BIKE: Toll road, monorail troubles, etc.

[Michael Bluejay]

Speaking of monorail, I just rode the Vegas monorail and I wasn't very 
impressed.

The stations on the South side are *far* from the strip, since they're 
one long block over, and through the casinos.  I think it took me ten 
minutes to walk to a monorail station, maybe more.  That wasn't helped 
by the fact that the casinos advertise "Monorail Station!" outside but 
once you get inside they do everything they can to keep you from 
finding it.  The signage is sparse.  Wouldn't you prefer to play some 
slot machines or blackjack, sir?

I've read that the monorail goes four miles, but I think that's because 
it's got some turns and doesn't exactly parallel the Strip.  In reality 
it covers only about 2.5 miles of the strip, if you were traveling 
along the strip by any other method (walking, taxi, or bus), which I 
think is the best comparison.  The trip supposedly takes 14 minutes 
from end to end.  If you add 5.5 minutes of walking time on each end 
(probably underestimated) and another five waiting for the train then 
that's 30 minutes.  I think it would take only about 50 minutes to walk 
the entire strip.  I suspect the bus that runs up and down the strip 
itself 24/7 is faster.  If I have a chance I'll time it.

Either light rail or monorail on the strip itself would have been way 
more convenient, but there are some big obstacles that precluded it.  
The casinos would have objected to monorail because they don't want 
anything to obstruct the view of their billion-dollar properties from 
across the street, and light rail would have resulted in spectacular 
fatalities every several days with all the crazy drivers out here as 
well as all the clueless pedestrians who have never walked in an urban 
environment before and constantly leap off the sidewalk without 
looking.  In fact it's amazing more of them aren't demolished by cars.

-MBJ-

On Feb 10, 2005, at 10:19 PM, Roger Baker wrote:

> Have you heard that the new US 183A  toll road is now calculated to 
> cost $2 for 5 miles as opposed to the earlier much cheaper promises, 
> before the toll roads were approved last summer.
>
> These CTRMA toll road bonds will  nearly certainly default due to 
> rising fuel costs over the long life of the bonds. Here is what the 
> newly released official bond statement on US 183A says on page 77 of 
> the PDF file of the almost 500 page document:
>
> "... Motor Fuel Prices and Taxes  Among other assumptions, the Revenue 
> Forecasts in the Traffic and Revenue Report are based on  (i) the 
> assumption that motor fuel will remain in adequate supply and motor 
> fuel prices (in current dollars)  will not exceed $3.00 per gallon and 
> (ii) the assumption that federal and State motor fuel taxes will not  
> increase to the extent that, together with price increases, motor fuel 
> pump prices exceed $3.00 per gallon.   There is no assurance that 
> motor fuel will remain in adequate supply or that motor fuel prices 
> and federal  and State motor fuel taxes will not increase to the 
> extent that motor fuel pump prices exceed $3.00 per  gallon during the 
> forecast period covered by the Traffic and Revenue Report.  Motor fuel 
> pump prices in  excess of $3.00 per gallon could negatively impact the 
> Revenue Forecasts contained iRevenue Report.  See “APPENDIX D – 
> TRAFFIC AND REVENUE REPORT.” ..."
>
> In other words, the CTRMA toll road promoters despite repeated 
> warnings, from myself and others, made NO effort to calculate the risk 
> that rising fuel costs might cause the toll road bonds to default on 
> about a third of a billion dollars worth of current investments based 
> on deficit spending for municipal revenue bonds! When the toll bonds 
> default and we get  a bad  reputation on Wall Street, it could get 
> pretty hard for the Austin area to borrow more bond money for the 
> stuff all cities like Austin need.
>
> They do say in essence above, that if fuel prices rise about $3 per 
> gallon in current dollars during the next forty years, then all bets 
> are off and they will assume no responsibility for the outcome. Which 
> is perhaps their quaint way of saying that these bonds will almost 
> certainly default.
>
> -- Roger
>
>
>             *****************************
>
> Why didn't they just shove aside all the cars on welfare and put in 
> reliable, well-engineered, predictable, high capacity, ground level 
> light rail into the newly liberated street space? Its never too late 
> to learn I suppose. -- R
>
>
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/210331_monorail02.html
>
> Seattle Post-Intelligencer
> Wednesday, February 2, 2005
>
> Monorail plan on debt payoff finds skeptics
>
> By LARRY LANGE
> SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
>
>
> OLYMPIA -- Judging from an afternoon of skeptical questions, Seattle
> monorail officials may not get the extra cushion they sought to 
> finance the
> city's $1.6 billion elevated rail line.
>
> State lawmakers and citizens alike joined in questioning why the 
> monorail
> agency needs more than the 40 years already allowed to pay back a
> bonded debt for the 14-mile project.
>
> Monorail officials had sought authority for the extra time as a hedge
> against the possibility that the motor-vehicle excise tax that 
> supports the
> agency doesn't cover the expected debt in the 30-plus years planned.
>
> Some members of the Senate Transportation Committee, however,
> questioned the wisdom of allowing the added time, saying extending the
> debt would cost the agency more and might be a bad precedent.
>
> "This puts tax policy in the hands of unelected public officials," said
> Seattle economist Peter Malishka, speaking against the debt-extension
> provision. Seven of the monorail's directors are appointed, two are
> elected.
>
> The hearing included suspicions -- denied by a monorail official -- 
> that the
> voter-approved rail project has hit a financial snag.
>
> The request for the longer payback time "is tantamount ... to the 
> failure of
> its financial plan," monorail critic Geof Logan told committee members.
>
> Monorail finance director Jonathan Buchter later said the agency is 
> "not in
> trouble" financially but wanted authority for the longer time period 
> so it
> could ensure bondholders that they would get their money if tax revenue
> fell short.
>
> "I truly believe we're going to get the project financed ... we're 
> going to
> build the monorail," he said.
>
> Some committee members, including the chairwoman, Sen. Mary
> Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, chafed at granting the added
> authority.
>
> "Somebody has to pay for this at some point," she said of the debt.
>
> Committee members also appeared swayed by state Treasurer Mike
> Murphy, who said that the payback time for state bonds is 30 years and
> that longer than 40 years "is something I'm not comfortable with."
>
> Buchter said there's a big difference between the amount of debt the
> monorail can issue and what the state can. But Haugen and committee
> vice chairman Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, expressed doubts that
> lawmakers will leave the 40-year-plus payback arrangement in the bill.
>
> "I don't think that's going to fly," Haugen said.
>
> Critics also lambasted the monorail's attempt to retain a controversial
> vehicle-depreciation schedule by putting it in the bill.
>
> Monorail officials said Seattle voters authorized the schedule, which
> allows heavy trucks to be depreciated faster than cars because of 
> greater
> mileage, in 2002 when they approved the monorail plan and the car-tab
> tax.
>
> Several speakers, however, said the schedule assigns higher-than-Blue
> Book or even sale values to passenger cars in particular, in effect 
> allowing
> the monorail to levy more than the 1.4 percent tax on the values that
> voters authorized.
>
> Economist Christina Tapia noted that the schedule was thrown out by
> Initiatives 695 and 776, two vehicle excise-tax limitation measures.
>
> She called the tax based on the schedules "neither fair nor equitable."
>
> Monorail officials have noted that the issue is now being fought out in
> court, where citizens have sued to get the schedule overturned.
>
>
> P-I reporter Larry Lange can be reached at 206-448-8313 or
> larrylange
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Get on or off this list here:  http://BicycleAustin.info/list
>