Funding bait and (rail) switch

Terms like “Trojan horse,” “black hole,” and “bait and switch” are being thrown around now that it is likely that a good chunk of operating funding for central Florida's $1.2 billion commuter rail project, SunRail, will come from the region's state road budget.

A draft Florida Department of Transportation agreement with local governments calls for any extra operating dollars to “'come from the FDOT work program in the geographic area of the local government partners that choose not to provide additional funding.

That's according to a recent OrlandoSentinel.com story titled, “SunRail could sap funding for Orlando-area road projects” and subtitled: “Orlando-area roads budgets would help pay for SunRail costs under new state plan.”

As it is, after seven years, the area's local governments are on the hook for $7.8 million in annual operating subsidies — that is the rosy picture based on usually overblown ridership estimates. Subsidies are likely to be higher. So now, any budget overruns would come out of the FDOT's Central Florida District 5 budget.

That's not what a lot of rail supporters apparently had in mind. After all, commuter rail supporters typically want rail because they think it will make it easier to drive when others use it. Naturally, rail advocates assumed road funding would be unaffected, making future car commutes smoother.

They can blame the Federal Transit Administration for insisting on the new draft language in the agreement. According to the story, the local governments were willing to “walk away from SunRail if the operating costs grew more than 5% above what was forecast,” but the feds canned that idea.

And there is the risk when we “assume.”

And central Floridians aren't happy about the bait and switch outlined in the OrlandoSentinel.com story.

The April 12 story about the funding shift was accompanied by an online poll asking, “Is it OK for SunRail to tap road-project funding if needed?

A day later, over 1,800 readers responded to the poll question with over 86% (1,559) answering “No.” Only 11% say it's OK, and 3% weren't sure.