Fictitious Illustration by Phil Freeman; original map by Metro St. Louis
Public transportation in St. Louis needs help. Metro cut bus routes, is not a practical option for many counties, shuts down too early and is, at times, dangerous. Issues with Metro leave many citizens with more questions than there are answers.
Here’s one question: “Why does the MetroLink go all the way to Shiloh, but not to Florissant?” The answer here is simple: the citizens of Illinois paid for the construction. And actually, most of the problems that Metro has boil down to that pesky five letter word: “money.”
Repeatedly, citizens in Missouri have snubbed Metro with tax initiatives, only to lament why Metro has not expanded to whatever community they happen to live in. In 2008, voters failed to pass Proposition M, a half-cent sales tax increase that would have allowed future expansion to more places. More MetroLink. More MetroBus routes. More often.
Many felt the pain of the route cuts after the failure of Proposition M a year and a half ago.
The MetroLink was less frequent, did not run as late, and many MetroBus routes were eliminated. Metro has since reinstated some its routes, but its service is still at a diminished level.
But Metro is trying again this year, this time using a different letter.
Proposition A is on the ballot in April and desperately needs voter support to ensure the future of public transit in St. Louis. Proposition A is essentially the same as 2008’s Proposition M: a half-cent sales tax increase that would allow Metro to provide better, expanded service to the region.
The Current would like to encourage everyone to vote for Proposition A.
We feel that the main reason that people do not support a Metro expansion is because they do not want to pay for something they will not use.
While this is a fiscally sensible attitude, it fails to take into consideration the benefits and opportunities of expansion.
While MetroLink currently only goes from Lambert to Shiloh, Ill., and from Shrewsbury to Forest Park, expansion could provide services to more residents. For example, many use the MetroLink to go to Cardinals games, wisely avoiding traffic in the process. But instead of having to drive to Shrewsbury or North Hanley or some other station, wouldn’t it be nice if the stations were closer by?
This is the target of Proposition A. More stations, more trains, more buses and routes, and better service to more people. Not to mention the benefits of better traffic on the region’s sprawling logjam of an interstate system, perpetually under construction at the expense of the taxpayer.
Many others have also had a bad taste in their mouths due to budgeting problems with Metro in the past; however with the new, better leadership on Metro’s board, there is a better chance of continued success.
Although the public transit in St. Louis is not the best, at least we have it.
However, if Proposition A does not pass, Metro will have to continue its cutbacks and our public transportation will continue to get worse. If we do not pay for it, it will go away.
Standard politics: let 98% of the citizenry pay for a service that, metro themselves admit, only 2% of the population use.
I am all for metro expansion and improvements, but a sales tax increase is not the way to get there. Several municipalities in the County are nearing or exceeding 9% sales tax already. When is it enough?
Metro hasn’t even started the environmental impact studies the federal government requires for their matching funds.The tax vote is next month, but these studies take years. If we approve the tax, then the feds deny matching funds for environmental snafus, we’re still on the hook for the expansion we can’t afford, and we’ll have a tax on everything paying for something from which we’ll derive zero benefit.
This is exactly what happened to the shrewsberry line, and why they project mushroomed to nearly $150,000,000 per mile of track. Initially is was going to cost the state something like $30 million a mile, but we failed our environmental studies, so guess what, not a single federal dime in matching.
Several recent articles illustrate how expensive this will become: If we took the projected $80 million the tax would raise, we could buy a $8000 car for every person who rides metro to work every day, and we could do it once every year in perpetuity.
When I lived on campus I always took the metro to baseball games, it was great. But, now that I’ve moved to Afton, it’s easier, and less expensive since the rate hikes, to drive and buy parking.
I WOULD support a similar tax increase to pay for better roads. i suppose what they could do is jack the property taxes way up. i don’t care, I rent here and own property in another county, one with very low taxes. Yay!
I am glad the county passed Prop A tomorrow. Every time I hear someone say they won’t support Metro because it doesn’t expand far enough, my question is, were you one of the people that voted no in 1997 and 2008?
I mean, in 1997, when everyone voted no, that meant Metro only had enough funding to keep themselves above water, until 2008. You can’t possibly expand when you have no money.
I just don’t like the method of depriving a service the money it needs to exist just because you may not like how it is being run. Look at underperforming public schools, there is a reason schools that lose funding only deteriorate rather than improve.