Light Rail: Please don't muddy the waters
 By Mark ForsytheThe Kansas City Post Everybody has an opinion about light rail in Kansas City. Today's As I See It editorial in the Kansas City Star is just one more. In what I perceive to be an attempt to inject themselves into the realm of civic relevance, Dave Scott and his Urban Society have thrown their support to the Star's own proposed starter line. As a member of the Citizen's Task Force on Light Rail I find this latest opinion piece to be ill-timed, and frankly, irrelevant. Lest anyone be misled by the name, the Urban Society is no large force of citizens working for the common good. It consists of about five or six individuals who meet in private and then come forward to espouse an opinion on some civic issue, make a few PowerPoint presentations, write an editorial or two and then disappear. Five guys with a laptop and an overhead projector does not a society make, and their opinion, just like mine, should be given no more weight than anyone else's. Not all my ire need be directed at the Urban Society though. The Kansas City Star is also a worthy target. Jeff Spivak and Mike Mansur, while nice enough people, have had the privilege of sitting in on every Task Force meeting since its inception. The northern and southern terminus of the Star's plan are not unique. Any person with a pair of eyes and ears could see the Task Force heading in that direction. The same can be said for the modern streetcar technology. From the beginning of our meetings it was apparent that most of us were intrigued at the possibilities a lightweight rail vehicle offered. An east-west spur has also consistently been in the realm of discussion because of its consistent appearance from citizen input forums. Publishing a route just ahead of the Citizens' Task Force recommendation, and then using Kansas City's paper of record to promote that plan, prematurely announce upcoming Task Force recommendations, and broadcasting gushing editorials by a self-proclaimed "society" goes far beyond the bounds of ethical journalism. It goes beyond the bounds of journalism period. Let the Citizens Task Force do the job we were appointed to do. We are very close to completing our proposal. In fact, we should have most, if not all of it completed next week. After that, people can jump in and take credit, cry out in indignation, agree, disagree or do whatever else they want. Until then, maybe The Star should consider reporting the news, instead of manufacturing it. |
posted by Mark at 6:35 AM
Comments on "Light Rail: Please don't muddy the waters"
-
mainstream said ... (9:08 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (9:35 AM) :
-
Bob Asher said ... (11:44 AM) :
-
Brent said ... (2:45 PM) :
-
mainstream said ... (2:50 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (3:58 PM) :
-
Michelled said ... (12:34 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (3:49 PM) :
-
idan said ... (12:32 PM) :
-
Bob Asher said ... (9:39 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (11:24 AM) :
-
Bob Asher said ... (12:45 PM) :
-
Dan said ... (6:38 AM) :
-
Michelled said ... (10:13 AM) :
post a commentYou forgot to mention that the urban society is arrogant as well.
The urban society is a VVO. That's a Vanity Virtual Organization.
Three older white guys, with a little change in their pcokets living on Jansen Pl.
Give 'em a Apple laptop and a few glasses of wine and they'll put out one mean powerpoint deck that will prove, beyond a shadow of any doubt in their minds, that they're the smartest people in the room.
Here here! I don't see the Star or the urban society weighing in with a plan to fix our sewers. I guess sewers aren't important to them.
I thought that Star piece was pretty reprehensible. However, it is a very good example of one of the most fundamental problems that plagues Kansas City: Complete lack of leadership.
Since there is no strong leadership in this town, everyone in the world and their brother forms committees to decide "important" issues and since no one is in control, nobody has priority. Eventually, each issue either gets forgotten and dropped, or the private interest with the most money backing gets their way.
How many different plans we have at this point:
1. KC Star
2. Clay Chastain
3. Citizen's Task Force
4. Urban Society
When is MARC going to weigh in with their transit plan? When is Funky going to weigh in with his? When is Freedom Inc going to weigh in with theirs? Really, why can't people just pick something and move on?
It's the same thing with downtown development plans...
Bob, to echo your point, we spent a ton of money a few years ago on bringing in some consultants to put together the Sasaki plan for urban redevelopment. One of their suggestions included the implementation of light rail including a recommended route. And yet, the whole thing has been almost completely ignored like it never happened. It's as if we really love just spending money on having people tell us what we should do, but never actually doing any of it.
I agree with all that been said and the criticism of the Star.
However, I like the Star's plan. It resperesents where most people were going -- especially on the Citizen's Committee
I'm always amazed at how quick people are to throw insults at other folks who are trying to improve the city - no wonder things don't get done in this town. The Urban Society (more than just 5 white guys, BTW) are committed civic volunteers, like many other groups. You can choose to listen to or ignore any opinion - that is everyone's right. Democracy is not just limited to people browsing the internet - it also includes people who get in the trenches to try and make the city better.
And, I congratulate the Star for their brand of civic activism. If only we had 2 or 3 more papers in this town that did the same.
Kevin K - board member of USKC, also on Citizen's LR Task Force, and not a resident of Janssen Place.
Kevin, I was sympathetic to your POV until the Star comment...I agree that we need 2 or 3 more papers, but only to give an opposing viewpoint to the Star's electioneering and tabloid journalism (not to mention actually reporting the FACTS). Certainly not because we need more corporate "civic activists" promoting their personal agendas. This argument is not limited to light rail of course...
michelled-
All sources of journalism, whether they be newspapers, tv, radio or internet blogs have agendas, and are often selective with the facts. It's the nature of being a human being. There's no small amount of irony in internet bloggers wanting to silence a newspaper or others advancing opinion/debate.
Mark, agree 100% with your viewpoints here.
Does the USKC not have two of the 36 seats on the LR Citizen's Task Force, including Kevin K? I believe they do. Then why undermine the outcome? Why take part of a task force if you can't accept the outcome of the task force's hard work.
Given Kevin K's professional background in community planning I would expect him to respect the process of consensus building.
My opinion is this was an attempt by USKC to be more relevant. However, I believe their actions make them less relevant. Now and in the future.
...and not to mention that the USKC's plan serves to further undermine the legitimancy of the Citizen's Task Force's plan.
So, let's get the transit plan list closer to complete:
Actual Plans:
1. KC Star Plan
2. Clay Chastain
3. Citizen's Task Force
4. Urban Society of Kansas City
5. Sasaki Plan
Possible (Pending) Plans:
1. Funky's "Regional" Plan
2. MARC "Regional" Plan
Who else has a transit plan?
And another thing:
I love yesterday's article in the Star promising a regional expansion of their pet plan. Nowhere did they mention that since their streetcars max out at 45 mph, then it'd take 2-3 hours to get from the airport to the furthest points out south. Who in their right mind is going to spend 3 hours on a train that takes 40 minutes by car?
I was talking with my dad last night and he had a pretty good idea: High speed light rail from the airport to some central point downtown (Union Station?). No stops. That way you can get tourists, business people, and airport works from the airport to downtown and back in like 15 minutes.
I don't understand how the Star's plan, which is merely a train to go from Kay Barne's house in Briarcliff to the Plaza and back, is actually going to be relevant to anyone except wealthy shoppers who won't be riding transit with the 'proles anyway.
The story specifically says: rail lines could end up being commuter trains, electric streetcars running short distances, high speed light rail or a combination of all three.
And the biggest problem with all of the mixed modes of transit is coordinating transfers between them. Want an example? Go to San Francisco, fly into Oakland Airport, (wait 20-30 minutes for a train) and take the BART to somewhere on Market Street, transfer to the Muni Metro system (and wait 20-30 minutes for a train) and take that out to Golden Gate and then wait for the bus to take you to whatever outlying neighborhood you live in or want to visit. I guarantee you, it'll take 1-1/2 to 2 hours, minimum.
So, when we live in a city so spread out, and when we have so much accessible roadway, and every point in this town is 40 minutes by car, max, then we really need to take a sober look at how viable a sprawling, multimodal transit system is going to be made viable...
I've read your article (as well as the comments that won your approval and were allowed to be posted), but I'm not sure what has your "ire" up. You acknowledge that everyone has an opinion, and implicitly agree that the KC Star plan is not very different from your own, but you heap derision on the Star and the Urban Society for expressing theirs.
I think it's great that the members of the Task Force have put in so much work and amassed so much knowledge - a good example of helpful citizen involvement - but it's kind of awkward that you appear to be complaining that you don't have a monopoly on the spotlight.
Is it really so improper that we didn't all wait around for you and your buddies to complete your task before we wrote our opinions?
Also, what's up with referring to the two hard-working Star reporters having "had the privilege of sitting in on every Task Force meeting". Privilege?? Isn't it more like a right?
The decisions surrounding light rail are hugely important, and deserve as much scrutiny and thoughtful input as they can receive. It's unfortunate that you direct your ire at those who voice their thoughts, and deride them as "irrelevant".
"All sources of journalism, whether they be newspapers, tv, radio or internet blogs have agendas, and are often selective with the facts." - WOW Sherlock, thanks!!
The point I got (not that you care) from the post is the Star reporters took their "privilage/right" to sit in on the task force meetings to pretend they came up with this original plan that was just a bunch of other people's ideas. And the Urban Society's support had the distinct smell of pandering...