Jackson County Regional Rail Plan

[GRID]

Love Mike Sander's passion. But I'm surprised by his lack of knowledge on commuter rail vs light rail. I actually think he knows the difference, but he is taking the high road on the question, which is very good one.

I support this plan overall. I think commuter rail in KC is a good investment because of the existing rail right of way and I think it is very much needed if you are ever going to get a county wide vote to fund transit. Transit needs to be funded at the county level, but people in Lee's Summit etc have to get something out of the deal and this commuter rail is that something.

But, this plan is being sold as something totally different than I think people will expect. KC is not going to get what Denver or Seattle or Minneapolis or Portland or St Louis has here, it's going to get what Austin or Nashville or Albuquerque has and I honestly think it's going to backfire unless they either tell people this is nothing more than a few rush hour trains and commuter parking lots. They are going to have to make this a much more comprehensive system (and more expensive) and figure out a way to make this function more like light rail with high frequency bidirectional all day service trains that can actually be used for something other than commuting.

If I remember right, about 250 people a day ride the Blue Springs express. The I-70 commuter rail might push 1000-2000 per day and it could be much lower if this is a bare bones commuter route. That's a lot of money to just take 1000 people off the highway and not really spur any kind of actual TOD etc. Now if they did something that functioned more like light rail and had a ridership of 15-30k per day and frequent service to the stadiums, sprint center and something that would trully trigger redevelopment along the route then that cost would be worth it.

That's fine. It is what it is. KC can't afford to build 20-40 miles of true light rail at a cost of 2-3 billion dollars without it being a more regional effort. But they need to make sure the public knows what they are getting.

I just think that KC is going to end up spending a billion dollars on a couple of unnecessary commuter rail lines that few will know about and even fewer will use and then the county/city won't have any other way to fund anything else.

The 1% tax has to also fund expanding the streetcar and bus system, not just trails. This is going to be a county wide 1% tax. You are not going to be able to raise that tax any more than 1%, especially since the KCATA already has a transit tax in place and metro KC already has a very high sales tax (plus all the overlay taxes that fund shopping malls etc). You don't want to be stuck with all this low ridership commuter rail and no way to fund a high ridership, high density system in the urban core where its needed and where you will see the most return on the investment.

It will be interesting to see the final plans and cost for this and how it fits in with the bigger picture. I'm not saying I don't like the plan, but I hope the county and city are working to build something more than just a few basic commuter lines with parking lots on the ends of them so people in Odessa and Grain Valley have an easier commute. That is the last thing metro KC needs.

Fact is there IS a huge difference between light rail and commuter rail and if commuter rail is what it takes to build up a first class urban core transit system to compliment it, I guess that's fine. But if KC just gets a bunch of commuter rail, the urban sprawl and decay problems that plague metro KC may get even worse.

I'll say it again. If you truly want to build a true world class transit sytem in metro KC, pass a 1% tax in JoCo and Jaco and rebuild both I-70 and I-35 with light rail and run light rail from Blue Springs to Olathe (or at least Independence to Lenexa) via the River Crown Plaza. Build out the rest of the regional system with BRT (such as to KCI), streetcars, buses and trails. That's all KC needs and that could be done for 3 billion (minus cost of rebuilding interstates).

But I know that's a pipe dream.

[flyingember]

try selling truman road to that neighborhood of economically disadvantaged people (probably of color) whose homes you'd have to plow over to make that work. you don't save that much by cutting out oak grove and grain valley, certainly not enough to reconstruct truman road for how many miles?

that ship has sailed.

No homes would have to be plowed over. The street is seven lanes wide the entire stretch. You sell it to them by explaining the economic investment the train would bring to their neighborhoods (increase in job opportunities and increased transportation mobility). Seems like an easy sell to me. That neighborhood has been starving for investment since at least the 1960s.

yeah, right

The connection would be at the Blue River to use Truman.
1. this means tearing out buildings to make the grade change, it's would be a long sweeping turn because it would have to connect past the viaduct

The only way to get closer in on Truman and connect miles down the road is to use the tracks that go to the trench. which is the very tracks they're having problem getting access to

It's as skinny as 4 lanes wide.
It doesn't become crazy wide until it crosses under I-70

freight track has a wider set. you're taking up greater than 2 lanes wide.

If that's remotely in the books we might as well just go ahead and build the streetcar down truman all the way to the blue river and put a commuter station in under the Truman bridge, it would be less disruptive and provide the TOD aspect.

the commuter line would send trains down their street that make maybe 1 stop at I-70, well past the neighborhood that has to put up with it.

