Regional light rail is dead for now

Yes, light rail would allow people to save money through use of less gasoline. But there are questions.

1. If you ask the public "Are you in favor of light rail?" I think the majority of the people will say yes. What I have not seen asked are questions like:

a. If light rail were available, would you use it to go to work every day?

b. Would you use it to go shopping?

c. Are you willing to pay a half-cent sales tax to pay for the construction of a light rail system?

d. Are you willing to pay to subsidize the operataion of a light rail system if revenue does not cover the operating and maintenance cost of the system?

e. Would you drive less miles per year if light rail were available?

These are some important issues that need to be addressed by those who support light rail. I am not opposed to light rail or other mass transit. My concern is that when it gets down to the real test, I fear the residents of this region will not support it or use it enough to make it viable. I have seen reports that ridership on mass transit systems in other cities initially peaks, but within just a few years (less than 10) ridership declines to the point that significant taxpayer subsidy is required to keep it in operation. We have that now with the bus system. We will have it with the mass transit system. What can we afford?

The era of cheap gas is probally over and the impact on us is not fully understood yet. A way to mitigate transportation issues in the future is through the building of a light rail system that encompasses the whole metropolitan area. The implications of this are that the regional governments will have to be part of the plan as well as the state governments of Mo and Ks. Light rail is a winning idea, we just need the politicians on all sides to realize the long term importance of the issue and come to a swift resolution.

If ever there was an article calling for the immediate cessation of further discussions regarding light rail, the one appearing on the front page of the Kansas City Star today (5/5/08, A1) would be it. In fact, several recent articles have added to the good reasoning to stop talking about this.

Reason: There is nothing in this article showing bona-fide support for any light rail project of any kind, anywhere. Continuing to try to shove this square peg of an idea through a round hole makes for embarrassing and foolish politics. A starter line from the Plaza to Downtown is as touristy frou-frou as it gets. Nothing more than a play-toy for the elite members of the "evil empire." There is no reason to extend it to the Northland as they only provide about 800 ATA riders today. Independence? Lee's Summit? You've got to be kidding.

Reason: A half-cent sales tax in three counties, raising $70 million per year might build one mile of light rail roadbed. Might. Conversely, per the article, mayors in cities within those three counties have little or no interest in light rail.

Reason: There is not enough time to design, present, agree on, and promote any plan before the August deadline. The same holds true for April 2009. We have been through countless meetings already and are no closer to a plan today than we were 2, 5, 10 years ago. Stop this silliness.

Reason: There is absolutely no support for another bi-state initiative as Kansas has no interest in getting hosed again as they did at Union Station, and would have gotten had Bi-State II passed. They are tending to the needs of their own people, have made a significant decision on Metcalf in favor of rubber-wheeled vehicles, known as buses, and are fervent about keeping Kansas taxes in Kansas.

Reason: According to an article by Mike Glynn ("Agencies working to control congestion." Star 1/9/07, D-20), Clyde Prem of Olsson Associates said "Kansas City has a highway system set up for a million more people (than we actually have)." It also says that "The Kansas City metro area is projected to add more than 23,000 workers a year." Should that happen, simple math suggests our highway system will serve us for another 43 years. It's of dubious merit that the metro area would see that sort of growth anyway; certainly not solid enough to build light rail.

Reason: Kansas City has the 8th best situation as it pertains to traffic congestion (recent Star article). Simply stated, we don't have any congestion. 20 minutes of somewhat heavy traffic does not constitute a reason for spending billions on light rail. Taken in this context, light rail is wholly unnecessary.

Reason: Kansas City and the region are a horizontal market. There is no vertical density of people or businesses to even begin to have a sensible discussion on light rail. Put another way, we do not have any "mass" to "transit." The spate of manufactured activity downtown will diminish soon, and those people living in the urban environment are not candidates for light rail ridership anyway. It's a walking thing, remember!

Reason: We have just passed a 15-year extension of the 3/8th-cent tax to support the ATA. Where is money for a multi-billion dollar light rail project going to come from? Adding 1/2-cent to the current sales tax will give us a rate in the neighborhood of 10%; closer to 12% in the urban TIF-supported entertainment zones. Very bad.

Jan Marcason is way off base by stating that "we need to really kick it (light rail) in high gear." No, Ms. Marcason, we do not. Stop with the drama and posturing. It may need to be kicked in another location of the anatomy, but high gear isn't it. The Mayor is spinning his wheels and will look extraordinarily foolish if he continues to "scratch and bite and claw and fight for what I want to get done."

These and a myriad of other reasons are evidence enough for the abandonment of any further talk about light rail. Advocates such as Kite Singleton and Clay Chastain can simply be denied a seat at the table. They are one-trick ponies with other agendas. There is no reason to have another Chastain-led community meeting on June 13th; we are quite tired of his antics. Chastain does not live, work, vote or pay taxes here. His lawsuit was dismissed. He is irrelevant.

Regrettably, the Council made an unwise statement in saying they would "promise" to have a plan before the voters by November. Using articles such as the one in the Star today and recently, should cause the Council to make the very wise decision to cease talking about light rail in its entirety. There are much bigger problems on which to spend your time. Sewers, infrastructure, budget issues, citizen satisfaction, and the like are much more worthwhile than light rail.

These issues will affect every single resident of the city and region. Light rail does not do that; it primarily panders to special interest groups and a finite number of users. Light rail does not spur development. Typically rail beds are routed through the cheapest, most unused portions of a city where land acquisition costs are low. Light rail does little do remove cars from the highway, pollution from the air, or reduce use of petroleum fuel products. It has a net-zero effect on the environment.

There is no better time than right now to put light rail to rest. It's not a matter of "leadership," it's a matter of wisdom, financial prudence, and the wise use of increasingly scarce tax dollars. It's time for you to make that decision. Who among you has the backbone to do that?

Sincerely,

Craig Davis
Kansas City MO

Until the sewers are fixed and paid for.

by the Mayor and city council. We all voted for a light rail plan and for it to be funded by transit taxes. They chucked it and gave us the finger. All this "regional" talk has been a delaying/diversionary tactic.

They ignored the will of the majority, when we voted for KCMO to start constructing a light rail that would run from the (ridiculously far away) airport through downtown and the Plaza. We need that one back on the table, and soon -- this is Kansas City's future.

Regional light rail was dead on arrival when it was first mentioned. There is virtually no support by those who would have to use a regional light rail system if it were to come to be.

And as for things not done yet:

How many cars would a regional light rail system take off the highways? I doubt you could find ANY lower numbers of cars on the highways.

How many people would REGULARLY use any light rail system? I suspect the number would be so small that supporters do not want this information to come out.

The Star just recently published a big article saying Kansas City commuters have it better than most other cities and that our highways have significant additional capacity. So long as these are true, regardless of gasoline prices, light rail of any scale is DOA.