Post by saltire08 on Jul 31, 2010 23:40:15 GMT -8
(I hope this is in the right location as it pertains to future lines! )
So I was driving north on the 405 through the Sepulveda Pass the other day (with Bob Seger's Hollywood Nights blasting btw) and I got to thinking.
Two of the major issues that affect the construction of rail are cash and NIMBYs. Combined, they can put things on hold for an endless period of time.
So, what if we linked the two to our advantage?
What if we allowed companies, citizens, etc. to purchase part of the rail lines. Essentially, people can put in money in the beginning to cover the costs of the rail.
This money would be paid back over time with an interest rate so people investing in the rail would get their money back plus more.
A portion of ridership revenue would be used to pay back the investors and pay back the "loans".
Additionally, as an added benefit, the interest rate could go up based upon ridership/boardings at certain stations.
Let's take say...Glendale...for example. (This is purely hypothetical so the numbers might make no sense)
Rick Carusso invests 10 million in the creation of a Glendale Line and 5 million into the station stop at Colorado/Brand. He receives a flat interest rate of 2% on the 10 million he invested in the whole line. He receives a 2%-4% interest rate on the 5 million invested into the Colorado/Brand station. A base boardings/year (or some other date range) is set that is equivalent to the 2%. As boardings/exits increase at this stop, his interest rate can progress to as high as 4%.
Therefore, it is in his best interest to encourage people to use the Metro. Random citizens who invest as well will also benefit from increased ridership.
Now, imagine 10,000 people/businesses investing in a line. That could generate a lot of up front revenue. Because the investors would get more money from higher ridership numbers, that is 10,000 people/businesses encouraging people to go Metro.
I don't know if any of this makes sense to anybody, but I figure it possibly could get things moving faster.
So questions:
a) has this been studied/done before?
b) is it legal?
c) is it economically feasible and would you need economies of scale in order for it to work?
So I was driving north on the 405 through the Sepulveda Pass the other day (with Bob Seger's Hollywood Nights blasting btw) and I got to thinking.
Two of the major issues that affect the construction of rail are cash and NIMBYs. Combined, they can put things on hold for an endless period of time.
So, what if we linked the two to our advantage?
What if we allowed companies, citizens, etc. to purchase part of the rail lines. Essentially, people can put in money in the beginning to cover the costs of the rail.
This money would be paid back over time with an interest rate so people investing in the rail would get their money back plus more.
A portion of ridership revenue would be used to pay back the investors and pay back the "loans".
Additionally, as an added benefit, the interest rate could go up based upon ridership/boardings at certain stations.
Let's take say...Glendale...for example. (This is purely hypothetical so the numbers might make no sense)
Rick Carusso invests 10 million in the creation of a Glendale Line and 5 million into the station stop at Colorado/Brand. He receives a flat interest rate of 2% on the 10 million he invested in the whole line. He receives a 2%-4% interest rate on the 5 million invested into the Colorado/Brand station. A base boardings/year (or some other date range) is set that is equivalent to the 2%. As boardings/exits increase at this stop, his interest rate can progress to as high as 4%.
Therefore, it is in his best interest to encourage people to use the Metro. Random citizens who invest as well will also benefit from increased ridership.
Now, imagine 10,000 people/businesses investing in a line. That could generate a lot of up front revenue. Because the investors would get more money from higher ridership numbers, that is 10,000 people/businesses encouraging people to go Metro.
I don't know if any of this makes sense to anybody, but I figure it possibly could get things moving faster.
So questions:
a) has this been studied/done before?
b) is it legal?
c) is it economically feasible and would you need economies of scale in order for it to work?