Rail to KCI - 2023

[bspecht]

REOI issued "Regarding the Future of Airport to Downtown Rapid Transportation Choices in Kansas City, Missouri"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jqAE-m ... sp=sharing

[langosta]

Suburbs will never densify or be built densely unless we give them transit to grow around first

[alejandro46]

REOI issued "Regarding the Future of Airport to Downtown Rapid Transportation Choices in Kansas City, Missouri"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jqAE-m ... sp=sharing

Doesn't really say anything about rail in the RFI.

[phuqueue]

Suburbs will never densify or be built densely unless we give them transit to grow around first

I agree with this in principle, but I don't think that dropping 15+ miles of rail through the Northland is necessarily step 1 here. A good transit system is definitely a necessary prerequisite to a dense urban community, but it's not sufficient on its own. If the mere presence of transit were enough to get people to use it, the transit systems American cities already had a hundred years ago would never have been dismantled. So effective transit is a necessary carrot, but you also need sticks to get people out of their cars. Driving needs to be more expensive and less convenient, but I don't see that KC (or, for that matter, any other American city) is prepared to intentionally burden drivers as a matter of policy. Even this nominally urbanist message board has other threads where people advocate for highway expansions and oppose closing roads to car traffic, and if that's where we are as a message board community, then imagine how much farther away our political leadership is from ever willingly imposing even the slightest hardship on drivers.

I think your step 1 for densifying the Northland is to build out a high-coverage, high-frequency bus network that would give people a car-free option, and have that bus network connect to nodes rezoned for higher density (as well as to downtown and the rest of the city, of course) along ROWs that could be set aside for future rail service (and possibly used now as busways). In a few decades, if those rezoned areas really have developed with higher density, then step 50 is to start building rail in those ROWs. And steps 2-49 in the intervening decades should have been various actions to reduce parking and road capacity throughout the metro, impose higher costs on parking and driving, etc, but this is where KC is going to lose the plot (actually who am I kidding, KC lost the plot when I said "high-coverage, high-frequency bus network"). In any case, I don't really buy that rail to KCI, specifically, is the key to densifying the Northland.

[langosta]

If bus service has close to no impact on development patterns in the core I really doubt it impacts the suburbs. Its rail or nothing for dense development in cities like KC.

[TheUrbanRoo]

If bus service has close to no impact on development patterns in the core I really doubt it impacts the suburbs. Its rail or nothing for dense development in cities like KC.

Correct

[alejandro46]

If bus service has close to no impact on development patterns in the core I really doubt it impacts the suburbs. Its rail or nothing for dense development in cities like KC.

Correct

I agree with this take. Bus network doesn’t spur development like rails in the ground. Better to spend the money on lines to the east side, KCK, etc first imho. But I still think north Oak with a dedicated row streetcar can really add a lot of residents and growth in the future. I mean Gladstone is growing pretty solidly as is.

[langosta]

Anything outside of the core really neeeds to be faster than streetcar. Even east/west honestly needs to be faster or able to be faster as needed

[phuqueue]

The bus doesn't "spur" dense, walkable development, but it enables it, if there is otherwise political will to build it. A train through already-developed, intensely car-dependent suburban sprawl is not going to magically generate density either unless there is political will for it. The main difference is that an order of magnitude separates the respective costs of doing each one. The bus network is also basically a prerequisite for a train to actually function as usable transit for Northland residents, as we were previously discussing in the P&R portion of this thread. But whether you build a bus or a train, nobody is going to ride either one unless you also start chipping away at all of the incentives they have to drive.

[langosta]

The bus doesn't "spur" dense, walkable development, but it enables it, if there is otherwise political will to build it. A train through already-developed, intensely car-dependent suburban sprawl is not going to magically generate density either unless there is political will for it. The main difference is that an order of magnitude separates the respective costs of doing each one. The bus network is also basically a prerequisite for a train to actually function as usable transit for Northland residents, as we were previously discussing in the P&R portion of this thread. But whether you build a bus or a train, nobody is going to ride either one unless you also start chipping away at all of the incentives they have to drive.

There is excitement to ride rail and live/play/work/build along rail in KC. This does not exist with bus in nearly the same way.

