Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day provided by The Free Library
Mark Forsythe
Editor


Link To Us

Friday, May 11, 2007

The Route Is The Root Of All Evil


By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

The Kansas City Urban Society's initial proposed light rail route runs from 3rd and Grand in the Rivermarket south to Crown Center where it picks up Main and then continues to the Plaza. It then takes a turn east on Volker, running along Brush Creek before terminating at the Stowers Institute at Volker and Troost. This route has met with two major criticisms. First, conventional wisdom says that any starter line must span the Missouri River in order to garner the support of the 1st and 2nd district voters. Second, the sentimental feeling is that any light rail route must stop at Union Station.

First, the river. I agree with the northlanders. We have to span the river first shot out of the box. Promises of "Phase II" never seem to get implemented. There are worries about which bridge we could use. Would we need a new bridge? Could we use the old ASB? Will the Heart of America support the weight of a rail corridor? We need to answer these questions first, span the river to at least Vivian and North Oak Trafficway and include the northlanders in on this project.

Next, Union Station. I have to admit I was originally in the "any rail must go to Union Station" crowd but I have since changed my mind. Well, actually I should say that Kevin Klinkenberg of the Urban Society changed my mind. Kevin has a way of doing that. I come in to a conversation with him having preconceived notions about my way being correct and he invariably turns me around to his way of thinking. Damn him and his facts and common sense. The problem with a Union Station connection involves "the jog." Is it worth deviating from the straight shot down Grand to jog over to Union Station, then east on Pershing back to Grand and Crown Center? Originally I thought "yes" but now I say "no." Talk of commuter rail from Johnson County has been the primary driving force behind this connection. JoCo commuters could arrive via commuter rail into Union Station and then hop on light rail to complete their journey. The problem is that the commuter rail line has been "under study" for over ten years. BNSF Railroad has been unwilling to share their line or right-of-way because they use it for freight. A lot of freight. With rising gasoline prices rail freight is seeing dramatic increases so BNSF traffic will become even more frequent in that corridor. The chances of commuter rail via that route are fading faster than the Royals. Besides, Main is just a 200yd walk through Washington Square Park from Union Station. I'm sure we could make some minor improvements and have a nice walkway over to Main.

In the end, my opinion is the starter line should extend from north of the river (Burlington & Armour?), cross the river via the Heart of America Bridge, stop at 3rd and Grand and then get as far south down Grand as we can afford.

Opinions? Rants? Raves? Comments are open.

Next up. What should run on the rails? The answer might not be as simple as you think.

posted by Mark at 8:48 AM

Comments on "The Route Is The Root Of All Evil"

 

Anonymous brent said ... (10:21 AM) : 

Here's the deal with me on this, any talk of rail HAS to include future expansion possibilities. I don't at all like the idea of building something and then trying to figure out how to make it work later.

I think expecting people down the road to walk two blocks from Union Station to Grand - for a group of people who are not eager to use public transit in the first place, may be a bit much to ask.

While I've always been a supporter of the Main St corridor -- as it runs next door to Union Station, I undertand that Grand is wider and thus easier to use. However, in a discussion at kcrag the other day, someone mentioned Walnut. Walnut has a bridge over 670, and is a little used one-way street. We could close off that street to auto traffic, and use it for the rail project. Walnut then jogs over to Main at 20th St to cross the tracks and hit US. It can then take Main all the way South. There's no reason it has to run right through the center of Crown Center as people can just take the Link to get there.

I also disagree on the use of Volker. I would propose Cleaver III (which hits many more apartments and the Nelson along the way) and then take the Troost Bridge over Brush Creek (which is less heavily trafficked by autos than the Main Bridge).

So if I had my way, North of the River, to Walnut, take Walnut South until it viers into Main, Main to Cleaver III, to Troost, South to Waldo

Another thought is, 1/2 a block east of Walnut is a little used train track that is already serviceable....it's not the prettiest treck for commuters as it's basically in an Allyway, but we should consider it I think...

