This should be fun....
- 8,924
The car may have been faster but 31 min wasn't half bad.
Right now we just have a "Y" shaped starter line An expanded Metrolink system will serve a greater population, make it much more useful, and boost ridership.
Right now we just have a "Y" shaped starter line An expanded Metrolink system will serve a greater population, make it much more useful, and boost ridership.
- 8,155
If we are realistic with the extremely limited benefits of continued highway spending, perhaps we can all be realistic when it comes to planning priorities for transit, roads, and bike routes in the future.jemiller768 wrote: If we are realistic with the benefits of the Metrolink system, perhaps we can all be realistic when it comes to planning priorities for transit, roads, and bike routes in the future.
When you say MetroLink and compare it to other cities, are you referring to just rail based transit or a region's entire transit system—bus and rail transit put together? What is UPT? Two years ago, I put together the data for the Top 25 Rail-Based Transit Systems in the United States. St. Louis ranked 16th at the time.jemiller768 wrote:1. The Metrolink is not the tenth most used public transportation system in the U.S. The most recent data shows that in terms of UPT, it ranks 83rd. Corrected for population it is most 226th most used. In terms of passengers miles it is 58th. The Metrolink is the 10th best performing lite rail in the U.S., but there are less than 30 reporting lite rail lines in the U.S., and lite rail is usually outperformed by bus and heavy rail transportation. So all in all, not impressive. Data for those interested: http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data.htm
You need to keep going to the map on page 53 and the description on pages 54-56. The idea of MetroLink to St. Charles was dropped at the end of the Moving Transit Forward process.2. Extensions to St. Charles County and a North-South Line in the city are indeed part of future plans. It tops the transit lists at EWG meetings and details of those plans can be seen here: http://metrostlouis.org/Libraries/MTF_d ... cument.pdf (page 37)
- 6
In response to some of the responses above:
1. Lite/light- Reading some of the literature on transit you'll see it both ways, I always liked when I saw it lite, but yes its not a potato chip of beer.
2. The Show-Me Institute's position on mass transit is much like its position on other local government policies: avoid wasteful spending and, when possible, align transit to market forces. While in principle I am not opposed to rail for areas of very high population density and relatively predictable demand, I do not think that any of Missouri's cities qualify and find no evidence that these projects will generate the necessary density. A common solution rail critics is "more buses," but having done extensive research on the STL bus system I cannot agree. To be quite frank, the incentives from the federal government and the local political process push Metro to be incredibly wasteful and capital intensive. I think there are many things the city could do to improve non-personal vehicle travel, but the focus should be on leveraging existing resources and emphasizing fiscal sustainability.
3. Highways. I am not for the subsidization of highways or suburban living. Currently, state and interstate highways do not receive any state subsidizes (although the federal government has given money through the ARRA and topping up the highway fund). Of course the 0.75 sales tax is on the ballot, and that will subsidize roads. I have given testimony before the Senate Transportation Committee and gone on media opposing that plan, and I certainly think it is bad policy.
Joseph Miller
Policy Researcher
Show-Me Institute
1. Lite/light- Reading some of the literature on transit you'll see it both ways, I always liked when I saw it lite, but yes its not a potato chip of beer.
2. The Show-Me Institute's position on mass transit is much like its position on other local government policies: avoid wasteful spending and, when possible, align transit to market forces. While in principle I am not opposed to rail for areas of very high population density and relatively predictable demand, I do not think that any of Missouri's cities qualify and find no evidence that these projects will generate the necessary density. A common solution rail critics is "more buses," but having done extensive research on the STL bus system I cannot agree. To be quite frank, the incentives from the federal government and the local political process push Metro to be incredibly wasteful and capital intensive. I think there are many things the city could do to improve non-personal vehicle travel, but the focus should be on leveraging existing resources and emphasizing fiscal sustainability.
