Quote of the Day provided by The Free Library


Monday, March 12, 2007

Brookside Transit Corridor

The project management firm that will be in charge of replacing the Brookside Interceptor sewer line has been presenting two alternatives. The new line will run from approximately Meyer Boulevard all the way down to Brush Creek. The first alternative is they can follow the original route of the current storm sewer which pretty much runs under Brookside Boulevard. The second alternative is to dig up the Trolley Trail and run the new line under it.

There are advantages and disadvantages to either choice. Tearing up Brookside Boulevard would have it closed in sections for extended periods of time. Tearing out the Trolley Trail, while an inconvenience to a much smaller amount of people, would also involve tearing out the parking lots in the Brookside Shops. In my opinion this would result in lost revenue to the Brookside Shops, which also means lost tax revenue to the City. What to do?

How about both?

One of the comments made during the presentation got me to thinking. The engineer said that if they use the Trolley Track route, they would have to backfill and make sure the path would have the structural integrity to support light rail. This makes sense. The Trolley Trail is the ATA right-of-way and would most likely become a light rail route once again if and when we implement a transit plan.

So if we're going to rip everything out, this is our one chance in a generation to make Brookside Boulevard into something special. Starting at Volker Boulevard we should use the combination of the ATA right-of-way which runs the eastern length of Brookside Boulevard to our advantage. Widen the whole thing, expanding to the east and run a transit-only corridor right down the middle. Also put a bike/ped path too. I envision it to look something like this:


With BRT or light rail running right down the center of the Boulevard, it would raise the perceived level of importance we put on transit. Also, by using a combination of traffic calming devices, the speeds on Brookside Boulevard could be greatly reduced. Anyone who has ever walked the sidewalks along that street can tell you it is not the grand, meandering boulevard it was intended to be. It's a super-highway.

Finally, at 59th St is where the ATA right-of-way slips behind a row of homes all the way to Meyer Boulevard. Without the additive width of that right-of-way, the transit corridor would have to be necked down to one lane. It could still come right through the heart of the Brookside-63rd St intersection.



If all the politicians who say they are for transit really want to do something, they can start with a project that's already in the works. This is an incredible opportunity that we should not let become a victim to apathy.

Comments on "Brookside Transit Corridor"

 

Blogger Eric said ... (12:04 PM) : 

Wow! Real BRT in KC? That would be awesome. Bravo for doing what our planners and politicians won't do - talk about an integrated, multi-modal transportation corridor. And without a million dollar consulting contract to "study" the obvious!

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (1:56 PM) : 

That would be awesome. Too bad it's never going to happen.

 

Anonymous Dan said ... (3:19 PM) : 

An idea like this needs to be a part of a larger local/regional transit plan (which people are working on) and not something we slip into a badly needed sewer reconstruction project in the 11th hour.

How will a single transit corridor north of 59th allow two-way BRT or LR traffic? This could cause delays in the transit system which would cause people to avoid riding.

What would happen to the Ped lane north of 59th? There is precious little R/W along Brookside Blvd from 59th to Meyer... not much room for Ped lanes.

But I like the overall vision.

 

Anonymous Dan said ... (3:26 PM) : 

I would love to see a roundabout at the intersection of Brookside Blvd/Meyer/Brookside Road. That intersection is a nightmare. Roundabouts take some R/W but they are a fantasitc solution in the right place. Not sure if the traffic counts at this location make it practical. Roundabouts offer incredible safety improvements (to autos and pedestrians), improved traffic flow, and the possibility for beautiful landscaping in the center area. Could be a real tight fit at that location but would love to see it considered.

 

Anonymous Dan said ... (3:28 PM) : 

Eric, isn't the Max system BRT?!? And the SmartMoves program is looking to kickoff anytime... with or without Kansas.

 

Blogger Mark said ... (3:33 PM) : 

Dan,

No, it doesn't. It's that "do it all or do nothing" attitude in Kansas City that has kept us at a standstill for years.