 

Blogger Captain Spaulding said ... (10:27 AM) : 

Have the issues of topography been considered or is this thing going to run UP & DOWN all the hills in the city?

Also- I will settle for NO hub other than Union Station. End of story.

-Groucho

 

Blogger Mark said ... (10:41 AM) : 

What if there is no commuter rail coming in to Union Station? Physical constraints of the rail corridor east of the station prevent rail from arriving from the east. BNSF isn't going to give up their right of way from the west.

Believe me I was absolutely convinced that light rail had to go by Union Station but my opinion is now that a straight shot is more important for frequency and speed.

Captain Spaulding I appreciate your passion but is there no room for debate? "Must do this" and "must do that" ring like Chastain.

Why couldn't a "future expansion" involve a spur east-west on Pershing if and when it is needed? That spur could continue down to the Broadway extension, then west on SW Boulevard. Just throwing out ideas.

 

Anonymous Brent said ... (11:03 AM) : 

You're telling me that there is no way that we could gain access to any of the 20 rail lines that run East/West out of Union Station...

I'm not buying it.

If that's truly the case, then they should consider two major East/West lines

#1) 18th Street East to 18th & Vine and west to SW Blvd and then Southwest on the Blvd all the way to Merriam.

#2) Linwood or Armour East to the Stadiums

Still not buying that using the existing rails is not an option now, or ever will be in the future.

 

Blogger Mark said ... (11:10 AM) : 

Brent,

First of all, remember I am the editor so I am always right. ;-)

The lines going east out of Union Station are physically constrained by the corridors under Main, Walnut, Grand, etc. It's literally wall to wall tracks through there and at full capacity. No room to run more rails. Amtrak is lucky to get through there as it is.

As far as west of Union Station, I don't believe there are physical constraints there. It's just BNSF's reluctance to share their right of way heading south to Olathe.

Never say never. I'm not saying there won't ever be commuter rail into Union Station. I'm just saying not any time soon. So why not run a starter light rail line for what we have right now and then expand towards Union Station if we need to?

 

Anonymous Brent said ... (11:27 AM) : 

I just can't buy that the best option is making the starter line NOT be able to use US as a potential hub in the future. What would be the disadvantage to using the Walnut route? Or even Main? They're closer to US, and the Convention Center/Music Hall. And I don't think you need to jog through Crown Center -- so you still have a straight shot to the Plaza.

What was their rationale for Volker vs Cleaver III?

 

Blogger doinkman said ... (12:49 PM) : 

It's not just JOCO lines that connect at Union Station, also KCS's lines east to Oak Grove and South to Belton. KC Light Rail is reporting that the VP has pledged to support commuter trains on these lines.

Like it or not, this plan will be paid for and used by KC residents not JOCO residents. We should give any future connections to JOCO minimal weight in determining the alignment. There is a reason they live in JOCO afterall...

I'm torn between the need to go to Union Station. I see both points. Here's an idea, what can we do to make the trip over to Union Station less of a burden for business travelers? How about a canopy with people movers like at the airports Throw a million at it and you've got a quick and beautiful pathway through Washington Square Park connecting the quick N-S route and any future E-W routes through Union Station.

Secondly, suitability of the existing bridges over the MO needs to be looked at yesterday. A new bridge would be 20+ million easy.

I do think the alignment, south of the plaza needs run to the east of main. Ideally Troost. We've all heard how light rail in other cities has spured investment along the route, and Troost S. of Emanual Cleaver needs it. Wherever it stops on the N. and S. side needs to have a FREE park-n-ride.

great post and ongoing discussions Mark...

 

Blogger Mark said ... (12:50 PM) : 

You're killing me Brent. I don't know why Volker over Cleaver. It's not set in stone.