3. Highways. I am not for the subsidization of highways or suburban living. Currently, state and interstate highways do not receive any state subsidizes (although the federal government has given money through the ARRA and topping up the highway fund). Of course the 0.75 sales tax is on the ballot, and that will subsidize roads. I have given testimony before the Senate Transportation Committee and gone on media opposing that plan, and I certainly think it is bad policy.
Joseph Miller
Policy Researcher
Show-Me Institute
To mill204:
1. When comparing the Metrolink, I compared modes of transportation against one another. That means the Metrolink would compete with the Metrobus and CTA rail and the MTA, etc. You could compare Metro as a whole to other cities, bus the Bi-State system number includes the bus and the Metrolink, which you did not state in the summary of my video. UPT means unlinked passenger trips, or simply every body that steps on the train.
2. A St. Charles extension is always coming up from the early 1990s until today. It is not in the immediate works, but it is still a long term goal of many in the STL transit community. I myself saw it placed at the top of the list at a EWG meeting earlier this year. However you are of course correct in that its not going to happen soon unless a lot more money comes Metro's way.
Joseph Miller
Policy Researcher
Show-Me Institute
1. When comparing the Metrolink, I compared modes of transportation against one another. That means the Metrolink would compete with the Metrobus and CTA rail and the MTA, etc. You could compare Metro as a whole to other cities, bus the Bi-State system number includes the bus and the Metrolink, which you did not state in the summary of my video. UPT means unlinked passenger trips, or simply every body that steps on the train.
2. A St. Charles extension is always coming up from the early 1990s until today. It is not in the immediate works, but it is still a long term goal of many in the STL transit community. I myself saw it placed at the top of the list at a EWG meeting earlier this year. However you are of course correct in that its not going to happen soon unless a lot more money comes Metro's way.
Joseph Miller
Policy Researcher
Show-Me Institute
Interesting St. Charles extension comes up still. I guess it's a hope of bringing in the county into Bi-State. I think commuter rail with a few stops in St. Charles County and StL County and ending downtown would be more appropriate, if you had to do anything. The densities out there are way to low for Metrolink and they won't allow higher density development any time soon. I say the same thing about a line going to Chesterfield. I'd much rather focus on areas that already are dense and are open to becoming denser where Metrolink can be a part of a positive feedback loop for higher job and residential density.
What are you defining as a subsidy? State money? Highways wouldn't exist without using money from taxes. We don't have tolls or privately built highways. Highways are incredibly subsidized.3. Highways. I am not for the subsidization of highways or suburban living. Currently, state and interstate highways do not receive any state subsidizes (although the federal government has given money through the ARRA and topping up the highway fund). Of course the 0.75 sales tax is on the ballot, and that will subsidize roads. I have given testimony before the Senate Transportation Committee and gone on media opposing that plan, and I certainly think it is bad policy.
What are market based transit solutions? Please do shine some light on that one. You can't seriously be suggesting that multiple operators should compete for routes? That is just as stupid as suggesting that our water system should be privatized, in other words completely moronic.
That would be ludicrous, and it would open the system up to tons of uncertainty, which in the end would only likely cause a drop in ridership as private operators focus only on the most profitable routes. What if a private operator goes broke? What if private enterprise simply can't meet the 24/7 service demands of real world users spread all across the city (which it can't). It is probably inherently unprofitable to operate a good City-wide transit system, but the benefits it provides the City certainly exceed its costs/losses. I think it is necessary to have good, frequent, on-time, all-day transit services if you want to use it as a tool to make a City grow up and out of the auto age. The biggest problem with Metrolink IMO, and the biggest deterrent to me using it is that the system has too few routes, lack of express, and too infrequent service. The solution? Build more routes! Increase frequency! Add express! These all require spending more, not less, money.
You libertarian ideologues need to get out of the theoretical think tank and into the real world. Many of us don't care if useful things run in the red, because they are useful and we like them, and think they are worth paying taxes for.