The transit corridor would be a part of the greater overall plan. It's not being "slipped in" to the sewer project at all. That was precisely my point! They are already tearing everything out and are going to have to put back the structural integrity for a light rail plan. Wouldn't that be the perfect time to rebuild it right? If we wait for this "overall plan" to materialize, we'll end up ripping out Brookside Blvd and/or the Trolley Trail, replacing it as is, at huge cost, then ripping it out again when we put in transit, once again at huge cost!

I think you mean a single corridor "south" of 59th. No it would not cause delays. Neck-down corridors are utilized all the time for intersections exactly like 63rd & Brookside. It could go right back to two lanes as soon as it clears Meyer Blvd going south. I don't think the timing of avoiding simultaneous use for two blocks will be that difficult.

The Ped lane from 59th to Meyer would be a challenge but I'm not convinced it isn't possible. At the worst it could peel off at 59th and follow its present route and then pick up again at Meyer.

 

Blogger Eric said ... (4:07 PM) : 

Dan,

MAX is not really BRT, even though the ATA claims as such. BRT is supposed to function like a rail system, but MAX is really just an express bus. It fails short of the "rubber rail" goal in a few key ways...

1) No off-board ticketing means slower boarding times while people fumble with money.

2) No dedicated lanes. The bus-only rush hour lanes are not the same as physically separated bus lanes 24/7.

3) Lack of stations. Instead of rail-like stations all we have are slightly fancier bus shelters.

 

Anonymous Brent said ... (4:11 PM) : 

Mark, your idea would never work. In order to do three projects at once, you would have to have forsight and planning. I'm not sure that exists.

Seriously, when I bought my first house in KC, it was out in the Old Shawnee area -- the first year I lived there, the replaced all the sidewalks and curbs in front of my house. The third year I lived there, they ripped that all up and widened the road and included a bike lane...and then had to re-do the sidewalks and curbs in front of my house for the 2nd time in about 18 months.

It's a good idea Mark, they really should consider it. They probably won't, but they should.

Am I too cynical today?

 

Blogger Eric said ... (4:12 PM) : 

Also, the light rail vote demonstrated that people are tired of dicking around with Smart Moves and waiting for Kansas to get on board. I'm tired of my city starving itself of decent transit because of the classic KC inferiority complex. KCMO can and should take of itself first.

Sure, a regional system is great and should be our ultimate goal, but in the mean time let's take control of own destiny. If the suburbs choose to follow our lead then great, but we can longer afford to hamstring our future by waiting for them.

 

Anonymous brent said ... (4:30 PM) : 

And to second Eric's comment, any solid, KCMO transit plan will include Union Station as a stopping point. It's hard to imagine a regional light rail plan that would not include running lines in from the burbs to Union Station (given that so many existing lines run there).

This isn't rocket science...we could spend millions of dollars on developing a plan that would be very similar to any napkin drawing three of us sketched out over beers at Sharps some night.

 

Anonymous Dan said ... (9:22 PM) : 

I surprised by the lack of appreciation for urban and transportation planners. Maybe they don't have enough napkins.

Mark, alright let's roll with the BRT/LR corridor... but why not just put it where the existing ATA R/W is now? There is plenty of room. Why go to the expense of realigning and rebuilding a few miles of good roadway?

Do we force through a BRT/LR plan in the next 12months to match the start of the sewer rehab construction in Spring '08? Or do we delay a critical sewer project so we have time to plan, get public input about, fund, and design a BTR/LR project? Seems like a pretty complex project to start from nothing and be in construction in 12-months.

I want light rail as much as anybody and have voted for it each chance I have had. But I don't want a shoot-from-the-hip plan that could doom it to fail.

 

Blogger Mark said ... (9:38 PM) : 

"Why go to the expense of realigning and rebuilding a few miles of good roadway?"

Because we already are Dan. As I detailed in the beginning of the editorial either option is going to involve MAJOR digging and reconstruction. The ATA right-of-way option is going to have to be prepared for light rail which means more than just backfilling dirt over the new culverts. It means concrete. Lots of it to support the weight of fixed-guideway.

I'm saying, once again, that since we're doing all that work anyway, we should plan for the future. You're right, we have a lot of room in the ATA right-of-way which is why we can widen Brookside Blvd to the East.

