For those members of this forum who are supportive new funding for Metro may wish to write a letter to his/her State Representative, State Senator, or the Governor to encourage them to support Metro's and St. Louis County's request for $20 million for Metro to close the gap in the Fy08 budget.



With the impending I-64 reconstruction, it would be sad to see a major reduction in Metrolink and Metrobus service within the next year. This funding would be one time request and would permit the Agency to to bridge the budget until St. Louis County voters can make a decision on the Prop M 1/4th cent sales tax.



Evidently the decision to include the funding or not will be made within the next few days next week.



A summary of the budget issues are included on Metro's website home page under Important Information.

Thanks. I wrote letters to my rep and senators.



Just an aside. This jogged my memory. Would you mind suggesting to Metro to either (a) post documents in web page format vs. pdf, when possible? It's frustrating to click through a web site and have so many links have to launch Adobe Reader or (b) make it more obvious by putting (.pdf) next to a link that is not text/html? PDF can be nice for print-ready documents but most links on Metro's website are not necessary to print for an average user. Thanks.

I stopped by my representative's office since the senators had already left. The assistant to my rep was actually knowledgeable on urban sprawl, infrastructure constraints, and need to expand and maintain Metro. However, he is a dem and in the minority.

s for the funding Metro seeks from the state, I will argue that Metro is going about this the wrong way. They should be working with the KC and Springfield folks to get dedicated transit funding from the state. This whole begging for one year until the locals get to vote on a tax increase is short sighted. If you are going to all the time and expense of wooing state represenatives, then go for broke and try to get the funding that over the long term will support Metro the most.

Your suggestion to seek permanent funding from the State would be great. However, I do not think we have time for this at the moment. Obtaining statewide funding would require coming up with a program involving all of the other transit folk like you mentioned. It may also require involving MDOT since MDoT is going to need money at some time in the future.



In discussing any sort of State funding, there seems to be some bi-partisan willingness to consider this one time grant since its related to the I-64 and bridges us to a local vote. A permanent funding program would take a different approach in my opinion.



Additionally, $20 million from the State (if permanent) would help, but would not actually provide sufficient funding. Its hard to believe that the State would provide $50 million each year plus escalation. That's what we need. The $20 million is a stop gap but doesn't solve the problem.



We will know in very short order if the State will put this request into the budget. If they do not, the future looks bleak. We may have one final method off bridging the gap, but would probably have to be ready to cut service by Jan 2008 (when MDOT closes I-64 west of I-170).



A reasonable solution would be to pass the 1/4th Prop M to solve operating revenue issues. Then it might make sense to seek a combined MDOT-Transit plan for "capital" local share funding to support major expansion programs. This could come a little later than November 2007.



Reportedly, and unfortunately, there are people actively attempting to stop the State from funding the $20 million and who will actively oppose the 1/4th cent tax also.



Anyone willing to make a guess on who is involved in this effort?

Metro has been aware of its funding problem for many years. When I returned for my second tour of duty at Metro in 2001, the budget director showed me a graph of our revenue and costs. It was clear then that our revenue was not growing at the same rate of our costs and we were balancing the budget with one time solutions year after year.



In 1997 the County and City placed the 2nd 1/4 cent sales tax on the ballot. It passed in the city but failed in the County.



In 2001, Tom Irwin (ED at the time) worked very hard with the other transit properties to place a statewide transit funding referendum on the ballot. He worked for several years on this initiate. By May 2001, it was clear that the State legislature was not going to put this initiative on the ballot. That resulted to the 2001 service cut (11%) and fare increase.



Several years later, MDOT and the Statewide transit properties placed a MDOT and Transit initiative on the ballot, but this initiative failed across the state. I think this was something like a 1/4 cent tax, but Metro would have received at most $20 million. A 1/4 cent sales tax in St.Louis City and County would generate around $50 million so perhaps it was good that this failed.



Buzz Westfall said that he would help in getting local funding for Metro once Cross County was constructed. Unfortunately he died. The current county executive also said that he will help with a referendum but did not want the initiative on the ballot while he was running for re-election in Nov. 2006.



