By Ron McLinden
Light Rail Defeated in Kansas City Election
A proposal to construct a 23.8-mile light rail transit system in Kansas City at a cost of $793 million was defeated by voters on August 7. The voters were asked to approve a half-cent sales tax for 25 years to finance the project.
This was the fourth time Kansas City voters have said “no” to light rail. Previous questions had been put on the ballot by initiative petition with little more than back-of-the-envelope plans behind them. This time a full feasibility study had been prepared.
Several factors led to the defeat. Voters felt many basic city services were being neglected, and thus viewed light rail as a frill. A half-cent sales tax for fire stations was on the same ballot. Opponents seized on the study’s unfortunate mention of “development impact zones” around light rail stops as evidence of the city’s intent to demolish neighborhoods. The Chamber of Commerce opposed the plan, making it more difficult for proponents to raise campaign funds, and resulting in a well-funded opposition. The plan was ambitious – perhaps overly so – and failed to incorporate improvements in the bus system serving much of the city.
No decisions have been made about another attempt to win voter approval for light rail. However, consideration is being given to “bus rapid transit,” a less costly type of transit system that would greatly improve service along designated corridors using buses instead of rail. Prospects for BRT in the near future appear to dim, however, as revenues from an existing one-half transit cent sales tax decline with the economy.
Transportation Funding from Jeff City?
The General Assembly took no action earlier this year on a proposal to raise taxes to improve Missouri’s roads, bridges, transit systems, and other transportation facilities. It appears likely that no action will be taken during the next session beginning in January.
In recent months the Missouri Farm Bureau, Missouri Chamber of Commerce, and other business interests have held public meetings around the state to build support for additional transportation funding. Last year MoDOT estimated the state’s transportation needs at $30 billion greater than available funding over the next 20 years.
One irony is that it was the Farm Bureau more than any other organization that kept transportation funding measures from passing in recent years. Until this year they had insisted that the 6-cent gas tax increase passed by the General Assembly in 1992 was adequate to build the roads promised back then, and that MoDOT had simply misused the money. Now the Farm Bureau is trying to “restore MoDOT’s credibility.”
If the General Assembly takes no action next year, there could be an initiative petition campaign to put a modest tax proposal – perhaps $300 million per year, or equivalent to about a one-half cent sales tax – on the November 2002 ballot. Such an effort would likely be led by the state’s highway contractors, and it’s not at all certain they’d include more than a token amount for transit and rail passenger service. If that happens, the Sierra Club should be expected to oppose the effort – especially in view of the fact that highway contractors were among the major contributors to the anti-light rail campaign in Kansas City earlier this year.
September 11 and Rail
Terrorist attacks brought the nation’s airline system to a halt for several days in September. As a result, millions of Americans discovered how dependent we have become on that one mode of passenger travel.
Since then air travel is down significantly, with the result that fewer flights are being scheduled. This has all but eliminated the problem of flight delays due to airport congestion – at least for the time being. And that, in turn, calls into question a number of airport expansion projects – including the one at Lambert Airport in St. Louis.
Getting through airport security now takes much longer, with the result that travel by car or rail looks a lot more attractive for trips of 300 miles or less – even up to 500 miles in some cases. Reducing the number of such relatively short flights would further reduce the need for airport expansions.
It’s clear that we have neglected our alternatives to airline travel, and have put too many of our travel “eggs” in the airline “basket.”
We need a national system that serves the inter-city travel needs of our citizens. And we need to plan for that system as a whole – not just one mode at a time. Air and rail – even the lowly Greyhound bus – should be linked together to serve our travel needs. And high-speed rail needs to be established in corridors where it makes sense – especially where it can substitute for costly airport expansions.
Short Trips
Whenever we have a choice about how far to travel to meet our everyday needs, we should choose the shorter trip. And if that shorter trip is within walking or cycling range, we should consider making the trip by one of those gentler modes. Future members of our endangered species will be grateful.