bill hartmann: Mr. Plesko

1) if Prop M does not pass, what are the consequences for Metro?
2) there is a present tax for the operation of Metro, was doesn't the full tax go to Metro?
3) the county is planning to give less of a percentage of the present sales tax to Metro. why?

Todd Plesko: Bill: (1) If the voters in St. Louis County decide against more revenue to support the existing Metro system, Metro will be required to reduce the transit system to match the revenue that has been provided. In FY10 (beginning July 2009), the unfunded deficit will $45 million. This deficit is too large to reduce without raising fares and reducing service. Since reducing service will also reduce farebox revenue, the total reduction of cost in Missouri will range between $55 and $60 million annually, which is a reduction of approximately 1/3 of Metro's Missouri services. Metro will conduct a series of public meetings in September of 2008 to offer possible reduction strategies and solict alternatives from the community. Metro's tentative reduction plan would reduce Missouri bus service by over 50 %, Metrolink by 43 % and Call a Ride by 37 %. Over 20 bus routes would be eliminated. A plan that maintains the highest amount of transit service inside I-270 would eliminate all service beyond I-270 including Call a Ride. Metrolink frequency would be cut by 1/3 and the new Shrewsbury line would operate only as a shuttle between Shrewsbury Station and Forest Park. All transit service after 9:00 pm would be eliminated including special event trains.

(2)Metro obtains subsidy from St. Louis City and St.Louis County from two local taxes. In 1974 a 1/2 cent sales tax was enacted in both the City and County. Metro generally receives 100 % of the revenue (after tif diversions)from the City of St. Louis or approximately $17 million. Metro will receive approximately 50 % of the tax received by St. Louis County (after tif diversions). Last fiscal year, Metro received approximately 62 % of the County 1/2 cent transportation tax. It is Metro's understanding that the split will be reduced to 50-50 into the future. In FY10, this reduction in percentage will reduce revenue to Metro by approximately $10 million annually.

Metro also receives subsidy from the 1994 Prop M tax from the City and County. These funds are now allocated primarily to repay the bonds for the Cross County Metrolink.

(3) St. Louis County has historically used the 1974 Transportation Tax to fund both highways and transit. When the tax was orginally enacted, it was done to provide a local match to the Federal Section 3 and 5 Grant programs. Without the local funds, Missouri would have been unable to access these newly created federal transportation programs. However, the 1974 legislation was defined as a "transportation" tax and not a "transit tax". As such, St. Louis County officials, for decades, have used some of the 1974 tax to support road improvements in St. Louis County. The allocation of funds to Metro were frozen by the County in 1986 through 1997 at an amount in the neighborhood of $32-33 million. In 1997, when the second County Prop M tax was turned down by the voters, the County executive and council agreed to increase the percentage of funding to Metro to prevent service cuts and to allow the construction of the new Cross County alignment to begin. This percentage increased to approximately 62 % last year with inflationary growth. Due to cpmmitted obligations for road improvements in St. Louis County, the County Council and County Executive decided to reduce the ratio of transit to highway split back to 50 - 50. This change is part of the reason for the large unfunded deficit in FY10.

Adam Charnack: Todd,

Good to see you answering some questions here. We have met and spoken on several occasions about improving transit in St. Louis. I have since moved to Chicago but remain vested in the success of Metro in St. Louis.

I find it amazing how underfunded transit is in this country. With gas prices forcing Americans to realize the untenable unsustainability of ex-urban development, I find it hard to believe that (a) many think an auto-dominated society is inevitable now and into the future and (b) subsequently people will never use transit en masse in St. Louis.

While Chicago has a moderately developed "L" and bus system, any resident here will tell you it is still grossly underfunded. The state of Illinois contributing so much funding to the Chicagoland equivalent of Metro (RTA) based on the understanding of how much a viable, functioning transit system contributes to both the Chicago region and to the state. With so much potential to be unlocked by a similar investment of Missouri into Bi-State, I find it appalling that such an investment isn't occurring. This, it seems, is the root of the funding issue - and possibly part of St. Louis's aversion to funding bi-state, in that the region carries so much of the burden for financing the system. When cost overruns occur, the region becomes enraged, wanting its precious resources used responsibly.

Can you address these issues and the larger issue of properly funding the system so that it can afford to run in way where people use it?

