Paul Goedeke | Student Life

Liz Kramer speaks at a transit meeting in January. She became the face of the Washington University’s efforts to promote a countywide sales tax increase to fund more transit service. She will be moving to Chicago to pursue work in design.

But Kramer, who became the face of Washington University transit advocacy and a liaison between students and the administration, has finished her two-year administrative fellowship here and will move to Chicago next week to pursue work in design.

She leaves after finishing her advocacy efforts on campus and around St. Louis in the weeks leading up to the April 2010 election, which had a proposed sales tax for boosting funding to Metro, the area’s transit system. Transit advocates credit Kramer with helping mobilize thousands of college students and other young people to turn out and vote for the measure.

In addition, she got students involved in all sorts of projects, ranging from transit to the environment, sustainability and other topics — everything but the kitchen sink.

“And sometimes it was the kitchen sink,” Kramer said.

She began her fellowship after graduating from the University in 2008. Kramer was involved in community service as a student, holding the position of public outreach chair of the Alliance of Students Against Poverty. The group joined forces with the a cappella community in October 2007 put on the second annual Rhythms for Rebuilding benefit concert, which raised $2,600 for organizations that tackle poverty and malnutrition.

Even after joining the administration, Kramer continued working with students. She had a large impact in the months before the April election, when St. Louis County voters were asked for the second time in three years if they wanted to boost the county sales tax to fund more transit service.

Transit advocates were still reeling from the defeat of a similar measure in 2008 that resulted in the elimination of one-third of St. Louis’ transit service. Desperately needing a spark, advocates went to civic groups, businesses and educational institutions, including the University, to furnish a new campaign centered on reminding people that “some people ride transit, but everyone needs it.”

Kramer used an unconventional approach to get that message out to the younger crowd. She wanted transit to be an enjoyable, memorable experience. She said her goal was, simply, “to make transit fun.”

She had created a tiara-wearing alter ego known as Miz MetroLink and worked with other students and young advocates to throw MetroLink Prom, which was an actual prom on the MetroLink train system.

Whether she was frolicking on campus as Miz MetroLink or visiting other schools to mobilize students, those who know her or worked with her on public transit issues said she has left an indelible mark on the campus.

“She will be sorely missed…by both the Washington University community and the St. Louis community at large,” said Rose Windmiller, director of state relations and local government affairs.

Kramer and an army of students and green-group leaders appeared on campus with their own form of reminders: signs all around, a MetroBus-themed flash mob dance outside the Danforth University Center, an appearance by Miz MetroLink in Whispers Café. The students even got the help of Dining Services, which sold MetroBus-shaped cookies in the days before the election and allowed chefs to wear Metro buttons.

The students’ efforts seemed to work. Hundreds of supportive students streamed to the polls on April 6. The transit measure, known as Proposition A, passed overwhelmingly.

The student-led effort marveled regional campaign leaders so much that they recently gave a shout-out on St. Louis Public Radio to students here and at other local schools. Tom Shrout, former executive director of the Citizens for Modern Transit (CMT), said the student turnout defied history.

“All the experts said in an April election that no students will vote,” Shrout said in a phone interview. “Liz took it upon herself not only to pick off where she left off on the November of ‘08 vote…but to keep that momentum going and spread it to other campuses like UMSL and SLU and community colleges and Webster.”

CMT will honor Kramer on Sept. 17 with an award for her work in uniting young people around public transit. The University’s Rose Windmiller will also receive an award.

“I’m very honored to be recognized by CMT for the work, but I also really feel that the work was done by a lot of very dedicated students who were committed to passing Prop A,” Kramer said.

Kramer’s work in St. Louis may be done now. But Shrout, Windmiller and others say that Kramer’s impact will last long after she departs for Chicago.

“She was instrumental in getting a whole new generation of people in St. Louis acclimated not only to using public transportation, but also [to] supporting it financially,” said Windmiller, director of state relations and local government affairs.

Senior Peter Murrey, former president of Green Action, said Kramer “empowered students” by seeking to involve them in her projects. “No matter what year you were or if you had ever met her before…she wanted to include everyone on it, and her enthusiasm just bubbled over into you,” Murrey said. “It was just infectious.”

