@BlogKC
Today the City Council heard a presentation on some legal and logistical details for light rail. The bottom line is that the city must go back to voters to clarify and probably modify the plan.
- Consultant presentation (PowerPoint)
- Legal analysis (PDF)
One problem is that the route passes through NKC and Gladstone, so it’s dead in the water if those cities don’t get on board. Another deal breaker is that sections of the route crosses parkland, especially Penn Valley Park. The law requires voters to specificly explicitly removal those segments from the park system.
If these and other local hurdles can be crossed, then there is a whole other set of federal hurdles. The Feds will not fund any project that reduces money for the bus system, so we will definitely to vote on a tax increase to make up for the money that shifts from bus to rail in 2009. The city will also be required to go through the formal Alternatives Analysis process – evaluating all possible routes, estimating ridership, etc.
One example of the many little details is that the proposed gondolas and ground-level power supply are not made in the US, but the Feds require cities to Buy American. We’ll need to apply for a special waiver to use the Freedom French technology.
When it’s all said and done, KC is looking at 8-10 years to complete the federal funding process and actually build the rail system.
Of course, this is going to be difficult from a political and construction standpoint. but it can be done, the city just needs a program manager w/ some vision.
I would think the French company can easily licensce their technology to a US company, so that seems like a smaller hurdle than the rest.
can someone help me understand the whole shifting money away from buses to the light rail issue.
I thought that money in question was a 3/8 cent sales tax that was to expire in 2009, that was voted to be extended in this light rail proposal.
I’m wondering what KC folks would like to see: whether it’s keeping a 3/8 cent sales tax to fund busing vs. a 25year extension for light rail or letting the thing expire altogether?? am I seeing these options correctly??
kansas citians don’t like buses, that much is true. in addition, the spike in oil prices and the clarity of global warming likely led voters to rethink the whole approach. the opposition would like you to think it’s buses OR light rail, not both, which is patently untrue. the light rail proposal INCLUDED electric buses that would connect to the rail spine, which would be redundant with the existing bus routes (and they could then be retired). so yes, the 3/8 cent tax would be extended to cover this new system, instead of the half-assed one we have today.
I agree DaveKCMO.
What happened to the old Kansas City “can-do” attitude that brought us – among other things – one of the finest boulevard & parks systems in the country?
These present-day politicians don’t like the light rail plan because they were against it and THE PEOPLE said “in your FACE!”
The ONLY time the pollys ever ride public transportation (a bus) is on charters to tour farm fields for new TIF projects that will resemble the Bannister Mall area in 20 years.
If our “leaders” can’t figure out a way to do this, it’s time they resigned from their public offices.
http://groucho-karl-marx.blogspot.com/
Mike, the 3/8 cent tax was a temporary tax meant to augment to original transit tax and keep the buses running until we came up with a regional transit funding system. Then the 3/8 would expire and be replaced with a regional tax.
The problem is that Joco decided not to participate in regional transit funding. So we still need to replace the 3/8 whether it goes to rail or just expires.
I recently read this commentary that said that Kansas City was lagging in developing its Urban Center — with 8 to 10 years just to secure funding, it looks like the lagging will continue.
Now that Clay Chastain has tasted blood, don’t expect him to take this lying down. Kansas City can, and will, have a light rail system.