Clay Chastain coming back with light rail

[Highlander]

watch clay, um, defend his latest plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ektngqxc0og

Not that I agree with Clay on, well, anything but he was very professional and even articulate during the interview. Actually, I would not mind having a light rail system in KC. But it absolutely needs to be designed to work with a potential street car system rather than compete with it and I think Clay's end points require traversing too much near vacant land to be really necessary or efficient. To be honest, light rail probably would work better on a Downtown to SW metro axis than SE KC.

[flyingember]

The original plan I don't know how I would have voted. It was weird and unfocused.

After the city council changed the text so it could be an extension of the streetcar system and not a different rail network I am strongly for it.

[JLowe2018]

FYI the new website for the latest Chastain plan is now live.

http://kclightrail.org/

[missingkc]

So, do the streetcar's detractors tend to support Chastain's proposal?

[flyingember]

So, do the streetcar's detractors tend to support Chastain's proposal?

Ha!

[missingkc]

Is that a 'no'? I can imagine some supporting it just because it's a thorn in the city's side.

[grovester]

Is that a 'no'? I can imagine some supporting it just because it's a thorn in the city's side.

Yes, pretty common tactic to put up a competing initiative to confuse or delay the issue. See MO tobacco tax for a good example.

[Highlander]

Is that a 'no'? I can imagine some supporting it just because it's a thorn in the city's side.

Yes, pretty common tactic to put up a competing initiative to confuse or delay the issue. See MO tobacco tax for a good example.

The Citizens for Responsible Government facebook page is silent on the issue. Probably for the very reasons you state. While a light rail system would challenge the status quo they fight so hard to protect, it also confuses the issue around streetcar expansion which is a more real threat to their auto-centric, sprawl-is-good-because-its-cheap world view.

[flyingember]

Is that a 'no'? I can imagine some supporting it just because it's a thorn in the city's side.

Yes, pretty common tactic to put up a competing initiative to confuse or delay the issue. See MO tobacco tax for a good example.

The Citizens for Responsible Government facebook page is silent on the issue. Probably for the very reasons you state. While a light rail system would challenge the status quo they fight so hard to protect, it also confuses the issue around streetcar expansion which is a more real threat to their auto-centric, sprawl-is-good-because-its-cheap world view.

Whatever the result, if this election doesn't result in a solid answer on if KC should go big or expand incrementally with rail nothing will.

The city has voted for citywide rail before if the tax equation is right.

Will people that will vote for citywide rail combine with people against the city and against TDD property taxes take it to victory? Will enough of the eastside vote for a citywide rail tax to stop a localized tax from hitting them harder and get rail down Linwood? What percentage of suburban anti-tax conservatives will not show up to vote vs urban transit users? How many people will see rail on a very long ballot and vote for it thinking this is the to UMKC segment, not reading the text. What percentage of people will vote yes just based on the downtown streetcar success?

I'm doubtful it will pass, but without any group taking a clear position, even the city is mostly silent, I wouldn't make any guesses on how it will go at this point.

Remember, the 2014 light rail vote was supposed to be a sure thing and it failed. The city followed in 2008(?) after the 2006(?) Chastain plan they killed and it failed. Transit votes are about who turns out as much as the plan. The downtown TDD proved this.

[Highlander]

Yes, pretty common tactic to put up a competing initiative to confuse or delay the issue. See MO tobacco tax for a good example.

The Citizens for Responsible Government facebook page is silent on the issue. Probably for the very reasons you state. While a light rail system would challenge the status quo they fight so hard to protect, it also confuses the issue around streetcar expansion which is a more real threat to their auto-centric, sprawl-is-good-because-its-cheap world view.

Whatever the result, if this election doesn't result in a solid answer on if KC should go big or expand incrementally with rail nothing will.

I can't agree with this assessment. I think the current light rail proposal is totally irrelevant in terms of determining any way forward on transit for the city. At least in the case of a negative vote. Chastain has zero credibility and is widely dismissed as a crackpot around the city. A no vote will be meaningless. A yes vote might mean something but I give that a very small chance of happening. Chastain was able to sneak a proposal past the voters once because it promised far more than what the funding plan would ever deliver and the city was dismissive to the point of not opposing it. I don't see that happening again. My contrary opinion is that the entire Chastain involvement muddies the water to the point that nobody really knows how KC would feel about a legitimate plan - because he's so compromised the entire idea of public transportation over the years. The Streetcar has done much to heal that perception but I still don't think the public will accept a Chastain proposal (at least I hope not) and I would not read too much into negative results except a general disdain for the author of the proposal.