Not everyone agreed with the causes Kramer has championed. Opponents of Proposition A continually criticized the University for its U-Pass program, arguing that Metro was giving the school a big discount to provide free transit passes to students and employees here. The University and Metro repeatedly denied those claims.

“Now is the time for [opponents] to work with public transit agencies, government agencies in St. Louis to improve the system and to help make their problems less so,” Kramer said.

Chief Operating Officer Ray Friem said service will be restored in phases over the next 12 months. The first changes will come June 28 after a series of public hearings in the coming weeks. Among the likely first changes are an increase in MetroLink frequency from four to five trains per hour and more bus service in the form of new routes and alterations to existing ones.

Friem said bus routes serving Washington University’s campuses—Red Line, Gold Line and Green Line—likely won’t see any major changes. Those routes were changed little in the March 30, 2009, service cuts, and they have continued to enjoy good ridership, he said. Jessica Mefford-Miller, Metro’s chief of planning and system development, said changes to most routes near the University are unlikely.

Metro’s approach, rather, is to “put as much service back on the road as quickly as possible” to regain lost ridership, Mefford-Miller said. That means that areas with the greatest need—places like the Central West End and areas of St. Louis County beyond Mid County—will be among the first recipients of increased bus service. Metro also wants to split some routes, such as the 49 Lindbergh, into two routes to increase efficiency and accommodate demand.

And while local transit leaders and University students are mostly cheering Metro’s restoration proposal, few details are final. The final additions and changes, Friem said, will depend largely on public feedback and how quickly Metro can rehire bus drivers and purchase new buses. Friem said bus routes will be a major focus of public hearings, especially because bus service took the biggest hit on March 30, 2009.

“We have our intelligence, we have our data, we know where connection problems are, and we’ve prioritized them ourselves, but it’s a little disingenuous of us to say we know what’s best,” Friem said of the need to get public feedback.

Metro has received no feedback so far from the University community on what services to restore, Mefford-Miller said, but she noted that it’s very early in the feedback process.

Senior Will Fischer, a member of Green Action, said he’s very interested in attending a public hearing. He’s most excited about the possibility of a new north-south MetroLink line in St. Louis, but he also hopes to see plenty of new service. “I really hope they increase frequency of all different lines, for both MetroLink and MetroBus,” Fischer said.

Friem said a second wave of restoration and expansion will likely occur either entirely in September or in two sub-phases in September and November. Metro officials are aiming to have the final wave occur by June 2011, provided that hires and bus orders go as planned.

Metro has 78 fewer buses on the road now than it did before the March 30, 2009, service cuts. The agency has almost 50 buses of its own that it can return to the roads, but it will need to order almost 30 more. Normally it takes about 18 months to receive an order of buses, but Friem expressed confidence that the order could be filled in just a year. “We have a good relationship with the manufacturer,” Friem said.

And Friem said Metro will need to train the bus operators and mechanics it hires.

Metro has already received some pressure to increase bus service in downtown St. Louis, after eliminating all area bus routes in 2009 to have more buses in western parts of the city. Metro replaced those downtown routes with a downtown circulator, which Friem said has had poor ridership and is the “biggest disappointment of my professional career.”

Tom Shrout, executive director of Citizens for Modern Transit, is among those who want Metro to pay more attention to bus routes downtown. He also wants to see the downtown ride-free zone restored.

Still, he described Metro’s restoration plan as “well thought out.” He especially likes the proposed increase in train frequency. “Going from four trains to five trains an hour on each line will help a lot, especially in the Central West End station, where there’s really been severe overcrowding,” Shrout said.

Friem said getting people to their jobs will be an important consideration in Metro’s restoration plan. “As the area recovers and jobs become more plentiful, you don’t want transportation to be a barrier to people’s success,” Friem said. Metro’s goal at the end of first year is to reinstate service to 98 percent of jobs within walking distance of 95 percent of the population.

“That’s an excellent ratio for St. Louis,” Friem said, “and that’s what I’ll try to get back there.”

Friem also hinted at the possibility of adding a Forest Park-Central West End circulator shuttle that would likely run during summer only. It would start at the Forest Park-DeBaliviere MetroLink stop, which is close to some student apartments, and travel through Forest Park, down Oakland Avenue and through southern St. Louis until Tower Grove.

