The latest from Clay Chastain......
LIGHT RAIL ALERT*
Clay Chastain Degreed Electrical Engineer
540-583-1239
August 4, 2008
PREFACE
The City Council is to be commended for following through on their promise to place a light-rail plan on the November 2008 ballot. However, I have some valid concerns….
LIGHT RAIL ALERT:
The City Council has not put in their light-rail resolution ballot language a guarantee that light rail will go directly to Union Station. If light rail does not go directly to Union Station, and Union Station is not developed into a regional transportation center, then both will fail.
Background:
This is déjà vu all over again. In 1996, while fighting the City in court over failing to put my transportation plan for Union Station on the ballot, I advised the voters then not to support the City’s Union Station reuse plan--Science City--because it would lead to failure. Union Station’s reuse was a failure. I was right then. I am right now.
I have spent 17 years trying to call attention--not to myself as many contend--to the idea that Kansas City must reuse Union Station as a multi-modal transportation center for light rail, commuter rail, streetcars, buses, national passenger trains and buses. We could do nothing else that would bring greater benefit to the city and Union Station itself.
And yet, that long fought for goal is now in extreme jeopardy. The ATA & HNTB recommended light rail alignment has light rail running on a section of Grand Avenue that bypasses Union Station. Furthermore, that plan lacks a vital Eastside streetcar system and has a defective southern alignment as well.
Nevertheless, this Thursday the Council is apparently prepared to unanimously vote to place that defective plan on the November 2008 ballot. And why not, none of the Council members are engineers or transit planners and hence have no real way of verifying whether the ATA plan is sound or not.
Astoundingly though, Councilman Russ Johnson has dubbed it, “as good a plan as anyone has seen on light rail.”
Apparently, I am left to offer not only the lone dissenting opinion, but also an opinion on how the City’s plan could be made far better.
Admittedly, I understand how the people--and perhaps the media too--could be worn out with this issue. We all want to stop arguing over light rail and just start building light rail…especially given the fact people are suffering from soaring gas prices.
BUT LET US PAUSE A COUPLE OF WEEKS MORE FOR FURTHER PUBLIC DISCUSSION BECAUSE AS GOOD AS LIGHT RAIL CAN BE FOR A COMMUNITY, IT CAN STILL GO DARK IF THE ALIGNMENT, CHOICE OF TECHNOLOGY, AND HOW LIGHT RAIL PRESENTS THE COMMUNITY IS NOT RIGHT.
Therefore, for the record, I wish to now advise the community where the current City light rail plan goes wrong, and commend to Kansas City what can be done to correct it:
THE BIGGEST VALID CONCERN:
The city plan makes a weak commitment to provide direct light rail service to Union Station. The plan makes no commitment to develop Union Station into a regional transportation center.
Section 6 of the Council’s resolution says, “ That it is the intention of the City of Kansas City that Union Station will be served by light rail.”
As the old saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Furthermore, this intentionally vague statement makes no guarantee to the voters that light rail will make a direct stop at Union Station. For instance, Light rail may wind up being “served” via a walkway connecting it to a light rail stop on Grand Avenue.
CORRECTION:
Put a guarantee in the ballot language that light rail will directly serve Union Station no matter the alignment eventually chosen, and that Union Station will be developed into a regional transportation center.
Note: A state-of-the-art light rail train pulling into the greatest restored train station in America will not only start a love affair of the people for their light rail system and train station, but also frame an astounding, progressive, and unmatched image of Kansas City to the world.
************************************************************************
THE SECOND VALID CONCERN:
1. The southern alignment of the City’s proposed light rail spine is wrong as follows:
A. The spine south of the Plaza is not centrally located between the east and west side of the city.
B. Running light rail on Cleaver Blvd. and the Bruce Watkins freeway will not make a very attractive presentation of the city, nor will this alignment serve any major attractions or destinations.
C. Light rail is not the best transit technology to create much-needed jobs and economic development on the eastside.
D. The City’s proposed light rail spine fails to provide direct service to Kansas City’s two universities--Rockhurst and UMKC--both of which are trying to increase enrollment and expand their offerings.
CORRECTION:
In the first phase, locate the southern end of the spine in a more centralized location (the Plaza to the intersection of 63rd street and either Troost or the Paseo) with a stop at the UMKC student center. This alignment will bring new rail transit service, jobs, and economic development to the east, west, and south sides of the City.
************************************************************************
THE THIRD VALID CONCERN:
No eastside streetcar system to feed and compliment the main light rail spine and also help create new jobs and economic growth in an area of the city that needs it most.
CORRECTION:
Establish a first phase 4-mile Prospect Avenue streetcar system feeding into the light rail spine at Union Station and running north from the intersection of Prospect Ave. and Cleaver Blvd. to Linwood Blvd. to Hospital Hill to Crown Center to Union Station.
Note: Portland’s streetcar system creates far more jobs and economic development per mile than does its larger light rail counterpart because, as a circulator and feeder, it has more transit stops. Conversely, light rail is designed to stop less, go faster, and carry more passengers.
CONCLUSION:
Kansas City has waited 30 years for light rail. We owe it to the success of light rail, Union Station, and the City itself to hold two more weeks of public discussion and debate to make sure we get it right.
*Disclaimer: These ideas are presented to assist the community in the formulation of a light rail back-up plan for the November 2008 ballot in the event the Missouri Supreme Court does not reinstate the voter-approved light rail plan the City repealed.
Call it what you will, rjr3.
