You made your bed… now you get to sleep in it and pray like HELL the tax gets passed the next time around.

How much did Metro blow fighting the lawsuit they ultimately lost? Talk about throwing good money after bad.

Well SteveO, I may agree with you but is it fair to penalize all those who rely on Metro?

Ha, lime MODOT has never had a cost over run on a bridge or highway. This stuff happens. Public transit isn’t a luxury, it’s a necessity. Every top teir city has a strong public transit system, however there are still some Know It Alls who think we don’t. Come one people!

Why would anyone give more money to something so mismanaged? Replace management first or the new money will be wasted just like it has been now. all they are doing now is “showing how messed up they can make things” & shooting themselves in the foot, nothing they have done will increase revenue, but they sure have hurt a lot of people.
Look at what has been done in the past, how much did the “art” at Forest Park cost, it didn’t even last the 1st year … it’s really hard to dress up rough concrete. Art work should have been saved as an extra, after the budget is balanced. Isn’t that the way most of us do our homes, pay the bills, feed the family THEN get extras. & that list of waste goes on & on.
They need to be reorganized before they are given more.

Bob:

What part of “NO” don’t you understand?

BJB, do you know who amongst Metro management is “new”? I was also wondering, how is Metro supposed to increase revenue when there’s a $50m budget shortfall that they have to deal with? Should Metro operate at a deficit? Sell brownies at a bake sale? The charge of “mismanagement” is so easy to hurl since you don’t have to make any particular argument that’s backed up with facts, but it doesn’t help the economy or the people who aren’t able to get to work.

If you would only figure out a way to collect a fare from every single person that rides on the metrolink it would solve your revenue problems immediately and make all this stimulus help unnecessary. If you think for one second that everyone is currently buying a ticket for every metrolink ride, you are sadly, sadly misinformed.

BJB - Metro has increased fares to “increase revenues”. That is pretty much all that is in their control on the revenue side of things. Regarding the art work. Use of federal money comes with a requirement to include art in the project, so I am sure Metro did not have a lot of choice. Complain to your federal governmentif you don’t like it.

Regarding the lawsuit…old news as it is. As I understand it, Metro felt that public money was mis-used by the contracted agency, so they sued to get it back. Would you rather they had not tracked your money and how it was used? Yes they lost, but read up on that…not exactly a by the book trial. None of the above sounds like mis-management to me…they seem to be trying hard to manage within their means.

Hmm…at $2.25 a ticket, Metro would have to catch more than 15 million people who are riding without tickets. If you think there are more than 15 million people riding MetroLink without a ticket you are sadly, sadly mistaken.

However, I’m not against a fare collection system that uses turnstiles and more fare collectors. But I think we all need to understand that creating these turnstiles would cost quite a bit of money to build and staff.

Show us a business plan that will work before you get any money…

Now that Metro has reduced it routes, when are they going to remove the bus stops and bus stop signs that they no longer use. They are a EYE SORE!

I support public transit, but I have serious doubts about the state legislature doing much to solve what is essentially our local problem. On the Missouri side of the river, Metro serves ONLY St. Louis City and St. Louis County. Why would a voter or a legislator from Hannibal or Gasconade County even care if Metro succeeds or fails? Especially if it takes stimulus money away from one of their pet projects?! Yes, Metro should go back to voters, and quickly, and make a valid case for higher local taxes - Bob Baer would be better off doing this, spending his time convincing local leaders, both in and out of government, of the reasons why, instead of trying to squeeze a few bucks out of an obviously-unsympathetic state body!

It should be - They are “an” EYE SORE!

No tax increase until turnstiles are put up, the law that prohibits arresting gate jumpers under 18 is repealed and the recession is over.

Why is it, that everyone assumes there is rampant free riding going on? I ride Metro 3-4 times a week and see people standing on the platform with tickets / passes. Fare inspections occur frequently. Many of the riders are transferring from the bus and transfers to cover that. Is everyone in STL so dishonest that no one believes the majority of us pay for our ride?

This sounds to me like more of the system of rewarding CEOs for failure that has destroyed our business marketplace. Sure there’s the patriotards that say it’s Al-Qaida and the Reaganites that blame the unions but the problem is and always has been the CEOs. Never anyone else. Not the workers, not the unions, not entitlments….. It’s the CEO’s stupid!

