KCRag Forum

Riverite wrote:Google thing?

I think the over arching transit goal was to double the number of jobs accessible by public transit and use transit to build the city of the future. Then they said they have a partnership with Google that is transit related

ldai_phs wrote:

Riverite wrote:Google thing?

I think the over arching transit goal was to double the number of jobs accessible by public transit and use transit to build the city of the future. Then they said they have a partnership with Google that is transit related

New urban mobility platform. Only a few cities chosen. Details in January. Because they said Google, not Alphabet, it will probably be something not too far off of the core Google services. So not a self driving Waymo bus or anything like that.

Couple Updates: I heard at a meeting today that an LR line from downtown KCMO to far down 71 highway (Harrisonville was mentioned) would only cost roughly $700m. Keep in mind that a single highway interchange costs roughly $500million. The ROW already exists and is gov. Owned so The only costs would be associated with building the line and stations and buying trains. The cost to build a standard rail line is about $2-3 million per mile.

Additionally, I was a able to confirm that next rail used a consistent mileage price for all routes including their CCRW analysis. That means my estimated price ,that was much lower and actually affordable when compared to next rail's, is likely accurate.

That would be nice

ldai_phs wrote:Couple Updates: I heard at a meeting today that an LR line from downtown KCMO to far down 71 highway (Harrisonville was mentioned) would only cost roughly $700m. Keep in mind that a single highway interchange costs roughly $500million. The ROW already exists and is gov. Owned so The only costs would be associated with building the line and stations and buying trains. The cost to build a standard rail line is about $2-3 million per mile.

Additionally, I was a able to confirm that next rail used a consistent mileage price for all routes including their CCRW analysis. That means my estimated price ,that was much lower and actually affordable when compared to next rail's, is likely accurate.

I'd only support that if 71 was getting downgraded. I'd rather pay more to have it be somewhere else and have the possibility for good TOD and high ridership.

Also, just realized that it is April and we still don't know any more about the google thing, unless I completely missed something?

tower wrote:
I'd only support that if 71 was getting downgraded. I'd rather pay more to have it be somewhere else and have the possibility for good TOD and high ridership.

need to be careful here, last thing wanted is to take everyone taking 71 into downtown and move them to 435 into JoCo
and a lot of people would choose this path

71 Highway is a high traffic route with a preexisting transit ROW(the center median is built to handle BRT or Rail). TOD is still possible even though it is median running.

Depends on where they are coming from. Going from topgolf in OP to the Sprint center, 435 west to 35 is the same time as 435 east to 435 north to 70. Either way is only 2 minutes slower than 71. Of course there will be more traffic on 70, but if we tore down 35 going into downtown, then we have more traffic on the Kansas side of 70 as well.

With a 35 teardown through downtown, the Kansas vs Missouri traffic would be the same. Just slightly more traffic all around but thats fine with me.

Of course, running rail somewhere else would be the more politically feasible option than downgrading a highway.

ldai_phs wrote:71 Highway is a high traffic route with a preexisting transit ROW(the center median is built to handle BRT or Rail). TOD is still possible even though it is median running.

Right, but people don't really like to live next to highways. It's a little off-putting. It's sounds ok, especially if we expect electric cars to take over, but that's just your brain talking, and since when have humans ever listened to that thing when deciding where to live anything?

Just like busses. Technically better than streetcars, but why do people prefer the streetcar?

ldai_phs wrote:Couple Updates: I heard at a meeting today that an LR line from downtown KCMO to far down 71 highway (Harrisonville was mentioned) would only cost roughly $700m. Keep in mind that a single highway interchange costs roughly $500million. The ROW already exists and is gov. Owned so The only costs would be associated with building the line and stations and buying trains. The cost to build a standard rail line is about $2-3 million per mile.

Additionally, I was a able to confirm that next rail used a consistent mileage price for all routes including their CCRW analysis. That means my estimated price ,that was much lower and actually affordable when compared to next rail's, is likely accurate.

Dubious cost estimate. LRT is likely $100 per mile, regardless of whether or not you acquire property. The city's last official LRT proposal in 2008 was going to do the same to 63rd Street and was estimated to cost more than that.

The reserved ROW for light rail along Watkins isn't contiguous to downtown (I don't think it starts until at least the Plaza).

DaveKCMO wrote:

ldai_phs wrote:Couple Updates: I heard at a meeting today that an LR line from downtown KCMO to far down 71 highway (Harrisonville was mentioned) would only cost roughly $700m. Keep in mind that a single highway interchange costs roughly $500million. The ROW already exists and is gov. Owned so The only costs would be associated with building the line and stations and buying trains. The cost to build a standard rail line is about $2-3 million per mile.

Additionally, I was a able to confirm that next rail used a consistent mileage price for all routes including their CCRW analysis. That means my estimated price ,that was much lower and actually affordable when compared to next rail's, is likely accurate.

Dubious cost estimate. LRT is likely $100 per mile, regardless of whether or not you acquire property. The city's last official LRT proposal in 2008 was going to do the same to 63rd Street and was estimated to cost more than that.

The reserved ROW for light rail along Watkins isn't contiguous to downtown (I don't think it starts until at least the Plaza).

The person noted that the median from downtown to the plaza is more than wide enough for LR. On the issue of cost, his seemed a bit cheap, but 100million per mile seems a bit much? Is there a cost breakdown available anywhere?

$100 million per mile is probably low. Should count on double that by the time funding is found.

In the United States, most recent and in-progress light-rail lines cost more than $100 million per mile. Two light-rail extensions in Minneapolis, the Blue Line Extension and the Southwest LRT, cost $120 million and $130 million per mile, respectively. Dallas’ Orange Line light rail, 14 miles long, cost somewhere between $1.3 billion and $1.8 billion. Portland’s Orange Line cost about $200 million per mile. Houston’s Green and Purple Lines together cost $1.3 billion for about 10 miles of light rail.