That would be ludicrous, and it would open the system up to tons of uncertainty, which in the end would only likely cause a drop in ridership as private operators focus only on the most profitable routes. What if a private operator goes broke? What if private enterprise simply can't meet the 24/7 service demands of real world users spread all across the city (which it can't). It is probably inherently unprofitable to operate a good City-wide transit system, but the benefits it provides the City certainly exceed its costs/losses. I think it is necessary to have good, frequent, on-time, all-day transit services if you want to use it as a tool to make a City grow up and out of the auto age. The biggest problem with Metrolink IMO, and the biggest deterrent to me using it is that the system has too few routes, lack of express, and too infrequent service. The solution? Build more routes! Increase frequency! Add express! These all require spending more, not less, money.
You libertarian ideologues need to get out of the theoretical think tank and into the real world. Many of us don't care if useful things run in the red, because they are useful and we like them, and think they are worth paying taxes for.
I'm wondering how much actual research occurs at the Show-me Institute.
- 1,792
So for the sake of arguement, (and so jemiller doesn't feel like he just jumped in a pool of sharks) taxis are a market based solution to transit. They are privately held companies, which address car-less people's transit needs. They are pretty unaffordable for everyday use and incredibly slow/unreliable as far as whether they will be there when you call them etcetra, but they qualify as an example. Uber and Lyft seem to be putting market pressure on the quasi-protected taxi industry which theoretically should drive them to provide better service.
Google's self driving car that is perpetually 10 years away will likely quash them all as well as crushing public mass transit, like buses and LRT. They will also probably crush a number of other industries (UPS, Freight Trucking, etc.) Causing massive layoffs and unemployment. So even though a taxi rides cost will be significantly less, a lot less of us will have the income generating jobs necessary to use them.
If anything this technology is the biggest questionmark to me when it comes to where we should be investing our moneys. (a parrallel example Africa had basically no landline telephones, so the skipped that step and moved straight to cellphones)
Google's self driving car that is perpetually 10 years away will likely quash them all as well as crushing public mass transit, like buses and LRT. They will also probably crush a number of other industries (UPS, Freight Trucking, etc.) Causing massive layoffs and unemployment. So even though a taxi rides cost will be significantly less, a lot less of us will have the income generating jobs necessary to use them.
If anything this technology is the biggest questionmark to me when it comes to where we should be investing our moneys. (a parrallel example Africa had basically no landline telephones, so the skipped that step and moved straight to cellphones)
Flip side. Highways are funded by user fees (gas tax) and therefore theoretically not subsidized.
The reality is NEW highways are funded by users of OLD highways. If the directive of MODOT was to only MAINTAIN the current system (which is already itself unsustainable but for the sake of establishing a baseline) then there wouldn't even be a gas tax/sales tax arguement and St. Louis City would be a city of over a million people. MODOT has and does engage in speculative construction to "spur development" (see South County Connector). Developers should pay for their own highways, and MODOT can assume the maintainance after the development has reached a certain minimum density, retail sales, or some other metric. If that was the practice we might even be looking at LOWERING taxes for highways in a few years. That IMHO is the liberitarian solution to sprawl.
The reality is NEW highways are funded by users of OLD highways. If the directive of MODOT was to only MAINTAIN the current system (which is already itself unsustainable but for the sake of establishing a baseline) then there wouldn't even be a gas tax/sales tax arguement and St. Louis City would be a city of over a million people. MODOT has and does engage in speculative construction to "spur development" (see South County Connector). Developers should pay for their own highways, and MODOT can assume the maintainance after the development has reached a certain minimum density, retail sales, or some other metric. If that was the practice we might even be looking at LOWERING taxes for highways in a few years. That IMHO is the liberitarian solution to sprawl.
