^Uh oh. I sense another political argument coming on. Tread lightly.
- 1,610
Bump, in hopes of getting this thread back on topic of St. Louis and what it can expect in terms of a "handout."
The draft "stimulus" bill has only $10 billion total for transit, of which only $1 billion is set aside for new major capital projects to add to FTA's $2.4 billion in pre-approved projects. The Northside-Southside project had an estimated $900 million pricetag per its conceptual engineering study. Clearly, St. Louis would be dreaming to think it should receive all of the stimulus, or even half of the nation's total, should a cash-strapped city and transit agency like St. Louis and Metro even scrounge up a 50% local match.
Here pasted is Pelosi's own description of the transit piece of the "stimulus" bill (with those items having added emphasis of mine bolded):
Quote:
New Construction: $1 billion for Capital Investment Grants for new commuter rail or other light rail systems to increase public use of mass transit to speed projects projeccts already in construction. The Federal Transit Administration has $2.4 billion in pre-approved projects.
Upgrades and Repair: $2 billion to modernize existing transit systems, including renovations to stations, security systems, computers, equipment, structures, signals, and communications. Funds will be distributed through the existing formula. The repair backlog is nearly $50 billion.
Transit Capital Assistance: $6 billion to purchase buses and equipment needed to increase public transportation and improve intermodal and transit facilities. The Department of Transportation estimates a $3.2 billion maintenance backlog and $9.2 billion in needed improvements. The American Public Transportation Association identified 787 ready-to-go projects totaling $15.5 billion. Funds will be distributed through the existing formulas.
In other words, no new major projects not previously evaluated by FTA. And the existing formulas for repairs and minor projects do not reward cities that have cut back the passenger route miles or are declining in populaton.
I see some of the smaller requests happening for transit, specifically the Eads Bridge painting project and Grand Ave Viaduct station improvements. I don't forsee Federal Transit Authority handing over all the stimulus funds to one or two projects. Which they can easily do, Minneapolis/St. Paul will start construction on their Central Corridor Light Rail Line shortly and have been approved for full federal funding. You can also see Denver pursuing additional funds due to over runs in their current transit construction. Heck, they could easily give all that money to any number of projects in the New York City area (Hudson River Tunnel, Long RR's extension in Manhattan, 7th Ave Subway). However, I think the political pressue will be on to to see funds spread about. In that case, Metro has put together a couple of worthwhile projects that fit nicely into the stimulus request.
- 8,904
I don't know why, but the term 'handout' really bothers me.
- 8,904
haha,
You didn't need to change it, it was merely a personal problem.
You didn't need to change it, it was merely a personal problem.
I would say St. Louis is ready for handout but not ready to compete. However, I agree with Moorlander in a way. It bothers me that the word "handout" in some ways is more fitting for the region.
I ask Moorlander and Dredger, what would they do to compete for funds if they were in a position of power?
If what St. Louis is doing is waiting for a "handout", I suppose every other city in the country is in the same position (with there hands out). Nobody really knows what will happen with the funds and I'm guessing there is a lot of politicizing going on behind the scenes. Patience is the only answer, we can speculate but we just don't know.
If what St. Louis is doing is waiting for a "handout", I suppose every other city in the country is in the same position (with there hands out). Nobody really knows what will happen with the funds and I'm guessing there is a lot of politicizing going on behind the scenes. Patience is the only answer, we can speculate but we just don't know.
If I was Dooley/Slay, I would start campaigning for the idea of establishing a Transit Development District for Metro within the I-270 corridor to be voted on this spring. Prioritize expansion as Daniel Boone, South County extension & Grand Ave streetcar second and North/Southside last. Finally, put two sales tax votes on the ballot in 2010. First vote, Metro operating and planning 1/4 cent sales tax. Second vote, capital expenditure 1/4 or 1/2 cent sales tax. However, the second vote for capital expenditure requires the passage of the operating sales tax vote and matching federal funds in order collect upon the tax. That is my plan, remove the West County voter base and come to relization that the state will not give more then what has been contributed to date and federal funding through the FTA is very different then an outright congressional earmark.
Dredger wrote:If I was Dooley/Slay, I would start campaigning for the idea of establishing a Transit Development District for Metro within the I-270 corridor to be voted on this spring. Prioritize expansion as Daniel Boone, South County extension & Grand Ave streetcar second and North/Southside last. Finally, put two sales tax votes on the ballot in 2010. First vote, Metro operating and planning 1/4 cent sales tax. Second vote, capital expenditure 1/4 or 1/2 cent sales tax. However, the second vote for capital expenditure requires the passage of the operating sales tax vote and matching federal funds in order collect upon the tax. That is my plan, remove the West County voter base and come to relization that the state will not give more then what has been contributed to date and federal funding through the FTA is very different then an outright congressional earmark.
Have you contacted Slay, Dooley, CMT, or Metro about this idea? It sounds like a great one and I completely agree with the build out plan. Maybe you could get some kind of grass root effort going. Are you confident that they could pass this?
I also wonder of the tax base will be there without West County?
