Kansas City transit meetings held amid potential route cuts
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The Kansas City Area Transportation Authority will discuss possible service changes during a meeting Thursday.
Service reductions may be necessary due to growing expenses and a lack of funding. KCUR first reported about the possible cuts and financial challenges on Wednesday, citing documents it obtained.
Transit leaders discuss World Cup transportation plans
According to the president of KCATA, despite financial difficulties, the organization's mission is still to support and organize transportation for regular bus passengers.
The KCATA operates as many as 78 bus routes in seven counties on both sides of the state line. However, 150 union workers and up to 15 of those routes might be included in some upcoming budget cuts.
The KCATA president claims that the organization is experiencing financial difficulties during this transitional period. The proposed service cuts that will be discussed at their public meetings are the consequence of rising public transportation costs in the years following the COVID-19 pandemic and the exhaustion of federal pandemic insurance.
Local nonprofit still waiting for answers on federal grant money
The Cares Act provided funding for the few years that bus service was free for passengers, but that funding is beginning to run out.
The in-person meeting is Thursday from 5 to 7 p.m. at the East Village Transit Center. If you can't make the in-person meeting, there is a virtual meeting on Friday from noon to 1 p.m.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Robby's Radar: Elon Musk should join the Libertarian Party
I have an idea for Elon Musk: join the Libertarian Party! Actually, don't just join it — take it over! Let me explain. Musk and President Trump seem to have entered some kind of détente following their big blowup last week. The world's richest man is no longer tweeting constantly about Trump being on the Epstein client list, or about how he feels betrayed over the big beautiful bill, which will massively increase the deficit despite Republican promises to finally cut government spending. In fact, he's spent the last several days tweeting about the Los Angeles riots and the importance of emerging AI technology. Trump, for his part, is refusing to engage Elon with particular hostility. Trump recently told reporters that he would be keeping the Tesla he bought from Musk, that he would continue using Starlink, Musk's internet service, and that he wished Elon well. I try not to make political predictions, but it actually would not surprise me in the least if Trump and Elon makeup — or at the very least, if the Republican Party maintains a friendly enough connection to Elon so that the tech billionaire remains a financial backer of, say, Vice President JD Vance when he inevitably runs for president. But here's an alternative idea I'd like to plan in Musk's head, as he is currently party shopping. As a Libertarian Party member, and voter, I would be thrilled to welcome Elon into the party — and I suspect I wouldn't be alone. After all, the Libertarian Party is a natural fit for Elon, whose politics mostly seem to align with Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, the two most libertarian members of Congress in the Republican Party. Elon wants low taxes, lower spending, low regulation, and thinks the federal government's priorities should reflect that: Cut the deficit first, get our fiscal house in order, and worry about the other stuff later. He also wants government regulations to be friendly to technological growth, is particularly motivated to prevent censorship on social media, and thinks the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic was authoritarian. These are all textbook libertarian issues. What's more, the current trajectory of the Libertarian Party makes it ideal for some new leadership. For years, the party has been the nation's third or fourth largest, alongside the Green Party. In the 2016 election, Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson received 4.5 million votes and about 3 percent of the national vote, a record at the time. In 2020, the Libertarian nominee received about 1 percent of the national vote. In both of those elections, it finished ahead of the Green Party. Behind the scenes, however, the party has gone through something for a transformation over the last two cycles. Johnson, the 2016 nominee, was perceived by some within the Libertarian Party as too liberal and mainstream — not based enough to attract contrarians and dissidents to the party. In response, a faction calling itself the Mises Caucus formed and attempted to take control of the party. In 2022, they succeeded. Their strategy was podcast-focused: Find people who listen to Joe Rogan and like-minded independent thinkers and draw them to the Libertarian Party. The strategy had a certain amount of merit. The party ended up flirting with Robert F Kennedy Jr., and found itself having significant audience overlap with him. But eventually, Kennedy made a quasi-endorsement of Trump and