urbanSTL

OK, I saw some of the math on this thread and I couldn't resist adding to it. I've always been curious how much money the Metro system keeps in the St. Louis area by reducing the amount of gas we as a community use (assuming almost all of that gas money would have gone to refineries/drilling operations far far away). Does anybody know how many passenger-miles Metro logs daily? I couldn't find that info, but according to Wikipedia the system carried about 150,000 passengers daily in FY 2007. If you assume that the average trip is 5 miles and that without Metro each person would drive their own car that gets 20 miles per gallon at $2.50 per gallon, you get:

150,000 x 5 miles x (1 gallon / 20 miles) x ($2.50 dollars / gallon) ~ $95,000

So that's about $95k that stays in St. Louis every day because people didn't have to drive cars. That works out to about $34 million annually. Obviously there were a lot of estimations/assumptions in that calculation and it neglects any money that Metro has to spend on gas (which I'm sure isn't negligible), but I thought that number was interesting. I'm curious if things like this are included in the studies on Metro's economic impact.

In light of this afternoon's shooting at the Wellston station parking lot, does this have a prayer?

Remember when you were a kid in grade school and the teacher would say "Everyone be quiet or there will be a pop quiz and no recess!" And then that stupid kid everyone hated would say something stupid and then everyone would suffer the consquence?

Well that's an important lesson in life. Now a measure that had somewhat of a chance to pass and give our mass transit the funding it so desperately needed is all but dead because a couple of thugs had to make life miserable for the rest of us. Do I still hope it passes and will still tell everyone county voter I know to vote for it? Of course I will. But I am feeling really deflated in light of this incident. We all know people vote on emotion and opponents will use this to sat "SEE METRO IS DANGEROUS!!" and the mass of people who never use it will believe it and vote it down.

Sorry to be a debbie downer but....damn.

I find it disgusting that The Post-Dispatch jumped on this story as if it had something to do with Metrolink. The Post-Dispatch is such a sensational paper for all the wrong things!
Do I think it will pass?
I don't know! I really don't know about this area any more!
We have the Post-Dispatch giving anti-transit radicals like John Burns editorials, but rarely put light on the facts.
Hopefully the low voter turn-out will work to the progressive benefit. There will be a lot of organizations, unions, and businesses rallying their troops for support (Which really didn't happen last time), but the Tea Party element is also alive and well!

The opposition is just loud. I highly doubt they have as much public support as their presence on the post-dispatch website suggests.

I'm fully expecting Prop A to pass, even after this incident.

Hope your right goat314, If their is a group in St. Louis that needs to vote yes on Prop A it is the construction trades. They have been hit hard and transit construction is much more labor intensive then laying down pavement. Now if I can just convince you, Metro and East West Gateway Council that extending the current metrolink lines would win more political support then building new right now. However, that day has long passed.

Just listened to KMOX's debate on Prop A between Cheterfield Mayor John Nations and Tom Sullivan of StopTheProp.com. I thought Nations did a good job in representing the issue and debunked much of the crap that Sullivan brought up. If you're interested in listening to the debate, it can be found online here:

I am still divided on this, not sure if I will vote yes or no, this time. Today the lame E911 sales tax increase came into effect today...ugh!

I am in favor of public transportation and I study transit agencies around the country. There are other ways to fund Metro. I still don't understand why they can't use some of the outrageously high property taxes for Metro's funding? My property taxes has almost doubled in 5 years and no one likes tax increases, even little ones.

I have to admit, as a retail business owner, I cringe every time the sales tax goes up. I'm afraid it's gonna hit 10% in the City pretty soon. That's a very intimidating level, especially when customers know its cheaper in the County.

Framer wrote:I have to admit, as a retail business owner, I cringe every time the sales tax goes up. I'm afraid it's gonna hit 10% in the City pretty soon. That's a very intimidating level, especially when customers know its cheaper in the County.

That's a reasonable concern that is completely irrelevant since Prop A is a county tax.

lukethedrifter wrote:

Framer wrote:I have to admit, as a retail business owner, I cringe every time the sales tax goes up. I'm afraid it's gonna hit 10% in the City pretty soon. That's a very intimidating level, especially when customers know its cheaper in the County.

That's a reasonable concern that is completely irrelevant since Prop A is a county tax.

There is a quarter of a cent sales tax in the city that will trigger if Prop A passes. Dining out in the city and paying the sales tax is already quite high. That nightmare corridor called Brentwood/Maplewood will see see their sales tax increase to almost 9.5%!!!

10-intuition wrote:

lukethedrifter wrote:

Framer wrote:I have to admit, as a retail business owner, I cringe every time the sales tax goes up. I'm afraid it's gonna hit 10% in the City pretty soon. That's a very intimidating level, especially when customers know its cheaper in the County.

