Main Street MAX

[trailerkid]

Yes...I really like the use of glass in the design. It looks very sleek.

They should look futuristic without going overboard.

[KCK]

We should also think of something to call it other than a bus. Maybe a tram or something. People really don't like the bus. A sleek pretty BRT, a new name, and add in a commuter version for JOCO.

[tat2kc]

There also needs to be a BRT line from downtown west into KCK. It could go down Minnesota, then jog over to State Ave west past KCKCC to the Speedway. It would be a great spine off of which smaller buses could run into the neighborhoods.

[dangerboy]

Both the Joco and KCK routes suggested are similar to what's in the Smart Moves proposal. The "Rapid Rider" routes are the BRT or similar type of express routes. The current MAX line is funded by the KCATA, the rest of the Smart Moves plan would only happen if regional funding becomes a reality.

http://www.marc.org/kcsmartmoves/

[KCK]

Regional funding of anything is possible if you can prove that it benefits everyone, and not just KCMO. In this case I'd say it definately benefits everyone. Also I think a BRT to Worlds of Fun would help include it on the tourist bandwagon. Then include the airport too. Kansas City can be a very good tourist town if we had the type of public transportation that links the cool things here. Oh and the sports complex too.

Just imagine for a second a tourist flies into town to see a Nascar event on Sunday. They ride a BRT from the airport to Village West. They catch BRT to the plaza and downtown for sight seeing and shopping. They catch another BRT over to Kaufman to see a game, or they ride over to Worlds of Fun/Oceans of Fun. Also a BRT to the casino areas would help too. Let's make KC a better tourist town.

Does KCK pay something towards the KCATA since we have use of the metro here? Im sure we could find a quick way to at least connect tourist attractions in KCMO to Village West.

[dangerboy]

[quote=""Dead"]Does KCK pay something towards the KCATA since we have use of the metro here? Im sure we could find a quick way to at least connect tourist attractions in KCMO to Village West.[/quote]

Yes, KCK contracts with the ATA to provide some bus service, in addition to their own The Bus service. All metro counties have seats on the ATA board, but it is up to individual cities to contract with the ATA to provide service in their cities.

[staubio]

It makes it very difficult to plan good routes when the distance between destinations is so great. It would be hard to build the ridership needed to maintain lines between Village West, Plaza, WoF, the complex, downtown, etc, because each place would have to serve each of the other places to give Joe Tourist the flexibility he needs. At least we have the critical mass of people and destinations to move between midtown/downtown. Let's hope it catches on so the concept can be extended into some of the other suggested areas. I think it takes density to make transit work, though, because you can't put a stop everywhere and you certainly can't generate ridership passing through sparsely populated areas where few people live and even fewer people go for entertainment. Our bus system is almost like a regional transit system, moving between the pockets of density and entertainment like they are communities miles apart from one another -- because they are.

I wonder how much tourists will use the BRT. People from outside our metro have no reason to be averse to our current busses -- do they use those? Will the new busses be that much of a differentiation so that people understand the concept and realize that it is easier and less intimidating?

[phxcat]

I just heard a discussion last night on the light rail plan for Phoenix- after reading the thread about Houston, I thought "what the hell are the tracks doing on the streets where people can back into them?" Then I found out that Phoenix has the same plan. They have found that the light rail will cause a slight increase in polution, and an increase in traffic congestion because of people waiting at lights that are set up for the train. I had been more in favor of light rail than BRT, but if light rail is going to be on the ground, which seems to be the cost cutting mose of the present, I don't see any advantages to it over BRT. They just need to get some nice looking busses that people will recognize as different from the others.

(I should note, however, that the people who were talking are anti-light rail idiots- one even mentioned that the three largest cities for rail- NY, DC, and Chicago- were also the most congested- and he came to the conclusion that commuter rail causes congestion- IDIOT!- but my point is that for light rail to be what it should be, it should not be opn the ground!)

[phxcat]

(in fact, I'm just sitting here right now, thinking about what an idiotic comment that was, and that if I had not been in bed when I heard it, I would have gotten on the phone and smacked him over the phone!)

[KCK]

Well subway is the most expensive, so an elevated rail would be the way to go.

I really don't think Phoenix needs light rail. They are no where near centralized enough for this. I always liked a well planned BRT more than LRT. I mean well planned as far as seperate highway lanes for the buses, and sleek, large, and futuristic looking buses that don't make you feel like a 10 year old going to school.

If they absolutely must have rail, perhaps a commuter rail line. I think too many mid sized cities are diving into light rail and they don't have the need for it yet. I'm not absolutely sure about Phoenix, it might need it, but I think it might be dissappointing.

[trailerkid]

Phoenix and light rail don't even belong in the same sentence. Light rail is nothing more than a trophy project.