I wish people would get over this door to door mentality when it comes to transit. So it doesn't pull right up to the doors of Union Station. So what? It's 200 yards (if that) through the park! I just got back from London and in order to transfer from the commuter train to the Waterloo Line at Paddington Station I had to go down about 100 stairs, walk down a 100 yd tunnel, turn right, walk down another 100 yd tunnel, go through a turnstile, walk down a 50 yd tunnel, turn right and walk about 25 yds to the platform. I walked about three American football fields for the privilege to change trains. Convenient? Absolutely! But I'm not some delicate flower that needs to be able to get from train to train without my dainty feet touching the icky icky ground! My connections in London were typically farther in total steps than a walk across Washington Square Park.

 

Blogger Captain Spaulding said ... (1:19 PM) : 

Mark-

If there are surface contraints - then we must elevate.

The reason I am frozen on the Union Station position is because of our investment in that structure and (here's the kicker) what the building was built for.

Union Station was once not only a transportation hub - but a social hub as well.

Brent makes an excellent point on the downtown access route possibility.

If we put our imaginative heads together - no telling how many routing problems we could solve.

I grew up in the 1950's & 60's with that Kansas City 'can-do' attitude ingrained in me.

Our innovative thinking built one of the most user-friendly airports in the country and individual stadiums for both of our pro sports teams.

That thinking began to dwindle as the stadiums neared completion and the rolling roofs were eliminated from the project.

IMHO- this city's been on a downhill slide since. This new arena shows no imagination. Glitz over substance.

Explain to me please how all the downtown improvements have benefited deteoration on the city's East and South sides?

Stuff for another topic I know.

Mark and all - is this project to be along the lines of the futuristic thinking of the city's fathers? The boulevard and parks system and once a world-reknown fire department?

Let's think outside the box on this thing (Chastain's "gondolas" notwithstanding).

Do we want a big-city multi-modal transportation system we can be proud of - a system that gets us out of our increasingly expensive to operate vehicles, cleans up our air and moves people around efficiently?

Do we want that system to be of regional, national or world-class status?

 

Anonymous mainstream said ... (1:55 PM) : 

A few random thoughts -

- let's think about monorail - potentially less ROW issues, less expensive and overall more feasible.

- I'm a big fan or lightrail/monorail, but I haven't heard a meaningful discussion of where the ridership is going to be coming from and going to. I've never designed mass transit but traffic analysis seems to be the starting point. As I think about Union Station, it only makes sense within the context of a hub, unless someone can justify it initially as a destination with enough people that won't walk two additional blocks

- Will people walk to and from light/monorail, or park and ride, to get to and from where they're going? I wouldn't dismiss this seemingly stupid question - light/monorail works best when the cost of the alternative is HUGE - (e.g. 2 hour commute, NO avail parking, parking avail for $500/mo/space etc)

The fundamental question is why will people use it, and how they will use it. Everything is in anticipating the logistics of daily use.

 

Anonymous mainstream said ... (1:59 PM) : 

Sorry, I meant to preface my comments with the thought that everybody is presuming that the route, with some appropriate modifications to go north of the river, will have the ridership.

I have read no analysis that addresses the fundamental thinking about how people will use, go to and from with enough frequency, the lightrail route proposed.

 

Blogger Mark said ... (2:09 PM) : 

You folks are bound and determined to keep me from getting any real work done today!

mainstream, I can't speak for the Urban Society but I think they're operating under the assumption that the people voted for light rail so that is a constraint. They did not vote for monorail, true BRT or any other form of transit. The consensus is rail so that is how we must proceed.

Ridership analysis is a moot point for the Urban Society plan. Since they're attempting to do this first starter line without Federal Fast Start funds no ridership analysis needs to be performed. We all know that ridership fares only cover about 5-10% of the operating cost anyway. All transit is subsidized. Especially the roads we drive on. they're the worst transit investment we make. They have ZERO return or revenue generation.

What's the MAX get? About 5000 riders a day? That's not even enough to cover running those buses.

I've done extensive research on LRVs and will be presenting some of my findings to the KCUS board next week. To address Capn Spaulding's concerns I assure you what I'm going to propose is all the things you would desire in a modern LRV. Stay tuned...

