Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
08.04.2008 9:03 pm

Tuesday editorial: Do-it-yourself transit

  • Email this
  • Print this

link_opt.jpgFew of the 224 seats in Washington University’s sumptuous Whitaker Hall auditorium were empty Thursday, circumstantial evidence that public transit in the St. Louis region has a lot of support — among the region’s political class, at least.

Why else would a bevy of county and municipal officials and civic figures from throughout the region turn out on a muggy summer morning to hear talking heads at what was billed as a “Transit Summit”?

It could be argued that the summit, which was organized by the Metro transit agency, was a pep rally in support of a proposed half-cent sales tax increase to support the transit system. Earlier in the week, the St. Louis County Council approved putting the measure on the Nov. 4 ballot.

But if it was a pep rally, it was short on pep. The message delivered at the summit was that public transit is now a “DIY” project: do it yourself. Federal and state governments were said to be out of the transit business; public transit could be sustained only if the local community musters the will and the dollars to do it.

Business and development leaders argue that the region has the financial ability to maintain and build a dynamic transit system, one that can support and create jobs, promote quality of life and help drive economic development. They say it’s in the region’s best interest to do so. Now the job is to make the case to voters.

Metro officials did some bragging about the MetroLink light rail system, citing growing ridership, high levels of rider satisfaction, keen public interest in extending the lines and better connections between buses and trains — all of which gain appeal in the era of $4-a-gallon gasoline.

James Simpson, head of the Federal Transit Administration, was on hand and called Metro a “great system” with “great ridership.”

Development officials from St. Louis County, the Metro East, and the Regional Chamber and Growth Association said transit projects had helped create hundreds of millions of dollars in new investment — projects ranging from the Express Scripts headquarters near the University of Missouri-St. Louis campus to a major “mixed use” project in the making in Maplewood to the first new housing built in East St. Louis in 30 years.

And that’s pretty much where the “pep” pooped out, and the bad news moved in.

By next year
, Metro will face a $45 million shortfall in its $222 million operating budget, due in large part to building the Cross County MetroLink line without budgeting money to operate it. That was exacerbated by the $27 million Metro paid in legal costs and settlements after losing its lawsuit against the construction managers for the Cross County project.

The state of Missouri, already strapped for highway dollars, isn’t interested in spending more money on public transit. Missouri Department of Transportation Executive Director Pete Rahn cheerfully told attendees that if people aren’t depressed when he describes the resources available for transportation “either I didn’t explain it well, or they don’t understand it.”

At the federal level, the matching funds that were available for light rail construction 20 years ago have disappeared. With Americans driving less because of the high cost of gasoline — thus generating less money in federal fuel tax revenue — the Bush administration wants to borrow federal transit money to use for road projects.

Given the bad news, why should the St. Louis region underwrite a transit system by itself? Perhaps the best answer was suggested by Mike Jones, a senior policy advisor to St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley: “There are no successful urban areas that don’t have successful transit.”

St. Louis County voters will have the chance in November to declare whether they accept that premise.

(Pictured: Rhonda Scott of St. Louis uses the MetroLink to commute to her factory job making oxygen tanks in Shrewsbury on Thursday. Scott uses the combination of bus and train in a two-hour (each way) commute. She recently started using the public transportation to save on gas and also because she’s been having car trouble. It is also cheaper than carpooling, she says. Huy R. Mach | Post-Dispatch)

6 comments

Comments are closed.

The financial nightmare that is Metrolink was demanded and designed by politicians. The way I heard it, it ran from the airport to East St. Louis, probably not the first route anyone would have planned, only to get it into both states and get Federal dough. I heard Gephardt told BiState to forge ahead and he’d take care of the money later. I guess he didn’t. Apparently, the only way the tax will pass is if they promise to make it bigger which will lose more money and require more taxes. So, while most of us don’t ride the bus or train, the politicians want us, who have to depend on cars to survive to pay for this shortfall. Meanwhile, we are paying four bucks a gallon while Carnahan, Clay, Costello and McCaskill stand in the way of drilling for oil here which would bring gas prices down for those of us who they want to pay for a system we don’t use. I will vote for this ONLY when I see the local Democrat members of Congress support domestic drilling. Please don’t tell me it will take thirty years or tell me about all the square miles where we can already drill, nobody is buying that line anymore. You want me to help you. Help me, not Nancy Pelosi.

