KCRag Forum

pash wrote:It would be rather silly not to simplify things by including the riverfront in the same TDD, given how easy it would be. And indeed the entire riverfront is already included in the new TDD proposed under the plan to extend the line down Main Street.

? Any chance it could be built before the Main Street extension?

It's possible the map here is out of date, but it certainly shows the riverfront excluded.

http://kcrta.org/streetcar/

As for the chance to be first, absolutely. The line south needs federal funding on top of the TDD as done the riverfront segement. Odds are not zero for either plan, but it's possible the smaller number makes the riverfront line have greater odds of success. Hard to say until someone applies and gets an answer. Each project has its own dynamic involved.

The only transit plan that could build anything for sure is on the Nov ballot, because it's worded so it can build what it can fund without additional money.

.

pash wrote:

flyingember wrote:It's possible the map here is out of date, but it certainly shows the riverfront excluded.

No, it doesn't. If you're looking at the right map [PDF, Google Drive], the proposed new TDD includes the green, yellow, and white regions inside the thick black line. The northeastern boundary is the the Bond Bridge overpass, encompassing all of Berkley Park and all of the area south of the park that Port KC is trying to develop.

So that is the right map. Look at it closer. There's a white line along the center of the river and I-35 as you describe. This is to include Columbus Park of course.

Look at the port authority land. There's another dark line inside the first and it's a shade of grey inside it. So this map shows an excluded area inside the TDD.

I just read the document linked on kcstreetcar.org and it shows the port wants to implement a PID. Looks like the TDD excluded their development site so they could do their improvement district for this plan and not be double taxed on the sales taxes.

That would imply a level of seriousness if they coordinated with the expanded TDD to make this idea more feasible.

pash wrote:Any chance it could be built before the Main Street extension?

it's possible, given that it's shorter and would not require multiple elections.

.

pash wrote:

flyingember wrote:So that is the right map. Look at it closer. There's a white line along the center of the river and I-35 as you describe. This is to include Columbus Park of course.

Look at the port authority land. There's another dark line inside the first and it's a shade of grey inside it. So this map shows an excluded area inside the TDD.

Makes you wonder why they—meaning the TDD petitioners—did that. Yes, clearly Port KC is going to establish a PID there, but it still seems like an odd exclusion, particularly given that it would have been outside of the area of property-tax assessments anyway. If a streetcar line does get built specifically to serve the area, its exclusion from the TDD is going to seem even stranger. (Existing PIDs, such as the one that includes only the former Board of Trade Building at 49th and Main, are not excluded from the proposed TDD, by the way.)

If I had to guess, they want to add retail to their development and the lack of the TDD sales tax will be part of their leasing tactic. It's going to be a hard spot to gain retail being on the edge of downtown

the port wanted to be excluded from the expanded TDD, presumably to have total control over the entire site.

grovester wrote:

droopy wrote:I'm not trying to be snarky, so I'm sorry if this comes off that way, but why is a streetcar to the riverfront park appealing? Maybe I'm out of date on my understanding on the plans for the area, only thing that seems to be moving forward is Bar-K. Isn't the mixed use development ideas really really far in the future if at?

Obviously the goal is to get to Knuckleheads and Local Pig.

$40-$60 million to get to Knuckleheads and Local Pig is more enticing to me than simply getting to a park (which I do actually use sometimes for reference. Walk the trail from RM to the park)

Pork Chop wrote:

DaveKCMO wrote:

droopy wrote:I'm not trying to be snarky, so I'm sorry if this comes off that way, but why is a streetcar to the riverfront park appealing? Maybe I'm out of date on my understanding on the plans for the area, only thing that seems to be moving forward is Bar-K. Isn't the mixed use development ideas really really far in the future if at?

google "portland south waterfront".

Here's what Portland's South Waterfront used to look like

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/inde ... h_wat.html

IMHO, seems a bit familiar...

