Do you demand a similar ROI from motor freight and passenger coach operators or from airlines? Remember, railroads own and maintain their own infrastructure (roadbeds, rails, switches, signals, crossings, bridges, tunnels, traffic control systems, etc.) as well as the rolling stock they use. On the other hand, the infrastructure costs of motor and air transport are covered
by the taxpayer, enabling private operators that use them to make money. Which of these two industries is
truly government-supported?
(And I didn’t even mention the huge amounts of taxpayer cash that has gone directly to car companies and the airline industry over the years in the form of bailouts. Would American Airlines be reporting a profit today if Uncle Sam hadn’t coughed up all that cash two years ago?)
Providing capital for transportation infrastructure is a proper role for government: from ports to canals to railroads to freeways to airports, the use of public funds for infrastructure investment is an American tradition. Railways currently pay for their own infrastructure and still make money every quarter. If motor carriers and airlines had to own and maintain their own Interstates, airports, signs, and signals, none of them would make a dime.
I support public funding of integrated transportation infrastructure, including a robust system of national high-speed passenger and freight rail.
BOTH industries are government supported. Railroads only own the rail ways because the government gave them the land.
I do not mind taxpayer support. I just want an analysis that shows a break even point. Understand that as a consultant I put together ROIs all the time. I understand that there are hundreds of significant and perhaps thousands of insignificant economic impacts from a light rail system. But these need to be evaluated carefully
One impact would be reduced costs to maintain existing roadways. The realization of this reduction is lower bounded by the cost to maintain the roadway after the traffic has been removed.
I'm not opposed to public transportation. In fact, I support the RTD efforts in Colorado. HOWEVER, I have seen lots of decisions based on feel good and not facts. I'm afraid that public transportation can and easily will turn into pork barrel politics - unless it is governed by reasonable financial sense.
An ROI that shows costs and cost recovery is all that I ask. Far to often such work does not get done ahead of time.
The problem that happened with the RTD was a gross underestimation of the number of people who would use light rail. At first, there were only a couple of trains and then only a couple of cars. They were so crouded that it was almost impossible to move. A better analysis would have shown this and perhaps convinced the public to support the light rail sooner.
The other problem is that light rail does not currently run out to the airport. Not even from downtown.
I guess my position is this. An ROI will show us where to set up light rail and how much it will cost. Cost recovery then determines where the money will come from. Show me both. As a resonable voter, I want light rail because I recognize the long term benefits of such a system. However, don't use light rail to pad politicians pockets. Use it to serve the community.