Couldn't a lot be raised by selling bonds? Si the sales tax for transportation going to include mass transit, or will it be pretty much highway oriented?
^ Always remember that bonds are functionally no different than loans. They both must be paid back eventually. Bonds are what got Metro in financial trouble in 2008 after the Cross County project went way over budget. To complete the extension, they had to bond more than they could support. This is what is getting MoDOT into trouble. They saw (and may still see) bonds as free revenue, but they will soon have to pay the piper as evidenced by them shouting poverty and requesting the 1% sales tax. Yes, declining gas tax revenue is a contributing factor, but MoDOT has to a large degree dug their own hole.
^ Don't forget that Metro/County/City decided to go it alone on Cross County Extension without any Federal or State matches if not mistaken, $600 million dollars in bonds or as mill204 correctly points out a borrowed amount that has to be paid back by local tax and fair box revenues. That financial decision almost bankrupted Metro itself and things were getting ugly until Prop A was passed.
It can be whatever the region decides, east west gateway (probably the most powerful org that 95% of the people don't know about) will decide on the final list of projects for the st.louis 4 county+city region.Eastward wrote:Couldn't a lot be raised by selling bonds? Si the sales tax for transportation going to include mass transit, or will it be pretty much highway oriented?
Don't forget that Metro also lost 10s of millions of dollars when they filed a frivolous lawsuit against the design team for the extension's cost overruns. They lost the suit and the judgement came down against them in the countersuit. They basically gambled away millions in taxpayer money.
Metro leadership from that time has been removed, but I'm not sure the current leadership is much better.
Metro leadership from that time has been removed, but I'm not sure the current leadership is much better.
Lol, don't be silly. Of course they don't. They are hurting for money....againGateway City wrote:Doesn't MetroLink have ANY money saved up for this?
- 8,155
They don't even have the money to do a bare-bones brt-ish express bus service w/o federal small starts funding. Which is a stupid plan to begin with. Frustrating as heck.
EDIT: I also believe a lot of the increased funds from Prop A went to pay off some of those bonds or otherwise solidify their financial position, but has not allowed for expansion as promised. Can anyone provide a good overview of what happened?
EDIT: I also believe a lot of the increased funds from Prop A went to pay off some of those bonds or otherwise solidify their financial position, but has not allowed for expansion as promised. Can anyone provide a good overview of what happened?
roger wyoming II wrote:They don't even have the money to do a bare-bones brt-ish express bus service w/o federal small starts funding. Which is a stupid plan to begin with. Frustrating as heck.
EDIT: I also believe a lot of the increased funds from Prop A went to pay off some of those bonds or otherwise solidify their financial position, but has not allowed for expansion as promised. Can anyone provide a good overview of what happened?
Source (PDF document)Funding for Missouri transit projects comes from St. Louis County, the City of St. Louis, and the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT). The City of St. Louis and St. Louis County collect revenue from Prop A, ½ cent and Prop M ¼ cent local sales taxes. Prop A in St. Louis County is an additional ½ cent and in the City of St. Louis it is an additional ¼ cent.
The ½ cent sales tax initiated in June 1973 when the Missouri Legislature passed the Transportation Sales Tax Act allowing the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County to levy a ½ cent for public transportation. The original legislation was to terminate on December 31, 1975. The collection period was extended several times before additional legislation removed the sunset provision in 2000.
The Prop M ¼ cent sales tax was passed by voters in August 1994. The measure passed with greater than 60 percent of the vote in both the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County.
Following the success of this vote, there were two additional Prop M sales tax issues placed on the ballot in the decade that followed. A proposed Prop M ¼ cent sales tax in November 1997 failed in St. Louis County, but passed in the City of St. Louis. However, the sales tax could not be enacted in either municipality unless both jurisdictions had passed the vote. So no sales tax was able to be collected from the City of St. Louis.
Another proposed Prop M ½ cent sales tax in November 2008 failed to pass in the City and County, each receiving approximately 40% support. Without the additional funds this sales tax would have provided; Metro Transit was forced to make operational service cuts.
