Seriously... When Will We Get a Light Rail? (Kansas City, Lee's Summit: 2014, credit)

[jaxontwinz]

When? Soon? Never? When will it be KC? We need to figure this out now. We have been studying for well over a decade, had almost 10 plans. So when do you think we should get it and when do you think it will actually happen? Kansas City would just be an easier flowing city with a light rail and we would see even more development downtown and throughout the core. At least from the Plaza to River Market. No?

[dusky_beauty]

Originally Posted by jaxontwinz

When? Soon? Never? When will it be KC? We need to figure this out now. We have been studying for well over a decade, had almost 10 plans. So when do you think we should get it and when do you think it will actually happen? Kansas City would just be an easier flowing city with a light rail and we would see even more development downtown and throughout the core. At least from the Plaza to River Market. No?

The responsible parties were frightened off the idea because of what happened in the Simpsons Monorail episode.

‪The Simpsons Monorail song (High Quality)‬‏ - YouTube

[xenokc]

Please search the forum before creating yet another thread...
Touring KC's urban core on the MAX and 51 bus lines


And you are asking the wrong question. The right question is how do we develop effective transit. You are making an assumption that LRT is needed without asking about effectiveness. There are many other modes. Most people who bring up LRT in KC are more concerned about image than effectiveness.

LRT is ridiculously expensive to install and maintain compared to other options. Makes much more sense to do BRT (more MAX lines) down every corridor in the urban core instead of just one LRT line. Some cities that have done LRT (like STL) had to reduce bus service given LRT maintenance costs. STL has shrunk and the downtown workforce is the same if not less than downtown KC. LRT is not often the solution to effective transit or economic development.

Commuter rail on existing freight lines is the path KC should take from the burbs into the city but that has its own challenges as existing freight traffic is heavy and the rails have to be upgraded to passenger grade. I also wouldn't count on JoCo pursuing this as they probably don't want to send workers to downtown KCMO given the poaching they've been doing. Lee's Summit/Indy to downtown is something that should be strongly pursued and then it could kickstart other interest once its going. There is also a freight line that goes along the river up N near the airport but I don't see an extension until long after a Lee's Summit line shows success and KC grows quite a bit more.

There is a 'plan' now for a downtown streetcar but it's just yet another study. I'd assume just do it to appease the image conscious people.

[Collins79]

Originally Posted by xenokc

Please search the forum before creating yet another thread...
Touring KC's urban core on the MAX and 51 bus lines


And you are asking the wrong question. The right question is how do we develop effective transit. You are making an assumption that LRT is needed without asking about effectiveness. There are many other modes. Most people who bring up LRT in KC are more concerned about image than effectiveness.

LRT is ridiculously expensive to install and maintain compared to other options. Makes much more sense to do BRT (more MAX lines) down every corridor in the urban core instead of just one LRT line. Some cities that have done LRT (like STL) had to reduce bus service given LRT maintenance costs. STL has shrunk and the downtown workforce is the same if not less than downtown KC. LRT is not often the solution to effective transit or economic development.

Commuter rail on existing freight lines is the path KC should take from the burbs into the city but that has its own challenges as existing freight traffic is heavy and the rails have to be upgraded to passenger grade. I also wouldn't count on JoCo pursuing this as they probably don't want to send workers to downtown KCMO given the poaching they've been doing. Lee's Summit/Indy to downtown is something that should be strongly pursued and then it could kickstart other interest once its going. There is also a freight line that goes along the river up N near the airport but I don't see an extension until long after a Lee's Summit line shows success and KC grows quite a bit more.

There is a 'plan' now for a downtown streetcar but it's just yet another study. I'd assume just do it to appease the image conscious people.

The difference is that the light rail in STL goes to the inner ring suburb of Clayton which is a large business/entertainment district. Alot of people who live downtown or midtown use the light rail to commute to their jobs in Clayton and vice versa, while KC only has 1 main business district. The need for light rail in KC is just not there due to the city being so spread out. In STL people can take the train to go to cards, blues, and rams games because the stadiums are downtown. Also, the airport is very centrally located unlike KC so the rail gets used that way as well. I think the downtown street car in KC makes more sense. Maybe have it go to the plaza or something.

[xenokc]

yeah, didn't want to say that stl's lrt isn't functional, just that it is so expensive to operate that they had to reduce other bus service. and stl lrt didn't exactly result in positive economic development as both the city/county shrunk. stl added a lot of downtown housing but so did kc so lrt wasn't the difference.

like kc's brt, it works well if you live/work/play along it. the difference is that kc could put a brt line down every main corridor through the urban core for the price/operating cost of a single lrt line. serves many more people and you don't have to reduce feeder bus service like stl had to do. the net effectiveness is that a higher percent of the area is served.

an advantage stl had when first building, there was an unused freight rail line. all of kc's freight lines are heavily used, and there isn't a line that goes through the main plaza/downtown corridor.

btw, kc's brt lines go to inner ring burbs too.. brookside/waldo/university areas down to 95th. the kck line will be coming next from downtown kcmo to far flung western kck.

[xenokc]

KC's MAX BRT Lines... There are 3 and more will be coming...


Main St line (orange line), about 7 miles
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1238514/pics/bus/maxmwk.gif

Troost line (green line), about 12-14 miles
http://www.kcata.org/images/uploads/MAXTroostMap.pdf

KCK line opening next year or so, over 10 miles
http://www.kcata.org/images/uploads/StateTransit.jpg

[kcmo]

xenoke, you are giving the kc max too much credit. If KC had real BRT lines then sure, but all max has done is slightly improve bus service on two busy urban corridors of the city bringing them up to what a standard urban core city bus line should be anyway.

The KCK line looks like it's going to be even less of a true BRT than the existing max lines.

KC's max is fine, but it's a far cry from what the city could really use and I think you would have seen a LOT more spinoff off development created along the MAX route had it been something other than a handful of dressed up bus shelters. I'm not sure max has created any TOD along the route or even any proposals or ideas.

KC needs something between the river market and brookside, be it real brt, modern high capacity streetcar or light rail.

StL has a terrible bus system and the first line of the LRT system didn’t go to Clayton. Few people use light rail at airports other than employees working at the airport and StL is no exception.

The StL system has done so well because it was one of the first light rail systems to run in a dedicated right of way giving it the advantages of heavy rail at a light rail cost. Much of that right of way existed, including the downtown subway tunnels and the government matched the value of that existing right of way (treated it as local money invested) to help build the system for cheap.

The StL metro gets very high ridership also because it's very popular for fans of all three sports venues that are right ton the line downtown.

KC doesn’t have that and that’s why I think the best route for a kc rail line is from South KC to Downtown and then out east along 70 to the eastern Jackson county suburbs where it would also serve the stadiums as well a major populated commuter corridor in addition to the entire central urban corridor of KCMO and all in once county for easy funding. But the city (metro area planners) are stuck on going to low densely, lightly populated areas like KCI Airport and Village West in KCK, neither of which would barley support a mini bus running every 30 minutes.

[xenokc]

Doesn't change the bottom line though. KC is far better off with several BRT lines (and improving existing ones) along major corridors rather than a single LRT line. Commuter rail would be more cost effective than LRT too, though has its own challenges. The core message I have still doesn't change. You say I'm giving BRT too much credit but have offered no realistic better solution. If you are going to knock it, then at least come up with something better (that doesn't harm bus service for the rest of core).

LRT simply won't improve the effectiveness - it would be worse because it's unlikely KC could have 5 LRT lines in parallel across the KC core. This can be done with BRT (5 lines) for the same long term cost as 1 LRT line. In addition, when KC did the study they could only have LRT runs every 15 minutes peak as it costs more to run. MAX runs every 10 minutes peak and even 5 minutes at times when events are going on or buses are full. Is easier to add runs dynamically as needed.

They have also recently improved the MAX run times from Plaza to downtown from something like 24 to 18 minutes. I don't think LRT would be any different, at least in the core.

So are you saying KC should do LRT over BRT in the core? I'd be interested to hear how it would provide better service to the entire core. TOD spinoff is nice but downtown/midtown development has been the same or better than STL in last 10 years even though STL has LRT. LRT hasn't really help STL grow eco development any more than KC w/out it. Both cities already have concentrated pedestrian active areas along the main transit lines. Is highly unlikely if the Main St MAX line were converted to LRT, a new ped center would pop up specifically due to LRT.

My point about STL is that it works if you live/work/play along it but because it is so expensive to run they had to raise taxes and even afterwards, reduce bus service. I'd rather KC not do that and have broader effective service that serves the entire core.

When you say what a city should use, you are apparently saying BRT should never be used anywhere and LRT should, not about what is best for each city. For KC, BRT makes more sense instead of LRT in the core and eventually commuter rail on freight lines from the burbs. In STL, LRT worked because of the empty rail lines (to start with) but overall city bus service suffered in the end.

So what would you do differently and how would it be better than what I propose? I do agree that BRT could be better implemented, and they are indeed making small incremental improvements. Off board ticket vending machines are probably coming next at the busier stops.

[xenokc]

Here is the Pleasant Hill/Lee's Summit/Indy to downtown commuter line study.

http://www.marc.org/transportation/c...ssessment4.pdf

Would cost $140M to upgrade/build stations along 35 miles and $6M/year operating costs. Quite a bit less than LRT. Granted, intra and inter city transit is different as there are typically more intra-city stations.

Commuter rail in KC nevertheless should be strongly pursued. It would push to improve transit within the core, which I think should be to improve BRT and more lines in the city core - not LRT, which would hurt other/feeder bus service as happened in STL. If successful, it would encourage other suburbs to pursue commuter rail on existing freight lines.

This is to me KC's most realistic path to improving transit. Commuter rail operating costs are shared with freight rail. Inner city BRT operating costs are shared with existing road infrastructure. No need for dedicated transit paths in KC. At worst maybe until KC metro grows to 2.8 to 3M or so or if the city core pop triples, there would be a true need for dedicated transit paths.

[xenokc]

Here's an Odessa to downtown KC line - commuter rail on existing freight lines...
http://www.marc.org/transportation/c...ssessment3.pdf

41 miles, $133M build, $6M annual operating cost.

Not sure how old the study. Even if double now, still very low.