We are wasting so much time, money and effort on yet another bistate plan...

[KCK]

I would agree bahua, but leaving joco out would cut off a lot of jobs and economic oppurtunities for those in other parts of the metro. For example imagine a lower income person like myself being able to take transit to work in a decent paying job in joco. Without that transit option available, I might not be able to find employment at all. Look at the unemployment rates here in KCK. They hover near 9%, and it is my belief that it is because people in KCK don't have the access to the jobs they need.

[chingon]

there's something to be said for that.  maybe the marc should develop a plan which allows for county-by-county inlcusion/exclusion, or even city by city.  put it to a vote, and those that vote it down will simply not be provided transit opitions within our system.  when they pull they're heads out of their respective asses in 10 years, when gas is $15.00/gallon, we can vote whether or not to allow them to participate and bill them retroactively.
seriously, though, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.  let's develop a system for the areas that will use it, fund it, and support it, i.e. - central kc, the airport corridor, north oak, the east side, independence, and kck.  the rest of this metro is by and large hostile to public transportation, taxes, and our city in general, and there is no sense in allowing them to drag their feet and retard our progress.  in the foreseeable future, cities without public transportation will not be viable places to live, and if we miss this boat because we are holding overland park's hand begging them to get on board, we will pay direly.

[dangerboy]

maybe the marc should develop a plan which allows for county-by-county inlcusion/exclusion, or even city by city.  put it to a vote, and those that vote it down will simply not be provided transit opitions within our system. 

Chingon, this is exactly what MARC has done.  It's a change from previous bistate plans. There are no minimum required counties.  If only one county votes yes, then it would be a one-county transit/trail/signal network. 

The problem is that some Joco reps are opposing the basic legislation that would enable this plan.  If they block the legislation in Topeka, then we won't even have a chance to vote yes or no on the tax.

[chingon]

then the jocites who want to have the freedom to vote should really raise hell.  a letter writing campaign, a petition, phone calls, constant badgering, yard signs...if we've learned anything in american politics during the last 15 years its that a self righteous, vocal minority can make the political machine (and sometimes the entire country) kowtow to their interests.  it seems to me like being allowed to vote its a pretty righteous cause - JOCO SUFFRAGE NOW!

p.s. - who elected these fucks?  when you are NOT BEING ALLOWED TO VOTE by the people you ELECTED, something is really fucked.

[shinatoo]

I'm with you Chingon, Missouri side transit plans should focus on Missouri, If Kansas wants to connect then charge them BIG. If KCMO had taken this attitude 90 years ago then we would have greatly retarded the JOCO sprawl.

They certainly aren't going to go out of their way to try an help us out.

[bahua]

I don't think it's reasonable to "charge them big," as publicly-funded transit, an inherently unprofitable concern, is still a necessary component to any vital society. Even if it winds up costing us, or anybody, i think we shoudl embrace whomever wants in, as it can only improve the system, and the quality of life for those it serves.

[warwickland]

i would have truly been disgusted if there hadnt been an assumption that JoCo governments would be a problem. it's too bad too, because i see more and more JoCountians who understand the need for good mass transit, and only live "out there" because of the schools.

[GRID]

If we don't quit screwing around with JoCo on this transit stuff, KC will never get a decent bus system, let alone light rail.

Transit tax vote plan has little support TAX: Bill has little support in Topeka...

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascit ... 845191.htm

[KCMax]

I guess I don't understand why both counties need to chip in equally if they are going to benefit disproportionate to each other. Reduce the amount JoCo has to put in, and obviously reduce the amount of routes going into the county any let the county slowly ease their way into mass transit. Its obviously a tough sell in such a car-wedded environment like JoCo, so entice them in slowly - show them over time how much it benefits the region. Then when you expand more into JoCo, hike up their obligations.

I still think that the younger JoCo generation is more likely to support mass transit. We've seen it work in other cities and are more comfortable with it. I rather doubt my mom and dad have ever even used a subway in the last 40 years and they're the kind of folks that will vote against this - because it is of absolutely no use to them.

