But Will It Pay For Itself?
Yesterday afternoon I attended the Metro South MetroLink study meeting in South County. This was the final public meeting to close out the study period. Public comment continues until January 6, 2006.
After a short presentation an old man asked about a number within the 2 inch thick report that showed the area currently has 2,400 bus riders. He questioned the need for the light rail and “would it pay for itself?” The presenter did a great job with the comeback, “No, it would not be the first in the country to do so.” This man ignored the estimated ridership numbers which were pretty good. Remember, our MetroLink system has continued to exceed expectations in terms of usage. But why pick on transit?
Do people ask if the billion dollars to be spent on the proposed Mississippi River Bridge will pay for itself? No. What about the hundreds of millions already allocated for the rebuilding of I-64/Hwy 40 in the next few years — will that “pay for itself?” I think not. These are all just taken at face value as something we must do.
Why the public continues to apply a different standard to public transportation than to the subsidizing of private auto transportation I’ll never understand. Is it the love of the car? Is it a generational thing?
Fuel taxes don’t pay for all our road building and repairs and we keep building more and more. So much more we are going to struggle even more to maintain our sprawling region. This is a formula for disaster. I say we abolish all fuel taxes and other means of funding road projects. Then we add up the cost of building & maintaining roads on a state by state basis. As you register your vehicle your mileage is recorded and you pay your share based on miles driven. The more miles you drive the more you pay. If you have a car but drive it rarely you pay proportionately less.
Once people start paying on a per mile basis you’ll see a major drop in driving. Car pooling will increase. Transit ridership would rise along with calls for more service. Sprawl would virtually stop. If only…
The best long term investment in public funds is not rebuilding I-64 or building a massive bridge. No, the best investment we can make is to connect more of our region through good public mass transit.
– Steve
Steve,
I agree with your proposal to tax every person on the miles that they drive. However, I don’t believe that it is very practical. The majority of the taxes paid for roads and highways are by commercial trucking. If tractor/trailers were to be taxed based on miles driven, it would either put them out of business or make things so expensive that the average person could not afford to purchase.
[REPLY – Yes, trucking would be hard hit. But think about it, we pay for it all one way or another. That “cheap” toilet brush from Wal-Mart isn’t really so cheap after being trucked across the country. Such a system would force us to see the expense of driving and we’d end up rebuliding local economies. – SLP]
You are right that is a good response.
As for why people don’t ask that question of highways, I think much of the public doesn’t realize that the roads don’t pay for themselves. That and/or they see roads as a necessity and public transportation as “a nice thing that rich cities can have”.
I was unable to make the meeting myself. Did the presenters or the attendees show any preference for one proposed route? I’d like to see the “Blue-Butler Hill Road” option implemented, but that is for selfish reasons and I know it would be the most expensive (and therefore unlikely) option.
At first glance I thought your tax proposal was good but really it doesn’t change the dynamic at all. Presumably those who drive more pay more in fuel taxes already — so switching it to another usage style of tax based on miles wouldn’t change the fact that people who drive more pay more in fuel tax. You have to change the mentality that more roads fixes all problems, and that’s tough sell.
[REPLY – 7:05pm – Currently fuel taxes pay only a portion of what is needed. Other taxes in the form of vehicles registrations for just general revenues pay for roads. It needs to be all in one place, be it registration or fuel. – SLP]
Steve:
It seems like a lot of the same arguments are being revisited . . . Of course, transit won’t pay for itself. You’re out-voted on rebuilding 40 – there are a lot more drivers than transit riders, and for better or worse, majority rules. Trucks should pay more since they’re the ones wearing out the roads. (It’s the single-occupant-vehicle drivers who are congesting the highways, but one semi does more physical damage than 100 cars.)
I support transit. But until the population of St. Louis embraces the concept of greater density, both for living and for working, it’s going to remain a dream, both fiscally and physically. I’ll take transit if it’s, at most, one or two blocks away (on both ends). I won’t hike a half mile (or more) in the heat & humidity of summer or the clammy cold of today. Without density, you don’t have a critical mass of potential riders. Without riders, you don’t have frequent (or any) service. And without a somewhat “sure bet”, why give up your SOV, scooter, Harley, bicycle or Segway?
Sure, dream about extending Metrolink. But first, Metro needs to get past a year late and millions of dollars over budget to be able to convince the voters that transit is a public amenity worthy of their support, taxes and votes!
[REPLY – 7:08pm – Yes, Metro has to do better with OUR money!!!! And yes we must embrace density. But this is a chicken/egg debate. You can only build so dense without good transit. The city had a good population/square milesl ratio but we can build on that. The county and beyond are another story. – SLP]
Part two – gas has doubled in price in the past year or so, but it’s had minimal impact on actual traffic counts . . . addicts have a way of finding ways to pay for their addictions!
