Light rail in Wichita (Topeka, Andover: taxi, live in, buses)

[vb_guy]

I want to know the opinion of the people in Kansas as to the future of light rail service in Wichita. I've been looking at the amount of abandoned rail lines in this city, and I think we could implement a light rail system for fairly cheap. This would really come in handy with the opening of the Intrust Bank Arena, and with the mess that is our current Wichita Transit system (the bus system is a joke, to say the least). I also think that an overhaul of the transit system in Wichita could help revamp our struggling downtown.

Kansans, REACT!! Do you agree with me? No?

[pioneer88]

I think that it would be a great idea! I guess the main reason people would be against it is because for the most part Wichita is easy to get around in. However, public transportation needs to be pushed more to the forefront. I'd love to see it, I could definately see it helping downtown as well as addressing parking concerns for the arena and future events.

[Joe 4520832257]

I'm not a Kansan, but I saw your post on one of the main pages, so I felt like responding.

From a purely technical standpoint, I agree that the layout of Wichita's train lines are an absolute jewel. It's a tremendous asset that could easily be turned into an effective transit system. It's amazing to go on googleearth and see how many intact lines still radiate from Wichita's downtown.

For a variety of reasons, I would suggest that Commuter Rail is a better option than Light Rail. In a nutshell, commuter rail can be extremely cheap if negotiated properly. I think parts of New Mexico's and Nashville's commuter rails were built for between $2-$10 million per mile!! That's much cheaper than light rail, or highways. Commuter rail is also effective for surburban populations. People in the 'burbs can drive their cars 1 or 2 miles to the parking lot, and then take the train into town and not have to worry about finding (or paying) for parking.

[athfo]

I, too, would love to see this, in addition to increasing the efficiency of mass transit in the city all-around.

[KevK]

You have got to be kidding! I am ROTFL!! A rail system in Wichita? What next... a subway in Topeka? Ha ha ha!! The reason Wichita does not have much in the way of transit is because 99% of the people that live there own a vehicle and because the density of people per square mile is very low.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by Joe 4520832257

I'm not a Kansan, but I saw your post on one of the main pages, so I felt like responding.

From a purely technical standpoint, I agree that the layout of Wichita's train lines are an absolute jewel. It's a tremendous asset that could easily be turned into an effective transit system. It's amazing to go on googleearth and see how many intact lines still radiate from Wichita's downtown.

For a variety of reasons, I would suggest that Commuter Rail is a better option than Light Rail. In a nutshell, commuter rail can be extremely cheap if negotiated properly. I think parts of New Mexico's and Nashville's commuter rails were built for between $2-$10 million per mile!! That's much cheaper than light rail, or highways. Commuter rail is also effective for surburban populations. People in the 'burbs can drive their cars 1 or 2 miles to the parking lot, and then take the train into town and not have to worry about finding (or paying) for parking.

I live in a metro area with over 5 million people in it and we DON'T have commuter rail here. We have suburban buses and a city subway and bus system. So how could a city with 1/10th the population and a density among the lowest in the country justify such a thing?

[Joe 4520832257]

According to internet sources, Wichita's density is about 2,000 per square mile. That's reasonable for commuter rail. So is the 500,000+ metro population. Even a cursory internet search will reveal hundreds upon hundreds of smaller cities in the world with rail transit.

There's no particular reason that Atlanta, Wichita, or any other American city couldn't theoretically support one form of rail transit or another. The only reason we don't all have rail already is because the Federal government made the choice to fund highways instead. So spare us the circular logic that X city is too small, or that Americans love cars too much.

Look at any recent projects, whether commuter rail, streetcars, or light rail. From Charlotte to Phoenix to New Mexico to Nashville - rail works extremely well in America. Even in low density sunbelt cities.

I can understand why someone in Atlanta might have knee-jerk skepticism against rail. But keep in mind that Atlanta is essentially a world-famous case study in failed infrastructure planning. So that's hardly a fair comparison.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by Joe 4520832257

According to internet sources, Wichita's density is about 2,000 per square mile. That's reasonable for commuter rail. So is the 500,000+ metro population. Even a cursory internet search will reveal hundreds upon hundreds of smaller cities in the world with rail transit.

There's no particular reason that Atlanta, Wichita, or any other American city couldn't theoretically support one form of rail transit or another. The only reason we don't all have rail already is because the Federal government made the choice to fund highways instead. So spare us the circular logic that X city is too small, or that Americans love cars too much.

Look at any recent projects, whether commuter rail, streetcars, or light rail. From Charlotte to Phoenix to New Mexico to Nashville - rail works extremely well in America. Even in low density sunbelt cities.

I can understand why someone in Atlanta might have knee-jerk skepticism against rail. But keep in mind that Atlanta is essentially a world-famous case study in failed infrastructure planning. So that's hardly a fair comparison.

I am not against rail for places where it makes sense- like Atlanta. We have a population density of over 4000 people per sq mile here and, until the Great Recession hit, we were adding about 200,000 new people a year. Our freeways are clogged with traffic night and day and the average commute time is probably an hour or longer. A few years ago they started C-Tran from Gwinnett to Atlanta and the busses are packed morning, noon and night by people who just want to escape a nightmare commute and happily pay the $2.50 each way to relax in the HOV lane. We need rail badly here.
On the other hand, Wichita is a city that has no traffic issues, plenty of free or very cheap parking eveerywhere and where everybody but poor people and minors drives a car. The average commute in Wichita is probably 20 minutes from the furthest point out. I can get from Mulvane to Park City in that amount of time anytime of the day unless there is a wreck or bad weather. Nobody but poor people would use such a service there and it would be far cheaper and more efficient to move poor people around with bus service or even point to point taxi service.

[kcmo]

Light Rail could work in Wichita. Just run it from Downtown to the airport via Kellog. That's a pretty nice dense corridor and would hit most of Wichita's attractions.

You don't have to be a huge city to have a light rail line. Jersey City, Tacoma, Camden, Buffalo etc.

Wichita does not have the commuters or traffic congestion to warrant commuter rail though. Commuter rail does not encourage urban development, it encourages suburban sprawl.

A smaller light rail line would be ok. Omaha is another town where Light Rail would do well.

[vb_guy]

Yeah, I agree with the commuter rail. It doesn't take that long to drive into Wichita.

Hey Kev, there are places that are smaller than Wichita that are implementing the light rail. Keep in mind that we're not talking about having people ride the train into Wichita from places like Mulvane (where I'm originally from), Andover, or Goddard. This would be strictly a city thing, pulling people from Wichita State to the Airport, for example.

With the parking issues surrounding the arena (which is a different debate than this), I think it's time to blow up the current transit system and start over. It's a disaster, to say the least.