the "value capture" model stops working with the UMKC and riverfront extensions -- not enough value to cover the capital cost -- if you want the conservative calculation used thus far. it only worked on a larger scale in 2014 because the district went all the way to the stadiums and the midtown/plaza area was essentially a donor to the other two extensions.WoodDraw wrote:That's also 100% correct, and I can't figure out why people don't understand it. The best thing for Kansas City is to slowly do rail out to places that want it, and make them pay. It will urbanize the area, and it's one of the few scenarios across the US that is actually working.
a TDD with special assessments and a sales tax on future extensions would have three significant problems:
1) the pro forma would have to be based on future development and economic activity
2) you would have to aggressively confront the lack of voter support for this model along good transit corridors
3) federal funding would be required, and future extensions are less likely to stand on their own for new/small starts scoring