As a brief follow up, it is my experience that 'on the fence' urbanites who want to use the system at least fairly regularly but fail to make the leap remain that way because of a lack of frequency of bus routes. Having to wait for 20-30 minutes (as most routes as of their patrons) will dissuade almost anyone not entirely reliant on riding Metro. Wouldn't it then make sense to focus providing more frequent, reliable service on St. Louis's core and inner suburbs than infrequent service that reaches to the precipice of St. Louis's outer suburbs? Quality (frequency, investment in corridors, etc) INSTEAD of quantity (expanded service while sacrificing frequency), it seems, should be the credo.

Todd Plesko: Hello Adam: Funding public transit across the globe requires multiple revenue sources.None, to my knowledge make a provide exclusively from the farebox. Nearly every transit system in the world receives public funds as well as farebox revenues. Some systems receive ancillary revenue from advertising, land leases at or over stations (Hong Kong is an example of one with huge lease revenue.) Metro receives approximately 21 % of its revenue from fares, but the balance come from public tax sources. In Missouri, the public sources are predominantly local sales tax revenues allocated from the local governments to Metro operation. Metro receives very little money from the State of Missouri which is very different than the funding situation in Illinois. The new legislation supporting public transit in downtownstate Illinois permits up to 65 % of the cost of public transit, after subtracting fares, to be paid by state tax sources. In the current fiscal year, the State of Illinois will provide approximately $21 million to support transit in St. Clair County Illinois (where Metro operates Metrolink and Metrobus service). Conversely the State of Missouri provides only $1.2 million annually to support transit in St. Louis. The lack of significant funding from the State puts more pressure on local government sources to provide those subsidies.

It is imperative that Metro, and any other government body receiving public funds, to manage the system efficiently and provide services that are of value to the taxpayers. Building Metrolink, in Missouri and in Illinois, has been the single reason why interest in public transit has increased since 1993. Ridership on all public transit modes reached a low of 37 million annual boardings in 1993 (before Metrolink). While the first Metrolink did not have a public vote, the Illinois extensions and the Cross County both were constructed to deliver upon the commitments of public referendums. In 2008, Metro and MCT annual boardings will exceed 55 million boardings and that base is growing. No similar investment exclusively in bus service would attract as many passengers at a lower cost.

While Metrolink has been the key to Metro's last 15 years of success with the public, the bus system is the unsung hero, carrying over 35 million between MCT and Metro this past year. Rail is unable to access all of the communities and jobs in the St. Louis Region, but when paired with a good bus system, it can. In the past year, bus ridership has increased by nearly 6 % and the growth rate is increasing. In fact, some of the greatest growth is in suburban St. Louis County. The past three months, ridership has grown by 10+ %. With adequate funding, a logical investment would definitely include improved bus frequency on strong routes. This is one of Metro's weaknesses and certainly a goal if we have expanded funding.

annman: A comment and a question. I really appreciate being able to purchase Metrolink tickets from CMT through my computer. Are there other sites for computer users to purchase tickets, if they are not members of Citizens for Modern Transit? It makes travel much easier to have a package of Metro tickets in my wallet! Thanks, Ann Mandelstamm

Todd Plesko: You may purchase tickets and passes from Metro on Metro's website (metrostlouis.org. Look on the menu bar under "Fares" and go to "Purchase tickets online."

Mary Kwentus: How much will the rates be increased to ride the metro?
Will all the questions and answers be posted on the web and at what site?

Thanks I enjoy riding the metro to work.

Todd Plesko: Mary: Metro's Board of Commissioners will review public commments at the August Board meeting. No decision is expected until November.

Amy: Mr. Plesko,
I live in St. Peters and must go to the Hanley station to catch the metrolink. I was wondering why metrolink was not considered when planning the highway 40 construction project. I understand that funding is always a problem, but it would make sense to me to at least plan for future expansion. It would mean a lot to me, living across the river, if metro at least made it to highway 270.

Todd Plesko: Amy: Metro would also like to see extensions of Metrolink to I-270. East West Gateway has developed preliminary plans for extensions to I-270 at Page and Westport, another that extends the Shrewsbury alignment to South County near I-270, and another to I-270 near N. Hanley in north County. To extend train service requires both new capital funding (both local and federal) to build the train and new funding to support the operation of the new service. St.Louis County will place a tax initiative on the ballot for St.Louis County voters to consider in November which would extend Metrolink to Westport and I-270. Transit service into St. Charles will require funding decisions from the voters in St. Charles County.