11 Comments so far

1. mainstream on April 9, 2007 1:59 pm

   It’s unfortunate that we have a professional group in Kansas City inviting such an unprofessional advocate - Chastain.

   I heard Clay on the radio today, suggesting in the strongest words that the ballot initiative be followed verbatim, with no federal funding or additional alternatives analysis.

   Chastain is trying to suggest that local tax increases will pay for any shortfall in federal funding, and he’s advocating that we not pursue federal funding.

   He does not recognize the fact that most people do not want their hard-earned tax dollars to fund gondolas and the closing of broadway through penn valley park.

   The KC AIA is aware, I’m sure, of Chastain’s irrational approach and is condoning it.

   It is very unfortunate.

2. patrick on April 9, 2007 7:35 pm

   I also heard Clay on the radio today, and he did very little to help his cause. I can understand his unhappiness with Mark Huffer of the KCATA. I can’t understand the nasty tone he took with callers who support light rail and voted for his initiative. He’s also woefully uninformed on funding sources for his pet project.

   All in all, he came off as a combative, arrogant prick. If he keeps it up he’s not going to have many sympathetic supporters if the city decides to shitcan the whole thing and go with a new light-rail proposal.

3. kcmoguy on April 9, 2007 7:53 pm

   I, too, heard him on the radio. The man sounded like he had a personality disorder. If he has any goodwill left from his supporters(!) I’d be amazed. What a vile tone he had.

4. Brian on April 10, 2007 9:52 am

   Wow, they’re brining Clay Chastain? Next, they’ll slow roast him to lock in his crazy juices.

5. Tim on April 12, 2007 6:41 pm

   I was at the library discussion, and Clay was pretty huffy with Huffer and angry with the Star. I can kinda see why he’d be hostile though…can you imagine taking such a relentless public flogging when you feel you are just trying to do something constructive and have it not affect you?

6. Jim on April 13, 2007 10:27 am

   I went to the Library Discussion and left early - why? It was clear from the first series of questions that all sides had built their fortress and that was it -

   Chastain deserves every bit of bad publicity he gets b/c he is so confrontational and really comes off as being absurdly out of touch with reality.

   I want light rail too - I’ve voted for it twice including last November; however, now that it is passed, there has to be some real dollar figures crunched. The problem that I see is that individuals who voted for the light rail, but do not currently use the Metro, may be out of touch with how many individuals truly rely on the Metro and how truly negative any cuts to the system would be on their lives. Keep in mind this is Chastain wants to do - take money from existing routes and spend it on a system that is too long and would cut through already very successful bus routes while leaving the east side fairly unrepresented on the bus map. Chastain seems to be one of those out of touch individuals.

   Building a light rail system w/o federal dollars is foolish - and by now, we all know that if the bus system is cut, there ain’t no fed. money.

7. Larry T on April 14, 2007 4:53 pm

   Does anyone have the cost for the electric buses,insurance,right of way, for staff and operaters, the cost of trains,and engines for the light rail? Also the interest on the bond over 25 years.

   As for how many people rely of the Metro about 18,ooo-20,000 less than 1% of the KC population.

8. Tim on April 15, 2007 7:59 am

   If we don’t get light rail, we will really be falling behind other cities in 10-20 years. We’re already losing millions of convention dollars yearly because too many people were stuck in a downtown hotel with nothing to do and no way to get anywhere. We’re gonna have the P&L District, new arena, etc., now let’s finish this thing and, if we do it right, we can get many millions of dollars coming into the city to help pay for it. It would also likely increase the city’s population and tax base, as well as help with the problem of sprawl. Good urban development, including modern transit, is a huge (and growing) consideration for companies and individuals looking to relocate. It will continue to be a bigger factor as oil production peaks and energy costs increase even more. Truly modern cities are gonna look a lot different in 10-20 years when energy is much more expensive.

9. Jim on April 16, 2007 7:46 am

   18,000-20,000? Not hardly - according to KCATA web-site, the Metro gets 40-50,000 passenger boardings per day. Ok, not exactly the NYC Subway, but given the absurdly low amount of state funding the Metro receives, I think that number is pretty impressive. We might also consider the 6-8% increase in ridership from last year as a sign of increasing use of transit. That said, though he doesn’t explicitly state this, Larryt’s position really goes something like this -”since few people depend on the Metro, why should we fund it . . .” LarryT - wake up, funding effective mass transit is a drop in the bucket compared to the gross subsidies we all pay each year for road construction. You talk of other costs like insurance and right of way - what about the costs to the environment if we continue our reliance on oil? What about the costs to maintain a military in Iraq? Even President Bush admitted last fall that the war in Iraq is really about oil. So, if we continue driving and burning oil when we have other choices, what is the cost in human lives to not fund mass transit? Freedom is much more than the ability to drive an SUV. If we want to have a serious discussion of transit/light rail, then all factors have to be weighed. This means the costs that LarryT suggests, but also the costs that he doesn’t suggest: the environmental costs, the human lives, the amount of energy required to maintain a military presence in Iraq - sure, these costs are not as sexy as the ones LarryT suggests, but these have to be weighed.

   With all that said, I love the irony of those “support the troops ribbons” on the big SUV’s and Hummers - yea, support the troops by making them fight for something I don’t really need! If one really supports the troops, one would be looking for ways to cut one’s oil use - including leaving the SUV in the driveway and taking mass transit.

10. Tim on April 16, 2007 10:25 am

    Well said, Jim. I don’t think a lot of these people realize that oil production has peaked, and that we are moving into an age where we are going to have to deal with scarcer energy that is much more expensive. We cannot afford to wait any longer to invest in better mass transit. Gas is approaching $3/gallon again, and that’s just an appetizer.

11. Richard on April 23, 2007 5:46 pm

    I, like many people in KC, hope that we can get more crime from the inner city out to the suburbs thanks to light rail.