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/ ... us/551408/

Short time KCRag poster, long time Clay Chastain hater just wanted to weigh in on my outlook for further streetcar expansion, no gondolas involved.

Phase 3 needs to be Linwood/31st to Truman Sports. Exciting projects like Levy at Martini Corner development, Operation Breakthrough and Wonder lofts in flight. Connects to VA hospital, a major job center. There are lots of vacant commercial parcels and loop alignment doubles potential immediate impact area. 3rd rated by Nextrail. TDD funding will be an issue, but good chance for federal funding, Area seems pretty depopulated so not necessarily displacing masses of people. Glass/Hunt will chip in on the $120m it will take to get the spur from Van Brunt to TSC plus a $5 fee on gamedays will cover a ton of operating expenses. $450m for a new downtown stadium vs. $186m + ~$120m to TSC including connecting forgotten/isolated Dunbar and Eastside neighborhoods is a no brainer imho.

Phase IV: Independence Ave. Major traffic corridor & heavy public transit use, lots of redevelopment opportunities at Van Brunt terminus/Hardesty.

Northrail is a possible and worthy longer term goal, could be simultaneous if NKC takes the lead. My preferred route would be Burlington, as Northrail study reccomended. Up Norto Oak if dealing with elevation was not too costly, west on Barry Rd by Metro North redevelopment, then North on Ambassador Dr by Boardwalk Square (Hobby Lobby,Lowes, Walmart) to Continental Expressway, left to the airport probably on a dedicated alignment. Looks like 112th st bridge isn't high enough. Important route long term for sure in the car dependent northland, but this 23.5mil ~1.4bln would be more expensive and less likely to spur transformational development and density than the other two. Probably more like a 30-40 year project. If we explored dedicated ROW this could reduce cost significantly.

The I-29 bridge on N. Oak isn't high enough. Need 16 feet clearance and it's not. Getting the train past Vivion Rd will be the first barrier going north let alone traveling all the way to the airport

Given NKC passed a TDD in 2008 and is moving forward with Burlington corridor biking improvements with rail in mind, I would expect it's up the next easiest line to build.

A N-S spine crossing the river will connect the four major jobs centers all in a row: NKC, downtown, midtown, Plaza and dozens of bus lines will have a one transfer connection to it. This primes the system for heading into suburban neighborhoods like the east side by giving them a place to ride to.

flyingember wrote:The I-29 bridge on N. Oak isn't high enough. Need 16 feet clearance and it's not. Getting the train past Vivion Rd will be the first barrier going north let alone traveling all the way to the airport

Given NKC passed a TDD in 2008 and is moving forward with Burlington corridor biking improvements with rail in mind, I would expect it's up the next easiest line to build.

A N-S spine crossing the river will connect the four major jobs centers all in a row: NKC, downtown, midtown, Plaza and dozens of bus lines will have a one transfer connection to it. This primes the system for heading into suburban neighborhoods like the east side by giving them a place to ride to.

It and an East/West line make the most sense to me. Light or Heavy rail should go to the airport, not streetcar. Even then rail to the airport doesn't make a ton of sense.

Light rail makes more sense to the TSC. This would also connect eastern suburbs to DT with Park and Ride to the RM.

flyingember wrote:The I-29 bridge on N. Oak isn't high enough. Need 16 feet clearance and it's not. Getting the train past Vivion Rd will be the first barrier going north let alone traveling all the way to the airport

Given NKC passed a TDD in 2008 and is moving forward with Burlington corridor biking improvements with rail in mind, I would expect it's up the next easiest line to build.

A N-S spine crossing the river will connect the four major jobs centers all in a row: NKC, downtown, midtown, Plaza and dozens of bus lines will have a one transfer connection to it. This primes the system for heading into suburban neighborhoods like the east side by giving them a place to ride to.

Agreed, the HoA is overkill for use and there is an existing rail corridor through NKC. After the initial survey I believe the conclusion was not sufficient density to support a bridge crossing plus TDD.

Perhaps we have met/past the tipping point? There are a ton of low rise industrial and several promising vacant lots along Burlington alignment. However, many of those land owners may feel a streetcar would impact their bottom line and perhaps result in them being displaced. This would make them money in selling their land to a developer, so I guess it's a trade off.

I didn't consider the 29 bridge. It would add significant cost to lower the roadbed about a foot or so, but perhaps not that bad in the grand scheme of that proposed project. We might need some type of Seattle style ST-3 regional funding scheme to make the whole project feasible.

Not sure if this is on topic or not, but could the light rail or streetcar be sent through the ASB bridge, where the traffic deck used to be?

TheLastGentleman wrote:Not sure if this is on topic or not, but could the light rail or streetcar be sent through the ASB bridge, where the traffic deck used to be?

Yes, but you don't want that. The bridge is owned by a railroad.

HOA or a new crossing (like O'Neil!). We've looked at it several times and ended with the same result.

I went to the northrail meetings, there's notes way back in that thread, but the idea was

HOA = cheaper

new bridge = way more expensive but gives the option of a much better ped crossing into NKC starting at the park. a new bridge also could better align with columbus park and I could see it being used to provide direct ped access to the park from the neighborhood which would be really nice to have

I like the idea of a new bridge if it serves multiple purposes, I like using HOA if it's less ambitious and it's just adding rail across the river

a new bridge also in theory could connect directly into a riverfront line, but I could see how the heights wouldn't work there and costs would be greater. would love to see this as an option whenever planning comes back to this expansion