I'm Jealous

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:47 pm

Ok, I've been checking out pics of the St. Louis MetroLink and I must say i'm jealous. Subway stops, clean cool trains, and a large mass transit project for the whole area. No matter how cool our BRT is, it will just be buses.

I know this is the wrong reason to want LRT here, but I can't help it. I mean I've been hearing about Salt Lake City, Louisville, Nashville, Indianapolis, and Memphis all who are smaller than KC yet either have light rail or are planning on building it.

Then there is St. Louis who has an awesome setup, and this is the best we can do in comparison. A bus and a bus stop!!!!

Ok I'm being a little like Devin here, but I want KC to seem to others as great as it seems to me, and while smaller metros will have awesome rail setups, we will have buses, something that even Topeka already has.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:55 pm

O.K...we do NOT need to build a literal $1 billion dollar trophy for ourselves.

Light rail is only efficient in giant gities with hundred of thousands of people using it, not KC, StL, Mpls, Houston or wherever else. Even when I visited Chicago recently, there were very few people using their inner city train(the L? can't remember the name) on a Saturday.

Get people on the sidewalks in the city first. On the to-do list of Kansas City, light rail should be the very last thing.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:58 pm

How about subway BRT stations???

As much as I'd like a light rail line, trailer is right, it just doesn't work here. I try to see all the advantages the BRT line is going to bring. First off cost....we're doing this line w/o any kind of tax increase....also look at the flexibility. Say we see a need for a stop 2 blocks to the west of where one is now....easily solved with BRT, not solved w/o $10M with LRT.

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 12:28 am

These are good points, but it doesn't help my jealousy. The side of me that wants KC to be an awesome place. I want people to visit here and be impressed and I don't see how this is possible with BRT. Buses are always going to carry that negative stigma. Every time I read about some big transportation project in a different city and I think about our city I feel like we are the losers. I know it might not be true, but I feel this way anyway.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 12:48 am

The thing is I really don't give a rip what anyone thinks about KC. It doesn't matter to me...I know this town is great even though there is good and bad. There is no better place to live in America. If they think we are "back woods" for not spending over a billion dollars for a modern day trolley...so be it.

As long as KC improves and progresses in a way that benefits its people its environment, and its industries, I could care less what "coasters" or anyone else thinks.

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 12:48 am

I'm with you DMW. I know I just said in another thread that KC needs to fix it's bus system before rail and it does. But there is not reason why KC shouldn't have a starter spine of LR from the river to the plaza. The metro should build a starter LR line and double or triple the bus system. But that's just not a priority in this town. So we will try and do a BRT and see what happens I guess.

Hell, Little Rock is building LR.

KCN · Post by **KCN** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 5:13 pm

I'm with DMW and Grid. We may not need lightrail extending out to KCI and Lawrence or whatever, but it would be a giant asset to build from Rivermarket to the Plaza. That would be used for sure.

I too am jealous of STL's lightrail system.

Post by **dangerboy** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 6:11 pm

While the theory of light rail is good, the implementation is terribly difficult. St. Louis has had to cut back bus service several times so they could keep the MetroLink solvent. Other cities have had similar problems.

Plus, as a KCMO voter and taxpayer I'm starting to get a little annoyed with so many non-residents telling us what we should or shouldn't have in our own city. The voters have turned down light rail three times, and I have never heard any of your cities volunteer to help us build it. How about lobbying your own elected officials asking them for a true regional transit system?

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 6:19 pm

dangerboy wrote:While the theory of light rail is good, the implementation is terribly difficult. St. Louis has had to cut back bus service several times so they could keep the MetroLink solvent. Other cities have had similar problems.

Plus, as a KCMO voter and taxpayer I'm starting to get a little annoyed with so many non-residents telling us what we should or shouldn't have in our own city. The voters have turned down light rail three times, and I have never heard any of your cities volunteer to help us build it. How about lobbying your own elected officials asking them for a true regional transit system?

Dont be offended by me a non-resident wanting light rail. It has absolutely nothing to do with our needs as a city, but more to do with my desire for Kansas City to be an awesome place.

