KC equivlent is that these programs serve only a portion of the MO population. Therefore, by expanding service into new counties on the MO side, idealy Metro could attempt and combat this argument while attempting to provide service at incrased cost to consumers in those areas. Makes you wonder what it would take at the state level, besides a govenor concerned about urban issues, to get more operational support for KC and STL.

Personally, you have to get the outstate legislators on board. With a Republican led legislature and the state financially struggling, you would have a hard time shaking more money from the state for mass-transit. Especially when they can't even agree to fund a new bridge (or even repairing the ones we have for that matter).



I think you are correct, if Metro could be persuaded to get service into selected communities within other counties and thus expand bit by bit, it would go a long way to opening up new consumers. I think a previous idea of charging a surcharge for service into communities that don't support the tax is a great idea of getting the service going. And if Metro is planning on expanding bus service into Arnold, it *should* be considering expanding into the city of St. Charles. I don't know if they broke down the votes of the failed tax proposal, but I would imagine the support was probably strongest in the city of St. Charles anyway. And within the next few years, there should be a somewhat denser population core in the city of St. Charles as well.

^Can you post where you found them, I can give it a try.

I wasn't able to map JM's data, but here below is the County elections data compiled into a simpler summary, with townships spelled out. Combined with this map of County townships, the below table helps show where proponents and opponents of a tax increase for transit lived in the County in 1997. Sorted by descending percentage of support, the below table also shows how support for Prop M in 1997 was strongest in inner-ring areas near the City limits from MO 367 to I-44, and generally stronger in central and north areas, while weakest in west and south areas of the County.



TOWNSHIP YES NO AREA

University 66% 34% Central

Hadley 63% 37% Central

Normandy 61% 39% North

Clayton 58% 42% Central

Jefferson 57% 43% Central

Norwood 54% 46% North

Creve Coeur 53% 47% Central

Ferguson 51% 49% North

Wildhorse 49% 51% West

Spanish Lake 48% 52% North

Bonhomme 45% 55% South

Missouri River 45% 55% West

Florissant 44% 56% North

Lewis & Clark 44% 56% North

Maryland Heights 44% 56% West

Midland 41% 59% Central

Airport 38% 62% North

Northwest 38% 62% North

St. Ferdinand 37% 63% North

Queeny 36% 64% West

Gravois 34% 66% South

Tesson Ferry 32% 68% South

Chesterfield 31% 69% West

Lafayette 31% 69% West

Oakville 29% 71% South

Concord 28% 72% South

Lemay 26% 74% South

Meramec 26% 74% West

Thanks for the help S.Slider. Here is the map.



By the way, this is Percent Yes Votes

Nice job, b&m. Seeing the older township boundaries (your map compared to my previously posted link to newer township boundaries), it also looks like you corrected my gaffe in assigning an old township's votes to a new one. In 1997, the boundaries were different, and there wasn't then yet a "Wildhorse" township.



Looking at the map, I think it's fair to summarize that support in 1997 was strongest in Mid-County, mixed in North County, but mostly weak in West and South County.



If another election were held today, I speculate that any area that voted by less than 40% in favor in 1997 would still fall below 50% today. However, it's all about the margins.



Several changes since 1997 could make the difference in key areas:



1.) North County has increased significantly in minority population.



2.) Mid-County is no longer mired in the 1997 controversies of route selection or perceived impacts of Cross County planning.



3.) South County will get a taste of MetroLink with Shrewsbury access.



4.) West County businesses increasingly acknowledge that the path westward is through a first-phase line to Westport.



In all, a new vote would likely still have similar breakdowns by township. But if times truly have changed, then Mid-County and North County could vote "yes" by a larger margin, and West County and South County could vote "no" by a lower margin, giving a new proposition an improved chance of passing. Still, seeing forward to how transit can benefit the independently mobile majority and seeing past the parochial interests of building lines to suit every geopolitical corner of the County will be challenges to overcome in any future campaign.

It's amazing that

North Hanley is a focal station for all Northwest, North Central County people and St. Charles County.



Shrewsberry might become the South County equivalent until a line from it could extend to Kirkwood and another to Butler Hill.



West County could have the Westport station, but Creve Coeur would be far better especially since City Place is building up (literally).

^The added appeal of Westport is that Page lines up best for an extension someday to St. Charles County. But the Daniel Boone extension concept to Westport depends upon using the Rock Island railroad between roughly I-170 and Lindbergh (southeast of I-170/Page to Clayton is right-of-way already owned by Metro, northwest of Page/Lindbergh is ample MODOT right-of-way along Page Avenue). If the Rock Island line were not available, I could see a line from Clayton taking a more southern route to Westport via Monsanto and maybe City Place, but then the line would likely need to run along Olive as a street-running segment.



Edit note: I previously wrote about what looked like a utility corridor in Olivette as an exclusive ROW from I-170 to Monsanto, or possible alternative to the Rock Island section of the Daniel Boone extension. However, after looking at maps, I think that "utility" corridor is interrupted in several places, like near Old Bonhomme, for expensive single-family homes, hardly the property you want to target for ROW acquisition.