Citizens’ Light Rail Task Force meeting recap
By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post
Last night's meeting was contentious at times, enlightening at others. The meeting formats have consisted of opening remarks, usually by Greg Lever of the RTA or consultant Vicki Noteis, some legislative updates by Councilman Ed Ford, and then some technical points from somebody on the consultant team. Last night's technical presenter was Ken Kinney of HNTB's Chicago office.
Vicki Noteis gave an explanation of the 12-mile rule. Many of you have asked me why the starter routes put together in the public workshops were restricted to 12 miles. The simple answer is that the consultant team feels the current voter approved plan's 1/8 cent sales tax, bonded over 20 years will generate about $300 million. Matched with an additional $300 million from federal funds, $600 million divided by an average of $50 million per mile gives you about 12 miles.
During Mr. Kinney's comments, several questions were asked. One task force member couldn't seem to understand why we weren't creating a regional transit plan and why we had to work on light rail. Another became very agitated when nobody else seemed to agree with him that any light rail route absolutely had to start at KCI. Eventually the interruptions proved to be too much and a third task force member voiced his objections to the constant interruptions so the rest of us could actually learn something.
The final half of the meeting was spent in breakout groups analyzing potential routes. We concentrated on segments located south of downtown. We pored over maps and demographic data and scored each route segment by ridership potential, traffic impact, development potential, fit with the surrounding neighborhoods' plans, number of activity centers, low-income riders and FTA funding potential.
Next Tuesday's meeting will revolve around technology: light rail, dedicated right-of-way streetcars, or traditional mixed-traffic streetcars. On Monday, Oct. 29, there will be another public input meeting at the downtown Marriott. There will be two sessions: One at 4:30 p.m. and the second at 6:30 p.m. The public will be asked to provide more input on the routes we will have narrowed down to by then. I'll post about that meeting again as the date draws near.
8 Comments so far
Leave a reply
if we can agree that we’re confined to the 12 mile route then we can determine where that route can go. it’s approx 12 miles from the riverfront plaza to Waldo so wouldn’t that make the most sense as far as a “starter” line? I think so…
Also, I can’t justify anything that doesn’t include a dedicated right of way. anything that doesn’t is just a bus.
“Also, I can’t justify anything that doesn’t include a dedicated right of way. anything that doesn’t is just a bus.”
Not exactly. A bus line doesn’t inspire development along its path because it can be moved. Public transit has to inspire development along its path because that development produces more riders for the transit system and increases its economic viability.
‘“Also, I can’t justify anything that doesn’t include a dedicated right of way. anything that doesn’t is just a bus.”’
“Not exactly. A bus line doesn’t inspire development along its path because it can be moved. Public transit has to inspire development along its path because that development produces more riders for the transit system and increases its economic viability.”
I think what Mike meant by that, Joe, is that if it does not have right-of-way, then it will not be any faster than a bus. We’ve already got buses, so there’s no need to spend millions of dollars to build something that isn’t any faster or efficient than the things we already have. And I would agree with him. The only way we’ll increase ridership is making a transit system that is faster, more convenient, and more efficient than what already exists. The MAX testifies to that fact. To increase ridership even more we must improve upon the MAX. Putting the MAX on rails but keeping it in mixed traffic would not make it any faster or efficient. All it would do is waste a bunch of money.
At least Joe know his facts. A steetcar would inspire business along the whole route.
So where is next Tue. meeting at and what time
“mike”/paintman: MAX would be replaced by any fixed guideway down main/grand since MAX itself was the “alternative” to the original 2001 defeat of the city-backed light rail plan. there’s no reason to have MAX and light rail, but there is a reason to keep the #57 local and light rail. MAX, however, would keep a rapid transit option in the corridor while light rail is being built. it has also served to prepare riders for transit enhancements to troost and state avenues.
the task force meeting time/place will be announced on this site, but it will likely be at 5:30 at the downtown library.
Won’t someone have to ask the Park Board about using Grand Blvd? This should be done before more planing goes by.
Thank you for the meeting time.
Thanks James, that was the point i was trying to make about the way to increase ridership on any public transit is to make it more convenient than driving one’s own car. Another way to do this would be to eliminate the abundance of parking downtown…I’m all for that but it doesnt’ seem likely to happen based on the discussion topics surrounding the Sprint Center opening.
Has Oak been discussed as a route through the crossroads and downtown? I think this would make sense from a couple of different angles.