urbanSTL

Which governments pay fuel taxes? I don't recall seeing school buses, fire trucks, police cars, or military vehicles filling up at gas stations.

^I don't think most of the comments supported requiring metro paying fuel taxes. It was simply pointing out that metrbus couldn't take credit for paying to use roads, that they don't pay to use. They are subsidized by the general driving public as are the other government entities you mention. It is ok, its just pointing out the reality of it. The suggestion was that additional fuel funds should be siphoned to pay for transit, which to me is hypocritical given the primary arguement against sales tax is that its not proportional to the amount of use. Maybe some people see moral consistancy as overrated and the realization of the vision for a truely urban st. louis is more important than how they get there. I can see that point but i have qualms about it and as such advocate other avenues to increase funding to metro as I mentioned.

I don't think his estimate is off by too much. Maybe +/-5%. I think japan has the only 2 systems in the world that are self sustained

Other option is a earmark but there aren't many 500-700m earmarks around. And Claire doesn't do earmarks, blunt won't do it. Clay? Doubt he has that much pull since he is in the House

Metro needs to break up these corridors into smaller 2-3 mile sections and do one at a time

Clay is in the CBC, which would typically mean he had influence, but the total lack of anything being done in the House of Representatives means that there are no bills to attach earmarks to anymore.

The reason to increase the gas tax is to curb the expansion of unaffordable road usage. The reason to subsidize transit is the same. In that sense, there's nothing hypocritical to paying for transit with gas taxes. Remember that driving cars is a net negative to society, while choosing transit is a relative positive; that's why it is reasonable to expect people to pay for their car usage while being willing to subsidize their bus. Pay for negative externalities, get credit for positive externalities.

sirshankalot wrote:Why, when I ride Metrolink, do I always get asked to see my ticket but the majority of the African-American kids NEVER get asked?
I'm dead serious too....

Because human beings are highly subject to perception bias, and your recollection of events is colored by racism. (Seriously.)

All bus stops should look like this one in Baltimore.


http://www.swiss-miss.com/2014/08/bus-stop.html

Because human beings are highly subject to perception bias, and your recollection of events is colored by racism. (Seriously.)

Whenever a metro cop comes through the car, he or she seems to check everyone's ticket.

Kevin B wrote:If we want to be the center of the region, act like it, dammit! No more of this "regionalism" hooey -- because all that does is dilute the end project to the point you might as well not have it anyway.

This exactly.

MarkHaversham wrote:The reason to increase the gas tax is to curb the expansion of unaffordable road usage. The reason to subsidize transit is the same. In that sense, there's nothing hypocritical to paying for transit with gas taxes. Remember that driving cars is a net negative to society, while choosing transit is a relative positive; that's why it is reasonable to expect people to pay for their car usage while being willing to subsidize their bus. Pay for negative externalities, get credit for positive externalities.
.)

I voted for prop A, I would vote for it again, I probably take transit for 10-15% of my trips but when you start talking about punishing car drivers for driving a car, that's just stupid, how is car driving a net negative and transit a positive?....even in a city will a robust transit like New York, 65% still drive. If we get to top 5 in the nation, 75% would still be driving( more like 85%, carpoolers are counted towards other modes)


(Carpooling makes up the first 10% of that 44%)

db, you are making the assumption that private car ownership is going to maintain its current level(it's not) and that gasoline will not become prohibitively expensive.

Ebsy wrote:db, you are making the assumption that private car ownership is going to maintain its current level(it's not) and that gasoline will not become prohibitively expensive.

Maybe be expansive in 20-30 years and by then 50% of the cars on the road will be running on something other then gasoline.

dbInSouthCity wrote: I voted for prop A, I would vote for it again, I probably take transit for 10-15% of my trips but when you start talking about punishing car drivers for driving a car, that's just stupid, how is car driving a net negative and transit a positive?....even in a city will a robust transit like New York, 65% still drive. If we get to top 5 in the nation, 75% would still be driving( more like 85%, carpoolers are counted towards other modes)

I'm not saying that car drivers are sinful or should be "punished". I'm saying that car driving has negative impacts on society that are not reflected in the direct costs of driving. It's a market incentive to avoid those negatives by taking transit or carpooling, not punishment.

Edit: I live in the suburbs so I drive 99% of my trips.

MarkHaversham wrote:

dbInSouthCity wrote: I voted for prop A, I would vote for it again, I probably take transit for 10-15% of my trips but when you start talking about punishing car drivers for driving a car, that's just stupid, how is car driving a net negative and transit a positive?....even in a city will a robust transit like New York, 65% still drive. If we get to top 5 in the nation, 75% would still be driving( more like 85%, carpoolers are counted towards other modes)

I'm not saying that car drivers are sinful or should be "punished". I'm saying that car driving has negative impacts on society that are not reflected in the direct costs of driving. It's a market incentive to avoid those negatives by taking transit or carpooling, not punishment.

Edit: I live in the suburbs so I drive 99% of my trips.

How is a car net negative tho? Take it from the beginning...production of parts for a car.

The negative health outcomes from sitting stationary during an ever-increasing commute. Also the increased chance of death in a motor vehicle accident. And of course the pollution.

Yes those are the negatives, still don't see how it's a net negative
in stl we dont have a congestion "problem". There are a few hotspots but not a full blown problem. As far as pollution..that's becoming a less of a problem...less driving, better mpg, clearer ways of powering a car..ie electric, flex fuel ect

Even if driving isn't a net negative, expansive roadways through major metropolitan areas are. Those roadways serve to weaken the urban cores and weak urban cores have proven to ultimately weaken regions.

That said, I'd be okay if the gas tax still strictly funded road maintenance. But I think it's essential we find some source of funding that is for transit.

I'll say again that putting a large portion towards a newly collected online sales tax seems like the best option to me. But it doesn't seem to be getting any real discussion.

dbInSouthCity wrote:Yes those are the negatives, still don't see how it's a net negative
in stl we dont have a congestion "problem". There are a few hotspots but not a full blown problem. As far as pollution..that's becoming a less of a problem...less driving, better mpg, clearer ways of powering a car..ie electric, flex fuel ect

It's the least efficient transportation method ever devised. I don't understand, are you saying that transit carrying people between their residences and central business districts is less efficient than people and businesses spread out over an enormous area being carried by personal vehicle between every destination?

@sirshankalot

You could also just say 'kids' because very few white kids actually use public transportation, trust me back when I was in high school (just 2 years ago) I was usually the only white person under 18 on Metrolink and as someone who has ridden daily for 5 years, I never saw any officer do something like that.

In Minneapolis I saw lots of teens on the train. I think school had just let out.

There aren't a whole lot of schools along the MetroLink lines.

I'd be thrilled to see the Westport and UPRR/De Soto Lines prioritized. I think independent right-of-way is the way to go for now, and that using existing right-of-way is the best way of mitigating its costs.

Unlike Kerry, I'd rather see this for Westport, which significantly bypasses Westport Plaza, but serves Verizon Amphitheater (walkably) and would offer a Page Ave. extension Park n' Ride. It also keep costs lower by sticking with the existing ROW.