Bi‑State Asks County to Cover $7M Shortfall and Back $25M 30‑Month Transit Plan

Bi‑State Development Agency officials briefed the St. Louis County Council on Sept. 16 about a proposed 30‑month transit investment package that aims to increase frequency on targeted routes, redesign service in underserved corridors and fund bus‑stop accessibility work. Charlie Roach of Bi‑State introduced the team; Tammy Paris, Bi‑State CFO, and Ronald Forrest of service planning provided the financial and service details.

Paris told the council the agency’s FY25 appropriation request was $197,100,000 but actual sales‑tax receipts to Bi‑State were about $190,100,000, leaving a shortfall "of approximately $7,000,000." She asked the council to allow use of prop A reserves to fund that gap and to approve language that would let Bi‑State use similar reserve authority in future years if needed. Ron Forrest said the agency’s 30‑month service proposal—including frequency increases and bus‑stop improvements—totals roughly $25,000,000, combining about $17,000,000 in service enhancements, the $7,000,000 shortfall, and about $1.2 million for bus‑stop improvements.

Service recommendations include increasing frequency on North/Northwest routes (61 Chambers, 77 Village Square, 100 Hazelwood) from 30–40 minute headways to 20 minutes at AM/PM peaks, at an estimated incremental cost of about $3,600,000 across both counties (roughly $2,900,000 in North County, $700,000 in Northwest); redesigns in West County would shift some micro‑transit coverage and move portions of route 58 from 60‑minute to 40‑minute peak service to connect essential jobs and health centers. Forrest summarized, "the whole 30‑month period of time... is nearly $25,000,000," putting the request in context of a multi‑year recovery of sales‑tax revenue.

Councilmembers pressed for details. Councilwoman Webb said she supports increased frequency but called for restoring several pre‑COVID routes that have not returned to North County. Bi‑State representatives acknowledged the complexity of funding and staffing, and noted existing operational constraints (operators, mechanics) that affect implementation.

The chair did not take a vote on funding at the meeting; instead she said the council will take the request up in a Committee of the Whole for in‑depth review and to determine funding mechanics. Earlier in the agenda the council had suspended rules to hear the Bi‑State presentation, approving that suspension by voice vote.

Community commenters during the meeting also raised accessibility and communications concerns about Metro’s CallRide and micro‑transit programs and urged clearer outreach to paratransit riders if routes change. Bi‑State officials and the council agreed to follow up in committee with more granular staffing, cost and timeline details before any appropriation or reserve transfer is approved.