8 Comments so far

1. Brent on May 1, 2007 4:15 pm

   Chuckle, I thought from the headline that there was bad language used in the quotes

2. Larry T on May 1, 2007 5:10 pm

   A billion dollars for light rail with only 20,000 people using the bus. We need to come up with a better plan. At $3 million per car we will need more riders than 20,000 to pay for it.Does anyone know how many cars will be used?

3. patrick on May 1, 2007 9:55 pm

   LarryT,

   Where exactly do you get your bus ridership numbers?

4. Mark Forsythe on May 2, 2007 7:06 am

   Brent,

   Nice one. “Swearing.” I get it!

   Larry T,

   I certainly agree we need a better plan. It needs to be a small concept line. Yes, it needs to be “touristy frou-frou.” Let’s not get hung up on ridership numbers. Ridership does not pay for transit. Never has. It only offsets the operating costs.

   All transportation is subsidized, including the streets we drive on. If you look at the cost of a sleepy cul-de-sac that gets one or two vehicles a day then that pavement becomes very expensive compared to a busy thoroughfare like Ward Parkway.

5. Jim on May 2, 2007 10:48 am

   LarryT,

   It would be nice if you were to use stats that were actually accurate - LarryT, you used the same numbers in another thread and you were wrong in that thread as well. Nonetheless, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that LarryT’s number are accurate - which, of course they are not (see KCATA.org) - for the sake of argument let’s put those 20,000 additional drivers onto the roads each morning and afternoon - keep in mind the conditions of many of the roads in KCMO and keep in mind that the stretch of I-35 between downtown and Olathe has recently earned an F grade (thejo.com/ksdot.org) for service and gridlock and consider that in the next 20 years that F grade is only going to get worse (if that is possible), it would add up to a complete and utter mess. If you don’t believe KC has gridlock, try Broadway between 12th and 7th street in the PM. My point? Let’s get the facts correct so we can actually discuss the issues.

   As Mark says, all transportation is subsidized. How much will we spend on the Grandview Triangle mess? Certainly more than what it would cost to run BRT or even a Commuter Rail from Lee’s Summit to downtown. We have to realize that freedom is not an SUV. All those millions spent on the Grandview Triangle only mean that in 10 years we can turn around and do it again. Doesn’t it make more sense to invest money into a solid transit system as opposed to spending hundreds of millions every year on re-building roads that were rebuilt 10-15 years ago?

6. DaveKCMO on May 3, 2007 12:33 pm

   the grandview triangle improvements were estimated to cost between $63 and $220 million, depending on which option MoDOT chose… and those were 1998 dollars.

   http://www.kctriangle.org/uploaddocuments/p12/Road%20Notes.1998.Vol%202.pdf

7. Tim on May 3, 2007 8:36 pm

   Not to mention that the era of cheap and plentiful energy is winding down. In the forseeable future, it will be expensive enough that hordes of people will be looking for transportation alternatives. Thoughtlessly jumping in an SUV to get where you need to go is not the future, it’s quickly going to become the past. I suggest you go to the library and check out a DVD of the documentary “The End of Suburbia”. It’s a real eye-opener.

8. Ann Coulter moving to Downtown KCMO? : BlogKC on June 30, 2007 11:58 am

   […] booming area. It also fails the challenge that the mayor made in his inauguration speech when he said “the first TIF proposal that reaches my desk had darn well better be from the East […]