[smh]

Love Mike Sander's passion. But I'm surprised by his lack of knowledge on commuter rail vs light rail. I actually think he knows the difference, but he is taking the high road on the question, which is very good one.

I support this plan overall. I think commuter rail in KC is a good investment because of the existing rail right of way and I think it is very much needed if you are ever going to get a county wide vote to fund transit. Transit needs to be funded at the county level, but people in Lee's Summit etc have to get something out of the deal and this commuter rail is that something.

But, this plan is being sold as something totally different than I think people will expect. KC is not going to get what Denver or Seattle or Minneapolis or Portland or St Louis has here, it's going to get what Austin or Nashville or Albuquerque has and I honestly think it's going to backfire unless they either tell people this is nothing more than a few rush hour trains and commuter parking lots. They are going to have to make this a much more comprehensive system (and more expensive) and figure out a way to make this function more like light rail with high frequency bidirectional all day service trains that can actually be used for something other than commuting.

If I remember right, about 250 people a day ride the Blue Springs express. The I-70 commuter rail might push 1000-2000 per day and it could be much lower if this is a bare bones commuter route. That's a lot of money to just take 1000 people off the highway and not really spur any kind of actual TOD etc. Now if they did something that functioned more like light rail and had a ridership of 15-30k per day and frequent service to the stadiums, sprint center and something that would trully trigger redevelopment along the route then that cost would be worth it.

That's fine. It is what it is. KC can't afford to build 20-40 miles of true light rail at a cost of 2-3 billion dollars without it being a more regional effort. But they need to make sure the public knows what they are getting.

I just think that KC is going to end up spending a billion dollars on a couple of unnecessary commuter rail lines that few will know about and even fewer will use and then the county/city won't have any other way to fund anything else.

The 1% tax has to also fund expanding the streetcar and bus system, not just trails. This is going to be a county wide 1% tax. You are not going to be able to raise that tax any more than 1%, especially since the KCATA already has a transit tax in place and metro KC already has a very high sales tax (plus all the overlay taxes that fund shopping malls etc). You don't want to be stuck with all this low ridership commuter rail and no way to fund a high ridership, high density system in the urban core where its needed and where you will see the most return on the investment.

It will be interesting to see the final plans and cost for this and how it fits in with the bigger picture. I'm not saying I don't like the plan, but I hope the county and city are working to build something more than just a few basic commuter lines with parking lots on the ends of them so people in Odessa and Grain Valley have an easier commute. That is the last thing metro KC needs.

Fact is there IS a huge difference between light rail and commuter rail and if commuter rail is what it takes to build up a first class urban core transit system to compliment it, I guess that's fine. But if KC just gets a bunch of commuter rail, the urban sprawl and decay problems that plague metro KC may get even worse.

I'll say it again. If you truly want to build a true world class transit sytem in metro KC, pass a 1% tax in JoCo and Jaco and rebuild both I-70 and I-35 with light rail and run light rail from Blue Springs to Olathe (or at least Independence to Lenexa) via the River Crown Plaza. Build out the rest of the regional system with BRT (such as to KCI), streetcars, buses and trails. That's all KC needs and that could be done for 3 billion (minus cost of rebuilding interstates).

But I know that's a pipe dream.

One the callers on KCUR had this quibble with Mr. Sanders as well. Sanders kept calling it commuter rail but then describing its benefits as if it were light rail. That said, I do seem to remember someone (Dave?) saying that the Jackson County plan was calling for 20ish minute headways. If that's the case I'd consider that to be pretty good and within a light-rail/frequent network definition rather than commuter rail.

[DaveKCMO]

LOL most light rail ridership comes from commuting. mind=blown.

the other reason it's confusing is that DMUs aren't widely used in the US, they look like light rail vehicles, and the operating patterns that are used in the US vary widely.

but yeah, what matters is the operation. this won't be peak-only service, which is typically what americans refer to as commuter rail.

[kboish]

this won't be peak-only service, which is typically what americans refer to as commuter rail.

