Share
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostFeb 03, 2007#51

The Curmudgeon wrote:This is just my humble opinion.



MetroLink is doomed to fail just like the St. Louis City public schools. Money is not the problem preformance is and neither has nor will preform well enough to succeed.



I read (and I can't find it again) that the St. Louis City Schools have the highest cost per student rate in the state. I wouldn't be surprised that it would be cheaper to pay for cab rides for MetroLinks current ridership then it has to and operate build this over priced and under used monstrosity.



That is just my humble opinion.


Hmm, well Curmudgeon I am not going to criticize your opinion. I am however going to challenge you equating the St. Louis Public Schools and METRO.



You are correct that St. Louis Public Schools have the highest cost per student, which undoubtedly translates into high funding for education in the City. Yet the City's schools still struggle. The clear conclusion is that increased funding does not mean increased education attainment. But then again, this conclusion has been supported by many other studies and is not surprising. Maybe 100 years ago when the school system did more creaming (taking a small number of students and making them as well education as possible) and less cropping (education for the masses) funding made a real difference in education attainment. Today that is not the case as our education system is based on cropping more than creaming.



But, the idea that high spending increases performance does translate to transit. Sure, Metro in general and Metrolink specifically are not as successful as it can be. I mean, if St. Louis had higher densities and greater concentrations of destinations (jobs in particular), transit would be more successful. But that is not the case and sadly is beyond the control of Metro. What is within the control of Metro is the expansion of the system (bus and rail) and without a doubt the more expansive the transit system the higher the patronage. If we locals increase funding for transit, we directly get a system that serves more destinations more frequently. And more destinations and greater frequency increase ridership. Increased funding does equal increased success for transit, unlike educational attainment.



Now I would guess a part of your dislike of Metro is that it fares fail to cover the costs for at the least, operation. When comparing Metro to a very successful system like NJ Transit (operators of the commuter trains in New Jersey that serve NYC, Newark, and Hoboken along with NJ bus service), it is clear that Metro’s fare coverage is less than desirable. NJ Transit’s is more than 40% in 2006, while Metro’s I believe is less than 30%. But to be fair to Metro, bus service coverage is around 22% while Metrolink’s cost coverage is around 33%. Supporting Metrolink expansion is supporting a more efficient use of transit dollars. But at the same time, while Metro may not cover its costs with fares, no transit system in the world features that accomplishment. If you have ever taken NJ Transit rail service, it is amazing that with the ridership, there are still subsidies required. Metro also does not help itself by failing to do things like develop key properties (looking the lot next to the Cupples buildings and the trench across from Kiel Center) and charge for monthly parking.



So in the end, sure there are plenty of things that are less than ideal about Metro (fare coverage, its exploration of non-fare revenue, land use around its stations), but increasing funding does go a long way to improving each of these complaints. Anyways, thats my argument for why you should support Metro and why it isn't like supporting City schools. I would be interested to hear what you think.
17
New MemberNew Member
17

PostFeb 04, 2007#52

rockintheburbsTC (or anyone who knows for that matter), I would like to write my senators and reps, but I am not exactly sure what to ask them to consider. I understand that the issue is for emergency funding, but I lack specific knowlegde on what to ask for. Could someone post a set of points to include in a letter to senators and reps? I'm a bit ignorant about the specifics of what is going on, and feel that my voice would be put to better use if my request was focused and specific.
2,074
Life MemberLife Member
2,074

PostFeb 04, 2007#53

curious, I don't think you necessarily need to educate the senators and so forth as they will be getting more in-depth information than you can provide.



I think the most important thing to say is that the adequate and fair funding of transit is important to you as a voter. You might also mention your basic demographic (e.g. you're a professional 20-something who lives in X and works for Y). Sometimes it's hard not to be cynical, but I would avoid the temptation to dangle your vote by saying something like how you will vote them out come election time if they vote against XYZ.



My e-mails were mostly sent from websites but here's a draft I started that might help you:



I am a constituent of yours, living in ____________. I congratulate you on your recent win in the bid for the Missouri House.



As a strong believer in public transportation as part of quality public policy, I urge you to vote "YES" on the Metro (Bi-State) appeal for one-time emergency funding, as well as the one-time appeal to help mitigate the I-64 construction problems.