The transit corridor would initially just be dedicated lanes for the MAX but they would be the proper width and load-bearing class to support what will hopefully be a light rail route.

Delay the sewer project? Absolutely not!

We actually already accomplished something on a much smaller scale already. When they put in the Huntington sewer line, neighbors approached me with their concerns and I took up the charge to have the Huntington-Brookside intersection re-designed. There were many naysayers just like yourself saying "it can't be done" or "it will delay the project" but guess what? It was done and it didn't delay the project. As a neighborhood we're glad we didn't listen to the "can't be done crowd." We now have a redesigned intersection that is much safer, reduces speeds of vehicles exiting on to Huntington and was done while everything was torn up anyway which provided enormous cost-savings.

 

Blogger David said ... (10:00 PM) : 

i like big ideas, but i have to admit i'd rather see the express portion of the MAX extended to brookside with a dedicated lane. improved sidewalks and maybe a traffic circle or two should calm things down.

and speaking of traffic circles: what is it with kansas city's aversion to them? see that awful southwest trafficway/westport road opportunity as the perfect example.

 

Anonymous Dan said ... (10:23 PM) : 

David,

Just to be clear, roundabouts are different than traffic circles. Traffic circles are much less common. Many roundabouts are being built in the Metro. Though you are right, I am not aware that KCMO has taken a liking to them... unless you cruise through KCI economy parking. Roundabouts have several restrictions. The most important it public misperception. People just don't like them because they are different and they don't know how to drive them. Another restriction is that they take more R/W than a traditional intersection, which can be especially hard to overcome in established areas. Finally capacity is a concern. If there are too few cars using a roundabout then it is a waste and if there are too many cars the roundabout will function less efficiently than a traditional intersection.

I take that back about KCMO... they are embracing roundabouts. I know of at least one nearing construction at 93rd Street around Bannister Mall, near a new fire station. From what I have heard it is planned to have a large obilisk in the middle.

 

Anonymous Dan said ... (10:47 PM) : 

Mark,

You wrote about an alternative to run the sewer under the Trolly Trail, right? So run the sewer under the trail and build the dedicated transit corridor on top. It wouldn't look as sexy as the picture in your article but it would accomplish the same goal and save a lot of money by maintaining the roadway. If the sewer travels under the trail there should be no reason to tear up much of Brookside Blvd. But honestly, you have seen more of the plan than me.

"It means concrete. Lots of it to support the weight of fixed-guideway."

I disagree, light rail shouldn't need any concrete. You will have rail and ties on top of ballast (rock). Every railroad in the country works this way, including those with 200 ton coal cars. There isn't going to be concrete everywhere but maybe in specific locations.

"I took up the charge to have the Huntington-Brookside intersection re-designed."

Building an intersection redesign into the middle of a sewer project and adding light rail into a sewer project are two completely different animals. The level of complexity is different by many orders of magnitude. According to KCMO.org the sewer project will be phased in from 2008 to 2013... "pending availabiility of funding". Can we afford to build a short transit project over 5 or 6 years without having any payback in the way of ridership?

Okay, let's accelerate it... where do we get the funding? Especially since the city sort of states on their website that funding is an issue?

Planning doesn't insure success but failing to plan will assure failure.

Mark, I like your passion and you have a lot of interesting ideas. You think outside the box and most people cannot. You make me think and I appreciate that.

 

Blogger Mark said ... (11:16 PM) : 

Dan,

Who said anything about a light rail project? I'm talking about a reconfiguration of lanes that would "allow" for light rail in the future.

You're against the idea. I get it. Can we agree to disagree, or would you like to disagree about that too?

 

Blogger Dan said ... (6:10 AM) : 

Mark - Gonemild here. It seems there is another Dan in the world, with strong opinions about transit.

Congrats on starting this site - the fact that you have drawn such a discussion about transit shows that your new effort is filling a void in the local blog community.

 

Anonymous Michelled said ... (10:37 AM) : 

"I surprised by the lack of appreciation for urban and transportation planners."