St. Louisans are just never going to get it are you? The posts attacking Metro just show how dimwitted most St. Louisans are. This isn’t about Metro, Sallici, the lawsuit, or fare collection. This is about something MUCH MUCH BIGGER. This is about infrestructure that you MUST have if you don’t want to be a dying part of hicksville USA. Every world class city has good mass transit. Look at Chicago, Atlanta, Boston, San Francisco, NYC, Seattle, Houston, Dallas. I’m 27 and am nearing a salary around $100,000. I recently left St. Louis for Chicago because I could not handle the stuck in the 50’s “Where did you go to high school” attitude anymore. The last straw was metrolink funding failing. It’s unfathomable that that was even a close vote. I and many of my peers (Young people who are educated and create jobs and economic activity) are fleeing St. Louis en masse, because of this attitude that St. Louis has. You people think so small, and it is KILLING my hometown that I love so dear. Should we cut funding to roads when they go over budget? Hell no, and transit shouldn’t be thought of any differently. What’s going to happen when all the CBC and Desmet baby boomers die and all of thier children have left for cities that actually get it? St. Louis has so much potential, if people would just pull thier heads out of thier rear ends and think big for once. We passed up the railroads in the early 1900’s because of the same type of attitude that put metro in this mess. Chicago thought big, funded infrestructure and look what happened. St. Louisans are bringing the demise of a once great city. BTW please support the Air-China Hub, it might be the only hope the city has. God I’m glad away from you people. How frustrating.

St. Louisans are just never going to get it are you? The posts attacking Metro just show how dimwitted most St. Louisans are. This isn’t about Metro, Sallici, the lawsuit, or fare collection. This is about something MUCH MUCH BIGGER. This is about infrastructure that you MUST have if you don’t want to be a dying part of hicksville USA. Every world class city has good mass transit. Look at Chicago, Atlanta, Boston, San Francisco, NYC, Seattle, Houston, Dallas. I’m 27 and am nearing a salary around $100,000. I recently left St. Louis for Chicago because I could not handle the stuck in the 50’s ”Where did you go to high school” attitude anymore. The last straw was metro link funding failing. It’s unfathomable that that was even a close vote. I and many of my peers (Young people who are educated and create jobs and economic activity) are fleeing St. Louis en masse, because of this attitude that St. Louis has. You people think so small, and it is KILLING my hometown that I love so dear. Should we cut funding to roads when they go over budget? Hell no, and transit shouldn’t’t be thought of any differently. What’s going to happen when all the CBC and Desmet baby boomers die and all of their children have left for cities that actually get it? St. Louis has so much potential, if people would just pull their heads out of their rear ends and think big for once. We passed up the railroads in the early 1900’s because of the same type of attitude that put metro in this mess. Chicago thought big, funded infrastructure and look what happened. St. Louisans are bringing the demise of a once great city. BTW please support the Air-China Hub, it might be the only hope the city has. God I’m glad away from you people. How frustrating.

Metro gambled our money on the infamous lawsuit, and lost. Now they cut our services, and blame us for not passing a tax increase.

The CCC was awarded more than $2.5 million in damages, plus legal fees. The parties settled for $6 million. Metro also incurred it’s own fees of about $21 million. Earlier, CCC offered to settle the suit by paying $28 million, but Metro turnded them down. So instead of receiving $28 million, Metro paid $6 million, not including their own fees. That’s at least $34 million Metro threw away (assuming their own $21 million in fees was already incurred). Now they’re asking the legislature for $35 million. Mmmmmm…what a coincidence!

Hey Mr. Baer, guess what. The state of Missouri is running a deficit as well. And the stimulus (taxpayers) money doesn’t need to be wasted on incompetent entities like Metro. Get a bike or walk. NO NEW TAXES FOR ANYTHING!

