So, since the st. louis region supports 35% of the states coffers, shouldn't we be entitled to 112 million?!?! I HATE outstate MissouRAH! This republican is voting for Nixon! I can't f ing wait to do it too.
- 359
JCity wrote:This republican is voting for Nixon! I can't f ing wait to do it too.
Join the club!
Metro may cut service or up fares
By Ken Leiser
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
Friday, May. 09 2008
Metro may have to cut some bus and light-rail service or increase fares after
Jan. 1 unless it finds a new source of funding, officials said today.
The transit agency plans to hold a series of public hearings on its options
later this year. Metro's governing board will soon consider a budget for the
12-month period that begins July 1, but no service or fare changes are expected
before the New Year.
Meanwhile, St. Louis County leaders appear ready to ask voters in November to
approve a half-cent transit sales tax, said Mike Jones, senior policy adviser
to County Executive Charlie A. Dooley.
If approved, half of those proceeds would go to fund transit operations and the
other half would be used to develop new light-rail segments in the county.
_____________________________________________________________________
If you enjoy reading about interesting news, you might like the 3 O'Clock Stir from
STLtoday.com. Sign up and you'll receive an email with unique stories of the day,
every Monday-Friday, at no charge.
Sign up at http://newsletters.stltoday.com
_____________________________________________________________________
spacer
This definitely would have been defeated in February after Metro lost its lawsuit. Maybe with gas prices through the roof with no signs of turn around, we can hope that it passes, although its a long shout...it would be in the right direction. Metro definitely needs some major PR boosting.
Here is a more extensive article.
Metro faces cuts or fare increases
By Ken Leiser
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
Saturday, May. 10 2008
ST. LOUIS — Metro may have to cut bus and light-rail service or increase fares
after Jan. 1 unless it finds a new source of funding.
Metro President and CEO Robert Baer said Friday that Metro's board soon will
consider a budget for the year beginning July 1, but he emphasized that no
service or fare changes are expected before the New Year. That gives Metro time
to seek a new source of money to help patch a projected $19.2 million shortfall.
One source of new money could be the St. Louis County sales tax. St. Louis
County Executive Charlie A. Dooley is expected to propose a half-cent transit
sales tax for the November ballot.
Mike Jones, senior policy adviser to Dooley, told members of Metro's pension,
finance and audit committee that the general election is the "last opportunity
to structurally resolve this situation."
If approved, the measure would generate $80 million a year. Half of that would
go to ongoing transit operations and the other half would be used to develop
new light-rail in the county.
A transit sales tax was taken off the February ballot after a St. Louis County
jury found against Metro in its suit against MetroLink designers, who had
countersued. Between Metro's legal bills and the amount it paid out in a
settlement, the case cost the agency more than $27 million.
Metro also just learned it will lose about $8 million in revenue from a
half-cent county sales tax that's already in effect.
Jones said the county historically divided that funding evenly between public
transportation and street maintenance and construction projects. Several years
ago, then-County Executive George R. "Buzz" Westfall pushed the county to
increase the transit share each year in line with the rise in the Consumer
Price Index.
The transit share grew faster than the share that went to roads, creating a
significant imbalance, county leaders say.
The county wants more money for roads because numerous projects are competing
for money, including improving the congested intersection of Hanley and Eager
roads near Highway 40 (Interstate 64).
Still, Jones said the county executive will push to fund Metro at its current
rate through Dec. 31 to maintain service levels until then.
Metro's proposed operating budget for the upcoming fiscal year is $221.6
million without service cuts or fare increases.
The $19.2 million shortfall includes $10.8 million in future nonpension benefit
obligations it will account for as "unfunded."
The transit agency plans to hold a series of public hearings on its options
later this year.
"We want the public to understand exactly what's at stake," Baer said. "The
public's going to have to decide — we're both going to have to decide — what
kind of transit system we want."
Ray Friem, Metro's senior vice president of transit operations, warned
committee members that the effects of cutting service — mostly in the Missouri
half of the system — would be dire. That's because the agency would lose
passenger revenue and some federal assistance.
Metro recovers about one-fifth of its operating budget from the fare box. Much
of the remainder comes from local sales taxes, federal grants and Metro's
contract to serve St. Clair County.
Metro did not raise fares last year but before that raised fares three straight
years. A typical adult fare is $2 to ride MetroLink and $1.75 to ride a bus.
kleiser@post-dispatch.com | 314-340-8215
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/emaf.n ... 4500070228
Here is a more extensive article.
Metro faces cuts or fare increases
By Ken Leiser
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
Saturday, May. 10 2008
ST. LOUIS — Metro may have to cut bus and light-rail service or increase fares
after Jan. 1 unless it finds a new source of funding.
Metro President and CEO Robert Baer said Friday that Metro's board soon will
consider a budget for the year beginning July 1, but he emphasized that no
service or fare changes are expected before the New Year. That gives Metro time
to seek a new source of money to help patch a projected $19.2 million shortfall.
One source of new money could be the St. Louis County sales tax. St. Louis
County Executive Charlie A. Dooley is expected to propose a half-cent transit
sales tax for the November ballot.
Mike Jones, senior policy adviser to Dooley, told members of Metro's pension,
finance and audit committee that the general election is the "last opportunity
to structurally resolve this situation."
If approved, the measure would generate $80 million a year. Half of that would
go to ongoing transit operations and the other half would be used to develop
new light-rail in the county.
A transit sales tax was taken off the February ballot after a St. Louis County
jury found against Metro in its suit against MetroLink designers, who had
countersued. Between Metro's legal bills and the amount it paid out in a
settlement, the case cost the agency more than $27 million.
Metro also just learned it will lose about $8 million in revenue from a
half-cent county sales tax that's already in effect.
Jones said the county historically divided that funding evenly between public
transportation and street maintenance and construction projects. Several years
ago, then-County Executive George R. "Buzz" Westfall pushed the county to
increase the transit share each year in line with the rise in the Consumer
Price Index.
The transit share grew faster than the share that went to roads, creating a
significant imbalance, county leaders say.
The county wants more money for roads because numerous projects are competing
for money, including improving the congested intersection of Hanley and Eager
roads near Highway 40 (Interstate 64).
Still, Jones said the county executive will push to fund Metro at its current
rate through Dec. 31 to maintain service levels until then.
Metro's proposed operating budget for the upcoming fiscal year is $221.6
million without service cuts or fare increases.
The $19.2 million shortfall includes $10.8 million in future nonpension benefit
obligations it will account for as "unfunded."
The transit agency plans to hold a series of public hearings on its options
later this year.
"We want the public to understand exactly what's at stake," Baer said. "The
public's going to have to decide — we're both going to have to decide — what
kind of transit system we want."
Ray Friem, Metro's senior vice president of transit operations, warned
committee members that the effects of cutting service — mostly in the Missouri
half of the system — would be dire. That's because the agency would lose
passenger revenue and some federal assistance.
Metro recovers about one-fifth of its operating budget from the fare box. Much
of the remainder comes from local sales taxes, federal grants and Metro's
contract to serve St. Clair County.
Metro did not raise fares last year but before that raised fares three straight
years. A typical adult fare is $2 to ride MetroLink and $1.75 to ride a bus.
kleiser@post-dispatch.com | 314-340-8215
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/emaf.n ... 4500070228
We are preparing $53 million dollars in cuts. Brentwood garage may close. The Landing could be sold. Cuts in Missouri may cut Metrolink to 15 minute peak service. Midday, weekend, and night service will operate every 20 minutes Lambert to Scott. Shrewsbury will operate every 20 minutes only as a shuttle.
Call a Ride would be cut by 30 %.
No bus service outside of I-270 except for several express routes.
Weekday service will operate on Saturday frequencies and da number of routes will be totally eliminated.
