The High Cost of Rail Strikes Again

Add Austin’s Capital Metro to the list of transit agencies that have gotten themselves into serious financial trouble because they insisted on building an expensive rail transit line. After blowing $300 million on a commuter-rail line and other questionable improvements, Capital Metro is heavily in debt and lacks the resources to fund bus and other planned expansions.

High-cost transit: Scheduled to begin operating in March, the tracks are built, the vehicles are not yet paid for, the system isn’t running, and no one knows when service will begin.

Just a few years ago, the agency had $200 million in the bank. But its CEO considered that a liability, not an asset, because “everyone in town thought we were rich, and they were coming after it.” He argues that blowing a bunch of money on unnecessary projects was necessary to protect the agency’s assets.

In addition, diuretic and anti-inflammation pill can bring into a good improvement on patients’ immune system, and it can return back patients professional cialis a good healthy condition in essence. This Sildenafil citrate is marketed by the US based secretworldchronicle.com viagra online company, Pfizer. Kamagra is made at the much lowest discover now viagra fast shipping price than its contender medicines. Women too can reap the benefits Not only men, women too can achieve order cialis from india orgasm and reach the height of highest pleasure and satisfaction from these supplements.

Back in 2000, Capital Metro’s huge cash pile up led to calls for it to reduce the sales tax that funds most of its operations. But government agencies look out for their own interests, not those of the taxpayers who fund them. To quell the tax-reduction movement, the agency promised to share some of its revenues with Austin and other cities in the region. Instead of doing that, it built the commuter rail line and now has no money to share and has to borrow money just to operate what it has.

Meanwhile, the commuter-rail line is still not operational two months after it was supposed to start — and officials don’t know when they will be able to begin service. The problem is that the wizards at Cap Metro managed to violate 26 different Federal Railroad Administration requirements, and haven’t yet resolved all of those violations.

Whether it is running or not doesn’t seem to be the point. The only reason Cap Metro built the commuter rail line was to spend a lot of money in order to justify its excessive sales tax revenues. From that point of view, it was a glorious success. From any other viewpoint, it was a complete waste.

Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

19 Responses to The High Cost of Rail Strikes Again

  1. D4P says:

    Why do so many cities continue to divert transit funds toward rail and away from buses?

    I assume it’s because politicians think rail is sexier and will do more for their own political careers.

  2. jwetmore says:

    Another reason is the federal funds available for rail transit projects.

    New starts are eligible for up to 50% matching funds for capital improvements. On a typical light rail or commuter rail project that is a couple of hundred million dollars the agencies and politicians can bring to their area. Nice for a political career.

  3. D4P says:

    Good point. Federal money is hard to pass up, even for the “mavericks” in places like Alaska and Texas.

  4. the highwayman says:

    ROT: The problem is that the wizards at Cap Metro managed to violate 26 different Federal Railroad Administration requirements, and haven’t yet resolved all of those violations.

    THWM: So over regulation for rail is a good thing.

  5. the highwayman says:

    D4P said: Why do so many cities continue to divert transit funds toward rail and away from buses?

    THWM: Rail is more cost effective than buses in the long run for a high traffic area.

    Streetcars in Portland OR good, very good.

    Streetcars in Blitzen OR bad, very bad!

    jwetmore said: Another reason is the federal funds available for rail transit projects.

    New starts are eligible for up to 50% matching funds for capital improvements. On a typical light rail or commuter rail project that is a couple of hundred million dollars the agencies and politicians can bring to their area. Nice for a political career.

    THWM: Mean while with roads there’s the 80/20 split between fed/local.

    The problem is that various politicians add on extra stuff that isn’t related to the main part of a project.

  6. the highwayman says:

    One other aspect about CapMetro is that about a quater of it’s tax revenue goes to roads for the city.

    In other words there are transit funds being diverted to roads.

  7. Francis King says:

    Let’s chuck this into the hen house, and see what clucks.

    In the USA today are 250 million registered passenger vehicles. According to the AAA the average cost per year per car is $10,000. By my maths, that’s $2.5 trillion per year spent on cars.

