KCRag Forum

snigglefritz wrote:https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... j=82248951

The TDD won't begin raising taxes until after a plan is approved for construction of the streetcar extension, and after the Downtown and Main Street Extension TDDs are merged into one.

The Kansas City Streetcar Authority plans to apply for federal funding in September for the $227 million project. The nonprofit organization, which manages, operates and maintains the streetcar, will seek up to $100 million in funding through the Federal Transit Administration's Small Starts Program.

the tax funds will not come close to covering the cost of building the new line. The KC Streetcar Authority will also seek $100 million in federal funds.

Main Street Rail TDD Chairwoman Jan Marcason said it hoped to find out in January whether the project was selected for the federal funding.

earthling wrote: Plan B if no Fed funding?

earthling wrote:From the Biz Journal article...

Main Street Rail TDD Chairwoman Jan Marcason said it hoped to find out in January whether the project was selected for the federal funding.

Plan B if no Fed funding?

TheLastGentleman wrote:I'm out of the loop with the streetcar stuff...how many more votes until they get the okay to start construction? Or was this the last vote?

I guess this is good news for development in that corridor, but honestly, these street car systems are quite bad. The current route takes 16 minutes according to the schedule, for a 2.2 mile route. That's only 8.25 miles per hour. Buses probably are faster, and more reliable in traffic.

Now, it's not really a problem since the route is so short. However, if they want to keep expanding the system to get a strong transit system, at some point they'll regret that they didn't build the heart of the system with an exclusive right of way in the median at first.

Systems like the one in Bordeaux in France, which uses the extended version of the same rolling stock, and which partly travels in the historic city centre where high speeds can't be reached on narrow streets, still have an average speed of more than 12 miles an hour, because they do have that separate right of way wherever they can.

Good. But the layout of the proposed route is madness. So many lanes of striped asphalt. Utter waste.
Why not import some of the world's best practice and do center-running (grassy) transit lanes with floating transit stops. Then one or two car lanes per direction, no parking and add a bike lane and trees. It would transform the street from something that looks like a suburb to a more urban place where it's actually nice to walk along. Not like it hasn't been [done before]


Oh that's right, that would cost some holy parking spots, on an important through-fare...

normalthings wrote:The following is a quote from an outside Urban Planner.

I guess this is good news for development in that corridor, but honestly, these street car systems are quite bad. The current route takes 16 minutes according to the schedule, for a 2.2 mile route. That's only 8.25 miles per hour. Buses probably are faster, and more reliable in traffic.

Now, it's not really a problem since the route is so short. However, if they want to keep expanding the system to get a strong transit system, at some point they'll regret that they didn't build the heart of the system with an exclusive right of way in the median at first.

Systems like the one in Bordeaux in France, which uses the extended version of the same rolling stock, and which partly travels in the historic city centre where high speeds can't be reached on narrow streets, still have an average speed of more than 12 miles an hour, because they do have that separate right of way wherever they can.

KCPowercat wrote:Those things signal less congestion to me.... Not more

FangKC wrote:https://cityscenekc.com/voters-overwhel ... ashington/