On the final day of July, Metro held a “Transit Summit” at Washington University. While there was nearly unanimous support expressed for the St. Louis County Transit Tax measure to be considered at the November election, other items also received well deserved consideration.

As a participant in the summit, I outlined the contrast between the support for public transit afforded by Illinois and other states with that minuscule offering provided by Missouri.

However, particularly interesting among the observations of the participants were the myths debunked and those perpetuated.

James Simpson, administrator of the Federal Transit Administrator, recounted awarding a $3 million special grant to Metro to purchase additional buses. He indicated that the deciding factor for Metro over the competition was the agency's ability to perform more efficiency and effectively than others. His recognition of the improvements by the agency was welcome testimony to the remarkable improvement in Metro management performance of the last several years and surely was welcome news to those who have wrought that change.

The ability of Metro to accommodate the steep increase in patronage while sustaining an upward trajectory of performance was recognized in the most tangible way available to federal officials. A myth of poor management debunked.

However, the same James Simpson repeated an oft-cited myth used to constrain the growth of a federal commitment to transit improvement and expansion. He lauded “public-private partnerships” existing in Europe and in the United States, implying that these partnerships relieve the necessity for public funding for services.

He failed to note that public-private partnerships more often than not involve a substantial public subsidy on the front end and further support the private partner with  tax credits and depreciation, as well as having the private entity take the profit.

This is not to deny that some of these partnerships benefit both the public and the private, but the financial consequences, benefits and problems need to be clearly recognized and described. The facts need to be fully disclosed and subsidies limited to those circumstances in which there is a clear public benefit. Subsidies for the ubiquitous strip mall in the suburbs, office projects in the most successful locations in high-income areas or subsidies for costs exceeding purely public programs cause these partnerships most often fail to meet the test, a particularly telling example is the sad record of privatization of public transit service.

Another myth debunked was that transit service benefits only the transit patron. Beneficiaries include employers seeking employees, modest income residents seeking relief from the escalating cost of gasoline and the cost of owning an auto, gasoline purchasers benefited by lower prices stimulated by lower consumption occasioning reduced purchases by transit users, highway users who find additional roadway capacity as a result of erstwhile auto users diverted to transit and an environment troubled by global warming.

The final myth is that so-called Bus Rapid Transit is a viable substitute for rail service in high-traffic corridors.

• Although the capital requirement for rail is higher, the operating cost is often lower;
• The attraction to potential patrons is higher;
• Its significant development impact is not matched by bus service.

In fact, there is a legitimate use for improved bus service in high traffic corridors and that is as a precursor for the conversion to rail service, which attracts more patrons and provides more satisfactory service for lower operating cost. It is necessary to extend the benefits of corridor service to outlying areas that do not offer the density or patronage potential for rail. Perhaps the most significant element for additional bus service is for short trips and as a feeder for service in high-traffic corridors.

Perhaps the most significant development was the announcement of a new coalition of the public to push for a comprehensive expansion of public transit services to appeal to an ever growing number of transit users.

The explicit message was that the coming tax referendum in St. Louis County should enjoy public support, the implicit message was that if we are to become the Metropolitan Area that boosters can tout to corporate relocators and that new residents are seeking, policy makers and citizens must move quickly to shore up and expand our offerings in this vital area of metropolitan life.

Average user rating