That's a reasonable concern that is completely irrelevant since Prop A is a county tax.

There is a quarter of a cent sales tax in the city that will trigger if Prop A passes. Dining out in the city and paying the sales tax is already quite high. That nightmare corridor called Brentwood/Maplewood will see see their sales tax increase to almost 9.5%!!!

An informed citizen would know that. Thanks.

I look at in another way. I will vote yes on Prop A for two reasons. First, I do want to see a quality transit system and that is what it is going to take since any financial structure would be years away even if a decent consensus could be established.

Second, I would rather see operational items such as transit funded locally rather on the state level let alone the Federal level. In other words, I see this as a dedicated revenue stream to a dedicated service instead of depending on a yearly state appropriations. I know its not a popular belief on this blog, but Missouri on the state level has a manageable budget crisis without having to raise taxes or lay off hundreds of state patrolmen because it doesn't fund everything under the sun, including Metro. I would much rather have that then Illinois.

I'm not big on the sales tax either. But I think there is one positive to it when countering arguments from those opposed to Metro in general.

Watch the theme that unfolds whenever the P-D runs a Metro article, no matter how tangential it may be to funding. Commentors say that people (or more often, "the thugs") should pay their way, and the posters shouldn't have to pay for someone else's transportation. In the same breath, they'll say that a sales tax is regressive. So they basically say that a sales tax benefits the transit-dependent, but it places too much of a burden on the transit dependent (who are more often than not poor) as well.

I've found it to be very successful to point out that a sales tax does place a higher burden on the individuals who tend to rely on transit and is actually more fair than say, a property or income tax. On top of that, those who ride pay a fare each time too.

I'd still like to see another long-term solution, but from a public perspective, the sales tax can make for a good argument.

So what do you guys think?
Will it pass?
or will it fail?
I will be absolutely crushed if this fails. It will make St. Louis look horrible on a national scale, our transit system will be a shell, it will be another few years before they try again, other cities will instantly be years a head of us, people will lose their jobs. I just feel like so much can go wrong.
I feel like there is a very selfish anti-tax/anti-urban element in St. Louis County that looks like it can easily defeat this proposal. Does anyone have polls? I remember last time the polls said the tax would pass, it was defeated!
A critical part of the regions future depends on this tax. Let's hope the naysayers don't win!

bprop wrote:I'd still like to see another long-term solution, but from a public perspective, the sales tax can make for a good argument.

I agree that it does make for a good argument, but I must say I *hate* the whole "Add A Sales Tax" mentality in this area (state-wide?) I'm so tired of every tax authority dipping into the sales-tax honeypot and nickel-and-diming me every time I buy a winter coat or a tube of toothpaste. An earlier poster pointed out that in some areas (TDD especially) the sales tax will be closing in on 10%.

Personally, I think this Metro funding should be covered by a gas tax. But that's just MHO, I have no idea how feasible that is.

I read a Ray Hartmann op-ed article somewhere recently (St. Louis Magazine? RFT? Can't remember...) in which he argued that Missouri is shooting itself in the foot by insisting on being a "Low Tax State" and I think that's absolutely true. IMHO state taxes should cover at least most of what Prop A's funds. I know I know, the outstate hicks would never in a million years go for that - for some reason in order to do anything in this state, we have to get the folks in Carthage (or wherever) on board. I think it all evens out .... OUR state taxes pay for widening Hwy QQ in B-F-E as well as paying for Metro. <end pie-in-the-sky>

I do hope Prop A passes, but this endless string of add-other-sales-tax stuff has to stop.

I do agree that (while still supporting Prop A) sales tax is not the most optimal, however, I don't think Gas taxes are the best answer. You see by funding transit through gas taxes, the only way Metro can increase revenue is by having people buy more gas, and drive more cars. I know property taxes are pretty high but I think they would be the best option because personally and I know probably other people would be willing to pay a extra on a house to live close to Metrolink. just my 2 cents.

PeterXCV wrote:I do agree that (while still supporting Prop A) sales tax is not the most optimal, however, I don't think Gas taxes are the best answer. You see by funding transit through gas taxes, the only way Metro can increase revenue is by having people buy more gas, and drive more cars. I know property taxes are pretty high but I think they would be the best option because personally and I know probably other people would be willing to pay a extra on a house to live close to Metrolink. just my 2 cents.

You don't necessarily have to raise gas taxes. If you want, you can divert some of the gas tax revenue towards transit and spend a bit less building highways that no one drives on.

But, to me, raising gas taxes is a fine solution. If we consider traffic and air pollution to be bad things, then we should make the people who create them pay for them (through a higher gas tax). If you don't want to pay the tax, don't drive as much. Live closer to work. Or (gasp!) take MetroLink. And in that case, don't worry about Metro. They'd get get even more money from your fare than they'd would get from the hiked gas tax.