 

Anonymous Brent said ... (2:13 PM) : 

But Mark, the problem is that YOU ARE ALL READY A MASS TRANSIT USER. For this project to be successful, we MUST attract new riders...so eliminating as many barriers to use (like 200 foot walks through a park where homeless people sleep on the benches) is important.

My problem with the Grand route isn't so much the 200 yard walk, it's that the 200 yard walk isn't necessary, because there are two other N/S roads that can be used that eliminate the need for the walk. I guess I can't see how running through Crown Center is more important than running by the Convention Center and Union Station -- and a block from Crown Center.

If it was a necessary to run it down Grand and force the eventual walk, fine, but there are other more-viable alternatives.

 

Anonymous Brent said ... (2:17 PM) : 

The Max has to get fewer than 5,000 riders per day. The entire KCMO bus service, every route, draws just over 7,000 per day.

 

Blogger Mark said ... (2:19 PM) : 

Brent,

STOP YELLING AT ME! I'm stubborn, not hard of hearing. :-D

 

Blogger Captain Spaulding said ... (2:19 PM) : 

How about a new Paseo bridge be engineered to also convey light-rail?


Also- an archived post from my site on my light-rail ideas. I've mellowed my time-line position on the K.C.I. line -

http://groucho-karl-marx.blogspot.com/2006/11/kc-voters-approve-light-rail.html


Yes- the "how many people will ride it" question is quite valid.

One glance at fuel prices may partially answer that concern.

 

Anonymous mainstream said ... (2:45 PM) : 

Yes, ridership is not a question of revenue, its a question of whether people will actually use it. That's my concern, but evidently no one else's.

And voters don't know or care about the difference mono versus lightrail, unless mono is significantly cheaper and faster to construct. Then I think voters will prefer mono. I don't know the answer to that question.

I think it's a mistake to start this whole project out with a "build it and they will come" mentality. No one seems to care whether any thought goes into what people will have to do on a daily basis, and where they will be coming from and going to, to justify the public investment.

Unfortunately we may have a case where hope and lightrail fever is overcoming the ability to rationally deconstruct and analyze the critical components for success, and value drivers for the system.

I'm not an expert, but when I think about mass transit the first three things that come imm ediatley to mind are

(1) will the mass transit system be viewed as "as system" to potential riders? (by a system, I mean it that it makes sense to potential riders that they can comfortably get to where they need to go) there's more to it but that's the gist

(2) what's the incentive to use the system? Or, what's the penalty for not using the system? This has been dismissed to, under the generalization of gas prices going up and environmental awareness. That's magical thinking. Every successful mass transit system exists because the alternative is much worse. No one has answered that question about Kansas City.

(3) Where's the density, and where's the density going to be in 10 and 20 years? Kansas City, almost from it's inception, has been designed as a suburban city, and of all people, Mark, you know that. Where are the pockets of density we're going to connect to get the ridership? Combine this with point #2 above, and we've got a credibility GAP, in mind, at this moment in our planning for the first route.

Where's the beef?

 

Anonymous mainstream said ... (2:57 PM) : 

btw Mark good job on bringing this up for discussion. I agree with you, I like the concept of an early and less expensive start - but we have to be realistic and plan this thing to death (not overanalyze for years, but do a heckuva lot of analysis and good thinking in a realtively short period of time.)

I think your input is very much needed - I'm not a big fan of Dave Scott - he's smart but drove a company he started into bankrupcy not once, but twice within three years. And his investors in the last Chapter 11 lost everything - 100% of their investment.

Before this thing gains some real momentum it would be nice to have some considerable, professional oversight.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (4:14 PM) : 

I thought I was the only one who wondered about Dave Scott. The guy is a horrible businessman who lost millions for people, put hundreds out of work and yet walked away a rich man. How does he even show his face in public? I don't get it.

 

Anonymous iDan said ... (1:17 AM) : 

Well, by the looks of this dialogue at least 3 or 4 people are excited about LRT in KC.