Following the service cuts in 2009, another proposition was put on the ballot in St. Louis County only. Proposition A, a ½ cent sales tax, passed with greater than 60% of the vote on April 6, 2013. With the passage of Prop A in the County, the Prop M ¼ cent sales tax which had been passed by City of St. Louis voters in 1997 was now able to be levied. This City of St. Louis ¼ cent sales tax is referred to as Prop M2, while the County collections resulting from the April 2010 vote are referred to as Prop A funds. Although Prop A funds allowed Metro Transit to restore service, it has not been a panacea for all of Metro’s financial challenges.
St Louis County appropriates all of their receipts from the Prop M ¼ cent sales tax to Metro Transit. St. Louis County splits revenue collected from the ½ cent sales tax between Metro and County road and bridge projects. Approximately 60% of Prop A funds are appropriated to Metro for transit service and local match for capital projects. The remaining 40% St. Louis County retains and is planned to be used for future public transportation expansion projects. The City of St. Louis appropriates virtually all of its revenues from the ¼ cent, ½ cent and Prop A ¼ cent sales tax to Metro Transit.
Two percent of the appropriations to Metro from the 1973 ½ cent sales tax must be used for transportation for developmentally disadvantaged persons. These funds are forwarded to the Developmental Disabilities Board in the City or St. Louis and the Product Living Board in St. Louis County. The balance is retained by Metro to fund operating expenses and local match for capital projects related to transit services in Missouri.
MoDOT provides Metro with limited operating and FTA discretionary capital assistance. The State of Missouri operating assistance to Metro was also reduced a number of years ago as a budget balancing measure and is less than $200,000 today.
-RBB
From the same financial report:
-RBBThe Agency went to the bond market July 1, 2013 to restructure its debt. With the restructuring of these bonds, several primary objectives were met. The bonds were restructured to achieve ratings in the double-A category from both Moody’s Investors Service and Standard and Poor’s as a means to lower the Agency’s current and future borrowing costs. With the elimination of variable and short-term debt obligations, Bi-State Development replaced short-term risk of market challenges with long-term fixed rate instruments. All new bond issuance was restructured onto the same lien tier and Metro will begin to amortize the original Series 2005 Cross-County Completion Bonds. The restructuring took advantage of historically low rates to affordably extend the final amortization on the 2013 Bonds. The engthening of the life of the bonds to 39 years was to protect Agency operational funding by reducing annual debt service costs.
This restructuring also incorporated the availability of the County loan to reduce the Agency’s borrowing costs. The County loan significantly improved the cost of borrowing. The debt is structured with short calls on the long debt permitting the Agency to retire costlier long-dated debt with lower-cost County loan proceeds each year. Restructuring the debt also allows the Agency to return $18 million of Federal funding to the capital program. The federal funding was used to temporarily cash fund the debt service reserve fund for the 2002 bonds required because of the downgrade of Assured Guaranty (formerly Financial Security Assurance Corporation) to AA+ status.
An effective cost of funds of 4.44 percent does not include the effects of the $75 million County loan. When including the effects of the County loan, an effective cost of funds is 3.68%. The settlement of this offering on August 1 will mark the end of a very long and challenging period for the Agency, dating back to the onset of the global credit crisis at the end of 2007.
Am I reading this correctly? St. Louis County gives half of the Prop A tax to roads and bridges rather than actual public transit, then sets aside 40% of that half left for transit for that rainy day when a project it deems worth its while falls in front of them? Meaning Metro can actually only use 30% of the tax collected?
^ Not quite.
1973 1/2¢ sales tax - half goes to Metro, half goes to county roads
1994 1/4¢ Prop M - all goes to Metro
2010 1/2¢ Prop A - 60% goes to Metro, 40% saved for major expansion projects
Summary of full 1% of transportation sales taxes:
64% goes to Metro
16% saved for future Metro expansion
20% goes to county roads.