— jjk
11:08 pm August 4th, 2008

I am sure that we have all heard the saying that the definition of insanity is when you do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.
That applys with the current oil and gas problem. We can’t do the same thing anymore and expect a different result. It is time to do something drastically different to acheive energy independence. Just thinking that we drill our way out of this problem is doing the same thing again and again.
We are at a critical turning point in history. We have two choices. One [drilling only] will just be putting the problem off for a short time and then it will surface again, only worse. We cannot just put a band aid on the problem.
The other is to take drastic measures and do something different. To some people, change is frightening. To others it is a challenge. If we accept the challenge, we can reap the benefits in the not too distant future and be independant of the people who are now holding us hostage to their product.
It’s time to get our heads out of the sand literally and figureatively and move forward.

— Bill
6:53 am August 5th, 2008

Whatever happened to pay for use? Between my car payment, car insurance, car repairs, and the cost of fuel I probably pay $700-800 dollars a month for the luxury to drive and operate my own automobile. I just looked and you get get a full access monthly Metro pass for $60. That sounds like a heck of a deal, it should probably be higher. Let the users pay for their own services, and let me pay for mine.

— Mike C.
7:53 am August 5th, 2008

Bill,
Perhaps you read into my statement that I am against “the next big idea”. I am not saying we should only drill. However, tire guages and public transit that isn’t available for 90% of taxpayers ar not enough. Oil is all we are going to have for the next decade since no competing technology exists. We can’t drill our way back to $1.00 gas, however, we can drill our way back to something a lot lower than $4.00 and that is today and that is when we live. I am all for coming up for something better than oil, but I am not willing to bankrupt our country by sending hundreds of billions for overpriced oil out of our economy in the interim. I repeat, unless our local Democrat members of Congress support domestic drilling, I will vot against this tax. This will be a watershed test for these Congressmen and Senator to see if they respect their party more than their constituents.

— jjk
8:20 am August 5th, 2008

Metro’s 2007 annual report is headlined by a statement from the chairman of the board. It’s two sections are “Outstanding Results!” and “Strong Support!” I disagree.

What do they mean by this? After opening a billion dollar expansion, serving the most densely occupied office district in the metropolitan area, and with gas prices at historic highs, ridership increased by just 8.5 percent.

Operating revenue for the year was just over $47 million dollars, or an average of 87 cents for each of the 54 million rides. But operating costs were nearly $260 million, meaning taxpayers match the 84 cent average ticket revenue with a subsidy of nearly $4 per ride, or a total subsidy of about $212 million. With an SMSA population of 2.7 million, that means a family of 4 ponied up $314 in taxes to subsidize Metro.

Now, Charlie Dooley wants to double the sales tax burden, adding hundreds of dollars a year to every family’s tax bill. I disagree. Even if we ignore the mismanagement which led to a busted budget and a foolish lawsuit, pumping more money into Metro is a bad idea. The additional light rail expansion this will pay for is going to require yet another tax increase when it comes online, because Metro will then be unable to afford operating costs - just as happened with the Shrewsbury line. And while families all across St. Louis will be paying a big tax bill to prop up Metro, most will still be out of reach of Metro’s service.

Say no to the Metro tax increase. Get informed by visiting our website:

http://www.stoptheprop.com

— Nick Kasoff
12:12 pm August 5th, 2008

Hold on hyper-individualists, don’t forget that roads and highways are also heavily subsidized despite the collection of user fees through fuel tax. Transit provides a public service just like highways and sewer systems and shouldn’t be held to a stricter standard of self sufficiency.

To those who expect public transit to pay for itself entirely through user fees, why don’t we likewise demand that every new highway, road, and bridge project pay for itself through the collection of tolls. Then users could experience the true ‘per trip’ cost of building and maintaining infrastructure for cars.

My point is that it all costs hundreds of millions of dollars. What’s more expensive depends on how you define costs and benefits and the closer you look the less clear it becomes.

I think the real question is do you want to drive, take the train, or both? I like both, and living in the St. Louis gives me that option right now. I’ll vote to keep it that way.

— Aaron Keegan
4:20 pm August 5th, 2008