The truth is that you can't cut your way out of this problem. Cut creates more revenue loss causing a spiral down and down.
Stay tuned. It won't be pretty.
Call a Ride would be cut by 30 %.
No bus service outside of I-270 except for several express routes.
Weekday service will operate on Saturday frequencies and da number of routes will be totally eliminated.
The truth is that you can't cut your way out of this problem. Cut creates more revenue loss causing a spiral down and down.
Stay tuned. It won't be pretty.
Busdad wrote:Shrewsbury will operate every 20 minutes only as a shuttle.
I take it this means it would run solely from Shrewsbury to Forest Park?
On one hand I hate to see the overlapping service go away because it cut the wait time for a train in half, but on the other, it would make the thing less confusing for the "until gas was 4 bucks a gallon I only took the train to the ballpark" crowd.
What is the climate on the east side? Clearly SCCTD isn't hurting for cash if they can afford to give senior citizens free rides.
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.
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.
- 667
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.
Yeah, I heard about CTA's funding struggles, but now it seems they are okay. They are also currently renewing their fleet with over 1000 new New Flyer D40LFs. However, they are retiring the 1991 TMC RTSs and 1991 Flxible Metros for these New Flyers. When I rode CTA last weekend I could not find any TMCs or older Flxibles, majority is all New Flyers, NABI 60 footers, and 1995 Flxibles.
I will probably get flamed for this, but I said it before and I'll say it again. I don't support increasing sales tax to fund Metro. Property taxes are already so high. In 2007 I paid $4400 in property taxes, the year before that I paid $3600. How can my property tax increase almost 25% in a year? Since 2004 my home's property tax has increased about 55%!!!
Now Dooley wants to increase the sales tax to fund Metro. Metro will again waste money like they always do. This just opens the door for them! A lot of my co-workers think they'll still cut service anyways regardless if they have enough funding, even now they're scaring people and getting sympathy votes by threatening to cut service if funding isn't there. Sales tax is already high in some areas and people are already hurting financially because of ever increasing gas, food, and commodity prices. Why not allocate some of the property tax money to fund Metro? I rather see that than a sales tax increase considering we already pay so much in property taxes these days. Champaign-Urbana's MTD gets some funding that way, why can't Metro?:?
Also, Metro was also quite wasteful getting rid of their 90's Flxible Metros and getting new Gillig Phantoms several years ago. I also liked the 1981 GM New Looks they had, but they were getting old beyond their useful life. I can't count how many times I've seen these Gilligs broken down or being towed by a tow truck. One of my friends almost got in trouble by a Metro rent-a-cop for taking a picture of a broken down Gillig Phantom on Manchester at the Maplewood Metrolink stop last Fall. They asked him to delete the picture, but he didn't and posted it on his blog. I wonder if Metro will consider low floor buses like New Flyer D40LFs or Novabus LFS? Those are much nicer than those Phantoms. However, given with Metro's problems I don't see them getting new buses anytime soon.
[Disclaimer: I can't vote in St Louis County so my opinion carries no weight]
I am against a tax increase in for Metro at this particular point in time. In general I am favor of such a thing, and in the long run I want them to get more money, but right now Metro has done little to convince me that they're fiscally responsible.
I don't believe I've heard from Metro what lessons they've learned from the Cross-County project and their subsequent failure in court.
I don't know how much it costs to put up billboards and wrap entire trains and buses with self-congratulatory "Metro's on the move!" signage, but I wish that money had been put toward operating a transit system.
I am against a tax increase in for Metro at this particular point in time. In general I am favor of such a thing, and in the long run I want them to get more money, but right now Metro has done little to convince me that they're fiscally responsible.
I don't believe I've heard from Metro what lessons they've learned from the Cross-County project and their subsequent failure in court.
I don't know how much it costs to put up billboards and wrap entire trains and buses with self-congratulatory "Metro's on the move!" signage, but I wish that money had been put toward operating a transit system.
Congratulations on a failed transit system St. Louis, if this tax increase doesn't pass then we can kiss metro goodbye. I don't know what it is about this town, why cant we ever do anything right? MoDot spends billions on a unneeded highway widening, while our mismanaged and underfunded metro system is about to cave in. Its crazy how gas is through the roof and we still wont get support for this, because this town is just too divided and behind the curve. Catch up St. Louis!
- 8,907
goat314 wrote:Congratulations on a failed transit system St. Louis, if this tax increase doesn't pass then we can kiss metro goodbye. I don't know what it is about this town, why cant we ever do anything right? MoDot spends billions on a unneeded highway widening, while our mismanaged and underfunded metro system is about to cave in. Its crazy how gas is through the roof and we still wont get support for this, because this town is just too divided and behind the curve. Catch up St. Louis!
Please over react a little more...
Wait a few years and you'll get to see MoDOT squeal like a little pig for more money since they'll have none.goat314 wrote:MoDot spends billions on a unneeded highway widening, while our mismanaged and underfunded metro system is about to cave in.
Moorlander wrote:goat314 wrote:Congratulations on a failed transit system St. Louis, if this tax increase doesn't pass then we can kiss metro goodbye. I don't know what it is about this town, why cant we ever do anything right? MoDot spends billions on a unneeded highway widening, while our mismanaged and underfunded metro system is about to cave in. Its crazy how gas is through the roof and we still wont get support for this, because this town is just too divided and behind the curve. Catch up St. Louis!
Please over react a little more...
What do you know that I don't? Do you think this measure will pass? What do you think will happen if it doesn't? This is just disappointing, metro is a major asset to the region and I just hate the way that it is being handled, but then again what do you expect here.
05.13.2008 11:09 pm
Dooley proposal would benefit Metro, roads
By: Phil Sutin
Both Metro and St. Louis County roads would benefit if voters approve a half-cent increase in the transit sales tax, County Executive Charlie Dooley said Tuesday.
County officials have not definitely set the election date on the proposal, but voters are likely to consider it on Nov. 4. The county council must put the proposal on the ballot.
Under state law, all revenue from the transit tax must go for public transportation. Dooley would use money from an existing half-cent transportation sales tax for the roads part of his proposal.
Here’s how it would work:
> Half the money from the tax increase – initially about $40 million a year – would go to operate Metro. The transit agency would continue to receive revenue from the current one-fourth cent transit sales tax.
> The other half of revenue from the tax increase, also about $40 million a year, would help pay for MetroLink expansion.
> The county each year would adjust the shares of revenue from the transportation sales tax that would go to Metro and to county arterial roads, such as Aubuchon, Baumgartner and Hanley roads. The shares for Metro and arterial roads would vary with the needs of a particular year.
The county estimates that this year about $49.2 million would go to Metro and $32.4 million to arterial roads. In Metro’s fiscal year that begins July 1, Dooley plans to reduce Metro’s share of the transportation tax by about $8 million compared with this year.
The county’s fiscal year starts Jan. 1, complicating budgeting of the transportation sales tax money. If voters approve the transit tax increase, Dooley’s proposal would take effect in Metro’s fiscal year that starts July 1, 2009.
The county no longer can sustain Metro and its arterial roads under current arrangements, Dooley said. Had they continued, Metro would have received in the year starting July 1 about $50 million of the nearly $80 million available in the transportation sales tax, he said. “We can’t afford that any more,” he said.
The county, he said, has an obligation to residents to keep up its roads.
And Garry Earls, the county’s chief operating officer, warned: “we can’t let Metro and roads fail simultaneously.”
Dooley and Earls both noted buses depend on county roads to operate and provide good service.
The half-cent transportation sales tax was one of the few ever imposed without a vote of the people. The Legislature established it in 1973 in St. Louis and St. Louis County when the bus system was in a severe financial crisis. It provided a subsidy to operate the system and helped pay for upgrading the system’s aging buses and other equipment.
