Union Station

Issues concerning Downtown as described by the Downtown Council. River to 31st Street, I-35 to Bruce R. Watkins.
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 18142
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Union Station

Post by FangKC »

Well, they do exit into the main hall, and probably take a look around the corner at the Grand Hall before they leave.
User avatar
beautyfromashes
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 7189
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: Union Station

Post by beautyfromashes »

FangKC wrote:Well, they do exit into the main hall, and probably take a look around the corner at the Grand Hall before they leave.
~~tear~~
swid
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Union Hill

Re: Union Station

Post by swid »

beautyfromashes wrote:No, I understand it's probably 100 people, twice a day at most.
In the "the more you know" category, last year's daily average for Union Station was 450 passengers boarding or disembarking, spread across 3 arrivals and 3 departures per day.
User avatar
beautyfromashes
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 7189
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: Union Station

Post by beautyfromashes »

swid wrote:
beautyfromashes wrote:No, I understand it's probably 100 people, twice a day at most.
In the "the more you know" category, last year's daily average for Union Station was 450 passengers boarding or disembarking, spread across 3 arrivals and 3 departures per day.
So, about 150 people coming or going at 3 times through the day? That seems like a good start! And doesn't include families/loved ones coming to see them off or pick them up.
User avatar
chaglang
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4132
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Union Station

Post by chaglang »

The Freighthouse connection needs better signage. It's accessible during events (sometimes you have to let a guard know what you're doing), but unless you know EXACTLY where it is, you'll never find it. The same is true of the Link, FWIW. Someone could suggest that they keep the 10' or so of the ballroom open at all times to allow for Freighthouse traffic. Regardless, neither end of that Freighthouse link comes out in an ideal location.

When I was there on Tuesday, the station was full of people milling around, getting coffee, eating at Harvey's or Pierpont's, looking at the new art exhibit, or heading down to look at the Egyptian exhibit. There were also several groups of schoolchildren visiting Science City. In all, it was a sizable crowd. There isn't much to pull people into the Grand Hall, but it doesn't feel like a museum to me. It certainly wasn't quiet.

With the introduction of all the GSA employees and the streetcar terminus, Union Station may have to rethink the use of the Grand Hall anyway- but I doubt that Amtrak plays any more of a role than it does now. If Amtrak is only pulling in 450 people a day, it hardly seems worth making major changes for.

It's nice that we're at a point with the station that we can have this discussion.
User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: Union Station

Post by KCMax »

chaglang wrote:The Freighthouse connection needs better signage. It's accessible during events (sometimes you have to let a guard know what you're doing), but unless you know EXACTLY where it is, you'll never find it. The same is true of the Link, FWIW. Someone could suggest that they keep the 10' or so of the ballroom open at all times to allow for Freighthouse traffic. Regardless, neither end of that Freighthouse link comes out in an ideal location.

When I was there on Tuesday, the station was full of people milling around, getting coffee, eating at Harvey's or Pierpont's, looking at the new art exhibit, or heading down to look at the Egyptian exhibit. There were also several groups of schoolchildren visiting Science City. In all, it was a sizable crowd. There isn't much to pull people into the Grand Hall, but it doesn't feel like a museum to me. It certainly wasn't quiet.

With the introduction of all the GSA employees and the streetcar terminus, Union Station may have to rethink the use of the Grand Hall anyway- but I doubt that Amtrak plays any more of a role than it does now. If Amtrak is only pulling in 450 people a day, it hardly seems worth making major changes for.

It's nice that we're at a point with the station that we can have this discussion.
Very much agree on the signage.

Also, the hours things are open is confusing. The website says the hours Union Station is open, but that's the physical building, the exhibits are only open during certain days/hours. Minor quibble though, we love going to Union Station and I love how much traffic its getting now, even though I wish it was a bustling transit hub.
IraGlacialis
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 895
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:02 pm
Location: Bangkok

Re: Union Station

Post by IraGlacialis »

beautyfromashes wrote:And doesn't include families/loved ones coming to see them off or pick them up.
It may just because I was usually leaving/arriving in the early morning/late night, but in my experience, the people dropping off/picking up passengers tend to stay in their cars and at the front instead of going inside.