Thanks for the response. That's awesome to see and I hope is very publicly promoted as part of any study, etc. I would love our waterfront to be part of our city rather than just something we drive over occasionally. Did Portland break ground on this project before or after approval of their streetcar extension. And was that a gondola on the wiki page?!?

droopy wrote:And was that a gondola on the wiki page?!?

http://www.gobytram.com/

Gondolas aren't always a stupid idea. You might find this crazy, but that Chastain plan with one isn't too far off the distance of Portlands, it just makes a lot less sense than the one in Portland. The major difference I see is theirs bridges a geographical barrier that drives a lot of ridership because going around is harder.

Theirs is 3300 feet long.
His 2006 idea was about about 2500 feet going via Kessler.

droopy wrote:Thanks for the response. That's awesome to see and I hope is very publicly promoted as part of any study, etc. I would love our waterfront to be part of our city rather than just something we drive over occasionally. Did Portland break ground on this project before or after approval of their streetcar extension.

i believe streetcar and the private infill development were pretty much in parallel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_ ... ar#History

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/kc ... 75773.html

Burns & McDonnell will lead the consulting team to study the feasibility of extending Kansas City’s downtown streetcar line north to Berkley Riverfront Park.

The study, which should take about six months, will look at the feasibility of potential streetcar routes, connection options to other transit, cost and financing strategies.

The other team members include WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff, Confluence, Dunbar Transportation Consulting, Hg Consult, Parson + Associates and Polsinelli.

How do folks feel about an HOA bridge line vs. Grand viaduct?

http://urbanangle.net/getting-riverfront-rail-right/

grovester wrote:How do folks feel about an HOA bridge line vs. Grand viaduct?

http://urbanangle.net/getting-riverfront-rail-right/

I'll never out argue Thomas on these things is all I'll say.

I will say I drove down 3rd through industrial parkway down to Local Pig the other day and thought, maybe that wouldn't be such a bad route...it not only connects the river front but also Columbus Park which is fine as it is but couldn't hurt to have a streetcar line....problem with that route is it crosses three freight rail lines to get to the riverfront.

I still like the idea of connecting via an elevated station. You just go over the railroad and avoid that issue.

To hit the east end near Lydia via Front St is something like $40 million? That's a large part of the cost of the bridge crossing to NKC which if we can find money for this route helping fund the crossing at the same time seems fiscally smart. Even terminating just across the river at 10th Ave would mean people could transfer to the future northland MAX route, the NKC flex line, etc. It opens up access to a lot of blue collar jobs which drives ridership. That routing is not just to NKC, you would be installing part of the route to Indep Ave too.

Hitting Columbus Park via 3rd or 5th should be determined by engineering as to which street is better. I see value in both routes. 3rd is already an intersection and clearly has the space for the turn while 5th connects better to Columbus Park and doesn't interact with the service line so you maintain that movement plan as is.

If you partnered with the developer, you could turn the elevated station into some kind of retail spot that could also serve the park.

Or go straight into a residential building. Imagine direct access to the streetcar as an amenity, especially if you could wait indoors.

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:Or go straight into a residential building. Imagine direct access to the streetcar as an amenity, especially if you could wait indoors.

:0

Just been wondering, but are our current streetcar tracks compatible with more vintage streetcars? Based off the Urban Angle article which states a designated streetcar would probably need to service the Riverfront Park, would a single vintage car not be good enough for that spur? This is just and assumption, but would an older model be cheaper? Correct me if wrong. Based off Dave's twitter, it seems like Tampa has vintage streetcars, and New Orleans does as well. I think it would be kind of cool to have at least one vintage streetcar running, and to me this would be the perfect location to test it out.

Depends. The wheels have to be the same gauge. They need to be electrically compatible both physically and circuitry. They also need to support changing direction without a loop, not all historic streetcars did.

An older model wouldn't necessarily be ADA compliant, have level boarding. It adds a new model for maintenance needs.

New Orleans has a mix of vintage and new ones designed to look old. The new ones are a much nicer ride.

They can be cheaper but I don't see the point. They add a capacity choke point on the system and would require changing trains for a 1 mile ride.

Doesn't seem worth it.