St. Louis always has used the revenue from the tax to subsidize Metro. Almost from the beginning, the county split the money between transit and highways. Officials of the Bi-State Development Agency – it then used its official name – asserted in the 1970s that all the county’s revenue from the transportation tax should go for transit. By 1980, Metro clearly lost the argument and use of the tax for roads is a settled issue.
One factor in the 1970s: most bus service was in St. Louis, while the county generated most of the money. Parts of the county, particularly its most western and southern areas, are far from a bus route.
For many years, the county provided no more than twice the subsidy of St. Louis. In 2000, the late county executive changed the formula. The county would provide the same amount as in 2000 with a yearly cost of living adjustment.
Earls, who served in the Westfall administration, said officials then assumed that revenue from the tax would increase at or more than the rate of inflation, keeping the shares of money for transit and roads in balance. But tax revenue grew slowly and Metro’s share increased.
Dooley and Earls said tax increment financing, almost entirely for shopping centers in municipalities, was a major factor. Much of the sales tax revenue generated by the new development helps retire bonds that paid for part of the construction of the shopping centers.
Dooley said the county would have received about $25 million in additional half-cent transportation sales tax money from 2003 through 2007 without a diversion to tax increment financing.
The county needs to improve access to Clayton for the heavy stream of traffic from south St. Louis County, Dooley said. The county would have to improve Hanley and other county roads so they can better handle the traffic, he said.
Recently, Dooley’s administration floated a proposal for using $5 million a year for 10 years from the transportation sales tax. Under that proposal, the money would become available if voters approved transit sales tax increase. The county’s Blue Ribbon Commission received the proposal at a meeting May 6. It will not make recommendations until this summer.
The $50 million would part of the financing for $148.4 million in transportation projects the staff suggests. Among the projects, improvement of Hanley Road at Eager and Manchester roads, the connection of an extension of Highway 141 at Olive Boulevard to an extension of the Maryland Heights Expressway and improvements to the interchange of Dorsett Road and Interstate 270 and the intersection of Charbonier, Howdershell and Shackelford roads.
Dooley persuaded the county council to put the half-cent tax increase on the ballot with the presidential primary in February, but he withdrew the proposal after Metro lost a lawsuit related to building a MetroLink extension from Forest Park to Shrewsbury and Larry Salci, the head of the agency, resigned.
Dooley is looking toward putting the proposal on the November ballot, but said he not made a final decision.
Nationally, transit proposals fare best in presidential elections which draw a very large voter turnout.
Metro declined to comment.
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/politi ... ads/print/
check out this anti-progressive website against metro
stoptheprop.com
Dooley proposal would benefit Metro, roads
By: Phil Sutin
Both Metro and St. Louis County roads would benefit if voters approve a half-cent increase in the transit sales tax, County Executive Charlie Dooley said Tuesday.
County officials have not definitely set the election date on the proposal, but voters are likely to consider it on Nov. 4. The county council must put the proposal on the ballot.
Under state law, all revenue from the transit tax must go for public transportation. Dooley would use money from an existing half-cent transportation sales tax for the roads part of his proposal.
Here’s how it would work:
> Half the money from the tax increase – initially about $40 million a year – would go to operate Metro. The transit agency would continue to receive revenue from the current one-fourth cent transit sales tax.
> The other half of revenue from the tax increase, also about $40 million a year, would help pay for MetroLink expansion.
> The county each year would adjust the shares of revenue from the transportation sales tax that would go to Metro and to county arterial roads, such as Aubuchon, Baumgartner and Hanley roads. The shares for Metro and arterial roads would vary with the needs of a particular year.
The county estimates that this year about $49.2 million would go to Metro and $32.4 million to arterial roads. In Metro’s fiscal year that begins July 1, Dooley plans to reduce Metro’s share of the transportation tax by about $8 million compared with this year.
The county’s fiscal year starts Jan. 1, complicating budgeting of the transportation sales tax money. If voters approve the transit tax increase, Dooley’s proposal would take effect in Metro’s fiscal year that starts July 1, 2009.
The county no longer can sustain Metro and its arterial roads under current arrangements, Dooley said. Had they continued, Metro would have received in the year starting July 1 about $50 million of the nearly $80 million available in the transportation sales tax, he said. “We can’t afford that any more,” he said.
The county, he said, has an obligation to residents to keep up its roads.
And Garry Earls, the county’s chief operating officer, warned: “we can’t let Metro and roads fail simultaneously.”
Dooley and Earls both noted buses depend on county roads to operate and provide good service.
The half-cent transportation sales tax was one of the few ever imposed without a vote of the people. The Legislature established it in 1973 in St. Louis and St. Louis County when the bus system was in a severe financial crisis. It provided a subsidy to operate the system and helped pay for upgrading the system’s aging buses and other equipment.
St. Louis always has used the revenue from the tax to subsidize Metro. Almost from the beginning, the county split the money between transit and highways. Officials of the Bi-State Development Agency – it then used its official name – asserted in the 1970s that all the county’s revenue from the transportation tax should go for transit. By 1980, Metro clearly lost the argument and use of the tax for roads is a settled issue.
One factor in the 1970s: most bus service was in St. Louis, while the county generated most of the money. Parts of the county, particularly its most western and southern areas, are far from a bus route.
For many years, the county provided no more than twice the subsidy of St. Louis. In 2000, the late county executive changed the formula. The county would provide the same amount as in 2000 with a yearly cost of living adjustment.
Earls, who served in the Westfall administration, said officials then assumed that revenue from the tax would increase at or more than the rate of inflation, keeping the shares of money for transit and roads in balance. But tax revenue grew slowly and Metro’s share increased.
Dooley and Earls said tax increment financing, almost entirely for shopping centers in municipalities, was a major factor. Much of the sales tax revenue generated by the new development helps retire bonds that paid for part of the construction of the shopping centers.
Dooley said the county would have received about $25 million in additional half-cent transportation sales tax money from 2003 through 2007 without a diversion to tax increment financing.
The county needs to improve access to Clayton for the heavy stream of traffic from south St. Louis County, Dooley said. The county would have to improve Hanley and other county roads so they can better handle the traffic, he said.
Recently, Dooley’s administration floated a proposal for using $5 million a year for 10 years from the transportation sales tax. Under that proposal, the money would become available if voters approved transit sales tax increase. The county’s Blue Ribbon Commission received the proposal at a meeting May 6. It will not make recommendations until this summer.
The $50 million would part of the financing for $148.4 million in transportation projects the staff suggests. Among the projects, improvement of Hanley Road at Eager and Manchester roads, the connection of an extension of Highway 141 at Olive Boulevard to an extension of the Maryland Heights Expressway and improvements to the interchange of Dorsett Road and Interstate 270 and the intersection of Charbonier, Howdershell and Shackelford roads.
Dooley persuaded the county council to put the half-cent tax increase on the ballot with the presidential primary in February, but he withdrew the proposal after Metro lost a lawsuit related to building a MetroLink extension from Forest Park to Shrewsbury and Larry Salci, the head of the agency, resigned.
Dooley is looking toward putting the proposal on the November ballot, but said he not made a final decision.
Nationally, transit proposals fare best in presidential elections which draw a very large voter turnout.
Metro declined to comment.
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/politi ... ads/print/
check out this anti-progressive website against metro
stoptheprop.com
- 466
goat314 wrote:
check out this anti-progressive website against metro
stoptheprop.com
i don't know what to say about that site except that i would not think it would make an impact on people's vote. the guy is an idiot, but the people on the other side are not much better.
this proposal is a step in the right direction. now what i want to see is a detailed explanation of where the lines will go, how they will be built(if they are going to be like the existing lines, or low floor , along a highway, in an existing ROW etc...) and i want to see it in the post. on a sunday. it also needs to have a chart showing the decrease in funding from the state over the last 20 years( starting from considerably more then the one million dollars it gives now). i think if people saw that, they might understand a bit more where the agency is coming from. is that impossible? i like to think not. the thing that most people don't get is that there is the opportunity for change in the suburbs when these things get built.