Friem also does not expect any changes to how Metro sells bulk passes to universities and businesses. Washington University pays Metro over $2 million per year to provide transit passes for free to benefits-eligible faculty and staff and full-time students.

Among the proposed service changes coming June 28:

• MetroLink trains will run five times per hour instead of four times.
• A new bus route, 06 River City, will connect the Shrewsbury-Lansdowne I-44 MetroLink station to the River City Casino.
• Frequency will increase for the 70 Grand, 90 Hampton and 95 Kingshighway MetroBus routes.
• The 49 Lindbergh MetroBus route will be split into a 49 North Lindbergh route and 48 South Lindbergh route.
• The 34 Earth City route may be split into North Earth City and South Earth City.
• The 03 Forest Park-Central West End circulator may be created.

What service do you want Metro to restore?

Metro will be hosting the following public hearings to get feedback on what service to restore, add and alter.

April 27, 5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
Mehlville High School Library
3200 Lemay Ferry Rd.
St. Louis, MO 63125

April 28, 3 p.m. – 6 p.m.
Riverview Transit Center
9000 Riverview Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63147

May 4, 5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
St. Louis Community College at Florissant Valley Multi-Purpose Room
3400 Pershall Rd.
St. Louis, MO 63135

May 5, 3 p.m. – 6 p.m.
Ballas Transit Center
790 S. Ballas Rd.
St. Louis, MO 63141

May 7, noon – 1:30 p.m.
St. Louis City Hall
Kennedy Room
1200 N. Tucker Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63102

Matt Mitgang | Student Life

Students celebrate the passage of Proposition A in the DUC.

St. Louis County voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition A, a sales tax measure for Metro, with substantial student support on Tuesday, sending supporters gathered at Washington University into celebration and paving the way for the expansion of transit service in the St. Louis region.

“It’s a blowout,” said Rose Windmiller, the director of state relations and local government affairs at Washington University and a Prop A supporter, after students started a chant of “Metro! Metro! Metro!” in the background. “It feels tremendous.”

The final vote was 62.9 percent “yes” to 37.1 percent “no.” With 84.8 percent of the vote counted by 10 p.m., the “yes” vote was 62.2 percent and the “no” vote was 37.8 percent, meaning a margin that supporters and opponents acknowledged was insurmountable with just 15 percent of precincts having not reported.

More than 100 supporters who were gathered in the Danforth University Center’s Tisch Commons for an election watch party embraced and broke out into cheering as Chancellor Mark Wrighton, Chesterfield Mayor John Nations and Citizens for Modern Transit Executive Director Tom Shrout took the podium just after 10 p.m. The three hailed the proposition’s passage as a victory for the St. Louis region’s residents, students and businesses and not for candidates or parties.

“We win,” Wrighton said to thunderous applause. “St. Louis has made an investment in its future. We will all be rewarded.”

Prop A will raise the St. Louis County sales tax by 0.5 percent and trigger a 0.25 percent tax in the city, raising nearly $80 million a year for future light-rail expansion and for restoring the service that Metro cut on March 30, 2009.

The outcome represented a hard-fought, long-sought victory for supporters, after similar tax proposals failed in 1997 and 2008. And students and administrators, who were elated and exhausted after several days of mobilization efforts, said the measure’s passage means students, faculty and workers at the University will be better connected to the region.

“This is an opportunity for Wash. U. to continue its strong connections to the community, to really connect with St. Louis and to grow as an institution,” said Liz Kramer, an administrative fellow who spearheaded the student-led pro-Prop A campaign.

A small group of opponents gathered at Caldwell’s on the Plaza in Frontenac. St. Louis Tea Party leader Gina Loudon, the wife of former state Sen. John Loudon, R-Chesterfield, said opponents “were tremendously disappointed, but I’m not altogether surprised.” She added that the opposition had already started discussing how to make sure that Metro was accountable to the public, amid their concerns that Metro did not have a concrete plan for the tax money.