How come when the issue was on the ballot the shortfall was only $8 million and now they want $35 million? What other business operates on revenue of 20-25% for their goods/services and gets a subsidy for the rest of the other 70-75%? If Metro didn’t go into the black when Hwy 40/64 shut down, it never will. And let’s not forget that when the issue was on the ballot, gas was $4/gallon with their forecasted shortfall. Now it is down to $2/gallon and that should be easing their operating costs. When gas hit $3/gallon, fares should have gone up say 25 cents, and then again when gas was $4/gallon. Would it not be better to increase the fares and keep the busses running than to charge a ridiculously low fare and have no service? Also, inefficient routes should have been continually being cut, or off peak service reduced, instead of this all or nothing situation we have today.
Also, isn’t it discriminatory to cut all service outside of Hwy 270 loop? Aren’t municipalities collecting taxes that now have no service?
This agency deserves no new capital, that’s why the ballot issue didn’t pass. They wanted capital money without disclosing any plan. And they tried to push the capital through with the operational shortfall. And let’s not forget they supposedly ARE getting money for capital expenditures from TARP according to the previous news articles. Doesn’t this ease their overall budget as well?
Why doesn’t Metro work? 1,) For one, hardly any park and ride lots for commuters. They are not developing new ridership. 2.)When Hwy 40/64 first closed, there was an 11th hour attempt to set up a park and ride at Queeny and then was moved to Chesterfield Mall at the extreme last minute with little advertising/publicity. This could have been huge, but they didn’t market it and make the public aware. And who goes by Queeny on the way to work on Hwy 40? It is not close to the off ramp and by the time you’re there you are half way to downtown. Plus, it’s kind of deserted during the day, and what services are there for commuters? 3.) Metro doesn’t really have a great distribution/transfer system. It really appears to be hap-hazard. Why didn’t Metrolink get extended to a logical location like the Ballas transfer station? Why wasn’t the future ground work laid during the Hwy 40 construction when easements were being bought, houses demolished etc.? What a perfect opportunity to run it out to the Ballas Transfer station. 4.) Who is riding Metrolink to go to a job in Shrewsbury? What businesses/retail is there that people would travel to that location in the morning? 5.) Two and a half years ago I stopped at the Ballas Transfer station to buy a bus ticket. Guess what, no ticket agents, no operating kiosk, no nothing! Oh there are ticket windows inside but they looked like they were being used for storage. No signs of any people ever staffing there. No one to ask about transfers, route info, etc. I couldn’t believe I couldn’t buy a ticket at a transfer station. What a joke.
This havoc is exactly what Metro wants to get its way. I would rather see charitable foundations and people buy tickets and donate them to charity rather than to just give Metro a handout.
Also, let the riders be subsidized if they are need based, not the agency. Other cities do this.
Metro has NOT been a good steward of their resources. Wait a couple of weeks. The people needing to get to work will have found an alternative. People are resourceful.
Charge the occasional rider more, give the discounts to frequent riders through multi ticket packages or monthly passes. Tourists should pay full undiscounted fare cost. We do when we are visiting other cities, why don’t visitors here do the same? Some cities even make you show ID for resident rates. Other cities charge based on distance traveled (ie zones).
DO NOT GIVE METRO MORE SUBSIDIES! They have had their chance and blown it.

Hey, maybe the honeymoon with subsidized transportation needs to end…maybe it will go the way of inflated union pay and junky american cars. No more free rides. No more taxing of property owners so that non-taxpaying,non-property owners can get a free ride at others expense. If I could work at a meesly babysitting job enough to pay for a car, insurance, gas and repairs…at only age 15 1/2…..why can’t everyone else?? Take the Metro money and use it for low interest loans for vehicles to people that qualify for their need.

………….Google Earth the Metro Brentwood Garage (s. Brentwood & Marshall), I counted 104 cars on the Metro parking lot!

It would seem that Metro employees prefer private transportation too, they just want the public money.

Anyone notice that they want 35mm from the government, but when it came to taxing us, it was a 50mm deficit, now its only 45mm? So we’re supposed to give this idiot 35mm to waste it, and end up almost 100mm short? They screwed up the funding to begin with, and yet we all are supposed to pay. Raise the fares, should be pay on demand, popular routes would be cheaper, less popular routes would be more expesnive. The users should pay for metro, if 100 people ride a route a day, take the expense and charge the riders that fare, more people ride the fare goes down… Where did this management force go to school? They should be shut down as they don’t teach business!!

Metro should not get any further state subsidies until management is cleaned up. Only the top few got the boot after the failed law suit. What about all the others who reported to Salci?