Are his concerns valid? They are opinions. Opionions shared by some and not by others. Since neither Chastain or I ( and I assume you) are not transit engineers, our opinions lack credibility. My opinion is that serving Union Station directly has no impact on the success or failure of the light rail proposal. Changing the route south of the Plaza to serve UMKC is a detail. I don't know how many students at UMKC live along the rest of the route and could use light rail if it were there. There may or may not be some value in having those who know evaluate that idea when detailed planning begins. As for use of Bruce Watkins, I think that is the right place for the route. The right-of-way is there, it is already a heavily used transportation corridor and it makes sense. Now, having said all that, those are nothing more than opinions, just like Chastains concerns are nothing more than opinions of someone unqualified (until he shows me otherwises) to criticize the work of the experts. Still, as I said in my original post. These are details and not the biggest questions Kansas Citians should be concerned with. The funding is much more critical than any of these.
And with that, I think enough has been said.
That's a fair point
The cost of building and upkeeping the various roads isn't one that we recoup either.
Do you know how much money
Do you know how much money was spent on the Grandview Triangle, the Antioch / 435 Exchange and the 69 / 435 ramp areas ?
Around`ish 800 million dollars - plus yearly maintenance and whopper expenses in 10 or 15 years when it needs to be overlaid and ...
Now instead we have to opportunity to do light rail. What is that worth ?
Or we can continue to think gas will be $1/gallon and people will continue to move 60 miles from KC and there will be no need to easily move people who can not afford other options.
Do you own a concrete, paving or gas company ?
Otherwise .... ANY form of alternate transportation is a good idea ?
What would 2% (Missouri share) of the Iraqi war have allowed us to build ?
500 Billion / 50 == 10 Billion. We could fund light rail for 100 years.
Shame we spent that money protecting some other countries oil and got paid zilch. Well unless you used to work for Halliburton or the like.
Again you are not addressing
Again you are not addressing the short comings you see in his plan, you are attacking him.
Easy question - Are his concerns valid ?
It does not matter how he came to his knowledge - Are his concerns valid ?
Sometimes the person who doesn't know their ideas can't possibly work come up with some of the best ideas or concerns.
- Are his concerns valid ?
Since you are also not a traffic engineer I would expect you to let those who are comment on them.
OK ?
Please look at St. Louis
I wish everyone would examine the light rail system in St. Louis. It is more popular than expected when it was proposed, ridership is higher than expected yet it still is in serious financial trouble despite the fact that the State of Missouri kicks in $1.4 million per year.
St. Louis will be voting on a tax increase in November to help cover the deficit. If it doesn’t pass there will be cuts in service. They are trying for a ½ cent increase on the transit tax and allocating $39.5 million from a separate 1/2 cent transportation sales tax. They need to raise $80 million.
The St. Louis Post Dispatch says the line faces “crippling budget shortfalls.”
If Kansas City votes to implement such a system here we will be digging ourselves a similar money pit.
Please see the links below for documentation.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/5AF45466B36778EF86257496000F76A5?OpenDocument
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/C48C83CFD47979E88625749800024263?OpenDocument
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/commutingtraffic/story/60B0069D80E54E7E86257497005FF437?OpenDocument
Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008
Rjr3:
My problem with Mr. Chastain's observations is simple. He presents himself as an 'expert' in mass transit. He suggests his plan is the best. In order for me to accept that, I would like to know what qualifies him as an 'expert' in the field. I know that the professional engineers at HNTB are well qualified to develop mass transit plans. He proports to know better than they. I just want to know what qualifies him to know more and be better qualified to define what is best for Kansas City, especially given that he doesn't even live here.
Definition: Ad Hominem
# Person A makes claim X.
# Person B makes an attack on person A.
# Therefore A's claim is false.
Mr. Observer.
Do you have any particular problems with Mr. Chastains observations or are we to assume that because you and others don't like him that his ideas are bad ? Not being a transportation engineer is not a valid critique.
Disclaimer: I have never met Clay or anyone else involved in the transit plan. I just know that we need something to link our region together that does not involve single drivers in solo cars.
There is asolutely no connection between
being a "degreed" electrical engineer and having any expertise in transportation planning, land use planning, economics or any other discipline appropriate for evaluation and planning of a mass tranist system.
Since you emphasized "degreed" I presume that means you are not a Professional Engineer. So you were able to get a degree in electrical engineering. Big deal.
Since you challange people to answer your questions, I have a couple for you:
1. Where did you get your 'expertise' in mass transit planning? What mass transit systems have you actively participated in planning, evaluation, design, construction or operation?
2. What is driving you to take such an interest in what Kansas City does? As a resident of Virginia with no apparent ties to Kansas City, just why is it you feel so compeled that Kansas City needs to follow your 'guidance'?
I agree with the previous post. Clay, it is time for you to stay at home in Virginia and find another cause to champion. Let Kansas City make its own mistakes and live with them. After all, it is our City and our money that will pay for whatever is done. Not yours.
Clay you may be degreed, but you are a certified bozo
Clay, Please go away, don't go away mad, just go away. The city won't offer you a seat at the table because quite frankly we need to move past your ridiculous proposal and do something we can afford, no gondolas, or re-designing Penn Valley Park.
Many reputable engineers have demonstrated that Union Station wouldn't work due to the cost, yet you continue to beat the drum for a proposal that would bankrupt the city. It is easy for you to live in your dream world and insist on proposals that can't be afforded, of course you won't have to pay the tax bill.
I have a question for you Clay, you demand answers, now I want one. Who finances your very expensive trips back to the city for poorly attended town hall meetings or press events? Who's water are you carrying for this boondoogle? These are fair questions Clay, please man up and answer them.