OFFICIAL - Main Street Streetcar Extension

[chaglang]

Yeah, I have heard of that, though I haven't seen any maps of a system like that (not that I've ever looked). I'm not a huge fan of the idea. I know that anti-bus bias exists. Obfuscating doesn't seem like a great way to overcome that.

[DaveKCMO]

i would support a map that only showed high frequency routes, regardless of mode. as some transit users have pointed out, frequency is more important than mode to many users (although our system is focused on coverage, at the expense of frequency... which winds up pleasing no one except northlanders who don't ride the bus anyway). i'd really like to see sunday headways improved on both max routes before we made a high frequency map; right now, main and troost are both 30 minutes.

such a map, sadly, would only show three corridors (main, troost, prospect). even the jackson county rail lines wouldn't show because they are tentatively planned to run every 30 minutes.

of course, there's no law about transit maps... only tradition and accepted practice. if we wanted to show corridors where we've invested, we could do that and make them distinct colors:

main - orange
troost - green
streetcar - red
prospect - yellow
state - blue
metcalf - beige
north oak - beige
I-70/southeast - silver

[earthling]

I agree with color coding high frequency lines no matter the mode, essentially MAX and any rail line. Anti-bus bias will always be there (tends to only be those who don't use transit regularly) - planners shouldn't be pandering to anti-bus bias, they should do what makes practical sense.

[smh]

metcalf - beige
north oak - beige
I-70/southeast - silver

Classic.

[KCPowercat]

This is the required 2nd phase in my mind....or in other words what we would have a had a decade ago if Cleaver wouldn't have submarined it.

[flyingember]

You probably already know this, but some transit planners deliberately choose to obscure the distinction between different modes of transit. They represent them with the same colors and names on maps, signs, etc., because they want to downplay the distinction between busses and rail. The idea is to head off anti-bus bias, but apparently in some cases people just feel conned. ...

chaglang- this

notice how in Kansas City the quicker lines have colors and the slower lines don't, and they're all busses.

color and naming is irrelevant as long as people aren't confused.

it sounds like calling streetcar + bus both Main Street MAX is confusing.
but maybe calling each by their mode and coloring them as a single line with an obvious mode transfer point wouldn't be.

again, the boston problem is they don't show that the different colors are different modes on the map. the rail lines were colored, when they added a color designator for a bus line they needed to change the subway lines somehow. I like how Minneapolis does this. all their lines are colored but rail has bars along the outside.

[flyingember]

main - orange
troost - green
streetcar - red
prospect - yellow
state - blue
metcalf - beige
north oak - beige
I-70/southeast - silver

funny. North Oak has 7 day service. it's just not regular enough service to encourage more use


the other thing to think about with color you can see on the boston map. notice how despite making the lines literally, red, green, etc, they still name them. because some people are color blind.

[flyingember]

So the money discussion is on the table.

How exactly do we pay for it?

parking fees. it wouldn't be enough but it's a start. I see expansion being funded through a dozen different sources more so than a single large one.

I'd like to see the parking lot fee expanded across the city and go towards transit in general. Bike lanes/trails, para transit, bus service, facilities for bikers, etc

On garages I'd like to see a per vehicle fee put in place for daily rate users. A small token fee like 10-25 cents.
Then double meter fees downtown.

Bring the street spot cost more in line with using a parking garage. I'd argue street spots should be dedicated to service vehicles that can't fit into garages more than personal vehicles. Make it a premium service to park out front of one's destination.

[KC-wildcat]

So the money discussion is on the table.

How exactly do we pay for it?

Mandatory assessment imposed on every KCMO traffic citation. Minor infractions, such as speeding, red lights, stop signs, etc. could have a minor assessments added to the fine. More serious infractions like DWI, Careless & Imprudent, Reckless Endangerment, should have larger assessments. Earmark the assessments for public transit funding, and boom, you've got a funding source.

[KCPowercat]

So the money discussion is on the table.

How exactly do we pay for it?