Gasoline, milk, and a host of other things have gone up. Now, even beer is going up.
thought that was good. gives you an idea of this guy's seriousness. and man, an extra $78 a year. but if you could hop on a bus, or if this person's suburb was redesigned so that he/she could walk to buy these things, then that $78 a year is chunk change. that is where i think this guy misses the point.
The irony of the website is that many of his complains are related to land use decisions made at the municipal level. If you can't walk to the corner store or the bus stop or train station from his subdivision, that is not Metro's fault, that is the fault of his Mayor, planning board and zoning board. It isn't Metro's fault that Richmond Heights can't figure out how to plan a development with decent transit access.
As for the property tax complaints, it is understandable to penalize the last person in line when everyone has their hand out for money. That said, when those property taxes are increasing, it seems like there are ways to cut back at the local level (including the excessive use of TIF at the muni level which eats away at the tax base) rather than penalizing Metro for being the last in line and as a result killing much needed local infrastructure improvement.
As for the property tax complaints, it is understandable to penalize the last person in line when everyone has their hand out for money. That said, when those property taxes are increasing, it seems like there are ways to cut back at the local level (including the excessive use of TIF at the muni level which eats away at the tax base) rather than penalizing Metro for being the last in line and as a result killing much needed local infrastructure improvement.
I was interested in a comment by one of the loyal forum participants that Metro was attempting to “scare” St.Louis by talking about cutting service. Perhaps some you will have a better understanding of the problems we citizens face if you see the same numbers I am facing.
The FY09 budget, which was to be submitted to the Metro board on May 30, 2008, totaled $221 million before the County informed Metro that they could no longer honor its agreement to adjust Metro’s annual appropriation by a cost of living index. Further County officials explained that they intended to cut Metro’s appropriation from the half cent sales tax by roughly $10 million. (Its $8 million for FY08, but $10 million for FY10.)
The FY08 budget was $214 million. Once the $221 is cut by $8 million, we will have revenue only equal to $213 million--- one million less than FY08. Just weeks before Metro staff was told to cut $6 million to adjust for lower investment income and higher fuel expenses. This is on top of $6 million in cuts identified earlier accommodate normal inflationary pressure.
Some Metro staff recommended a fare increase (passes and a change in two hour pass rules), but not base fares. This, if implemented on July 1st, would generate $4 million in new revenue. We also recommended shifting some federal revenue budged for Metrolink Startup and I-64 mitigation to FY09 rather than FY10. These changes would have covered the initial cut of County funds.
This recommendation was not accepted.
Staff was directed to finalize its “doomsday” service cuts planning cuts for a series of cuts including January 2009, July 2009, and most likely November 2009. To accommodate the $8 million county cut, Metro will have to cut $20 million in January 2009. (You have to cut $16 million in service to save $8 million in the fiscal year. You also have to anticipate a $2 million loss in farebox revenue. Again, you have to anticipate a cut an additional $4 million in service to accommodate the lost farebox revenue in only six months.
What are the shortfalls for FY10 that are so scary?
Revenue Losses or new expenses
$10 million County Cut in 1/2 cent sales tax
$11 million in new bond Principal payments (These were deferred during the startup.)
$8.2 million in lost Metrolink STP startup funds (Provided by East/West)
$2 million in I-64 CMAC cost impact mitigation funds
$1.5 million in MoDot I-64 Ridership incentive funds
$6 million in typical inflationary expenses (like fuel, wages, etc)
$11 million OPEB Retiree Medical Fund Payments
$16 million in diversion of FTA formula capital funds from Operations to Capital budget
Total---$64 million
There are two expenses that the board could elect not to fund. They could elect to keep the $16 million in the operation budget. They could also elect to not fund the $11 OPEB. The new accounting rules recommends that non for profit and government agencies fund retiree medical actuarially each year. If these decisions are made, the shortfall for FY10 is $49 million BEFORE any lost revenue due to cutting service.
In FY08, farebox revenue will be approximately $47 million. The elasticity for lost revenue based upon percentage reduction in revenue miles or hours of service is quite high. Assume a 35 % cut in service. The lost farebox revenue could be as high as 28 %. This means that the lost farebox revenue may be as high as $13.2 million in annual revenue.
Add the $13.2 million to $49 million, and you will get a need to cut $62.1 million.
How much of a cut is that? Today, Illinois service costs $39 million and the SCCDT funds 100% of that cost. That leaves Missouri service costing $179 million today. Since Illinois funds its service, we would really need to cut $62 million out of the $179 million Missouri budget., that leaves a service cost of $117 million in Missouri.
How much revenue does Metro have that it can count on for Missouri?
Assume that Missouri has the following relative stable revenue after bond payments:
$72 million in City and County sales taxes
$26. Million in Missouri Farebox revenue
$1 million in advertising and interest
$11.2 million in Mo’s share of FTA formula capital funds diverted to operating budget
$1.00 million in JARC funding (Federal Reverse Flow funding)
Total: $111.2 million is the maximum revenue we can count on.
So I would estimate that the maximum size transit system that can be funded in Missouri with the funds we provide will be between $111 million and $117 million. This is essentially a cut of 35 % of the system.
What sort of system can you buy for $117 million in Missouri? Today Missouri spends roughly $35 million on Metrolink, $122 million on Metrobus, and $22 million on FTA mandated call a ride. Cutting out $62 million is the equivalent to getting rid of all of Metrolink and all of call A Ride and $5 million of Metrobus.
Bottom line, these revenue and cost pictures are scary and the voting public needs to know exactly what they can purchase for the funds available and what they might purchase for the referendum funds proposed.
The hearings will not be a threat. They will outline the facts and ask for guidance. If the voters say no, they will have seen anticipated system and informed Metro and the elected officials that they do not value the current system or any expansion of the system. If they vote yes, they will have sent a message that Metro is of value to the voter.
A logical question is how did we get into this mess?
The problem was brought on by decisions over 20 years. For example, Gene McNary froze Metro funding in 1986 and began diverting 1/2 cent sales taxes to roads. Second, beginniing in the 1980’s and ending in 1998, the Feds stop funding operating funds directly. While most State’s replaced the lost funds, Missouri did not. (Illinois did) Third, elected officials in 1990 elected to build Cross County with local funds and a not wait until 2003 to request FTA matching funds. (This would have pushed CC off until about 2011 or 2012 for completion.)
The lawsuit has turned out to be a bad decision causing us to spend $27 million on legal bills. This probably accelerated our crisis by nine months or perhaps one year.
Metro’s board and executive director in 1990 agreed to build Metrolink CC when they know there was insufficient operating funds to build it and operate it. The County executive at the time said he would handle that once it was completed. (Unfortunately he died.)
The crisis was postponed through all sorts of efforts. Fare increases , service cuts, selling the assets for foreign bank to reduce taxes on US businesses and helped. We obtained every sort of special JARC and CMAC funding we could to keep going. We cancelled wage increases for two years. We reduced the cost of pensions and retiree medical expenses by cutting benefits (with employee consent). We developed many many cost efficiencies in nearly every department.
However, those techniques only postponed the inevitable crisis.
The sentiment to “hold someone accountable” certainly is understandable. Most of the key Metro employees involved in the key decisions are gone. Salci, Vossmeyer, Steve Knobbe are all gone. Tom Irwin and John O’Leary, key president involved in the decisions above are gone.