How do you know that the state will not give more money, has anyone locally ever lobbied before?
Wont it likely take 20-30 years to build out this system you propose?
How do you know that the state will not give more money, has anyone locally ever lobbied before?
Wont it likely take 20-30 years to build out this system you propose?
The idea for Transit Development District is through an earlier post by Busdad. I just elaborated on what should be on the ballot. Not sure if Metro is running with the idea or if Busdad has any luck promoting the idea within.
Some updates on the district concept have become known.
First, the legal mechanism being discussed is the Transportation Development District. Without modification of the legislation, there are two options to configuring the district. Through a court order you could create a district which is comprised of the entire city and entire county. With this structure, the sales tax which could be up to a 1 cent tax would be considered a "state tax." This tax would not exclude the purchase of automobiles, boats, and other big ticket items.
If the intent is a smaller district, the district would need to be comprised on contiguous municipalities. It would not be possible to include unincorporated areas. Smaller districts, comprised of less than the entire County would not be able to tax automobile, boat and other big ticket items. This would dramatically reduce the potential to generate revenue.
The other difficulty with the TDD approach involves "governance." Each municipality included in the District would be offered the chance to appoint a "board member." If the entire county was included, you might have a board of 90 + persons. This may not be workable.
Evidently the County is considering another attempt of the County only referendum in Fall 2009 or more likely spring 2010. On a second tract, there may be an attempt to modify the TDD legislation to make it more helpful for a "transit district." There is substantial fear that this process of seeking legislative remedies may take more than one session and may not end up as planned.
A GIS analysis of sales tax revenue shows that without the inclusion of areas like outer Manchester Road and Chesterfield Valley, the revenue generating revenue may be significantly diminished.
First, the legal mechanism being discussed is the Transportation Development District. Without modification of the legislation, there are two options to configuring the district. Through a court order you could create a district which is comprised of the entire city and entire county. With this structure, the sales tax which could be up to a 1 cent tax would be considered a "state tax." This tax would not exclude the purchase of automobiles, boats, and other big ticket items.
If the intent is a smaller district, the district would need to be comprised on contiguous municipalities. It would not be possible to include unincorporated areas. Smaller districts, comprised of less than the entire County would not be able to tax automobile, boat and other big ticket items. This would dramatically reduce the potential to generate revenue.
The other difficulty with the TDD approach involves "governance." Each municipality included in the District would be offered the chance to appoint a "board member." If the entire county was included, you might have a board of 90 + persons. This may not be workable.
Evidently the County is considering another attempt of the County only referendum in Fall 2009 or more likely spring 2010. On a second tract, there may be an attempt to modify the TDD legislation to make it more helpful for a "transit district." There is substantial fear that this process of seeking legislative remedies may take more than one session and may not end up as planned.
A GIS analysis of sales tax revenue shows that without the inclusion of areas like outer Manchester Road and Chesterfield Valley, the revenue generating revenue may be significantly diminished.
^Do you or does anyone else have a map of the voting outcomes for the fall 2008 tax vote?
- 8,904
Geeee, didn't see this coming... 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123257985064904169.html
Bill May Not Stimulate Jobs Right Away
...The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected less than half of the $355 billion that House Democrats want to spend on highways, bridges and other job-creating investments is likely to be used before the end of fiscal 2010....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123257985064904169.html
- 1,610
I recall South County and especially Southwest County voting more strongly against transit taxes than tax-base-rich West County. For example, Maryland Heights is an area outside 270 that would likely vote yes on a TDD. My point too is maybe those unincorporated areas, which is largely South County, wouldn't vote for a TDD anyway. And if so, a TDD of only self-selected munies might not be so bad, falling both inside and outside of 270, especially those largely inside 141 yet north of 44. It's at least worth a survey of the County Muny League to assess how much tax base you could capture.
As for Northside-Southside, I agree it should not be the next expansion priority, especially in its current form. For one, it should be a rapid-streetcar line (semi-exclusive modern streetcars) for half the cost of a light-rail line. It's already conceptually different low-boarding vehicles with no control gates at frequent, signalized intersections. You could still have true streetcars (though still modern vehicles) in mixed traffic on shorter circulator routes. I'd also brand the Northside-Southside line as something distinct from "MetroLink," maybe "MetroTram." That would build off the existing family of "MetroLink" and "MetroBus," and for short, you could still say "Link" "Bus" or "Tram." And maybe someday there'd be others like "MetroExpress" for express bus, "MetroRapid" for BRT, and "MetrroRail" for Commuter Rail. But as fun as it is to think of branding services the St. Louis region can't even afford to contemplate at the moment, my main point is not every corridor is best suited for MetroLink, especially street-running corridors inside the City.
