Official: KCMO Light Rail

[aknowledgeableperson]

I think this starter line or any other starter line would fail to pass with the voters of the whole city.  Why would people north of the river, south kc, and east kc vote to approve a city wide sales tax that would benefit a very small part of the city without the starter plan being part of a city-wide or area-wide transportation plan?  Councilman Ford at least understands the political nature of this beast when he says it has to go over the river.
I voted against the Chastain plan and would vote against this plan.  It is way too much money for such a small benefit.  And to just to put a feather in our caps and say that KC has some mass transit system other than busses.  A starter plan cannot be a standalone type of project.  It has to be part of a bigger vision of transportation in the city and/or area.  A starter line can be a phase 1 but the voters have to see how it will possibly tie into other transit systems that can come into existence.

[mean]

Thank you for illustrating why it will prove to be a challenge, if not a disaster, for KCMO to continue to own huge swaths of suburban-developed land, where transit by any method besides PRT or personal auto is wholly infeasible.

I have tried to explain to my suburban KCMO friends (up north near WoF and down south of Red Bridge) that they have made the choice to live in underdeveloped, automobile dependent environments where transit will never be a feasible option, but they don't seem to care. If a train comes, it has to go by their house otherwise they won't vote for it. If this is the prevailing attitude throughout the ridiculously sprawled environs of KCMO, we might as well just give up now.

[advocrat]

Thank you for illustrating why it will prove to be a challenge, if not a disaster, for KCMO to continue to own huge swaths of suburban-developed land, where transit by any method besides PRT or personal auto is wholly infeasible.

I have tried to explain to my suburban KCMO friends (up north near WoF and down south of Red Bridge) that they have made the choice to live in underdeveloped, automobile dependent environments where transit will never be a feasible option, but they don't seem to care. If a train comes, it has to go by their house otherwise they won't vote for it. If this is the prevailing attitude throughout the ridiculously sprawled environs of KCMO, we might as well just give up now.

Mean is right on about this issue. His last line sums up exactly the stupidity of metro as regards support for light rail.  I am also interested in commuter rail as I live pretty far out in a suburban City. The rail line where it might operate, and a station is at least 3 miles distant from my home. So, based on that I should never support the development nor would I ride it because 1) it doesn't stop at my corner (like my kid's school bus stop) 2) I have to get in my car anyway.

Of course, if it did come that close to my home, then I would (I guess) have to have a problem with the not-in-my-back-yard aspect (all those undesirables that might be hanging around). Now, also, I should gloss over the reality that commuting into the City means I have to put up with near constant highway work, slow traffic, bad drivers, personal risk, real operating costs and paid parking.  This last point is irrelevant (of course) when compared to a modest tax to add alternative transit to the metro area.

But we're discussing bus rapid transit as well. And it is just as easy for me to support the status quo based on my excuses numbered 1) and 2) above.

But on the issue of street cars these same points and arguments are still being voiced, and although given a voice shouldn't be given credit.  The street cars aren't for them anyway, they are actually for those who will use them. 

[kevink]

I think this starter line or any other starter line would fail to pass with the voters of the whole city.  Why would people north of the river, south kc, and east kc vote to approve a city wide sales tax that would benefit a very small part of the city without the starter plan being part of a city-wide or area-wide transportation plan?  Councilman Ford at least understands the political nature of this beast when he says it has to go over the river.
I voted against the Chastain plan and would vote against this plan.  It is way too much money for such a small benefit.  And to just to put a feather in our caps and say that KC has some mass transit system other than busses.  A starter plan cannot be a standalone type of project.  It has to be part of a bigger vision of transportation in the city and/or area.  A starter line can be a phase 1 but the voters have to see how it will possibly tie into other transit systems that can come into existence.

You ignore 2 very important facts:
1. The Chastain plan passed in all wards of the city, even though it didn't propose serving all of them.
2. There will never, ever be a regional system without some action happening first. In virtually every city around the country that is building a regional system, they started with a small starter line that served the urban core. We'll never go north of the river, to the eastside or tie to the burbs without starting in the middle - it's really that simple. It's time to get going and stop sniping.