Metro CEO Bob Baer pledged accountability, saying the victory was a vote of confidence by the public. “We promise and pledge public accountability, transparency and the provision of the best service we can possibly provide,” Baer said.

With the future of public transit and sales taxes in the region on the line, both supporters and opponents were nervous and optimistic while they waited for results. But as precincts started reporting and the “yes” vote far exceeded the “no” vote, supporters grew more optimistic and opponents realized they faced overwhelming odds.

Tuesday’s turnout was 22 percent, two percentage points higher than what county officials predicted. Kramer said Tuesday afternoon that the Westgate polling place was empty, but other student volunteers reported a steady stream of student voters at polling places on and near campus.

Turnout in other parts of St. Louis County was described as light, especially in West and South counties. In a early positive sign for Prop A supporters, turnout in South County, whose voters likely lean toward “no,” was described as very light by multiple campaign leaders on both sides. But supporters said they needed substantial turnout in North County and Mid County and at Washington University and other schools to have a good chance of passage.

Students and administrators leading pro-Prop A efforts worked feverishly Tuesday to turn out as many students as possible before polls closed at 7 p.m. Meanwhile, the cash-starved local opposition called and e-mailed supporters and tried to gain as much media exposure as possible.

Campus transit advocates’ efforts and the administration’s efforts made up one facet of the broader push by regional Prop A supporters. The Advance St. Louis campaign, though not officially affiliated with the student-run efforts, spent close to $1 million, thanks in part to $75,000 in contributions from the University. Local organizations conducted their own turnout efforts as well.

Jonathon Burns, 26, of Shrewsbury, Mo., has established himself as a rising star in the Tea Party movement while stoking the ire of a large number of liberal students, officials and transit advocates here with his outspoken opposition to interventionist government and tax increases.

Courtesy of John Burns

John Burns pictured at the gulag demonstration on campus last November.

Burns was one of several people who protested socialism with a mock gulag display on campus in November 2009. Burns, who was virtually unknown a year ago, has quickly become perhaps the most recognizable opponent of Proposition A—a proposed half-cent sales tax increase for Metro that has been popular among students. He is the spokesman of the opposition group Citizens for Better Transit.

In a flurry of newspaper submissions, blog posts and appearances at local Tea Party events, Burns cast Proposition A as an attempt to funnel money from the middle class to powerful political and business interests.

“I think Proposition A is an example of the hijacking of democracy,” Burns said in an interview with Student Life.

Burns also acknowledged his role in the gulag display, which the University chapter of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) built one afternoon in November to warn people of what Burns said are the dangers of socialism and increased government control of the economy.

His views on Prop A and socialism have found relatively little support at the University. Rather, they have ruffled the feathers of community members and Proposition A supporters here, who have accused Burns of fear-mongering and distorting the facts.

But Burns and some members of the Tea Party movement deny that. If anything, they argue, Burns has been an inspiring champion of smaller government and lower taxes. “John is just a really courageous voice in that,” said Gina Loudon, a St. Louis Tea Party leader. “I would have never expected so much courage from someone that young.”

Burns has focused much of his criticism of Proposition A on the University’s U-Pass program, which allows full-time students and benefits-eligible faculty and staff to ride Metro for free. Burns has claimed that the $2.3 million the University pays Metro for the program is 80 percent less than what the school should be paying; while the University pays only $100 per U-Pass for 25,000 of them, passes for the disabled cost much more, he argues.

Chancellor Mark Wrighton and Metro officials said Burns’ allegation is baseless, as any school or business can sign up with Metro to receive discounts for bulk purchases of passes.

And Metro spokesman Charlie Bosworth and spokeswoman Dianne Williams explained that Metro calculates ridership based on the number of boardings, not the number of people with passes. Government-audited ridership figures from fiscal 2009 show that U-Pass users accounted for about 4.13 percent of Metro’s ridership, while the University’s payment equaled about 4.65 percent of Metro’s passenger revenue in fiscal 2009.

“They’re actually paying a little bit more than the average rider,” Bosworth said.

Wrighton also noted that while the University buys passes for all eligible community members, “only 75 percent actually request a U-Pass.”

