What Just Happened?
Was last week's light rail presentation to the city council:
a) An attempt to simply pass the buck to the next mayor and council?
b) A perfect example of cowtown inferiority?
c) A reality check for the candy-coated Chastain lover?
d) All or none of the above?
Discuss.
6 Comments so far
Leave a reply
I’ll go with a) and c).
In all fairness though, there’s not enough time to put together a new initiative before the new mayor and council take office. But… Why not throw a quick question on the February 27th ballot that basically says 1. Keep the plan we voted for 2. Give us a better (legal) plan, lose the gondolas.
Why not make it a non-binding referendum? We keep talking about the will of the people but nobody is asking “the people” this time around.
Chastain keeps doubling back on himself. First it was “implement the plan exactly or I’ll sue.” This morning’s Star article now has him saying “implement the plan except the parts that may be illegal.” He also is now calling the electric buses on the ballot “plug-in hybrid buses.” Not the same thing! He’s changing his plan almost daily but nobody else can?
If anything it was C. Especially regarding the much-discussed federal funding. It’s a fact that an Alternatives Analysis is required to get that money. The city has to show that it studied all possible routes, forecast travel demand, etc.
We are in a situation of starting with the finished route and working backwards to find the data to justify it.
I don’t think it is A or B to investigate some very real legal consequences. The possibility of a lawsuit over the Hancock amendment has to be taken seriously.
I’ll go with A & C. This is not going to be a quick and painless process.
We should spend the next two years studying the hell out of it, and then in 2009 go to the voters with a bus and light rail funding plan. Put it together in one package, as transit in the city needs to work.
I agree with C. Clay’s plan simply isn’t feasible. But its nice to know responsible grown ups are studying light rail to make it feasible. That would never have happened were it not for Clay, so kudos.
I also like what Mark Funkhauser (sp? The Star is not handy) had to say in Sunday’s Metro Section. Keep the Bus sales tax as we study the light rail opportunity. One of the realities is that the proposed route is too long - start with a route that begins in Waldo/Brookside and ends at the River Market - this to me sounds much more reasonable.
I also read in the Sunday Star that there will be no federal dollars available if the city cuts existing bus lines/routes. This is important because the proposed route would clearly not cover much of the East side or for that matter the growing South Side (85th to 135th).
St. Louis has a wonderful light rail system. Why not copy it???