KCRag Forum

Guys, this is so obvious trolling. We're a development forum now talking about parking and Kansas. Just ban "her" and get this over with.

^^^^^

I get it. Looks trollish. But no way any of that is ban-worthy. Don't assume malice when ignorance is just as good an explanation.

Yes, the fact that this could very well be a real person with these real views says a lot about the Kansas City metro.

I personally like the chrizow strategy of non-sequitur GIFs.

A moderator should just do a google search of their email address. If it doesn’t show up, ban them. If it does, it should give some indication of troll or not.

grovester wrote:I personally like the chrizow strategy of non-sequitur GIFs.

There’s still time

beautyfromashes wrote:A moderator should just do a google search of their email address. If it doesn’t show up, ban them. If it does, it should give some indication of troll or not.

This forum has a tradition of regular posters using sock puppet accounts to troll each other. I would hate to discourage that or to try and enforce some kind of mandate on what sorts of opinions are acceptable to express. Clearly, some people like parking lots. Given their prevalence, I think it's safe to say that very many people like them very much.

mean wrote:
This forum has a tradition of regular posters using sock puppet accounts to troll each other. I would hate to discourage that or to try and enforce some kind of mandate on what sorts of opinions are acceptable to express. Clearly, some people like parking lots. Given their prevalence, I think it's safe to say that very many people like them very much.

So, you’re saying trolling on the site is allowed and even encouraged? Good to know.

TheLastGentleman wrote:

Darlene wrote:And Missourians are expected to walk? You may think you live in a big city but you don't. Most of th epeople on the Missouri side live the same as Kansasns and drive every place to.

Kansas City is the largest city in the entire state, with even more people than St. Louis and far more activity. We have the potential to feel like a "big city", but the reason we don't is because there are certain backwards people who are perfectly content with the status quo, and even want to hinder any strides the city takes to even marginally improve upon it.

This is not limited to large cities. I have lived in 2 smaller towns in this state, 1,200 and 9,600 pop. respectively. People have voted down a new high school when lunches had to be brought over from the middle school. Have said before "A city is either under construction or destruction".

beautyfromashes wrote:

mean wrote:
This forum has a tradition of regular posters using sock puppet accounts to troll each other. I would hate to discourage that or to try and enforce some kind of mandate on what sorts of opinions are acceptable to express. Clearly, some people like parking lots. Given their prevalence, I think it's safe to say that very many people like them very much.

So, you’re saying trolling on the site is allowed and even encouraged? Good to know.

I'm saying I'm not going to ban anyone who isn't being abusive or excessively vulgar just because they express an unpopular opinion, and I'm not interested in arguing about whether anyone's opinions are genuinely held or not because firstly it's not a winnable argument unless someone is an internet psychic who can read minds over wifi, and second it's dumb.

As far as whether trolling is encouraged, I'd say no, not unless they are particularly clever or funny. Rare, but it has been known to happen.

Back to topic, please.

A few questions....

The extension will be free to ride right? If so, is the plan to keep it free to ride for the foreseeable future?

Are the planners taking into account the unpredicted ridership levels of the starter route when determining the size of stations and number of streetcars to order?
I feel like its pretty often that I see full or overflowing platforms at Union Station and RM. Thus big stations at high traffic stop like UMKC and the Plaza are needed IMHO.

Will we purchase any of the longer Urbos 3's(higher capacity) or just lots of small ones(higher frequency)?

Additionally, what if any changes will need to be made at the current vehicle maintenance facility to accommodate all the streetcars.

Ok everybody I didn't mean no harm. I will not talk about parking lots again if it is so upsetting to everybody. I was just trying to be realistic and then a bunch of you got your panties in a wad because you didn't like it and you all went off topic. I will not say anything about parking lots if it upsets all of you so bad.

Darlene wrote:I saw they are building new buildings on some parking lots downtown. Do you think there will be a problem finding parking down there? I am worried about even going down there now.

Whoever’s sock this is is pretty awesome. Kudos.

ldai_phs wrote:A few questions....

The extension will be free to ride right? If so, is the plan to keep it free to ride for the foreseeable future?

Are the planners taking into account the unpredicted ridership levels of the starter route when determining the size of stations and number of streetcars to order?
I feel like its pretty often that I see full or overflowing platforms at Union Station and RM. Thus big stations at high traffic stop like UMKC and the Plaza are needed IMHO.

Will we purchase any of the longer Urbos 3's(higher capacity) or just lots of small ones(higher frequency)?

Additionally, what if any changes will need to be made at the current vehicle maintenance facility to accommodate all the streetcars.

All great questions. Anyone know the answers?

cityscape wrote:
Will we purchase any of the longer Urbos 3's(higher capacity) or just lots of small ones(higher frequency)?

There's no reason it has to be either or. The best way would be to buy more of the same size and run them coupled together.

This allows different lines to have different train lengths by line, see Houston as one example, Charlotte as another. You start expanding platforms one line at a time. Can start partial day higher capacity service without needing to wait on the new trains to arrive and expand the hours of this as they do. Houston runs 2x on the red line, 1x on the green and purple lines. Charlotte runs 3x trains part of the day.

Gives the option for super high frequency during big events or weekday lunch. While in the evening running double trains lets the system have less staff on hand for more service.

You can run shorter trains off peak and longer on peak, allowing for more flexible maintenance schedules. If you need to do a repair you take half the train away and trade out with one in the yard. The current maintenance facility can maintain all vehicles.

I don't think our current cars are capable of being coupled together. I think a modification to the coupling system would be required.

ldai_phs wrote:I don't think our current cars are capable of being coupled together. I think a modification to the coupling system would be required.

Would still be cheaper than buying all new trains.

ldai_phs wrote:A few questions....

The extension will be free to ride right? If so, is the plan to keep it free to ride for the foreseeable future?

Fares for the larger system will be decided when the capital cost for both is set, and the decision lies solely with the Streetcar Authority board of directors. The TDD can only generate so much (although the pro forma is, again, very conservative) and the feds will only give us max $100 million.

ldai_phs wrote:Are the planners taking into account the unpredicted ridership levels of the starter route when determining the size of stations and number of streetcars to order?
I feel like its pretty often that I see full or overflowing platforms at Union Station and RM. Thus big stations at high traffic stop like UMKC and the Plaza are needed IMHO.

Yes.

That's exactly what I expect -- large crowds waiting only at Plaza and, to a lesser degree, UMKC (the latter depending on how we treat the terminus station -- park and ride or just regular station). Even with zero fare, there is zero reason to build a big station at Armour, for example.

ldai_phs wrote:Will we purchase any of the longer Urbos 3's(higher capacity) or just lots of small ones(higher frequency)?

Lots of the 3-segment cars we have now. Running longer vehicles will require downtown modifications. There will be no reduction in headways with any expansion.

ldai_phs wrote:Additionally, what if any changes will need to be made at the current vehicle maintenance facility to accommodate all the streetcars.

More storage track, possibly extending the structure to the north to add another service bay. There's enough space.

flyingember wrote:

ldai_phs wrote:I don't think our current cars are capable of being coupled together. I think a modification to the coupling system would be required.

Would still be cheaper than buying all new trains.

Coupling is possible with a vehicle modification. They are light rail vehicles, after all. However, you'd have to modify downtown platforms and that's not in the plan at this time.