    Now, we know that trams are more expensive than buses. Suppose we decided that a 5% more share for transit (buses, trams) would be about right. That’s equivalent to $2.5 trillion * 5%, or $100bn spend per year. Are trams still expensive?

    Is that trams are too expensive period, or are they too expensive to fit into a small budget, so that more can be done with buses? Are we looking at this one from the correct end of the telescope?

  8. ws says:

    Francis King:“In the USA today are 250 million registered passenger vehicles. According to the AAA the average cost per year per car is $10,000. By my maths, that’s $2.5 trillion per year spent on cars”

    And these are just internal costs by the individual – not costs that are externalized on to the rest of society!

  9. THWM,

    I think that quarter of Cap Metro sales taxes going for roads is what was supposed to happen under the 2000 compromise but didn’t actually happen. But even if it did happen, it is not a case of transit funds being used to subsidize roads, it is a case of taxes being used to subsidize roads. I would object either way, but it is not the same as spending highway user fees on transit.

  10. the highwayman says:

    It’s 2009, not 1909 and the property damage has already been done.

    Streets have an important social value as a commons and railroads shouldn’t be treated worse than roads.

    Roads need adequate funding, just as rail lines need adequate funding.

  11. the highwayman says:

    Also gas taxes are not highway user fees, they are SALES TAXES on gas.

    Some one driving a Tesla is NOT BUYING GAS!

  12. jwetmore says:

    The highway trustfund fuel taxes have a different result than transit funds. Though some (not alll roads) are funded with an 80% – 20% split, the funds are almost all raised locally. Recent transportation legislation has greatly narrowed the gap between donor states and donee states. Over the last couple of reuthorizations of the surface transportation bills the minimum allocation of taxes returned to each state has increased.

    With transit funding you can be certain that only a very small percentage of the funds the metropolitan area receives were raised locally. Transit funds represent a huge shift from donors to donees. Highway funds represent a much, much smaller shift. Transit funds follow the concentrated benefits, diffuse costs pattern of political rent seeking behavior.

  13. the highwayman says:

    A good question would be why arterial roads are not built with tram tracks in the center to begin with.

  14. Scott says:

    New LRT is too expensive, regardless.
    If it its dense enough for transit, then buses.
    People, please do the cost-benefit analysis. Don’t assume that there’s zero energy use. It’s actually more or less.

    King of France said: $10,000/vehicle/year.
    Re-read the AAA parameters.
    Inaccurate! Do your math.
    For one thing: 1/4 of income on a car?

    ws: WTF are the external costs of cars to “society” (the <4% w/no car)?
    Transit has costs to all (ie taxes, inconvenience).
    Go live somewhere with no “internal combustion engines”. Get the hell out of here, hypocrite.

    Costs include energy; do research.
    Emissions for public vs. private transport are similar.
    http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/favorites/fcvt_fotw67.html

    high-man: tram-tracks in every major road?
    Stop taking some mind-altering substance.
    How expensive would that be?
    How many riders? Reduce car flow?
    Seriously, h-man (&dan) if you cannot contribute, please stop with your new-found ability to type. You really need to learn more about the world.

  15. Scott says:

    D4P: You have a problem if you equate “sexy” to any kind of non-human thing. Please do not force or harm others.

  16. the highwayman says:

    Scoot: high-man: tram-tracks in every major road?

    Now if some one mentioned steel rebar in roads that would be great!

    Scoot: Stop taking some mind-altering substance.
    How expensive would that be?
    How many riders? Reduce car flow?
    Seriously, h-man (&dan) if you cannot contribute, please stop with your new-found ability to type. You really need to learn more about the world.

    THWM: All you do is bitch. What are you scared of, black helicopters taking away?

  17. Scott says:

    Highman: I’m not the one complaining.

    You rant all the time w/much nonsense.

    Please try to use logic & make some kind of point.
    Although, when you want others to pay for your stuff, it’s hard to do.

  18. the highwayman says:

    Who do you work for Scott, GM?

Leave a Reply