I've got my own summary of the various sales tax initiatives:
A History of Transit Sales Tax Initiatives: St. Louis County - Gateway Streets
1973 1/2¢ sales tax - half goes to Metro, half goes to county roads
1994 1/4¢ Prop M - all goes to Metro
2010 1/2¢ Prop A - 60% goes to Metro, 40% saved for major expansion projects
Summary of full 1% of transportation sales taxes:
64% goes to Metro
16% saved for future Metro expansion
20% goes to county roads.
I've got my own summary of the various sales tax initiatives:
A History of Transit Sales Tax Initiatives: St. Louis County - Gateway Streets
If E-W Gateway has a head on their shoulders they will make the City and County work together to build the full N-S Metrolink line. Yes, I'm talking North 270 to South 270. That's the most reasonable solution to expansion that would satisfy both City and County residents, leaders of all demographics.
I'm also baffled that nobody has thought to use the Cross County Metro as our local match. I believe Houston did something like this a few years back to build a light rail extension. Does anybody know the feasibility of that? If that's the case we could potentially have $600 million as a local match not including the state and federal funding. Maybe we could build a Westport and N-S line (city only) line with that type of money.
I'm also baffled that nobody has thought to use the Cross County Metro as our local match. I believe Houston did something like this a few years back to build a light rail extension. Does anybody know the feasibility of that? If that's the case we could potentially have $600 million as a local match not including the state and federal funding. Maybe we could build a Westport and N-S line (city only) line with that type of money.
^ The biggest impediment to using Cross County as a local match is that the region never performed a Environmental Impact Study for the project. Houston did. Of course, anything is possible when it comes to politics.
idiotsmill204 wrote:^ The biggest impediment to using Cross County as a local match is that the region never performed a Environmental Impact Study for the project. Houston did. Of course, anything is possible when it comes to politics.
- 1,792
Maybe a stupid question , but can they do it now...? I mean its not like it really made the environment worse right? Unless you county poorly planned development around the stations which seem to be purposfully refraining from building anything remotely transit oriented for fear of being construed as a success.^ The biggest impediment to using Cross County as a local match is that the region never performed a Environmental Impact Study for the project. Houston did. Of course, anything is possible when it comes to politics.
Thanks, that makes me feel a little better, anyway. Anybody know how much they've managed to save for expansion projects so far?mill204 wrote:^ Not quite.
1973 1/2¢ sales tax - half goes to Metro, half goes to county roads
1994 1/4¢ Prop M - all goes to Metro
2010 1/2¢ Prop A - 60% goes to Metro, 40% saved for major expansion projects
Summary of full 1% of transportation sales taxes:
64% goes to Metro
16% saved for future Metro expansion
20% goes to county roads.
I've got my own summary of the various sales tax initiatives:
A History of Transit Sales Tax Initiatives: St. Louis County - Gateway Streets
^I assume enough to build a pointless BRT line on a highway. So not much.
- 388
Is it important for us to have BRT ? I would rather see them further focus on Metro link but i know the cost is enormous... What about the Street car is that apart of Metro's plan?
^Metro has done studies, surveys, etc., etc. and seems to think that BRT is what the people want. Personally, I agree with you and think BRT is a waste of money (at least in regards to Metro's proposed use of it). I think they're building it for the sake of doing something. It seems to me like they've gotten their funds from the public, and feel obligated to build anything to make it look like they're progressing.
They've acknowledges the streetcar proposals but have nothing in their long-range plan.
They've acknowledges the streetcar proposals but have nothing in their long-range plan.
I've never heard this. Every survey I've seen says that people want more light rail (specifically the N-S Metrolink line), BRT is usually far, far down on any survey list I've seen. Then again I'm sure Metro has their own "unique" ways to falsify surveys.pat wrote:^Metro has done studies, surveys, etc., etc. and seems to think that BRT is what the people want. Personally, I agree with you and think BRT is a waste of money (at least in regards to Metro's proposed use of it). I think they're building it for the sake of doing something. It seems to me like they've gotten their funds from the public, and feel obligated to build anything to make it look like they're progressing.