I, too, prefer fuel taxes. Lester Brown has pointed to studies that show the “true public cost” of burning gasoline would justify almost $8/gallon in taxes. I’m fairly certain that did not even include infrastructure costs.
I’ve always thought it absurd that any small concession to the railroad industry is decried as subsidizing, while we all happily pay for the infrastructure and subsidize the fuels costs of the trucking industry.
[REPLY – 7:10pm – Yikes, $8/gallon without infrastructure? Okay. What would that be with infrastructure, maybe $12/gallon? Works for me, my new car sips gas as does my scooter! My bicycles do even better. – SLP]
Jim Zavist rules. He said everything I would say.
In many other cities, including the “car-capital of the world” (LA), folks are actually realizing that you can’t build yourself out of congestion.
Courtesy of Otis White’s blog, Los Angeles’ new mayor has publicly gone on record saying:
“WeÂ’re not going to build more freeways in the city of Los Angeles … You can use public transit. You can get where you want to go. WeÂ’ve got to start to articulate that vision for the city or this isnÂ’t going to be a city where any of us want to live.”
Amen Brother! But I think your preaching to the choir…I look forward to the Cross County… anything else in the future is a bonus. Especially since the Centinnial Greenway won’t be done till I am about 40 yrs old! I am 31 now. I like using transit and riding a bike on the roads we already have. I have heard many others talk about paying for the miles driven. I highly agree… and hopefully those larger SUVs and Truck’s would pay more since they cause more damage per mile than the little hybrids..
Keep Cycling,
Jeff
By the way, this rhetorical question of “support(ing) itself” was made by an older gentleman who happens to be a former elected official and resident from Crestwood.
Crestwood, of course, is a postwar bedroom community with abundant retail, indeed too much auto-oriented retail apparently. Many of its strip malls and its once prized indoor mall are now suffering, as drivers can just easily keep driving past Crestwood.
Ironically, much of Crestwood’s retail depends even more now upon Chippewa bus riders, since the more mobile driving customers now shop more in Sunset Hills or Fenton. However, some of those against Metro South would rather see I-170 extended south, not realizing that South County would then likely be even more of a cut-through for passersby, and less of a quality place to live, work and shop.
For the vocal opponents, it’s their short-sighted loss then for South County. Fortunately, there appears to be stronger support in the City (north-south) as well as in the County for a line heading northwest (Westport) instead.
It may ultimately be those corridors, where communities strongly support new transit-oriented development, seeking mixed uses in compact walkable layouts, where extensions get prioritized. But more folks, including elected officials, will have to realize what an asset transit can be to their community and its development.
Is it just me, or is this metrolink extension designed to fail?
I don’t understand the point of coming south from the Shrewsbury station. If I have to take a train into Clayton to go downtown, it would be far more efficient to just jump on 55.
The south extension should start at Union Station, hit soulard and follow 55 south with stops or park and rides in Carondelet, Lemay, Affton, Mehlville, Oakville and unincorporated SoCo with a major park n ride/kiss n go at Butler Hill, to attract Jeffco commuters, and rush hour shuttles through neighborhoods along the way. Is there any way to get this plan back on the books?
The Shrewsbury station SHOULD be a jumping off point, for a spur that hits Webster (with a trolley through it’s business district?), Crestwood (with some shuttle or connector to the Watson/Sappington shopping area), Kirkwood (with a trolley and a park n ride for sunset hills) and finally, a major pick up/drop off at STLCC Meremac. I firmly believe in Transit Oriented Development, but I think we can also try to orient some of our transit to exisiting development, to relieve congestion on 55/44/Lindbergh and Watson roads.
Or maybe I’m nuts.
[REPLY – You are not nuts. Our light rail system is trying to do two things — serve localize areas and provide long distance commuter rail. That is a lot to ask of one system. The Metro South line is not going forward at this point so it might be a mute point.
I think we need a mixed traffic streetcar system (vintage or new) within the City of St. Louis to replace as much of the bus system as possible. If the folks further out what to connect let them fund and build the more costly light rail. – SLP]
steve –
i just want to say that i love this site and what you are doing, it is extremely important. many of us would love to do this and havent yet found the strength to take it to the level that you have. as a former stl area resident, i still follow development closely. i am in my twenties, and i can assure you that there is a rising number of people my age (reared in the exurbs…st. peters in my case) who long for and understand the value of a sense of place, walkable urbanity, and good transit options.
matt
-old westport (kansas city)