[DaveKCMO]

two perspectives on voting no:

http://kcrta.org/2016/10/13/vote-no-on-kcmo-question-3/
http://yaelabouhalkah.com/2016/10/vote- ... l-fantasy/

the council will just repeal it if it passes, just like in 2006.

[flyingember]

two perspectives on voting no:

http://kcrta.org/2016/10/13/vote-no-on-kcmo-question-3/
http://yaelabouhalkah.com/2016/10/vote- ... l-fantasy/

the council will just repeal it if it passes, just like in 2006.

The council wouldn't have changed the text if that was the certain intent.

If the city votes yes and the council repeals it gives an opening to Chastain to say the council made the plan something they wanted and the voters said yes. He worked with the city legal dept to make sure the ballot item would pass muster and they went on record on their opinion ahead of time. The idea that the council certainly wouldn't have put something on the ballot they thought they couldn't do would take a strong counterpoint.

The city would need a VERY good reason to repeal it.

The one key difference with 2006 is that plan didn't make sure the plan could be done at the dollar amount given. This one overlaps corridors the city has already studied so we know there's at least 10 miles it could build and it doesn't actually need to build any specific length.

Let's say it passes. The city maybe could nix using the bus tax and build what it can with the new tax and not buying electric busses. Repealing doesn't necessarily mean doing nothing, could mean doing less.

I'm sure there's some prior legal argument around taking money from busses to buy new busses with a different staff, probably part of an anti-union busting lawsuit

[flyingember]

I'm seriously intrigued how many people will vote yes for the rail plan just because the liberal KC Star published something against it.

Less than two weeks to find out.

[DaveKCMO]

KCATA board, streetcar authority board, and regional transit coordinating council (made up of local transit stakeholders and operators) are all officially on record either with "no support" or in opposition to the chastain plan.

approving this plan is a setback for all of the other work we've done because it will take the city and KCATA a year to undo it (using time they would normally focus on streetcar and MAX expansion).

[flyingember]

Without rehashing what I wrote above, I would bet it's closer to 2-3 years. The city put itself into a pickle by changing the plan and then voting for it. They had a stronger repeal position had they accepted the item as is.

If it passes, which seems unlikely, I would hope the city repeals taking the bus tax on some civil rights ground and uses the new tax to build the clay county and east side streetcar corridors in the plan and provide the match for the TDD

[DaveKCMO]

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... ction.html

Chastain also has argued that his plan is flexible because it would allow the city to make tweaks in the route.

“While that may be true, there are certain details of the plan that are essentially dictated,” Johnson responded, referring to ballot language calling for service to Kansas City International Airport and several other specific locations. “I think if Clay Chastain were putting a light-rail question on the ballot that didn’t dictate all those things, it might be a different story.”

In an interview, Chastain said city officials could say, “We’re headed to the airport (with a light-rail line) but don’t have enough money to get there yet.”

But he agreed that the locations mentioned in the ballot question — KCI, the Cerner Innovation Campus in south Kansas City, Twin Creeks and Vivion Road in the Northland, North Kansas City, Union Station, the Country Club Plaza, Brookside, the Kansas City Zoo, the Truman Sports Complex, and connections with bus rapid transit routes along Troost and Prospect avenues — are dictates that can’t be altered.

[flyingember]

are dictates that can’t be altered.

He didn't read the ballot language.

From the ballot text:

or funding as much of as is possible

So while there's a route defined, the amount of available funding determines what will get built. The streetcar TDD doesn't even assure this. It's not worded to say if there's no federal funding we build something.

Let's say it passes
Clearly the city is required to aim for enough money to build the line described, but if federal funding doesn't come through they're required to build what can be paid for with the taxes on the ballot, and nothing more. And I would argue if taking the bus money is unconstitutional, it doesn't make the new tax invalid. With the changes in the route language the city should take this last tax and build the NKC and Linwood lines and make sure the train goes to UMKC. It can start doing this final engineering while it looks for further money. Could go from 2 miles of track to 12+ in two elections in a year's time.

You can not like the plan, but it was cleverly worded by the city. The ordinance defines minimum, not maximum number of stops. It defines destinations, not exact routes. Had the council just accepted the Chastain plan on the ballot it would be clear they wanted to kill it, instead they made changes so they could expand the streetcar.

It's also worded so this line could solve the commuter rail downtown connection issue, by having text to get to the stadiums the county could help fund part of the route and not need Terminal or KCS RRs cooperation. That's a big deal for that project. Cross the river and we can get commuter rail N without fighting the same issues there.

It's not a perfect plan but it solves a lot of problems the city has with rail transit expansion.

[FangKC]

In contrast to the city’s new 2-mile streetcar line, which Kansas City Regional Transit Alliance hopes to get extended to the Plaza and the University of Missouri-Kansas City via a series of 2017 elections, light rail would provide fewer stops and greater speeds, Chastain said.