As a state, I believe we spend far too much on new road construction and personal automobility without a comprehensive plan for sustainable growth. Now that sales tax from gasoline has been diverted away from general revenue, this bad public policy has continued in the face of ever-decreasing state support for public transportation. I believe this allotment is in order and may serve the added benefit of convincing residents to try more economical public transit when possible.



Thank you and I look forward to seeing the results of the House vote.


1,054
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,054

PostFeb 04, 2007#54

We do spend too much on roads especially to little towns.



Missouri promised to build four lane divided highways to most rural communities of 5,000 or more! They say it is for economic development. Of course, the state does not have the money to do this entirely, but they are still working on it. Missouri is still building these roads from little place to little place when they should be investing in big city regions. Why does US highway 60 from Neosho, MO on the west to Charleston, MO on the east need four lanes? Only in Springfield! Why are they building by-passes around Poplar Bluff, Mountain Grove, & Willow Springs? Thesae places are not metropolises, nor are they economically helped by a by-pass which steers business away from their downtown.



It is strange when our rural highways are the same as our interstates, four lanes each, divided, etc. Why are we building out "there" when the interstates should take priority and definitely Metro and KC's MAX?



The suburban Republicans and the urban/suburban Democrats need to work hand-in-hand for Missouri's real future in this age of consumerism, service economy, and abandonment of farms and other natural resource areas. That future of America is living in cities and America is becoming a coastal nation, the nation's interior or us is not gaining much population while coastal and amenity regions (think weather) are rapidly gaining population. Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Caroline, Arizona, Nevada
17
New MemberNew Member
17

PostFeb 04, 2007#55

Thanks bprop
2,953
Life MemberLife Member
2,953

PostFeb 05, 2007#56

SMSPlanstu wrote:We do spend too much on roads especially to little towns.



Missouri promised to build four lane divided highways to most rural communities of 5,000 or more! They say it is for economic development. Of course, the state does not have the money to do this entirely, but they are still working on it. Missouri is still building these roads from little place to little place when they should be investing in big city regions. Why does US highway 60 from Neosho, MO on the west to Charleston, MO on the east need four lanes? Only in Springfield! Why are they building by-passes around Poplar Bluff, Mountain Grove, & Willow Springs? Thesae places are not metropolises, nor are they economically helped by a by-pass which steers business away from their downtown.



It is strange when our rural highways are the same as our interstates, four lanes each, divided, etc. Why are we building out "there" when the interstates should take priority and definitely Metro and KC's MAX?



The suburban Republicans and the urban/suburban Democrats need to work hand-in-hand for Missouri's real future in this age of consumerism, service economy, and abandonment of farms and other natural resource areas. That future of America is living in cities and America is becoming a coastal nation, the nation's interior or us is not gaining much population while coastal and amenity regions (think weather) are rapidly gaining population. Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Caroline, Arizona, Nevada


While I agree with you, I also think that it's important not to neglect our rural areas as well. Though, we also have an issue that few states have to deal with, in that Missouri borders more states than any other state in the union. So, to increase traffic and visibility from all these states, its important to provide easy access into the state. I-70 goes from Illinois to Kansas, I-44 goes into Oklahoma, I-35 goes into Nebraska, Hwy 60 goes into Tennessee/Kentucky, I-55 goes into Arkansas/Tennessee, and so on. Other states need to only worry about connecting larger metropolises within their state, we have to worry about keeping the influx of traffic through Missouri, instead of other states.



I do think it's important for us to bring more focus back on the urban centers of Missouri, and the United States...but it's also important that we keep the access into Missouri as high as it needs to be.
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostFeb 05, 2007#57

Other states need to only worry about connecting larger metropolises within their state, we have to worry about keeping the influx of traffic through Missouri, instead of other states.


An important point trent, but if the "demand" for these larger roads is mostly from other states, that is all the more reason for toll roads. Let the drivers pay the cost.
2,953
Life MemberLife Member
2,953

PostFeb 05, 2007#58

I have absolutely no problem with that, as I see most of those highways as throughfares anyway.
466
Full MemberFull Member
466

PostMay 08, 2007#59

soooooooooooooo how is this coming along? i know there is 6 million coming their way, but that will hardly make a dent in what they need to get. so is the request changed to 14 million to make it easier on modot? i hope that is not the case, modot should still give the 20 million.
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostMay 08, 2007#60

Why is McEagle's North Park project adjacent to North Hanley also asking for a Springdale Station? Why did UMSL use the North Hanley Metrolink to entice Express Scripts to build adjacent the Station? Ask all these private investors if Metrolink is such a monstrosity. Would they have all made their cumulative billions in long term investments if Metrolink was so bad?