[lock+load]

Hhow about we forget working with JoCo and KS on the transit tax, and add a $50 tax to every ticket bought on a flight from KCI by someone that is a KS resident?  They don't want to pitch in on a metro side transit solution, we hit them somewhere they don't have a lot of other options.  If they want to fly they'll just have to suck it up and pay.  We can then use that money to fund transit.

[DaveKCMO]

Hhow about we forget working with JoCo and KS on the transit tax, and add a $50 tax to every ticket bought on a flight from KCI by someone that is a KS resident?  They don't want to pitch in on a metro side transit solution, we hit them somewhere they don't have a lot of other options.  If they want to fly they'll just have to suck it up and pay.  We can then use that money to fund transit.

then kansas could just build an airport in olathe. then KCI would really be screwed. one only has to look as far as st. louis to see bi-state cooperation working well... metrolink!

at this point, i think marc should come up with a detailed plan, since things have stalled in the kansas legislature. that way, they could see the actual benefit to joco/wyco and then decide. i'm sure there's a good reason marc hasn't done this already, but it might be time to revise their approach.

[enough]

I guess I don't understand why both counties need to chip in equally if they are going to benefit disproportionate to each other.

The problem I see in Johnson County is that some elected officials consider ALL sales tax collected in their county to be THEIRS.  People throughout the region make purchases without regard to jurisdictional boundaries. 

That's the point of a REGIONAL sales tax.  Sales taxes throughout the region belong to the REGION as much as to the jurisdiction in which they are collected.  (Incidentally, regional sharing of some portion of all sales taxes would help reduce the tendency of jurisdictions to get into tax incentive bidding wars with one another.) 

JoCo currently has low transit ridership, and it's going to stay low until service is expanded.  A regional sales tax would enable such expansion.  What's more, JoCo needs better transit to get workers to the low-wage jobs there.  It's either transit or allowing some affordable housing.

[ComandanteCero]

JoCo currently has low transit ridership, and it's going to stay low until service is expanded.  A regional sales tax would enable such expansion.  What's more, JoCo needs better transit to get workers to the low-wage jobs there.  It's either transit or allowing some affordable housing.

absolutely.  I think that's the crux of it in the end.  None of these suburban officials (and large numbers of their constituents) want to face the reality that this needs to happen.  JOCO needs to do both IMO, but they won't do it willingly.

The article does give hope however, it says that JOCO delegates are divided (and not always on party lines), with some people dead against it and others all for it.  I"m guessing those dependin on inner suburban votes are going to start seeing more pressure for better transit (especially in Mission).  I think once OP wakes up and realizes that demographic realities are calling for more compact and walkable housing, they'll start coming around.  But I think we'll have to wait for baby boomers to start downsizing in massive numbers (and heading to KC, Mission, Leawood) before they finally change their modus operandi of single family auto oriented sprawl.

[GRID]

Even if they do spend the next two years screwing with this and they get it on the ballot, JoCo is not going to pass this tax, they just aren't.  Sure polls say, 60% are for transit. but when it comes time to vote, JoCo is not going to pass a bistate tax where 95% of the use is in the state and city so many of them hate and don't trust.  When they do vote no, the entire plan is dead and delayed once again for god knows how long.

On a side note though.  What is with KS leaders not allowing voters to decide things for themselves.  It's like a damn kinder care over there.

[KCMax]

I'd be interested in knowing who is against it and who is for it. The bill is KS HB 2751.

[LenexatoKCMO]

Hhow about we forget working with JoCo and KS on the transit tax, and add a $50 tax to every ticket bought on a flight from KCI by someone that is a KS resident? 

The federal constitution wouldn't quite tolerate your plan. 

[lock+load]

The federal constitution wouldn't quite tolerate your plan. 

Because of all the mentions of airports in the constitution

[LenexatoKCMO]

Because of all the mentions of airports in the constitution

No

[bahua]

I believe he refers to the fact that the states are set up as having free trade. And yes, setting an out-of-state fee for airport use could definitely be argued to violate that.

[kard]

How's about the Stadium "free parking for Mo residents" then?