Comments on: Kansas City Up for LRT Referendum Again? http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/04/24/kansas-city-up-for-lrt-referendum-again/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:19:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Kevin http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/04/24/kansas-city-up-for-lrt-referendum-again/#comment-1083 Kevin Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:09:50 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2036#comment-1083 Charlotte has 1/2 cent over all of Mecklenburg County - the KC line was 3/8 cent only in KC, MO - about 1/2 the population of Mecklenburg County. And, it was for a line of over 30 miles in length. Do the math - it just doesn't work. And, it assumed a 50% federal match. The 2008 plan was just recently shown (all sorts of articles to this effect) that it would not have met federal criteria for a match, for a line of about 12 miles, through the heart of the City. Reality is that there is only about a 6 mile segment in KC right now that would meet federal criteria for ridership & density, perhaps 8 or 9 miles if extended to the east in the right location. The 2006 plan included going to the airport, which is 20 miles from downtown in a low-density, very low ridership environment. That piece alone would cost over $1B and would never meet FTA requirements. A little bit of research into the various plans and debate from fall of 2006 through summer of 2007, especially on KC Star website or kclightrail.com would reveal the information. Charlotte has 1/2 cent over all of Mecklenburg County – the KC line was 3/8 cent only in KC, MO – about 1/2 the population of Mecklenburg County. And, it was for a line of over 30 miles in length. Do the math – it just doesn’t work. And, it assumed a 50% federal match. The 2008 plan was just recently shown (all sorts of articles to this effect) that it would not have met federal criteria for a match, for a line of about 12 miles, through the heart of the City.
Reality is that there is only about a 6 mile segment in KC right now that would meet federal criteria for ridership & density, perhaps 8 or 9 miles if extended to the east in the right location. The 2006 plan included going to the airport, which is 20 miles from downtown in a low-density, very low ridership environment. That piece alone would cost over $1B and would never meet FTA requirements.
A little bit of research into the various plans and debate from fall of 2006 through summer of 2007, especially on KC Star website or kclightrail.com would reveal the information.

]]> By: Adam http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/04/24/kansas-city-up-for-lrt-referendum-again/#comment-1084 Adam Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:22:29 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2036#comment-1084 Kevin- You make a lot of assertions there. For those of us not from KCMO, could you give us some links so we can see what evidence you're using to make those assertions? For example you say, "The 2006 initiative was infeasible b/c it allocated 3/8c for a project that would take at least 1c of sales tax" Why? Was there a study saying a 1c tax was needed? Charlotte has been able to implement its light rail system with a half cent tax, so 3/8th doesn't seem totally unreasonable. "it anticipated a 50% federal match that the line would never qualify for" Why? What was wrong with the plan that it wouldn't qualify for it? Seems like as long as a light rail plan follows the usual procedure for planning, funding, and construction it more often then not qualifies. Now whether the federal funding is actually there may be another story given the recent history of transit funding in this country. But I'd like to know why you think it wouldn't even qualify for the federal funds. Thanks. Kevin-
You make a lot of assertions there. For those of us not from KCMO, could you give us some links so we can see what evidence you’re using to make those assertions?

For example you say,
“The 2006 initiative was infeasible b/c it allocated 3/8c for a project that would take at least 1c of sales tax”

Why? Was there a study saying a 1c tax was needed? Charlotte has been able to implement its light rail system with a half cent tax, so 3/8th doesn’t seem totally unreasonable.

“it anticipated a 50% federal match that the line would never qualify for”
Why? What was wrong with the plan that it wouldn’t qualify for it? Seems like as long as a light rail plan follows the usual procedure for planning, funding, and construction it more often then not qualifies. Now whether the federal funding is actually there may be another story given the recent history of transit funding in this country. But I’d like to know why you think it wouldn’t even qualify for the federal funds. Thanks.