1. UMSL is cutting the Metro Pass.

2. North Park is in no way transit accessible.

3. ESI is in no way transit accessible.



North Park and ESI are in no way TOD nor will they be TOD. Paul McKee and his planners have no idea how to design TOD or even worse they do not care.



UMSL's Administration does not understand economics.



None of the projects you list are TOD.



The fact that UMSL is cutting the pass, along with the failure leading to that decision, highlights the general incompetence which seems to pervade planning.



Moreover, it highlights regardless of what transit boosters will indicate, that the United States is an autocentric society. Our only hope is another oil crisis, yet even then some other fuel source will replace oil thus extending the life of the automobile. Blame GM and those who promoted the highway. Unfortunately they are all dead.
8,907
Life MemberLife Member
8,907

PostMay 08, 2007#61

Doug wrote:
1. UMSL is cutting the Metro Pass.

2. North Park is in no way transit accessible.

3. ESI is in no way transit accessible.

North Park and ESI are in no way TOD nor will they be TOD. Paul McKee and his planners have no idea how to design TOD or even worse they do not care.



UMSL's Administration does not understand economics.



None of the projects you list are TOD.



The fact that UMSL is cutting the pass, along with the failure leading to that decision, highlights the general incompetence which seems to pervade planning.



Moreover, it highlights regardless of what transit boosters will indicate, that the United States is an autocentric society. Our only hope is another oil crisis, yet even then some other fuel source will replace oil thus extending the life of the automobile. Blame GM and those who promoted the highway. Unfortunately they are all dead.


In my opinion this is unexcusable. How can they approve new construction near a metro stop that doesn't accommodate it.
1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostMay 08, 2007#62

UMSL also plans to replace their newly acquired site of the closed Normandy Hospital on Natural Bridge with athletic fields. While this site is adjacent to the UMSL-South station, I doubt many would refer to athletic fields as TOD.
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostMay 08, 2007#63

Yes!



They do not need athletic fields as it is a commuter campus.



They need student housing which will support campus athletics.



Perhaps implement some New Urbanism in order to create student housing along with entertainment! This must exist before athletic fields. People will simply go home after the games or not even attend!



UMSL is a complete joke.



Don't even start me on the Touhill.
6,661
AdministratorAdministrator
6,661

PostMay 08, 2007#64

Does UMSL have any intramural fields? There is nothing stopping commuters from participating in that. That may not be the right location for fields, but sometimes you take things way too far. A little exercise and team work could do a lot of good for some people
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostMay 08, 2007#65

Yes we do already.



Seeing missed opportunities is frustrating.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostMay 08, 2007#66

UMSL is a complete joke.


That's rediculous Doug. Many of us hope/wish that UMSL would be more thoughtful in their planning and their utilization of Metro/TOD, but it's a university, not a new urbanism experiment. I completely agree regarding the new athletic fields. This plan shows that no one there thinks of TOD in any way. The one building (Touhill) that is most accessible from Metro is the one building that attracts few patrons that typically use mass transit. BTW - UMSL does need athletic fields. The athlete experience at college is an important one - maybe they don't need stands (as few attend games), but fields are needed.
466
Full MemberFull Member
466

PostJun 16, 2007#67

Metro seeks no fare increase

By Ken Leiser

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

06/15/2007



No fare increases or service cuts are in the Metro budget for the coming year.



The proposal, being presented today to Metro's board, is the first in three years without a fare increase. And it also doesn't cut services, which Larry Salci, Metro's president and chief executive, had warned for months might be necessary to balance Metro's budget for the year starting July 1.



read here
247
Junior MemberJunior Member
247

PostJun 17, 2007#68

This is a mixed story. In once sense. it's good to avoid cuts and fare increases, but a careful reading shows Metro hardly has a solid budget.



The budget will be balanced through a series of strategies which temporarily postpone a rapidly increasing financial disaster. Salci very clearly explained that fact to the Metro board on Friday.



The FY 07 budget will end with a surplus that will be transferred to next year. That surplus is due primarily to a wage freeze, postponed hiring and the results from excellent vehicle maintenance. But Metro would not have had the surplus if it didn't have the start up CMAC funding for Cross County and if the debt financing of principal wasn't postponed.