Most, if not all, of the board of directors are gone who were involved in the early decisions. Several on the board were involved with the Lawsuit.
So that public can certainly vote no, but they will punish the taxpayer and transit patron. They can vote no saying that the experiment in light rail and modern transit was a mistake. However, its hard to believe that this would be a good decision for many reasons.
So forum participants, keep informing yourself and make your own recommendations how to move forward. Come to the hearings, write your own letters, and use the system while we still can. Finally, it you care, vote.
The FY09 budget, which was to be submitted to the Metro board on May 30, 2008, totaled $221 million before the County informed Metro that they could no longer honor its agreement to adjust Metro’s annual appropriation by a cost of living index. Further County officials explained that they intended to cut Metro’s appropriation from the half cent sales tax by roughly $10 million. (Its $8 million for FY08, but $10 million for FY10.)
The FY08 budget was $214 million. Once the $221 is cut by $8 million, we will have revenue only equal to $213 million--- one million less than FY08. Just weeks before Metro staff was told to cut $6 million to adjust for lower investment income and higher fuel expenses. This is on top of $6 million in cuts identified earlier accommodate normal inflationary pressure.
Some Metro staff recommended a fare increase (passes and a change in two hour pass rules), but not base fares. This, if implemented on July 1st, would generate $4 million in new revenue. We also recommended shifting some federal revenue budged for Metrolink Startup and I-64 mitigation to FY09 rather than FY10. These changes would have covered the initial cut of County funds.
This recommendation was not accepted.
Staff was directed to finalize its “doomsday” service cuts planning cuts for a series of cuts including January 2009, July 2009, and most likely November 2009. To accommodate the $8 million county cut, Metro will have to cut $20 million in January 2009. (You have to cut $16 million in service to save $8 million in the fiscal year. You also have to anticipate a $2 million loss in farebox revenue. Again, you have to anticipate a cut an additional $4 million in service to accommodate the lost farebox revenue in only six months.
What are the shortfalls for FY10 that are so scary?
Revenue Losses or new expenses
$10 million County Cut in 1/2 cent sales tax
$11 million in new bond Principal payments (These were deferred during the startup.)
$8.2 million in lost Metrolink STP startup funds (Provided by East/West)
$2 million in I-64 CMAC cost impact mitigation funds
$1.5 million in MoDot I-64 Ridership incentive funds
$6 million in typical inflationary expenses (like fuel, wages, etc)
$11 million OPEB Retiree Medical Fund Payments
$16 million in diversion of FTA formula capital funds from Operations to Capital budget
Total---$64 million
There are two expenses that the board could elect not to fund. They could elect to keep the $16 million in the operation budget. They could also elect to not fund the $11 OPEB. The new accounting rules recommends that non for profit and government agencies fund retiree medical actuarially each year. If these decisions are made, the shortfall for FY10 is $49 million BEFORE any lost revenue due to cutting service.
In FY08, farebox revenue will be approximately $47 million. The elasticity for lost revenue based upon percentage reduction in revenue miles or hours of service is quite high. Assume a 35 % cut in service. The lost farebox revenue could be as high as 28 %. This means that the lost farebox revenue may be as high as $13.2 million in annual revenue.
Add the $13.2 million to $49 million, and you will get a need to cut $62.1 million.
How much of a cut is that? Today, Illinois service costs $39 million and the SCCDT funds 100% of that cost. That leaves Missouri service costing $179 million today. Since Illinois funds its service, we would really need to cut $62 million out of the $179 million Missouri budget., that leaves a service cost of $117 million in Missouri.
How much revenue does Metro have that it can count on for Missouri?
Assume that Missouri has the following relative stable revenue after bond payments:
$72 million in City and County sales taxes
$26. Million in Missouri Farebox revenue
$1 million in advertising and interest
$11.2 million in Mo’s share of FTA formula capital funds diverted to operating budget
$1.00 million in JARC funding (Federal Reverse Flow funding)
Total: $111.2 million is the maximum revenue we can count on.
So I would estimate that the maximum size transit system that can be funded in Missouri with the funds we provide will be between $111 million and $117 million. This is essentially a cut of 35 % of the system.
What sort of system can you buy for $117 million in Missouri? Today Missouri spends roughly $35 million on Metrolink, $122 million on Metrobus, and $22 million on FTA mandated call a ride. Cutting out $62 million is the equivalent to getting rid of all of Metrolink and all of call A Ride and $5 million of Metrobus.
Bottom line, these revenue and cost pictures are scary and the voting public needs to know exactly what they can purchase for the funds available and what they might purchase for the referendum funds proposed.
The hearings will not be a threat. They will outline the facts and ask for guidance. If the voters say no, they will have seen anticipated system and informed Metro and the elected officials that they do not value the current system or any expansion of the system. If they vote yes, they will have sent a message that Metro is of value to the voter.
A logical question is how did we get into this mess?
The problem was brought on by decisions over 20 years. For example, Gene McNary froze Metro funding in 1986 and began diverting 1/2 cent sales taxes to roads. Second, beginniing in the 1980’s and ending in 1998, the Feds stop funding operating funds directly. While most State’s replaced the lost funds, Missouri did not. (Illinois did) Third, elected officials in 1990 elected to build Cross County with local funds and a not wait until 2003 to request FTA matching funds. (This would have pushed CC off until about 2011 or 2012 for completion.)
The lawsuit has turned out to be a bad decision causing us to spend $27 million on legal bills. This probably accelerated our crisis by nine months or perhaps one year.
Metro’s board and executive director in 1990 agreed to build Metrolink CC when they know there was insufficient operating funds to build it and operate it. The County executive at the time said he would handle that once it was completed. (Unfortunately he died.)
The crisis was postponed through all sorts of efforts. Fare increases , service cuts, selling the assets for foreign bank to reduce taxes on US businesses and helped. We obtained every sort of special JARC and CMAC funding we could to keep going. We cancelled wage increases for two years. We reduced the cost of pensions and retiree medical expenses by cutting benefits (with employee consent). We developed many many cost efficiencies in nearly every department.
However, those techniques only postponed the inevitable crisis.
The sentiment to “hold someone accountable” certainly is understandable. Most of the key Metro employees involved in the key decisions are gone. Salci, Vossmeyer, Steve Knobbe are all gone. Tom Irwin and John O’Leary, key president involved in the decisions above are gone.
Most, if not all, of the board of directors are gone who were involved in the early decisions. Several on the board were involved with the Lawsuit.
So that public can certainly vote no, but they will punish the taxpayer and transit patron. They can vote no saying that the experiment in light rail and modern transit was a mistake. However, its hard to believe that this would be a good decision for many reasons.
So forum participants, keep informing yourself and make your own recommendations how to move forward. Come to the hearings, write your own letters, and use the system while we still can. Finally, it you care, vote.
- 923
So that public can certainly vote no, but they will punish the taxpayer and transit patron. They can vote no saying that the experiment in light rail and modern transit was a mistake. However, its hard to believe that this would be a good decision for many reasons.
This is why the public should not be responsible for control of infrastrcuture. They can't see the bigger picture because of NIMBYism, and will cut off their nose to spite their face.
If metro doesn't get public approval now, it never will. It couldn't have more things going for it:
High(er) gas prices (hey, I pay $5.50 a gallon here, so you all can shut up)
Bad economy
Public hysteria over arabs, oil, and the ever precious environment
But here's the problem - it's yet ANOTHER tax. People think taxes in the states are low, but their not really - and we have an insistence of continuing to raise tax rates while failing to supply a subsequent improvement in services. It's something people have a hard time swallowing if they're making $30,000 a year. People are happy to pay for a service they think is valuable and they'll use, but they won't if they don't think it helps them in any way.
