urbanSTL

stlpcsolutions wrote:I agree southside, but, to say that a minority of the population of St. Louis, or Missouri, are smokers is not very true. Missouri has one of the largest smoking percentages of any state in the Union. It is about 27 in Missouri according to a 2000 CDC report, thats not very small.

Last time I checked, 27 percent was a minority . . .

I was actually in Clayton last night and I thought the progress was coming along quite well....much less orange barrells than last time I was there, which was about a month ago...I work at the airport as well, maybe I'll take my lunch break the day it opens and just ride around all the new areas!!! I can't wait for the expansion to be done, its gonna rock!

I find it funny that smokers would quit smoking because of how the money is spent from the taxes on their cigarettes, but not because of the threat of lung cancer, etc.

MetroLink IS NOT a commuter rail and yet the routes are being designed as one. Isn't the use of light rail to increase the ease of movement around the region, primarily in the central core area?

MetroLink is not being designed as commuter rail. Perhaps, such a claim could be alleged to a limited degree against the St. Clair extension, but clearly not the overall system.



A commuter rail line generally links outlying origins with park'n'ride facilities to a central employment center as its common destination. However, MetroLink connects multiple employment centers and various destinations along the entire system. Plus, the system has strong bus connections at nearly every station, in addition to dispersed park'n'ride stations.



If your definition of the "central core area" is from the Arch to the Innerbelt, then Cross County completes light-rail service within such area. However, if you define the core as within the I-270 beltway, then there are still many more possible light-rail corridors to consider, including north and south of Downtown, north and south of Clayton, as well as east and west from Clayton to West County. Of these, I personally think the north-south connection across the City, as well as the west connection beyond Clayton to West County are those corridors most lacking in light-rail service, even post-Cross County.



While the current and committed (plus Cross County) system has park'n'ride connections on 70 (N. Hanley), 40 (Brentwood), 44 (Shrewsbury) and 64 (St. Clair), we still lack connections to 55 (South County), 270 (West County and North County each), and 255/270 (Madison County). Of course, such park'n'ride stations are more likely key origins, instead of destinations. As for key destinations, Downtown, major league sports venues, Clayton, Lambert, BJC, WashU, UMSL, SWIC and Scott AFB are already served by existing and committed lines. However, Westport, Flo Valley CC, SIUE, Missouri Botanical Garden, and South County Mall are just a few examples of possible additional destinations that could be added with future extensions.



In summary, a system of stations serving both origins and destinations makes for fuller trains in each direction. A mix of stations, combined with bus connections, creates a system that has other functions than commuter rail.

southslider your the man! That is if your a man, but if your a woman, your the woman!



I am so grateful that you share your expertise as much as is allowed and help us to see greater system possibilities. I agree that the core is more within I-270 these days and can realistically be built up as more urban with those boundaries.



Kirkwood has already began the task, and I imagine they and Webster Groves would appreciate a dedicated Metro line that could terminate at Meremac Community College (but it might have to skip West County mall). I only hope our state and region could get on the bandwagon and start clamoring for more Metro and be willing to foot the bill, especially when gas rises.

Why should it matter if St. Louis's border is extended? Everybody helps pay for metro through state and federal taxes, why shouln't they reap some of the rewards?



P.S. - I'm an advocate of city-county merger. I would also like to see the city's boundries extended, but I wouldn't forfiet my strong support for Metrolink because of it.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that merger. The boundaries of the City have been fixed for over 100 years and that probably won't be changing anytime soon. Most municipalities boardering the City are doing pretty well right now and really have no incentive to merge. The City's Schools, local income taxes and bloated government need to improve before there is any chance of any mergers.



We are all one region. Building a restaurant in Maplewood doesn't make you a traitor to the cause. And neither does patronizing such establishments.

School districts are independent entities from munipalities. The City could re-enter the County (the most likely scenario), annex areas of the County, or even merge into a single, metropolitan City-County (the least likely). But none of these scenarios would require modification of the St. Louis Public School District.



As for the munipalities along the City's edge "doing well," all of them struggle for tax base. There are reasons why Clayton and Richmond Heights, despite each having strong tax base (though the former in property and the latter in sales), for considering a merger. Likewise, Maplewood was desperate for Maplewood Commons. And all the cities north of University City and unincorporated areas south of Shrewsbury have certainly seen better days in appreciating land values.



Anyway, back to the topic at hand. What "merger" is maybe needed for MetroLink is perhaps a single tax district covering both the City and County. Right now, the City gives all of a transportation purpose sales tax to Metro, as well as an additional transit-specific quarter-cent sales tax. Meanwhile, the County diverts much of its transportation sales tax to highways, despite Bi-State being the ones to have gotten the legislation passed, and its added transit-specific quarter-cent sales tax is now exhausted for debt-financing of the Cross County extension. If having a combined tax district (different state enabling legislation), then Metro wouldn't have faced the problem of the City passing an added sales tax in 1997, that never went into effect, because the County did not pass it as well.



Overall, it's in the County's hands as to what Metro's future will be. The State of Missouri has already shown that it won't increase its pithy one-million a year contribution (that Metro more than pays back), and voters rejected Prop B, a statewide transportation tax levy that included a dedicated stream to transit, as well as highway expansion projects. Thus, if it's all local funding for Metro's future, the County is where the cards are being played.