Its stunning to think that anyone at Metro would believe they have a chance to get funding when they, and the St. Louis County government, have a well documented history of running a horrible operation. Where were Darin Cline and Charlie Dooley, the people who pretty much orchestrated the FAILED Prop M Campaign today? My guess is that they weren’t with Metro begging for money. County officials share the blame for Metro’s troubles. Why haven’t we heard from them lately?

In a related note, see the info on Metro putting its foot in its mouth in a new high-tech way http://markontheweb.blogspot.com

No futre for st Louis till the idiots move out/It’s own people are killing St. Louis Said:

“BTW please support the Air-China Hub, it might be the only hope the city has.”

Why so jobs can have direct flight out of the United States? Screw China! They’re communists! And screw you! You love them so much, why don’t you go live there and see how wonderful they are! Then you can use a hole as a toilet and live in a mud hut down by the polluted rivers.

Metro did blow 10’s of millions of our tax dollars on that lawsuit and they could have resolved the whole damn matter with money in their pocket. Instead, they let their egos get in the way and lost big time. Look, the light rail thing looks sexy and sometimes it runs with some full cars, but that is rare. Most of the cars I see are at about 10% of capacity. Same thing with buses. There is a lot of inefficiency in the entire system and no competition. It is a lot like the program that bused city kids to the county and spent nearly a billion dollars with very poor outcome. We are in very deep with Metro. We have a highly dependent passenger base, largely poor and working class folks on a daily basis. They must have a subsidized to travel. If anyone had to pay the true cost of light rail or bus, nobody would use the system. We need a complete reevaluation of what the heck we are doing with Metro. Now we have poor service and lots of red ink. Throwing more tax dollars at it sounds stupid. I’d also bet we are top heavy with management types in Metro. Our elected representatives need to take a hard look at this nightmare.

I have an idea. Why don’t we eliminate public transportation altogether, and hopefully, the poor people and disabled who rely on it slowly die out and we don’t have to waste our tax money supporting them. You know how much money it costs to equip a workplace for someone with a visual impairment? Or to transport someone in a wheelchair?

Hm…what possible interest could Missouri have in susbsidizing what is, as one commenter put it, “an essentially local problem?” Let me think…where do all the tax dollars that run the state come from? Oh - St. Louis and Kansas City? And transit helps people get to work so they can pay those taxes, and focuses development, and stimulates people coming downtown and spending money for sporting events and conventions…Nah, there’s no connection. Let’s just ignore the infrastructure in St. Louis and see how long the tax money keeps rolling in to the state.

If our local taxpayers/voters can’t be convinced to raise their own taxes, why would you expect someone three or ten counties over could be convinced to raise theirs? There simply is no free money. Government taxes its residents to raise money and should spend it on projects that benefit its residents. Public transit is, at best, a regional amenity, not a statewide one, like I-70 or the state park system. It makes about as much sense to tax someone in Hannibal or Cuba or Springfield to pay for the maintenance of Forest Park or Queeney Park as it does to expect them to support Metro. Sure, they may use one of them once every 2 or 10 years, when they actually come to the “big city”, but the vast majority of the users are LOCAL. Sure, it’s great when we can scam/convince the federal or state government to spend money in the city or the county, but let’s face it, they have no more extra money lying around than anyone else does! The sooner we accept that this is truly a local/regional issue, the sooner we’ll either start to get the problem solved or kill off public transit permanently!

Oh yes, transit is just a local issue and only local people should support it. Because the pool of tax dollars the state gets is only used to fund projects or infrastructure for the area immediately around the project. Like that bridge in Tuscumbia - I’m sure the money Missouri is spending on that bridge only came from taxes collected in Tuscumbia, right? Because it’s not like the roads are connected or anything. And the tax dollars generated by having a good business environment in St. Louis - including the ability to get people to and from their jobs - will only be spent in St. Louis, I’m sure. They won’t be going to pay for medical care for elderly people who live way out of “the big city,” right, or to support the state’s university system, or any other “non-local” concern? So why should transit be any different.

