Sunday editorial: An alliance for Metro
Kevin Manning/Post-Dispatch
Critics scoffed at the idea that St. Louis County voters would consider adding a half cent onto the local sales tax to fund regional public transit.
In this economy? Given the arrogance of past leaders of Metro, St. Louis’ regional transit agency?
What’s more, the tax issue was not small change. It would put the arm on the public at an estimated rate of $80 million per year, $40 million of which would be used to cover a shortfall of operating funds at Metro, with the remainder banked for future expansion of the MetroLink light-rail line.
Proposition M was defeated on Election Day, but the critics were wrong. With all that was working against it, Prop M lost by just 15,802 votes out of 509,684 cast. The outcome was all the more remarkable given the lackluster campaign to promote it.
Metro now must plan for the worst. Without added revenue, it will have to reduce service drastically by April 1.
Metro President Robert J. Baer held public hearings earlier in the year on service reductions and possible fare increases, enabling his board to act based on broad public input. He also built in enough time for interested parties to consider all the options.
Gutting the system might be the most likely outcome of Prop M’s defeat. But it is not inevitable if regional leaders act quickly and boldly to plug some of Metro’s $40 million operating shortfall.
Metro has made mistakes, but it also has made remarkable progress in building a dynamic public transit system to serve this region, and it’s a system worth preserving.
Riders don’t want service cuts and are willing to contribute more in fares. That was the clear message from the public hearings.
Metro managers have put together a proposal for fare increases that is steep, about 30 percent, but that would bring an estimated $5 million to $6 million in added annual revenue.
St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay and County Executive Charlie A. Dooley could turn the tide if they get together, once more, as regional partners.
Mr. Slay could push to get a quarter-cent transit tax increase on a ballot next year. City voters already have approved such an increase, but made it contingent on St. Louis County voters’ matching it. That contingency hasn’t happened.
If city voters were willing to approve the increase without the match, it would raise an additional $10 million in annual revenue.
Mr. Dooley could add an incentive. Part of the reason Metro is facing a deficit was St. Louis County’s decision to divert $10 million in other support for Metro to fund road projects. As part of a regional transit rescue package, Mr. Dooley could restore those funds to Metro, at least until a stable and more permanent finance system meets voters’ approval.
That leaves the state of Missouri, which has shortchanged urban areas with pitiful financial support of public transit. The Legislature is dominated by outstate and suburban legislators, but a big push by Governor-elect Jay Nixon could persuade them of the importance of the transit system to the economy of St. Louis and the rest of the state. A similar argument could be made about Kansas City’s Area Transportation Authority.
There is little doubt that public transit is the most underfunded economic development tool in the state.
The only question is whether the state’s political and business leaders realize it and can come together to bring public transit in Missouri into the 21st century.
Your argument that is almost passed ignores the fact that this occured in a once in lifetime voter turnout that brought uban voters, more likely to support Metro, to the polls. Those people will not be returning in those same numbers in the future (at least not for four years, and even then I doubt these turnout levels will occur. I have listed the reasons for the defeat many times. But, this was simply overreaching by Charlie Dooley, who must be unaware of the recession and who had better figure it out before the next reassessment or be sent packing. I believe people will support a reasonable, say eighth-cent increase for operations. Once confidence is restored, then we can talk about expansion. I again return the the history of Metrolink when Gephardt promised Federal funding for operations and didn’t come through. You now have Obama talking about infrastructure and we lent him one of our Senators for the past year to shill for him. He owes her and she needs to make sure that we get some of those Obama dollars. The other clear move that must be made, a move that would be self-financing, is the installation of turnstiles. Nobody wants to pay more so people can ride the train free. Do these things and the system can survive. Government and its subdivisions need to understand people are taxed up to the eyeballs and we will not be voting yes anymore unless there is a clear need with a sound plan. The next round of this will be with school districts who are spending like drunken sailors and will soon be faced with declining assessments.
I feel that on election(November 4th,2008) city residents should have had a vote also, since services cuts will also effect city residents. If the leaders of Metrolink would have had all residents(City and County) a vote on this proposition, it could have actually passed. There are some REALLY STUPID people that run Metrolink. I suggest firing all the high officials and replace them with people that would instill confindence in the metropolitan area where people would not voting yes a propostion.
Jonathan,
The City already voted to increse its tax rate by one-fourth cent several years ago. It does not start being collected until County voters approve a tax hike. City voters cannot obligate County taxpayers and vise versa. Also, the former management has been fired. Metro nee BiState is now run on an interim basis by Bob Baer who is an honorable guy thrown into an impossible situtation.
You blame the loss on “lackluster campaign to promote it”? That lackluster campaign cost about $550,000. The opposition had … basically, nothing. For a newspaper that moans about moneyed interests in politics, it’s strange that you see nothing wrong with the contractors who would profit from the construction attempting to buy this election. This campaign wasn’t funded by thousands of small contributions from transit supporters, but by big money commercial interests who would profit from a win. For example:
11/4 - Pinnacle Entertainment, $25,000
10/30 - Regional Business Council, $25,000
10/1 - CPAC, $75,000
10/18 - Wash U, $12,500
10/18 - Civic Progress, $75,000
10/21 - Regional Business Council, $25,000
10/21 - Thompson Coburn, $10,000
10/27 - Regional Business Council, $25,000
10/27 - Regional Business Council, $25,000 (again)
10/21 - Thompson Coburn, $10,000
10/27 - Pipefitters Union, $5,000
10/27 - Fred Weber, $15,000
9/26 - Regional Business Council, $25,000
8/19 - HNTB Corporation (architecture & engineering firm), $25,000
9/19 - Eager Road Associates (developer), $25,000
9/19 - THF Realty (developer), $10,000
I know this is hard to consider, but let’s assume that Metro does get cut by the $40,000,000 they say they need. When they cut the routes or reduce service that they say they will, what will be the net effect on the economy of this area? How will the people who need Metro because they aren’t paid enough to buy a car or can’t afford gas get to work? What will happen to the stores that depend on bus traffic for both workers and customers?
It’s always easy to say Metro screwed up so don’t give them anything, but what will be the net impact on our economy? It’s kind of like the guys who are against the “bailout”. You can always say let “market forces rule”, but didn’t Hoover try that? I guess we’ll find out.
BMPNTG - Customers of retail establishments outside 270, where the cuts will come, do not arrive by bus. It’s possible that some of their workers do. So let me ask you this: Is it the responsibility of taxpayers to subsidize transportation to suburban retail centers so that the retailers can underpay their employees? I suggest this instead: Either pay your employees enough for them to afford a car, or perhaps even better, let the Chesterfield Chamber of Commerce pay for a shuttle from North Hanley Station to their employment centers. The shuttle would cost several hundred grand a year, a far cry from $80 million. And more important, it would be a cost borne by the businesses who depend on the cheap labor, instead of sticking taxpayers with the bill.
Metro should focus on infrastructure for the city where people would support it. I agree with Nick, that we all shouldn’t have to help the Charlie’s Steakery in Chesterfield get workers to the door.
St. Louis Co. has made a statement, and I think Metro should listen.
jjk wrote: “Your argument that is almost passed ignores the fact that this occured in a once in lifetime voter turnout that brought uban voters, more likely to support Metro, to the polls.”
JJK, I don’t mean to point out the obvious… this was a county election, the city voted for the increase some time ago. Not sure what urban voters you speak of.
Peter Kinder claims to be a friend of St. Louis. Maybe he can walk his talk and ask his fellow conservative Republicans to help find state funds for Metro.