So you (had to) mention this ad nauseum, but people keep on saying/asserting/asking if it will be peak only or low frequency and you have dutifully responded/corrected. maybe put that in the title or somewhere so we don't keep having this conversation over the next year? (for your own benefit-not that i will mind either way)

[kboish]

The other thing that should be mentioned regarding this is that the sales tax is supposed to cover the operating costs for the commuter rail as well (at least that is how i have understood it). This is in response to mistakes other cities have made in regards to relying on projected riderships and self generated revenue to cover costs. They are not banking on any growth or projections with these plans. If/when this system ever does produce any significant revenue that can potentially be looked at as a way to begin financing other parts of the system- be it commuter rail expansion or streetcar. I don't for a second think it would cover the full costs of expansion, but to have operating costs of the current (proposed) system covered is huge and allows for more options in the future.

[DaveKCMO]

this won't be peak-only service, which is typically what americans refer to as commuter rail.

So you (had to) mention this ad nauseum, but people keep on saying/asserting/asking if it will be peak only or low frequency and you have dutifully responded/corrected. maybe put that in the title or somewhere so we don't keep having this conversation over the next year? (for your own benefit-not that i will mind either way)

good point. the thread pre-dates the sanders plan, but will change to regional rail.

[kboish]

AND another take away from that Sanders interview

The one thing he said I think we can bank on more than any other is- He basically said, I don't know much about anything, but I do know politics. And I know whats polling well and what can pass. This is capable of passing. I wouldn't be brining it before the public if i didn't think so.

I believe that.

[GRID]

LOL most light rail ridership comes from commuting. mind=blown.

the other reason it's confusing is that DMUs aren't widely used in the US, they look like light rail vehicles, and the operating patterns that are used in the US vary widely.

but yeah, what matters is the operation. this won't be peak-only service, which is typically what americans refer to as commuter rail.

I know what DMU's are. What is being proposed is very similar to Austin, only as far as I can tell, the KC trains won't be traveling in the heart of downtown, but will land in the river market via the east bottoms. Even getting the trains into union station seems like a pipe dream.

The Austin system started out as commuter rail only and is now a little more frequent with mid-day and weekend service. But it's still nowhere near the level of service and frequency that LRT or heavy rail provides (heavy meaning subway, L, metro rail, not diesel commuter rail). Most comparable lines to the ones proposed in KC have a daily ridership of under 2000. The Austin line which is over 30 miles long barely gets 1500 passengers a day, or about double what the existing eastern jackson county express buses get.

The difference between commuter rail and light rail is huge. Even here in the DC area. I ride both Metro and MARC and MARC trains while very popular and carry far more than a commuter rail in a city the size of KC still carries a tiny fraction of of what Metro does at the same stations and even at rush hour. It's not even comparable.

It's not just commuters, it's the fact that heavy or light rail has high frequency and many stops. It's not a point a to point b commuter service only, although they serve that purpose just as well as the commuter trains for those that use it that way. Commuter rail generally follow industrial, in-accesable and isolated freight rail (or vacated freight rail) corridors.

I want to see KC develop transit as much as anybody. I just think this "regional" rail plan is going to disappoint a lot of people because all I hear is how KC is nothing like places Denver and Minneapolis and this plan will fix that. This is not going to do a lot to close the gap. This is like KC building bigger bus stops and calling it BRT. Throwing extra large buses (basically what DMUs are) on industrial corridors for a couple of thousand people a day is a start I guess, but to me, it's just a what KC has come up with because it can't get anything outside the downtown streetcar going.

Kansas City has the density and the development/commuter patterns to install some higher quality rail transit, the problem is politics, state lines, county lines, city lines etc will always keep such a project from happening.

KC needs to pass a metrowide tax that funds all regional transit under the umbrella of the currently bogus bi-state entity the KCATA. Then it could fund about 40 miles of LRT which is all KC will ever need. The rest of the metro won't be dense enough to support rail transit for at least another generation (rail lines to KCI, KS speedway and Grandview would all be a colossal waste of money, the density and potential ridership of those corridors is decades from even approaching the ability to sustain LRT. The I-35 and I-70 corridors should be light rail corridors. Similar to the LRT along I-25 south of Denver. The lower capacity, lower frequency and more commuter type service of the DMU technology would be perfect for the KCI route to provide transit from KCI to downtown at a fraction of the cost of LRT (similar to the Denver airport line UC). Everything else in metro KC could be buses and streetcars. KC has little to no interstate or surface street congestion. Plenty of capacity for a state of the art BRT system like what Vegas, Boston, Cleveland or LA has built.

I still say go for it. I was just hoping to see a full blown transit system in KC sometime before I die. A system that could be used by commuters, people going to royals and chiefs games, people going to crown center, the arts center, sprint center, river market etc any time of day, people reverse commuting from east side areas to suburban jobs, people living is clusters of TOD along the route in areas now considered ghetto or very rundown.