Metro has been aware that it has a major problem once we committed to building Cross County. That did not cause the problem, but made it worse.



When I came to Metro originally in 1986, we had financial crisis every year because the county had frozen our appropriation at approximately $32 million from around 1987 through approximately 1997 or 1998. That is through Republican and Democratic administrations. Irwin, working with the County Executive and County Council was able to eliminate the freeze in the late 1990's.



It is not true that Metro has chosen not to try to work out State funding. We have also tried, almost every year, to begin to bump up the current $3 million State funding program (Metro gets $1 million.) Working with the other systems, we have tried an incremental approach to just get small increases on a annual basis. (I have assisted with this myself.)



To get a statewide program will require a Governor who wants to start this sort of program. That's working on to be sure. However, this year, we need this emergency funding and to pass our local funding. I'm not sure that this one time appropriation is possible when the State clearly has addition revenue. The line of people seeking that money is long. The Governor wants more tax cuts. He seeks more education funding. Transit is sort of a new thing for this state.



Since Salci has been here our focus has been in attempting to earn the respect and support of the community to pass a local tax. We have accomplished a lot in my opinion. See the Metro pdf explaining the reason for the one time State request. The efforts with Wash U and another special fare arrangement with another major medical facility are designed to broaden our base of business partners. Quite frankly, I have not seen such a turn around in cost control, service quality, service efficiency, and ridership for an agency without a solid funding base in my 31 years in business. We have more to do, but its very hard to accomplish when your cutting your budget every single year.



The Shrewsbury extension delay and budget overrun were devastating to our public image. However, the operation and initial results are highly positive.



If you look at the funding for Transit in Missouri, there is a long history of no major state funding. We are going succeed or fail based upon local initiatives. I don't think you will see much change on a statewide basis unless someone runs for Governor based upon a platform of transit as part of the statewide budget.

When will there be any announcement on the CCC case?

It is scheduled to go to trial in August. (Referendum is supposed to be November.) There are lots of rumors about the case, but I don't have any reliable information.

What about a 1/2 cent?

Its possible. However, Metro can't just put it on the ballot unless we go the petition route. The County Council or the City Council may place the initiative on the ballot by a vote. Anyone else must get petitions signed.



If we go to a 1/2 cent, it brings the City back into the picture since the legislation reportedly requires that both the City and County pass the same tax. The count could put a 1/4th cent on the ballot but the City doesn't have to have a vote on the 1/4th cent tax since it already passed in the city.



If you go to a 1/2 cent tax, I believe that the City would have to put an additional 1/4th cent on the ballot for the County to be able to collect the 1/2 cent tax.



I have heard that the city doesn't want to put an additional tax on the ballot this time. I heard that the only way that the city would agree to a 1/2 cent is if the County would agree that the city could move forward with the North/South Street car. I can't image that the County would agree to that.(I don't know if any of this is true, but you hear these sorts of rumors.)



I heard that the County had originally done a poll that suggested that the 1/2 cent tax wasn't feasible. I understand the reason for seeking a 1/2 tax but we don't have a community concensus on what to do with that money.

Matt Blunt everybody! What a guy! Kicks mentally ill people out on the street, vetos funding for the most important public transportation system in the state, kicks puppies and eats babies! Your Missouri governor! What a guy!!!!!

migueltejada wrote:Matt Blunt everybody! What a guy! Kicks mentally ill people out on the street, vetos funding for the most important public transportation system in the state, kicks puppies and eats babies! Your Missouri governor! What a guy!!!!!

SOOOO typical...

If you want to see Metrolink and the Metro system expanded in your lifetimes, now is the time to e-mail your senators, reps, and the governor. Most senators as well as the governor have a web contact form; I had to e-mail my rep. Two minutes of your time and some copy/paste to each might mean the difference. Do it right now if you're ever going to.



Think of what will happen if funding doesn't happen: the area will deal with the I-64 project, but Metro will -- for many years -- be thought of as the agency that didn't "step to the plate" when they were needed. It doesn't matter in most people's minds that Metro needs funding to operate; they view it as the government with a blank check. Why don't "they" put Metrolink down I-64, they ask. "They" doesn't refer to MoDOT; it refers to Metro. Whey don't "THEY" provide later service? Again, Metro; not the voters, not the state legislature.... Why don't THEY provide more Call-A-Ride to seniors? Why don't THEY run more trains to the ballgame?



