“All The Right Moves”
While Tom Cruise may indeed be invading the Crossroads, that's not what we're posting about today. The Star has weighed in with a big pat on the back for the current administration in regards to light rail. Words like "prudent" and "deliberate" only underscore the Star's typically p-whipped stance on such matters. Stephen Colbert has your balls, KC Star Editorial Board, and you're not getting them back.
We've been pushing for the gutsy Denver approach (remember when we wanted to be like Denver?) because installing a locally-funded starter route will whet the appetite of the entire metro. By skipping the Feds and starting small, we can have something useful built in 3-5 years. Having a system that is used — and it will be used — will expedite the discussion with Kansas sooner rather than later. Why turn down Federal funds this early on? Because we're already behind the curve, and even if we do turn to the Feds it's unlikely we'd get much more than a 5-mile starter line in Phase 1 anyway, so why wait 10-12 years when you can do it in 3-5? By the time KC lays the first rail, a new administration will occupy the White House and you can pretty much guarantee a better funding situation than the one we have today.
We're big, we're capable, and it's been done before. Get with it, KC!
3 Comments so far
Leave a reply
Our city administrators as a whole (and the Star as their cheerleader) are great at not making decisions. This is why most voted for the crappy Chastain plan in the first place, because the city was so slow to get something in front of the voters. By the time we do a $2.5 million study, they’ll decide the data is old and needs to be re-done…
The reality is, you hand any 20 people who know much of anything about this city a pen, a napkin, and a pint of Boulevard, and have them sketch a 5 mile starter route, you’re pretty much going to end up with 3 different routes, that very by about 10 total blocks. More studies are pretty much a way of acting like they’re doing something, without doing anything.
no disagreement here.
I’d still like to know where in the ballot language it said anything about Clay Chastain being in charge? “His” plan says nothing about him overseeing it.
As you stated before Dave, the Hancock Amendment makes this very easy for those of us that believe the plan as written is unworkable. “Any” modification to the plan renders it unconstitutional, so therefore if any one aspect of the ballot initiative is modified, in my opinion the whole thing has to be scrapped.