If the County rejects a tax increase, scaling back the service to just inside I-270 would be appropriate, when those areas defeating the tax will likely fall largely outside I-270. Plus, as Busdad mentioned, that would save on call-a-ride service as well.
Of course, if Obama helps turnout and gas prices keep folks wise, one can only hope the tax ultimately passes.
The only other Plan B would be to pass a half-cent roads tax in the County, so that the 1970's half-cent tax could be quietly spent on transit. But if the County is already robbing that fund in advance of the November vote for its wish-list of road projects, it appears that's hardly an option in Dooley's mind.
phoaddict wrote:This happened in chicago twice, where there was lack of funding.
And let me tell you how it was fixed: DALEY. Communities here got together, wrote to congress and representatives and struggled hard to get state funding. After months of struggling, we got a new deal, and everyone is happy.
The sad thing is, that's chicago, and things work in chicago because there is a much more cohesive government. I wouldn't expect that happening in st. louis.
I don't think that Chicago is a good example for resolving transportation issues, including in this instance. The traffic in the Chicago area is unbearable, and the money used to resolve this issue was supposed to be used for roads. What they should have done in this case is just raise fares.
However, in the case of St. Louis, I do agree that expanding Metrolink is a good thing, and using Missouri state tax dollars to do it is important. I also don't see anything wrong with increasing the fares on Metrolink in addition to this.
I wouldn't compare Chicago and St. Louis other then what the box score says. Chicago is a huge metropolitan area that overwhelms downstate in sheer population and political largess. The Chicago political machine decides the govenorship. That is a huge difference when it comes to state funding among other things.
I also had a huge property tax bill when I lived in the Chicgo area before moving to St. Louis. More forest preserves, great trails, great library, new town hall and fire station among other things. I also paid for it up the ying yang.
The county can resolve some transportation tax issues by putting three items on the ballot this November 1) gas tax to pay for the road wish list such as finishing Hwy 141 2) sales tax for a moderate transit expansion and continued Metro funding 3) and finally a one tenth sales tax to accelerate the greenway corridor/trails construction. Let people decide what is in their best interest. Might not be pretty but will probably promote some much needed discussion and decision making.
dweebe wrote:
That's what north county gets for having all the tiny little towns up there. But I do agree the Dunn/270 ramps suck big-time
Population of some area municipalities:
Creve Coeur: 17,000
Maryland Heights: 22,000
Ferguson: 22,000
Hazelwood: 26,000
Wildwood: 34,000
Chesterfield: 47,000
Florissant: 51,000
dweebe wrote:But look at the Highway 367 renovation job. That's a decent sized project in north county. I assume there's some county money in that project?
Probably some state money too. But who benefits from 367 improvements? People going to the Alton Belle and Fast Eddies? Eagle watchers heading for the river road? Owners of large tracts of undeveloped land north of 67 near 367? Very few north county residents, that's for sure. The 367 corridor isn't particularly dense, and already had a pretty good arterial system. There are many places in north county where the money would have been much better spent. Like putting a razor wire fence around Countryside Apartments.
bikin' man wrote:my in laws live on the absolute edge of civilization but yet they can walk to a supermarket, target, all the suburban big ox stores you can imagine.
There's always somebody who lives next door to the strip mall. That doesn't make it a "walkable community." It is a well established fact that there's a relationship between housing density and efficiency of providing transit. And, as it happens, an inverse relationship between density and efficiency of driving a car. That's why nobody who lives in Manhattan drives anywhere, but everyone who lives in Chesterfield does.
The folks at Metro think that they can alter the facts on the ground and human behavior simply by running commercials reminding people about traffic jams that don't exist, and high gas prices of which they are already aware. If they would simply serve the areas which are dense enough to be served, and ignore the rest, we would have a solvent transit agency and no need for a tax hike.
I would have no problem paying an extra 25¢ for increased service, but paying anything extra for its current/or slashed offerings will seriously turn me away from our public transport system.
Paying $2 for current Metro service levels already is pushing the point of rip-off, to me anyway. If trains ran every 8mins-rush, 10 mins-day, 20-night, no problem. $1.75 for a bus that runs every 20 mins or less doesn't bug me at all on the few lines that offer those service levels, but I won't stand 30 mins or more baking in the STL summer at a bus stop.
