Jackson County Regional Rail Plan

[ComandanteCero]

Not to be completely cynical, but this sounds like a massive transfer of wealth to the various railroad companies that have a bunch of useless land laying fallow. 

I'd like to see a budget breakdown to get a sense of how much they'd be willing to pay for the r.o.w (which is almost certainly going to be the major budget item in this plan). 

[kcnewbie]

On a more general note, here are my two cents:

Does KC really need commuter rail or even light rail? I moved to KC from a major city which has commuter rail, however that city has significant traffic congestion. KC's rush hours are barely one-hour in length on most highways and off-peak congestion is COMPLETELY non-existent... As stated, rail sounds sexy, however it is better to work toward building a sexy city without sexy gimmicks than a non-sexy city with sexy gimmicks (light rail/commuter rail)...

Total waste of taxpayer money IMHO.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Let the stoning begin.

[KCMax]

On a more general note, here are my two cents:

Does KC really need commuter rail or even light rail? I moved to KC from a major city which has commuter rail, however that city has significant traffic congestion. KC's rush hours are barely one-hour in length on most highways and off-peak congestion is COMPLETELY non-existent... As stated, rail sounds sexy, however it is better to work toward building a sexy city without sexy gimmicks than a non-sexy city with sexy gimmicks (light rail/commuter rail)...

Total waste of taxpayer money IMHO.

I think the big argument for light rail is that is spurs development. I don't get the argument as much for commuter rail. Its not likely to alleviate traffic that much, not that we have big traffic issues, and it seems to subsidize sprawl. But some sort of light rail/elevated rail/BRT makes sense in the urban core. I just don't think the justification is the removal of traffic - ridership isn't going to be enough to justify that for quite awhile.

[DaveKCMO]

Not to be completely cynical, but this sounds like a massive transfer of wealth to the various railroad companies that have a bunch of useless land laying fallow. 

I'd like to see a budget breakdown to get a sense of how much they'd be willing to pay for the r.o.w (which is almost certainly going to be the major budget item in this plan). 

i would argue that the biggest capital cost will be laying new tracks on the abandoned rights of way to KCK and KCI. if you like this plan and haven't been paying attention to what's going on in austin, better start reading up.

i love the concept, but his initial debut was a bomb. see my analysis here.

[mean]

On a more general note, here are my two cents:

Does KC really need commuter rail or even light rail? I moved to KC from a major city which has commuter rail, however that city has significant traffic congestion. KC's rush hours are barely one-hour in length on most highways and off-peak congestion is COMPLETELY non-existent... As stated, rail sounds sexy, however it is better to work toward building a sexy city without sexy gimmicks than a non-sexy city with sexy gimmicks (light rail/commuter rail)...

Total waste of taxpayer money IMHO.

I agree that most commutes in the area are cake, but I don't think they will be forever. The goal to my mind is twofold. First, engineer the infrastructure for the ongoing increase in commuters, so that it is there when needed; and second, create an amenity that will help focus job growth in the greater downtown area.

[KCMax]

Commuter rail: How much does it really cost to run?

Estimates from TranSystems engineers indicate that fares would cover anywhere from 66 percent to all of the $26.9 million in operating costs.

They estimated ridership at anywhere from 20,000 to 30,000 passegers a day and a fare of $2.50 a head. Thirty-thousands riders gets you $27 million while 20,000 gets you $18 million, according to their estimates.

PrimeBuzz was curious to see how this rate of fare box recovery might compare to other commuter rail systems so we did a check. What we found -- and not unexpectedly -- is that 66 percent might be too high to expect.

[Highlander]

I agree that most commutes in the area are cake, but I don't think they will be forever. The goal to my mind is twofold. First, engineer the infrastructure for the ongoing increase in commuters, so that it is there when needed; and second, create an amenity that will help focus job growth in the greater downtown area.

Is KC's population growing fast enough to really impact the degree of congestion in the next 20 years?  Perhaps the biggest driver will be the price of fuel, oil is back to 80+$ per barrel in the midst of the worse recession since the depression.  It should be obvious to all that there are indeed supply constraints on the horizon.  But I agree that job growth needs to be focused in a central and dense area....I personally think the amenity is already there but the dominance of car commuting and residential trends makes JoCo a more attractive alternative for many ..... for the moment. 