I’m so tired of the charges of “mismanagement” that I can’t read any more without commenting. Since the term is thrown around so easily (and apparently without any factual basis), all I can do is assume there are two threads behind it.
One is the litigation behind the construction of the Shrewsbury MetroLink extension, so let’s start there. In 2000 Metro hired a joint venture to manage the construction of the Shrewsbury Branch with a completion date of May, 2005. In February, 2002 Larry Salci was hired as CEO and reviewed the progress of that construction. Eventually he believed that, at its current pace and cost, it would not be completed on time and would be much further over budget than it eventually proved to be. In August, 2004 Metro terminated that contract, took over direct management of the project. Having terminated the contract, litigation was inevitable and Metro filed suit claiming breach of contract, negligent design, and fraudulent misrepresentation. In order to complete construction Metro requested that the City and County approve the sale of an additional $150 million in bonds (to be repaid over time by Prop M proceeds) to fund the cost overruns in the project prior to Metro’s takeover, and completed the Shrewsbury Branch in August, 2006. The lawsuit was filed specifically to recover those taxpayer funds from the original contractors. That lawsuit, when taken to a jury which spent months poring over complex documents, was ultimately unsuccessful. While we can Monday-morning-quarterback all those decisions, they were based on professional judgments and Mr. Salci and others connected with those decisions are no longer with Metro.
The other thread which seems to underlie the “mismanagement” thread is the fact that Metro is no longer able to spin gold from straw in meeting its expenses with insufficient revenues. Federal operating funding ended in 1999 and was never replaced by Missouri funds or increased local funds. Metro management clearly saw the trends – increasing costs and decreasing revenues – in the late 1990s and began sharing them with the City, the County and the Missouri General Assembly. Instead of responding positively, the County reduced its support and diverted more of the original 1973 sales tax to roads, and the Missouri General Assembly remained silent. The City continued to provide its entire sales tax collections, however, they have not kept pace with inflation. The political leadership of the region also directed Metro to build the Shrewsbury MetroLink extension without providing additional funds to operate it, promising that “if you build it, money will come” – but it didn’t.
So Metro dealt with the issue internally, aggressively managing costs and buying time for the political leadership to act. It froze all wages for two years, and its cost of compensation and benefits has been flat for five years despite the addition of staff for the Shrewsbury MetroLink branch in August, 2006 and the fact that transit is a labor-intensive business. The non-union pension plan was modified as a money-saving measure. All health insurance programs were dramatically changed to require much higher co-pays and deductibles. Workers compensation costs for this labor-intensive operation have been reduced dramatically over the last five years. Metro shifted to competitive contracting of all cleaning, security, and many maintenance functions as well as selling various assets and leasing them back to free up local funds. It restructured many driver relief methods to reduce deadhead miles and hours which then allowed some expansion of bus service after the Shrewsbury MetroLink Branch startup. The reduced deadhead miles and hours (miles and time spent going to the beginning of a line) created a reduction in the net subsidy per passenger boarding for four years in a row. It shifted federal capital funds (intended to buy buses, fix buildings, and make capital rail improvements) into the operation of the bus and rail system (originally a stopgap solution but one that continues to this day) which has meant a deferral of other business infrastructure improvements. It aggressively sought short term and temporary federal funds, and various modifications of the Cross County bonding to defer paying principle to keep some Prop M funds in the operation. Despite all those actions, there was still a 10% service cut in 2001 and four fare increases to prevent more serious impact on customers.
And now there is no more straw to spin. Either the region provides additional funding for transit in some way from some source or it accepts a smaller transit system providing less access to jobs, education, medical facilities. Perhaps it won’t matter to you because you have a job and a car, at least you have one today. And maybe it doesn’t matter because you aren’t disabled or don’t have a disabled family member (although statistics show that the odds of becoming disabled before age 60 are far greater than the odds of dying). And maybe it won’t even affect you today or tomorrow. Maybe you won’t notice it until your daughter or son doesn’t “come home” after college graduation because there aren’t any good-paying jobs in this region any more because national companies bypass contracting, short-sighted areas. I guess we’ll all see, won’t we?

