Comments on: KC Star: Vote yes on light rail

By: Sarah T

Sarah T — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 20:13:07 +0000

I can’t wait to vote yes for the Light Rail. Kansas City is such a large city, yet our public transportation is behind the times. The Light Rail will increase travel to downtown, thus increasing revenue. It will bring thousands of jobs to the city. It will reduce traffic, reduce pollution, reduce gas costs for the average driver. It’s such a great idea. I wish everyone could see the many benefits it will bring to our city.

By: katie e.

katie e. — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:46:07 +0000

as an NKC resident living along swift avenue, i have to say this plan is a total dream for me – my only complaint is that it won’t magically appear on wednesday. the starter line would eliminate virtually all of the driving i do in the course of a week.

By: KC Light Rail » Closing arguments before the polls open

KC Light Rail » Closing arguments before the polls open — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:31:11 +0000

[...] Kansas City Star has endorsed the ballot [...]

By: northlander

northlander — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 01:44:35 +0000

Larry Banning you said it all.A light Rail that won’t go but 1 mph faster than the bus, but cost 65-70 million per mile.Just think of the buses we could add for just one mile of Light Rail.

By: Larry Banning

Larry Banning — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:42:52 +0000

HNTB consultants, in the trough on this, should be asked to estimate the probability of securing federal funding since Wayne Feuerborn (one HNTB consultant) in September of 2007 indicated “the FTA has over 300 approved projects and only thirty of those are at the point of being funded so there is a line the City has to get in and federal funding is not guaranteed.” They should be further asked if the alternative analysis required by the feds has been completed, what it showed (perhaps that investment in busses makes more sense) and if Kansas City has even applied — gotten in line for federal funding. If, as I suspect, the probably that Kansas City will get federal funding is very slim — and, this side of 2025 — what business does the City have in soliciting taxes now and, if federal funding falls through, where will that money go or what will the public actually get — a streetcar that will not even make it over the river? Depending on the feds for 50%? An average of 21 mph — give me a break! Maybe cities will be next in line for a bail-out! To heck with retirement, give us more taxes!

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 04:13:59 +0000

a) westport includes more than just the intersection of westport road and broadway.

b) no reason to revamp bus services to reflect the addition of light rail until light rail service actually starts. meanwhile, increased service begins in the troost corridor when that BRT project is complete in 2010.

c) stations do have preliminary designs:
http://kansascitylightrail.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64

By: northlander

northlander — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 04:04:31 +0000

So if it goes to Westport does that mean it will go down Broadway? And will the bus service be revamped before or after the Light Rail is finished? Gee no one seems to have any answers. How could we get a cost on the Light Rail when the stations for LR don’t have a design or a cost. Looks like the voters will be kept in the dark again.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:21:11 +0000

a) the entire bus system will be revamped to provide more frequent service that will connect with the southern terminus. stop pretending you know what you’re talking about and pay attention.

b) the “nowhere” claim has been debunked time and again. you’re welcome to stand at 63rd & prospect or vivion & north oak holding a sign that says “YOU ARE NOWHERE”. go ahead, we dare you. that doesn’t even begin to touch on all of the places in between the two terminii (“nowheres” like downtown, westport, plaza).

c) better transit service will serve the airport eventually. bus service today is based on low demand and limited funds and was almost cut until a vocal minority — us included, thank you — stood up to be heard. we recently rode #129 to KCI and were the ONLY riders once it arrived at terminal C. all other riders disembarked before barry road. a proposal to go to KCI would almost certainly mean the southern extension would be cut, which seems to contradict your bitchfest about south KC not getting served.

d) “now is not the time for this” is your opinion. lots of people disagree. the sewer plan is not fleshed out and will take 25 years to resolve once we figure out exactly what needs to be done. a greener plan hasn’t even been finalized for the feds.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:07:44 +0000

There is nothing in this proposal for south Kansas City. Not even a better bus route plan. Oh, yes, they say we can be at the end of a very long Troost MAX Bus route. And we will get shutled to 63rd and Bruce R. Watkins Dr. So we wait for the bus in south KC and then ride to 63rd and wait for the light rail train. This train by engineering statistics will go no faster than 19 miles an hour average.

This is a plan that goes no where and duplicates what little public transit now exists. This is not a region plan. We do not have a regional consensus as to how best serve the whole metro area.

It doesn’t go to the airport. Costs to construct in 2012 dollars at least 91 million a mile. KC’s bond rating is being lowered, so bonding costs will go way up. And we have yet to deal with the sewer issue in this town. The water bills are going up 400 to 500 percent in the next few years. On top of that increase, the city council will be asking for a sales tax increase right after the light rail tax. That tax will be for the sewers.

Now is not the time for this. In this economy the focus should be on the streets, the sewer problems, and basic services like bulky item pickup, not on raising taxes.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:06:11 +0000

“most” taxes would be more than 50%. the northland generates about 1/3 of all sales tax in KCMO. with that in mind, the northland is getting two of the most expensive sections AND a new river crossing with ped/bike facilities. so there is plenty of equity for those north of the river.

regardless, this is a plan for the entire city that is attempting to meet the criteria for federal funding. running light rail 20 miles only to the airport through low-density subdivisions is not going to do that. thank god you’re not the lead consultant.

the synergy with the sewer plan — and that’s an assumption on our part since no one from the city or the project team has EVER indicated that — is just that: synergy. the first priority is transportation choice and improving transit funding in the metro. being transit-dependent by choice, we can tell you there is a very long way to go and this is just the start.