Free public transport? A Metrolink line down Olive and 40? Express buses from Chesterfield Mall? Now we're talking. Until then though, I can't see the public voting for an improvement they won't directly benefit from.
I guess we have to savor public transit while we can.
05.16.2008 11:19 pm
St. Louis transit tax increase is part of St. Louis County transit tax puzzle
By: Phil Sutin
A picket opposing a half-cent increase in the transit sales tax in St. Louis County reminded me on Friday that I overlooked a piece of the proposal’s puzzle – a one-fourth cent increase in the transit sales tax in St. Louis.
With a sign declaring “Metro should move people around, not pass money around” hanging from his neck, Clarence Rowles of North County stood in Friday’s lunch hour at Forsyth Boulevard and Central Avenue in the heart of downtown Clayton. As I listened, he pointed out to a bystander that St. Louis would see a tax increase if the county proposal passed.
The city’s voters approved the tax in November, 1997 by 331 votes out of 38,411 cast. The same election saw 58 percent of 138,751 voters reject the increase in St. Louis County. The city never levied the tax, delaying the increase until county voters approve the same boost.
Metro estimates the St. Louis tax increase would raise about $9.3 million a year, Dianne Williams, a transit agency spokeswoman, said.
It would join three other pieces in County Executive Charlie Dooley’s transit tax increase proposal:
> Half the money from the tax increase – initially about $40 million a year – would go to operate Metro. The transit agency would continue to receive revenue from the current one-fourth cent transit sales tax.
> The other half of revenue from the tax increase, also about $40 million a year, would help pay for MetroLink expansion.
> The county each year would adjust the shares of revenue from a separate half-cent transportation sales tax that would go to Metro and to county arterial roads. The shares for Metro and arterial roads would vary with the needs of a particular year.
County voters are likely to consider the tax increase on Nov. 4.
The total sales tax rate in St. Louis County is as low as 6.075 cents in the unincorporated area. It exceeds 8 percent in shopping centers where a transportation development district levies a tax of as much of 1 percent on top of state, county and municipal sales taxes. St. Louis’s total sales tax is 7.741 percent.
If the half-cent increase passes, a county resident purchasing a vehicle worth $20,000 would pay an additional $100 in sales taxes.
County officials had included the St. Louis tax increase in their planning, Garry Earls, the county’s chief operating officer, said. The city tax revenue would offset additional money the county would take from the transportation sales tax for roads. He did not expect the county to take more than about $10 million a year in additional revenue.
Both St. Louis and St. Louis County levy the half-cent transportation sales tax and the current quarter-cent transit tax that Dooley wants to increase in the county.
St. Louis sends all of its transportation tax revenue – nearly $18 million a year – to Metro.
Earls reiterated that Metro needs a good road system to operate buses. “We have to do the roads first, then the bus system,” he said.
The county official also confirmed that the county has committed more than $15 million to four projects. He said the county may spend money on most of them before a Nov. 4 transit tax vote.
They are:
> $6 million to build a “jughandle” that would move traffic from northbound Hanley Road under Hanley to westbound Eager Road in Brentwood and Richmond Heights.
> $5.1 million as the county’s share of the improvement of the interchange at Interstate 270 and Dorsett Road in Maryland Heights to help move new traffic generated by expansion at the nearby north office complex of the Edward D. Jones company.
> $3 million for land purchases for a connection of extended Highway 141 at Olive Boulevard to an extended Maryland Heights Expressway in Chesterfield.
> $1 million as the county share of the cost of rebuilding the Old Gravois Road Bridge across the Meramec River between Sunset Hills and Fenton. Earls said some of that money may be in in-kind design services rather than cash.
Rowles, the protester, said he doesn’t like the way government spends its money. He explained why he was picketing in Clayton: “It’s easier to defeat a proposal if you stop it before it goes on the ballot.”
05.16.2008 11:19 pm
St. Louis transit tax increase is part of St. Louis County transit tax puzzle
By: Phil Sutin
A picket opposing a half-cent increase in the transit sales tax in St. Louis County reminded me on Friday that I overlooked a piece of the proposal’s puzzle – a one-fourth cent increase in the transit sales tax in St. Louis.
With a sign declaring “Metro should move people around, not pass money around” hanging from his neck, Clarence Rowles of North County stood in Friday’s lunch hour at Forsyth Boulevard and Central Avenue in the heart of downtown Clayton. As I listened, he pointed out to a bystander that St. Louis would see a tax increase if the county proposal passed.
The city’s voters approved the tax in November, 1997 by 331 votes out of 38,411 cast. The same election saw 58 percent of 138,751 voters reject the increase in St. Louis County. The city never levied the tax, delaying the increase until county voters approve the same boost.
Metro estimates the St. Louis tax increase would raise about $9.3 million a year, Dianne Williams, a transit agency spokeswoman, said.
It would join three other pieces in County Executive Charlie Dooley’s transit tax increase proposal:
> Half the money from the tax increase – initially about $40 million a year – would go to operate Metro. The transit agency would continue to receive revenue from the current one-fourth cent transit sales tax.
> The other half of revenue from the tax increase, also about $40 million a year, would help pay for MetroLink expansion.
> The county each year would adjust the shares of revenue from a separate half-cent transportation sales tax that would go to Metro and to county arterial roads. The shares for Metro and arterial roads would vary with the needs of a particular year.
County voters are likely to consider the tax increase on Nov. 4.
The total sales tax rate in St. Louis County is as low as 6.075 cents in the unincorporated area. It exceeds 8 percent in shopping centers where a transportation development district levies a tax of as much of 1 percent on top of state, county and municipal sales taxes. St. Louis’s total sales tax is 7.741 percent.
If the half-cent increase passes, a county resident purchasing a vehicle worth $20,000 would pay an additional $100 in sales taxes.
County officials had included the St. Louis tax increase in their planning, Garry Earls, the county’s chief operating officer, said. The city tax revenue would offset additional money the county would take from the transportation sales tax for roads. He did not expect the county to take more than about $10 million a year in additional revenue.
Both St. Louis and St. Louis County levy the half-cent transportation sales tax and the current quarter-cent transit tax that Dooley wants to increase in the county.
St. Louis sends all of its transportation tax revenue – nearly $18 million a year – to Metro.
Earls reiterated that Metro needs a good road system to operate buses. “We have to do the roads first, then the bus system,” he said.
The county official also confirmed that the county has committed more than $15 million to four projects. He said the county may spend money on most of them before a Nov. 4 transit tax vote.
They are:
> $6 million to build a “jughandle” that would move traffic from northbound Hanley Road under Hanley to westbound Eager Road in Brentwood and Richmond Heights.
> $5.1 million as the county’s share of the improvement of the interchange at Interstate 270 and Dorsett Road in Maryland Heights to help move new traffic generated by expansion at the nearby north office complex of the Edward D. Jones company.
> $3 million for land purchases for a connection of extended Highway 141 at Olive Boulevard to an extended Maryland Heights Expressway in Chesterfield.
> $1 million as the county share of the cost of rebuilding the Old Gravois Road Bridge across the Meramec River between Sunset Hills and Fenton. Earls said some of that money may be in in-kind design services rather than cash.
Rowles, the protester, said he doesn’t like the way government spends its money. He explained why he was picketing in Clayton: “It’s easier to defeat a proposal if you stop it before it goes on the ballot.”
Since it clear that Metro will request board approval to conduct June public hearings on a possible fare increase and slightly later hearings on service cuts, I'd appreciate some input.
First some facts. Only $15 million out of $63 million out of the estimated cost of Metrolink varies directly with the miles and hours of service. Of the $15 million, roughly $ 9 million is a Missouri expense and $6 million is an Illinois expense. Our preliminary cut eliminates around $5 million in direct Metrolink expenses, but some of that is from Illinois so it doesn't help Missouri fully.