I give Metro credit for working with money they get, but if the tax increase does pass, would Metro boost service levels on ANY of their lines?? If people here are saying current buses are overcrowded, where are extra ones to pick up the passengers?
I don't think fare increases are the way to pay for service. I'm looking at both Jefferson City and Washington.
Metro will likely propose increasing the cost of all prepaid fares, two hour passes, day passes etc. However, the budget shortfall for FY10 will be $45 to $53 million. If service is cut is ultimately cut, lost revenue will push service cuts as high as $70 million. Losses of Formula capital funds two year down the road will cut millions more out of the budget.
So lets assume that the shortfall is on the lower end (depending upon assumptions of the use of formula capital funds and funding retiree benefits), increasing fares will generate maybe $5 million maximum. Metro fares are currently on the very high end for rail and bus for the size city so I don't think increasing base fares will be a high probability.
Mr. Kasoff's argument that transit should be provided only in the core areas of the community misses several key points. First jobs for people in the core area have moved heavily into the surburban areas. Those hurt the most by lost suburban service will be transit dependent persons living in core city and older suburbans.
Second, the highest growth in ridership is now occurring in St. Louis County on Metrolink and on bus routes in the county. North County routes like 61 Chambers, 47 N. Hanley, 34 Earth City, 45 Hazelwood among others have had extremely high and sustained ridership growth.
Next, of boardings in Missouri, boardings in St. Louis County now are nearly equal to the boardings in the City.
If you do not provide service to the areas outside I270, why would anyone who votes in those areas vote in favor of a transit referendum. With the high prices for gasoline, we have certainly been attracting a market we have not previously attracted in large numbers. Huge dollars are generated in the County and the people generating those revenues come from all over the region. The City has a more limited number of retail outlets, car dealers, etc. It seems that its important to provide both transit service in the county (outer areas) for residents of the outer county and people traveling to these areas for jobs and other business.
Finally, someone asked a question about how expansion money would be spent. Would any of the money be used for bus expansion? Metro has developed a scenario for significantly improved headways on key routes as well as some significantly improved surburban service for several of the non Metrolink corridors. This was to be implemented in conjunction with an extension of Metrolink to Westport from the Shrewsbury alignment.
Its unclear now however with the county's recent cuts to the 1/2 cent tax if there are sufficient funds to accomplish everything considered. (What we planned would have cost around $5 to $ 10 million depending how the community reacts.)
What is undeniable is that the revenue shortfalls will be so significant in FY10 that the cuts will be massive. The community will never again have any faith in the transit system. Remember, its not just a cut on service outside I270. It will eliminate 40 % of Metrolink, 37 % of all bus service (Saturday headways on weekday), and perhaps 30 % of call a ride.
It costs $179 million for the Missouri transit service. The revenue we can count on in FY10 may support only a system costing at maximum $126 million and perhaps as low as $109 million once lost revenue is considered.
It will be really tragic for a community that has one of the truly unique and successful rail operations and a bus system that is now growing in nearly every area of the region will waste its $1.5 billion investment and let the system collapse. All this happening with $4.00 gasoline and increasing costs for all sort of goods forcing people to look for ways to save money including using transit. All this happening when redevelopment is starting to occur around the North Hanley Station (North Park), in Clayton, and Brentwood around the Metrolink Stations.
You don't make it convenient to ride you, Metrolink. You only accept cash at your kiosks instead of providing convenience with debit/credit cards. It's past time for you to join the late 20th century.
Your Tripfinder tool is not well designed and is klunky to use, inhibiting more people from riding the network. It's time to phase out TripFinder and move to more effective and strategic planning tools like the free and industry-leading Google Transit. So start a Google Transit pilot ASAP: http://www.google.com/transit. As the hype cycle reaches higher levels of maturity, add GPS to the trains and apply algorithms that communicate with Google Transit and the stations so that riders are better informed of actual schedule. Wired article here: http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/04/google-transi-1.html
Look, to make Metro viable, you can't keep cutting costs blindly. You have to add value in strategic areas to increase revenues and decrease it in areas with less utilization. Metro needs to expand smartly.
If you can do these types of things, you can gain the public's confidence and win referendums. But if you cut service blindly without having made it more convenient to ride, we can blame you for wasting 1.5 billion of our dollars. Because with energy costs skyrocketing and growing environmental consciousness, it appears awfully telling what the public thinks of Metro as it stands. Enough with business as usual, it is past time for you to get off your asses and show us improvement!
