Clay Chastain coming back with light rail

[warwickland]

Exactly - no matter what gets built it probably won't be extensive enough to provide me a practical way to get from home to work every day but I would sure have a fairly routine use for the system if it could reliably get me from DT to the airport.  A legitimate transit connection to the airport benefits much more than just visitors.  For us locals it would be a hell of a lot cheaper and easier than screwing around with the long term parking lots at the airport. 

not to mention that all the folks who would live along the LRT corridor in the northland would have a nice new way to get dt, and, development practices along the LRT corridor would benefit ala TODs. going to the airport this time is a no brainer.

[bbqboy]

I didn't say never to the Airport, just not 1st  Or 2nd in priority. That's just about doubling the size of the system through mainly suburban landscapes. Doesn't make sense until there is sufficent system to connect to it.

[warwickland]

I didn't say never to the Airport, just not 1st  Or 2nd in priority. That's just about doubling the size of the system through mainly suburban landscapes. Doesn't make sense until there is sufficent system to connect to it.

i think its critical to get LRT through the northland if only for TODs in a rapidly developing area, and then there is the matter of the airport, a large emplyment base and transportation hub. when would this be built by anyway, if it was approved in 2007? its not like we would be premature or anything...rather reactive in my opinion... guess we will have to disagree.   :) 

[bbqboy]

Here's a look at  Portland-
  http://www.lightrailnow.org/myths/m_por_2006-01a.htm

    And maybe streetcars for E/W connectors.
  http://www.streetcar.org/ppf/present/po ... index.html
 

[mean]

it's going to need to pay for itself.

Impossible. Light rail never pays for itself. It's too expensive, too much maintenance, too many moving parts to break, too energy-inefficient, too much liability from smacking into other street-level traffic...but at this point, who cares; I'll vote for anything.

[ThaMexican]

Mean, besides the LRT what would be more efficient? Anyway at this point we need to get started with whatever, I am for it I will pay whatever tax I need to but we need some kind of public transportation. We are just falling behind more every day we do not get started.

[kard]

Impossible. Light rail never pays for itself. It's too expensive, too much maintenance, too many moving parts to break, too energy-inefficient, too much liability from smacking into other street-level traffic...but at this point, who cares; I'll vote for anything.

Sarcasm, right? 

From bbqboy's linky:

Hmmm... So Portland's total local rail investment (so far) is about $512 million. But, stimulated by that investment is about $3.8 billion in new real estate investment within walking distance of a MAX rail station (defined as 1/4 mile). That would represent something like $76 million per year in property taxes alone (at 2%). By itself, this is a payback rate of about 7 years for the local investment – better than my high-efficiency furnace.

[bahua]

I don't think he was being sarcastic.

Light rail is monumentally expensive and inefficient, compared to something like Skytran.

[ComandanteCero]

PRT boosters assemble! 

[mean]

Sarcasm, right? 

From bbqboy's linky:

I can manipulate numbers to make it appear that Truman Sports Complex can pay for itself, too.

The link in question is from light rail boosters, not economists. Nuff said.

[warwickland]

are you guys getting paid off by that guy? if so - i want in...

[Beltonhawk]

Light rail is monumentally expensive and inefficient, compared to something like Skytran.

Skytran  *drools*

Talk about putting KC on the map if we ever got something like that going.

Imagine someone from out of town getting off a plane, straight to a PRT vehicle, and downtown in 12 minutes at 100mph. Dropped right in front of their building.

Yeah, I know I'm dreaming, and understand all of the obstacles to implement something like Skytran - but god forbid KC ever be the first to do something, instead of playing catch-up, with outdated technology no less.

[warwickland]

allright , i 'll admit - i absolutely hate the idea of everyone having clean individual pods (and what about handicap access?).

sorry...i am biased towards good old fashioned light and heavy rail that you have to wait for and actually interact with people...

maybe i am not thinking clearly -

[ComandanteCero]

that was my only inital hang up with PRT, the non public side of it (the handicap accessibility is addressed in most PRT designs).  But my feeling is it's not that big a deal, considering you'll still interact with people at stations (getting on and off), on the street walking to and from stations to destinations etc etc.  Another thing is that it does not eliminate other forms of transportation, so other traditional forms of mass transit could definitely complement the system in vital ways.