Even if not wanting a merged tax district with the City, the County still has various choices in funding Metro operations:

A) Have the original transportation sales tax go fully to transit, thus no new taxes, but County-sponsored road projects would take a hit

B) Revisit the vote on the quarter-cent sales tax levy that the City passed but never went into effect, since needing passage in both

C) Expand Metro's dedicated local stream by tapping other sources than current general sales taxes, like hotels, gambling, developer impact fees, etc.



If nothing happens, about 18 months after Cross County opens, there will be fewer trains and fewer buses operating, meaning longer waits for passengers, and then fewer patrons willing to take transit, and less mileage and fleet to qualify for government grants, and then more deficits forcing further cuts-- a vicious cycle.



But MetroLink did not cause Metro's deficit. Lost federal funding, and Missouri not making up the difference, as other states have, is the single greatest cause for Metro's financial problems. If anything, MetroLink helped win local supporters at a time when the City and County had to step up, when Missouri did not. But with federal support still on the decline and state support (at least this side of the river) absent, it's now up to the County to decide what it wants in the future for transit. The City has already supported every tax increase and given fully of dedicated revenues. And while the County still gives more in total dollars, the City routes have better fare recovery due to more riders per mile, requiring less subsidy. So then, both the City and County need to be at the table, but if the County is not willing, Metro's future will certainly be bleak.

Man, that was sort of depressing to read. Realize that we need a major politcal action committee in the state to take on Jeff City and demand that our transit become a higher priority.

Sslider, when was this transporation sales tax in the City/county passed? I'm under the impression that it was long before Prop M came to voters in the late 90s. Also, it's unlikely that the County will stop funding highway projects with that tax as they are gung ho towards rebuilding Hanley Rd into the poor man's I-170. Total cost of that project from I-64 to Laclede Stn? only around $54 million. Of course Brentwood Blvd in front of the Galleria still looks like a war zone.



Also, in Rahns speech yesterday to the legislature he proposed taking the sales tax now paid by contractors for road projects and diverting it to railroads, transit, river terminals and airports. I don't know how much would go towards transit, but it's a start. Hopefully outstaters will realize the importance transit has towards the economic engine of Misssouri, but they would probably rather build another 4 lane road to connect the booming metropolis of Poplar Bluff to Willow Spring or something like that.

A quarter-cent transit-specific sales tax levy passed in 1994, but failed in 1997. Though barely passing in the City in 1997, the measure needed to also pass in the County to go into effect. A rationale often cited as to why the first levy passed, but not the second, was changing public acceptance of MetroLink expansion. In 1994, MetroLink had just opened (1993) and everyone was excited about expansion. But come 1997, routes were more publicly shared, and perhaps, support was then lost in the details (which lines would go first, cost-benefits, etc.) as well as a more organized anti-tax opposition of Wendell Cox types.



In 1973, long before any MetroLink, however, then-Bi-State got the State of Missouri to authorize the City and County to enact a one-half cent sales tax for transportation purposes. Lobbied by Bi-State, the tax was intended to go to transit, but the County has long withheld over half of the receipts for highway and bridge projects on County-maintained roads. Granted, the County still contributes nearly double the receipts that the City does, but the City still gives all of its proceeds from this tax to Metro.



Today, the half-cent tax goes to Metro operations, while the quarter-cent tax goes to debt-financing of Cross County construction. But when the 1997 vote failed in the County, the State only allowed voters to decide on upto a one-half cent tax in total (the 1994 passed quarter-cent plus the added 1997 failed quarter-cent). However, now, the State has authorized upto a full-cent tax. Thus, voters could decide anywhere between an additional quarter-cent (which would only need to be reconsidered in the County where it failed in 1997) upto three-quarters cent additional tax.



Given Metro's financial situation, an added quarter-cent levy would only sustain committed operations. Thus, a half-cent levy would provide both for sustained operations and conservative expansion. But if folks want to be serious about MetroLink expansion, honestly, a full-cent tax via a three-quarters cent levy is needed. But are City and County voters willing to double the current portion of their sales taxes going to Metro?



Obviously, if the County would actually give all currrent tax receipts from eligible sources to Metro, and/or the State actually provide more funding like every other state with major transit systems, then the local burden could be reduced. But if going it alone, and the County not wishing to cut into current road budgets, then it appears only a hefty sales tax levy could pay for system expansion.

I vote we promote Southslider from senior member to master expert! I'm curious what the federal contributions are? Not just the one time allocations, but are there recurring revenues? Also, what about a specific portion of the gas tax being earmarked for mass transit (sorry if this was covered in another post)?

According to Xing's post here http://www.urbanstlouis.com/urbanstl/vi ... php?t=1941 federal revenue accounted for 9% of Metro's budget in 2004. Metro's financial problem is coming to a head. Soon they will not even be able to afford the local match (20%) even if more federal funds come their way.

I do not think that Kit Bond or Jim Talent really care about the City of St. Louis, since they are all rural politicians. Maybe if McCaskill wins, we could get her to do something like that.

Jim Talent is from Des Peres, which is obviously not rural. Bond is from Mexico, which isn't really rural. Besides, the guy was a two term governor and has been a senator since '86. He has been pretty good to St. Louis and Kansas City. McCaskill grew up in Rolla, Lebanon and Houston (MO). If any of those three is RURAL its her.