$29 million out of the $63 million Metrolink cost is indirect overhead. This includes rail system, dispatch control, driver supervision, heating and cooling of buildings, security, station clearing and repair, etc.
That leaves roughly $19 million for allocated G&A expense to cover things like insurance, payroll, IT, Legal, accounting, planning, scheduling, customer service, senior management, building expense for non operating facilities, etc.
Second, Call a Ride has a budget of $22 million of which 78 % varies directly with the miles and hours of service. That means the the variable part of the Call a Ride budget is $17 million. However, call a ride is a mandated service for the physical area 3/4 mile surrounding the fixed route bus network. Furthermore, the FTA mandates certainly service criteria like you can not "deny" service to ada mandated disabled individuals. You must answer the phones within a minimum period of time and you must offer next day service. As such, the only way to cut call a ride and not put yourself in risk of a civic rights suit by the department of justice is to cut service out of large sections of the service area.
As an example, if we cut bus service back to I-270 on the North and Lindbergh on the south, it appears that we could cut out 20 % of the trips currently provided on Call a Ride. Based upon an assumption that County trips are longer than Call a Ride trips in the urban core, you may be able to assume that Call a Ride could be cut back by roughly 25 % if the fixed route system was cut back that much. That means that you could cut back about $4.2 million from Call a ride in direct expenses. You could eliminate another $700,000 eliminating the Connector routes so say you could but out at most $5 million out of call a ride. There is very little indirect cost and not a huge amount of G&A, but that will be cut overall.
Third, fixed route service costs in Missouri cost $120 million roughly. I forget the exact amount that is direct, but its a much less than Metrolink by percentage.
I think we may cut about $25 million out of the direct expense of Metrobus if we eliminate 100 % of the service outside of I-270 and Lindbergh on the south. The service inside the core would operate generally on Saturday headways. Weekend service would be cut back to either 30 minute, 45 minute or 60 minutes headways. Routes like 17 Oakville, 46 Tesson Ferry, 9 Bates, half of the 59 (west of Brentwood Station) would be cut out all together among other routes. All city expresses would be cut (10X South Grand, 11X Shrewsbury, etc)
So add $5 million for Call A Ride, $5 million for Metrolink and $25 million in Metrobus cuts, we get a total of $35 million in expense cuts.
I need to cut out in total either $53 million, $64 million or possibly $70 million to get a balanced budget depending upon what assumptions are used.
To get to the $53 million ($28 million) I anticipate that we would close on bus garage (or mothball it), shift Metrolink daily operations to the 29th Street facility (Missouri is too small but it would be a better location because we have to maintain our control center and heavy maintenance is only possible at Ewing. We would likely also need to sell the Landing building and spend the money received to build office space and move computer stuff to the Illinois facility and perhaps the Mainshop which would continue to be the call a ride facility.
Implied in this downsizing is a lot of cost reduction, but I don't know if we can get another $28 million.
Security (which on rail is around) $8.5 million would be a likely target for significant cuts. For example, we pay for roughly 40 commissioned police officers (at least) who work for St. Louis City, County and St. Clair to augment our contract guard service.
Anyway, what is your recommendation for cuts both on the service end and infrastructure and overhead?
You could attempt to competitively contract the entire operation. I don't think that this could save much more than 10% at a maximum. So even privatization would require massive cuts to balance the budget.
If you reduced everyones salaries by say 10 % you might save $15 milion. However, that's unlikely since we are already losing people at skill positions like mechanics and electro mechanics where we are up to $4 dollars per hour behind the market. You can't impose the cuts on represented employees. Many of the employees working for metro are contracted employees...all cleaners, many IT, legal staff, elevator and escalator repair workers, most security staff. Its unlikely that we could just tell these groups that we want their employees to take a pay cut.
Metro will be going public later this summer or fall outline the cuts, the reasons and also to show what could be provided to the community if we were able receive funding equal to a 1/2 sales tax. This presentation will also explain who transit is financed and what is required to both sustain and expand the system.
So start giving me your advice.
First some facts. Only $15 million out of $63 million out of the estimated cost of Metrolink varies directly with the miles and hours of service. Of the $15 million, roughly $ 9 million is a Missouri expense and $6 million is an Illinois expense. Our preliminary cut eliminates around $5 million in direct Metrolink expenses, but some of that is from Illinois so it doesn't help Missouri fully.
$29 million out of the $63 million Metrolink cost is indirect overhead. This includes rail system, dispatch control, driver supervision, heating and cooling of buildings, security, station clearing and repair, etc.
That leaves roughly $19 million for allocated G&A expense to cover things like insurance, payroll, IT, Legal, accounting, planning, scheduling, customer service, senior management, building expense for non operating facilities, etc.
Second, Call a Ride has a budget of $22 million of which 78 % varies directly with the miles and hours of service. That means the the variable part of the Call a Ride budget is $17 million. However, call a ride is a mandated service for the physical area 3/4 mile surrounding the fixed route bus network. Furthermore, the FTA mandates certainly service criteria like you can not "deny" service to ada mandated disabled individuals. You must answer the phones within a minimum period of time and you must offer next day service. As such, the only way to cut call a ride and not put yourself in risk of a civic rights suit by the department of justice is to cut service out of large sections of the service area.
As an example, if we cut bus service back to I-270 on the North and Lindbergh on the south, it appears that we could cut out 20 % of the trips currently provided on Call a Ride. Based upon an assumption that County trips are longer than Call a Ride trips in the urban core, you may be able to assume that Call a Ride could be cut back by roughly 25 % if the fixed route system was cut back that much. That means that you could cut back about $4.2 million from Call a ride in direct expenses. You could eliminate another $700,000 eliminating the Connector routes so say you could but out at most $5 million out of call a ride. There is very little indirect cost and not a huge amount of G&A, but that will be cut overall.
Third, fixed route service costs in Missouri cost $120 million roughly. I forget the exact amount that is direct, but its a much less than Metrolink by percentage.
I think we may cut about $25 million out of the direct expense of Metrobus if we eliminate 100 % of the service outside of I-270 and Lindbergh on the south. The service inside the core would operate generally on Saturday headways. Weekend service would be cut back to either 30 minute, 45 minute or 60 minutes headways. Routes like 17 Oakville, 46 Tesson Ferry, 9 Bates, half of the 59 (west of Brentwood Station) would be cut out all together among other routes. All city expresses would be cut (10X South Grand, 11X Shrewsbury, etc)
So add $5 million for Call A Ride, $5 million for Metrolink and $25 million in Metrobus cuts, we get a total of $35 million in expense cuts.
I need to cut out in total either $53 million, $64 million or possibly $70 million to get a balanced budget depending upon what assumptions are used.
To get to the $53 million ($28 million) I anticipate that we would close on bus garage (or mothball it), shift Metrolink daily operations to the 29th Street facility (Missouri is too small but it would be a better location because we have to maintain our control center and heavy maintenance is only possible at Ewing. We would likely also need to sell the Landing building and spend the money received to build office space and move computer stuff to the Illinois facility and perhaps the Mainshop which would continue to be the call a ride facility.
Implied in this downsizing is a lot of cost reduction, but I don't know if we can get another $28 million.
Security (which on rail is around) $8.5 million would be a likely target for significant cuts. For example, we pay for roughly 40 commissioned police officers (at least) who work for St. Louis City, County and St. Clair to augment our contract guard service.
Anyway, what is your recommendation for cuts both on the service end and infrastructure and overhead?
You could attempt to competitively contract the entire operation. I don't think that this could save much more than 10% at a maximum. So even privatization would require massive cuts to balance the budget.
