Light Rail for Kansas City

January 15, 2007

On November 7th, 2006 the city of Kansas City passed a citizen initiated light rail plan. I agree that our transit system needs improvement. I like the concept of light rail. I'm confident the people who voted for the plan want light rail for Kansas City. What I've found from talking to many voters is that the concept of gondolas and closing off Penn Valley Park is not what our community wants, or needs.

We have to follow the ballot language. The law is very specific about that. We cannot take one part of the plan and not implement others. Because of this, I believe the plan is unworkable. The ballot language is vague; calling for such things as "new ground level power supply technology." The plan calls for federal dollars that are dependent on not decimating our bus system. It can be argued that coopting the 3/8 cent sales tax which currently funds 40% of our bus system would do precisely what the federal government warns us not to do. We will be left with a plan, no funding, and no way to implement the will of the people.

The ballot language as passed by the people of Kansas City is not workable. The language is vague, the financing is non-existent, and the route is not only impractical, it encroaches on two muncipalities that are not part of Kansas City.

A new plan must be drafted. The next council must have the political will to rescind this initiative as is their right by charter. At the same time, a new light rail plan must be offered to the voters. There can be no delay between the abolishment of our current ill-conceived plan and the introduction of a realistic one. The new plan should include a route that goes as far north as the airport, and as far south as 75th Street with East-West spurs to be determined. The proposed system should be broken into segments with approximate construction costs of $250 million for each segment. This entire system route should be published on the ballot, allowing the voters to choose which part of the route will be the starter line. For example, if the majority of the voters feel the starter line must go from the airport to downtown, then that is the segment we will pursue. We must have consensus from the entire city for a starter line to have any chance of being successful.

I am not a transit planner but I do understand engineering, technology and finance. I will be very involved at all phases of a fixed-guideway system development to insure that costs will be minimized, the best envronmentally sound technology is implemented and the 21st Century transit system Kansas City deserves becomes a reality.