So for better or worse, any ills that come from a lack of funding will not only limit Metro, but be blamed on them if we don't step to the plate ourselves and make our voices heard: first to the state congress to show overwhelming support when it reaches the governor's desk; and then to the governor himself.



Writing an angry letter after the governor vetos the bill will do nothing; the only time the letters matter is right now!

While I am no fan of Governor Blunt, he is a hardline fiscal conservative, and I do appreciate him standing by his beliefs. He told us when he was up for election that he would cut the budget, and make this state more fiscally responsible, and so far he's done that. We may not like what he's cut, but that's why they hold elections ever few years, to vote those out who you don't want in.



Blunt is not a bad guy, he's done some very good things for Missouri, but I'd like to see this state support for Metro go through.

Is there any indication that a 1/4 or 1/2 cent tax increase would even pass if it went to the ballot? Metro's biggest problem is not necessarily where its funding comes from. If it were actually a profitable institution maybe it wouldnt have these problems. but the fact that metro loses money every year is a matter of great concern.

s there any indication that a 1/4 or 1/2 cent tax increase would even pass if it went to the ballot? Metro's biggest problem is not necessarily where its funding comes from. If it were actually a profitable institution maybe it wouldnt have these problems. but the fact that metro loses money every year is a matter of great concern.

No indication yet that any tax would pass. No one wants to increase taxes for anything.



There is not a single transit system in North America that is profitable.



A classic private business would need to generate revenues from its customers which meet or exceed its costs. In a private business, costs would also include depreciation (capital costs). Are you aware of anywhere in the world that public transit meets this standard?



Metro balances its revenues with operating costs every year. Its required to do that by law. It can't file bankruptcy.



Participants of this forum daily express a desire for more and more service. More rail infrastructure, more bus service, better marketing, more technology. We demand new facilities but we don't meet the operating cost obligations.



It is not disturbing that Metro does not cover its costs with farebox revenue. What is disturbing is that our community is willing to invest in more capital infrastructure, but not the tax revenue to make up the difference between farebox revenue and the operating costs. We can't withstand $30 million in lost subsidies (FTA operating assistance and Missouri State subsidies) and lost inflationary growth in the local sales taxes and make that up without cuts and increased fares. People perceive that Metro must have mismanaged something to get into this state. Well Metro has managed this revenue losses and will manage even more problems, but we are not going to like the system it leaves.



If the community wished to live with the revenues we currently have today, we will need to reduce total operating costs by something like $50 million plus lost farebox revenue. We will need to size that total revenue grows at roughly 3% and costs grow at 3 %. Start suggesting what we cut. I'm working several scenarios now that the community will get to provide input. None of these are pretty. All will permanently damage the core system and perhaps make the system irrelevant to the riders, taxpayers, business. If you like transit, better start moving to some other city if this happens.



For those who think Metro has mismanaged it all, fine. Fire every single management person involved and hire someone you like better. But the community will still have to face the problem that the current system infrastructure can not be sustained with the current revenue.

sorry if i came off as harsh on metro. im in love with the thing and wish it as much success as possible. when i ride the link its always full (although i only ride from u city to downtown when i go to baseball and hockey games.) but it doesnt sustain that kind of ridership year round. what i think is interesting is that ive seen some ambitious proposals for more track extensions when we're still trying to figure out the current funding

busdad, you may want to encourage metrolink operators to open doors on the correct side of the train, lest you inadvertently and permanently lose some potential supporters.



This morning, the driver opened the wrong set of doors and was ready to continue his journey before snapping back from oblivion from the yells and screams of the passengers.

Can you give me the time, station and direction?



That sort of thing must be dealt with specifically with the operator involved.

I know that metro is going to made definalty cuts that had to be made but you can it would be good save the forest park shutte route a few others with real high fares for three months give more people more time to find other jobes because one driver told me the most primary can't afford monthly bus passes so they can't afford cabs to give these more time to find other options the majorty riders are quite young