I would gladly offer some of my money to creating a regional system, but my fellow KCK residents are poor and probably won't agree with me. I knew Kansas City was in poor shape when we even turned down commuter rail. Maybe this BRT will be revolutionary but I doubt it, I really think it will end up being a regular bus, just painted differently. There won't be sleek cool buses, or seperate brt lanes or anything.

For now I will sit and be jealous. Maybe 20 years from now KC will be big enough to need these things.

Post by **staubio** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:44 am

DeadManWalking wrote:
dangerboy wrote:While the theory of light rail is good, the implementation is terribly difficult. St. Louis has had to cut back bus service several times so they could keep the MetroLink solvent. Other cities have had similar problems.

Plus, as a KCMO voter and taxpayer I'm starting to get a little annoyed with so many non-residents telling us what we should or shouldn't have in our own city. The voters have turned down light rail three times, and I have never heard any of your cities volunteer to help us build it. How about lobbying your own elected officials asking them for a true regional transit system?
Dont be offended by me a non-resident wanting light rail. It has absolutely nothing to do with our needs as a city, but more to do with my desire for Kansas City to be an awesome place.

I would gladly offer some of my money to creating a regional system, but my fellow KCK residents are poor and probably won't agree with me. I knew Kansas City was in poor shape when we even turned down commuter rail. Maybe this BRT will be revolutionary but I doubt it, I really think it will end up being a regular bus, just painted differently. There won't be sleek cool buses, or seperate brt lanes or anything.

For now I will sit and be jealous. Maybe 20 years from now KC will be big enough to need these things.

So would you vote for transit if it didn't serve KCK -- to give you something to be proud of city-wide? That's the spirit! Too bad you said in another thread that Union Station does you no good and you won't vote for another Bi-State unless you get some direct, tangible benefits. Improvements anywhere in the metro give us something to be proud of, and if we want to have an identity as a CITY, those improvements are probably going to be in the CITY.

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 1:02 pm

staubio wrote:
So would you vote for transit if it didn't serve KCK -- to give you something to be proud of city-wide? That's the spirit! Too bad you said in another thread that Union Station does you no good and you won't vote for another Bi-State unless you get some direct, tangible benefits. Improvements anywhere in the metro give us something to be proud of, and if we want to have an identity as a CITY, those improvements are probably going to be in the CITY.

Would I vote for transit that doesnt serve KCK. HELL NO!!!!!

If those money grubbing fools want me to pay for transit it had best at least have one KCK stop. KCK's close proximity to KCMO makes it a prime candidate for expansion of public transportation into different cities, unfortunately I don't think there is enough demand here.

By the way Union Station does nothing for KCK, no one visits KCK because of Union Station, no one even knows we exist. I didn't see Union Station bring money or jobs or tourists or anything here. Tell me if you have evidence to the contrary.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Sun Feb 08, 2004 5:05 pm

Union Station is a bad example as it has produced little results in its very own neighborhood. Renovations were breathtaking, but the reuse was uninspired.

Could someone please give reasons you want light rail besides that light rail in KC would make you proud?

Seattle is spending over $2 billion, but for a mere $1.4 billion let's see what we could do instead...

Royals Stadium downtown($410 million)
New "best in class" arena ($340 million)
MLS stadium on the Kauffman site ($35 million)
Commuter rail from Jo Co and East Jack on existing tracks ($250 million)
Expansion and promotion of BRT all over the city ($165 million)
Riverfront redevelopment ($150 million)
More zoo enhancements ($50 million)

Let's get serious.

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Mon Feb 09, 2004 9:59 am

trailerkid wrote:Union Station is a bad example as it has produced little results in its very own neighborhood. Renovations were breathtaking, but the reuse was uninspired.

Could someone please give reasons you want light rail besides that light rail in KC would make you proud?

Seattle is spending over $2 billion, but for a mere $1.4 billion let's see what we could do instead...

Royals Stadium downtown($410 million)
New "best in class" arena ($340 million)
MLS stadium on the Kauffman site ($35 million)
Commuter rail from Jo Co and East Jack on existing tracks ($250 million)
Expansion and promotion of BRT all over the city ($165 million)
Riverfront redevelopment ($150 million)
More zoo enhancements ($50 million)

Let's get serious.