As for Northside-Southside, I agree it should not be the next expansion priority, especially in its current form. For one, it should be a rapid-streetcar line (semi-exclusive modern streetcars) for half the cost of a light-rail line. It's already conceptually different low-boarding vehicles with no control gates at frequent, signalized intersections. You could still have true streetcars (though still modern vehicles) in mixed traffic on shorter circulator routes. I'd also brand the Northside-Southside line as something distinct from "MetroLink," maybe "MetroTram." That would build off the existing family of "MetroLink" and "MetroBus," and for short, you could still say "Link" "Bus" or "Tram." And maybe someday there'd be others like "MetroExpress" for express bus, "MetroRapid" for BRT, and "MetrroRail" for Commuter Rail. But as fun as it is to think of branding services the St. Louis region can't even afford to contemplate at the moment, my main point is not every corridor is best suited for MetroLink, especially street-running corridors inside the City.
Would a rapid streetcar line really only be half the cost of light rail? If so, I can't understand why on earth they wouldn't utilize that for the Northside-Southside line, since most of the route runs in existing streets anyway! And I can't believe lightrail running along streets would end up being much faster than streetcars. Why isn't this line of thinking being pursued?
- 11K
Moorlander wrote:Geeee, didn't see this coming...
Bill May Not Stimulate Jobs Right Away
...The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected less than half of the $355 billion that House Democrats want to spend on highways, bridges and other job-creating investments is likely to be used before the end of fiscal 2010....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123257985064904169.html
Believe it or not it's very difficult to spend that much money. And if anyone did spend that much someone would be wailing and b*tching about how there was no oversight and if there were to be effective oversight someone would b**** about how much that oversight cost.
Here's a crude map (from here) I put together showing the MetroLink vote in Nov '08. I've also included the approx. location of MetroLink and its proposed MetroSouth and Daniel Boone extensions.JMedwick wrote:^Do you or does anyone else have a map of the voting outcomes for the fall 2008 tax vote?
Thanks for the map. It is about what I figured (support in the northern and central parts of the County). Seems to me like a TDD method would be a good one. Also, given the support pattern, the Metro should focus on the northern and western metrolink extensions, not south county.
I was wondering why dredger was proposing South County ahead of North-South. I thought that I remembered that it was South County and outside I-270 that defeated the measure. The next options are hands down Daniel Boone and Metro North, and then we would be done with the county for a while. I would like to see Daniel Boone, North-South, and Metro North. Our system problem wouldn't demand more expansion until peoples sentiments about transit change.
dmmonty1 wrote:Would a rapid streetcar line really only be half the cost of light rail? If so, I can't understand why on earth they wouldn't utilize that for the Northside-Southside line, since most of the route runs in existing streets anyway! And I can't believe lightrail running along streets would end up being much faster than streetcars. Why isn't this line of thinking being pursued?
The modern streetcar is light rail. Spending half the money to build a "streetcar", will give us half the speed and half the efficiency.
Goat314, I want to revise or least truncate my support for south county extension. The idea of a muni only TDD based on the map seems to be a much better idea considering true voting patterns. However, I still do support a short extension, possibly a two station extension into Affton, as a priority for a variety of reasons. First, an extension of this line only supports better transit from residential areas on an existing corridor into the Clayton Central Business District and thus encouraging density over another non-descript office building. Second, you can reasonably argue that this line acts as replacement for not extending I-170 or building up Hanley/Des Peres River Rd corridor (Their is already $50 million dollar proposal on the drawing board for a new Des Peres River Road interchange with I-44). So you have some major transportation infrascture expenditures in the planning process. Unlikely those ideas will happen. However, an argument none the least. Third, a lot of preliminary planning and engineering is in place. A short extension can probably happen a lot quicker and within a more reasonable price that people can digest (Busdad - help again - I'm I remotely correct in that thought?). More importantly, I believe this extension would have a good chance of meeting Federal guidelines for matching funds. Operational cost would be smaller by simply extending the headways for the light rail vehicle to make a slightly longer run (no need to make additional purchases on light rail vehicles nor obligate to additional operators). Finally, The area around the proposed Watson Road park n ride station is ripe for TOD redevelopment. It would be directly across a defunct movie theater and underused strip development and surface parking. This is optimal TOD land considering you already have multifamily instead of single family housing abutting the commercial property
- 1,610
goat314 wrote:The modern streetcar is light rail. Spending half the money to build a "streetcar", will give us half the speed and half the efficiency.
The only place along the Northside-Southside route could even operate at top speeds is I-55 south of Meramec, where the alignment would be exclusive-running. But maybe a rapid-streetcar shouldn't take I-55 south of Meramec but continue on Broadway. Everywhere else, including Jefferson, Chouteau, 14th, Clark, 9th, 10th, Convention Plaza, North Florissant, Natural Bridge and Union, the top speeds of a streetcar are sufficient for the alignment identified in the Northside-Southside study.
It's called a rapid streetcar, because you have the option of still building a semi-exclusive trackway in the median and half-mile station spacing outside of Downtown. And such application is exactly what other cities lacking railroad and highway corridors to convert to light-rail are now seriously considering to minimize costs.
But why half the cost? The track bed can sit atop existing streets and be built much quicker, reducing both labor and material costs. The vehicles are smaller and can turn on tighter radii and climb steeper grades. Stations can function more like stops. Fare machines can be on the trains themselves. And more.