In any case, maybe the Great Hall may not be able to be continuously used as an entryway for Amtrak passengers, but what about the space currently used as a "school lunch room"? It may not extend the whole way due to the restrooms, but it's still more than a good length of space, and most of the time, people would probably be able to enter directly through the Great Hall.
User avatar
rxlexi
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2290
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 10:30 pm
Location: Briarcliff

Re: Union Station

Post by rxlexi »

The Freighthouse pedestrian bridge is one of my favorite and most well-used pieces of downtown infrastructure. Great view, nice aesthetics, connects US to crossroads, and provides free parking to boot.

I agree on better signage however, particularly from inside the station. There should be a large sign in the great hall over the doorway to the walkway entrance, and possibly a small map detailing where it "goes" (i.e. which restaurants are in the Frieghthouse, etc.). I've been asked this a handful of times while walking across the bridge.
User avatar
Pork Chop
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 4:41 am

Re: Union Station

Post by Pork Chop »

With this picture I can now totally see why it will cost so much to bring commuter rail to Union Station:

Image

I know, most likely pie in the sky, but it would be nice if KCMO figured out a way to buy Two Pershing Square:
TA Associates Realty reportedly is preparing to sell Two Pershing Square, an 11-story, 514,708-square-foot office building at 2300 Main St
http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... l?page=all
User avatar
Eon Blue
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:28 pm
Location: Downtown KCMO

Re: Union Station

Post by Eon Blue »

Yep, Pershing Square really neuters Union Station's ability to be used as a train station. It's unfortunate that expanded rail service wasn't a realistic enough possibility at the time of the office buildings' construction to accommodate future tracks under the structures into the train shed.
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 18142
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Union Station

Post by FangKC »

All those train sheds were needed when Union Station handled 200 trains a day that would require trains sitting to have luggage and freight loaded and unloaded. I doubt commuter rail would ever require that number of side rail lines, or that rail lines would require be tied up that long with a sitting train. They could probably get by with two lines going each direction.
User avatar
Pork Chop
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 4:41 am

Re: Union Station

Post by Pork Chop »

FangKC wrote:All those train sheds were needed when Union Station handled 200 trains a day that would require trains sitting to have luggage and freight loaded and unloaded. I doubt commuter rail would ever require that number of side rail lines, or that rail lines would require be tied up that long with a sitting train. They could probably get by with two lines going each direction.
What about High Speed Rail? :D
KCroots
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:19 am

Re: Union Station

Post by KCroots »

FangKC wrote:All those train sheds were needed when Union Station handled 200 trains a day that would require trains sitting to have luggage and freight loaded and unloaded. I doubt commuter rail would ever require that number of side rail lines, or that rail lines would require be tied up that long with a sitting train. They could probably get by with two lines going each direction.

I think most people don’t consider the future and any real crude oil crisis or peak oil issues. Sure we can say its long off or just some conspiracy theory but I’m a firm believer of it’s better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. In this situation I’d rather see Union Station have plans already in place which they could implement quickly to easily convert Union Station back to a major rail hub for large numbers of rail passengers both commuter rail and regular rail. This mean getting rid of Pershing Square and any structures where the old rail lines were and converting the entire areas into green space that could be easily converted as needed.

Often time we all cry shortsightedness on developments or general preservation efforts and I think Union Station falls into this at this time. It just baffles my mind why the US Federal Government can spend billions and billions of dollars on wars and supporting other countries like Israel but can’t help their own citizens on projects like this.

It’s clear the Federal government doesn’t have the interest or foresight to see that one day a huge interconnected rail system is once again going to be needed throughout the USA and into Canada and Mexico.

Amtrak is just another example of an epic government clusterfuck. Remove all the competition and take over something that should be in the privet sector and replace it with a single government run operation and the people (tax payers) who are footing he bills once again get screwed. Same thing is happening with the healthcare system and the VA Hospitals and people seem to have short memories while taking it up the back side.