If you reduced everyones salaries by say 10 % you might save $15 milion. However, that's unlikely since we are already losing people at skill positions like mechanics and electro mechanics where we are up to $4 dollars per hour behind the market. You can't impose the cuts on represented employees. Many of the employees working for metro are contracted employees...all cleaners, many IT, legal staff, elevator and escalator repair workers, most security staff. Its unlikely that we could just tell these groups that we want their employees to take a pay cut.
Metro will be going public later this summer or fall outline the cuts, the reasons and also to show what could be provided to the community if we were able receive funding equal to a 1/2 sales tax. This presentation will also explain who transit is financed and what is required to both sustain and expand the system.
So start giving me your advice.
As long as fuel costs are high, increase fares.
I'm toying with the idea of driving to work again or maybe biking -- the buses I can take are becoming overcrowded.
I'm toying with the idea of driving to work again or maybe biking -- the buses I can take are becoming overcrowded.
Since I've been called "anti-progressive" and "an idiot" it's time to respond. First of all, contrary to what you may believe, I am not opposed to public transit, or even to Metro as an organization. I wasn't even one of those people crying to have Larry Salci burned at the stake. To make it simple:
What I support: An efficient, usable transit system to serve those parts of our metropolitan area which are designed to be efficiently served.
What I oppose: Dumping money into providing lightly used transit services to areas which are designed exclusively for cars.
Lest you think this means I am "automobile-centric" let me clarify that too: I think any expansion of commuter highways, including the Page Extension and 370, should be paid for by the local governments which the highways will serve. And I wouldn't have done the "New I-64" program either. The constant expansion of commuter highways is simply a subsidy of stupidity.
Unfortunately, and contrary to what Bikin' Man said, there isn't an opportunity for change in the suburbs. The built environment - endless thousands of homes in subdivisions which can't possibly be served by any form of transit - won't change just because you run a rail line down a few arterials. Municipal land use decisions have already been made, and a couple of "transit oriented developments" in the middle of a sea of subdivisions doesn't justify bankrupting your transit system to provide service.
Some of you speak of "no bus service outside 270 except for a few express lines" as though it was the end of the world. In fact, it is the way things ought to be. Those who choose to live in sparsely populated areas, in single-entrance subdivisions that are a mile deep, should not expect bus service. If people in Chesterfield are hurting because they can't afford gas for their Hummers, they can move to Clayton. Business that choose to locate in far west county shouldn't expect us to subsidize the cost of transporting their workforce to them - let 'em pay for their own buses, or pay Metro to run a line to them.
Finally, Dooley's "we'll put some money in Metro, and shift other money to roads" solution makes a bad proposal worse. Maryland Heights is drowning in casino money, and will be the beneficiary in many ways of the Edward Jones expansion, but they're getting $5 million to improve the Dorsett-270 interchange. He wants $6 million so people can more quickly get to the Brentwood Target. And $3 million so people in Chesterfield can get to Harrah's more quickly. Meanwhile, north county doesn't get a dime. And if you don't think we need it, look at the idiotic "ramps" we use to access westbound 270 between 170 and West Florissant.
What I support: An efficient, usable transit system to serve those parts of our metropolitan area which are designed to be efficiently served.
What I oppose: Dumping money into providing lightly used transit services to areas which are designed exclusively for cars.
Lest you think this means I am "automobile-centric" let me clarify that too: I think any expansion of commuter highways, including the Page Extension and 370, should be paid for by the local governments which the highways will serve. And I wouldn't have done the "New I-64" program either. The constant expansion of commuter highways is simply a subsidy of stupidity.
Unfortunately, and contrary to what Bikin' Man said, there isn't an opportunity for change in the suburbs. The built environment - endless thousands of homes in subdivisions which can't possibly be served by any form of transit - won't change just because you run a rail line down a few arterials. Municipal land use decisions have already been made, and a couple of "transit oriented developments" in the middle of a sea of subdivisions doesn't justify bankrupting your transit system to provide service.
Some of you speak of "no bus service outside 270 except for a few express lines" as though it was the end of the world. In fact, it is the way things ought to be. Those who choose to live in sparsely populated areas, in single-entrance subdivisions that are a mile deep, should not expect bus service. If people in Chesterfield are hurting because they can't afford gas for their Hummers, they can move to Clayton. Business that choose to locate in far west county shouldn't expect us to subsidize the cost of transporting their workforce to them - let 'em pay for their own buses, or pay Metro to run a line to them.
Finally, Dooley's "we'll put some money in Metro, and shift other money to roads" solution makes a bad proposal worse. Maryland Heights is drowning in casino money, and will be the beneficiary in many ways of the Edward Jones expansion, but they're getting $5 million to improve the Dorsett-270 interchange. He wants $6 million so people can more quickly get to the Brentwood Target. And $3 million so people in Chesterfield can get to Harrah's more quickly. Meanwhile, north county doesn't get a dime. And if you don't think we need it, look at the idiotic "ramps" we use to access westbound 270 between 170 and West Florissant.
- 466
i'm going to have to disagree there. you want to have a well funded efficient transit system in our region, but since there have been some mistakes made in the past, you just accept defeat and that is that. well, where i live now that sort of thing has happened in the suburbs. 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. do they, no. but they can. and they weren't able to a few years ago. i also work in a suburban office park area, but there is a free shuttle that works like the one downtown that takes people around the DTC. there is also a huge network of park and ride lots, over a hundred or so, that take people to light rail stations. it's a good system for far flung areas that you speak of. most people use this for work, but since these people don't have to drive to work, that is significantly less use on their cars, there for less gas. so in other words, yes, we can have a good bus system in an area that is designed for cars. but money is needed for this, and if metro does not get the money, your hopes of having an efficient transit system is gone.
nkasoff wrote:Since I've been called "anti-progressive" and "an idiot" it's time to respond. First of all, contrary to what you may believe, I am not opposed to public transit, or even to Metro as an organization. I wasn't even one of those people crying to have Larry Salci burned at the stake. To make it simple:
What I support: An efficient, usable transit system to serve those parts of our metropolitan area which are designed to be efficiently served.
What I oppose: Dumping money into providing lightly used transit services to areas which are designed exclusively for cars.
Lest you think this means I am "automobile-centric" let me clarify that too: I think any expansion of commuter highways, including the Page Extension and 370, should be paid for by the local governments which the highways will serve. And I wouldn't have done the "New I-64" program either. The constant expansion of commuter highways is simply a subsidy of stupidity.
Unfortunately, and contrary to what Bikin' Man said, there isn't an opportunity for change in the suburbs. The built environment - endless thousands of homes in subdivisions which can't possibly be served by any form of transit - won't change just because you run a rail line down a few arterials. Municipal land use decisions have already been made, and a couple of "transit oriented developments" in the middle of a sea of subdivisions doesn't justify bankrupting your transit system to provide service.
Some of you speak of "no bus service outside 270 except for a few express lines" as though it was the end of the world. In fact, it is the way things ought to be. Those who choose to live in sparsely populated areas, in single-entrance subdivisions that are a mile deep, should not expect bus service. If people in Chesterfield are hurting because they can't afford gas for their Hummers, they can move to Clayton. Business that choose to locate in far west county shouldn't expect us to subsidize the cost of transporting their workforce to them - let 'em pay for their own buses, or pay Metro to run a line to them.
Finally, Dooley's "we'll put some money in Metro, and shift other money to roads" solution makes a bad proposal worse. Maryland Heights is drowning in casino money, and will be the beneficiary in many ways of the Edward Jones expansion, but they're getting $5 million to improve the Dorsett-270 interchange. He wants $6 million so people can more quickly get to the Brentwood Target. And $3 million so people in Chesterfield can get to Harrah's more quickly. Meanwhile, north county doesn't get a dime. And if you don't think we need it, look at the idiotic "ramps" we use to access westbound 270 between 170 and West Florissant.
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
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?