My First Trip Via Megabus

This post is about my first trip on Megabus, roundtrip from St. Louis to Chicago.

In January 2012 I emailed Megabus asking about making online reservations for a trip that would include my wheelchair. At that time there was only one way to do it, as this reply indicates:

Currently the only way to reserve for a special needs request is thru our toll free # at 877-463-6342. I am sorry this is uncomfortable for you but the good news is that you will be able to make this request online in the very near future. My understanding is that the developers of our website have made this feature a priority.

I’d explained my uneasiness with making phone calls, they don’t have a station like Greyhound & Amtrak.

In mid-June I was able to make online reservations for myself and my husband to visit Chicago last weekend. As promised in 2012, the website now allows me to indicate I’d need room for my wheelchair. I’ve been on Amtrak & Greyhound with the wheelchair, I didn’t know what to expect with Megabus, neither of us had used Megabus before.

To make the most of a 3-day weekend in Chicago we booked a bus leaving at 3:05am on Friday, August 1st (his birthday). A week before we got an email saying the departure would be delayed 15 minutes.

Others waiting with us on 14th Street didn’t like the new St. Louis stop being located on 14th Street, it used to be west of St. Louis’ Union Station, because of a lack of a parking lot. We walked to the stop from our loft. Via email:

Until **Monday** July 7th 2014, the Megabus stop for all arrivals and departures in St. Louis will be located West of Union Station on the East Side of 21st St near the intersection of Clark St and 21st St. The bus stop will not be in use after this date.

From **Monday** July 7th 2014 onwards, the megabus stop will be located on the Northbound side of S 14th Street, between Spruce Street and Clark Avenue.

The bus to Chicago originated in Dallas/Ft. Worth, with stops in Little Rock & Memphis, before coming to St. Louis. As such, many seats were taken. The bus had two drivers, they switched during the break halfway to Chicago.

The return bus had only one driver, who returned to Chicago. Next trip I’ll book a bus that isn’t coming from Memphis so it’ll be empty when we board, allowing my husband to sit across the aisle from me. It seemed like the trip up the drivers were speeding while the return trip the driver stuck to the speed limit. Both arrived basically on time.

When we rolled up to both buses I was greeted by name, they were expecting me. I wasn’t expecting such personal service for a low-cost carrier.

I still prefer rail travel, but Amtrak costs more and they’re currently doing track work, so Amtrak is using charter buses.

The cheapest dates to travel on Megabus, like airlines, is Tuesdays & Wednesdays. Glad to have another option to reach Chicago, Kansas City, and others.

— Steve Patterson

St. Louis City & County Voters Rejected Same Four Amendments, Two Approved Statewide

A decade ago Missouri voters amended our state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but the majority of voters in the City of St. Louis voted no. As is often the case, city voters differed from state voters. I’ve not looked at previous elections, but this year voters in St. Louis County voted against the same four amendments.  Two amendments city & county voters rejected, Amendments 1 & 5, were approved by statewide voters.

I couldn’t locate statewide information on the number of ballots cast from each party, most likely greater than half were Republican.

The amendment that received the most votes was #7, a 3/4-cent sales tax for roads.

Transportation officials have been working for more than a decade to find more money. In 2002, voters defeated a proposed $483 million sales and fuel tax increase.

“There is no perfect solution,” said Kehoe, the sponsor. He said Amendment 7 was crafted around polling that showed a sales tax was most likely to pass at the polls. He said the fuel tax would have to be raised 20 to 25 cents per gallon to generate the money needed. (stltoday)

As you’ll see, Missouri has long resisted increases in the fuel tax. Here is the text from MoDOT’s funding history page:

Funding History

 2008

In July, the start of fiscal year 2009, Amendment 3 is fully phased-in, providing MoDOT with all of the motor vehicle sales tax revenues previously going to General Revenue.

MoDOT sold bonds for a portion of the new Interstate 64, a design-build project in the St. Louis region. For the first time, MoDOT secured bonds primarily with federal funds, rather than state funds. These bonds are called Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds.

2004
In November, Missouri voters approved Constitutional Amendment 3, which requires all revenues collected from the sale of motor vehicles come to MoDOT. Previously, half of the sales tax went to MoDOT and half to the state’s general revenue fund. It requires the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission to issue bonds for building highway and bridge projects and uses these additional revenues to pay back the bonds over a period of time. The additional Amendment 3 revenues are to be phased-in over a 4 year period in 25 percent increments.

