KC should look to STL for rail

davetodd · Post by **davetodd** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 8:34 pm

I know that we have tried and tried to get a light rail system in KC for years, and for years we have voted it down standing up!
It makes me sick.
Cities that have rail transportation seem to go somewhere and people tend to move back to the urban cores because of the great transportation options.
Looking close to home, St. Louis has an amazing rail system now. I just visited this last weekend and took their METRO system everywhere.
So, upon getting home, I wanted to draw some more info up on their system.
First off,
I stayed in downtown stl, which is sooo busy compared to our dowtown anyday, and rode the trains from there to see the city. Not only is there the rail, but taxis can be hailed anywhere and are everywhere!
The downtown subway stations are gorgious! They are so cool looking, marble floors and walls, and awesome old rail tunnels. The trains are fast, CLEAN, and frequent (every 10 minutes). The system covers over 32 miles and is adding a new subway line to Clayton and further south which is under construction there now.
The system is awesome. The system is WELL used. Rush hours were crazy, no seats and standing on trains only, and during off peak hours, the trains are still full!!! One sign inside a train read "90,000 in and out in one day... the way to go..METRO). So, I looked it up, and in 2002 METRO rail carried over 80,000 people (They must be spec. for 2003).
I also learned these stats. More than 10,000 people have moved to downtown STL in the last three years. I also saw that 30,000 new city residents moved to the city proper, the largest growth of new residents there since 1950. Even tho the pop. there went down in the city prop. for the last 20 years of so, they are seeming to close that gap in trend and regain residents to the city again. This will be interesting. I also found that STL has the 9th worst traffic and having METRO has only helped ease the traffic since 1993 when METRO opened. I feel that it is because of the enormous revitalization of their downtown and factors of having excellent public transit like METRO.
KC needs to gat a clue on our transit issues.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 9:09 pm

Its nice you find rail good for KC, but you know what? It increases the likelyhood of people living in the suburbs. That is what is happening in STL, they are moving to the suburbs which really hurts that city. Its main population has already been surpassed by Wichita and Omaha.
Rail is good but bad for KC. I happen to hate suburbs for what they have done to cities. But I live in one regardless.
KC is so much better than STL. Even if their downtown is more lively it doesn't mean squat to what KC will be in several years.
(Sorry, i know your new to the forum, just so you know, I dislike STL)

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:30 am

I cannot believe I am agreeing with Devin, but there is a lot of truth in the ills of light rail. It may be cool and fun, but its costs far outweighs benefits. If you ask any industrial designer or urban planner they will tell you that light rail being an economical and suitable transportation is the exception not the norm in the US. Devin is also right in that light rail and commuter rail makes it easier for people to flee the urban core and live even further from the center. Let's put the 100s of millions of dollars it takes to start one light rail line and Improve the bus system, add bike lanes to our urban streets, create better sidewalk streetscapes and paths, and upgrade our highways and roads. Light rail is a trophy for public adminstrators, not a valuable solution to making Kansas City better.

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:59 am

I was one of the biggest light rail supporters and still am, but it apears that urban KC is doing better than urban StL and StL has already invested in hundreds of millions into stadiums and light rail.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 7:48 am

yes, they dont have any idea how to run things. spending money on really worthless things.
that is why STL has been dropping in population since 1950, light rail and the ease to move to the suburbs.

Post by **bahua** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:03 pm

I still like the idea of a rail line that gets used by suburban people, better than lanes of highway. Bear in mind, also, that STL only has one line, going from Lambert to Illinois. So, for one thing, it doesn't really hit many of the suburbs. Also take into account that STL is much more compact and urban than KC, making such a rail line a lot more sensible for such a city.

That said, I'd love to see high-speed rail lines going along the lengths of I-70, 35, 29, the Broadway Ext, US-71, and along 435, and get those people out of their cars.

Post by **dangerboy** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 2:41 pm

Most people in the suburbs will live there regardless of whether or not there is light rail in the city. And in looking at St. Louis, even with light rail its urban core is still quite a bit behind Kansas City. While they do have some good urban neighborhoods, there aren't nearly as many as in KC. Our urban core never emptied out as much as St. Louis, so it's further ahead in redevelopment.

One important lesson that we can learn from St. Louis is inter-governmental cooperation. Their light rail receives funding from the City, St. Louis County, and even Illinois suburbs. Plus they have the advantage of an airport that was close enough to connect to in the early phases of building rail.

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 9:02 am

Here's an article with stats that compare access to vehicles in STL and KC:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... y-go-round++

Post by **bahua** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 9:40 am

dangerboy wrote:One important lesson that we can learn from St. Louis is inter-governmental cooperation. Their light rail receives funding from the City, St. Louis County, and even Illinois suburbs.

Well, the line goes from STL county, into the city(which is _not_ in the county), into Illinois. It would make perfect sense that these three entities, being the chief beneficiaries, would be responsible for its cost.

However, that is very nice, though, that they did come together to support this.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 5:05 pm

well we wouldnt want people moving to the suburbs it would hurt KC more.

Post by **bahua** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:05 pm

I just fail to see how discouraging people from driving could be considered a bad thing. This won't encourage people to move to the suburbs. They're already there. This will encourage them to work in the urban core, and use public transportation, instead of their 8 mpg Ford Extinction.

