KC Light Rail

Local:

• KCATA considers discontinuing downtown-to-KCI bus route (KCATA)
• Rail plan looks for approval in November (Sun Gazette)
• Scrutinizing the latest light-rail proposition (Dos Mundos)
• Wyandotte County to start Sunday bus service in September (Kansas City Star)
• Regional transit planners from three counties hear from the public (Sun Gazette)

National:

• Plans to expand light rail progress (Arizona Republic)
• Portland in an hour? Say hello to new commuter rail (Forest Grove News-Times)
• Council OKs ballot question on transit (Honolulu Star-Bulletin)
• Tranportation secretary Houston-bound with 'good news' (Houston Chronicle)
• Dueling transit plans differ on station placement (Crain's Detroit Business)

Lee's Summit has joined a coalition of governments interested in buying the 8.5-mile Rock Island corridor — owned by Union Pacific since Rock Island was dismantled by court order in 1980 — for the purposes of redeveloping it for transit use. About $2 million is needed to purchase the right of way, which might come in the form of an earmark from Missouri Sen. Kit Bond as early as next session.

The route connects Lee's Summit to Kansas City via Raytown and was referenced in Mayor Funkhouser's draft regional plan as a potential commuter rail line. It's unclear whether UP wants to run freight on the now inactive line when it's rehabbed, an approach that would complicate light rail's potential in the corridor. Commuter rail may make more sense for transit planners since the line continues south to terminate in Pleasant Hill — a distance most would agree it too far to be practical for light rail.

So why the fuss over an abandoned rail line? Well, Kansas City doesn't have many (all are active and "congested"). Most of geography is now developed, leaving little option for light rail outside of city streets (acquiring private property is expensive, time consuming, and generates a lot of opposition). Many cities with abandoned rail lines turn them over to use as bike trails, which never get converted back to mass transit.

This update from last week's third regional transit summit poses an interesting dilemma: at what cost rail? On one side, the normally pragmatic Mayor Funkhouser pushes for commuter rail and on the other side suburban mayors push for new bus service. Both will take some time to implement, as the waiting list for new buses has jumped to nearly two years due to crushing demand. Commuter rail, on the other hand, isn't experiencing quite the mad dash due to the higher capital cost and limited number of systems up and running.

Opponents of commuter rail cite:
- higher capital cost
- limited route options
- demand for existing bus service
- freight railroad insistence on expensive capacity upgrades
- freight congestion
- encouragement of sprawl and limited development potential

Proponents of commuter rail cite:
- higher fuel efficiency and similar operational costs as a bus
- higher passenger capacity per trip than buses
- limited exposure to severe weather and traffic congestion
- potential for electrification
- willingness of at least one freight railroad (KC Southern) to be a partner
- acknowledgment of sprawl

What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments section.