<strong><span class="subhead">Light rail, heavy costs</span></strong></p><p>The light-rail debate has gone on too long. Jump-starting construction of the Kansas City portion of Mayor Funkhouser&#8217;s proposed multi-city rail service is merely a sneaky way to give Clay Chastain his dream.</p><p>Instead, the ATA Metro bus service should be improved, given more buses and routes. The high maintenance of the light-rail idea has not been considered in offsetting any contrast to improving the Metro with sheltered bus stops and buses with higher-efficiency engines.</p><p>Also, the legal tangles in appropriating the land for any light-rail service will cost taxpayers exceedingly.</p><p>Kansas City should not make any initial moves to construct any light-rail, especially since the surrounding community is not truly on board with the idea and costs.</p><p><p align="right"><strong>William A. Ingram</strong></p> <p align="right"><em>Kansas City</em></p> So far, the discussion about Kansas City&#8217;s light-rail plan has been about construction costs. Operating costs are far more important, yet little if any, discussion is taking place.</p><p>Many assume that fares will cover these costs, but the fact is, all urban public transportation systems require subsidies from tax dollars in order to make fares affordable.</p><p>Kansas City leaders visited Portland, Ore., where the Tri-Met system is often cited as a success story for light rail. But let&#8217;s look at the real cost. Operating expenses for 2005 were $203,654,043, while revenue from fares was $54,117,025. That means fares (a single ticket costs $2.05) covered only 27 percent of the operating expense. That leaves a deficit of $149,537,018 that must be made up with subsidies.</p><p>It should also be noted that Portland&#8217;s original projected construction costs were $240 million, but the actual costs rose to $1 billion.</p><p>Kansas City can&#8217;t afford its current obligations, much less take on new burdens. How will it pay for light rail?</p><p><p align="right"><strong>Jay Henning</strong></p> <p align="right"><em>Overland Park</em></p> <strong><span class="subhead">About those gas prices &#8230;</span></strong></p><p>Some politicians claim that selling sports tickets or entertainment tickets for market value (as in scalping) should be illegal.</p><p>What is it called at the gas pump today? Market value.</p><p><p align="right"><strong>Kenneth G. Kurtz</strong></p> <p align="right"><em>Harrisonville</em></p> Regular gas price in Sedalia last Tuesday was $3.67. Kansas City&#8217;s price was $3.87.</p><p>I guess Sedalia must be closer to the refinery.</p><p><p align="right"><strong>Bill Grossnickle</strong></p> <p align="right"><em> Kansas City</em></p> <strong><span class="subhead">Immigration and energy use</span></strong></p><p>Your editorial, &#8220;Offshore drilling is no panacea for U.S.&#8221; (6/19, Opinion) and E. Thomas McClanahan&#8217;s column (6/22, Opinion, &#8220;Drop the barriers and explore our options&#8221;) offer some good options for dealing with our energy crisis but completely miss an obvious step to reduce short- and long-term demand for gasoline. That important step is to stabilize our U.S. population, which can largely be achieved by ending immigration.</p><p>Each year the United States admits more than 1 million legal immigrants. Several hundred thousand of these new residents promptly become motorists, increasing demand for our limited supply of motor fuels. This demand pressure assures that prices will definitely not go down and will most likely continue to rise.</p><p>Conservation is a hollow and futile gesture when misguided national policy is deliberately offsetting our individual efforts.</p><p>Let&#8217;s stabilize our population, reduce demand and move toward a more secure energy future.</p><p><p align="right"><strong>Wayne Byrd</strong></p> <p align="right"><em>Overland Park</em></p> <strong><span class="subhead">Recreation in the oilfields</span></strong></p><p>It appears that those who oppose drilling offshore or in Alaska are oblivious to reality (a requirement for being a liberal).