Wow. How's that for common ground. And some of you guys thought he was just some right wing tin foil hat type. I think you might owe him a beer.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
- 1,792
- 9,674
7 cents x 3,000,000,000 gallons = $210 million and with cars getting more and more MPG, that number will go down over years.
15-20 cents is a realistic number for me, especially if the Feds increase the Highway Trust Fund, the state would need more state funds to match those federal funds.
15-20 cents is a realistic number for me, especially if the Feds increase the Highway Trust Fund, the state would need more state funds to match those federal funds.
- 1,868
Perhaps, but as a general rule you shouldn't mistake agreeable conclusions as sound logic. Or as the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day.STLEnginerd wrote: Wow. How's that for common ground. And some of you guys thought he was just some right wing tin foil hat type. I think you might owe him a beer.
- 8,155
I think we can takes some lessons from the existing Metrolink to improve future rapid transit lines. Things like:
-- actually run it through high-density areas
-- get it adjacent to activity centers rather than forcing an inconvenient walk or additional bus connection
-- require TOD-friendly policies adjacent to the corridor
-- have it connect to the existing line to make for a true system
With these things in mind, clearly a N/S line is the only rational way to go. But to get the most out of a system, I'd go true BRT with a central corridor spur following the Saint Louis Streetcar planned route.
-- actually run it through high-density areas
-- get it adjacent to activity centers rather than forcing an inconvenient walk or additional bus connection
-- require TOD-friendly policies adjacent to the corridor
-- have it connect to the existing line to make for a true system
With these things in mind, clearly a N/S line is the only rational way to go. But to get the most out of a system, I'd go true BRT with a central corridor spur following the Saint Louis Streetcar planned route.
- 271
I concur with this.roger wyoming II wrote:I think we can takes some lessons from the existing Metrolink to improve future rapid transit lines. Things like:
-- actually run it through high-density areas
-- get it adjacent to activity centers rather than forcing an inconvenient walk or additional bus connection
-- require TOD-friendly policies adjacent to the corridor
-- have it connect to the existing line to make for a true system
With these things in mind, clearly a N/S line is the only rational way to go. But to get the most out of a system, I'd go true BRT with a central corridor spur following the Saint Louis Streetcar planned route.
- 19
While I absolutely see the problems pointed out by the Show Me Institute. Yes light rail (or Mass Transit in general) will always take longer than a car trip. In Manhattan for example, a taxi trip from Brooklyn to the WTC will always take a shorter amount of time than a trip on the MTA subway system. It is simply the truth.
But why do people in major metro areas use public transit over cars?
The cost and inconvenience associated with private transportation.
The Show Me Institute's video measures a valid but irrelevant factor in the sector of public transportation. The cost of parking and upkeep of a car in high density urban areas can be crippling to one's budget which is why many rely on light/heavy rail. But in St. Louis, we lack the density needed for light rail systems to become a necessity. Parking in the central corridor is more than abundant and is relatively common and cheap. In addition, Missouri has a lack of tolls that are seen on the East Coast. These further rider usage in urban centers.
But there Metrolink lies. Underused and underdeveloped. St. Louis responded to the wave of public transportation in an unusual fashion. Instead of the standard A to B approach (Demand leads to Supply), we responded with the B to A approach (Supply leads to Demand). In turn, we have a system that is loved by the few and shunned my the masses. We expected an increase of support and want after building the system. While I absolutely love the system and multitude of benefits, the City is not in a position for a major extension of the system.
We have to be realistic with the system and the city. Will it bring development? Yes. Will it be worth it in the long run? Yes. Do we have the population to support a system of that scale? No. The City's population is increasing — and will continue to do so in the coming decades — but until we reach that point smaller alternatives to encourage population such as BRT lines (Which could in turn upgrade to a light rail line if the funding becomes available), Street-level light rail, bike "superhighways", or even commuter rail.
But why do people in major metro areas use public transit over cars?
The cost and inconvenience associated with private transportation.
The Show Me Institute's video measures a valid but irrelevant factor in the sector of public transportation. The cost of parking and upkeep of a car in high density urban areas can be crippling to one's budget which is why many rely on light/heavy rail. But in St. Louis, we lack the density needed for light rail systems to become a necessity. Parking in the central corridor is more than abundant and is relatively common and cheap. In addition, Missouri has a lack of tolls that are seen on the East Coast. These further rider usage in urban centers.
But there Metrolink lies. Underused and underdeveloped. St. Louis responded to the wave of public transportation in an unusual fashion. Instead of the standard A to B approach (Demand leads to Supply), we responded with the B to A approach (Supply leads to Demand). In turn, we have a system that is loved by the few and shunned my the masses. We expected an increase of support and want after building the system. While I absolutely love the system and multitude of benefits, the City is not in a position for a major extension of the system.
We have to be realistic with the system and the city. Will it bring development? Yes. Will it be worth it in the long run? Yes. Do we have the population to support a system of that scale? No. The City's population is increasing — and will continue to do so in the coming decades — but until we reach that point smaller alternatives to encourage population such as BRT lines (Which could in turn upgrade to a light rail line if the funding becomes available), Street-level light rail, bike "superhighways", or even commuter rail.