2002
Legislation is passed extending the 6-cents-per-gallon motor-fuel tax, which was due to expire in 2008. Proposition B, an omnibus transportation bill that would have increased the motor-fuel tax by 4 cents per gallon and the general sales tax by 1/2 percent, is defeated by voters by a 3-to-1 margin.

2000
Legislation was passed, effective May 30, 2000, allowing MoDOT to issue $2.25 billion in bond financing to accelerate highway improvements. Up to $250 million in bonds can be issued in 2000 and up to $2 billion from 2001 through 2006. Projects funded by the first $250 million were required to come from MoDOT’s 5-Year Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. MoDOT can issue up to $500 million per year in bond financing through the year 2006. MoDOT submits a bond financing project list to the Legislature each January for approval.

1992
A 6-cent per gallon increase in the motor fuel tax is passed by the Legislature. The 6 cents is to be phased in over a 5-year period; 2 cents in 1992, 2 cents in 1994 and 2 cents in 1996.

1987
Proposition A, a constitutional amendment to increase the motor fuel tax by 4 cents per gallon, is approved by the people. It becomes effective June 1.

1984
Fees for motor vehicles and truck classes not raised in 1983 are increased.

1983
Fees for some classes of trucks are increased.

1982
Proposition B, a constitutional amendment to raise the motor fuel tax by 4 cents per gallon, is defeated by the people.

1979
Voters approve a constitutional amendment changing the CART distribution formula. Counties receive 10 instead of 5 percent, cities receive the same 15 percent and the state receives 75 instead of 80 percent. The law is effective Jan. 1, 1980. The amendment also merges the Highway Department with the Transportation Department. Also included in this legislation is a provision that one-half of the motor vehicle sales tax go to finance road and bridge construction. Of this half, 74 percent would go to the state, 15 percent to the cities and 10 percent to the counties. The remaining 1 percent goes for planning of other transportation modes.

1978
An initiative petition to increase the fuel tax 3 cents per gallon is defeated.

1972
The Legislature passes a bill increasing the gas tax from 5 cents to 7 cents per gallon.

1961
The Legislature passes a bill temporarily raising the fuel tax from 3 cents to 5 cents per gallon. The bill provides that a constitutional amendment be put before the people which would allow cities and counties to share in state motor fuel tax revenues. If the amendment is not submitted within six months, or if it is rejected, the tax would revert to 3 cents. Voters approve the amendment on March 6, 1962, and the 5-cent per gallon tax becomes permanent. This act establishes the County Aid Road Trust program.

1952
On March 24, an act is approved increasing the motor vehicle tax from 2 cents to 3 cents per gallon. The law becomes effective July 29.

1950
On April 4, Missourians again reject a referendum proposal to increase the motor vehicle tax. The proposal would have increased the tax from 2 cents to 4 cents per gallon.

1938
On Nov. 8, the people defeat by referendum election an attempt of the Legislature to raise the fuel tax from 2 cents to 3 cents per gallon. At the same time, an initiative petition proposal to amend the Constitution to fix the fuel tax at 3 cents for 10 years is also defeated.

1924
A 2-cent tax rate for motor vehicle fuel is adopted by a vote of the people under initiative petition. It is the state’s first motor fuel tax.

From the above I made this list of the fuel tax rate since 1924:

• 1924 2-cents
• 1952 3-cents (28 years, 100% increase)
• 1961: 5-cents (9 years, 66% increase)
• 1972: 7-cents (11 years, 40% increase)
• 1987: 11-cents (15 years, 57% increase)
• 1992: 13-cents (5 years, 18.18% increase)
• 1994: 15-cents (2 years, 15.38% increase)
• 1996: 17-cents (2 years, 13.33% increase)

It has now been 18+ years since the fuel tax was increased, the only period longer was the first increase after the initial tax! Had the 1990s 2-cent increase every two years continued we’d be at 34-cents — double the current rate. We’d still be lower than Illinois and many other states. Amendment 7 proponents say voters rejected a 2002 attempt to raise the fuel tax rate. From above: “Proposition B, an omnibus transportation bill that would have increased the motor-fuel tax by 4 cents per gallon and the general sales tax by 1/2 percent, is defeated by voters by a 3-to-1 margin.” They’d proposed a measly 4-cent fuel tax increase combined with a 1/2-cent general sales tax. I don’t recall how I voted a dozen years ago, but I likely voted no based on the general sales tax increase.