Busdad wrote:All this happening when redevelopment is starting to occur around the North Hanley Station (North Park), in Clayton, and Brentwood around the Metrolink Stations.
Creating development in areas that are wealthy, centrally located, and already pretty dense, is a terrible justification for a rail line that is bankrupting our entire transit system.
i would hardly call north hanley wealthy or dense. clayton, richmond heights, yes, ok. but didn't you say that people that make lots of money don't ride public transportation? it looks as if they might be. and why does it matter what the income lever is? it's only for poor people? i don't think so. so development around a station that exists is bad, even though it will attract new riders. creating new lines that could have the same effect is bad because it's not possiable to redesign an auto centric area. but it looks like that is happening as well. before the "boulevard", i would hardly call that strip mall pedestrian friendly. the access to it could be improved, but i don't still see that as a reason to give up, which is what it seems like you want to do. but correct me if i'm wrong. if you are not "anti-progressive" what are you? pro "status-quo"?
pro status quo will not a society anywhere. high gas prices will make this type of redesign that you call impossible, possiable. people will want to drive less and would like an alternative to their car. so if you have a better idea on what you think is progressive, then lets hear it.
But look at the Highway 367 renovation job. That's a decent sized project in north county. I assume there's some county money in that project?
367 is a MoDOT-maintained state highway. I doubt they got much, if any, county money. You're familiar with the ridiculous Dunn Rd. ramps so you might remember 367 pre-renovation. That was one of the sorriest stretches of roadway in the metro. You had huge volumes of traffic going 60 mph between signalized intersections spaced about a mile apart. Another intersection didn't even have signals! Crossing it meant you'd have to Frogger your way across by darting out into a patch of asphalt in the median between northbound and southbound traffic and hope you didn't get nailed, and then do the same thing again to get to the other side. Complicating things even further were two-way outer roads on either side of the highway with lots of businesses, homes, schools, etc. emptying traffic onto them. There had been a push since the early eighties (while I lived there) to redo the road for safety's sake because of the large volume of accidents.
Thanks Busdad for all of your insightful and important posts.
In my humble/generalized opinion:
1.) I would support ending all bus routes outside of I-270. The residents of those areas want isolation and insulation from other parts of the metro, and they choose to prescribe to a car culture by living there. Their lifestyles don't support transit, and they probably don't want their taxes to either.
2.) I think decreasing Metrolink frequency is a mistake. From my experience bus-riders research schedules more, and therefore catch the bus when it comes. Metrolink appears to have a larger tourist/casual-user crowd, and I think they would be much more discouraged by increased waits than the more educated/informed bus users. There is no good way to reduce service, but I think metrolink should be spared as much as possible.
3.) I think your approach to fare increases is reasonable. Single-ride metrolink/metrobus shouldn't increase since it would surpass the current Chicago/New York prices, and those systems provide a lot more bang for the buck.
4.) If the Cross COUNTY expansion lawsuit cost $27 million in legal fees, and if that cost is bringing budget shortfalls to a head 9 months- 1 year early, shouldn't the county, not just metro as a whole cough it up? Last time I checked 1 out of 9 new stations are in the city. That breaks down to $3M city, $24M county.
1.) I would support ending all bus routes outside of I-270. The residents of those areas want isolation and insulation from other parts of the metro, and they choose to prescribe to a car culture by living there. Their lifestyles don't support transit, and they probably don't want their taxes to either.
That's ridiculously generalized. It was no accident that I bought a home in Maryland Heights within five miles of my employer. It had nothing to do with "isolating and insulating" myself from other parts of the metro. Most mornings when I bike to work (yes, BIKE), I see 15-20 people at bus stops along my route between McKelvey and Page Ave. Few to none of these people appear to be working poor or even blue collar. They are the very people everyone tends to rant about on here. Try telling them that public transportation doesn't want their business and support. [/quote]
^ Although Wabash made a blanket generalization about people in far west county, he does have a point. I think you would find more xenophobics and "anti-progressives" outside 270 then in the more urbanized areas, but this is not unique to the St. Louis area. If you go to some of those far flung suburbs outside of Chicago or Los Angeles you find the same thing. There is always a sort of rural/urban split going on, it just really hurts the city bad here in St. Louis.