essentially withdrew from the presidential race. Meanwhile, at the Libertarian National Convention, delegates bucked the Mises Caucus and picked their least preferred candidate, Chase Oliver. In response, the Mises Caucus leadership barely tolerated the Libertarian candidate, hindering his campaign in numerous ways. The party's chairwoman, Angela McArdle, the highest-ranking Mises Caucus official, subsequently resigned from the party. The new chair is not a member of this faction and is trying to chart a more neutral course and reunite the party, though the Mises Caucus has vowed to retake control. So that's where we are now: The Libertarian Party could use some new people, some new leadership, and probably a new infusion of cash. If Elon Musk really wants to make Republicans sorry that they failed to live up to his expectations and cut government spending — but quite rationally believes that Democrats will never ever, ever do better — he might find he has the most in common with the ticket that gets my vote every year. Robbie Soave is co-host of The Hill's commentary show 'Rising' and a senior editor for Reason Magazine. This column is an edited transcription of his daily commentary. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Moving Whitecaps from Vancouver would be ‘a crime': FIFA vice president
VANCOUVER - A vice president of soccer's global governing body says moving the Vancouver Whitecaps would be 'a crime' and negatively impact the city's reputation after it hosts games at next year's World Cup. FIFA vice president Victor Montagliani spoke at a Vancouver Board of Trade event Tuesday, telling the crowd that relocating the Major League Soccer club would suggest to the world that the city simply wanted to host a party and isn't actually serious about the sport. 'You don't want to come out of the World Cup and your professional football club is playing in Sacramento,' said Montagliani, who is also the president of CONCACAF, soccer's governing body in North and Central America and the Caribbean. 'That would be a bruise on the city.' The Whitecaps announced in December that the current ownership group — Greg Kerfoot, Steve Luczo, Jeff Mallett and former NBA star Steve Nash — had put the team up for sale. Speculation has since been rife that an out-of-town buyer will purchase the club and move it out of Vancouver. In April, the Whitecaps revealed that they are in talks with the City of Vancouver about building a new, soccer-specific stadium in the city. Club chief executive officer Axel Schuster said at the time that those plans are intrinsically tied to the sale of the team. 'We are only working on one plan, one goal, and this is to keep the club in Vancouver and to find a very good setup for the future for this club in Vancouver,' he said. 'And part of all of this is to look in every possible option that might be needed to do this successfully.' Keeping the Whitecaps in Vancouver is key to continuing the city's love and support for soccer, Montagliani said on Tuesday. 'It is going to be a party — trust me. But it can't just be about a party,' he said. 'It's got to be about the youth. It's got to be about the game itself. And it's got to be about the continuation of the game.' He noted that Canada had to create its own league, the Canadian Premier League, in order to be eligible to bid for the 2026 World Cup. Losing one of the country's biggest teams would be a step backward, he said. 'To lose an MLS club on the back of the World Cup would be a capital crime, in my opinion,' he said. Montagliani is in his hometown of Vancouver to mark the one-year countdown to the tournament's kick off on June 11, 2026, when the first games will be played in Mexico City and Guadalajara. The final is set for July 19 at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. Vancouver and Toronto are among 16 host cities across Canada, the United States and Mexico. Vancouver will host seven matches across the tournament, starting on June 13, 2026, including five in the opening round, one in the round of 32 and one in the round of 16. Organizers in B.C. said in April 2024 that it will cost between $483 million and $581 million for Vancouver to host the tournament. That number includes costs to the city, the province and upgrades to B.C. Place. Renovations are currently underway at the 54,500-seat stadium, including new and upgraded suites, more and larger elevators, gender-neutral bathrooms, improved Wi-Fi and a new central video board. A natural grass pitch will also be installed. The B.C. government has said it expects the World Cup will generate enough revenue to result in a net cost of between $100 million and $145 million. Vancouver and Canada as a whole have a unique chance to create something special with the World Cup, Montagliani said. 'For me, it's an opportunity of a lifetime for Canada,' he said. 'Maybe this has done us a favour, in terms of what's going on (with U.S.-Canada relations), in terms of our Canadiana. I really think it's an opportunity for us to take a global game and make it ours.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 10, 2025.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Mayor Adams' ‘emergency' spending is out of control — now NYC must hit the brakes
