From the EWG Online chat today about the new Long Range Plan...Metro is projecting to be $1.2 billion short on maintaining the current system during the length of the new LRP....so that to me is pretty much the nail in the coffin for any light rail expansion...
Feds wont approve fed funds for expansion if you cant show that you can maintain what you have

^ Yes, hard to predict that far into the future, but it looks like most of the nations transportation infrastructure (much less transit) is woefully underfunded and is approaching a fiscal cliff that doesn't look too good for maintenance or expansion. I imagine major light rail expansions around the country will likely not be moving forward unless the feds step in sooner or later and start helping with operations (like they used to). I doubt that we will ever get any help from the state funding transit unless some federal laws are changed that force states to allocated a certain amount for transit or give MPOs more autonomy in regards to transportation funding/planning.

Nov 2016 will be a big for future of transit...its the GOP takes the WH, dont expect much federal help .

^ I think CMT-STL has a funding study that will be released soon, it will be interesting to see what strategies they will come up with. I wonder if something like a N-S line could be built if the citizens along the line decided to tax themselves for the benefit. I read somewhere that some cities have even used TIF to help fund transit. I'm sure there are some creative ways this could get done, its just a matter of leadership, vision, and determination. Unfortunately, three things missing in most high public offices in this area.

^ yearly its 14% of metros overall budget....so its not pennies.

^ I agree, it seems like they are presenting the model from a rather defeatist point of view. At are current levels of funding we will have a $1.2B budget deficit over 30 years, so we will not expand or improve are transit system over the next 30 years....next page....we plan to spend billions on highway expansions in cornfields even though are region is not really expected to grow that much. Reading documents like this really make me feel pessimistic about the transportation/land use future of our region. It just doesn't seem like enough of our region is moving in the right direction, comparing our "future" plans to other cities is really quite embarrassing. I also don't understand how St. Louis funds metro at the local level at a one of the highest rates in the country, yet other cities are building like crazy. Conservative cities in states like Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, EVEN UTAH are seeing significant transit investment, why is Missouri so far behind in this regard?

I know that MoDOT has balked that EWG including any expansion projects in the time frames, they don't have the $ for it. Look at the EWG post dispatch chat from today, the question from Wesley is from MoDOTs planning manager.

http://news.live.stltoday.com/Event/Giv ... Theme=4123

^ seems like most of the questions were directly related to transit expansion (specifically Metrolink). I just find it sad that other cities can find the money, yet we have been consistently approving transit taxes locally and have some of the highest local transit taxes in the country, yet we cant find a way?

I encourge you all to show up between 4:30-6:30 PM tonight for the EWG Long Range Plan public comment forum...Metro, MoDOT, and EWG staff will be there to answer questions....

its at the Maryland Heights Community Center.

goat314 wrote:^ seems like most of the questions were directly related to transit expansion (specifically Metrolink). I just find it sad that other cities can find the money, yet we have been consistently approving transit taxes locally and have some of the highest local transit taxes in the country, yet we cant find a way?

How much dose metro spend on pensions? I wonder if that uses up a lot of there funds.

The city Needs to find a way to expand metro-link on its own. With out help from stl county. Will never see the county make a huge push for it in out life times due to the political climate there. The city should probably work to build a N/S street car system instead. STL city needs to make stands on its own and quite waiting for things to just happen.
Also I think the reason I our region keeps building highways is a lot of the voters want them to make it easer to white flight.

roger wyoming II wrote:^ I believe the two public meetings planned for this are out in Maryland Hts. and Collinsville. Very accessible places for transit users!

EWG represents the entire region from Jefferson County to Madison to St.Charles...they tend to hold these in the middle of their region.
than im sure the space availability is also factor and if its free or not.




Get on Metrolink downtown at 3pm get off at Rock Road Station, transfer to bus 33 to AMELING RD @ MCKELVEY RD get off the bus and walk .02 of a mile to the community center and you will be there at 4:15 with 15 min to spare...

or get on the metrolink central west end at 3:30 and repeat the same steps and be there at 4:25

goat314 wrote:^ I agree, it seems like they are presenting the model from a rather defeatist point of view. At are current levels of funding we will have a $1.2B budget deficit over 30 years, so we will not expand or improve are transit system over the next 30 years....next page....we plan to spend billions on highway expansions in cornfields even though are region is not really expected to grow that much. Reading documents like this really make me feel pessimistic about the transportation/land use future of our region. It just doesn't seem like enough of our region is moving in the right direction, comparing our "future" plans to other cities is really quite embarrassing. I also don't understand how St. Louis funds metro at the local level at a one of the highest rates in the country, yet other cities are building like crazy. Conservative cities in states like Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, EVEN UTAH are seeing significant transit investment, why is Missouri so far behind in this regard?

It helps if your cities are growing.

I do wonder at times if the state legislators really want the cities to grow. Since that would be in the long term be detrimental to their political power since all of those states mentioned with the possible exception of Utah (which is an outlier for things) will be more politically liberal than Missouri in the near future if not already. Attracting urban development and growth in population (especially of outsiders, doubly so for non-whites and immigrants) would erode at their power base long-term. It seems they want to make it more like Mississippi instead of Texas, North Carolina, or Georgia for that reason. Might be cynical but there is a connection between political views and urban development.

not sure if you guys are correct on the House side of things...urban areas (those with 50,000+ population) have nearly 3.9 million of the 6 million people in the state...so the urban areas have more reps in the House then rural.

Columbia Area Transportation Study Organization, Columbia Missouri 150K
East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, St Louis Missouri 2M
Joplin Area Transportation Study Organization, Joplin Missouri 60K
Mid-America Regional Council, Kansas City Missouri 1M
Springfield Area Transportation Study Organization, Springfield Missouri 500K
St Joseph Area Transportation Study Organization, St Joseph Missouri 80K
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, Jefferson City Missouri 55K
Southeast Metropolitan Planning Organization, Cape Girardeau Missouri 55K

Take out the SEMO, Jeff City, St.Joe, Joplin and the 4 major ones are still at about 3.65Million out of 6.

there is a correlation between population density and political leaning too. metro areas aren't a good indicator since many are of lower suburban density or even rural areas in them. Also don't forget gerrymandering too.

^ those areas may be technically "urban", but that doesn't mean they think urban. I would say people actually concerned with "urban" issues in Missouri make up about 10% of the the totally population of the state. The fact that we cant even get Kansas City to work with us on major issues that would benefit both areas is CRAZY.

With that said, I agree that a thriving urban area would kill some of these loony outstate politics. An extra million or so urban Missourians would be the death kneel for far right wing politics in MO and would probably put the state firmly in the blue column especially if the influx is diverse and happens in St. Louis. Missouri at this point doesnt even function as a moderate state, it has stepped over into looneyville and its part of the tea party agenda.

Have you seen the federal government lately? Looneyville tea party agenda is what passes for moderate in the US nowadays.