Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll throw out my two-cents, and then I'd like to hear from you all who either a) live in Kansas City b) live in the surrounding area c) are from the area and have moved away or d) live in cities with similar transit systems now.
Keep in mind that I'm a young professional in my mid-twenties who currently rents. I don't really ever want to move out of the city proper, even when my girlfriend/roommate and I decide to buy a house/have kids, so the possible extensive streetcar network seems awesome to me, and I truly hope it works out. In my opinion, I see the starter route of the streetcar as a great start (New downtown streetcar carries hopes for development - KansasCity.com). I also see what is being proposed for the future as nothing but a good thing for the city in the long run. Again, I'm a young professional who doesn't own property and the majority of my income goes to rent/social life, as of right now, so my opinion of the taxes that would come with this transit system are probably skewed. However, I do see all the rants on social media about money and corruption (Kansas City planning a hefty sales-tax-increase election to fund streetcar expansion | The Fast Pitch | The Pitch), and to me, that all just seems very narrow sighted. Now, I ride the MAX bus every weekend to run errands, meet up with friends, etc. So I do understand why people say the streetcar is just a "sexier" transit system for people with a negative view of the buses here when I believe the MAX is very efficient. I remember an article a while back that I can't find the link for that said, in other cities the rail/streetcar transit actually aids in the bus transit as well, so I see that as another positive of this streetcar system.
This has already gone on too long, so I apologize for that, and I'm sure I'll have more comments/questions as the discussion gets going, but I just want to hear from you all. What is your opinion on the possible streetcar? Feel free to dumb down the economics of it for me as well.
I have lived in KC and been involved in transit planning there since I was in high school. To this day I still have the metro bus system pretty well memorized as I grew up using it there (entire system) and used it till I moved away. I have ridden most systems around the country from historic/modern street cars, light rail, commuter rail, subway, monorail, BRT, everything.
And DC/Baltimore area has light rail, heavy rail, extensive local and commuter bus systems and modern streetcars under construction.
First off, I’m not for sure, but I think you may be a bit confused on the difference between a streetcar and light rail. Mainly because very few cities have modern streetcar systems. Actually only one city has an extensive modern streetcar system and that is Portland, OR. Portland also has light rail. I think the only other city that has opened a "modern" system is Tucson. DC will open their starter line this year and many other cities are building them now too including a short one near the loop in St Louis, not sure of the status on that one.
So, when KC’s line opens, the city will be among a handful of new very short starter streetcar lines that will open in the next year or two but other than Portland, there is not a lot of existing systems to look at in the US and Portland MAX light rail has far more ridership than their streetcars. I do think the streetcars there have helped promote urban development though.
While, I believe the KC’s tracks are going to be designed to accommodate heavier light-rail vehicles if needed in the future, I don’t know that for sure. In general street cars are for very short rides, they are slow and about the size of an articulated bus. So I’m a bit perplexed that KC would use a streetcar as a spine of a more regional system (even if regional means central urban core only). But having the ability to some day upgrade the Main St line to a full blown light rail line would be a major plus and make it okay in my opinion. You see, streetcars just won’t move that many people very fast. It would actually be faster to take a bus in most cases and a streetcar would fail trying to accommodate large crowds like events at the sprint center.
Having said all that, I think KC is absolutely going in the right direction, so long as it’s possible to run light rail vehicles in the future without a total rebuild of the infrastructure. Why? Because KC needs to start small and demonstrate to the public that any form of transit is even needed or wanted in the city first. The only way the city is ever going to get something started is by going with something inexpensive because the city will never get a city wide vote for a more comprehensive system till something is in the ground.
The streetcars will have to have complimenting regional transit for them to get the ridership they will need to make KC a transit oriented city rather than just a city with expensive trolleys draining the budget.
Sure local urban residents will ride the streetcars, but they still need more than that. The best way to do this is to build out the Sanders proposal of commuter rail and using DMU trains. DMU trains are a cross between light rail like you see in St Louis or Denver and Heavy Commuter Rail like Metra in Chicago or MARC in DC. The trains start at far flung park and rides with long distances between stops etc, but once in the city, they run in dedicated rights of way on city streets with frequent stops, much like light rail. Austin has a DMU system, so you can look at theirs for ideas, although it has had some problems that KC could avoid (off topic).
Anyway, if you have trains coming into the city from Blue Springs, Independence, Lee’s Summit etc and you are using DMU trains so that the trains can function more like light rail trains and offer 30 minute or even 15 minute service during non peak hours, then those trains could serve commuters and east side residents as well as the stadiums etc and pump riders into the central city streetcars.
