Phase 2 Streetcar Funding

[Armorek]

I'm a little new here so if this needs to go somewhere else or if this question has already been answered please let know.

How do you guys handle the detractors of the KC streetcar expansion? These are some of the arguments I've read:

1. Saying that the benefits of the streetcar aren't properly vetted and that there should be 'other' options. Specifically BRT.

2. That the tax piece is a little steep for those with low incomes. The fact that the system will be free is a huge trade off, so I think I'm good there.

3. They claim that there are no tangible benefits, that it's costly and doesn't solve the transportation needs of the city.

4. Some of them also claim that the TDD is illegal and gerrymandered to only include supporters.

5. Schools and water works. I already have good counter arguments here. Thanks to Dave and FlyingEmber.

6. Other streetcar systems are failing everywhere (i.e. Seattle, Portland and Philly) and investing in this is a bad idea cause it will eventually fail.

7. The old KC streetcar system failed, why are we building another?

Just looking for a little info on combating these arguments and at the same time informing people that the streetcar is beneficial for KC in the long run. Thanks!

EDIT: Thanks for the info and placing this in the right spot.

[flyingember]

1. this one isn't that hard if you turn it around and focus on the #1 need of people. busses aren't bringing jobs downtown, instead they're moving to where busses don't go. we need to try something new.

2. there was a guy in the council committee hearing for the phase 2 TDD vote that put this well. a car costs $X (taxes, insurance, gas, maintenance, registration, parking, tickets, etc). if you take the average cost of this, subtract the new taxes, a low income homeowner can easily end up with a net positive in the hundreds to thousands of dollars from being able to sell a car. assuming that the existing transit service is full, or too infrequent to work for their job (there's plenty of examples you can use with working nights and the bus runs once an hour)

3. this one you get into the area of many needs in a society. a grocery store has food I don't eat because they need to serve many people.
the best example groups are people in wheelchairs, on crutches and parents with small children in strollers. you get into a discussion on the different options and better serving more people with transit so they have choices. you can talk about the cost of rebuilding everything to do the same with busses and get into that no option on the table is cheap. new busses with level boarding would easily cost $100 million for the vehicles + but then you need level boarding stations and every time you move a line you may need to build all the stations to work with them.

4. go for the classic redirect. you can agree that gerrymandering needs to stop, it's hurting national elections for example. ask them what they would replace the practice with? talk about why do district boundaries today follow zigzags? what system creates non-partisan boundaries that would actually work?

5. the best I've come up with is to ask "if the city has influence over the schools inside KCMO what's different between their successes in ~10 districts and their failures in KCMSD?" what's different between districts? this leads to to why only 8% of people turn out for kcmsd school elections? why did one election have a board seat that was only write-in candidates? redirect to the real issues of the district, those residents that don't vote. key to point out is it's not a race issue, NKC HS is more racially diverse than any HS in KCMSD and it's not failing.

water services now you can point to the $500 million voted on for water system maintenance. they're implementing a *100 year* plan so seeing something outside any person's door is unlikely at this point. similarly streets will take 40-50 years at current speed by my estimate. so that anyone over 50 is unlikely to ever see a street repair on their street doesn't mean nothing is being done

6. changes don't mean failures. NYC is the definition of transit success and they are constantly changing their service picture. a few years of down time means nothing for something for the 40-50 year timeframe.

7. it didn't fail, it was purposefully replaced with what worked better for that era. you have to look at the picture today and make a decision on what works for today, not what was true in 1930 or 1940 or 1950.

[aknowledgeableperson]

7. It did fail. And the reason it failed was the lack of taxpayer support. And the reason it failed was it lost money.

Not against the streetcar system, phase 1, because the people who wanted it are paying for it. If phase 2 passes I have the same feeling. And my feeling for the passage of phase 2, right now, is that it fails.

[flyingember]

7. It did fail. And the reason it failed was the lack of taxpayer support. And the reason it failed was it lost money.

it failed over and over during it's PEAK years with increasing network size and ridership

1886 saw final consolidation from ~50 companies into one, and over the next 40 years three different companies owned the system.
then in 1925 the system went public. only two have run transit in the 90 years since then.

money was the issue, it didn't get any tax money and frequently couldn't raise rates to pay for the system
yet it moved to cable cars and then to electricity all the same

[Armorek]

Thanks for the reply. I know its pointless to argue with people who have already made up their minds on the issue but it's a little frustrating to see them blatantly misinforming people. This will help me call them out a little bit and attempt to keep them honest.

[DaveKCMO]

MOD: moved this conversation to the correct thread.

[DaveKCMO]

recap of today's court proceedings: https://storify.com/kclightrail/courtro ... hase-2-tdd

originally planned to end at 3pm today, the judge has added another whole day of testimony on april 24.

[pash]

.

