The column, “Talk of Regional Transit Is Just Wasted Breath,” bears reading, even though we find it quite disappointing.

“Wasted breath?” Really?Johnson County, the richest and most populous county in Kansas, could find itself without a meaningful transit system of any kind in the next couple of years, falling behind Wichita and Topeka.  Yet instead of expressing concern, Mr. Rose dredges up 30-year-old biases and frames the current transit situation as Johnson County against the City of Kansas City. That involves a misconception: KCATA was created by the two states and Congress, and is independent of Kansas City.  Lacking taxing authority of its own, it provides transit service under contract with nearly a dozen municipalities.  Kansas City happens to contract for the most service.

Describing the transit cutbacks that Johnson County seems poised to impose on its citizens, Mr. Rose writes:

Where [Johnson County Transit Director] Alice [Amrein] is unrealistic is she told me she is contemplating recommending to the county commissioners that, along with the cutbacks, it may be worthwhile to contract some routes with the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, otherwise known as the ATA.

Furthermore, Steve Klika, a member of the Johnson County Transportation Council and a representative on the ATA board, was reported in The Star [Mike Hendricks, May 13, "Deep cuts could mean drastic changes for The Jo bus system] as saying, “The only way transit is going to succeed in Kansas City is if it’s regionalized.”

These statements attributed to Ms. Amrein and Mr. Klika are not at all unreasonable. Indeed, prudence indicates that all options be explored. Mr. Rose goes on to quote Johnson County Commission Chairman Ed Eilert as saying, ““We would not turn over any funds to ATA. … Furthermore, we would not give up funding or operational control.”

Nobody is suggesting that. If KCATA were to operate (or even manage the operation of) transit routes in Johnson County it would be under a contract resulting from a competitive bidding process involving other potential transit operators.  That hardly constitutes “turning over” funds to KCATA, and it’s hardly a novel idea. In fact, the possibility of JCT once again contracting with KCATA has been under consideration for years, and KCATA has submitted bids to operate Johnson County transit routes as recently as just a couple of years ago. JCT elected to stay with its current contractor, First Transit.

Furthermore, Mr. Rose (and Mr. Eilert) might not be aware that KCATA already performs some basic transit support services under contract to Johnson County Transit.  These include operation of a Regional Transit Information Call Center and maintenance of a number of bus shelters and other facilities. The two agencies are currently working together to get basic information about The JO’s routes and schedules posted at key stops in Kansas City, and KCATA now accepts monthly passes issued by The JO on nearly all Metro routes including MAX.

Mr. Rose then quotes KCATA Board of Commissioners Chairman Robbie Makinen as saying, “I consider this a real opportunity to rekindle the seamless, regional transit discussion.”

Discussion? That makes perfect sense to us. We don’t know what Mr. Rose thinks seamless regional transit is, but we think it means transit that’s easier to understand and use.  That’s important not just in Jackson and Wyandotte counties, but even for Johnson County because thousands of people hold low-paying service jobs in Johnson County but can’t afford to live there. Others travel there to shop or pursue educational, recreational, cultural, and other opportunities.

Improving and expanding public transit service in the Kansas City region is Transit Action Network’s purpose for being. To accomplish this goal we need informed discussion of the current situation. Bringing up perceptions of how things may have been 30 years ago is simply not helpful.

Mr. Rose’s column could be just the thing that’s been needed to re-ignite serious dialog among public officials of the region to move us toward a public transit system that seamlessly serves the region’s citizens. If it does, then we’ll be among the first to say, “Thank you, Mr. Rose.”

You’ve been asking for it — well, some of you anyway — and now Transit Action Network has our very own avatar for the web. Gone forever is the white egg on maroon that Twitter gave us.

How’d it come about?  One of our Twitter followers (who happens to be a strong transit/bike/ped advocate) started pestering us about getting a proper identity.  When we agreed she was right, she offered to design this spiffy graphic for us. She prefers not to be identified, but we consider her a real asset, and we appreciate her talents very much.

 We describe our new avatar as Bold, Bright, Action-Oriented and Out-of-the-Box. TAN is certainly recognizable now!

The city is holding three public meetings to explain the streetcar operation and answer questions. Kansas City wants voters in the proposed Transportation Development District (TDD) to understand the project.

TDD Map – Click to Enlarge

The public meetings are from 4-7 p.m with brief presentations at 4:30, 5:30 and 6:30 pm.