The University did not comment on Burns himself. But one administration official said that the administration seeks to promote the proposition instead of fighting back against Burns. Officials’ private reactions have ranged from befuddlement that Burns is targeting Washington University to exasperation with his media attention and his criticisms of the U-Pass program.

“My personal frustration is that we have to waste time arguing with him about something like our U-Pass program, which really has nothing to do with the issue at hand,” said the official, who wished to remain anonymous for professional reasons.

Still, Loudon said this isn’t about Washington University. “This is about something that has been portrayed one way that is entirely another way,” she said.

Burns’ criticisms of Metro and the U-Pass reflect his broader concerns with government power. He believes in the power of ordinary people to serve as citizen journalists, exposing fraud and wrongdoing in the government by going undercover.

“As a journalist, that’s a very noble cause,” Burns said.

Sensing that they face an uphill battle, Washington University students and administrators have joined forces with local transit advocates. Together, they have poured thousands of dollars, several volunteers and hours of time into mobilization efforts in the final days before the election, whose outcome carries major implications for Metro, the region’s transit system.

“We’re not going to stop until the polls close at 7 p.m.,” said Liz Kramer, an administrative fellow who has spearheaded efforts to support Proposition A.

Students voted in overwhelming favor of November 2008’s unsuccessful Proposition M, and it has become clear that supporters of this year’s measure are banking their hopes in part on youth turnout. But turnout decreases sharply in off-year, non-November elections, especially among younger voters, and members of both sides acknowledge that every voter will count.

“I really want to encourage people not to take this for granted,” Chancellor Mark Wrighton said. “This is of vital importance to our community, and turning out to vote is critical.”

But Wrighton has been mindful of the turnout problem. “This is an April election,” he said. “There’s no political candidate with high visibility on the ballot.”

Proposition A would increase the St. Louis County sales tax by 0.5 percent and trigger a previously passed 0.25 percent tax increase in the city of St. Louis. Supporters say it would raise about $80 million per year to restore transit service that Metro cut on March 30, 2009, and support future light-rail expansion. If the measure fails, Metro says it would need to cut service to well below March 30, 2009, levels.

Opponents argue the tax would disproportionately harm lower-income families while benefiting a small number of people, and give hundreds of millions of tax dollars to an agency that has misspent public money.

“If 100 families benefit and 500 families can’t make their house payment next time, have we really done anything beneficial for the region?” said Gina Loudon, a leader of the St. Louis Tea Party.

The administration and student groups have devoted significantly more resources to Prop A efforts than they did to Prop M, which failed by three percentage points despite overwhelming student support. The University has donated $75,000 to the pro-Prop A campaign, versus $25,000 to the Prop M campaign, according to Rob Wild, the assistant to the chancellor.

Though the chancellor wrote e-mails to the school community in both campaigns, this time he has taken a highly visible role in St. Louis County. Wrighton has e-mailed thousands of alumni who live in St. Louis County to encourage them to vote for the measure, and has chaired the Advance St. Louis steering committee and spoken to the media.

The Faculty Senate Executive Committee has endorsed Proposition A, and its leadership sent an e-mail to Senate members encouraging them to vote “yes.”

In his March 22 e-mail to the school community, Wrighton urged students and faculty to turn out and vote in favor of the proposition. “Passage of Proposition A is critical to the overall vitality of the St. Louis area,” he wrote. Wrighton also appeared in a recent Citizens for Modern Transit commercial in which he says transit “carries 25,000 of my university students, faculty and staff.”

I write to you on the eve of a very important day for Washington University and the St. Louis region, and I write to ask for your support.

On Tuesday, April 6, registered voters in St. Louis County will have the opportunity to vote on Proposition A, a half-cent sales tax increase to support the operation and expansion of the Metro system. The tax will raise approximately $75 million annually, and the passage of the county tax will trigger an already-approved tax in the city of St. Louis. Passing Proposition A will secure needed revenue to restore service cuts, expand both bus and rail routes, and operate Call-A-Ride vans that are used by the disabled and elderly to access health care and other services. Without the additional revenue provided by the tax increase, public transit service will be cut by as much as 50 percent, and many workers will be left without access to their jobs.

