Campaign Kickoff: Thursday, Feb. 11th, 11:40 am. Shrewsbury Metro, Lansdowne
"You can trust metro this time...really."
Citizens for Better Transit is Kicking off it’s campaign at the Shrewsbury Metrolink (Lasdowne) on Thursday, Feb. 11th at 11:30 am. See below for press release:
Citizens for Better Transit Kicks Off Campaign Against Prop A (Metro Tax):
Special Interests Ride the Money Train
citizensforbettertransit@gmail.com
Citizens for Better Transit (CBT) is kicking off its campaign against Proposition A, the proposed Metro tax. The kickoff will begin at 11:40 a.m. on Thursday, February 11th, 2010 at the Shrewsbury Metrolink Station: 7201 Lansdowne Ave. St. Louis, MO 63119.
“John Nations and Charlie Dooley are being led by wealthy special interests rather than concern for the public,” says CBT spokesman John Burns. “Nations and Dooley have adopted a tired strategy of increasing taxes in the middle of a recession. Apparently, nobody ever told them that was a bad idea.”
Nations and Advance St. Louis claim that the light rail and increased mass transit spending will improve the St. Louis economy. Yet, at best the light rail line wouldn’t be completed for 5 years. Whatever the economic impact of the program, it certainly wouldn’t help ease the burden on middle class pocketbooks in the near term.
“This tax has special interests and lack of accountability written all over it,” says Burns. “Special interests are donating vast sums to the pro-tax campaign because they stand to make a lot of money at the tax payers’ expense. Special interests get fat while the tax payer gets thin.”
As of January, Advance St. Louis, the pro metro tax campaign had raised $178,000. Unsurprisingly, the donors all have a vested interest in a massive Metrolink project. From large construction companies, to development companies, to local and national union groups, special interests with much to gain are driving the Advance St. Louis campaign. They’re spending their money on high powered consultants from out of state in order to shape public opinion on the issue.
Metro has developed 4 potential light rail routes, but won’t say which route will be built – assuming the tax passes. “Voters are being asked to blindly fund a light rail line – the path of which, they will have zero ability to decide,” says Burns. “A cabal of elected and unelected officials will make the decision for the public instead of voters. Makes sense, why would a taxpayer in South County vote to tax herself for the purpose of building a light rail line she’ll never have the opportunity to use?”
Less than 2% of the St. Louis County workforce uses light rail. According to the US Census, approximately 10,300 St. Louis County commuters utilize any kind of mass transit. It would be cheaper to buy a $12,000 car for every St. Louis County mass transit commuter every few years, rather than build more light rail.
Light rail is not a success, and is a disastrous transit model. There isn’t a single revenue neutral light rail system in the US. The costs are severe, federal funding is uncertain, budget shortfalls are inevitable, and it takes years upon years to build even short light rail routes.
The proposed Prop A tax constitutes a 100% metro revenue increase from St. Louis County – in perpetuity, since the tax has no sunset clause. With the amount of money Metro would receive, St. Louis County could literally buy a new car for every mass transit commuter in St. Louis County – every year…forever.
Critical environmental impact studies – required by the federal government as a condition for consideration of federal light rail funds – have not been initiated. It’s very possible that even if the tax passes, the environmental impact study may fail – and federal funds wouldn’t come. “The plan put forth by Metro shows contempt for St. Louis County voters,” said Burns. “The plan has not been developed in good faith. Had it been, the environmental impact studies would already be complete and accepted by the federal government.”
Burns predicts failure for Prop A. “I think the County Council, Dooley, and Nations will find tax payers are mad as hell about the recent $250 million dollar cost overrun on the Shrewsbury light rail line. Why should any voter trust Metro’s word? Metro’s board wasn’t punished for its failures, and Metro isn’t held accountable to voters. Metro is in 30 years worth of debt over the Shrewsbury boondoggle.” The per mile cost was roughly $130 million dollars for that project. Yet, Metro now suggests a $60 million per mile figure for future light rail lines – a clear example of Metro duplicity.
###
February 15th, 2010 at 10:50 am
I would like to see the Citizens for Better Transit plan for Better Transit. Presumably the organization’s name means something? Should we have more buses? Maybe try BRT? Would the region have “better” transit if we had no mass transit at all and focused instead of building and maintaining roads? What’s your view?
Citizens for Better Transit is a diverse coalition, and we don’t all agree on what the perfect transit system would look like. Speaking for myself (Nick Kasoff), I’d say that better transit means BRT, not light rail. Rail is great when you have walkable neighborhoods and a strong CBD. When you have suburban development and dispersed employment centers, it is useless. Rail is also very expensive, and totally inflexible. So yes, employing BRT to meet our transit needs would be wise.
And personally, I would disagree that it would be better if we had no transit, and focused all our resources on building and maintaining roads. If I was dictator, suburban commuter roads would be paid for by the suburbs which they serve, or they wouldn’t be built. Building highways that make it easier to live sixty miles from where you work is foolish and unsustainable. I personally live in Ferguson, a walkable community in the urban core of our region, which is efficiently served by Metro bus service. There are always people waiting at the bus stop around here. Should we make them wait longer so we can run empty trains to Wildwood?
So to summarize, better transit to me means an efficient, fully funded bus system, serving those areas in which it can provide efficient service and in which there is sufficient demand, utilizing technology already in place elsewhere to make the bus experience better for those who depend on it.
I oppose this proposition because it takes us in the opposite direction. If it passes, 25 years from now we’ll have a couple more shiny new underutilized rail lines that people in south county and west county can take to a ball game twice a year, a broke transit agency, and a cannibalized bus system with inefficient routes and worn out buses. People who care about transit in St. Louis should save Metro from the rail fetishists by voting NO on Proposition A.