Funkhouser, Chastain should stop dissing the starter light-rail line

Whether fuel is cheap or expensive, the internal combustion engine is going to be around for a very long time, and so are automobiles. It's whiners like you, martin, who cry so loudly for "cheap" this and "cheap" that. It's economics, stupid! There is plenty of oil on this globe to meet our needs for years to come. There is no transit system that costs so much and delivers so little as light rail. It's a touristy frou-frou playtoy pushed by those that will never use it, but seem to be driven by the idiotic notion that we "have to have it." Well, no, we don't.

Deep six light rail now and forever.

crasho, I'm guessing 100 years ago you would have been arguing passionately to continue using horses as the primary means of transit. Cars make sense as long as land and fuel are cheap. Recent developments indicate those two things may not always be cheap. It's possible that the current surges in food and fuel prices are just a hiccup and everything will return to normal in a short amount of time. (2 billion people in Asia who can afford to buy more of those things than ever would indicate otherwise, but we may be lucky enough for India and China to collapse back into abject poverty real soon.) If it turns out fuel and food (which in turn affects land prices) continue to rise in price with increasing demand, then it's going to be increasingly difficult for sprawling, car-dependent cities to remain economically viable. Yes, the upper-middle-class on up will probably always be able to afford cars. But the remaining 60% or so of the population is probably going to need other solutions for getting around. Light rail is one part of the overall puzzle of making this city capable of remaining viable in an economy where fuel is no longer ridiculously cheap.

We can either start preparing for that future now, or wait until it runs us over and leaves us behind.

Who cares what these two petulant brats think?

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 recently would be it. In fact, several 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?

Deep six light rail now and forever.

I'm all for light rail, but the downtown-plaza line is the absolute worst place to start. Unless we're willing to spend the huge cash to elevate or bury the line (and we won't), then the line will have to deal with the traffic on Main St just like Max does and therefore won't be any faster. The starter line would simply be a really, really expensive way to replace Max.

Going to the airport is longer, but won't be nearly as difficult and expensive to build because the right of way (I-29) already exists and will be far cheaper than having to rebuild Main St from the ground up. I'm guessing from what I've heard at several light-rail meetings that the cost to go from downtown to the airport wouldn't be much more than the downtown-plaza line. This line would immediately gain a lot of traffic from business travelers flying in and staying downtown (I worked at a downtown hotel for awhile and many visitors commented on the poor transportation options at the airport). In addition, the Missouri River bridges are frequently bottle-necks that slow down traffic from and to the northland. A well-built line to the airport would actually offer commuters to/from downtown a FASTER way to get downtown--plus they wouldn't have to fight traffic. Think about it, if northland commuters had the choice to get to work faster than they already do for little more than what they're currently paying for gas, don't you think a lot of them would do it? It might take awhile for the masses to change their habits, but a BETTER service usually wins in the long run.

A plaza-downtown line simply offers no benefits over the Max system currently in place, and it carries a much higher price tag. As much as I want to see light-rail in this city, I could NEVER vote for a downtown-plaza starter line.

the only argument for a starter line is if it would predictably lead to a full-fledged line to the airport. A short stub from north of the river to downtown just doesn't do it, and I can see that dying a quick death for lack of interest.

Build something that will make a difference, such as a line that runs to the airport from midtown or downtown, or along the I-35 corridor to downtown, and you'll see a true starter line, one which leads to other lines being developed.

You must be 420 friendly to think that anyone would listen to you about this topic. Have you any credentials that we don't know about that would qualify you to speak? Or are you just doing your normal throw enough crap into the air and maybe some of it will stick and you will have a new topic to write about?

I think you should go back to the smoking in bars issue... you seem to have gained some traction and attention there! Unlike the goose eggs you have been posting with your last few weeks worth of blogging.

Or you can write about the Funks latest boodoggle which relates to light rail... you know, don't you, where his light rail plan accounted for a tax break that wasn't what he thought it was? Another fine example of Team Smart with Nothing in action... maybe Funk A Dunk can put his new campaign treasurer on this to bail him out. You know, the guy who filed the report listing the Mayor's Office as the Committees address... a absolute and clear violation of the law.

Sorry, Yael. I think you are wrong.

I don't see enough demand to go from the Plaza to downtown or vice versa.

If you really want a starter line, it needs to go someplace. The only starter line I see having any chance of success is to and from the airport. The south end could be Union Station. That would give travelers an alternative to driving to the airport, provided there is sufficient parking at the south end. It could also bring northlanders downtown, and could move people from downtown both north and south.

Problem is, this is a "Kansas City" plan and I don't see how Kansas City residents can afford this or any other plan on top of what is already on our plates and what is coming with the federally mandated sewer upgrade.

Here's what gripes me, the ones that 'need' it aren't the ones that will pay for it. The one's that will pay for it are not the one's that will use it. Besides as of right now there is nothing to go downtown for anyway with the exception of sprint center, and i'm sorry the P&L district will not last that long. Its a nice flashy place but once you've gone you've lost interest. Especially if your in the over 25 crowd. Get real jobs downtown and maybe you can have a reason to have light rail, then find a way to pay for it by the ones that will use it. I hate this paying for things with my taxes that only serve a SMALL percentage of the citizen's, and i mean that on the local, state, and federal levels.