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.
It would be great if Wichita could get light rail. Studies have shown that businesses benefit and profits increase when they locate near transit hubs. A cost benefit analysis needs to be done to see if it is economically feasible. It would be hilarious if Wichita could get light rail before KC. HA HA.
The Simpsons actually had fun with this in the episode "The Monorail".
Here in KC a lot of people want it so they can be "a big city" like Chicago etc.
Just like having to have a pro-sports team and not be "like Omaha".
I can state pretty simply that they just lack the density, heavy traffic etc. that would make it an attractive option. So, if Wichita can make it work more power to them. .... but it's doesn't make sense here no matter how "progressive" it is.
The Simpsons actually had fun with this in the episode "The Monorail".
Here in KC a lot of people want it so they can be "a big city" like Chicago etc.
Just like having to have a pro-sports team and not be "like Omaha".
I can state pretty simply that they just lack the density, heavy traffic etc. that would make it an attractive option. So, if Wichita can make it work more power to them. .... but it's doesn't make sense here no matter how "progressive" it is.
Unfortunately, the Kansas City metro development model that promotes extreme sprawl is one of the worst in the country. The inefficiencies inherent in this growth model will impact the quality of life of the populace sooner or later. The lack of siginificant reinvestment and leadership in large parts of Kansas City, MO fosters this continual outward migration in all directions from the metro core. Good leadership is a big key, though.
Unfortunately, the Kansas City metro development model that promotes extreme sprawl is one of the worst in the country. The inefficiencies inherent in this growth model will impact the quality of life of the populace sooner or later. The lack of siginificant reinvestment and leadership in large parts of Kansas City, MO fosters this continual outward migration in all directions from the metro core. Good leadership is a big key, though.
Agreed. A big part of it is the city wage tax...which is driving everyone out of KC, MO just like it did in Philly.
Plus, unlike some other cities there is no large lake or ocean pushing the growth in a limited direction so the option of 360degree sprawl is there and you have less developed corridors.
Agreed. A big part of it is the city wage tax...which is driving everyone out of KC, MO just like it did in Philly.
Plus, unlike some other cities there is no large lake or ocean pushing the growth in a limited direction so the option of 360degree sprawl is there and you have less developed corridors.
Agreed.
The 1% earnings tax is still a negative "push factor" when it comes to out-migration away from Kansas City, MO.
You mention corridors. The density is actually lower in many of the newer developments in the suburbs compared to some of the developments in the inner ring suburbs. Developments on large lots in urban environments are just too inefficient to be sustained over long periods of time. The inherent low-density format also acts as a big negative for the FUTURE development for transit and light rail in large areas of the metro. Building more lanes on interstates is not the answer, but increasing density and electing productive leaders that create good positive change for Kansas City, MO would be an excellent start. If the push factors can be turned into more pull factors that would be excellent. Some of the redevelopment efforts like P&L, arts, lofts, condos, etc have been a solid start into increasing the population of the Downtown area. However, the poor economy and Funkhouser have not helped much when it comes to other matters...
WOW! I never expected this thread to flourish the way it did!
I know there are people on both sides of this issue. Some people are rail-honks and can't see life without it. On the other hand, there are people who are married to their car keys and parking fees. The truth around Wichita is that there are many more of the latter people than the former. This isn't to say that people around here wouldn't support an initiative to build a light rail system, but it would have to be cost efficient. In most of the major metros (DC, Chicago, NYC, Boston), the rail system is extremely pricey, but the bus system is also expensive.
Let me give people some facts about the transit system in Wichita. The people running the transit system (i.e. the city government), imo, are poorly trained in urban development. They have not revamped the bus system in many, many years. Our buses only run until 5:45pm, which takes away a large number of potential riders who would take the bus downtown after business hours. In addition, there is only one transfer spot, and that is downtown. Right now, transit in Wichita is extremely inefficient, which is one of several reasons people don't ride the buses.
I hope this city thinks progressively rather than reactively when it comes to transit. Parking downtown is currently a nightmare, and it's only going to get worse with the new arena and the development around that over the next ten years or so. If we don't have a transit system that addresses these issues now, it's going to be much harder to address them if and when they emerge.
WOW! I never expected this thread to flourish the way it did!
I know there are people on both sides of this issue. Some people are rail-honks and can't see life without it. On the other hand, there are people who are married to their car keys and parking fees. The truth around Wichita is that there are many more of the latter people than the former. This isn't to say that people around here wouldn't support an initiative to build a light rail system, but it would have to be cost efficient. In most of the major metros (DC, Chicago, NYC, Boston), the rail system is extremely pricey, but the bus system is also expensive.
Let me give people some facts about the transit system in Wichita. The people running the transit system (i.e. the city government), imo, are poorly trained in urban development. They have not revamped the bus system in many, many years. Our buses only run until 5:45pm, which takes away a large number of potential riders who would take the bus downtown after business hours. In addition, there is only one transfer spot, and that is downtown. Right now, transit in Wichita is extremely inefficient, which is one of several reasons people don't ride the buses.
I hope this city thinks progressively rather than reactively when it comes to transit. Parking downtown is currently a nightmare, and it's only going to get worse with the new arena and the development around that over the next ten years or so. If we don't have a transit system that addresses these issues now, it's going to be much harder to address them if and when they emerge.
Get involved Try to organize a group of people who want to push the same issue that you are interested in and form a committee.