RTD is proposing $4.1 million in reductions to bus and light-rail service in August in response to skyrocketing fuel costs and budget problems.
The proposal cuts some of the lowest-performing routes.
It includes elimination of the G Line light-rail service between Aurora's Nine Mile park-n-Ride and Lincoln Station in Douglas County, a service that never attracted significant numbers of riders since it opened with the T-REX project in 2006. RTD said last week it is facing up to a $24 million shortfall caused by the transit agency's diesel fuel costs going up $6 million this year and its sales tax collections projected to be down $18 million.
goat314 wrote:^ Although Wabash made a blanket generalization about people in far west county, he does have a point. I think you would find more xenophobics and "anti-progressives" outside 270 then in the more urbanized areas, but this is not unique to the St. Louis area. If you go to some of those far flung suburbs outside of Chicago or Los Angeles you find the same thing. There is always a sort of rural/urban split going on, it just really hurts the city bad here in St. Louis.
Probably so, but Ladue, Frontenac, Des Peres and Kirkwood are inside I-270. I have a hard time believing they are more "progressive" than the rest of west county simply because of their location. It's unfair to essentially say the heck with everyone living on one side of an interstate because it's not that cut and dry.
Probably so, but Ladue, Frontenac, Des Peres and Kirkwood are inside I-270. I have a hard time believing they are more "progressive" than the rest of west county
If you're proposing cutting bus service to Ladue, Frontenac, Des Peres, and Kirkwood, I could get behind that effort.
I believe, and not all of my numbers are up to date, that of the top 10 most frequented bus-routes in the metro system, ONE of them crosses I-270. That route is the 32 Wellston/MLK which travels all of 2 miles beyond 270. The most used routes are within 270, and when you consider that miles per rider are probably highest outside 270, cutting these routes would provide the greatest savings in fuel costs while sacrificing the lowest number of riders.
Also, while I'd hate to see one of the original street car lines go; isn't the 15 Hodiamont line kind of redundant going from one metrolink stop to another with plenty of routes surrounding it?
The cuts will not just eliminate routes outside of I-270.
Hodiamont would not be continued. The Ladue Shuttle will be eliminated. Half of the 59 will be cut out. Half of the 1 Gold Line will be cut.
Metro headways, even in the more dense areas, would be reduced to the equivalent of Saturday headways.
I do appreciate the dialogue. It has definitely helped me understand the range of problems we face in convincing residents that the system is worth investing more money. I am surprised, however, at the perspective of some who have suggested cutting all service outside I-270 is a good idea.
I had a conversation several months ago with the owner of a trade school in Earth City where about 45% of all of the students came by bus using the 34 Earth City. The 34...carrying perhaps 800 passengers a day would be eliminated and I am sure it will not be a good thing for the this college.
The 58 Clayton Ballas would not serve St. Lukes Hospital, Maryville Unversity, at least 3 nursing homes. The 58 Clayton Ballas would operate to St. Johns, but 50 % of the 1000 daily boardings would be eliminated.
If you look at the election results of the past failed Prop M, it is very hard to see how the referendum could pass without a much better positive vote from West County, Maryland Heights, Hazelwood, and at least the part of south county north of Lindberg. We may not win all of these, but we have to do better than before.
The challenge is convincing the county taxpayer that the $180 million in transit service now being operated in Missouri has not been adequately funded by either the City or the County. The County and City both think they provide a lot of money to Metro (and they do), but the service they have today costs $50+ more than they provide. Only Illinois pays for all of the service that they consume.
Let me clarify by saying that no cuts, consistent funding and investment on the national, state, and local level are "good ideas". I truly hope all cutbacks can be avoided and that the proposition passes.
There are good reasons to believe this round will generate a "much better positive vote."
1.) Gas Prices
2.) Despite the early negative press/reactions to Cross County, I think it has bolstered Metrolink's profile and utility. I think people like metrolink and they like the idea of more metrolink. The farther away from the lawsuit/cost over-runs we get, and the more fixed-rail transit continues to spur investment, the more people will come around to enjoy the valuable investment that it is. I think this is already happening.
I came across this proposal for funding transit in Columbus on a blog called "The Overhead Wire." It seems like a really sensible plan.
"Columbus has come up with a rather innovative funding initiative for their streetcar line. They are going to put a surcharge on event tickets. So whenever you go to a hockey game you'll pay a few extra dollars on your ticket. But it won't be for naught. If you have a ticket, you get a free ride on the transit line. Sounds like a great plan.
