urbanSTL

ThreeOneFour wrote:I suppose we can hope President-elect Obama will put his money where his mouth is when it comes to investing in our infrastructure.

The problem is, if I were president, I wouldnt give any Federal Funds to St. Louis... because I will now see their residents DONT want to spend their own money to support pulic transportation, so why should the federal government support it?



I would probably give it to another city that is progressive and actually wants it.

zink wrote:

ThreeOneFour wrote:I suppose we can hope President-elect Obama will put his money where his mouth is when it comes to investing in our infrastructure.

The problem is, if I were president, I wouldnt give any Federal Funds to St. Louis... because I will now see their residents DONT want to spend their own money to support pulic transportation, so why should the federal government support it?



I would probably give it to another city that is progressive and actually wants it.

The thing is, we do support it, almost entirely. We have this problem because there is no state funding, and only minimal federal funding.

I'm not trying to be snarky or anything here, but I'd truly like to know what/how Metrolink contributes to the STL area.



I understand that light rail serves a different purpose than say a NYC et al style subway system, but...



I guess I'm confused how Metrolink benefits the region. The county isn't all that densely populated, so you still have to drive someplace to use the Metrolink, it seems to be used by most people just to get to and from sporting events. With the region so decentralized, I'd say only a fraction of the population can get any real use out of Metrolink....other than going downtown for a sporting event.



I used Metrolink at Shrewsbury when I used to work in Clayton and it was a convenience in a way...but I still had to drive from my home in South City to the station. I just thought it was kind of silly.



I wonder why Metrolink doesn't expand in the City (if it had the funds), where people are more apt to use public transportation in all its forms.



I realize you need money for expansion, so it's kind of a catch 22, but Metro hasn't really done a great job convincing people it can use the fund they get wisely.



I don't know, I guess if I lived in the County and only used my car to go places, I wouldn't vote to increase taxes for something I never use.



I may not agree with that sentiment, but I can understand it.

I am extremely pissed... +1



^ it isn't yet convenient for a lot of people because we refuse to buck up the funds to pay for it to go anywhere. The bigger it gets, the more convenient it gets for all and the more people will see it as a benefit to live along it.

Not that I wish gas was still near $4/gallon, but I wonder if this vote would have gone differently had the price of gas still been high.

olvidarte wrote: so you still have to drive someplace to use the Metrolink

No I don't



Plus, Metro is mostly the bus system and Call-A-Ride. Not saying this is you, but it shocks me when talking to people who are completely unaware that we have a bus system that carries (gasp) more people than Metrolink.

Doug wrote:This is the biggest disappointment.

I definitely agree, but I also think that the region needs to figure out other ways to pay for things like Metro and stop relying on sales taxes.



JMHO.

&$(#&@!



Does Jay Nixon's election help the possibility of a bailout from the state? That seems like the last hope for a semblance of functional service. I hope MO realizes the value of the asset that would otherwise disappear, and take a page out of the Illinois book.

bprop wrote:

olvidarte wrote: so you still have to drive someplace to use the Metrolink

No I don't



Plus, Metro is mostly the bus system and Call-A-Ride. Not saying this is you, but it shocks me when talking to people who are completely unaware that we have a bus system that carries (gasp) more people than Metrolink.

I saw this coming, even for months I campaigned against Metro's tax increase, yet voted Yes for it.



Too bad Metro's Gillig buses aren't pretty and they're very uncomfortable. I even hate riding the Gilligs and prefer the CNGs over these. I went to Chesterfield Mall last Saturday to see the NABI and ride it. They seemed to have many positive responses with the NABI-BRT, mainly because of its style and comfort. I mentioned to the Metro rep at the display to consider purchasing the NovaBus LFS in the future. The LFS is a much nicer bus to look at than all the Gilligs whether its the Phantom, Low Floor, or even their ripoff of the NovaBus LFS called the BRT. The rep told me they heard of the LFS and might consider testing it. They said the NABI-BRT was like Metrolink, but on wheels. If they want more people to ride the bus, then Metro needs to buy some nicer buses and not be dull like every other major city and use the boring Gillig. Too bad Metro decided to purchase new Low Floor Gilligs, which are coming in December to replace the 1995 Gilligs (2xxx series). Why be like Anytown, USA with Gilligs.



Also, why is Metro buying these Chevy Kodiak (08xxxx series) and replacing the Fords for their Call-a-Ride? fleet Are these Chevys better than the Fords? I am sure they are more costly, but why even bother if they are only going to use these Call-a-Ride vehicles for 6 years? Will these Kodiaks last longer than the Fords?:roll:

bprop wrote:Plus, Metro is mostly the bus system and Call-A-Ride. Not saying this is you, but it shocks me when talking to people who are completely unaware that we have a bus system that carries (gasp) more people than Metrolink.

I agree that people are unaware of the very valuable service that Call-A-Ride provides.



I'm not sure about unawareness about the bus service, though. The-entity-formerly-known-as-Bi-State chose to jettison the "Bi-State" name in favor of the more-modern "Metro" for a variety of reasons, one of which was to link itself with Metrolink, not necessary the whole transit system as a whole, and maybe distance itself from the Bi-State bus service, which had, for a time, a pretty negative connotation.



(OK, I'm reaching here, but you know the mentalityof some of the voters they must appeal to .... they're the ones who still - cringe - call Macy's "Famous & Barr" and Dillards "Stix".)



I do think that the recent promotion campaigns that Metro ran to garner support for Prop M were pretty effective. 52% to 48%, while still a defeat, isn't the resounding thump that Metro/Bi-State votes have gotten in the past. Maybe there's still hope???