I'd be more appreciative if we had a light rail system already - how long has KC been working on this? Maybe its not the planners fault, but of city officials that aren't listening to them. But where is the better plan? This city forced us to vote YES for gondolas!

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (10:58 AM) : 

Michelle,

Whoever the "Dan" is that's not Gone Mild, he obviously has a chip on his shoulder. I'm guessing he fancies himself an architect or an urban planner. I know the type. Just ignore him. Maybe (hopefully) he'll go away. He's obviously far too intelligent than the rest of us!

 

Blogger Mark said ... (3:41 PM) : 

Hello All,

Thanks for all the thoughtful posts on transit (even you imposter Dan). It's good to see this is such an important topic.

Keep the comments and emails coming. Perhaps I'll do another editorial on transit very soon.

Regards,

Mark Forsythe
Editor
The Kansas City Post

 

Anonymous Imposter Dan said ... (6:48 PM) : 

Mark,

I am not an imposter. Am actually a Dan. Should have picked something a little sexier.

If I ruined the fluid monologue of the comments for the rest of the posters, for that I am truely sorry. I thought maybe this was a place for dialogue where people, such as you and I, can agree to disagree like you suggested.

I didn't think my posts were rude, just disagreeable. I will watch that and do promise to not personally insult anyone.

Dan

 

Anonymous Craig said ... (10:25 PM) : 

"if there are too many cars the roundabout will function less efficiently than a traditional intersection"

I disagree. My research shows that the greater the volume of traffic, the greater the advantage of the roundabout over the traffic signal.

I have not seen any properly designed and implemented roundabouts in Kansas City. They are for high-volume intersections, not just shopping centers or only as a traffic-calming device.

The roundabouts in the Bannister Mall area are designed with the help of "Mr. Roundabout" Michael Wallwork from Australia via Florida.

True, roundabouts require lots or right-of-way at the intersection, but they allow you to keep fewer lanes on connecting roads. That's because capacity restrictions are at inefficient intersections, not on a lack of pavement in the adjoining roads.

 

Anonymous Michelled said ... (2:52 PM) : 

iDan,
I'm on your side - I don't agree with you on the transit issue but think dissent should be welcome. I think a lot of blogs can succumb to group think and that does not give anyone a clear picture of the issues or better yet, of public perception of the issues.

We could all sit here and pat Mark on the back for being so damn smart but that didn't help him get elected and don't see why it would help anything now.

And David, the max already runs down there so I don't see changing it into an express solving a lot of problems. I admittedly don't ride the bus though as all the stops around me are staked out by drug dealers.

 

Blogger Mark said ... (3:06 PM) : 

iDan,

No harm no foul. I'm a little testy these days what with getting my butt handed to me and all.

I think some of my supporters and/or anonymous commenters are too.

I am going to definitely do more op-ed pieces on transit. 22 comments and counting means I've hit on something people want to talk about!

 

Blogger doinkman said ... (8:42 AM) : 

Good discussion.

If the Brookside interceptor is to be rebuilt underneath the Trolly trail, it will require some structural reinforcement, despite what Dan thinks. Even as deep as the interceptor is, it would require concrete encasement and a way to transfer the load (probably piles) from the light rail (in which the loads are not well defined) down around the interceptor and to the soil below. The line will be large diameter > 96-inches RCP (reinforced concrete pipe), which isn’t all that strong laying on its side. Imagine stepping on a straw.

I like the idea of having a dedicated transit line running down the middle, but is it going to be light rail or is going to be BRT? I don’t think there needs to be both running in the same line. The idea is that light rail forms the spine of the transit system, in our case it’s a N-S route. The bus network is the hub, that extends E-W routes to get people over to the spine.

So the remaining question is the light rail, or BRT going to run down the middle of Brookside, or is it going to be on the ATA Trolly trail right-of-way?

My thoughts are to run it right down the middle of Brookside Blvd, put the interceptor under the Trolly trail, and keep the trail as functional as it is now. Lots of people use that trail. No need to make the trail right in the middle of a noisy boulevard.

Lastly, Mark do you have a RSS feed on this page? Looking forward to reading this new venture of yours!

 

post a comment
Google
WWW The Kansas City Post