- 9,674
Mr. Miller, I have no doubt you are a brilliant kid and have a bright future but you are a bit sloppy or don't not own a watch...the meeting where you saw the St.Charles MetroLink placed "at the top of the list" was the EWG workshop 1 for the sales tax projects. The said workshop started at 1 pm central time zone and ended at 4pm. You and a female intern from the Institute came at 3:30pm and sat in the back. Following the meeting you walked around the room looking at the project boards for 5 minutes and saw the said project but mr.miller the 2:30 hours of discussion you missed, the said project was dismissed as a serious consideration and at the 2nd workshop rated a low priority.jemiller768 wrote:To mill204:
1. When comparing the Metrolink, I compared modes of transportation against one another. That means the Metrolink would compete with the Metrobus and CTA rail and the MTA, etc. You could compare Metro as a whole to other cities, bus the Bi-State system number includes the bus and the Metrolink, which you did not state in the summary of my video. UPT means unlinked passenger trips, or simply every body that steps on the train.
2. A St. Charles extension is always coming up from the early 1990s until today. It is not in the immediate works, but it is still a long term goal of many in the STL transit community. I myself saw it placed at the top of the list at a EWG meeting earlier this year. However you are of course correct in that its not going to happen soon unless a lot more money comes Metro's way.
Joseph Miller
Policy Researcher
Show-Me Institute
See T21 mr.miller -
And the even that project didn't go all the way to st.charles.
There will never be a south county connector build by modot, as the proposed road is on a county property and even at that there will never be a south county connector.STLEnginerd wrote:Flip side. Highways are funded by user fees (gas tax) and therefore theoretically not subsidized.
The reality is NEW highways are funded by users of OLD highways. If the directive of MODOT was to only MAINTAIN the current system (which is already itself unsustainable but for the sake of establishing a baseline) then there wouldn't even be a gas tax/sales tax arguement and St. Louis City would be a city of over a million people. MODOT has and does engage in speculative construction to "spur development" (see South County Connector). Developers should pay for their own highways, and MODOT can assume the maintainance after the development has reached a certain minimum density, retail sales, or some other metric. If that was the practice we might even be looking at LOWERING taxes for highways in a few years. That IMHO is the liberitarian solution to sprawl.
- 1,792
Never say never, it was afterall on the countyies "wish-list". Whether it will or not it was simply an example to illustrate a point. Perhaps I should have said "Page Extension".There will never be a south county connector build by modot, as the proposed road is on a county property and even at that there will never be a south county connector.
- 6
To dbInSouthCity,
There is nothing sloppy in stating that a metrolink line St. Charles is a proposal. The EWG meeting a couple months ago was not the first time it was proposed (it was first suggested in the late 80s early 90s) and it is unlikely to be the last. I have never said that this was an imminent project, it was used in the film as an example of one of the places transit supporters eventually think the metrolink should go. Obviously the most likely next line is a north-south line in the city, which I mention. And the point of the video was to carefully weigh the costs and purported benefits of the system.
Joseph Miller
Policy Researcher
Show-Me Institute
There is nothing sloppy in stating that a metrolink line St. Charles is a proposal. The EWG meeting a couple months ago was not the first time it was proposed (it was first suggested in the late 80s early 90s) and it is unlikely to be the last. I have never said that this was an imminent project, it was used in the film as an example of one of the places transit supporters eventually think the metrolink should go. Obviously the most likely next line is a north-south line in the city, which I mention. And the point of the video was to carefully weigh the costs and purported benefits of the system.
Joseph Miller
Policy Researcher
Show-Me Institute
- 9,674
^ I should clarify, SSC is a County owned road and a County project, not a MoDOT project, the county doesn't have the money to build it. Sure it's on the county wish list but when the official list is out next Friday, I'm willing to bet that the project won't be on there since the law clearly states that road projects on the list have to be on the MoDOT system or other modes
You are 100% correct it's not sloppy that it's a proposal, we all know that but it is sloppy to say its on top of the list when the list has it at the bottom and not only at the bottom but not even reaching st.charles yet.jemiller768 wrote:To dbInSouthCity,
There is nothing sloppy in stating that a metrolink line St. Charles is a proposal. The EWG meeting a couple months ago was not the first time it was proposed (it was first suggested in the late 80s early 90s) and it is unlikely to be the last. I have never said that this was an imminent project, it was used in the film as an example of one of the places transit supporters eventually think the metrolink should go. Obviously the most likely next line is a north-south line in the city, which I mention. And the point of the video was to carefully weigh the costs and purported benefits of the system.