[Beltonhawk]

Warwick, you should really go over to skytran.net and look at some of their examples of how inefficient light rail really is. Sure, some of it's propoganda, but most of it seems legit. I say "seems" because it hasn't been done before. People can make anything handicap accessible, and I'm sure that's addressed on the site as well.

If it's cheaper, faster, easier to implement (as far as right of way, land use, etc...not speaking technologically) then why not? If the numbers they have on their site are correct, you could cover downtown/midtown/plaza/river market with a PRT grid, stops every 1/4 mile, and put park n' rides in every major suburb for less money than a single LRT line running from the Plaza to the River Market. And I guarantee you that you'd get way more ridership out of the thing.

But like I said, KC would never think that big, even if the feds paid for the whole thing.

[mean]

It's not skytran specifically, so much as the concept of PRT, in my opinion. The grid concept works in extremely dense AND less-dense areas; unlike rail, which only works when there's existing density--either pre-existing density, or newly created density after the rail is laid down. It's stupidly cheaper and more efficient to build and operate. There's really no question in my mind which is superior, at least on paper.

And no offense to my handicapped brothers and sisters, but a PRT system such as skytran would pose a problem to people in wheelchairs. But PRT would not, could not and should not replace all other modes of transportation for everyone all the time. Instead, transit needs to work for the majority of people the majority of the time. That's all there is to it. If someone can't use the system, then they'll have to use something else. And what's wrong with that? There are and will continue to be other options. Far better to have something simple, cheap, convenient and efficient for 2 million+ people than something expensive, cumbersome, and unusable to include an extra 5,000.

Are we willing to put a vote on an unproven system? Yes, I am. Why? A few reasons:

1) It's a gamble, yes, but it's a gamble that, if successful, would position Kansas City as a 21st century global transit pioneer.
2) It's a gamble, yes, but it's a gamble that, even if it fails, it will be a lot cheaper than building light rail and watching it fail.

I have some romantic notions about dirty, seedy train stations and being forced to interact with belligerent homeless drunks in the subway station while waiting for the train, too, but I'd happily settle for something different if it were cheaper, more convenient and faster.

[kard]

I wanna see a skytran pod with a bike rack. 

[warwickland]

Warwick, you should really go over to skytran.net and look at some of their examples of how inefficient light rail really is. Sure, some of it's propoganda, but most of it seems legit. I say "seems" because it hasn't been done before. People can make anything handicap accessible, and I'm sure that's addressed on the site as well.

i read through it a while back and had issue with a lot of that - a lot of my feeling about it just comes from personal stubbornness and preference, probably the same sort of stubbornness that causes people to only want to drive a gas guzzling car.

[warwickland]

And no offense to my handicapped brothers and sisters, but a PRT system such as skytran would pose a problem to people in wheelchairs. But PRT would not, could not and should not replace all other modes of transportation for everyone all the time. Instead, transit needs to work for the majority of people the majority of the time. That's all there is to it. If someone can't use the system, then they'll have to use something else. And what's wrong with that? There are and will continue to be other options. Far better to have something simple, cheap, convenient and efficient for 2 million+ people than something expensive, cumbersome, and unusable to include an extra 5,000.

that would absolutely flunk the whole system for me if i was a transportation planner, and its one of my explanations as to why i dont think PRT is acceptable in present form.

[ComandanteCero]

the handicap accessibility issue is up to the design of the particular PRT system (there are several companies offering their own version of PRT).  for example, the Skyweb design addresses handicapped passengers thus:

SkyWeb Express will be fully accessible to handicapped patrons and will comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act. Elevators will be provided in elevated stations and the ticket machines and stanchions will include intercoms and Braille plaques to ensure ease of use by all patrons. The vehicle accommodates a wheelchair either riding sideways or facing forward, with a seat section for a traveling companion. The platform is level with the vehicle floor to prevent wheelchair bumps and is textured at the edge to assist the blind.
SkyWeb Express is designed to be easily accessible to all people, whether handicapped, young, old, carrying heavy bags, traveling with a bicycle, or have any other special needs. It has been praised and promoted by groups representing the needs of the handicapped.