Public transportation is vital to creating a strong, vibrant region, and it is critical to our future success at Washington University. Many of our employees count on MetroBus and MetroLink to get to and from work. Our students use public transportation not only to move between our campuses, but also to explore all the wonderful places in our city. Supporting public transportation in St. Louis means supporting the future excellence of Washington University.

Tomorrow, I plan to vote “yes” on Proposition A, and I hope those of you who are eligible to vote in St. Louis County will consider joining me in making an important statement about the future of public transportation in St. Louis. Together, we can take this important step forward for our University and our region.

Sincerely,
Mark S. Wrighton

Mark Wrighton is the chancellor of Washington University. He can be reached via e-mail at wrighton@wustl.edu.

For instance, the Metro trains are much more sustainable than cars or even buses. Even if 100 percent of the energy required to power them was coal-generated, the efficiency of electric motors means there would be fewer emissions than an equivalent amount of drivers, even if they carpooled.

The most vibrant and successful cities in the U.S. and worldwide have well-funded public transit systems. Virtually none of these systems make a profit, yet all have an indirect but very positive financial impact on their communities. Even traditionally auto-centric cities like Los Angeles are building subways and rail lines. Citizens for Better Transit (CBT), an anti-Prop A group, doesn’t want public money to be spent on this infrastructure yet has no issue with the tons of money spent on roads and highways by the government. American cities are so car-dominated in comparison to most global cities because taxes have funded so many pork highway projects, often at the expense of public transit. CBT argues against the alleged corruption in the Metro, but there is also plenty of that in highway funding, with contracts often going to the highest (and most-connected) bidder. The fact is that improvements on road infrastructure are never profitable either—tolls hardly pay for the maintenance of America’s roads—but I doubt CBT would argue against using taxes for that purpose. Metro can’t reach its full potential if we keep on underfunding it. The state of Missouri gives a woefully low percentage of its funds to public transportation compared to Illinois, which is already well below the national average on funding for transit. CBT may say it supports buses, but the fact is Metro would otherwise cut bus routes without Prop A, and many of our buses are on loan from the federal government. If they take those buses away, it takes years to reapply for them.

Light-rail systems have helped revitalize downtowns and created healthier inner cities in places like Salt Lake City, Newark and, I would argue, St. Louis. Though they aren’t a panacea to urban problems, they can help to spur development and attract residents, especially growing numbers of young professionals eager for a car-free lifestyle. The denser, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods that light-rail stimulates are more successful over time than sprawled suburbs.

CBT’s leader, John Burns, once suggested that if we truly care about the plight of the poor who ride the Metro, then we should buy everyone who rides the Metro a car instead. Let’s say 50,000 people ride the Metro (it’s actually around 60,000 per day, but we can be conservative for the sake of argument). If we bought them used cars for $10,000 each (so they’re not clunkers), that’d be $500 million. This doesn’t take into account that the average lifespan of a car is roughly eight years or that the population of transit riders keeps growing. The Metro may have cost $464 million, but its maintenance costs are very low compared to the cost of buying cars for everyone in St. Louis. The New York transit system has some infrastructure that’s 100 years old. Many people also prefer not to have a car, even if they can afford it, since you don’t have to worry about being tired or inebriated on a train.

CBT says the poor don’t use or benefit from the Metro, but this is simply not true. If we assume a price of $10,000 for a car (from my friends’ experiences, ones cheaper than that break after about one or two years), plus rising gasoline and maintenance costs, Metro ticket prices and the sales tax seem a lot more reasonable.

I don’t appreciate how John Burns and CBT have characterized Wash. U. as an ivory tower of wealth. Many students are only here because of scholarships and can’t afford cars. I certainly can’t afford a car right now. A cut in MetroBus and train service would be devastating. The reason we pay less for U-Passes is because Wash. U. buys in bulk—there’s no conspiracy here. It is also certainly not selfish for Wash. U. to care about this matter, since 75 percent of our employees use the Metro. Metro detractors have called Prop A shameless, among other things, but somehow I think I’ll sleep very well after voting “yes.”

Kevin is a freshman in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at kslin@artsci.wustl.edu.

The term “regressive tax” has been bandied about a lot lately. Yes, a sales tax is “regressive.” But wait, read on! That’s not the whole story, as the erroneously named Citizens for Better Transit (CBT) would have you believe. There are two more things you need to know.