“This thing is going to go like a striped ape and average a stop only every three miles, which is unheard of in light rail,” Chastain said. “Getting people where they want to go quickly and conveniently is the key to getting people out of their cars.”

What Chastain advocates as an advantage of his light rail plan -- speed and stops averaging every three miles -- might be the greatest flaw in the plan.

Think about this. How many people will be able to walk, or bike, to a stop if they are three miles apart? It actually would encourage most people to have to drive to the stop and park their cars--creating the need for surface parking lots around the stops. Noting human behavior, if most people have to get into a car to get to a station, they are probably more inclined to just drive to their destination anyway--because many areas of the city don't have good bus coverage. Think about winter. If you have to clean ice and snow off your windows, and warm up your vehicle to drive to a light rail stop three miles away, you are probably just going to drive the entire distance anyway.

Yes, the stops might be near some job centers and other places that might draw riders (Truman Sports Center, Cerner campus, airport). But the stops won't necessarily be near concentrated residential areas. So for many residents, there is still a car component involved in their transit use.

Fewer stops might increase speed, but it also limits access points.

Even if the stops generate dense residential development in the future, these nodes still are three miles apart, which is a fairly great distance if you consider the fact that most people might have to walk at some point in their commute.

In some areas where the light rail line might run, would residents even allow changes in zoning density near stops that would be required to create dense enough residential and job nodes that would support the transit line?

We have problems getting neighborhoods like Columbus Park and the Westside to allow greater density--and these are neighborhoods within Greater Downtown. The new Columbus Park development is no more dense than any apartment complex in suburban Johnson County, and it's at the end of the streetcar line.

So if urban neighborhoods fight density, will residents in less dense suburban neighborhoods in the Northland and south Kansas City support the higher density required to make light rail work?

For light rail to work, you need people living and working in dense situations. In many areas along the proposed light rail line, there is no density and I question whether residents will even allow the new density to be built.

When stations are so far apart, there is no speed advantage if you consider the fact that riders might have to walk, or bike, a long distance, or take a bus connection that is making multiple stops anyway between the station and their home, or job.

The major problem I have with Chastain's plan is the fact that he's a lone actor who is not working with existing transit groups and entities.

For a light rail plan like this to work, you need a coordinated effort between the City, county governments, neighborhood groups, employers, and developers to put together a plan that not only builds the train/streetcar, but to create denser zoning to build the residential population and job centers along the line that will support ridership and the long-term financial viability of the transit corridor. You even need elected officials to be able to gain federal and state dollars for the funding the line.

In fact, you need the City to change zoning to higher density BEFORE the line is even built. If neighborhoods are going to block higher density zoning from the get-go, there is no reason to even build the rail line through their neighborhoods.

[flyingember]

In contrast to the city’s new 2-mile streetcar line, which Kansas City Regional Transit Alliance hopes to get extended to the Plaza and the University of Missouri-Kansas City via a series of 2017 elections, light rail would provide fewer stops and greater speeds, Chastain said.

“This thing is going to go like a striped ape and average a stop only every three miles, which is unheard of in light rail,” Chastain said. “Getting people where they want to go quickly and conveniently is the key to getting people out of their cars.”

What Chastain advocates as an advantage of his light rail plan -- speed and stops averaging every three miles -- might be the greatest flaw in the plan.

Which is true. And this is where you have to read the ordinance for how the council changed this. It doesnt set maximum number of stops. It just sets points the route has to hit.

This ballot item is colored by dislike of the person, not what the council did to change it. The ordinance text is what matters, not the Chastain petition.

Read the ballot item as its literally is written. One part must go from downtown, stop at Union Station, Plaza, Brookside and we only build what there's money to do . It doesn't say there can only be stops there or we must build all of that. It doesn't say what street must be used. It doesn't define train size, frequency or any of that.

Guess what, that's means it's can describe the streetcar to UMKC. The only thing it actually defines for the route is being flexible, using existing right of ways where possible.

This gets better, one of those key points actually means the city couldn't implement exactly Chastain's plan since he wasn't taking the train into NKC.


The KCRTA is against Chastain, it's saying things that are false after the council changed the plan. There's a misinformation campaign around a name, not the plan.

[DaveKCMO]

The KCRTA is against Chastain, it's saying things that are false after the council changed the plan. There's a misinformation campaign around a name, not the plan.

what exactly is the misinformation in KCRTA's published statement?

you forgot to add these organizations going on record as "no support" or "opposition" for all of the same reasons (underfunded, unworkable, steals from bus):

- kansas city streetcar authority
- greater KC chamber of commerce
- kansas city area transportation authority