When you see all these starter LRT systems that went up in the 90's and early 00's that are now being expanded in similar density cites like Phoenix, Charlotte, Dallas, Salt Lake City etc, this proposed system in KC just seems like yet another cheap and easy route because the metro just can't get anything else done.

Having said that, I would certainly vote for it. It's better than nothing.

[flyingember]

keep in mind that it's possible to add trains and stations down the line and increase frequency with proven need

no system is stuck the way it is.

[grovester]

What's the impact of LaHood stepping down? Not just on this, but transit overall?

[DaveKCMO]

What's the impact of LaHood stepping down? Not just on this, but transit overall?

unknown until there is a successor. he was generally well-liked ad very pragmatic, which DOT totally needed (and still does). ultimately, what matters is the man at the top.

you do realize that this plan is being positioned to happen without a lot of federal funding, right?

[flyingember]

What's the impact of LaHood stepping down? Not just on this, but transit overall?

you do realize that this plan is being positioned to happen without a lot of federal funding, right?

I like it how we're taking a generally liberal goal of providing transit for everyone and coupling it with a generally right wing libertarian goal of paying for it ourselves as much as possible.

This is why so many people are intrigued by how KC did the streetcar.

it's a financially responsible way to induce growth.


I expect the tipping point on road cost education to hit within the next decade. Maybe this one can indirectly help.

The project is going to need signs along the route telling people what it is (and do the same for the streetcar)
Maybe side by side make some up with the "your tax dollars at work" theme.

Put several bars with the cost of different road projects
Cost to upgrade I-70 in KC
Cost of the KC Icon project
Cost to replace aging busses
Cost to repave every road in KC
Cost of the KC Streetcar

[Eon Blue]

I like it how we're taking a generally liberal goal of providing transit for everyone and coupling it with a generally right wing libertarian goal of paying for it ourselves as much as possible.

This is why so many people are intrigued by how KC did the streetcar.

it's a financially responsible way to induce growth.


I expect the tipping point on road cost education to hit within the next decade. Maybe this one can indirectly help.

The project is going to need signs along the route telling people what it is (and do the same for the streetcar)
Maybe side by side make some up with the "your tax dollars at work" theme.

Put several bars with the cost of different road projects
Cost to upgrade I-70 in KC
Cost of the KC Icon project
Cost to replace aging busses
Cost to repave every road in KC
Cost of the KC Streetcar

I like that idea--I'd put up the signs before a project is even officially funded or began. In high-congestion areas that people like to complain about, put up signs that say:

Total Cost to Fix This Problem: $(big number)
Cost Per Vehicle to Fix: $(big number)
What You're Actually Paying: $(tiny number)

Strategically place the signs so that people moving slowly in the backup can read and digest how much it would cost to get them up to their precious free flow speed. It would be a great way to help people realize how much their driving actually costs, and that the money needs to come from somewhere--not just the magic Federal Money Fairy.

[grovester]

What's the impact of LaHood stepping down? Not just on this, but transit overall?

unknown until there is a successor. he was generally well-liked ad very pragmatic, which DOT totally needed (and still does). ultimately, what matters is the man at the top.

you do realize that this plan is being positioned to happen without a lot of federal funding, right?

Yeah, I assumed it was budgeted without any fed funding, but that it might be pursued regardless.

I was really hoping he'd stay on and worry that his departure might be an unpleasant signal.

[flyingember]

has anyone heard if this plan could potentially help expand the streetcar?

Covering all the way to the Plaza would help sell the commuter aspect which is what will sell the project

[flyingember]

http://www.richblockspoorblocks.com/
pick the income option for Missouri

Why regional rail will be the way to pass streetcar extensions in the northland, as a combined plan. The city needs the income from further out.

It also shows how the income of the northland is better per individual.

From a sales tax standpoint the northland is a better opportunity for transit money per capita than downtown.

[DaveKCMO]

http://www.kmbz.com/Jackson-County-exec ... a/15555109

He says agreements with Kansas City Southern and Union Pacific to for use of their tracks could be finalized as early as mid March. The county wide vote on a one cent sales tax could come later this year.

[flyingember]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_vogel ... /lightbox/

Found this recently that's interesting.

The River Market route is via the North End Freight Line

[DaveKCMO]

if you know anyone at KCS, now's the time to give them an earful: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/03/13/41 ... racks.html