Joseph Miller
Policy Researcher
Show-Me Institute
- 6
To dbInSouthCity,
That it is a proposal was the only point made in the video and all I wanted to say with my previous comments. If you think my comment misled I apologize for that, and I hope we can keep the discussion constructive. Thanks.
Joseph Miller
Policy Researcher
Show-Me Institute
That it is a proposal was the only point made in the video and all I wanted to say with my previous comments. If you think my comment misled I apologize for that, and I hope we can keep the discussion constructive. Thanks.
Joseph Miller
Policy Researcher
Show-Me Institute
If you call that video a careful analysis of costs and benefits, then maybe you're in the wrong line of work, or maybe you need to learn how to construct a better argument. Also, what are you, 23 or 24 years old? It's pretty hard to take you seriously when you're barely out of your intern pants and professing to know something about the world.And the point of the video was to carefully weigh the costs and purported benefits of the system.
- 9,674
For sure.jemiller768 wrote:To dbInSouthCity,
That it is a proposal was the only point made in the video and all I wanted to say with my previous comments. If you think my comment misled I apologize for that, and I hope we can keep the discussion constructive. Thanks.
Joseph Miller
Policy Researcher
Show-Me Institute
Would the Institute support a gas tax increase and if yes what type of increase? 10cents? 15? 25+?
Attacking him on his age seems unfair. I would rather we debate him on his poor arguments rather than engage in hubris.
2-3 years out of school, in a complex field like transportation policy, he's a babe in the woods. Just is.
- 6
In response to discussion of the gas tax,
Yes, I support increasing the gas tax to fix road funding in Missouri. It has the drawback of being an indirect user tax, but indirect will at least create the right incentives, meaning more money spent on roads means higher prices for driving. That proposed sales tax would very much encourage more driving by making driving an artificially cheap activity. The much smaller amount that will go to transit is unlikely to to make much of a difference in this regard. As to the amount, I think raising the gas tax back to its 1996 level adjusted for its inflation (about 7 cents) is reasonable. Given the disproportionate damage trucks do to highways, I see no reason why the diesel tax should not be set a little higher. Missouri has the 6th lowest gas tax (and I believe 4th lowest diesel tax), and I think that is irresponsible when we are now saying we cannot pay to maintain the current road system. The question becomes how much more money MoDOT needs, and I am for skepticism and greater scrutiny on that matter. However, if MoDOT can assure the public it needs X amount, I think major projects should be tolled and the gas tax (or other fees on drivers, in future VMT) should increase to make up the difference.
Joseph Miller
Policy Researcher
Show-Me Institute
Yes, I support increasing the gas tax to fix road funding in Missouri. It has the drawback of being an indirect user tax, but indirect will at least create the right incentives, meaning more money spent on roads means higher prices for driving. That proposed sales tax would very much encourage more driving by making driving an artificially cheap activity. The much smaller amount that will go to transit is unlikely to to make much of a difference in this regard. As to the amount, I think raising the gas tax back to its 1996 level adjusted for its inflation (about 7 cents) is reasonable. Given the disproportionate damage trucks do to highways, I see no reason why the diesel tax should not be set a little higher. Missouri has the 6th lowest gas tax (and I believe 4th lowest diesel tax), and I think that is irresponsible when we are now saying we cannot pay to maintain the current road system. The question becomes how much more money MoDOT needs, and I am for skepticism and greater scrutiny on that matter. However, if MoDOT can assure the public it needs X amount, I think major projects should be tolled and the gas tax (or other fees on drivers, in future VMT) should increase to make up the difference.
Joseph Miller
Policy Researcher
Show-Me Institute
- 1,792
Age is an irrelevant detail. Albert Einstein discovered relativity at age 25. Your additional years may give you more incite or perhaps you spent years watching tv and playing video games. No ones reasoned arguement should be discounted based on their age, and the fact that you do only makes it seem like you were unable to organize a sufficient rebuttal.