There will come a time once again when rail travel will regain a huge portion of the travel sector and Kansas City is going to be a lead in that sector.
User avatar
beautyfromashes
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 7189
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: Union Station

Post by beautyfromashes »

^^ We'll never run out of oil. We find new deposits all the time and we already produce more oil then we use in the U.S. Using 'liquid rocks' is an amazing way to produce energy.
KCroots
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:19 am

Re: Union Station

Post by KCroots »

beautyfromashes wrote:^^ We'll never run out of oil. We find new deposits all the time and we already produce more oil then we use in the U.S. Using 'liquid rocks' is an amazing way to produce energy.


We'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that, besides getting sidetracked on a discussion regarding energy is off topic
GiveThisManABeer
Parking Garage
Parking Garage
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:21 pm

Re: Union Station

Post by GiveThisManABeer »

Pork Chop wrote:With this picture I can now totally see why it will cost so much to bring commuter rail to Union Station:

Image

I know, most likely pie in the sky, but it would be nice if KCMO figured out a way to buy Two Pershing Square:
TA Associates Realty reportedly is preparing to sell Two Pershing Square, an 11-story, 514,708-square-foot office building at 2300 Main St
http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... l?page=all

You are on point. Too bad Two Perishing took up so much track area and is an ugly adjacent building to such a lovely structure.

But on the issue of tracks and train sheds. I know Seattle's King Street Station does pretty well with a limited amount of track. It has two main line tracks going by it that are never used for passenger loading and unloading. There is three sheds with six tracks and only two go all the way through, the remaining are stub/dead end tracks. Seattle has quite a lot of passenger traffic. A westbound and eastbound Empire Builder, 6 Sounders in the morning communte, 6 in the evening, and I think 3/4 North/South Cascades a daily. They seem to do well with limited space. If there is a will there is a way. It would be amazing to see Union Station being used for its original intent coupled with its modern day function. So glad it is a functioning gem in the KCMO core.
kcjak
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2429
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:02 pm

Re: Union Station

Post by kcjak »

Why would train sheds have to be adjacent to Union Station? There are lots to the west and east (on other side of Main, with another east of Grand) that could be used in some context.
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Union Station

Post by flyingember »

kcjak wrote:Why would train sheds have to be adjacent to Union Station? There are lots to the west and east (on other side of Main, with another east of Grand) that could be used in some context.
if you move things around it messes with the entire corridor. freight movements are based around trains starting at certain points, taking certain paths, going certain speeds, etc. they doubtless have amtrak agreement legal requirements that each passenger train be at certain points at certain times. and this doubtless takes into account train weight, how fast it can accelerate and such.

the other side of grand is a 0.25 miles away. the trench is only ~5.25 miles long that would change the entire freight plan for the region to have a train be a different speed at a different point that it may not be able to exceed. and we know freight companies do not like changing their train schedules.
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 18142
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Union Station

Post by FangKC »

Well, in the future, freight needs might be completely different in the Metro area.

A new freight yard is being built near Gardner, Kansas. And there is the intermodal facility at the former Richards-Gebuar air base in south Kansas CIty.

The point is that freight movement around the area is changing because of facilities being built. In future decades, there might be less need to move freight through the middle of the city using that corridor, and it might free up capacity for commuter trains.

I'm actually surprised that the old Hannibal rail bridge over the Missouri River from North Kansas City hasn't been updated and/or expanded to allow more trains to cross the river and move through the West Bottoms.

Do well really need to be moving freight through the middle of the city? Do we need such large switching yards in and around downtown? Can these functions be moved to the edge of the city? Much of the function of the switching yards is to assemble and reassemble single freight cars into larger trains for long-distance transport. A lot of this traffic is moving trains from these switching yards.

Do we really need to run long trains full of coal, natural gas, and oil from western states through the middle of Kansas City? Especially if this freight isn't being delivered to local buyers, but are just "passing through."

I live in the Old Northeast up on the bluff above a large switching yard, and can hear the train noises from my house. I have often thought what might happen if there was a leak of natural gas or some chemical from those trains in the middle of the night while I'm sleeping. Would local fire and police be able to respond to this in time to save my life?
GiveThisManABeer
Parking Garage
Parking Garage
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:21 pm

Re: Union Station

Post by GiveThisManABeer »

FangKC wrote:Well, in the future, freight needs might be completely different in the Metro area.