Tuesday, May 15, Helzburg Auditorium, Central Library, 14 W. 10th Street

Wednesday, May 16, Atrium, Steamboat Arabia Museum, 400 Grand Boulevard

Thursday, May 17, Arthur Stilwell Room, Union Station, 30 W. Pershing Road

The initial ballot to create the TDD is a mail-in ballot, but you MUST request a ballot by May 22. No Request=No Ballot. So if you live in the proposed TDD, request your ballot today! Ballot requests will be available at the public meetings. Remind your transit friends in the proposed TDD to submit their ballot request.

1. Print the ballot application at http://www.16thcircuit.org/streetcar

2. Print your registration status kceb.org (Use the check your voter status box at the top of the page. This document is used to validate you request.)

3. Send (hand-deliver, fax, mail) both documents to the court address (or fax number) on the application.

Open House #3 April 24 @ St Paul’s School of Theology

The Jackson County Commuter Corridors Alternatives Analysis (JCCCAA) is beginning to address some of these questions. The project team had its third series of open house meetings April 24-26. (See the Open House Display boards).  One more series is planned.

This open house provided the first look at quantitative results for the current commuter corridor study. The study is not complete and some of the numbers will change.

Some additional information is needed to understand the following information from the open house.

1. The ridership numbers and travel time are forecasts for 2035. These are the numbers you can expect to see in 23 years.
2. The dollar figures are for 2012.
3. The model for forecasting congestion on I-70 only indicates an additional 3-5 minutes for travel time in 2035 over travel times today. The travel time for a car was not provided for comparison.

After evaluating the information from the open house, Transit Action Network’s preliminary conclusion is that, in all probability, none of the fixed guideway alternatives would qualify for federal funding due to the relatively high cost for the low ridership and the insignificant amount of time saved. The FTA uses these factors to measure cost-effectiveness. Of course, the numbers are being revised, but considerable improvements would be needed to change this assessment. Both of the commuter rail lines plus the Rock Island streetcar line and the Rock Island Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) alternatives are probably not cost-effective enough to receive capital funds for construction from the FTA.

A. I-70 Corridor from Oak Grove – Highlights

There are only two alternatives left in this corridor and they are basically the same as were studied in a 2007 Alternatives Analysis. Summary of 2007 I-70 Commuter Corridor AA

1. One choice is an enhanced version of today’s highway express bus with more comfortable over-the-road coaches and significantly more service. In 2007 the recommendation was to improve the Express Buses. Compared to the 1,500 riders projected in the 2007 study, the 600 daily riders in the current study looks very low.
   

   Click to Enlarge I-70 corridor

2. The second choice is a commuter train (Diesel Multiple Unit or DMU) that stays on the Kansas City Southern rail line toward the Northern Industrial District and then turns west and finishes at Third and Grand. There is a new alignment which is an improvement over the alignment in the 2007 study. There is a narrow strip of land owned by Kansas City, north of Cliff Drive by Kessler Park, that could be used instead of going through a rail yard. However, maximum daily ridership last time was 1,425 and right now this project is showing 1,150-2,800 daily riders. These ridership numbers are not significantly improved considering the project capital cost in 2007 was $102.8-168.9 million. More money is being projected for track improvements, which would increase the train speed and decrease the travel time.
3. There is not a significant time savings for commuters using the train. The estimated time to 10^th and Main from Oak Grove using the Express Bus is 59 minutes and getting to 10^th and Main using the DMU plus a transfer to the streetcar is 61 minutes.

B. The Rock Island Corridor – Highlights

Four alternatives are still being considered, but they are not comparable situations.