[KC0KEK]

I should gloss over the reality that commuting into the City means I have to put up with near constant highway work, slow traffic, bad drivers, personal risk, real operating costs and paid parking.

You've hit on one of the reasons why rail is a tough sell here and elsewhere: Most people in most metros commute from one suburb to another rather than from a suburb to downtown.

[Tosspot]

Planning for comprehensive regional mass transit is a hell of a lot harder now than back in the days before autocentricity dispersed destinations into low density enclaves spread around everywhere.

[lock+load]

1) This plan does take part of the tax currently set aside for the ATA.  How will this plan affect current bus service?

The rail line will also replace some bus service, so I would expect the ATA's bus budget to be cut.

[DaveKCMO]

The rail line will also replace some bus service, so I would expect the ATA's bus budget to be cut.

assuming the ATA doesn't get some balls and squeeze a little more money out of the cities it serves (independence, KCK, blue springs, gladstone, liberty, raytown, lee's summit) that don't have a dedicated transit tax...

[markf]

Therein lies the problem with the KCATA.  It was formed by state statute(s) from both the Missouri and Kansas legislatures to be a regional authority but it has no jurisdiction for taxation.  None of the communities (including Kansas City) that fall within the counties under its coverage have any obligation to provide funding.  It's strictly voluntary.

Chicago has three organizations under the umbrella of its RTA.  One runs the buses, another runs the trains and the third runs suburban/inter-urban transit.

[cdschofield]

How else would you capture them and have them dedicated to this project?  Otherwise they just go into the city's coffers to be spent how the council pleases.

Transportation District Tax. So far KC has only used them for parking garages to the best of my knowledge, i.e Plaza. In fact, the historic trolley in Dallas got itself recognized by the feds as a transportation authority and then got the local property owners to sign on to a transportation district tax to fund the trolley system.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Thank you for illustrating why it will prove to be a challenge, if not a disaster, for KCMO to continue to own huge swaths of suburban-developed land, where transit by any method besides PRT or personal auto is wholly infeasible.

I have tried to explain to my suburban KCMO friends (up north near WoF and down south of Red Bridge) that they have made the choice to live in underdeveloped, automobile dependent environments where transit will never be a feasible option, but they don't seem to care. If a train comes, it has to go by their house otherwise they won't vote for it. If this is the prevailing attitude throughout the ridiculously sprawled environs of KCMO, we might as well just give up now.

You and others fail to understand the point being made.  It isn't that the line would not go by "my" house or "my" office it is just that the line would be a major expense to benefit so few.  People all of the time vote for things they will not use, such as for public schools, taxes for ATA, and so forth but what is the point of having a major expense to benefit a very small number of users just so we can put a feather in our cap and say we have a light rail system?

Yes, Chastain's plan had wide support but it also covered a large portion of the city.  This plan and others like it are limited in location, and unless it is part of a bigger plan would be limited to providing some benefits to so very few.  People can say it is just a start and we will see what the future may bring.  But this would be a big expense for people to swallow and dream of something undetermined may happen at some undetermined time in the future.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Transportation District Tax. So far KC has only used them for parking garages to the best of my knowledge, i.e Plaza. In fact, the historic trolley in Dallas got itself recognized by the feds as a transportation authority and then got the local property owners to sign on to a transportation district tax to fund the trolley system.

Yes, that would be an option but the plan is to capture new taxes from new development.  The tax mentioned would not only collect from new but would also collect from already existing in the district.

And instead of taxing the whole city why not develop a tax that is imposed only on the area around the "starter line".  To make it viable it would have to be a big area and a high rate but if the line is that much of a benefit then the return would be there.  Fares may also have to be higher but the benefit to the user should be greater than the option of using a bus or other methods of transportation.

[mean]

You and others fail to understand the point being made.  It isn't that the line would not go by "my" house or "my" office it is just that the line would be a major expense to benefit so few.

"If I can't use it, I won't pay for it."

This is the exact same argument you're making, except you're phrasing it slightly differently.

"It will only benefit a few (i.e., not me)."