These are good points, but as I stated before, this has nothing to do with our need for the rail or the other uses for the money. I am jealous because I want this city to be as great in other people's eyes as it is in mine.

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Mon Feb 09, 2004 12:10 pm

Lots of people -- including many KCMO leaders -- were jealous of Pittsburgh. Then it was revealed that Pittsburgh spent itself into near-insolvency.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Mon Feb 09, 2004 2:45 pm

DeadManWalking wrote: These are good points, but as I stated before, this has nothing to do with our need for the rail or the other uses for the money. I am jealous because I want this city to be as great in other people's eyes as it is in mine.

I still just don't get it. What is the need for light rail besides "pride" among a handful or people? What problem are we solving by construction a billion dollar system of trolley cars that will be 1/6 full on average?

Among the major things we need in the metro (betters schools, more jobs, better roads and bridges, new stadium/ arena, etc.) the need for a light rail system is near the bottom. I am trying to illustrate that for a conservative estimate of the price of light rail...we could instead do a half dozen major metro projects.

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:03 pm

trailerkid wrote:
DeadManWalking wrote: These are good points, but as I stated before, this has nothing to do with our need for the rail or the other uses for the money. I am jealous because I want this city to be as great in other people's eyes as it is in mine.
I still just don't get it. What is the need for light rail besides "pride" among a handful or people? What problem are we solving by construction a billion dollar system of trolley cars that will be 1/6 full on average?

Among the major things we need in the metro (betters schools, more jobs, better roads and bridges, new stadium/ arena, etc.) the need for a light rail system is near the bottom. I am trying to illustrate that for a conservative estimate of the price of light rail...we could instead do a half dozen major metro projects.

You just dont get it.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:09 pm

What is there to get? $1.5 billion+ for a modern trolley car from 12th and Main to the Plaza? I'll wait for BRT.

Post by **staubio** » Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:48 pm

I know where you are coming from, Dead Man. I also know that light rail isn't right for KC considering the alternatives.

Its simple to see DMW's point, though. Just put away your thinking cap. Stop quantifying and just take a look at a light rail train buzzing by and think to yourself "wow, that is cool." It certainly is a symbol of a modern, progressive city and it would be the same symbol for us if we had it.

In KC, you actually have to look to realize that we are an amazing city -- it takes more than a glassy-eyed stare at light rail to see it. Sure, we know KC is great, but I think DMW is jealous of LRT because we don't have the luxery of the instant legitimatization it brings.

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Mon Feb 09, 2004 6:09 pm

trailerkid wrote:What is there to get? $1.5 billion+ for a modern trolley car from 12th and Main to the Plaza? I'll wait for BRT.

Well if you don't get why I want light rail because you are so stuck on the numbers, I will just say I also am jealous of San Franciso's Golden Gate Bridge. I wish Kansas City could have a beautiful urban bridge. I know that a regular concrete slab is hundreds of nillions of dollars less than a huge cabled bridge, BUT I WANT ONE ANYWAY!!!!

Oh and I'm Jealous of Central Park in New York. I know that it costs hundreds of millions to build a grand urban park, BUT I WANT ONE ANYWAY!!!! The numbers don't mean a damn thing to me.

You will never get it as long as you are stuck on the costs.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Mon Feb 09, 2004 6:29 pm

Here is the problem...
Golden Gate Bridge and Central Park are worth the costs.

Light Rail is NOT worth the costs. I understand and commend you for having a broad vision of the future of Kansas City, but light rail does not need to be in it. Light rail is not only costly, but it is inefficient in its very mission of what it is supposed to accomplish-- move people. Studies have shown that buses are way more capable and efficient in transporting people than light rail.

Let's get things straight, I want THE BEST for Kansas City. Light rail is a literal billion dollar boondoggle that does not adaquately serve its own purpose. Failing school system, parks falling to pieces, unused riverfront, crumbling streets and sidewalks, lack of pedestrians downtown, major compaines outsourcing overseas...where are our priorities?