Here’s what should happen:

• The Missouri legislature should pass legislation to double the fuel tax from 17-cents to 34-cents over the next 5-10 years.
• The Missouri legislature should pass legislation make I-70 a toll road between Kanas City and St. Louis. This revenue, not the fuel tax, would be used to widen I-70.

We do need to maintain our infrastructure, we should be cautious about adding to the system if we aren’t willing to raise the fuel tax. Why build more miles of highway if we can’t maintain what we have now?

— Steve Patterson

Parking Battle Close To Home

I often write about parking issues, like the Arcade building needing additional parking to get renovated. Closer to my loft I’ve written this year about the former CPI parking lot to the north of my building. Today’s post is even closer — the small private lot that’s park of my condo association. On Friday July 25th I noticed some commotion outside, out on the balcony I see more cars than usual and two police vehicles.

The tenant in the commercial space of my building, upset that residents of our two buildings sometimes park in “their” lot, parked in a way that blocks resident’s vehicles. Some condo owners, myself included, have read the condo docs over and over concluding the spaces in this parking lot are a common use area, not deeded to the owner of the commercial spaces. The parking below is common use but our spaces are legally deeded to us. The original developer, who retains ownership of both commercial spaces, insists the parking lot is for use by commercial tenants only. The other commercial space is vacant.

Here’s what I see going on:

• A lot of my neighbors, single & couples, have just one car which they park in their garage space. Lots of other couples have two cars, with some having spaces for both.  Still, we have many 2-car couples where one vehicle must be parked outside.
• The tenant used to share the parking lot when the other commercial space was occupied, but since it closed a couple of years ago they’ve decided all spaces are theirs.
• When the developer gets a new tenant for the vacant space this tenant will need a strategy for reducing the number of employee vehicles.

Personally I think my neighbors (residents & tenant) need to take a serious look at bicycling and/or public transit. When you live/work in suburbia abundant free parking is a given, but when you decide to live or locate your firm downtown you can’t continue to have the same expectation. My husband and I have one car between the two of us. We’re hoping Enterprise CarShare will add some vehicles west of Tucker for those rare times we both need a vehicle.

On Washington Ave, a block north, we have the #94 & #97 MetroBus lines, with #10 on Olive, a block south. Two blocks east on 14th we have the #32, #31, & #74, the #99 downtown trolley stops a couple of blocks away. Within a 1/4 mile are more bus lines. Sure, there are couples that work far away in opposite directions, but I bet among residents and the tenant’s staff are people that could fairly easily use public transit.

— Steve Patterson

Readers Opposed To Four Out Of Five Constitutional Amendments On Missouri’s August 5th Ballot

Tuesday August 5th Missouri voters will go to the polls for the primary election, which includes five proposed constitutional amendments. The poll last week included a question about each. The results below aren’t scientific and outstate voters frequently vote the opposite of voters from urbanized areas.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 1  Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (First Regular Session) CCS No. 2 SS HCS HJR Nos. 11 & 7

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure that the right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural production and ranching practices shall not be infringed? The potential costs or savings to governmental entities are unknown, but likely limited unless the resolution leads to increased litigation costs and/or the loss of federal funding.

Results:

1. No – Against the amendment 186 [71.81%]
2. Yes – For the amendment 55 [21.24%]
3. Undecided 15 [5.79%]
4. N/A — not a Missouri resident or won’t be voting 3 [1.16%]

My thoughts:

• “Amendment 1 is a concerted effort to shield factory farms and concentrated agricultural feeding operations from regulations to protect livestock, consumers and the environment.” — KC Star editorial 
• See VoteNoOn1.com for reasons to vote against 1
• Please vote NO!

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 5 Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) SCS SJR No. 36

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to include a declaration that the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right? State and local governmental entities should have no direct costs or savings from this proposal. However, the proposal’s passage will likely lead to increased litigation and criminal justice related costs. The total potential costs are unknown, but could be significant.

