An incomplete cost analysis is worse than no cost analysis

An opinion piece ran in today's Tribune that threw around a lot of numbers and made a lot of negative claims about transportation investment, particularly about light rail. Now, to start off, we have serious concerns over the phrase "transit tax" (25% goes to roads) and the usual 14% misinformation (see our earlier post). Not only that, but including things like fare box revenue and an existing property tax as part of the so called "transit tax" is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

However, our biggest concern is not with the numbers themselves, but rather the false comparison they make to so-called "alternatives." In his analysis, the author paints a biased picture by ignoring important costs and misrepresenting the cost of doing nothing. Here's what he missed:

1. The author claims buses are a better alternative because they are flexible. But it is precisely because of their flexibility that buses fail to encourage high-density development around stations, forgoing the benefit of the $4-6 of private money that is invested for every $1 spent on fixed transportation like light rail.
2. Buses do need to be part of the solution, but the author misleadingly presents his case as if they are a minor or non-existent part of the plan. In fact, buses will account for 82% of operating costs for the system and 32% of overall referendum spending.
3. He completely ignores the real dollar costs of congestion on our roads. Our drivers already waste over $900 each year sitting in traffic, and these costs will only go up if Hillsborough continues to rely on roads alone.
4. He completely omits the cost of road widenings, including land acquisition and construction costs, which exceed the cost of rail after 8 lanes (see info from the MPO: www.mpo2035.org/faqs.html).
5. He fails to take into account the impact of projected population growth (almost 460,000 new residents in the next 15 years), which will put more pressure on roads.
6. He overlooks the fact that roads generate zero revenue and thus are paid for exclusively with public debt, unless he is proposing we make all of our roads toll roads...
7. He completely ignores the environmental cost of continuing to rely exclusively on automobiles and buses.
8. Finally,he completely overlooks the fact that state and federal funds set aside for transit will be spent for whichever communities qualify for the funding, and future generations will incur that debt regardless, and may as well benefit from it.

With so many "oversights" we can't help but find this piece to be deliberately misleading to voters who deserve a complete and accurate picture of the cost of this plan AS WELL AS the cost of NOT enacting this plan.

Heroically yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Check the facts:

http://www.mpo2035.org/faqs.html
http://www.gohart.org/whytransit/financial_plan.pdf