Join our Mailing List!
Please click the link below to sign up for your community paper mailing list. Stay up to date with all the events going on in your community as well as the latest news.Sign Up Today!
Funkhouser's folly: Light rail heavy on cost, light on potential
By: Wayne Flaherty, Civic Activist
Before any government or citizen buys into the regional light rail plan ... they should carefully examine the document and the administration promoting it.
The title clearly spells out that this is a light rail plan, not a transportation plan. It fails completely to take into consideration the needs and plans of suburban transit systems or how it might be integrated into those systems. It is simply a very expensive way to get suburbanites into downtown KCMO. It fails completely to address public transportation for those who need it most.
Like the Portland light rail that carries less than 1 percent of its urban traffic, this light rail system will carry only a tiny fraction of suburban traffic. Interstate 70 and I-35 congestion studies conducted by Transystems (and paid for by the taxpayers) resulted in very simple reports: “What congestion?” Citing 20-minute windows twice a day during which traffic backs up, Transystems concluded this area has no significant congestion.
Before considering this plan, presenting it to a legislature, and especially before attempting to put it to a vote, a cost-benefit analysis should be conducted under the rules laid out in the federal government Economic Analysis Primer issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation (FHWA II IF-03-032). By quantifying costs and benefits it will become very clear just how much the benefits of this plan will cost the taxpayers. ...
Funding for the plan is woefully inadequate. Reports of a $4 billion cost for both construction and operation are unrealistic. Mayor (Mark) Funkhouser says a five-county, half-cent sales tax would generate $138 million per year. The 11.6-mile Hiawatha light rail line in Minneapolis costs $20 million per year (or $1.7 million per mile) to operate.
Even assuming a ridiculously low operating cost of $1 million per mile per year, Funkhouser’s Folly would cost $80 million per year to operate. Since only $58 million per year is left to build the line, the mayor’s stated desire to build it “all at once” is completely unrealistic.
At $70 million per mile construction cost, Funkhouser’s Folly would cost at least $5.6 billion to build. At the current inflation rate of 2.8 percent, the cost will rise by nearly a third in the 10 years required to complete. ...
Every transit system is a paradox. The more passengers it carries the greater the subsidy required to maintain the system. One of the most successful light rail systems in the country is in St. Louis where fare box revenues provide only 28 percent of the operating costs, slightly more than the customary 25 percent. Put another way, every time a rider drops $1 in the fare box, the taxpayers have to drop in another $3 to pay for his ride. Add a million riders to a transit system and the operating costs increase by $3 million.
The public transit systems of four major cities are in financial trouble. A January article in Planning magazine (which may be viewed at http://www.planning.org/planning/nonmember/default1.htm) describes how the Boston, New York, Washington and Chicago public transit systems are struggling to survive. ...
I don’t know how local Missouri governments can protect themselves in partnerships with KCMO. Perhaps Missouri Senate bill 825 may shed some light as it is a regional funding plan for Missouri public transit.
I know how local Kansas governments can protect themselves. Kansas should demand at least the following conditions:
1. Kansas must decide for itself what its transportation needs are (routes, type of transit, etc.).
2. All Kansas taxes must be spent only in Kansas.
3. All Kansas taxes must be controlled only by Kansas residents.
4. Demand a full cost-benefit analysis before making any commitment of any kind to any plan.
Anything is possible with cooperation between the states. Roads and trails wend their way throughout the metroplex, each built, paid for, and controlled by their respective states – all without regional funding. Transit can, and should, do the same.
printable version
e-mail this story
The title clearly spells out that this is a light rail plan, not a transportation plan. It fails completely to take into consideration the needs and plans of suburban transit systems or how it might be integrated into those systems. It is simply a very expensive way to get suburbanites into downtown KCMO. It fails completely to address public transportation for those who need it most.
Like the Portland light rail that carries less than 1 percent of its urban traffic, this light rail system will carry only a tiny fraction of suburban traffic. Interstate 70 and I-35 congestion studies conducted by Transystems (and paid for by the taxpayers) resulted in very simple reports: “What congestion?” Citing 20-minute windows twice a day during which traffic backs up, Transystems concluded this area has no significant congestion.
Before considering this plan, presenting it to a legislature, and especially before attempting to put it to a vote, a cost-benefit analysis should be conducted under the rules laid out in the federal government Economic Analysis Primer issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation (FHWA II IF-03-032). By quantifying costs and benefits it will become very clear just how much the benefits of this plan will cost the taxpayers. ...
Funding for the plan is woefully inadequate. Reports of a $4 billion cost for both construction and operation are unrealistic. Mayor (Mark) Funkhouser says a five-county, half-cent sales tax would generate $138 million per year. The 11.6-mile Hiawatha light rail line in Minneapolis costs $20 million per year (or $1.7 million per mile) to operate.
Even assuming a ridiculously low operating cost of $1 million per mile per year, Funkhouser’s Folly would cost $80 million per year to operate. Since only $58 million per year is left to build the line, the mayor’s stated desire to build it “all at once” is completely unrealistic.
At $70 million per mile construction cost, Funkhouser’s Folly would cost at least $5.6 billion to build. At the current inflation rate of 2.8 percent, the cost will rise by nearly a third in the 10 years required to complete. ...
Every transit system is a paradox. The more passengers it carries the greater the subsidy required to maintain the system. One of the most successful light rail systems in the country is in St. Louis where fare box revenues provide only 28 percent of the operating costs, slightly more than the customary 25 percent. Put another way, every time a rider drops $1 in the fare box, the taxpayers have to drop in another $3 to pay for his ride. Add a million riders to a transit system and the operating costs increase by $3 million.
The public transit systems of four major cities are in financial trouble. A January article in Planning magazine (which may be viewed at http://www.planning.org/planning/nonmember/default1.htm) describes how the Boston, New York, Washington and Chicago public transit systems are struggling to survive. ...
I don’t know how local Missouri governments can protect themselves in partnerships with KCMO. Perhaps Missouri Senate bill 825 may shed some light as it is a regional funding plan for Missouri public transit.
I know how local Kansas governments can protect themselves. Kansas should demand at least the following conditions:
1. Kansas must decide for itself what its transportation needs are (routes, type of transit, etc.).
2. All Kansas taxes must be spent only in Kansas.
3. All Kansas taxes must be controlled only by Kansas residents.
4. Demand a full cost-benefit analysis before making any commitment of any kind to any plan.
Anything is possible with cooperation between the states. Roads and trails wend their way throughout the metroplex, each built, paid for, and controlled by their respective states – all without regional funding. Transit can, and should, do the same.