Mandatory assessment imposed on every KCMO traffic citation. Minor infractions, such as speeding, red lights, stop signs, etc. could have a minor assessments added to the fine. More serious infractions like DWI, Careless & Imprudent, Reckless Endangerment, should have larger assessments. Earmark the assessments for public transit funding, and boom, you've got a funding source.

I like this idea...is it legal?

[KC-wildcat]

So the money discussion is on the table.

How exactly do we pay for it?

Mandatory assessment imposed on every KCMO traffic citation. Minor infractions, such as speeding, red lights, stop signs, etc. could have a minor assessments added to the fine. More serious infractions like DWI, Careless & Imprudent, Reckless Endangerment, should have larger assessments. Earmark the assessments for public transit funding, and boom, you've got a funding source.

I like this idea...is it legal?

Sure. I think so. The proceeds from traffic citations fund a number of municipal operations, though I'm sure not so specifically set forth as my proposal. In other cities, citations are routinely enhanced to fill the coffers of one fund or another. To pass constitutional muster, the ordinance would just have to be rationally related to some legitimate government interest. Here, the city has an interest in enhancing auto safety, efficient traffic flow, and promoting alternative means of travel for those who can't operate an auto - safely or otherwise. Imposing fines for traffic offenders and earmarking portions of those increased funds for achieving aforementioned goals would be rational and legitimate IMO.

[flyingember]

I'm thinking that what we need to come up with as a city is a couple dozen smaller sources that can be pooled to fund operations
it's easier to find construction costs but what's needed is to not need to pull from existing sources over and over to run the thing 10 years down the line

that was a big part of the problem with the last system, it got built and then the system couldn't raise the funds to maintain and operate it because the use system fees weren't enough and somewhat fairly, the city blocked bumping rates on multiple occasions.

the question is what sources are the best ones that don't put a burden on the person paying it? not all the money can come from car/transit related sources

[chaglang]

Wait... I thought that TDDs were going to be the main funding source for all future line extensions. Are we discussing ideas in addition to a Midtown TDD or in lieu of one? Rail support always polls high in the midtown/UMKC area. If there was ever a place to create another one, this would be it.

[DaveKCMO]

Wait... I thought that TDDs were going to be the main funding source for all future line extensions. Are we discussing ideas in addition to a Midtown TDD or in lieu of one? Rail support always polls high in the midtown/UMKC area. If there was ever a place to create another one, this would be it.

no one is ruling out a TDD, but i'm told there isn't enough value in midtown/plaza to cover 75% of the capital (~$175 million) and all of the operating costs (~$4 million annually) like there we did downtown.

that leaves more local innovations, new state money that doesn't exist today, or a much larger % of federal match.

[chaglang]

Interesting. How much of those costs would a TDD cover?

[DaveKCMO]

Interesting. How much of those costs would a TDD cover?

haven't seen any data yet.

[KC-wildcat]

continuing on idea of the traffic citation earmark...

KCMO issued 219,365 traffic tickets in 2011 - including ~ 450 DUIs. It would make sense to apportion a higher transit assessment for more serious traffic offenses and a lower assessment for parking tickets, for instance. But, even if KCMO assessed a nominal $5 assessment, across the board, there is a potential public transit funding source of $1mil/per year.

[flyingember]

Interesting. How much of those costs would a TDD cover?

I agree this is unknown, the question is more, how big do the TDD boundaries need to be and how much does it raise

it's not dense with towers like downtown but there's some notable areas

the area around 49th/Main is dense with residential towers
there's the clump of dense residential along Belleview west of the plaza
there's the Westport residential buildings
there's the residential density between the Nelson and Main

[chaglang]

I agree this is unknown, the question is more, how big do the TDD boundaries need to be and how much does it raise

What's the underlying rationale on setting boundaries: size it to generate as much revenue as needed, or size it to cover the max area that people can reasonably derive direct benefit?

Is the traffic citation number fairly consistent from year to year?

[grovester]

I would imagine the farther from the line, the worse it polls.