[mean]

I'd say yes, for 20 years. From 1990-2000 the metro grew from 1.6 mil to 1.8 mil, and we're already supposedly over 2 mil with growth speeding up a bit. I don't think it is unreasonable to imagine 2.5 mil or more by 2030. That's half a million more people in the area, many of whom will be working. Why not build a transportation infrastructure that not only helps focus job growth downtown, but also encourages further in-migration by providing easy access to the employment center? Not to mention the price of oil over the next 20 years, which, who knows how that will go.

[aknowledgeableperson]

but the dominance of car commuting and residential trends makes JoCo a more attractive alternative for many ..... for the moment. 

Instead of "for the moment" I think JoCo, or other suburban areas, will be attractive much like they are today.  If one has to get in a car and drive 10 minutes to a Park and Ride that person can just as well get into that same vehicle and drive to the suburban job 10 minutes from home.  Granted, you may not have much faith in electric powered vehicles but even if one only gets 40 to 50 miles on one charge that could handle many of the commutes in this area as well as others.  And throw in charging stations at work that makes those suburban commutes even more attractive.

Will life be different 20 and 40 years from now?  Of course it will.  But things have a way of changing that sometimes surprises people.  (And, yes, I might be the one surprised but I think I might be in the minority here.)

[KCMax]

Federal funding for Sanders? regional rail plan could be risky

But experts, including those at the Federal Transit Administration, said it was rare, if not unprecedented, for a rail project to get 100 percent federal funding.

The federal program that allocates money for rail is limited to an 80 percent contribution, but the actual contribution averages between 50 percent and 60 percent of cost....

U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver plans to seek a half billion dollars for a regional transit system in the new transportation bill, but his request will be among many sought by members of Congress.

Cleaver acknowledged the funding difficulty. He also noted that the scoring criteria used by the federal government hurts the local funding requests for rail because of our overall lack of population density.

[DaveKCMO]

it actually is unprecedented.

[LenexatoKCMO]

it actually is unprecedented.

Yeah, but the KC metro actually locally funding transit on a effective level is equally unprecedented.  What has longer odds, comprehensive local funding, or milking it all out of the feds?

[DaveKCMO]

Yeah, but the KC metro actually locally funding transit on a effective level is equally unprecedented.  What has longer odds, comprehensive local funding, or milking it all out of the feds?

100% federal funding for all capital and operating costs has near-impossible odds. even if it was warranted, FTA would probably not want to set the precedent.

my prediction: cleaver will get a regional plan in the next transportation bill (maybe 50-60%), sanders will eventually come clean on a tri-county tax to cover operations and half of capital, and the streetcar TDD will pass... all within 5 years.

i don't think the KCK line will ever happen. they seem pretty set on BRT lite, which completely duplicates what sanders has proposed.

[KCMax]

Sanders runs "marathon" for regional rail

Mike Sanders took his regional rail shtick to the Central Exchange on Tuesday, a day before he says he travels to Washington, D.C., to court the area's congressional delegation for transit funding.

Sanders told the lunch crowd that the race for regional rail is a slog or marathon that will likely take up to two years to secure support and funds.

[DaveKCMO]

i was there today, with the ladies (i had the chicken, lol). you can read my live tweets here. i also have a contact at transystems that seems willing to answer my questions, so if you have any you want to ask post them here.

[DaveKCMO]

sanders did another presentation this week, this time for the regional transit alliance. also, chastain sent a letter to DOT secretary lahood lambasting the plan (and cheering his own, of course).

[nilsson1941]

Has Sanders made his trip to DC yet?

[DaveKCMO]

Has Sanders made his trip to DC yet?

he said he was making a trip the monday following his presentation at central exchange. he was also present at the TIGER press conference last week, which was attended by sec. lahood, reps. cleaver/moore, and someone from sen. bond's office.

[DaveKCMO]

Another rail study on the horizon

Jackson County Exec Mike Sanders has been making the rounds in Washington in hopes of landing a $4.5 million congressional earmark to fund a study of his largely Missouri-side commuter rail plan.

Sanders already has secured support for the study from the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority.