Chastain to air radio spot, hold petition rally

We received this in email this morning:


April 22, 2010

Clay Chastain

Once again, we are exercising our right under the Constitution to petition our government for grievances.

Our grievance is that Kansas City’s government has failed to provide the people a modern, efficient, and attractive transit system to move about the city that saves people money, protects the environment, and helps stimulate the local economy.

Included in this press release is the text and the audio of a radio spot advertising this effort and informing the voters of Kansas City where they can come to sign the light rail and charter change initiative.

This new radio spot will air today at 5:52p.m on KMBZ radio and continue to run as funds allow up to the petition signing rally at Union Station on May 8 from 9:00am to 3:00pm.

In the past, people have complained that they did not know where to find us to sign light rail petitions. So, we are giving the public a one-day opportunity to come to us.

Thank you for any assistance you can provide in informing the public of this most important civic matter.

The radio spot is here [MP3].


8 Comments so far

  1. smh April 22nd, 2010 11:53 am

    It seems nearly certain at this point that Mr. Chastain is hurting transit in KC.

  2. anonymous April 22nd, 2010 11:56 am


  3. ron mclinden April 22nd, 2010 12:33 pm

    this gives the city council an opportunity to say, ‘the experts tell us that mr. chastain’s proposal is not workable. if the question goes on the ballot and the voters approve it, the council will once again invalidate that result and re-start a light rail / modern streetcar planning study as we did before.’

    or — the council can re-start the rail transit study in advance of the election and avoid the rancor associated with ignoring the ‘will of the people.’

  4. E d T e n n y s o n April 23rd, 2010 11:02 pm

    Voters in Kansas City need to know that they have very, very low transit ridership compared to most anywhere else except Oklahoma City and Tulsa. Even worse, it is a very expensive bus system, far higher than average transit cost per passenger-mile.
    With low ridership = low revenue and higher cost, taxpayers are paying more for lousy bus service than good Light Rail service would cost. Federal data, called the National Transit Data Base shows that in 2008 Light Rail averaged 60 cents cost per passenger-mile, but buses averaged 83 cents and Kansas City was over a dollar. Kansas City voters need to look at Charlotte and Phoenix which just opened 30 miles of new Light Rail and attracted far more riders than estimated. More cars had to be bought to carry them all. The air got cleaner. Property values are up, way up.

  5. ron mclinden April 26th, 2010 11:45 am

    ^ kansas city has low transit ridership, and thus a higher cost per passenger mile than some other cities. the problem is our low population density, and our attempt to serve as much of that low-density population as possible. we could have extremely low cost per passenger mile if we only ran buses on troost, main, prospect, independence avenue, and 39th street. but we need the rest of the system to make those high-ridership routes useful to people.

    if light rail gives lower costs per passenger mile it’s because light rail doesn’t even get built unless there’s enough density to support a high level of ridership. “build it and they will come” works only if you build it where demand already exists.

  6. Max April 26th, 2010 1:12 pm

    Go Clay Go!

    I mean it. Go! Go away!

  7. BB April 26th, 2010 1:28 pm

    What is the reason of opposition? I don’t get it. This is like common sense to do something to get KC in the new Millineum. Also common sense is the jobs and economy growth. Gotta know? Why NOT…There needs to be a sense of urgancy this City is way behind. Downtown is in great shape. The tourism would be positive as well.

  8. anonymous April 26th, 2010 4:09 pm

    Because Phoenix and SLC have such great population density. Plus, in the urban core the population density is actually fairly high (relatively).