August 28, 2009 | 2 Comments

Metro Links 8/28/09

Some transit-related links and news for yet another unseasonably gorgeous August Friday:

The Washington Post had a nice article about the (DC) Metro sign shop and the work they do.
St. Louis Urban Workshop rewrites a Newsweek column in a more transit-friendly way.
Don’t forget that the Moonlight Ramble is tomorrow night, starting at 14th & Chestnut downtown! Also, Gateway’s quarterly newsletter is out and you can download the newsletter (.pdf version).
The CTA has teamed up with the Jazz Institute of Chicago and will begin offering a special-event train featuring live jazz bands.
Ben at the Seattle Transit Blog looks at tunnel construction cost bids and price fluctuations that impact a project’s final costs.
Tim Bryant reports that the Dillards building rehab downtown might soon be underway – starting with the removal of the skybridge. The Post-Dispatch also opined this week regarding Secretary LaHood’s visit and the current method of funding local transit.

Enjoy your weekend!

Keep up with the latest news from Metro Transit - Saint Louis

kelly

Jennifer, I’ve been meaning to ask you about this since I read it. Isn’t the amount allotted to transit bound or limited by the Missouri Constitution? It’s more than just “the rural bumpkins not caring about St. Louis” isn’t it? And what’s the deal with the $80 mil “taxpayer2″ brings up EVERY transit article?

This article was such a let-down because as I was reading it I thought that it was going to conclude with information about some federal legislation thsat was possibly going to help Metro. But, alas, at least we know our legislature will get a stern talking to from LaHood .
http://www.metrostlouis.org/ Jennifer

Kelly, it’s a good question, but I honestly don’t know the answer and wouldn’t want to make a guess as to what the Missouri constitution says on any particular topic. I do believe there is a provision that prohibits the use of gasoline tax funds for transit, but that’s just one pot of money and doesn’t preclude other funding sources.

As for the “rural bumpkins” argument, as you put it, yes, that is a patronizing dismissal of people’s legitimate funding priorities. Being a “bumpkin” myself (spent most of my youth on rural Missouri farms, with my farmer family), I can safely say that concern about and interest in issues that seem primarily urban is not limited to people in any particular geographic area.