1. Only the Enhanced Express Bus and the Diesel Multiple Unit go to Pleasant Hill.
   

   Click to Enlarge SE Rock island Corridor

2. The Express Bus is an enhanced version of today’s highway express bus with better coaches and significantly more service.
3. The DMU travels on the Rock Island Line, then continues north toward the Northern Industrial District. North of St. John Avenue it merges with the I-70 corridor KCS line and the two lines share a common segment into Third and Grand. The cost for this line does not include the common rail section since the Rock Island DMU line would only be built if the I-70 DMU line were built.
4. The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) only goes to Lee’s Summit. It uses a new paved busway on the Rock Island line to the Sports Complex and then a fixed guideway (the two middle lanes of traffic get barriers to segregate the bus from other traffic) is built on Stadium Drive and Linwood Blvd. At Bruce R. Watkins Drive (Highway 71) it uses the freeway to get into Downtown.
5. The Enhanced Streetcar is not really part of the commuter corridors since it has been shortened to start at 63^rd Street and Raytown Road, which makes it more of an urban corridor route. The streetcar goes down Linwood Blvd in a fixed guideway (the two middle lanes of traffic get barriers to segregate the streetcar from other traffic). At Main Street it would operate in mixed traffic and turn north to meet the proposed Downtown Streetcar line at Pershing.  MARC’s Smart Moves plan consists of two types of corridors – urban corridors that serve the urban core and commuter corridors, which bring people into the city from the suburbs. In fact, the significantly larger ridership numbers projected for this “enhanced streetcar” alternative are from people in the urban core. The streetcar has significantly more riders than the BRT even though they both go down Linwood since the bulk of the streetcar ridership happens west of Highway 71 after the BRT turns north.  Because the streetcar makes several stops along Linwood and functions like an urban streetcar corridor, this alternative does not appear to serve suburban commuters very well.
6. This is the first AA that has been done in the Rock Island commuter corridor so it is interesting to see such low ridership numbers.
   

   Open House #3 April 25 @ John Knox Village

• Express bus – 350; DMU – 500; Bus Rapid Transit – 500. These ridership numbers are breathtakingly low and don’t warrant any rail investment. Even if the study increases the numbers they aren’t going to go up nearly enough to justify the cost of rail. The low ridership projections for the DMU in the Rock island corridor compared to the I-70 corridor is partly because this line doesn’t go through the main population centers of these cities and a lot of the route goes through industrial areas.

For commuters in the Southeast Corridor there are two bus possibilities:  Enhanced Express Bus from Pleasant Hill or Bus Rapid Transit from Lee’s Summit.

1. To compare travel time between the two buses, look at the time from Raytown Road. The BRT time to 10^th and Main is 54 minutes and the express bus from that location is 48 minutes. So the express bus is faster over the same distance.
2. The Express Bus costs $35-39 million, while the BRT would entail paving the Rock Island line and establishing a fixed guideway on Linwood for a total of $230-283 million. Is the additional cost worth it for a slower travel time and only a few more people?

What about the Rock Island Streetcar? Even though the ridership is better than the other alternatives in this corridor, it is far too low for the cost.

To put this streetcar in perspective, compare it to the Downtown Streetcar project currently being planned.

Financing Transit in Jackson County

Once transit alternatives are selected for these corridors — i.e., once a “Locally Preferred Alternative” or LPA is determined, local funding has to be obtained.  This is true whether there is a federal contribution to the project or not.

Jackson County has special taxing authority allowing voters to approve up to a 1-cent sales tax for transit, which would collect about $80 million annually. Jackson County has significant transit needs, especially in eastern Jackson County.  Not only does commuter transit need to be improved and expanded, but transit is needed to get to other activity centers such as jobs, education, medical facilities, shopping and entertainment in areas other than downtown. (Only 14% of the region’s jobs are currently in the CBD).

Although a property tax is a possible funding source, it doesn’t raise much money.

TAN realizes the study isn’t finished and there will be changes, but the total annual cost is important to understand Jackson County’s ability to provide transit. The following numbers are based on the information presented at the April open house. We will re-do our analysis when adjusted numbers become available.

Estimated Rail and Fixed Guideway Annual Costs

Very preliminary conclusions:

Open House #3 April 24 @ John Knox Village

1. Without federal assistance, Jackson County cannot pay for DMU rail lines in three Corridors. Study of a third corridor, the Highway 71 corridor to Grandview, is just getting under way.  It is possible that the annual costs for the DMUs in the first two corridors (as high as $49MM plus $36MM) could use up more than the 1-cent sales tax ($80 million annually) with nothing left to provide supporting bus services, much less transit to other parts of the county.
2. Without significant federal funding, any fixed guideway options still being considered would be difficult to justify considering all the other transit needs and issues. The costs would be further complicated with a fixed guideway option in the Grandview corridor.
3. Voters in Kansas City might object to paying a full 1-cent sales tax on commuter rail from eastern Jackson County without much benefit to taxpayers living within the City. In other words, for a transit tax to pass county-wide, there would have to be something in the package for Kansas City.
4. Since rail projects are so expensive, most cities seek federal funding to help build projects. The FTA has only been funding large projects with a cost-effectiveness rating of at least Medium. Once a  project qualifies to be considered for federal funding, it still has to compete against other cities and recently the FTA has only been covering 30-50% of the cost of rail projects selected for funding. For perspective look at the FTA current Capital Investment Program Project Profiles.