JustMe123 wrote:

Doug wrote:This is the biggest disappointment.

I definitely agree, but I also think that the region needs to figure out other ways to pay for things like Metro and stop relying on sales taxes.



JMHO.

I totally agree! No one likes tax increases or even sales tax increases. If this Prop M would've passed sales tax in this region would be one of the highest in the nation! Sales tax in some cities in the Metro STL area are higher than that of cities in New, York, Texas, and California! Brentwood, Manchester, Hazelhood, and Maplewood come to mind. These cities also have a 1% TDD tax included as well....greedy! The Prop 1 childrens fund passed, which I voted against. I think Prop 1 is not necessary since they can get funds from other sources to pay for those services rather than get funds from sales tax revenue.



Oh and I received my property tax form this year, looks like I pay $20 less this year! Whoopie, I save $20 this year. Considering in the past 3 years I've seen my property tax increase up to 45% yet the value of my house has decreased 16-20% this past year. I guess they take in account the decreased value of my home, but $20, come on now?

MetroLink Prop M Failed: What are the real ramifications?

Even though the ballot failed, I don't think that means Metro is "done for good". Service will be cut and it may be a joke for a couple years, but we do underestimate the amount of capital investment that has been made in the system. 45 miles of light rail is not something to turn your knows up at and it still is a major economical asset. If Obama is a man of his word I aspect to see a lot of progressive transportation bills passed in his administration. This is the first time in a while we will have had a "big city" president that has an pro urban idealism.

Sure having an urban/progressive/populist president might help open up funds for alternative modes of transportation (ie non-highway). But while Obama has promised a lot, and could deliver a lot, we can't rely on him to support Metro. That's asking too much. It's our responsibility; the St. Louis areas, then Missouri's and then the Fed's.



Yes I hope more FTA money is opened up for alternative modes, but we need a strong, accountable, self-sufficient system (ie supported by the people of St. Louis, Illinois, and Missouri) to take advantage of available matching funds going forward.

I am extremely disappointed in last night's result on Prop M.



Just out of curiosity, what would it take to get something done in Missouri similar to Illinois that would allow individual regions to apply their own local gas taxes and such? It seems to me that people's responses are mostly "Why sales tax increases? Why not some other form of funding?" Missouri, though, seems to have on its books a financing system that pretty much leaves the local funding choice as only sales taxes. Who would need to be lobbied to localize other tax and funding processes?

If you want more folks to ride the metro, just tax gasoline.

Wabash wrote:Sure having an urban/progressive/populist president might help open up funds for alternative modes of transportation (ie non-highway). But while Obama has promised a lot, and could deliver a lot, we can't rely on him to support Metro. That's asking too much. It's our responsibility; the St. Louis areas, then Missouri's and then the Fed's.



Yes I hope more FTA money is opened up for alternative modes, but we need a strong, accountable, self-sufficient system (ie supported by the people of St. Louis, Illinois, and Missouri) to take advantage of available matching funds going forward.

Call me pollyanna, but I really think that a majority of St. Louis City/County residents "get it" or are starting to get it.



I get the feeling that Prop M just asked for too much (1/2 cent) at the wrong time (current bad economic conditions).



I'm not sure the "endorsement" by the big sports teams helped much either. I heard a lot of grumbling about high ticket prices and "oh sure, but they don't have to PAY for it", etc.



Getting people outside St. Louis City/County onboard might be a tough sell, though, so strictly state funding, I think, is unlikely. Take a look at the message boards on stltoday.com and ksdk.com to see what the St. Charles (city/county) residents think of Metro.



[hint: they're all for it as long as 1.) It costs them nothing; and 2.) Metrolink magically comes right to their door and drives them to work or to ballgames and none of those pesky lower-income, working-class or otherwise shifty-looking people are onboard.]

The vote was much closer than I expected, given that the elephant in the room is that people just don't trust Metro -- and for good reason.



The agency very publicly blew hundreds of millions due to mismanagement and a failed lawsuit (that blew millions more on high-end lawyers). It hired the very arrogant Mr. Salci, and when since his firing, hasn't exactly demonstrated that its board of directors is any more stringent in its oversight. Plus the current guy in charge, as sharp of a businessperson as he may be, is an interim -- the public has no idea who the next captain will be, or what his qualifications will be to right the ship.



Sure, there's a portion of the voting public in the county that doesn't give an att's rass about public transportation and will never vote for taxes to support it. But there's a much larger portion who views Metro as yet another incompetent local public agency -- and, in this case, there's some pretty good recent evidence to back up that claim.

Just another example of how the City and County will never be able to to come together and do whats best for the region, as long as they are split apart. I understand why county residents don't want to merge, but it is so counter-productive for the region. I just wish this issue would have been handled a long time ago. I don't think that will ever change, hence, this region will not move in a positive direction anytime soon.



FRUSTRATING!!!!!



PS_ Does anyone think the Metrolink hours will REALLY be cut after 8PM,for sporting events etc.. or were those threats to scare people into voting yes? I hope they were threats. Where do we go from here? Does Metro wait and get it on the ballot when the economy picks up or is the system doomed to failure?

I hope it's not a death spiral, such that the next time the issue comes up, people say "Metro doesn't go anywhere/doesn't help sports fans/doesn't run late enough" and becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy to nothingness.



Is there any hope whatsoever of getting legislators and MoDOT to step in and help with funding at some point?

^Where? St. Louis County, the whole region, or the whole state?

I think metro areas are more applicable. It'd be an effective stick because you'd be taxed if you didn't utilize public transportation.