Next week is a big one for regional light rail plan

Krugman's got an on-point column today:

"Changing the geography of American metropolitan areas will be hard. For one thing, houses last a lot longer than cars. Long after today’s S.U.V.’s have become antique collectors’ items, millions of people will still be living in subdivisions built when gas was $1.50 or less a gallon.

Infrastructure is another problem. Public transit, in particular, faces a chicken-and-egg problem: it’s hard to justify transit systems unless there’s sufficient population density, yet it’s hard to persuade people to live in denser neighborhoods unless they come with the advantage of transit access."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/opinion/19krugman.html?em&ex=1211342400&en=eb7387c4dc9be539&ei=5087%0A

One thing that light rail does that buses don't is provide an anchor and guide for future development. Future development of housing and business will be impacted and grow along the permanent light rail line in a way that simply adding bus lines won't do.

Looked at merely as a transportation fix, your suggestion regarding investing in the bus lines does make some sense, but light rail is more than just a transportation solution -- it's a planning and infrastructure investment, just one element in the long term development of Kansas City, a metro area that's been very lax from a planning standpoint.

But we can't just keep moving further and further outwards into the suburbs and continue to build more and more miles of roads (which are pretty darn expensive themselves to maintain and repair -- just look at the metal plates and the problems keeping streets plowed here). For us to continue developing sustainably as a community, we need an overarching view that will help shape future development along the efficient and utilitarian transit corridor that light rail will provide.

Would someone please explain to me what a light rail system can do that an improved bus service CAN'T do? Light rail is a bad idea. Improved public transportation is a great idea. Just ask St. Louis' Metro-Link if the light rail is good. And at $90,000,000 for 1 mile of Metro Link rail its a fiasco that NO city can afford. For the average cost of 1 mile of light rail ($30,000,000) The Metro could purchase 100 buses, hire drivers and staff, improve bus stops and make immediate and positive changes within about 2 weeks with NO construction problems.
Light rail is not a feasible solution to our problems. Busses (dramatically improved service and routes) can help solve our problems cheaply, efficiently and QUICKLY.

Hey Yael, someone pointed out to me that the Funk was elected to be smart with the money, make the city run better, make more from less and other wise open up to the regular citizen.

Was light rail part of all this? Forgetting his Not Ready For Prime Time go at this item, even if he would prevail, light rail would be costly at a time where the Council, the City Manager and the Mayor could not come up with a budget to even give us the extra 20 promised cops and nor an increase (we actually got less for infrastructure repair when adjusted for inflation) for road repair and the like. Are you or your boy Funk suggesting that this could be accomplished without either an increase in sales tax or a hike in other City taxes? Doesn't seem like he ran on this platform? And what about making more from less? The only thing that I have seen is more salary...

What say ey yael t abouhalkah?

Any predictions, yael?