1) Metro is asking for a half-cent sales tax, a nickel per $10. A sales tax is the only tax funding available for Metro. CBT claims that Metro has state and federal funding. The truth is that, while other states fund an average of 23 percent of public transit expenses, Missouri funds less than 1 percent. Metro currently has additional state funding, but that is a temporary bailout to mitigate the devastating effects of the failure of Prop M last year. That money runs out this summer. A sales tax is the only way to keep Metro going.

2) Not passing Prop A would be FAR WORSE for working people. People with lower incomes are more likely to make the sound economic decision to save $7,500 a year by not owning a car. Ask any of the Bon Appétit employees wearing an “I Ride Metro to Work” pin whether they’d rather pay that nickel per $10 or give up their ability to get to work. Metro takes people to work, Metro employs people, Metro fuels economic growth. Every prosperous metropolitan area in the world has a well-funded public transit system.

It could not be clearer that Prop A is good for everyone in St. Louis. So why does CBT continue to claim that Prop A is bad for poor people? There is a simple answer; they don’t believe their own arguments.

Opponents of Prop A use this argument not because they buy it, but because they think students will. The real reason CBT opposes this tax is because they oppose taxes in general. They know that opposing all taxes won’t gather much of a following on the Wash. U. campus. But calling the tax “regressive,” and saying that Washington University is “callous toward the poor,” now that’s exciting and inflammatory even though it’s not true. I would respect CBT’s efforts far more if they were willing to give us their real reasons for opposing Prop A. So, CBT, argue your case honestly. But don’t make inflammatory statements, don’t try to defend untenable positions, don’t make arguments that you yourself don’t believe, don’t attack Chancellor Wrighton for being civic-minded, and DON’T tell me that I hate the poor if I support public transit.

And Wash. U., don’t swallow their lies. Educate yourself and base your vote tomorrow on facts, not propaganda. Vote “yes” on Prop A.

Melissa is a freshman in Arts & Sciences. She can be reached via e-mail at mfreilich@wustl.edu.

It would also be the third sales tax increase in St. Louis County in three years. For families struggling to make ends meet in tough economic times, it would only add to their hardship. Low-income families can pay five to six times more of their income, on a percentage basis, than those in higher brackets.

The millionaires and high-income people promoting the tax might find this hard to understand. This would include Washington University Chancellor Mark Wrighton, who was reported to be earning more than a $1 million annually in recent years from both his University salary and outside director’s fees.

Metro’s claimed financial crisis is completely contrived. It has lost some funding but also gained some. The increased revenue just from raising fares is about $9 million a year. Metro also receives funding from both the state and federal governments.

The transit agency is using the well-worn “doomsday scenario” in order to scare voters—unless you vote for this tax, people won’t be able to get to work and senior citizens and the disabled will be left stranded. In 2008, just before the vote on the Metro tax, County Executive Charlie Dooley had county government reduce Metro’s funding by $8.5 million. The funding was in the budget but was diverted. An even bigger crisis was then claimed.

What is absolutely shameless is Chancellor Mark Wrighton’s involvement in the hugely deceptive and misleading campaign to pass the Metro tax. He is repeating the threats that Metro has constantly made. It does not seem to bother him that Metro is providing multi-million dollar subsidies to the University while cutting back on service to those needing it the most.

In addition to the MetroLink system that connect the University’s various campuses, Metro has two bus routes that cater to the University and also provides a shuttle service that runs seven days a week from morning to night. About 98 percent of the shuttle riders use Wash. U. passes. The reason Metro is so generous to the University is that it allows the transit agency to inflate ridership numbers.

To members of the Washington University community: do the right thing and vote “no” on Proposition A on Tuesday.

Tom is the spokesman for the Public Transit Accountability Project. He can be reached via email at tsullivan@sullivanadv.net.

Wash. U. Students for Proposition A, Green Action, the Performing Arts Department collaborated to organize an improvisational flash mob dance in front of the Danforth University Center. The dance was meant to raise awareness of the upcoming April 6 vote on Proposition A, which will support St. Louis public transit. The Chancellor was among the participants.