A new freight yard is being built near Gardner, Kansas. And there is the intermodal facility at the former Richards-Gebuar air base in south Kansas CIty.

The point is that freight movement around the area is changing because of facilities being built. In future decades, there might be less need to move freight through the middle of the city using that corridor, and it might free up capacity for commuter trains.

I'm actually surprised that the old Hannibal rail bridge over the Missouri River from North Kansas City hasn't been updated and/or expanded to allow more trains to cross the river and move through the West Bottoms.

Do well really need to be moving freight through the middle of the city? Do we need such large switching yards in and around downtown? Can these functions be moved to the edge of the city? Much of the function of the switching yards is to assemble and reassemble single freight cars into larger trains for long-distance transport. A lot of this traffic is moving trains from these switching yards.

Do we really need to run long trains full of coal, natural gas, and oil from western states through the middle of Kansas City? Especially if this freight isn't being delivered to local buyers, but are just "passing through."

I live in the Old Northeast up on the bluff above a large switching yard, and can hear the train noises from my house. I have often thought what might happen if there was a leak of natural gas or some chemical from those trains in the middle of the night while I'm sleeping. Would local fire and police be able to respond to this in time to save my life?

Yea Fang, I completely feel your concerns with the railroads and want to make freight more fluid through the city. My job is being on the trains, train crew employee. There is a conductor and engineer on most freight trains going through the city. I am one those guys.

But to put it in perspective here is all those new facilities mentioned are for intermodal. That's the stuff coming off the ships and then land bridged across the country. Or after being on a ship and being taken off the trains after long distances and being short hauled by trucks. Pretty simple business. But the old inner city railyards are used to switch out boxcars, tank cars, lumber, etc. Those required a lot more switching/work to be broke up from wherever they are coming in from and then put at the industries in KC or put on another train going to a outbound destination. Hence the around the clock commotion below you.

Take BNSF. The 2 main yards in KC are Argentine (in the namesake neighborhood) and Murray by the Charles Wheeler. Argentine has a 60 tracks where they constantly break up inbound trains and form outbound trains. Murray has some of that but a lot of Murray traffic is coming for the coal fields of WY and some of the new Bakken Shale oil trains. They come in loaded from the Lincoln and come back empty. At Murray they are fueled and looked over then given to a outbound crew. So it is a great central location to take care of business. The railroad would be hard pressed to get rid of those old facilities because they do a pretty good job of what they have been doing for the last 100 odd years.

We have 6 out of the big 7 railroads in the US coming to KC. All of them with different directions and all think they have priority over the other. So to get all of them on the same page to build a new line around the city (a 435 for trains if you will) would be a great task to aim for but very hard to achieve in reality. And a lot citizens would not be alright with a railroad being built through their land, NIMBY stuff. Nature of the beast of living around active rail line or yard is noise.

Also, in the 1980s the railroads were deregulated. That afforded rail companies opportunities to abandoned all these little branch lines. Some of them became rails to trails with the intent if the railroads ever needed them again the right of way was preserved but most went back the adjacent land owners. So the railroads shed a ton of these little lines around the country. Think of all the maintenance it would required to keep everything in top shape on a line that only produces not that much revenue. And in some instances the railroads chased that business away because it requires so many people (labor costs money). But there may have been some old lines at one time that could have acted as a relief valve around the city but those are gone. Once they are gone they gone for good. With higher oil prices and just the nature of our economy the carriers are doing well. Almost too well. Now we are choked with traffic in some areas with the remaining infrustucture that is left. Some of the shippers are complaining of delays just because it is so slow moving with all the traffic out there. I bet they wish they had a belt around our city and others like it. But these are the cards we are delt.

And the people who work at the railroad are great people. We are a professional group that is very vigilant. Safety is always number one. We have to do HazMat training and report anything unusual with shipments. That's what's nice about working for a union outfit. We are payed for safe production. I worked for a non union railrosd and it was not up to the safety standards that I am used to. Another story for another time. So incident you worry about, the railroads worry about 100 times more. They don't want to have these huge lawsuits, payouts, or bad PR. They do a pretty good job at that, I can attest.
Post Reply