I’m so tired of the charges of “mismanagement” that I can’t read any more without commenting. Since the term is thrown around so easily (and apparently without any factual basis), all I can do is assume there are two threads behind it.
One is the litigation behind the construction of the Shrewsbury MetroLink extension, so let’s start there. In 2000 Metro hired a joint venture to manage the construction of the Shrewsbury Branch with a completion date of May, 2005. In February, 2002 Larry Salci was hired as CEO and reviewed the progress of that construction. Eventually he believed that, at its current pace and cost, it would not be completed on time and would be much further over budget than it eventually proved to be. In August, 2004 Metro terminated that contract, took over direct management of the project. Having terminated the contract, litigation was inevitable and Metro filed suit claiming breach of contract, negligent design, and fraudulent misrepresentation. In order to complete construction Metro requested that the City and County approve the sale of an additional $150 million in bonds (to be repaid over time by Prop M proceeds) to fund the cost overruns in the project prior to Metro’s takeover, and completed the Shrewsbury Branch in August, 2006. The lawsuit was filed specifically to recover those taxpayer funds from the original contractors. That lawsuit, when taken to a jury which spent months poring over complex documents, was ultimately unsuccessful. While we can Monday-morning-quarterback all those decisions, they were based on professional judgments and Mr. Salci and others connected with those decisions are no longer with Metro.
The other thread which seems to underlie the “mismanagement” thread is the fact that Metro is no longer able to spin gold from straw in meeting its expenses with insufficient revenues. Federal operating funding ended in 1999 and was never replaced by Missouri funds or increased local funds. Metro management clearly saw the trends – increasing costs and decreasing revenues – in the late 1990s and began sharing them with the City, the County and the Missouri General Assembly. Instead of responding positively, the County reduced its support and diverted more of the original 1973 sales tax to roads, and the Missouri General Assembly remained silent. The City continued to provide its entire sales tax collections, however, they have not kept pace with inflation. The political leadership of the region also directed Metro to build the Shrewsbury MetroLink extension without providing additional funds to operate it, promising that “if you build it, money will come” – but it didn’t.
So Metro dealt with the issue internally, aggressively managing costs and buying time for the political leadership to act. It froze all wages for two years, and its cost of compensation and benefits has been flat for five years despite the addition of staff for the Shrewsbury MetroLink branch in August, 2006 and the fact that transit is a labor-intensive business. The non-union pension plan was modified as a money-saving measure. All health insurance programs were dramatically changed to require much higher co-pays and deductibles. Workers compensation costs for this labor-intensive operation have been reduced dramatically over the last five years. Metro shifted to competitive contracting of all cleaning, security, and many maintenance functions as well as selling various assets and leasing them back to free up local funds. It restructured many driver relief methods to reduce deadhead miles and hours which then allowed some expansion of bus service after the Shrewsbury MetroLink Branch startup. The reduced deadhead miles and hours (miles and time spent going to the beginning of a line) created a reduction in the net subsidy per passenger boarding for four years in a row. It shifted federal capital funds (intended to buy buses, fix buildings, and make capital rail improvements) into the operation of the bus and rail system (originally a stopgap solution but one that continues to this day) which has meant a deferral of other business infrastructure improvements. It aggressively sought short term and temporary federal funds, and various modifications of the Cross County bonding to defer paying principle to keep some Prop M funds in the operation. Despite all those actions, there was still a 10% service cut in 2001 and four fare increases to prevent more serious impact on customers.
And now there is no more straw to spin. Either the region provides additional funding for transit in some way from some source or it accepts a smaller transit system providing less access to jobs, education, medical facilities. Perhaps it won’t matter to you because you have a job and a car, at least you have one today. And maybe it doesn’t matter because you aren’t disabled or don’t have a disabled family member (although statistics show that the odds of becoming disabled before age 60 are far greater than the odds of dying). And maybe it won’t even affect you today or tomorrow. Maybe you won’t notice it until your daughter or son doesn’t “come home” after college graduation because there aren’t any good-paying jobs in this region any more because national companies bypass contracting, short-sighted areas. I guess we’ll all see, won’t we?

AMEN Garrett!
It’s too bad that all the facts you present won’t make any difference to those who think they know what’s going on. I too am tired of hearing mismanagement being thrown around by those that have no clue as to what is really happening and just jump on someone elses band wagon. WAY TO GIVE THE FACTS!

Please, oh, please, stop shedding crocodile tears for disabled folks. They have plenty alternative transportation, and they are doing just fine. For the past month I have witnessed a sharp increase in EMT vans’ presence. They effectively replaced Bi-State’s Call-A-Rides. And they are much smaller too.