This is my last rant—I swear. Why are most if not of the articles cited in the video predating 2000? Please use current sources to support opinions.
And BTW, I'm 17 so age is an irrelevant factor.
And BTW, I'm 17 so age is an irrelevant factor.
- 3,762
What scale? As you said, the E-W lines have a respectable ridership and an additional N-S line would tap a completely unserved population. I don't think we need to build a bunch of new lines just yet, but the current system is incomplete and ignores the majority of the city. We absolutely have the population to support one additional N-S line, and after that we can worry about filling the interstitial spaces with modes that make more frequent stops like buses and/or streetcars. What's more, it's unlikely we're going to grow our population significantly without first investing in public transportation improvements. The trends are pretty clear: young people want to live in urban environments with good public transit.ElephantintheRoom wrote:Do we have the population to support a system of that scale? No.
- 19
The main issue is securing the funding for projects like these in our city. St. Louis lies in a historically red state and funding from the state level requires a great deal of ligation in Jefferson City.
While I agree with you 100% that people (Generation Y) move to where public transportation is at it's peak, the state sees otherwise. In order to pursuade Jefferson City, St. Louis needs a large enough population to draw attention in the capital (not necessarily a population large enough to support the system (B to A)).
The other problem arises in the Baby Boomer population. Many cities (1st world) of Europe and Asia are experiencing the effects of a Stage IV (Postindustrial) society. As the death rate rises above the birth rate, the population drops drastically (As seen in Moscow, Berlin, Hamburg, Stockholm and Osaka). While cities such as Houston, Pheonix, Los Angeles and Miami have an increasing population due to the new wave of immigrations, St. Louis does not nor will it. Without an immigrant based influx, the population will drop in the coming decades. Gen Y will be unable to replace this as they flock to the population centers (Chicago, New York, and San Francisco).
It's sink or swim. And Jefferson City isn't stupid. Kansas City is also facing the same problem with their addition of a light rail.
While I agree with you 100% that people (Generation Y) move to where public transportation is at it's peak, the state sees otherwise. In order to pursuade Jefferson City, St. Louis needs a large enough population to draw attention in the capital (not necessarily a population large enough to support the system (B to A)).
The other problem arises in the Baby Boomer population. Many cities (1st world) of Europe and Asia are experiencing the effects of a Stage IV (Postindustrial) society. As the death rate rises above the birth rate, the population drops drastically (As seen in Moscow, Berlin, Hamburg, Stockholm and Osaka). While cities such as Houston, Pheonix, Los Angeles and Miami have an increasing population due to the new wave of immigrations, St. Louis does not nor will it. Without an immigrant based influx, the population will drop in the coming decades. Gen Y will be unable to replace this as they flock to the population centers (Chicago, New York, and San Francisco).
It's sink or swim. And Jefferson City isn't stupid. Kansas City is also facing the same problem with their addition of a light rail.
- 1,868
As far as keeping my friends in StL, I'm more excited about the central streetcar than N/S.urban_dilettante wrote:We absolutely have the population to support one additional N-S line, and after that we can worry about filling the interstitial spaces with modes that make more frequent stops like buses and/or streetcars. What's more, it's unlikely we're going to grow our population significantly without first investing in public transportation improvements. The trends are pretty clear: young people want to live in urban environments with good public transit.
[Citation needed]ElephantintheRoom wrote: And Jefferson City isn't stupid.
- 3,762
It sounds like you're suggesting that the city just accept a quite death rather than work to provide amenities that attract jobs and residents. I realize Missouri is no friend to its cities but… therefore we should just give up?ElephantintheRoom wrote:While cities such as Houston, Pheonix, Los Angeles and Miami have an increasing population due to the new wave of immigrations, St. Louis does not nor will it. Without an immigrant based influx, the population will drop in the coming decades. Gen Y will be unable to replace this as they flock to the population centers (Chicago, New York, and San Francisco).
Again, it sounds like you're arguing that it's "sink or sink" for St. Louis, not "sink or swim". I'm gonna have to agree with Mark that if Jeff City weren't stupid it would be trying to help it's major cities, which are responsible for the vast majority of the state's GDP, provide amenities that enhance quality of life and attract residents and jobs.ElephantintheRoom wrote:It's sink or swim. And Jefferson City isn't stupid. Kansas City is also facing the same problem with their addition of a light rail.
Why on earth would the Republicans in Jeff City want to help St. Louis? The more people we lose, the less clout we have in the state, and the more invincible they become in the Legislature. If St. Louis and Kansas City start to see their urban cores regain population, it will only be a matter of time before more State Senate and House seats move back to the urban areas, moving them from Republican control to swing/Democratic control. If things stay as they are right now, Republicans will control the Legislature indefinitely. The demographic shifts occurring in other states (Virginia. North Carolina, Georgia) that are weakening Republican control are not happening in Missouri; if anything, the electorate here is becoming more conservative. Increased population shifts to the urban areas would undermine the Republican party, so it should not be shocking that they want to make the urban areas as unattractive as they can.