New Yorkers, like all Americans, tend to stock up when any crisis is about to hit: We fill up our gas tanks, empty the bread and egg shelves at grocery stores and buy enough toilet paper to last for months. It's human nature — and for far too long, New York City's government has been behaving the very same way. But City Hall's panic reaction is far worse, and does far more damage. Advertisement In recent emergencies, like the COVID-19 pandemic and the asylum-seeker influx, city government kept on 'crisis buying' for more than a year, without ever comparing prices or rooting out contractor abuse, fraud and waste. It's time for drastic change: We must reform the city's out-of-control emergency procurement practices and add vital checks and balances. Currently, when the mayor declares a state of emergency, the city's comptroller and corporation counsel suspend their ordinary oversight regarding contracts and procurement. Advertisement In theory, this allows City Hall to respond quickly and obtain necessary goods and services to alleviate the crisis. In practice, it means the city can award no-bid contracts for up to one year — contracts that, having bypassed the competitive bidding that's normally required, can be rife with waste and abuse. Imagine purchasing a car or searching for your next apartment without competitively price-shopping for those big-ticket items. That's what City Hall does whenever the mayor declares an emergency. City agencies aren't even required to send 'emergency' contracts to the comptroller for auditing before laying out taxpayer cash. In fact, 84% of such contracts filed between January 2022 and September 2023 were submitted more than 31 days after the contract start date. Advertisement Both Mayor Eric Adams and former Mayor Bill de Blasio spent billions of dollars on the asylum-seeker and COVID crises, respectively, drawing multiple allegations of corruption and pay-to-play politics. This uncontrolled spending was especially acute during the pandemic, as de Blasio extended 'emergency' contracts a whopping 100-plus times and spent nearly $7 billion on emergency supplies with no oversight or limiting guardrails. In the private sector, affordability is a prime factor when choosing bids on contracts. The city's emergency procurement process throws such considerations to the wind, leading to reckless overspending. During COVID, City Hall paid top dollar for ventilators and N95 masks it never received — and in one case, paid an absurd $7.50 apiece for cloth masks. Advertisement Its fire sale of nearly $224 million worth of COVID-era surplus items, from ventilators to face shields, only recouped $500,000, a downright outrage. The current administration is no better, awarding a $432 million emergency contract for asylum-seeker services to an untested company called DocGo. Its dreadful performance — with problems like chronic food waste, moldy hotel rooms, unlicensed security guards and an uncredentialed CEO who was forced to resign — resulted in an investigation by the state attorney general. Even in non-emergency circumstances, the city has never reined in city contractors who utilize loopholes to enrich themselves. Take the company owned by David Levitan, listed as one of New York City's worst landlords. For over a quarter century, the city has repeatedly used Levitan's properties as homeless shelters — buildings with rotted floors, broken elevators, rat infestations and peeling lead paint. Levitan has even required some of the nonprofits operating shelters within his buildings to subcontract with his own maintenance or extermination companies to service the properties — reaping even more revenue from our tax dollars. It's time for reform, top to bottom. Advertisement Emergencies, by their very definition, are short in duration. Accordingly, they should necessitate a strictly time-limited use of no-bid contracts, for instances when competitive bidding will truly hinder the city's response. That's why I am introducing two bills in the New York City Council this week to update our lackadaisical, irresponsible procurement processes. These bills will limit all emergency contracts to 30 days, unless both the comptroller and corporation counsel approve of an extension. If passed, the laws will require all contracts be sent to the comptroller for auditing within 15 days of signing, and will increase subcontractor transparency with fines of up to $100,000 for not disclosing to the city any conflicts of interest or competing contractual obligations. Advertisement New York's broken contracting system has price-gouged our taxpayers for far too long — and recent mayoral administrations have shown no appetite to follow good-government procurement practices. It's up to the City Council to advance this vital legislation, saving precious fiscal resources, restoring responsibility and rooting out corruption. City Council Member Julie Menin (D) represents the East Side of Manhattan and chairs the Consumer and Worker Protection Committee.