They've acknowledges the streetcar proposals but have nothing in their long-range plan.
I agree with you. Metro has convinced itself BRT is the way to go for some reason or another.
- 933
I'm not riding a BRT. I saw that survey, too, and BRT was at the bottom of the list of the public's desires for transit in STL. The N-S line was the #1 choice by a landslide. That line needs to start construction, like, this week...Hah, I wish.
I may be off, but I don't see many county residents riding a bus to the city-even a fancy, dressed up one. Is part of the intention, say on 40, for low skilled workers to be able to get from the city to jobs in the county? That would make a little more sense, but with there being only a few stops on the route, that wouldn't work either.
For any county service, it needs to be akin to the current Metro Link. The first priority should be the N/S streetcar in the city IMO. I believe that would do the most good in not only serving the purpose of getting riders to and fro, but also spur TOD along the line. Don't ever forget the psychological factor at play with trains vs. buses either.
Obviously, Metro can't build a train or streetcar on every line, so I think BRT has a place. There are several lines here in LA, some of which run on the highways with stops just like a train stop and some of them run on the city streets. The recently upgrade Wilshire line is quite nice and seems to work pretty well.
https://www.google.com/search?q=LA+BRT& ... e&tbm=isch
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2013/09/w ... update.php
I think the plan for something like this on Grand is sufficient for now. It reduces costs significantly and could always be upgraded down the line. I was pretty blown away though when I read how much it cost to paint a few lines on the street-I can't recall the number, but it was in the millions just for the paint and signs according to the source I had read.
For any county service, it needs to be akin to the current Metro Link. The first priority should be the N/S streetcar in the city IMO. I believe that would do the most good in not only serving the purpose of getting riders to and fro, but also spur TOD along the line. Don't ever forget the psychological factor at play with trains vs. buses either.
Obviously, Metro can't build a train or streetcar on every line, so I think BRT has a place. There are several lines here in LA, some of which run on the highways with stops just like a train stop and some of them run on the city streets. The recently upgrade Wilshire line is quite nice and seems to work pretty well.
https://www.google.com/search?q=LA+BRT& ... e&tbm=isch
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2013/09/w ... update.php
I think the plan for something like this on Grand is sufficient for now. It reduces costs significantly and could always be upgraded down the line. I was pretty blown away though when I read how much it cost to paint a few lines on the street-I can't recall the number, but it was in the millions just for the paint and signs according to the source I had read.
- 1,792
I get so tired of that arguement. Fundamentally the differences in transit option are...Don't ever forget the psychological factor at play with trains vs. buses either.
...intermixed in traffic or seperate from traffic, and distance/time between stops. The shorter the time and distance the more it become intracity transit instead of intercity transit. The other diffence between them that should be balanced is the cost to build vs. the cost to maintain. Rail is more expensive to build but theoretically lasts longer, I don't dispute that.
Any other argument I've heard such as 'rail indicates permanence so spurs more development', or 'people psychologically prefer rail over buses', are hand waving arguments at best. As you said the BRT in LA are nice and successful. I know personally that the ones in Las Vegas are popular. The LRT system in Miami is stigmatized by nearby residents. My friend from Ft. Lauderdale told me I was the first person he's met that has ever ridden it. His word for it was "sketchy".
In fact everytime someone says streetcar and then argues it needs its own ROW, I automatically think, you mean LRT. Streetcars share the road with cars, LRT has its own ROW. When they put BRT stops 2 miles apart as they have suggested with the BRT to Chesterfield it becomes more like the bus equivalent of a commuter rail route than LRT.
A nice article sort of clarifying LRT vs. Streetcars
http://www.humantransit.org/2010/03/str ... rence.html
A solid article on bus vs. rail
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011 ... -and-rail/
I'm not saying we should be building BRT next and I know LRT and streetcars have a certain sex appeal to average urbanist but I'd bet if they designed a BRT system that was comfortable, clean affordable, AND fast, going from where you are now to where you want to go, you would ride it.