Coleman plans to send a proposal to the city council before the end of the year in which the city would add a 4 percent surcharge on tickets to most concerts and sporting events within six blocks of the streetcar route.
Another 4 percent surcharge would affect people parking in lots and garages along the line from Downtown to Ohio State University, and parking-meter rates in area would rise an average of 75 cents per hour.
“I'm so convinced this is the right thing,” Coleman told an audience of streetcar supporters last night at City Hall, referring both to the idea he first raised in 2006 and the new plan to pay for it."
Is there any reason St. Louis couldn't do something like this? After all, we have a football stadium, baseball stadium, and hockey arena all on our Metrolink line. Seems like that could be a really good source for helping fund transit...
Since the region is a non-attainment zone, can't money be diverted from federal programs to be invested in Metro to lower regional emissions? I know it sounds far fetched without significant ridership, but with rising fuel costs the surge in transit usage is only beginning.
dmmonty1 wrote:I came across this proposal for funding transit in Columbus on a blog called "The Overhead Wire." It seems like a really sensible plan.
"Columbus has come up with a rather innovative funding initiative for their streetcar line. They are going to put a surcharge on event tickets. So whenever you go to a hockey game you'll pay a few extra dollars on your ticket. But it won't be for naught. If you have a ticket, you get a free ride on the transit line. Sounds like a great plan.
Coleman plans to send a proposal to the city council before the end of the year in which the city would add a 4 percent surcharge on tickets to most concerts and sporting events within six blocks of the streetcar route.
Another 4 percent surcharge would affect people parking in lots and garages along the line from Downtown to Ohio State University, and parking-meter rates in area would rise an average of 75 cents per hour.
“I'm so convinced this is the right thing,” Coleman told an audience of streetcar supporters last night at City Hall, referring both to the idea he first raised in 2006 and the new plan to pay for it."
Is there any reason St. Louis couldn't do something like this? After all, we have a football stadium, baseball stadium, and hockey arena all on our Metrolink line. Seems like that could be a really good source for helping fund transit...
SMSPlanstu wrote:One program that comes to mind is CMAQ.
CMAQ was already used to subsidize the start-up costs of Cross County's operations. Beyond that, the dollars don't stretch that far, and are mostly used for signal timing of major intersections.
SMSPlanstu wrote:One program that comes to mind is CMAQ.
CMAQ was already used to subsidize the start-up costs of Cross County's operations. Beyond that, the dollars don't stretch that far, and are mostly used for signal timing of major intersections.
True. CMAQ funds can be used for start-up costs associated for a new bus or light rail line. The CMAQ funds for Cross County were for the first three years of operation. Things like bus replacements are elgible, but that does no good if there is no money to pay the driver. The funds can't be used for operating expenses of existing services (salaries, fuel, maintenance) which is what Metro needs money for. Another source(i.e. sales tax, more state funding) must be found.
With election year politics of grand scale it would seem like a really good idea for the county to put a metro funding referendum on the ballot. A Democratic President and Congress might open the tap on federal funds. It seems only logical to have an expanded local transit funding source already in place. Otherwise, your another year or two out with high gas prices to boot.
My current gripe with Metro marketing as user of the Cross County extension is why and heck don't they re-name this as the South County Line!! Then you can market the Daniel Boone as West Couny extension along with the North County extension. I think you can then put together a much better plan for incremental transit expansion that voters would grasp. Three local contracts of two or three stations with each contract going in a different direction (north, south, and west). Nothing massive but doable.
^But I think the problem with calling it the 'South County' line is that it doesn't reach into SoCo. To me, and many other southerners, Shrewsbury is more a part of Mid-County albeit at the southern edge. The easiest thing would be to give the lines colors or numbers/letters.
I think a ballot measure could be tricky unless they could set a clear timetable for Metro expansion north and west. Showing no extensions south will also make it a tough sale.
I don't think people in SoCo are backwards or conservative, but they are cheap. Unless they too are going to get a slice of the Metro pie, they probably won't pay. Hopefully the Cross County extension will make a dent in the 'NO' vote and change some peoples minds.
Heck, even though I'm in the city now, I have yet to change my voter registration mainly so I can vote for this proposal. Whats a little voter fraud for the greater good??!
