urbanSTL

I read that somewhere between 30-40 states have laws banning the use of the gas tax for urban transit. I doubt a state like Missouri (or most other states) would incorporate transit into their DOT. America is so anti-transit that it would take an act of congress to hold funding from state DOT that didn't have comprehensive transportation plans (that included transit). There is no way in hell that is going to happen either! America's urban transit/zoning/development will always be far behind the rest of the developed world.

^Yea, we just voted for the "No Diversion" bill a few years ago. The concrete and construction lobby has way too much sway to let the citizens revert it.

^ Exactly, I thought that short of reversing a 2004 state constitutional amendment the gas tax is a non-issue.

goat314 wrote:why doesn't St. Louis County and St. Louis City vote on transit together?

City voters approved their half of this tax proposal some time ago. To pass, it needs to be approved by both City and County voters. It failed once in the County, now they're trying again.

Framer wrote:

goat314 wrote:why doesn't St. Louis County and St. Louis City vote on transit together?

City voters approved their half of this tax proposal some time ago. To pass, it needs to be approved by both City and County voters. It failed once in the County, now they're trying again.

I know that.....I was asking why St. Louis County and St. Louis City vote on transit on a separate ballot? A lot of cities work as a TDD, which doesn't emphasize passage in a particular county/city but on a district wide decision. For example, If St. Louis City passes the measure 75% to 25& and St. Louis County doesn't pass the measure at 48% to 52%, the initiative still passes because the city votes make the difference. I guess its more of a regional approach and now I guess I know why we don't do it that way.

Actually, I think the gas tax should be raised just to support the highway and bridge system as it stands now. Better yet, tax per mile driven, with a larger rate for trucks who do far more damage, which is more inline with a user rate.

What gets me is that transit users and supporters are willing to fund what they need where as politicians and auto users alike who want more lane miles (Hwy 141 as an example of commuters wishes and politicians dream development corridor) won't raise the gas tax that has stayed the same since the early 90's. We would have a much more equitable and better situation for the regions transportation network if the Metro area was allowed to tack on 5 to 10 cent per gallon for roads and bridges and all sales tax revenue was restricted to transit or non-motorized use such as greenways.

As goat314 answered his own question, it comes down to a regional mentality to make things work for a Metro area.

JustMe123 wrote: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>

No, it doesn't even out at all. As long as rural voters outnumber urban voters in Missouri, the St. Louis metro area will remain a cash cow to be milked by the rural welfare kings and queens. Screw your transit system - State Rep. Cletus needs a new patronage highway to nowhere. And we get to buy it for him!

Know where this doesn't happen? Illinois. Because urban voters outnumber rural voters. Wonder if they'd adopt us...

To be fair, only about 2 million of the Metro population is on the Missouri side, but the point is still valid. If our urban areas could vote as a unified front instead of bickering with each other we would see the benefits of having more population. But we don't, so we pay the consequences.

Don't forget that on each end of the urban areas are two very different states and Metro areas themselves. Kansas on one end and Illinois on the other. I believe Kansas would very much like to see a vibrant KC metro area that ties in good access to Lawrence (KU) and Topeka/Witchita (big manufacturing base) where as Metro East is competing with Springfield, Blomington/Normal, etc for Chicago's kitchen scraps. I also believe KC has a better chance of regionalism just on the fact that MO and Kansas are states with similiar mindsets/political thoughts and interests.

Of course, it doesn't help that their is Missouri residents in St. Charles or even West County that would rather associates themselves with the bootheel. What they don't admit or realize is that the rural bootheel on average is as poor or poorer then our own poor urban pockets and there is very few jobs that could support their lifestyle in those rural areas.

Personally, I grew up in a very rural farm community and owned property in rural northern Minnesota. I understand the disparity in tax base as someone who has also lived/been a homeowner in Chicago and St. Louis. However, the rural road network is vital and I believe economically one of the better solutions to give access for a wide geographic area. In other words, I believe we have to have both and be willing to support both.

One anecdotal report: I haven't voted yet, but those who have been to my station (Parkway Central Middle) say there were precisely two people voting about 8 a.m. And one of my office-mates voted just about the same time in Maryland Heights and was the 33rd person to cast a ballot.

Based on past experience this is ultralight turnout -- I tend to think that's a Good Thing, but it's hard to gauge.

bonwich wrote:One anecdotal report: I haven't voted yet, but those who have been to my station (Parkway Central Middle) say there were precisely two people voting about 8 a.m. And one of my office-mates voted just about the same time in Maryland Heights and was the 33rd person to cast a ballot.

Based on past experience this is ultralight turnout -- I tend to think that's a Good Thing, but it's hard to gauge.

I probably saw 5-6 other voters at 7:15 this morning in the Woods of Warson. We're voting on school district bonds, which should bolster turnout somewhat. Clayton and Ladue are as well, and I would think voters in those municipalities would generally be pro-A.

We just went at lunchtime and there was a steady of stream of people coming to vote (in Richmond Heights near the Galleria). We had both Clayton and Ladue school residents voting at our polling station so our percentage voting may be higher than normal. I am pretty sure our area is strongly pro Prop A and quite active in voting as well. I am just worrying how things are going further out in the county.

I'm still worried the pictures of voting showed a lot of senior citizens heading to the polls. I'm really hoping that people are coming to the polls, because they are energized to vote yes and not just "small government" pushers.

^Not too worried about that. Turnouts in off year elections almost always lean to the older side.

I keep hearing the tea party people are opposed to this so I'm hoping something else is going on to distract them

Raw absentee votes for Prop A:
5,229 YES (65.54%)
2,749 NO (34.46%)

Let's keep are fingers crossed that this will be reflective of the entire vote.
You guys feeling confident?
I'm more confident than I was, but still holding on to skepticism. Don't want to be let down.

So is this like election night? Will we know the results tonight or is it going to take a few days?

Raw votes for Prop A with 21% of the votes in:
YES 21,146 (61.71%)
NO 15,601 (38.29%)

Alex Ihnen wrote:We'll know tonight - search Twitter #Prop A

This is pretty good: http://www.twazzup.com/?q=%23propa&l=all

Yes 61% - No 39% 56% reporting

Proposition A -

56% of precincts
simple majority needed to pass Jurisdiction county(s): St. Louis County
Half-cent transit sales tax
POSITION VOTES PERCENT RESULTS
Yes 51,247 60.92%
Passing
No 32,871 39.08%

Updated: 4/6/2010 9:18:18 PM