For FY08, the agency will defer the future obligations for medical retirement benefits.



The agency will also borrow five million dollars from the State infrastructure bank to free up Prop M money planned to match capital expenditures so the Prop M money can be used for the operating budget. This loan gets paid back with the new State fuel tax exemption.



The agency may restructure some of its debt to defer for another year some debt principal payments.



Looking toward FY09, it looks like Metro will have no less than a $32 million unfunded deficit. That deficit will grow roughly $5 million each year thereafter. By FY10, all of the CMAC money used for the startup of Cross county will be gone and there will be an additional $7 million in unfunded liabilities. It not hard to see that Metro will need nearly all of the proceeds of a 1/4 cent Prop M sales tax to just keep things afloat. (It would allow the agency to again invest in its capital infrastructure.)



Metro may be forced to conduct public hearings on future fare increases and/or massive service cuts in January 2008 allow time to implement the cuts. January 2nd will be the date I-64 is closed. Last year Metro thought these public hearings would take place in August 2007, but the budget strategy for FY08 has allowed that to be postponed.



If no new permanent source of funding is identified prior to May 2008, the cuts will be implemented by June 2008.



The budget for FY08 gives the community and its elected officials a little more time to come up with a funding mechanism, but you can not really call the FY08 budget a satisfactory approach to long term fiscal management.



Several other impressive facts were presented in the board meeting including the fact that the deficit per passenger has declined three years in a row. In addition to that, other metrics for performance like on time performance, miles between passenger delays (due to equipment failures), employee absenteeism, complaints per 100,000 passengers and insurance claims per mile continued to improve to impressive industry levels.
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostJun 18, 2007#69

^Even with the deferred medical retirement benefits, it is still good news that no fair increases or route cuts will be needed in the next year. The additional year of service will be great on a number of accounts:



1. One year further removed from the CC mess.

2. More time to get a decision in the CC case.

3. More time for ridership on the lines to grow.

4. Should place any tax increase request square in the middle of the 40 rebuild mess.



All of these will hopefully make the next tax increase proposal successful.
1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostJun 18, 2007#70

^Yep, if nothing else, the decide-all vote for Metro's future can now be postponed to the higher turnout election of November 2008.



Voters then will decide if Metro will continue MetroLink expansion (half-cent levy in at least the County) or a downward trend of extensive cuts. Just voting on system preservation (a quarter-cent levy) is likely a non-starter with the majority of voters, especially County voters.
247
Junior MemberJunior Member
247

PostJun 19, 2007#71

Yep, if nothing else, the decide-all vote for Metro's future can now be postponed to the higher turnout election of November 2008.


FY08 runs from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008. The Presidential election is in FY09.



The county is evaluating the date for the referendum. One option is Feb. 2008 with the presidential primary. The other in in March or April for the municipal elections.



It will be one of those dates I presume.



There are reportedly polls underway or that are planned that focus on the best date for the election, the amount of the tax and possible interest in a Westport extension. This is a rumor, but I have no first hand knowledge of the details.
63
New MemberNew Member
63

PostJun 19, 2007#72

i'd say to definitely go with at least the 1/2 cent. would anyone really vote against the tax completely because it was 1/2 cent rather than 1/4 cent? there's going to be two types of voter, for or against. i don't think the amount will sway anybody. why not shoot for even 3/4 or a full cent? is your average voter really going to understand or appreciate the difference?
3,311
Life MemberLife Member
3,311

PostJun 20, 2007#73

I read somewhere, maybe on here, that the state of California pays for 25% of San Francisco's "metro" budget while Missourah pays for 1% of Metro's budget in St. Louis.. WOW!
466
Full MemberFull Member
466

PostJul 10, 2007#74

Missouri has budget surplus

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

07/10/2007



JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri could be sitting on a $320 million budget surplus because of higher-than-expected tax revenues and lower-than-expected spending during the recently concluded fiscal year.



Lawmakers had intended to leave about $200 million unspent when passing the state's $21.5 billion operating budget for the 2008 fiscal year, which started July 1.



read here



now if they are leaving $200 million of that unspent, what about the other $120 million? that's still quite a surplus. just what to do with it, what to do...........
385
Full MemberFull Member
385

PostJul 10, 2007#75

Instead of giving this money to Metro, they should take the money and begin a statewide mass transit funding program. Even if Metro would then only get half of this amount it would be better off in the long run.
Read more posts (120 remaining)
Share