UrbanOhio.com
November 21, 2009, 12:20:09 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: We are in the middle of editing thousands of posts.  If you do not see your favorite thread, do not worry.  It will be back once cleaned.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Cincinnati Light Rail News  (Read 427985 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
jmecklenborg
UO Supporting Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1769


« Reply #510 on: November 05, 2009, 10:39:01 AM »

In 2012 the stadium bonds might be over half paid off (actually the principal could still be well over 50%), but that 1/2 cent tax is scheduled to continue until 2026.  Even if sales tax receipts go through the roof, a scenario where the stadium can be paid off earlier than about 2024 seems unlikely.  This doesn't help when selling a sales tax to the population. 

There was a lot of skepticism that the 1/2 cent tax was enough for a complete build-out of the Metro Moves plan, and I concur with that.  As the first lines become active, annual operating costs cut into the agency's ability to pay off bonds and issue new ones. So if the tax is gathering an average of $60 million per year and annual operating costs are $20 million, only enough debt can be accrued that can be paid off without risking a dip into the general fund, so probably something like $35 million per year in bond payments.  How much debt that permits is entirely dependent on conditions at the time the bonds are issued.

This is why transit agencies (sometimes) can't be blames when capital projects don't happen, since often there is a perfectly logical reason to not build a 7 mile line instead of 9. Seattle ran into this problem big-time with their light rail line because of all the engineering hurdles -- unknowns way beyond what we have here.  Specifically it was a bad idea to built the line short of University of Washington due to super-high tunneling cost but poor ridership, so they had to wait for a special federal grant before they could proceed with the project to U of W. 

I good analogy would be if Cincinnati and Dayton agreed to connect themselves with a high speed rail line, but some condition changed and we only had enough money to build it between downtown Cincinnati and Middletown.  Putting that into operation would lose a ton of money and the line would need to be maintained while waiting around for a new funding source.  The cost of steel and concrete, the strength of the dollar, and the cost of muni bonds all factor into the ability of transit agencies to get stuff built.  This is why you want *huge* contingencies in any budget. 
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20   Go Up
  Print  
 
 

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 2.0 Beta 3.1 Public | SMF © 2006–2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!