urbanSTL

If we cannot afford the current system we need to stop or limit expanding the system and dump that money into improving/maintaining the system we have.

imran wrote:A few simple answers:

1 Raise gas tax
2 Tolls
3 Scale back obsolete highways ?and bridges.
4 stop adding lanes to existing system.

My spin on Imran's comments

1) Raise the gas tax to the average of the surrounding states. Having one of the lowest gas taxes in the county while ignoring a couple decades of inflation is idiotic. Even some of the reddest of red states understand that and have raised gas taxes or use a lot more tolling
2) Tolls - Yes if you want I70 and I44 to be rebuilt to three lanes
3) Time to at least turnover some of the state highways that are really arterial roads/streets in metro areas back to the metro areas. Give metro area option to add 1 to 3 cents to gas tax. Would keep rural system intact as MoDOT has cut back a lot of excess and a thinned down the number of truck stations & facilities. MoDOT is a much more cost effective than in the past.
4) Don't completely shut the door but definitely an all stop as MoDOT is doing now as it can't be sustained under current revenue, funding methodology. The bar raised needs to be raised significantly for new lane construction approval as well astied to new revenue source - Third lane for I70 only if you add a toll or say increase in Diesel tax.

dredger wrote:3) Give metro area option to add 1 to 3 cents to gas tax.

Cities already have the ability to enact local fuel taxes.
Local Fuel Tax in Foristell Fails by a Nose - Show-Me Institute

In Foristell, 65% voted for the fuel tax, but that was not enough because (unlike other forms of transportation funding) local fuel taxes require a 2/3rd majority to pass. The need to obtain a 2/3rd majority for a local fuel tax levy, but only a simple majority for property or sales tax increases, is likely a large reason why no local fuel taxes exist in Missouri.

How much would a 1 cent gas tax generate for St. Louis city?

MoDOT 5 year plan July 1 2016 to June 30 2020 is 97% system maintenance

My back of the envelope math is that we could expect about $1M from a 1% gas tax but $100B from a 1% "QT tax" levied on all QT sales

mill204 wrote:

dredger wrote:3) Give metro area option to add 1 to 3 cents to gas tax.

Cities already have the ability to enact local fuel taxes.
Local Fuel Tax in Foristell Fails by a Nose - Show-Me Institute

In Foristell, 65% voted for the fuel tax, but that was not enough because (unlike other forms of transportation funding) local fuel taxes require a 2/3rd majority to pass. The need to obtain a 2/3rd majority for a local fuel tax levy, but only a simple majority for property or sales tax increases, is likely a large reason why no local fuel taxes exist in Missouri.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but believe it is transportation sales tax that locals can add. But don't believe a gas tax on the gallon sold at the pump.

^Your are mistaken. There is a local option 1 cent per gallon fuel tax that takes a 2/3 majority vote to pass.

^ Thanks, didn't realize that their was that option but talk about a high threshold

I wonder if transportation funding would get the support at ballot box if statehouse would least put a gas tax hike out there. Any thoughts? I found it interesting that every parks and recreation bond issue passed on the St Charles primary ballot this week if I read PD's article correctly. Seems to me support is out there if a moderate, specific gas tax is put out there on the statewide ballot.

But the MO statehouse has no spine and hasn't for years IMO.

^^ 1 cent maximum? I'm not aware of any limitations to the amount cities can tax on fuel. From the Missouri Constitution, Article IV, Section 30A:

3. Except for taxes or licenses which may be imposed uniformly on all merchants or manufacturers based upon sales, or which uniformly apply ad valorem to the stocks of merchants or manufacturers, no political subdivision in this state shall collect any tax, excise, license or fee upon, measured by or with respect to the importation, receipt, manufacture, storage, transportation, sale or use, on or after the first day of the month next following the adoption of this section of fuel used for propelling motor vehicles, unless the tax, excise, license or fee is approved by a vote of the people of any city, town or village subsequent to the adoption of this section, by a two- thirds majority. All funds collected shall be used solely for construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair, policing, signing, lighting, and cleaning roads and streets and for the payment and interest on indebtedness incurred on account of road and street purposes.

dredger wrote: But the MO statehouse has no spine and hasn't for years IMO.

What are you talking about, the statehouse has been extremely disciplined and energetic in pursuit of their dumb ideas.

MarkHaversham wrote:

dredger wrote: But the MO statehouse has no spine and hasn't for years IMO.

What are you talking about, the statehouse has been extremely disciplined and energetic in pursuit of their dumb ideas.

Ok, will have to give them some credit in their diligence from keeping the Taliban from invading and over running the state of Missouri they have managed by default to keep probably one of the most successful and effective tax credits in the State Historical Tax Credit from being axed.

Messenger: NAACP seeks Justice Department help for St. Louis transit funding

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/mess ... 52d10.html

Their numbers are off. Yes urban areas get a bit less but no where near that.

Roads grew faster than our economy. That's part of the problem.

MIssourinet - Missouri lawmakers could revisit gas tax hike in 2017

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Chris Koster thinks money needs to be raised for roads, and says lawmakers need to agree on what needs to be addressed. “Do we just want to maintain the existing roads? Do we want to maintain and grow? Do we want to maintain, grow and address the highway 70 problems? Let’s come up with a consensus that decides what it is we want to achieve.”

https://www.missourinet.com/2016/10/04/ ... e-in-2017/

Anything to avoid the obvious.