[flyingember]

2. there was a guy in the council committee hearing for the phase 2 TDD vote that put this well. a car costs $X (taxes, insurance, gas, maintenance, registration, parking, tickets, etc). if you take the average cost of this, subtract the new taxes, a low income homeowner can easily end up with a net positive in the hundreds to thousands of dollars from being able to sell a car. assuming that the existing transit service is full, or too infrequent to work for their job (there's plenty of examples you can use with working nights and the bus runs once an hour)

AAA says car ownership averages $9,000 a year, for what it's worth. You can drive more cheaply if you have to, of course, but the point is that it's a big expense for all drivers.

(For all of you wondering who's going to fill these new $1,000-a-month apartments downtown, by the way, there's part of your answer. If you can get by without a car, you can afford a whole lot more rent.)

$9000 seems like car payment + big maintenance bill each year caused by a long commute. that's not a completely unrealistic number.

[pash]

.

[kboish]

Question. What percentage of operating costs does the current funding proposal cover? How much is expected to be covered by ridership?

[DaveKCMO]

Question. What percentage of operating costs does the current funding proposal cover? How much is expected to be covered by ridership?

annual operating cost is estimated at $11.6 million. so with no fare (current assumption), you recover nothing. with a $1.50 fare, you recover about $2 million. so 17%? KCATA hovers around that, while The JO is lower (12%?).

i'm not a fan of charging a fare until there is a regional fare structure and a single regional pass (both in progress).

[kboish]

Question. What percentage of operating costs does the current funding proposal cover? How much is expected to be covered by ridership?

annual operating cost is estimated at $11.6 million. so with no fare (current assumption), you recover nothing. with a $1.50 fare, you recover about $2 million. so 17%? KCATA hovers around that, while The JO is lower (12%?).

i'm not a fan of charging a fare until there is a regional fare structure and a single regional pass (both in progress).

So I guess my next question is- the current tax is meant to include this ongoing subsidy and not just construction cost. It seems the answer should obviously be, OF COURSE! but just want to be sure this is accurate.

[DaveKCMO]

yes.

OPERATIONS WILL BE PAID BY THE TDD REVENUE.
OPERATIONS WILL BE PAID BY THE TDD REVENUE.
OPERATIONS WILL BE PAID BY THE TDD REVENUE.
OPERATIONS WILL BE PAID BY THE TDD REVENUE.
OPERATIONS WILL BE PAID BY THE TDD REVENUE.
OPERATIONS WILL BE PAID BY THE TDD REVENUE.
OPERATIONS WILL BE PAID BY THE TDD REVENUE.

etc, etc.

[kboish]

so you're saying, yes?

I will ask again in 3 months just to be sure

[smh]

yes.

OPERATIONS WILL BE PAID BY THE TDD REVENUE.
OPERATIONS WILL BE PAID BY THE TDD REVENUE.
OPERATIONS WILL BE PAID BY THE TDD REVENUE.
OPERATIONS WILL BE PAID BY THE TDD REVENUE.
OPERATIONS WILL BE PAID BY THE TDD REVENUE.
OPERATIONS WILL BE PAID BY THE TDD REVENUE.
OPERATIONS WILL BE PAID BY THE TDD REVENUE.

etc, etc.

But what about the crime problem in the school district's sewer system?

[Armorek]

School's are on their own for sewer protection because the city has effectively written them off. They are instead deciding to turn KC into a streetcar utopia. Where downtown will only have streetcars and no people..... ever.

[smh]

School's are on their own for sewer protection because the city has effectively written them off. They are instead deciding to turn KC into a streetcar utopia. Where downtown will only have streetcars and no people..... ever.

+1.

This user may stay.

[aknowledgeableperson]

"$9000 seems like car payment + big maintenance bill each year caused by a long commute. that's not a completely unrealistic number."

"Insurance is also a big component. Average annual insurance is about $1,200 in Missouri, but many places it's well over $2,000."


IRS business mileage rate is around $.55 per mile. This takes in depreciation, insurance, gas, maintenance, and so on. So the $9,000 amount is reasonable. But one must remember that is average. A young person driving a 5 year old Toyota Corolla will have a cost less than a suburban soccer mom driving a new Tahoe.

[taxi]

"$9000 seems like car payment + big maintenance bill each year caused by a long commute. that's not a completely unrealistic number."

"Insurance is also a big component. Average annual insurance is about $1,200 in Missouri, but many places it's well over $2,000."


IRS business mileage rate is around $.55 per mile. This takes in depreciation, insurance, gas, maintenance, and so on. So the $9,000 amount is reasonable. But one must remember that is average. A young person driving a 5 year old Toyota Corolla will have a cost less than a suburban soccer mom driving a new Tahoe.

Genius!
Or perhaps, you did not write that?