As I see it, it'll save lots of people lots of money. Unfortunately, there's nothing to really prompt it now, as it's just too darn easy to drive around town.

rxlexi · Post by **rxlexi** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 1:11 am

hey, interesting discussion. I've been curious about StL's light rail for quite a while; I'm curious as to whether it's usable for getting around the city or it's more a commute-to-work only type of system? Anyway at least StL does one thing right; downtown stadiums, including brand new Cardinals Field with a proposed surrounding residential/commercial development.
As far as KC transit, what about having light rail or bus rapid transit from the Plaza to the City Market, with stops along Main Street, Union Station, KC Live, etc, and then a continuous path to the airport? I don't know anything about such transit, the costs, benefits etc, but I think a system like this would really bring together the urban core, especially for tourists and business travellers, as well as providing a fast and efficient car-free way to get around KC from the Plaza thru downtown to the River Market (when downtown finally gets some activity going

). Plus, this system wouldn't encourage suburban development because it would streak right through the city.
Any thoughts?

Alexi

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 2:08 am

Yes, would some of you "rail" people explain how it is better than BRT other than because it's pretty and makes you feel like an urbanite because "you took the train today" ?

Find real solutions for our transit problems, not drain public funds on prestige projects.

Post by **bahua** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:56 pm

Who are the "rail" people?

Rail works in large cities because it's cheaper/faster than running seven buses one after the other. For that to work, however, you need ridership, which KC transit doesn't have, and won't have until the urban core gets dense, and people start bitching about having to drive.

BRT would be fine, if it would happen, and would happen in such a way that would really benefit the city. From what I understand, the line will not go up the 51 or the 56-lines' routes, which poses a problem in lost potential riders.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:59 pm

hmmm, from what I heard it would pretty much replace the 56/57 bus.

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Sat Dec 27, 2003 8:04 pm

How about a light rail system that is metro wide, and links the largest cities in the area KCMO, Overland Park, KCK, Independence, and Olathe at the commercial center for each of the respective cities. Then have bus lines for the rest of the outlying areas. The majority of people who ride the bus here in KCK are lower income and it would work well if they had transportation to the jobs available in Johnson County and in Missouri.

Post by **bahua** » Sun Dec 28, 2003 12:38 pm

That would be great, but under KC's current situation, there wouldn't be enough riders for people(including venture capitalists) to consider it anything but a failure.

I understand that there are people who need public transportation to get to their jobs, and to get around in general, but there aren't enough people that need it, for it to need to happen.

Like I've said before, making all the expressways in the Metro tollroads would turn the tide a bit, though.

ignatius · Post by **ignatius** » Thu Jan 01, 2004 2:08 pm

I was pro light rail until I actually sat on the light rail committee. It is a big waste. BRT is the way to go. If done right, it's exactly the same as LRT but on wheels.

According to this..
http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-stljtw2000.htm

Despite light rail, transit use is lower in StL. LRT is incredibly expensive to maintain and they are cancelling bus lines to support the rail.

For KC, it would cost $30K per rider for light rail and that was with optimistic ridership projections. StL's cost $12K per rider and loses more money than any method known except subway.

Public transit will never make money and should be considered a necessary costly investment but there is wise investment and stupidly expensive investments. LRT just isn't worth it, especially for KC.

Using existing freight rail lines on our massive freight system for commuter rail makes more sense but sharing with freight is also very expensive (though less than dedicated LRT).

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Thu Jan 01, 2004 6:23 pm

Im interested in BRT. What other cities use BRT? How successful is it? Any serious drawbacks?

JivecitySTL · Post by **JivecitySTL** » Sun May 02, 2004 9:02 am

You anti-rail people are a trip and a half! It must be jealousy that leads you to believe it's a "waste of money" to build rapid transit. Please. Look at any great city in America and it has rail transit of some kind. Sorry KC is behind the times.

Yes, that's right. KC is behind the times. Even SALT LAKE CITY built a light-rail line! If it makes you feel better, go ahead and talk about how it's been bad for St. Louis or it contributed to population decline or whatever. The truth is, MetroLink has been TREMENDOUS for the city, and has inspired a great deal of development along the line. It is one of the most successful light rail lines in the country, and ridership continues to increase. Not to mention that it is rapidly expanding (another line will open in early 2006). You naysayers know that you'd give your left nut to have a system like MetroLink in KC. But it doesn't look like that will happen soon, so you try to justify why you think it's not a good idea.

That's what separates the big cities from the small towns. KC thinks small, STL thinks big. That's the way it's always been, and it doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon.

KCDevin, just save it. You've admitted you've never been to St. Louis, you are not credible at all. Your posts are so idiotic, you embarrass yourself with every word you type. "MetroLink makes people move to the suburbs"??? LOL! People were moving to the suburbs long before we had MetroLink, and ever since the system opened the rate of decline as decreased significantly (and it will rebound, it's inevitable).

Whoever said KC has more urban neighborhoods than St. Louis needs to immediately check his clueless ass into the nearest home for "special" children. That was a statement that isn't worth the dog shit that I just stepped on outside of my apartment building. Are you kidding me?!?! Sounds like there are quite a few people in KC who haven't been to St. Louis (or they're blind).

And lastly, it seems like this entire KC forum suffers from an STL inferiority complex. St. Louis is everywhere on this board. If anyone has traveled they would realize that KC has no more in common with St. Louis than it does with Pittsburgh (other than the fact that they're both in MO). They are two COMPLETELY different cities, and neither one wants to be like the other. The difference is, people in St. Louis don't give a flying fuck about other parts of the state (selfish as it sounds).

I came here to see what was going on here since I've been hearing so much about it on SSP and I was dismayed by all the KC forumers who dog St. Louis (apparently because it's the dominant city in MO) to make KC sound better. Thank you for your jealousy, we are flattered. Now get off our nuts!