Post Dispatch: Prop A (Metro Tax) Supporters on the Defensive
The New Metro "30 Year Plan."
See Link to Post-Dispatch article below..
Metro’s Bob Baer was apparently put on the defensive as a result of mounting opposition to the Metro Tax. Baer scrambled to defend Metro’s new 30 year “plan” in the face of opponents who demand details. “30 Year Plan” (read: “MEET THE NEW BOSS, SAME AS THE OLD BOSS”). The “plan” is filled with the same non-sense as all the rest. It’s a typical Metro bait and switch plan. Fact is, voters still don’t know what they’re going to get. And frankly, it’s not in Metro’s best interest (or the best interest of the special interests that drive Metro) to give details.
Metro has utterly failed to explain which light rail route will take priority. Relying on platitudes and feel good politicking, the plan has drawn sharp criticism from Citizens for Better Transit and others, who assert Metro lacks transparency, irresponsibly manages its budget and caters to wealthy special interests such as Edward Jones, Tarlton (construction), and a litany of construction, litigation, and development firms.
March 8th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
“Metro has utterly failed to explain which light rail route will take priority.”
That is not their call it is the East-West Council of Governments’ decision, and you know it. But are conveniently hiding that fact.
“the plan has drawn sharp criticism from Citizens for Better Transit and others”
Care to name the others?
So Metro floats a tax proposal, makes promises to get people to vote for it, but has no way of actually fulfilling those promises. Sounds like a scam to me.
As to others who oppose it … if you don’t read the newspaper or watch the news, don’t expect me to fill in the gaps for you.
March 30th, 2010 at 10:06 am
Metrolink was opened in 1993. All of the railcars that were placed in service then are still in service. Every bus that was placed in service between that year and and 2000 has been retired. The rails that were used to build the original Metro line were purchased from the former Illinois Central line in Central Illinois. They are decades old and still in service. If we had built a bus rapid line, it would have had to been repaved at least once already. This has been proven out in Los Angeles where bus rapid lines have run into huge maintainence costs. In short, while it is true that bus rapid systems cost much less to build, thay also cost far more to maintain and keep in operation. Bus rapid is not a cheap alternative. It cannot be built within Metro’s present budget. Will you actually support a tax increase to build bus rapid? I’ll believe that when I see it.
The operating subsidy per passenger mile on busses in St. louis is actually higher than the per passenger mile subsidy for Metrolink riders.
Bus lines that now connect with Metrolink actually have a higher ridership now than they did before the Metrolink was built.
The “fact” that you site about Metrolink ridership to the ballgame is actually misleading. It is based only on riders from Missouri and leaves out riders from Illinois. The twenty percent figure that they give is accurate, more or less. Your figures are the one’s that are wrong. When the new stadium was being discussed, the Cardinal ownership had one condition….Wherever it was built, it would have to be built along the Metrolink line.
The population density argument that you give is true to a degree, but you are using it out of context. It is based on the concept of putting a New York City style transit system in St. Louis, and you are right, such a system wouldn’t work here. The only problem with this argument is that the St. Louis Metro system is not a New York style system. It is a rail system geared towards the moderate population density of St. Louis. It is based largely on intermodalism. People either connect to it on busses, or they drive their cars and park them there at the stations. The genesis for such system was the San Diego light rail system built in 1984 for the moderate population density there. Even Ronald Reagan had to admit that it was a workable system and he did.
I do believe that you will have your way however. This proposal will more than likely go down to defeat. Given that a lot of Metro’s money actually goes to help underwrite TIF financing for developers who in spite of this subsidy still get away with calling themselves “private developers” perhaps it should. I have heard “just improve the bus system” time and time again from those opposed to Metrolink, but if they are true to form, once this proposal goes down to defeat, they won’t be heard from again.
March 30th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
This site is full of half truths and weak logic. Someone hasn’t done his homework, but believes he can put his name out in public space to get attention. Why don’t you actually try mass transit some day and find out what you think is not what is? You only get what you pay for. Nothing begets nothing. If you want to disable a city’s economy fast, pull down public transit. Then find another place to live because there won’t be any work for you here.
Nana – Actually, I’ve ridden Metro lots of times. And I don’t suggest that we should “pull down public transit.” Rather, I’d like Metro to focus on providing quality transit to the densely developed areas, and stop trying to provide glamorous, costly service to sparsely developed suburbs where it won’t be used.
What transit users are not hearing is, there’s a reason why Metro has been steadily pushed in the direction of more rail. There’s a reason why Advance St. Louis is able to spend $500,000 on a campaign to push this tax increase. If you want to know the reason, you only need to look at who contributed the money, and consider that the vast majority of them are the very people who will profit from construction of rail lines.