Additional very preliminary conclusions:

1. The two DMU rail lines could cost a billion dollars to build (using high-end estimates of  $600MM plus $413MM).
2. The capital and operating costs for the Enhanced Express Buses could be covered without federal funding, although federal dollars are much easier to get for this use. Bus projects can usually be funded without issuing bonds. Bonds were not needed for the Troost and Main Street MAX lines. The FTA often pays up to 80% of the capital cost for major improvements to bus systems. Using such an approach, there would be money for other transit services in Jackson County, even without using the full 1-cent sales tax.
3. Jackson County could fund express buses plus a robust transit system to serve other needs in the county at the same time.
4. TAN expects that a reasonable allocation of any county transit tax would have to clearly provide a transit benefit in the City of Kansas City. Population and sales tax revenue in Jackson County are about evenly split between Kansas City and the remainder of the county.

Summary

Open House #3 April 25 @ John Knox Village

The purpose of performing an Alternatives Analysis is to find the best transit solution to seek federal funds. Federal funds are particularly important when proposing a rail project since they are so expensive. Sometimes good plans don’t get federal funding because of intense competition, but if a plan doesn’t qualify for federal funds because it isn’t cost effective, then it probably should not be built.  Sometimes cities fund a very short 1-2 mile starter rail line but rarely are long rail lines successfully funded with only local money.

Are Jackson County taxpayers prepared to pay for major transit plans that are not sufficiently cost-effective to qualify for federal funding? We doubt it.

An out-of-town transit consultant spoke at the MARC Transit committee when the two current rail studies started. He advised people to remember that serious rail transit is about the need to move a lot of people. Non-serious rail transit is about wanting to have a train.

Transit consultants in Kansas City will tell you when they do major commuter rail studies in other cities they usually come upon a robust bus transit system that will not be able to efficiently meet demand in the next few years and needs the additional capacity that rail provides. When they come to Kansas City to study rail, no such demand exists. We don’t even have a transit system in eastern Jackson County let alone one that is bursting at the seams and needs to be upgraded to rail.

Bottom line: What is the best use of our current or potentially available public money? Where do we get the biggest transit bang for our buck? Transit Action Network is very pro-rail, but we are also realistic and cost conscious. We want to see a significant transit improvement emerge from this study, and we’re waiting for the next wave of information and for the Locally Preferred Alternative to be determined. We hope the decision will reflect the information gained from spending nearly three years and $2 million dollars studying commuter options to find the best solution for the transit needs in Jackson County. Every major metropolitan region needs a good transit system that is appropriate for the community.

Click to Enlarge

If you are a registered voter in the area designated for the downtown Transportation Development District  (TDD) you can order your ballot to vote to create the district starting today, Monday April 30. This is a mail-in ballot election.

Jackson County Circuit Judge Charles Atwell ruled on Friday that the district would be legal and the proposed financing plan is does not produce an undue burden on property owners. The plan is not unjust or unreasonable.

Request your ballot now!

Applications for a ballot are available as follows:

You will not receive a ballot unless

Changes have been implemented on a few routes, and changes on 21 additional routes will take effect in July.  Additional changes are scheduled for October and next January. See the Implementation Schedule.

Review the Preliminary Schedules.

KCATA asks customers to submit comments or questions on the preliminary schedules no later than April 23, using any of the following methods:

• Online Form: http://www.kcata.org/metro2012
• Mail: KCATA, Planning Dept., 1200 E. 18th St., Kansas City, MO 64108
• Phone: 816‐346‐0300 (leave comment on prerecorded line)
• Email: metro2012@kcata.org

The line will be 2.2 miles long and is estimated to cost $101 million. The City has applied for a $25 million grant from the Federal Government to help fund the project.  The money will be hard to get because the competition for federal dollars is fierce. Over 700 applications amounting to $10.5 billion dollars in requests were made for the $500 million dollars available. Local support and a local funding mechanism make a big difference to the federal process. Downtown property owners and retail customers will be asked to pay the difference between the project cost and the federal contribution through the formation of a Transportation Development District. Financing the streetcar is a huge hurdle for Kansas City citizens and particularly downtown property owners to overcome.