Results:

1. No – Against the amendment 172 [68.25%]
2. Yes – For the amendment 75 [29.76%]
3. Undecided 3 [1.19%]
4. N/A — not a Missouri resident or won’t be voting 2 [0.79%]

My thoughts:

• An attempt to prevent local laws on firearms
• “Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker and St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce strongly urge a NO vote because gun rights will take preference, particularly in domestic violence cases.” — State Rep Stacey Newman
• Police Chief, Circuit Attorney Say “Unalienable” Gun Rights Amendment Misleads Voters (Riverfront Times)
• Please vote NO!

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 7 Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) SS HJR No. 68

Should the Missouri Constitution be changed to enact a temporary sales tax of three-quarters of one percent to be used solely to fund state and local highways, roads, bridges and transportation projects for ten years, with priority given to repairing unsafe roads and bridges? This change is expected to produce $480 million annually to the state’s Transportation Safety and Job Creation Fund and $54 million for local governments. Increases in the gas tax will be prohibited. This revenue shall only be used for transportation purposes and cannot be diverted for other uses.

Results:

1. No – Against the amendment 190 [72.52%]
2. Yes – For the amendment 58 [22.14%]
3. Undecided 11 [4.2%]
4. N/A — not a Missouri resident or won’t be voting 3 [1.15%]

My thoughts:

• The trucking industry trying to avoid paying to use Missouri’s roads, especially I-70 & I-44.
• I love taxation to pay for government services, but only if it is fair.
• We do need to repair roads & bridges, fund transit projects throughout Missouri, but this is the wrong way to do it.
• See VoteNoAmendment7.com for more reasons to 86 seven.
• Vote no Amendment 7 (St. Louis American)
• Editorial: Ten good reasons to vote against the transportation sales tax (St. Louis Post-Dispatch)
• Transportation interests donated $96k to key sales-tax proponent (St. Louis Post-Dispatch)
• Please vote NO!

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 8 Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) HJR No. 48

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to create a “Veterans Lottery Ticket” and to use the revenue from the sale of these tickets for projects and services related to veterans? The annual costs or savings to state and local governmental entities is unknown, but likely minimal. If sales of a veterans lottery ticket game decrease existing lottery ticket sales, the profits of which fund education, there could be a small annual shift in funding from education to veterans’ programs.

Results:

1. No – Against the amendment 160 [65.57%]
2. Yes – For the amendment 47 [19.26%]
3. Undecided 33 [13.52%]
4. N/A — not a Missouri resident or won’t be voting 4 [1.64%]

My thoughts:

• The lottery was approved to provide a funding source, any dollar going to another worthy cause isn’t going to education. This won’t increase Lottery revenues, just divide the pot.
• We need to do more for veterans, this isn’t the right way to do it.
• Please vote NO!

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 9 Proposed by the 97th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) SCS SJR No. 27

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that the people shall be secure in their electronic communications and data from unreasonable searches and seizures as they are now likewise secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects? State and local governmental entities expect no significant costs or savings.

Results:

1. Yes – For the amendment 177 [72.84%]
2. No – Against the amendment 47 [19.34%]
3. Undecided 17 [7%]
4. N/A — not a Missouri resident or won’t be voting 2 [0.82%]

My thoughts:

• The NSA isn’t going to avoid Missouri if passed
• The ACLU of Missouri urges members to vote yes.
• I don’t see it making much difference, vote your conscience.

I happen to agree with Ray Hartmann on these five proposed amendments, see Think Again: Indecent Proposals (St. Louis Magazine for his analysis. Please vote Tuesday August 5th!!

— Steve Patterson

Lid Over Highway Takes Shape, Old Elevated Highway Needs To Be Replaced With At-Grade Boulevard

The long-desired “lid” over the depressed section of the highway is now taking shape.

Once completed you’ll enter the museum on the opposite side, through an opening in the grass mound. See the drawing below:

Orienting the museum toward the city is the correct thing to do, just as making the highway a boulevard in the future. The lid will allow visitors to cross a boulevard at the center, my primary objective is to remove the elevated section north of Washington Ave/Eads Bridge. This stretch was known as I-70 for decades, but once the new Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge opened it was renumbered I-44.

Though many of us would’ve like this to have been concurrently planned, we’ll just need to keep pushing.

— Steve Patterson