Monorail... that would be groundbreaking considering KC would have to be the first place it has worked in the US.

A river crossing to the Northland does seem like a challenge. The ASB should have plenty of extra structural capacity, considering it doesn't now carry what it used to, but finding the physical room is a challenge without major upgrades. Any other bridge crossing the Muddy Missouri should be tapped out structurally by the vehicle traffic alone but that isn't to say structural upgrades couldn't solve the problem. The "new" Paseo, er "Bond" bridge isn't designed yet, why not incorporate a rail "lane" into that design. Though we better act quick as a design team will be chosen soon, with a price locked in. What can we do the next couple weeks?

I am very intrigued by the route discussion. Is there any science behind this... or are we going to do it Kansas style? As great as opinions are I always like a little data to back up a multi-million dollar spending spree. What has worked elsewhere and how does it fit with KC?

And excuse me for asking this, but what are the credentials of the Urban Society? Does the membership have transit experience or expertise? Admittedly, I am skeptical but if you can convince me they have the know how to design our Beloved City's transit system, then I will listen. I found the Urban Society's 2006-2020 Plan (Nov '06) on the web and it doesn't mention anything about light rail or rail transit in KC. But now they hit the KC Star front page with their ideas??

A skeptic.

 

Blogger DaveKCMO said ... (10:54 AM) : 

i appreciate what the urban society is adding to the discussion, but i am steadfastly in the camp supporting a direct connection to union station. william erdman from kansas city southern made it very clear this week that if we should be thinking about future intermodal connections. **every major metropolitan area that did not consider intermodal operations in their initial system has spent countless dollars adding/correcting those connections later!** why not do it now? what exactly is grand avenue buying us? all of america's major commuter rail component, even those that don't yet have light rail. downplaying future commuter rail completely ignores the real traffic pressures of KC's two most-clogged corridors (I-70 and I-35). not to mention is is VERY rare for a freigh railroad to step up and offer their infrastructure; the council would be quite foolish to look the other way while the ATA, RTA, and MARC fumble this play.

 

Blogger DaveKCMO said ... (10:56 AM) : 

mark: rereading your comments you might want to watch the video of william erdman's comments. it's available here: http://kansascity.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=47

 

Anonymous mainstream said ... (5:37 PM) : 

Does anyone else have this design issue other than me?

I've lived and worked in NYC, WDC, NJ commtuing into NYC, and Chicago. Everywhere I've seen mass tranist work, and especialy any kind of rail is because THE ALTERATIVE is terrible. People won't change their habits unless they're unconvenienced or they have to pay too much.

The alternative to light rail in Kansas City is a commute in your car, with little or no traffic.

And don't get me wrong, I am an almost radical environmentalist, but do you think people will actually, significantly change their patterns at this point, to improve or help prevent climate change?

I think that's a very bad assumption. Note the recent business journal poll of small business and what percent they would pay more to help alleviate global warming. If I recall correctly, it topped out at 10%.
And that was interpreting the results optimistically.

 

Anonymous iDan said ... (6:35 PM) : 

Mainstream, I agree with you. Americans don't change unless it directly affects them personally. If light rail will save them significant time and money over driving then they will consider it.

Is there another city in the US that doesn't have a traffic problem that has a successful LRT system? I think some case studies would help me form an opinion. To date I have supported LRT in KC.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (9:24 PM) : 

If you actually watch the Erdman presentation and look and understand what he's saying, any future commuter rail is likely to end up in the River Market than Union Station, wit the exception of the JoCo line. That does not make a strong argument for US as any kind of hub. Don't forget that in Chicago the Metra station is not adjacent to any of the El lines. It's really not that big of a deal. Grand is far better for ultimate spacing considering a future rail or BRT line on Broadway and on Troost. Conventioneers will walk a few blocs - they're already here to walk, and 14th street will be much nicer in about 6 months.
Closing Walnut for transit would accomplish nothing other than killing off any commercial viability on that street.