Now is the time for local action.

1. Take part in the public hearing April 17. The judge will hear testimony for and against the creation of the Transportation Development District (TDD). You don’t have to speak at the hearing, but show up for support and to make a big impression. TAN intends to speak in favor of the streetcar project and the formation of the TDD. Businesses and property owners can object to the formation of the TDD if they feel the structure is unfair.  After this hearing it is up to the judge and the voters.

Streetcar TDD Public Hearing

Tuesday, April 17, 2012 @ 1:30pm

Jackson County Courthouse, 12^thand Oak, Kansas City MO

TDD Map - Click To Enlarge

2.  Make sure you are registered to vote, if you live in the Transportation Development District (TDD).  If you aren’t registered – GET REGISTERED!

ONLY REGISTERED VOTERS WILL HAVE A SAY IN WHETHER OR NOT THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IS FORMED AND WHETHER THE STREETCAR LINE IS BUILT.

3.    Follow Streetcar Neighbors on Facebook. Streetcar Neighbors is a group of downtowners dedicated to making the streetcar happen.

If downtown voters create the TDD then there will be an additional election later in the summer to create the necessary funding. The city is actively trying to find alternative funding sources to cover the costs of building and operating the streetcar.

Downtown Streetcar timeline – Downtowners need to register to vote

April 17 – TDD public hearing – BE THERE!

April 18 – TDD judicial hearing

June 5 TDD election (Transportation Development District only)

Summer 2012 – Federal grant winners announced

Fall 2012 – TDD revenue election (Transportation Development District only)

2013-2014- Construction

April 2015 – Operations begins

The plan is the Missouri Department of Transportation’s 20-year strategic framework for passenger and freight rail development in Missouri. Enhancing passenger rail and improving freight rail access are among the top recommendations.

MoDOT wants to know what you think. Join them at this upcoming public meeting.

Date: Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Time: 4:30 to 6:00 p.m., with a presentation at 4:45 p.m

Location: Mid-America Regional Council, Board Room, 600 Broadway St., Kansas City, MO

The meeting site is wheelchair-accessible.

The Invitation includes dates and locations for other open house meetings throughout the state.

For more information about the MSRP visit:

http://www.modot.org/othertransportation/rail/staterailplan.htm

Send online comments to staterailplan@modot.mo.gov

If you can’t attend this meeting, you can participate in the online meeting at www.morail.org April 10 through May 4, 2012.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) suggests the alternatives be evaluated using five primary perspectives (Stakeholder’s packet Nov 2011)

• Effectiveness measures assess the extent to which the alternatives address the stated needs in the corridor.
• Cost-effectiveness measures assess the extent to which the costs of the alternatives, both capital and operating, are commensurate with their anticipated benefits.
• Feasibility measures the financial and technical feasibility of the alternatives. Financial measures assess the extent to which funding for the construction and operation of each alternative is considered to be readily available. Technical feasibility assesses potential engineering challenges or restrictions that could limit the viability of an alternative.
• Impacts assess the extent to which the alternatives could present potential environmental and traffic issues that could be fatal flaws or otherwise influence the selection of a preferred alternative.
• Equity assesses the extent to which an alternative’s costs and benefits are distributed fairly across different population groups

The consultants identified performance on the Common Segment, the section of the alignment where the two corridors come together and share the street or rail line, as a deciding factor in this level of evaluation.

Consultants evaluated the common segment for five items touching on three of the FTA perspectives.

Click To Enlarge

The “Poor” result in the common segment for Full Regional Rail is understandable if you consider the implications of running a large DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) for miles on city streets and through neighborhoods. (See video  Discussion About The Regional Rail Alternative for the JCCCAA)  The DMU has the ability to run on freight lines as well as streets.

Last year TAN identified the Common Segment as the most challenging issue for the Regional Rail alternative. Once the rail leaves segregated rights-of-way and moves onto city streets many problems arise. (See Consultants Face Big Challenge Studying Regional Rapid Rail ).

For these criteria, TSM (Transportation Systems Management), which includes Enhanced Express Buses, and the BRT options look the best. However, there are additional criteria to be evaluated.

Eliminated

Full Regional Rail using a DMU on Truman Road or the Trench Embankment is eliminated.