Kansas City has the opportunity to pioneer a BRT system that wipes everything else off the map. To achieve this it must be efficient, prominent, fast, easy-to-use, and sleek.

[phxcat]

I agree. An elevated light rail would help to alleviate traffic here, if it went along the highways, but it would be purely a commute device, and extremely expensive with the miles it would cover. Putting it on the ground is idiotic. They are latching onto anything that might jump start a city, though. I think KC does have a great opportunity to do something unique with BRT- if they do it right!

[mean]

BRT would be a major improvement over the current bus system, but don't forget that we'll still have to buy buses, buy fuel and replacement parts and insurance for them, pay people to maintain them and drive them, and pay a massive beuraucracy to oversee the whole thing. I'm sure everyone understands that this will require insane amounts of money, not just to get it started, but to keep it going from year to year. I don't think it's a bad idea, but I truly don't understand why -- if we're going to be digging into our pockets anyway -- we can't find a better solution. We reject trains, so that instead we can spend about the same amount of money dressing up buses to look pretty much just like trains? What the hell, Kansas City?

Buses and trains both should be history. Technology allows us to move massive amounts of data across the globe safely and securely in seconds...people do it every day without questioning it or wondering how it works. But tell them that you can move massive amounts of people across the city in seconds, and they look at you like you're completely batty. Why? Why is it so hard for people to see that cars and buses and trains are the morse code of transportation...an anachronism, a relic of the past, the old way. They are to the 21st Century what the horse and buggy was to the 20th Century. I mean, look at all that has been developed since we first started driving cars. Radio came into being around the same time, then television, then computers and color TV. We learned to launch things into space, put a man there, then paid a few visits to the moon. Almost every aspect of our lives has been completely revolutionized by technology since the first Fords rolled off the assembly line, yet I'm supposed to believe that despite all this technology, cars and buses (which are basically just giant cars) and trains (which were around before cars) are still the best ways to get around? To me, that is completely insane. I don't see how anyone could believe it.

[KCK]

BRT would be a major improvement over the current bus system, but don't forget that we'll still have to buy buses, buy fuel and replacement parts and insurance for them, pay people to maintain them and drive them, and pay a massive beuraucracy to oversee the whole thing. I'm sure everyone understands that this will require insane amounts of money, not just to get it started, but to keep it going from year to year. I don't think it's a bad idea, but I truly don't understand why -- if we're going to be digging into our pockets anyway -- we can't find a better solution. We reject trains, so that instead we can spend about the same amount of money dressing up buses to look pretty much just like trains? What the hell, Kansas City?

Buses and trains both should be history. Technology allows us to move massive amounts of data across the globe safely and securely in seconds...people do it every day without questioning it or wondering how it works. But tell them that you can move massive amounts of people across the city in seconds, and they look at you like you're completely batty. Why? Why is it so hard for people to see that cars and buses and trains are the morse code of transportation...an anachronism, a relic of the past, the old way. They are to the 21st Century what the horse and buggy was to the 20th Century. I mean, look at all that has been developed since we first started driving cars. Radio came into being around the same time, then television, then computers and color TV. We learned to launch things into space, put a man there, then paid a few visits to the moon. Almost every aspect of our lives has been completely revolutionized by technology since the first Fords rolled off the assembly line, yet I'm supposed to believe that despite all this technology, cars and buses (which are basically just giant cars) and trains (which were around before cars) are still the best ways to get around? To me, that is completely insane. I don't see how anyone could believe it.

You are right mean. We should be able to "beam" across the city. Trains suck, and so do buses and cars. Im all for "beaming"

[bahua]

I want my own pneumatic tube!

[mean]

Hah. I always figured the last place I'd want to be beamed is "up Scotty".

Anyway, I don't think trains and buses suck. They can and do get the job done in other cities, they just do it at greater risk and greater expense than is necessary. Don't get me wrong, I'll take what I can get -- if BRT is the only possibility, it will be better than what we have now. But given all the progress over the past hundred, or fifty, or even twenty years, do you really think we haven't been able to come up with anything better?

[ignatius]

Ugh, looks very utilitarian. No benches either. Get back to the drawing board and find some creativity.

[KCPowercat]

Any more news?

Anybody seen a rough estimate of the route or the stops?

I know it's going to shoot down Main from south of Truman to like 75th but how is it going to wind through the loop itself?

Stops? How many? Where? I'm ready to see some stops going up.

[KCPowercat]

OK I know there is a map/information floating around out there with specific stops because I've spoke with somebody who has seen it they just don't remember the route or stops...somehow they didn't think it was important enough to remember???

[UMKCroo]

Is that section being worked on between 18th and pershing, on main, going to be BRT lines? Or are they putting in an island or something?