 

Anonymous Brent said ... (9:53 PM) : 

There was an article in the Star last week that JOCO is pushing the State to help them fund a $450 million project to widen 69 highway to 3 lanes between the 35 split and 119th St. This is after spending roughly $169 million on the new 435 interchange. If that money that was just spent accommodating more traffic in JOCO, plus the $450 million, were used for light rail, you'd have enough money to run a commuter line from Corporate Woods to Union Station. If people would adopt that type of mentality vs widening roads every time traffic got a little dicey, eventually we'd have a very viable system.

As for Walnut, why would a rail line spur development along it everywhere its ever been built EXCEPT in KC, where it would "kill off any commcercial viability". Doesn't make sense to me.

 

Blogger Dan said ... (11:16 AM) : 

Nothing to add beyond saying - holy cow, this is a great discussion on an important topic!

 

Blogger Craig said ... (11:26 AM) : 

Further to Brent's comment. There is an opportunity this week to comment on plans for the widening of Metcalf, which may include highway 69: http://plus.calendars.net/Metcalf_Corridor/

The auto has enjoyed massive subsidies since the 1940s or 50s. The Grandview Triangle project was budgeted at $800,000,000. It's all part of an unholy alliance for sprawl.

Preaching to the choir :-)

 

Blogger DaveKCMO said ... (2:34 PM) : 

anonymous: i did watch the erdman presentation and he presented a concept for using wyandotte street as a connector between the eastern line and the southern line. all of the components were made available to metro right there to connect those dots. as soon as he said "single seat from blue springs to olathe", i knew it was a solid idea. of course, that's way beyond a starter line in the core, but once again it pays to think long term vs. "let's just get it done on the cheap".

 

Blogger Mark said ... (3:47 PM) : 

Dave,

Erdman's "single seat" concept is based on the Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) commuter rail concept. I'll be detailing that option tomorrow as I step through the rolling stock options for a new system.

I know it's easy to get caught up in the excitement and the "let's do it right" attitude and that's good. But if you want to "do it right" and go through the federal funding process it could literally take 20 years before a single section of track is put down.

What the KCUS is proposing has far more potential and flexibility than either the DMU concept or traditional light rail. I am not in complete agreement with their first proposed route, but it is the best proposal I've seen so far and I think it's workable.

Stay tuned for tomorrow's post about the DMU.

 

Blogger Captain Spaulding said ... (8:01 PM) : 

Saw Erdman's presentation too - the price tag he gave for the downtown to Odessa (I'd stop at Oak Grove) was $120-million?

That's what- half the price for the stadium roofs for the wealthy corporate sports teams?

And we MUST get the 'burbs in on whatever we do.
The Metro counties/communities need to start working as a whole instead of piecemeal if this Metro is ever going to get anywhere past cowtown status.

Anyway - I think it behooves us to get Mr. Erdman & the KC Southern people in on this rail planning - since they ARE our 'hometown railroad.'

Excellent discussion too Mark- thank you! (grin)

-Groucho

 

Blogger Eric said ... (7:20 AM) : 

Commuter rail from Johnson County could stop at Union Station, but that county has already freaked out at the cost of rail is on the verge of switching to BRT.

Folks are correct that commuter rail fro Jackson County might be able to stop at Union Station. Congestion that line into the station was identified in MARC's 2000 commuter rail study. There is also limited space at the station to store trains during the day.

Instead, they are looking at the line that passes through the riverfront area and then building a small station in the vicinity of the park-and-ride on 3rd and Grand.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (9:40 AM) : 

I like KC Southern, but the idea of commuter rail cars running on city streets, especially Wyandotte, has to be one of the dumber ideas I've heard yet regarding transit. We do that so we can do what - accommodate the 5 people a day who might ride an hour and a half between Grain Valley and Olathe.
Folks - we've got to at least have some shred of common sense when approaching this issue.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (9:42 AM) : 

Re: Walnut Street. Transit malls are almost as bad an idea as pedestrian malls. Even in big cities, even with lots of pedestrians, even with decent transit, we still need through streets for there to be commercial viability for storefronts. Please research the issues.