This should all be funded with a single Jackson county only tax. Jackson County has a large population and very low sales tax. A county wide tax could easily fund central city streetcars and regional DMU trains running mostly on existing rail right of way. Polls have already shown that there is huge support in the suburban areas and even the city for a system like the Sanders proposal. The problem with trying to fund little parts of the system at a time with separate taxes is you end up with areas with excessively high sales taxes and a smaller system.
The County and the city of KCMO (Jackson County only portion) should try to get on the same page here and truly build a comprehensive system of commuter rail, local rail and better bus routes (like more max lines) that all complement each other and will add something to the quality of life to people all across the county. Going the streetcar/DMU route would build out a massive and very efficient system for about 2 billion when it would cost 10 billion to try to do the same thing with light rail. Do not try to get Clay or Platte involved yet and don't even try to get the KS side involved yet. Trying to involve other counties is a main reason KC has not been able to accomplish any sort of major transit improvements over the past 20-30 years. Other metro area counties could join Jackson County's system later. There is really only two other areas where major transit investment even makes since. Central KCK and Johnson County. The rest of the metro, including the Northland simply does not have the density to support rail transit. Maybe a streetcar to NKC, but that's one expensive bridge for such a connection. Everybody "thinks" KC needs rail transit to KCI and the Legends. Both would be total disasters. Nowhere near enough density, population or potential ridership to sustain either one one of those 15-20 mile routes (however, there should be MAX or Commuter bus routes to both).
Still, KC is going in the right direction. Step one, build something. This is long overdue for central KCMO. Always vote yes on these things to at least voice your support of the idea of better transit.
Light rail rarely turns a profit (or is even self-sustaining) and cannot be scaled to meet demand like buses can. If the passenger volume/demand is not there, with light rail the infrastructure expenditures are a sunk cost not easily liquidated. I am not sure why not just expanding the MAX wouldn't be more efficient and cost-effective. Perhaps the streetcars are a hybrid of buses and LRT - hopefully it proves to be a wise financial decision.
Building stuff just for the sake of claiming we have it seems like an inefficient use of funds. The goal should be to maximize utility per dollar spent, and not worry about building signature items that don't get utilized widely throughout the metro.
KC is not building a light rail system. At least know the technology you are talking about.
I don't know if a single transit system of any type in any city that "turns of profit" there may be some that will break even from operating expenses only, but even those I doubt it.
Does I-435 and I-470 in KC "turn a profit"? Bad argument.
LRT is expensive and I was only mentioning that KC should build the streetcars so they "could" be converted to LRT in the future without rebuilding the track and the only line in KC that would even remotely warrant LRT investment might be the Main St line and even that is only if they can get the line in enough dedicated right of way to get the speeds up. Otherwise it will function as a glorified streetcar. (slow). Maybe streetcars will work in a city like KC. Even KC's proposed LRT systems were surface street bases which fails to take advantage of the speeds and volumes that LRT can deliver anyway.
I understand the argument you are speaking of. I have heard it many times and I can even see why people would be on that side of the argument.
But I look at all the "indirect" benefits of quality transit (TOD, density, urban renewal, walkable neighborhoods, vibrant city that people want to live in and vist etc.) vs highway only subsidization which generally only leads to suburban sprawl and the decay and abandonment of urban areas.
A metro area can have both good highways with nice suburbs as well as quality transit and desirable urban or walkable mixed use neighborhoods in both the city and suburbs.
But density, urbanity, and vibrancy are not necessarily a value - it is a characteristic. Denser cities don't necessarily make better cities. Urbanity does not necessarily make a city better. The KC-metro has great neighborhoods that suit people of all tastes. What's better is that it is real: it has grown organically in response to market demands. As people demand more suburban locations, they move further south in Johnson County or further north towards Smithville Lake. Nothing is "forced" here...it is purely what people desire. However, transit systems that don't serve much of the population do not appear to be a direct response to market demand. This is my problem with them.
Excellent series of posts. +1
I'm very glad you joined the forum, as some of us have lost patience with the transit for the sake of the moral high ground that is transit argument. Your responses are articulate and persuasive.
So people are forced to live in dense parts of cities? Okay. If anything, develoment in KC is the other way around. It IS forced via icentives (both urban and suburban).
Please provide relevant examples of the "transit as moral high ground" argument. By that I mean, arguments from people who matter such as local political leaders, transit authority personnel or developers. Because the great majority of the meaningful arguments I've seen focus on a) economic development (the streetcar line will spur development along its length, which is already occurring; b) connecting the metro; and c) providing simple transportation options for people on the blighted Eastside, allowing some to travel more easily for employment and helping to open up a part of the city that needs transit.
Yes, there's an aspect of "we want this because all hip, cool, livable cities have rail transit." But one could have made the same argument about the Kauffman Center. Was it necessary to build such a costly, leading-edge performing arts facility when existing buildings could have supported the local arts? Possibly. But it's hard to argue that the Kauffman hasn't benefited KC in terms of tourism interest or national profile.
No, it's just that most people in KC (and in most of the largest-growing metro areas in the US) prefer to live in less-dense neighborhoods. Everyone loves to go visit Boston, Chicago, New York...but based on census data they prefer to live in the sprawly high-growth cities of Oklahoma City, Houston, DFW, El Paso, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc. Transit solutions like LRT (and maybe even streetcars) are not a great fit for KC because the growth pattern of the city appears to be more like a sun-belt city than "dense Bos-Wash corridor" city. And that is good because that is what the majority of residents of the metro area seem to prefer. The good thing is that there are a few alternative neighborhoods for the smaller percentage of people that don't. But we shouldn't cater our transportation solutions around the preferences of the few, rather than the majority.
I have to question your premise based on the possibility that people in KC have gravitated toward the sprawling suburbs because that's the preferred lifestyle (particularly because of the schools) as opposed to because the lack of urban transit options made living in the city less desirable. Once the streetcar system is built and expanded, it will be interesting to see if the chicken or the egg is the answer to this riddle. I suspect we'll see a net migration back into the urban core, especially if recent creative solutions to the educational problems are effective.
No, it's just that most people in KC (and in most of the largest-growing metro areas in the US) prefer to live in less-dense neighborhoods. Everyone loves to go visit Boston, Chicago, New York...but based on census data they prefer to live in the sprawly high-growth cities of Oklahoma City, Houston, DFW, El Paso, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc. Transit solutions like LRT (and maybe even streetcars) are not a great fit for KC because the growth pattern of the city appears to be more like a sun-belt city than "dense Bos-Wash corridor" city. And that is good because that is what the majority of residents of the metro area seem to prefer. The good thing is that there are a few alternative neighborhoods for the smaller percentage of people that don't. But we shouldn't cater our transportation solutions around the preferences of the few, rather than the majority.
Few people "prefer" to live in places like OKC. Have you visited the OKC forum? Or spend 3-4 hours a day commuting in Houston. Trust me. People go where jobs go and jobs have simply migrated to cheap suburban office parks of sunbelt cities.
And Houston, Dallas, Phoenix etc have light rail and are rapidly expanding them because even though those places are sprawl meccas, the residents want a transit friendly urban core and suburb to city connectivity and the benefits that go with that to compliment their sprawl.
KC is not even like Houston or Phoenix. KC's bones are actually closer to east coast cities than cities out west.
But your mentality is typical of Kansas City residents. I find it mind boggling that things like the Kauffman Center have been constructed there (although it wouldn't have it were not for the Kauffmans) and even when that was proposed and under construction I heard from people all the time that said, what a waste of money it was (most didn't know it was privately funded).
Denver is JUST as sprawly as KC, if not more so. Yet they have very vibrant central city and a very extensive transit system (buses, light rail and trails) that compliment and co-exist with that bustling and highly desirable central city.
But I know, KC is not nor would ever want to be Denver. KC is KC. 60% of metro is decaying and you tell visitors to go to Village West for things to do.
I still have hope that there are enough people in KC that want more than Village West or Oak Park Mall out of a metro.
^^^ I agree with everything that's been said. KC offers a lot of options for people who prefer the suburban life, as well as for people who prefer the urban life. It really does come down to what you prefer. I don't think you should group your preferences with the preferences for "the people of KC," though. The majority of people I work with and interact with on a daily basis prefer life in the urban core. Unfortunately, in Kansas City, it's become a routine where kids out of college move to the city, enjoy it, but because it's become normal, they then all jump ship when it's time to raise a family. I agree with pacificwhim, it'd be interesting to see if the streetcar network would change that, along with improvement to public schools.
Also, back to the point of this thread, people who live in the suburbs and prefer going to Village West or Oak Park Mall aren't the ones going to be paying for the proposed streetcar, right? So why do those people seem to be so against it? As many people as there are that you say want to keep KC the way it is, there are also a ton of people in the city who want to see it grow. I'm one of these people, and I love how much this city has done for entrepreneurship. I believe to continue harboring that environment and the jobs that come with it, you have to continue strengthening the inner core. Suburbs are never going to be hurting looking for people to live there. The suburbs of Kansas City have done a great job of becoming perfect places for families. What I'm saying is why not continue to support the growth of the city proper by "emulating" what other successful large cities are doing to further the metro as a whole?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
+1