There is excitement to take the train to the airport or sports games in KC. This does not exist with bus at all.

[phuqueue]

"Excitement" is not going to fill a train with thousands of riders on a daily basis to justify the ten-figure cost of building it, particularly not when driving is as cheap and easy as it is in KC. This is wishful thinking. It is especially not going to fill a train in a place like the Northland, where the vast majority of residents have no realistic way of accessing this train except to get in their cars and drive to it, which defeats the entire purpose.

[langosta]

"Excitement" is not going to fill a train with thousands of riders on a daily basis to justify the ten-figure cost of building it, particularly not when driving is as cheap and easy as it is in KC. This is wishful thinking. It is especially not going to fill a train in a place like the Northland, where the vast majority of residents have no realistic way of accessing this train except to get in their cars and drive to it, which defeats the entire purpose.

An express bus is also going to be empty. I can see a pathway to filling that train but I dont see a pathway to filling an express bus or BRT to the airport. I also dont see a way to keep building rail in the core without getting suburban buy in which requires suburban rail.

[phuqueue]

I mean my original post was about how if you want to get people riding transit of any mode, you can't just provide transit but also need to make it more difficult and expensive to drive, but you just zeroed in on the word "bus." I'm also not even talking specifically about transportation to the airport but am responding to your broad statement that the suburbs will never densify unless we give them transit to grow around, which, as I said at the outset, I agree with. I just don't think a train to KCI is the appropriate transit for the Northland in 2023. It has taken decades for the Northland to build itself out in its current form; a train to the airport is not some quick fix that is going to undo all that, and a train to the airport not supported by a robust local bus system isn't going to accomplish much of anything at all, except offer a longer (but car-free!) trip to the airport from downtown, which, admittedly, will be great for the dozens of people who are sure to take advantage of it. You have to walk before you can run, and the suburbs need better local transit before it makes any sense to build a train there.

Regarding airport transportation specifically, I do think an express bus makes much more sense than a rail line at this point, though I agree it will also probably not be heavily used, because, again, it is far too cheap and easy to drive in KC. I don't really see a pathway to filling any mode of transit through the suburbs (to the airport or otherwise) if our approach to cars continues to be business as usual.

[langosta]

I think I agree with you on all parts but this:

the suburbs need better local transit before it makes any sense to build a train there.

I honestly don’t think a regional transit tax will happen without suburban rail and KCI is one of the most desired routes

[DaveKCMO]

I honestly don’t think a regional transit tax will happen without suburban rail and KCI is one of the most desired routes

If you vote by county, that leaves the airport up to Platte. The current commissioners are, um, transit challenged. Other counties are focused on more pressing (and useful) corridors:

Wyandotte --> State Ave
Johnson --> Metcalf
Jackson --> East/West Streetcar & Rock Island
Clay --> Burlington/North Oak

This, of course, is all laid out in SmartMoves.

[alejandro46]

I honestly don’t think a regional transit tax will happen without suburban rail and KCI is one of the most desired routes

If you vote by county, that leaves the airport up to Platte. The current commissioners are, um, transit challenged. Other counties are focused on more pressing (and useful) corridors:

Wyandotte --> State Ave
Johnson --> Metcalf
Jackson --> East/West Streetcar & Rock Island
Clay --> Burlington/North Oak

This, of course, is all laid out in SmartMoves.

Platte county can theoretically pay for services from metro north to KCI. The financial situation in Zona Rosa is not great. Could be a good way to connect it to downtown and act as a park and ride. No need to build even more parking. The garages there are extremely under utilized. Same with Metro north crossing. Plenty of parking under utilized there. I’m obviously super skeptical of this but as part of a regional system it makes sense and plenty of room for dedicate row streetcar type vehicles. You could also build stations and ROW only prior to WC, get temporary busses, then lay rail after.

[dukuboy1]

If bus service has close to no impact on development patterns in the core I really doubt it impacts the suburbs. Its rail or nothing for dense development in cities like KC.

Correct

I agree with this take. Bus network doesn’t spur development like rails in the ground. Better to spend the money on lines to the east side, KCK, etc first imho. But I still think north Oak with a dedicated row streetcar can really add a lot of residents and growth in the future. I mean Gladstone is growing pretty solidly as is.