 

Blogger KC Sponge said ... (12:28 PM) : 

Andy Udris' connections with KC Southern and his nifty, though under-performing, little Rail Experience at Union Station should provide some unique opportunities for a marriage between a light rail plan and the station. Union Station is a beautiful building and there are many people out there with ideas about what it should be and what should be going on there. I believe it's important to have a historicaly and nationally important rail hub be an important factor - if not the center - of a new transit revolution in the city. It can be made to be feasible. It's much more important than Crown Center. If Andy would stop buying Hummers for the station and put some energy into working with the Urban Society and others who care about how this beast is going to be determined, we could certainly make it work.

 

Anonymous Brent said ... (2:29 PM) : 

"Re: Walnut Street. Transit malls are almost as bad an idea as pedestrian malls. Even in big cities, even with lots of pedestrians, even with decent transit, we still need through streets for there to be commercial viability for storefronts. Please research the issues."

Denver's transit/pedestrian mall has been very successful. What "research" are you referencing, because I just see you anonymously being a naysaying, but offering no solutions.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (6:34 PM) : 

Why Grand? Seriously. What's this new obsession? I had that idea a few months ago and realized it was pointless. The only reason to run it down Grand is to directly connect to the front of Crown Center. Who cares? People can get in the Link and walk a block to Crown Center (they're going to be walking blocks upon blocks within the mall anyway). Connecting to a future transit hub is about 30x more important (even if it never happens) than directly connecting a shopping mall.

 

Anonymous Joe Medley said ... (12:39 PM) : 

The Union Station problem is easily solved. Have you ever notice the ramp that peals off of grand at 22nd Street and ducks under the front of Union Station? I always thought that was of a recent vintage, having been built as an entrance to the parking for Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Then I purchased a reproduction of a 1916-vintage map of downtown. Not only was that ramp there in 1916, but it had a streecar line on it as well.

The only hitch is, if it became a rail right of way again, I don't know how people would access the parking lot sits where the Union Station passenger tracks used to be.

 

Anonymous Mr. Leaky said ... (10:19 AM) : 

This has been a great discussion. We have to insure that it is utilized getting as near as possible to locations that people will want to transit to. If you put it directly to one particular location than you potentailly isolate users enroute to other locations. I have lived in San Francisco and San Diego and used there light rail systems and they get you near many destinations and only directly to a few, and with great ease and success. If one plans to avidly use this sytem than one plans on some walking. Has anyone looked at zip code usage data from Union Station or Crown to figure out where the patrons come from?


I would I really like a route that includes the Northland to at least North Oak and Parvin for now and eventually to the Airport along I-29. This would not only allow a good way to get to the airport, but also be more user friendly for visitors to KC.

Once across the Missouri River I think Main makes the most sense. Getting in on the planning stages of the new Paseo or Bond Bridges is a great idea. It needs to be near Crown Center and Union Station not to them, and don't forget Truman Med and Childrens Hosp. I love Union Station and passenger service along the I-70 and I-35 corridors would be a great idea, but unless BNSF is more willing to have serious discussion about passanger service from JOCO and Eastern Jackson than we need to look affordability and ease of use. By the way don't write off support from JOCO. I love the light rail system idea and I think that since I do pay KCMO income tax and sales tax I should have some voice in this.

Continuing; If it travels south I think Broadway is a better route than Main as it would pass closer to Westport. Once it reaches the Plaza it should head east on Volker and near UMKC and than south on Paseo and eventually link up to Swope Park and the Zoo. The initial route is VERY IMPORTANT. If this is done right and is a success in the future it could be expanded.

As for the type of vehicle ( Great articles on the differant types by the way ); I like the ULR begining with the diesal and eventually a hybrid fuel cell.

 

post a comment
Google
WWW The Kansas City Post