Additional alternatives eliminated

All Rock Island Corridor Streetcar or BRT combinations with a DMU on the I-70 Corridor – These alternatives all require a forced transfer at the Truman Sports Complex. (See video about all eight combinations  Enhanced Streetcar/DMU/BRT Combinations Are Discussed). This issue affects four of the eight combination alternatives. (See combinations marked in yellow on  JCCCAA Modal Combinations Update March 2012)

Alternative at risk

The Enhanced Streetcar via Truman Road – Although in the common segment analysis the Streetcar via Linwood and the Streetcar via Truman Road look the same, the consultants said additional analysis suggests Linwood is a better choice than Truman Road. In the presentation, only the Linwood alignment is advanced to the next level of analysis at this point. (See combination marked in blue on JCCCAA Modal Combinations Update March 2012)

See Consultants JCCC AA March 2012 SAP Presentation. TSM including Enhanced Express Buses is included in the alternatives advancing for further evaluation although it isn’t listed on Slide 14.

Another Version of Rail Under Consideration

Since all of the original commuter rail alternatives using a DMU have been eliminated, another version of commuter rail that doesn’t use city streets or transfer at the Sports Complex is being re-considered.

In Tier One of the study the consultants looked at an alternative that kept the DMU on rail lines and went through the rail yard in the Northern Industrial District by the Missouri River before heading up to the River Market to Third St. and Grand Avenue.

This alternative was initially screened out in the Tier One screening because:

• “This alignment has limited opportunity for stations, operates in a highly industrial area and constrained railroad environment. It is not as conducive to satisfying the project’s Purpose and Need as other options. “ (Stakeholder’s packet Nov 2011)

In 2007 this alignment, which goes through the Knoche rail yard, was studied for the I-70 corridor and rejected in the near term for commuter rail. Since then, significant changes have been made to that yard making it unsuitable for commuter rail. However, the Neff rail yard, which is slightly south of the Knoche rail yard, is being investigated for feasibility. If the consultants decide this alternative has potential they will add it for a Tier Two level analysis.

In this scenario, the rail alignment would stay on the Rock Island and KCS lines and come together in the vicinity of Rock Creek Junction, east of the rail yard. There are considerable challenges for this alignment including getting through the rail junction and the rail yard.

After discussions with both the consultant and MARC, here is the current situation:

Alternatives Eliminated

• DMU using Trench or Trench Embankment
• DMU on Truman Road (Full Regional Rail)
• Alternatives that force a transfer outside of CBD (Central Business District

Alternative with significant challenges

• Enhanced Streetcar via Truman Road

Alternatives advancing for further evaluation

• TSM, including Enhanced Express Bus
• Enhanced Streetcar via Linwood
• BRT
• Modal Combinations

Alternative receiving renewed consideration

• DMU to River Market via rail yard (KCS and Rock Island)

Alternatives that are advanced in the study will go through further analysis such as ridership numbers, financial feasibility, constructability and economic development potential. Although everyone is impatient to get concrete numbers to compare alternatives, a study of this size would normally take a couple of years to complete and this study is being squeezed into a very short time frame. The consultants were only chosen in April of last year.

Project leader Shawn Dikes said Parsons Brinckerhoff is working to create a complete transit package, which would consist of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) from this study as well as improved transit service to support the LPA. TAN feels it is extremely important to construct a complete transit package to take to the voters.

Besides the study update at the Stakeholders Advisory Panel meeting, there was a short talk by former Congressman Martin Frost about the Transportation Bill being debated in Congress.  He believes the final version will be similar to previous transportation bills, although the House Speaker is having a hard time getting his party to agree to a version that can pass the House. Michael Zuhl, a consultant with R&R Partners, gave a short talk about the transit education campaign for Jackson County.

The consultant team is pulling out all the stops to find the best alternative for commuters in Jackson County. They are trying multiple combinations of vehicles and lots of alternative alignments. Jackson County should feel comfortable that the process is working well and it should be happy to go to the voters with the Locally Preferred Alternative resulting from this study.

Proposed schedule

The Project Team met March 23 and County Executive Mike Sanders and Mayor Sly James went to Washington, D.C. to meet with officials about the transit initiatives underway. This level of cooperation and coordinated transit effort is unprecedented in our region.

Mid-April Stakeholder Advisory Panel

Late April – Public Workshop

4/27 Project Partnership Team meeting

5/25 Project Partnership Team Meeting

May/June – Public Workshop

Summer – Announcement of LPA