Join our Mailing List!
Please click the link below to sign up for your community paper mailing list. Stay up to date with all the events going on in your community as well as the latest news.Sign Up Today!
More people of political clout enter light-rail discussion
COLUMN
By: Gene Hanson
It is probably unfair to say there are competing interests at work here, but the mix of ideas and recommendations is beginning to pile up on the matter of light rail, and agreement is about as far off as light rail itself.
First is the light-rail initiative, approved by voters in November 2006, calling for a specific route from Swope Park north to Kansas City International Airport.
Its author, Clay Chastain, wants the system built according to the plan set out in the ballot initiative, complete with gondolas.
The Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, which by City Council resolution must take the lead on the initiative, says the route is unworkable for a list of reasons we won't go into here.
The ATA has applied for $2.4 million in federal funding to do what is called an alternative analysis, a process required to qualify for federal funding.
Chastain says that is a betrayal of voter intent and an attempt by the ATA to scrap the voter-approved route in favor of another “more workable” route.
Chastain has said he doesn't want to wait for federal funding that could take up to 10 years. He wants to start now. The ATA says the price tag of just short of $1 billion, which will come from a voter-approved sales tax, is too low. The cost will be more like $2 billion, the difference of $30 million a mile and between $45 million and $70 million a mile. Moreover, the ATA says, if you spend the local money now, you will not have it later to use as a match for federal funding.
The new City Council will likely appoint a light-rail committee to oversee what progress the ATA will make in its work, and possibly make its own recommendations.
Throw into that mix the recent recommendation by newly elected Mayor Mark Funkhouser, who wants a light-rail system, but one that is regional in scope and financing.
That would call for a bi-state financing mechanism. The current bistate tax law covers only sports, arts and cultural activities. It would have to be amended to include transportation. Missouri has already passed enabling legislation to that end. Kansas has not and is unlikely to do it during this session. Kansas lawmakers are reluctant to pass more bistate laws in which the lion's share of revenue is spent on the Missouri side.
And finally, Funkhouser, Jackson County Executive Mike Sanders, Johnson County Commission Chairwoman Annabeth Surbaugh and Wyandotte County Unified Government Mayor Joe Reardon have agreed to meet monthly on common issues. And all have agreed that light rail will be on the agenda.
That adds yet another layer of oversight and posturing on the light-rail plan of the future.
And it all started when the Kansas City Council unwittingly had a ballot victory dropped in its lap and didn't know what to do with it.
printable version
e-mail this story
First is the light-rail initiative, approved by voters in November 2006, calling for a specific route from Swope Park north to Kansas City International Airport.
Its author, Clay Chastain, wants the system built according to the plan set out in the ballot initiative, complete with gondolas.
The Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, which by City Council resolution must take the lead on the initiative, says the route is unworkable for a list of reasons we won't go into here.
The ATA has applied for $2.4 million in federal funding to do what is called an alternative analysis, a process required to qualify for federal funding.
Chastain says that is a betrayal of voter intent and an attempt by the ATA to scrap the voter-approved route in favor of another “more workable” route.
Chastain has said he doesn't want to wait for federal funding that could take up to 10 years. He wants to start now. The ATA says the price tag of just short of $1 billion, which will come from a voter-approved sales tax, is too low. The cost will be more like $2 billion, the difference of $30 million a mile and between $45 million and $70 million a mile. Moreover, the ATA says, if you spend the local money now, you will not have it later to use as a match for federal funding.
The new City Council will likely appoint a light-rail committee to oversee what progress the ATA will make in its work, and possibly make its own recommendations.
Throw into that mix the recent recommendation by newly elected Mayor Mark Funkhouser, who wants a light-rail system, but one that is regional in scope and financing.
That would call for a bi-state financing mechanism. The current bistate tax law covers only sports, arts and cultural activities. It would have to be amended to include transportation. Missouri has already passed enabling legislation to that end. Kansas has not and is unlikely to do it during this session. Kansas lawmakers are reluctant to pass more bistate laws in which the lion's share of revenue is spent on the Missouri side.
And finally, Funkhouser, Jackson County Executive Mike Sanders, Johnson County Commission Chairwoman Annabeth Surbaugh and Wyandotte County Unified Government Mayor Joe Reardon have agreed to meet monthly on common issues. And all have agreed that light rail will be on the agenda.
That adds yet another layer of oversight and posturing on the light-rail plan of the future.
And it all started when the Kansas City Council unwittingly had a ballot victory dropped in its lap and didn't know what to do with it.
Comments on "More people of political clout enter light-rail discussion"
Comments are limited to 200 words or less.George Harris wrote on Apr 30, 2007 1:14 AM:
" You can do a lot of light rail for $30 million per mile or less. What is making it cost $45 million per mile? You have to start somewhere. Is this one more example of striving for perfection as a way to kill a good idea? "