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?
I don't live in Kansas, but here .02 worth. I think the biggest problem with mass transit is that it can't be efficient if you have low density housing. I read recently that you need about 7 dwellings per acre to get people to ride transit. That means the "single family detached house with a yard" way of living needs to be reduced.
To have a convenient & cost effective mass transit system, you need more condos, apartments, duplexes, etc. Most people don't want to live that way. That's partly because these places are often cheaply constructed, and often because, as things stand now, you don't really get any advantages for living in high density housing. I.E. You still have to drive you car everywhere, and sometimes it's tough to find a parking space, especially when friends & family come over.
Most Americans don't seem to have a vision of high density housing as quality living. They associate it with slum living, or a few select cities like New York/Chicago.
I think we need to change this mindset that high density housing = low quality living. That means they have to start buiding decent quality high density housing on transit lines wherever possible. It also means more mixed use development (i.e. stores, businesses & retail located closer to housing).
However, this mindset is tough to change. Americans have it in their minds that suburban living is superior to every other way of living...despite the fact that it makes us dependent on unstable and hostile foreign governments for fossil fuels, and despite the fact that getting in your car for every single trip contributes to obsesity, etc.
People also don't like to take transit because they are fearful of potential low lifes on transit. No matter how much you tell them they are much safer on mass transit than in their giant SUVs, they won't believe you. They believe in the illusion that they have control when they're the ones driving behind the wheels of their own cars. Not true. But just try to convince people of that.
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.
What actually makes sense is to put in a rail system BEFORE you get the traffic nightmare called Atlanta.
What usually happens is this: People live in a place like Wichita and they love their cars. Wichita gets bigger and people complain about the traffic. So roads get widened and freeways built (or new freeways built). Eventually this strategy just doesn't work anymore because: 1. The place is really built up or 2. A place sprawls out in many directions, effictively forcing people to drive further and further to different places of employment.
But the time people want transit, it is 10X more expensive to put in because the area's already built up.
Alternatively, people complain about a place being "overcrowded" and move to new cities to start this process all over again, never learning from the mistakes made in the previous place they lived. You'll see these complaints all over the CD forums.
In short, it's the typical myopic, short term mindset that plagues America in so many ways, including transportation planning.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by vb_guy
WOW! I never expected this thread to flourish the way it did!
I know there are people on both sides of this issue. Some people are rail-honks and can't see life without it. On the other hand, there are people who are married to their car keys and parking fees. The truth around Wichita is that there are many more of the latter people than the former. This isn't to say that people around here wouldn't support an initiative to build a light rail system, but it would have to be cost efficient. In most of the major metros (DC, Chicago, NYC, Boston), the rail system is extremely pricey, but the bus system is also expensive.
Let me give people some facts about the transit system in Wichita. The people running the transit system (i.e. the city government), imo, are poorly trained in urban development. They have not revamped the bus system in many, many years. Our buses only run until 5:45pm, which takes away a large number of potential riders who would take the bus downtown after business hours. In addition, there is only one transfer spot, and that is downtown. Right now, transit in Wichita is extremely inefficient, which is one of several reasons people don't ride the buses.
I hope this city thinks progressively rather than reactively when it comes to transit. Parking downtown is currently a nightmare, and it's only going to get worse with the new arena and the development around that over the next ten years or so. If we don't have a transit system that addresses these issues now, it's going to be much harder to address them if and when they emerge.
Those are what Wichita should be working on and not some pie in the sky rail service. Bus service is fine for Wichita but it needs to run efficiently and not assume everybody wants to go downtown. If I were running the Wichita bus system, I would make changes:
1. It should be switched to a grid system- where the "Harry St" bus actually runs up and down Harry all the time and does not come downtown. If you want to go downtown, simply get off at Harry and Broadway and board the Broadway bus to Douglas. This would speed up service alot, still require only a single transfer, and with computer controlled GPS timing, the buses running north and south could be timed to meet those running east and west so transfers could be handled efficiently.
2. Most bus stops would be equipped with weather shelters complete with electric lights. Sign space on the sides of the shelters could be rented to defer cost. They would also be equipped with a sign that would be updated via GPS that would tell those waiting exactly how long the next bus would be and where it is right now.
3. Riders would be able to go on the web and request text alerts for their bus at whatever time interval they desire. Let's say your stop is at Hillside and Waterman and you want to know when the 7:50 bus is exactly 10 minutes away so you do not have to wait in the cold. GPS would send you a text alert exactly 10 minutes before your bus arrives.
4. Bus service would run 5 days a week from 0530 to midnight. Wichita is a 24 hour shift town and the bus service should reflect this fact. Also I would make arragements with major employers (Beech, Spirit, Cessna and others) so that bus schedules would align with their shift changes as close as possible. Workers would arrive on time and not have to wait an hour after work for a bus. On Saturdays bus service would run from 6AM until 6PM.
5. I would add lines to Derby, Mulvane and maybe Park City.
6. The last change, after all the above changes are done, would be an ad blitz with something like "The Bus Is Your 2nd Car".
Maybe.... just maybe this would make some families in Wichita question the need and expense of 2nd, 3rd and 4th cars and get more people to give the bus some play.... maybe.
Now do I get hired to run Wichita Transit?
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.
.... but it's doesn't make sense here no matter how "progressive" it is.