The Missouri Times - Next governor will have to address transportation

Rep. Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville, has proposed using money spent on tax credits to fund transportation instead.

“Right now in the state, about $550 million [of tax credits] are redeemed per year,” he told the Missouri Times during session. “We can't fund transportation, but we can fund these tax credit programs.”

Brattin's proposal would have set up a committee to decide what it takes to fully fund transportation. Tax credits would not be able to be released or granted until that number was met.

That plan could take a while to bear fruit. Because of the structure of programs that provide targeted tax cuts for economic development it would be nearly 10 years before the first savings would be reflected in the budget.

Rep. Marsha Haefner, R-St. Louis, has proposed that the amount of income tax and sales tax withheld by businesses be capped and all funds over the cap be put into a transportation fund.

http://themissouritimes.com/34776/next- ... portation/

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/07/21/o ... tastrophe/

In the past few years, Congressional Republicans tried and failed to turn the federal transportation program into a highways-only affair. Still, the GOP isn’t giving up on eliminating federal funds for transit, walking, and biking.

Donald Trump may have made his name building on the most transit-rich real estate in the nation, but he hasn’t changed the party’s stance on transportation at all. The transportation plank in the newly updated GOP platform [PDF] is as extreme and hostile to cities as ever.

Here are some of the lowlights:

1. Eliminating federal funding for transit, walking, and biking

The Republican Party platform calls for cutting all federal funding for transit, walking, and biking.

The loss of federal funding would cause chaos for transit agencies and transit riders, disrupting and diminishing capacity to operate, maintain, and expand transit systems. The reason this proposal goes nowhere in Congress is that even a sizable share of Republicans realize it would be disastrous to kneecap transit in the nation’s urban centers, where so much economic activity is concentrated.


During a Bloomberg Politics event on infrastructure yesterday at the RNC, Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer (a big Trump booster) toed the “no gas tax for transit” line. She suggested that transit could be funded by a “user fee” on “ticket sales” — apparently unfamiliar with the term “fares,” let alone the fact that roads don’t come close to paying for themselves either.

Republicans are also out to squelch the measly 2 percent of federal transportation funding that goes to walking and biking projects. The GOP platform specifically calls out “bike-share programs, sidewalks, recreational trails” as undeserving of federal support.

2. Obama’s conspiracy to “coerce people out of their cars”

The GOP has gotten away from explicitly calling any attempt to improve transit, walking, or biking a United Nations conspiracy — apparently that was deemed too crazy. But it’s still completely acceptable to accuse President Obama of orchestrating the conspiracy instead.

Obama has secured some additional funds for transit and rail via relatively small programs like TIGER, and may adjust federal rules to nudge state DOTs in a more multi-modal direction. This amounts to tinkering around the margins of federal transportation policy, which remains heavily tilted toward highways and allocates tens of billions of dollars a year for roads. For this, the GOP accuses the Obama administration of trying to “coerce people out of their cars” and “social engineering as it pursues an exclusively urban vision of dense housing and government transit.”

3. No mention of the 35,000 traffic deaths on American streets every year

Traffic fatalities are on the rise and the Centers for Disease Control recently pointed out that America is falling far behind peer nations when it comes to reducing the death toll. But the GOP surface transportation platform doesn’t mention safety at all. The document does refer glowingly to the 1980 Republican platform, which led to the revocation of the national speed limit, freeing states like Texas to raise limits to speeds like 85 miles per hour.

Biz Journals has article on Trailnet's plan to for dedicated bike lanes, cultural trail connection major institutions in the city and central corridor. Article behind pay wall but notes plan as $88.5 million trail plan. Anyone with some details from the article? Not sure if ready for its own thread but would definitely be a worthwhile investment? My other thought is this the type of plan would work for a TIGER Grant application if it stays alive in the next budget.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... oject.html

Alex posting on plan.

https://nextstl.com/2016/11/trailnet-an ... -st-louis/

dredger wrote:Biz Journals has article on Trailnet's plan to for dedicated bike lanes, cultural trail connection major institutions in the city and central corridor. Article behind pay wall but notes plan as $88.5 million trail plan. Anyone with some details from the article? Not sure if ready for its own thread but would definitely be a worthwhile investment? My other thought is this the type of plan would work for a TIGER Grant application if it stays alive in the next budget.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... oject.html

Alex posting on plan.

https://nextstl.com/2016/11/trailnet-an ... -st-louis/

Details

1. Trailnet anticipates federal transportation dollars will cover about $50 million of the total and the rest will come from public and private partnership dollars. (Good luck with that in Trump Administration)

2. It’s still too early to identify which districts the trail will connect, but Pfremmer and Trailnet’s director of policy and strategy, Marielle Brown, said they hope it will connect key areas such as downtown St. Louis, the Central West End, Midtown, Cortex and Clayton, among others. (So basically more investment in the already investment rich Central Corridor. Let's hope North and South City can get in on action)

3. The St. Louis trail is being modeled after a similar project, the Indianapolis Cultural Trail, conceived by Brian Payne, president and CEO of the Central Indiana Community Foundation (CICF). Payne is helping Trailnet work through plans for the St. Louis trail.

4. Trailnet expects to break ground on the new bikeways/walkways project within two years.

5. The $88.5 million cost for the 12-mile trail includes a maintenance endowment and all construction costs. (I wonder why how they plan to get more miles for less than Indy.)