]]> By: Kevin http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/04/24/kansas-city-up-for-lrt-referendum-again/#comment-1082 Kevin Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:30:55 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2036#comment-1082 You have a strange reading on this issue. The 2006 initiative was infeasible b/c it allocated 3/8c for a project that would take at least 1c of sales tax; it anticipated a 50% federal match that the line would never qualify for; it specified stop locations that were inflexible; it closed a major street in the City; and on and on... The "City" has been interested in pushing for transit for 2 decades, but the voters continue to reject it. Could they be more strategic? Yes. Could they do better education? Yes. But, the bottom line is that the voters still haven't voted for anything that's a tax increase for transit. You have a strange reading on this issue.
The 2006 initiative was infeasible b/c it allocated 3/8c for a project that would take at least 1c of sales tax; it anticipated a 50% federal match that the line would never qualify for; it specified stop locations that were inflexible; it closed a major street in the City; and on and on…
The “City” has been interested in pushing for transit for 2 decades, but the voters continue to reject it. Could they be more strategic? Yes. Could they do better education? Yes. But, the bottom line is that the voters still haven’t voted for anything that’s a tax increase for transit.

]]> By: Yonah Freemark http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/04/24/kansas-city-up-for-lrt-referendum-again/#comment-1081 Yonah Freemark Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:36:44 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2036#comment-1081 Kevin - The 2006 initiative was "infeasible" because the city was uninterested in pushing for an ambitious transit system, and searching for the corresponding revenue that would be necessary to build it. While it's easy to lay blame on Chastain because he doesn't live in the city, his initiative is what made even thinking about light rail in the city possible. We see what happens when he gets out of the game: the RTA simply decides that light rail isn't worth it. Kevin -
The 2006 initiative was “infeasible” because the city was uninterested in pushing for an ambitious transit system, and searching for the corresponding revenue that would be necessary to build it. While it’s easy to lay blame on Chastain because he doesn’t live in the city, his initiative is what made even thinking about light rail in the city possible. We see what happens when he gets out of the game: the RTA simply decides that light rail isn’t worth it.

]]> By: Kevin http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/04/24/kansas-city-up-for-lrt-referendum-again/#comment-1080 Kevin Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:23:29 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2036#comment-1080 Your facts are wrong. The City Council repealed the 2006 initiative b/c it was wildly infeasible and would have taken 40% of the bus service's funding. The 2008 election was an initiative of the City, not Chastain. It failed as well, due to the politics of KCMO, as well as it being too expensive relative to the amount of service. Chastain does not even live in Kansas City, and is part of the problem - not the solution. He should not be hailed as some citizen-hero. Your facts are wrong. The City Council repealed the 2006 initiative b/c it was wildly infeasible and would have taken 40% of the bus service’s funding. The 2008 election was an initiative of the City, not Chastain. It failed as well, due to the politics of KCMO, as well as it being too expensive relative to the amount of service.

Chastain does not even live in Kansas City, and is part of the problem – not the solution. He should not be hailed as some citizen-hero.

]]> By: BLambert http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/04/24/kansas-city-up-for-lrt-referendum-again/#comment-1079 BLambert Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:56:31 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2036#comment-1079 Just FYI, the link to your previous post about LRT abandonment in favor of commuter rail has an extra "http//" in the href. Just FYI, the link to your previous post about LRT abandonment in favor of commuter rail has an extra “http//” in the href.

]]> By: Jasper http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/04/24/kansas-city-up-for-lrt-referendum-again/#comment-1078 Jasper Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:15:47 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2036#comment-1078 I'm not convinced Chastain is doing transit any favors. If he knew how to go about things and work with others, he could have had the backing of the city's transit agencies and council. I’m not convinced Chastain is doing transit any favors. If he knew how to go about things and work with others, he could have had the backing of the city’s transit agencies and council.

]]> By: Yonah Freemark http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/04/24/kansas-city-up-for-lrt-referendum-again/#comment-1077 Yonah Freemark Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:08:16 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2036#comment-1077 I should have been clear. By gondola, Chastain's not referring to a Venician water boat... he means a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondola_lift" rel="nofollow">gondola lift</a>, which is an aerial tram. I should have been clear. By gondola, Chastain’s not referring to a Venician water boat… he means a gondola lift, which is an aerial tram.

]]> By: Adirondacker http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/04/24/kansas-city-up-for-lrt-referendum-again/#comment-1076 Adirondacker Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:01:51 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2036#comment-1076 Gondolas? Wouldn't vaporetto be faster and cheaper? Gondolas? Wouldn’t vaporetto be faster and cheaper?

]]>