Note To Sheep: Stand Clear Of Track

By Airick Leonard West The Kansas City Post Thus far, the conversation around light rail in Kansas City has been like sheep following the sheep. Think about it: how often in our history has there been both thoughtful debate and near-unanimous agreement? Exactly. So why then, does it now seem we have a unanimous agreement on running the starter line (technology) through the River-Crown-Plaza corridor (routing)? Exactly. Decision Criteria The most predictable outcomes of any track-based transit system are increases in both population density and property value. Collectively, these can be harnessed to increase urban redevelopment -- the most important criteria in designing a track-based system. The remaining four criteria I suggest are: - Moving people to where they need to be (required transit) - The existence of significant public investments - Moving people to where they want to be (elective transit) - Funding strategy Any track-based transit system that is built on this hierarchy of priority will largely ensure that -- if it fails-- that failure will be a function of system operation, not system design (a conversation around operations and the ATA is worthy of its own writing). Urban Redevelopment When taking advantage of increasing density and value is at the forefront of a system design conversation, the questions of routing and technology become simpler. On the technology front, any track-based system that can run along existing under-developed corridors is a winner. And any system that can do so without requiring that tracks be isolated from the communities through which they run is a major winner. Concerning routing, the strategy becomes ranking under-developed corridors, the redevelopment of which would be a significant gain for the city. Required Transit Core usership is fueled by people using the system daily for required travel. There is ample existing data from the ATA to identify transit bus usership patterns for KCMO and it should be used to inform where track is planted. These users are generally trying to get from where within KCMO they live to where within KCMO they work. Any successful municipal transit of the central municipality in an MSA is likely to evolve into regional transit over time. But since KCMO must be the first mover, the first set of riders whose needs need to be considered are those that are moving around within KCMO. Public Investments If a transit system is built with public dollars, it makes sense that it connects to other public investments. When the first two criteria are taken into consideration, it will narrow a seemingly infinite set of questions around technology and routing down to a manageable few. This criteria, then, can be used to further eliminate infeasible options. Elective Transit There are occasions when people will engage in elective travel -- going somewhere because they want to, not because they need to. And while this set of desires can't possibly sustain a transit system, it should be included. This is a peripheral but nevertheless important concern. We need to connect major shopping centers (particularly since so many of ours seem inextricably connected to mama public via the city hall umbilical). Funding Strategy The trump card in choosing between whichever options remain is funding strategy. In this arena, there are two immutable realities: the municipality will go it alone for the first route and a coalition of governments will be necessary to subsidize future routes. We already know that the second and subsequent routes will need to be routes that are eligible for federal transportation grants. Because of this, it makes sense for our first route to be one that fulfills the above criteria but that is unlikely to be eligible. When we remove sheepishness from the track-transit dialog, new thinking concerning technologies and routes becomes possible. Applying these criteria in order, which technologies might you utilize? Which route would be your first?