[aknowledgeableperson]

False.  False.  False.
Does the cost justify it limited use - No.

Where the line is proposed is it not already served quite well by a MAX line?  Or another bus line?

If it was part of a major tranportation plan then there would be a good chance I would support it.  I voted to raise the levy for the Center SD even though I have not had a kid in it since 1997.  I have voted in the past for the KC transportation tax to goes primarily to the ATA even though I have not riden a bus in probably 20 years or so.  I voted for the TSC improvements with little likelihood that I would go to a game there. So your argument that it does not benefit me does not apply.

I have yet to see a justification for a starter line that passes a cost/benefit IMO.  You want to spend $180M on a 5.5 mile line that is a stand alone project.  A project that might not tie into a larger transportation plan for the city or area.  A project that just says "hey, I got one too."  A $180M that could be spent on something city wide like getting residents living in the core to jobs in the area that are out of the core.

Provide some studies about the cost/benefit of a KCMO starter line.  How does it provide a greater benefit than what already is in place and is that benefit greater than the cost.  How many bus riders are already using what is already in place.  How many new riders can be expected.  How much of an operating subsidy is expected and where will those funds come from.  Is the line expandable, and how.  What alternatives exist and how do they compare to the starter line.

[knucklehead]

Population growth is about 1.2 percent in the US.

In twenty years the population of KC metro is going to be about 25 percent higher than it is now and we will look pretty dam stupid if we don't have light rail, especially since our sister cities will have had transit systems in place for decades. 

Try being a little visonary and looking ahead a few decades. Conservative backward thinking is what got St. Joe and Topeka to where they are today.

If we wait another 20 years to get started on light rail, it is going to be a lot harder and more expensive.

[K.C.Highrise]

Few people over 35 understand the benifits of light rail. Unfortunately this occurs no matter how many studies and success stories you show them. Wait until gas gets to $5 a gallon. Then maybe some will wise up.

[K.C.Highrise]

Or maybe not.

[anniewarbucks]

Population growth is about 1.2 percent in the US.

In twenty years the population of KC metro is going to be about 25 percent higher than it is now and we will look pretty dam stupid if we don't have light rail, especially since our sister cities will have had transit systems in place for decades. 

Try being a little visionary and looking ahead a few decades. Conservative backward thinking is what got St. Joe and Topeka to where they are today.

If we wait another 20 years to get started on light rail, it is going to be a lot harder and more expensive.

That and some very power hungry car dealers that do not want the city Of Topeka to grow. you look at it this way, The built Lake shawnee back in the 1960's with Basicaly the same houses around it as today the only thing that has changed in the 40+ years is now 29th St is getting a few new businesses and homes. Croco is finally getting Apartments, businesses and homes along it with the exception of the development from 29th St to the Turnpike. 45th St is finally getting developments springing up from Topeka Blvd to Croco. These developments should have taken place years ago. It took some powerfull pull from the Laird Nollars and the Ed Bozarths of Topeka to stifle the city so it could not expand.

[Theiler]

That and some very power hungry car dealers that do not want the city Of Topeka to grow. you look at it this way, The built Lake shawnee back in the 1960's with Basicaly the same houses around it as today the only thing that has changed in the 40+ years is now 29th St is getting a few new businesses and homes. Croco is finally getting Apartments, businesses and homes along it with the exception of the development from 29th St to the Turnpike. 45th St is finally getting developments springing up from Topeka Blvd to Croco. These developments should have taken place years ago. It took some powerfull pull from the Laird Nollars and the Ed Bozarths of Topeka to stifle the city so it could not expand.

I am completely lost... 

And that's okay with me.

[anniewarbucks]

What I am saying is that a select few business leaders can determine how fast or how slow a city expands. After their services are duplicated by another entity then the leaders just have to fade away and let the city expand. Say for instance you own a Saturn Dealership in a small town. You try to keep all of your customers to yourself. Well the town grows up and your customers can not afford to come to you any more, another Dealership will spring up out of your territory. The car dealers in Topeka want to keep this from happening. This action will ultimately keep light rail from happening with an active bus service in place.