GRID wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 2:07 pm
No way will the people in west 39th allow the parking to go away.
What makes you think the more influential forces on Westport Road would make it any easier?
We're also overlooking the crossover for the Main Street Extension was placed right at Westport Road. While that doesn't eliminate a turn there, it makes it a lot more expensive.
In short, you're several years too late with your advocacy and I fail to see how it's any less controversial than 39th.
GRID wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 2:07 pm
No way will the people in west 39th allow the parking to go away.
What makes you think the more influential forces on Westport Road would make it any easier?
We're also overlooking the crossover for the Main Street Extension was placed right at Westport Road. While that doesn't eliminate a turn there, it makes it a lot more expensive.
In short, you're several years too late with your advocacy and I fail to see how it's any less controversial than 39th.
I know it comes down to money but this is another reason why Broadway would make sense here.
It would be great to have a parallel route to main st and unlock those connections to Uptown Theater, MCC and all the apartments along that street
Westport Rd may make more sense but KU might prefer 39th if providing any aid and Westport Assoc tends to support what's opposite of what's best for them.
There's not even a funding source identified yet for this expansion. Most realize that a broader source is needed (countywide or citywide) and the current TDD model will not work.
DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 6:58 pm
There's not even a funding source identified yet for this expansion. Most realize that a broader source is needed (countywide or citywide) and the current TDD model will not work.
If that’s the case then why are we making route decisions based on money?
Shouldn’t the goal be at this stage to determine the community’s route preference and acceptable alternatives?
DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 6:58 pm
There's not even a funding source identified yet for this expansion. Most realize that a broader source is needed (countywide or citywide) and the current TDD model will not work.
If that’s the case then why are we making route decisions based on money?
Shouldn’t the goal be at this stage to determine the community’s route preference and acceptable alternatives?
If you are picking a route based solely on dream wish list then what’s the point of the study at all? You have to be realistic and try and design something that you COULD pay for.
DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 6:58 pm
There's not even a funding source identified yet for this expansion. Most realize that a broader source is needed (countywide or citywide) and the current TDD model will not work.
If that’s the case then why are we making route decisions based on money?
Shouldn’t the goal be at this stage to determine the community’s route preference and acceptable alternatives?
If you are picking a route based solely on dream wish list then what’s the point of the study at all? You have to be realistic and try and design something that you COULD pay for.
Exactly.
If you start with a bare bones plan, then when you start to cut costs and value engineer, you end up with a very subpar system. Go big! Give yourself some room to cut some things. And have that big plan ready to go for when the Feds are in a good mood and are handing out some money.
I mean just last week the feds kind of out of nowhere gave VA the money they needed to get the Long transit/pedestrian bridge built from DC to VA.
If you can only expand your transit system by a few miles per decade, then you shouldn't build parallel lines a quarter of a mile apart.
One of the main considerations when building the second line of a system should be creating synergy with the first line. In this case, the first line already connects the area's two major destinations. Future lines should help to expand access to those destinations. I'm skeptical of the 39th/Linwood proposal because it cuts right between downtown and the Plaza without serving either of them. You're not going to attract a lot of ridership if people have to transfer between two lines which each individually have mediocre service frequency, and I can't imagine that there are a lot of people traveling between the W 39th corridor and the Linwood corridor. The Broadway/Westport Rd proposal just makes things worse. No one from the Plaza/UMKC area will take a streetcar north to Linwood and then transfer to a line that takes them back south again to Westport, and vice versa. And if someone downtown wants to go to Westport, will they even bother transferring instead of just walking a few extra blocks? (I certainly don't do that.) This is just an expensive way to build something which takes very few people to places they want to go.
If new tracks are laid on any East/West streets other than those which lead to downtown or the Plaza, then they should operate as branches of the main line, because that line already serves the most popular destinations in the region.
Branching and interlining are standard features on the types of older transit networks that modern streetcars want to emulate. But American transit planning has taken an odd turn in recent decades when it comes to planning routes.
langosta wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 1:19 pm
Branching requires the branches to have lower service levels than the trunk
Conversely, it allows the trunk to have higher frequencies.
in opposition of just having high frequencies on both......
I will say, having the East/West lines meet at 90 degree junctions will allow them to change service to what you describe in the future. meeting main at westport road would be hard to do if you want the cars to continue to the Plaza.
Neither line will have better than 10 minute headways, will they? That's barely okay for a one-seat ride, and pretty poor if you need to transfer. And KU Med will never generate enough ridership to match the service levels that will be needed to move people downtown. Having better service levels on the busiest part of the line is a feature, not a bug. If the people traveling within the starter portion of the line can take whichever train arrives first among several routes which each individually have 10 minute headways, then you're getting service levels that are actually really convenient and look like what you'd get in cities with good transit.
kas1 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 6:28 pm
Neither line will have better than 10 minute headways, will they? That's barely okay for a one-seat ride, and pretty poor if you need to transfer. And KU Med will never generate enough ridership to match the service levels that will be needed to move people downtown. Having better service levels on the busiest part of the line is a feature, not a bug. If the people traveling within the starter portion of the line can take whichever train arrives first among several routes which each individually have 10 minute headways, then you're getting service levels that are actually really convenient and look like what you'd get in cities with good transit.
5-6 minute headways, when offered, have been a bigger lift on the starter route. So at best realistically you could offer a 12-14 minutes headway on the branches and 6-7 on the trunk (at best). You already have to alternate service where the routes do overlap in midtown so any lay over is closer to 5-6 minutes, really not bad at all. Comparable to much of NYC subway for most of the day.
Then there is the cost. Running the trains into downtown is going to double the hourly operating costs providing service levels only needed for the biggest event days. There is already a downtown circulator proposed for major event days that would make it hard to also run E/W into downtown on. So the realistic trade off with costs is going to be 6 minutes in downtown and 20+ on the branches.
STL does the interlining as you say: 20 minute headways on the branches and 10-min at the trunk. Off-peak, there is a transfer required. Not usable!!!
Operating costs will be higher, but you'll also get more ridership. It's a good tradeoff. And the amount of money needed serve another six miles of route is pretty small in the grand scheme of things. Especially when you compare to the upfront construction costs. If you're gonna spend that much money, you really need to get all the details right, and buying a few more vehicles and hiring a few more drivers is definitely worthwhile if it will produce a noticeable boost in ridership, which I believe that it will.
Plus, the route will have to branch at the northern end if it's ever gonna go to NKC. Better to plan ahead for what service should look like once that happens, and having it branch just on the other side of downtown is a natural solution.
If the operating costs are a real sticking point then just cut back frequencies slightly on each line (~20%). You'll still achieve a net reduction in travel times as long as there are enough riders benefitting from not having to transfer or from having double service available for their destination.
The average transfer wait time on two intersecting fixed routes that each have 10-minute headways is always less than 10 minutes. As far as transfers go, that's excellent service for the US.