Street car to the Northland would nice and even a line that serviced NKC, as has been proposed/studied, would have a nice impact. However I think that more businesses/companies setting up shop downtown would really benefit and do a lot to create even more growth in the Northland. Obviously business/companies in the Northland would do that as well but having new companies from the River Market to say Crown Center area setting up shop, HQ's whatever would create a nice draw for the Northland. In terms of suburbs in the Metro there is no easier commute to downtown & points just South than from the North. Our access to highways is really good and then getting there is fairly simple. I live in Gladstone, work downtown 4 days a week now (sometimes 3 with the hybrid plan) and it takes me about 15-20 minutes to make that commute. Pre-Covid, 5 days a week it was maybe more 20-25 mins. So a very easy drive. Plus new companies in the area will spur even more residential development and the commercial/retail to service those residents. I know it may pie in the sky thinking at this point but I am still hopeful the businesses come back to the downtown area and see it's benefits.

[dnweava]

Here is my plan for rail to KCI. A public-private partnership light rail line. Could we bring in enough money with land development rights, naming rights, etc that we could build this without much public money? If we could bring the cost down to say just needing $10 million per year, the city could easily find that in the couch cushions of the city's $2 billion per year budget.

Brightline in Florida is building a private passenger rail line because they have the development rights at the stations so lets use that idea. So near many of the stations on my proposed route, the city will give the developer the land through eminent domain or whatever (marked in yellow on my maps below) and make that land as valuable as possible by having zero parking minimums and no density maximums so that land would be worth a ton to the right developer.

surely station names could be worth something too, seems some other systems have sold station naming rights for millions. "Walmart Zona Rosa Station", Target @ Metro North Station, Coca Cola Station @ KCI terminal, etc. I'd guess those could bring in millions per year.


Here is the route:

Segment 1: With this serving the airport, find a way to have airport revenues partially fund this section.
(1) KCI Terminal
(2) KCI Car Rental
(3) KCI long term parking
(4) KCI expo - serves hotels, expo center, and land to be given to developer.

Segment 2: Use highway right of way to get from the KCI area to Briarcliff. 29, 152, and 169.
(5) Tiffany Springs
(6) Zona Rosa (build a pedestrian bridge across the highway to station)
(7) Twin Creeks
(8) Metro North
(9) unnamed station
(10) Englewood


Segment 3: Briarcliff to the riverfront. build on the levee. Swing around NKC to have stops where big development opportunities exist.
(11) Briarcliff
(12) Downtown NKC
(13) NKC Hospital - Harrah's
(14) Riverront: Connection to Streetcar and Current KC soccer stadium

Segment 4: River to Union Station. Something I've never seen proposed before is using the Paseo right of way. This is a street with massive potential. Build this section as a cut and cover subway. (Green part of line indicates the subway section), then use the railway corridor to get over to union station.

(15) 11th/Paseo: Area has MASSIVE development potential and brings downtown east. Walkable to Royals east village stadium
(16) 18th/Vine:
(17) Union Station: connections to streetcar and Amtrak

[DaveKCMO]

Here's the BIG asterisk for rail spurring development: (a) bus service usually makes a much smaller or no capital investment in transit infrastructure, (b) more expensive BRT systems have shown an impact on development, while our MAX lines simply stabilized values compared to non-MAX corridors, and (c) the capital grant program that funds more expensive capital transit projects requires supportive land use, and those building rail are more likely to make policy changes that encourage development (or more density).

[phuqueue]

surely station names could be worth something too, seems some other systems have sold station naming rights for millions. "Walmart Zona Rosa Station", Target @ Metro North Station, Coca Cola Station @ KCI terminal, etc. I'd guess those could bring in millions per year.

Station naming rights will bring in a negligible amount of money, assuming anybody even wants to buy them in the first place. Philadelphia sold some, but apparently only for $5.6 million. Even if you can sell all 17 of your stations and get the same amount for each of them as Philadelphia did, that'll buy you about a half mile of rail. That's assuming the city gets to pocket the full amount, which it won't, because there will be other costs (in the Philadelphia deal, nearly $2 million went to an ad agency). NY wisely tries to push some costs onto the sponsor, but then, you might notice that Times Square is conspicuously not presented by Disney.