This Is What We Should Get Going Down MAIN St!!!! lol

[ComandanteCero]

oh how sweet it would be













This is the suspended monorail in Wuppertal, Germany. So sweet....

[trailerkid]

That would actually be unreal...talk about a perception change of the city of KCMO.

[ignatius]

When I sat on the light rail committee with the City, costs were shown for this option. It would cost about $35K per projected rider to do light rail and about $100K-$150K per projected rider for monorail. Subway would be at least twice as much. If I recall, those were annual numbers over 25 years to cover implementation and maintanence. The projected ridership numbers were bloated too me thinks.

Cool to think about though.

BTW, STL numbers are $12K-$15K per actual rider and they have been killing feeder bus service to support light rail. Overall city wide transit usage is also down significantly since early 1990's in STL, despite high LRT usage.

I think we're heading in the right direction with commuter rail from the burbs and multiple rapid bus lines in the core. LRT will need to be below $10K per rider to work in KC according to the study. BRT may be a starter transition to LRT in the future.

[ComandanteCero]

the thing about St. Louis though is that they are still losing population like no other within the city, so that might have something to do with decline in general mass transit use (i.e people move to suburbs, use cars, the few people moving back to city bring cars with them from suburbs ((that's just a hypothetical situation)) ).
Why is it so much more expensive in KC than in the Lou? (is it rider numbers or cost of buying properties or what?)

[ComandanteCero]

(maybe answering my own question), i was reading some articles and the reason things are so costly per rider is because of low ridership estimates even though we would have lower construction costs than many other cities.

"Kansas City's new rail plan forecasts 15,700 riders daily. That is 14 percent less than the ATA's 1995 plan. The city's consultants originally predicted more riders but lowered the number because of Kansas City's long-declining bus ridership."

I wonder if these estimates were shortsighted.... Did they take into account the attempts to revitalize mid and downtown areas and the possible jumps in population (and traffic congestion?). Did they think about how many more people might use the rail if it simply existed (and car traffic became more of a problem and hassle?). It just seems like arguing that these ridership numbers are going to remain the same over 20 years is pretty ridiculous. It's good to think about what our present day needs are, but seriously... don't they take into account the "newness" factor? I"m sure the consultants are knowledgeable people, i'm just wondering what methodology they used to determine riderships estimates and whether they reflect the possibilities and aspirations we as a city should have.

[Sonfire]

I'd rather see street cars in Kansas City than a monorail... but SF has Street Cars... a Monorail system would make Kansas City pretty famous.

[Critical_Mass]

Las Vegas recently opened up their monorail system, which runs parallel to "the strip" (a block off on the backside of any casinos, etc. -- i think).
Mainly for tourist reasons (think Epcot Center).
Surely there is another city that has a monorail. Is Detroit's "people mover" considered a monorail?
So we wouldn't be the first U.S. city if we built one tomorrow. But they are cool in a futuristic utopian kind of way.

[supastudio]

A monorail is a metro or railroad with a track consisting of a single rail, as opposed to the traditional track with two parallel rails.

Here is a partial list of monorail cities (this list doesn't include amusement park monorails or non-commuter monorails ):

Inuyama, Japan
Tokyo, Japan
Kitakyushu City, Japan
Shonan, Japan
Osaka, Japan
Naha, Japan
Chiba City, Japan

Jakarta, Indonesia
Chongqing, China
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Sydney, Australia

Seattle, Washington
Jacksonville, Florida
Las Vegas, Nevada

There are numerous monorail systems that connect airport terminals, hotel buildings (especially in Las Vegas!), Malls (there is one in Hawaii that links two buildings of a Mall complex) and Amusement parks like Disney World. Technically monorails, but not really mass transit.

Advantages:

* The primary advantage of monorails over conventional rail systems is that they require minimal space, both horizontally and vertically. The width required is determined by the monorail vehicle, not the track, and monorail systems are commonly elevated, requiring only a minimal footprint for support pillars.
* Due to a smaller footprint they are more attractive than conventional elevated rail lines and visually block only a minimal amount of sky.
* They are quieter, as modern monorails use rubber wheels on a concrete track
* Monorails are capable of climbing, descending and turning faster than most conventional rail systems.
* Monorails are safer, since the monorail wraps around its track and thus cannot derail and unlike light rail system, there is not risk of collision with traffic or pedestrians.
* They cost less to construct and maintain, especially when compared to underground metro systems.
* Unlike street level forms of transit such as light rail, tram, or buses, monorails do not have to contend with car or pedestrian traffic in any way.

Disadvantages:

* Monorails require their own guideway
* While a monorail's footprint is less than an elevated conventional rail system, it is larger than an underground system's.
* Most countries (apart from Japan) do not have standardized beam specifications for monorails, thus most tend to be proprietary systems.
* There are also some lingering concerns over the speed and capacity of monorails.

Taken from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monorail#A ... advantages

[ComandanteCero]

I think better than regular mono rail is SUSPENDED MONORAIL lol (which is what is pictured). I know it might be more expensive, but no one in the U.S has that yet. Added advantage is that it could go over small rivers or creeks ( I could see one going down part of Bush creek over in Mission and even by the Plaza before going up Main to Union station ((maybe even having a mid air stop connected to the walk ways!)) then on to cross the highways and to the city market and the river and on to the airport), hehe. I would ride that just for the views! Ok, maybe i'm getting carried away....

Is there a way to calculate costs of these things?

[QueSi2Opie]

I think people would ride that thing for fun! I know I would!

[ComandanteCero]

BTW, STL numbers are $12K-$15K per actual rider and they have been killing feeder bus service to support light rail. Overall city wide transit usage is also down significantly since early 1990's in STL, despite high LRT usage.

I think we're heading in the right direction with commuter rail from the burbs and multiple rapid bus lines in the core. LRT will need to be below $10K per rider to work in KC according to the study. BRT may be a starter transition to LRT in the future.

I was looking at some info regarding the Metrolink in St. Louis, according to the website i was looking at they said region wide transit was up 40% since early 90's (which doesn't contradict what you are saying, since it very well might be that within the political boundaries of the City of St. Louis transit use has declined, but then again they have been losing population also). It also pointed out that 79 percent of new metro link riders were new to transit as a whole (while the remaining 21 percent came from previous bus riders) so although they may be boosting numbers by cutting bus lines, the majority of their new riders aren't from buses. All this info (and more) was at the Citizens for Modern Transit webiste at http://www.cmt-stl.org. Of course they are rail supporters so who knows if there's a bias in the numbers.

Another interesting fact is that ridership was initially projected at 12,000 per day. to their surprise they got an average of 30,000 per day that first week (and today it averages at around 44,500 per day ((even though a good increase of that is probably because the line has been expanded also)) ).

But yeah, i agree it's pretty hard to make a case for LRT or suspended monorails in KC if transit ridership numbers are low on the buses, since low ridership numbers depress ridership projections which make estimate costs per rider exorbitant (and makes it a hard project to sell to get the federal grant, which is especially key these days since A LOT of cities are applying for the same programs and competing for the same money).

HOWEVER, wouldn't monorail be easier to sell to the public since it would have less of a footprint than light rail? Perhaps making the eminent domain threat less of an issue? My understanding is that this was a major no no for a lot of people in the 2002 vote. I don't know much about this aspect, maybe somebody else does and could offer an answer.....

[KCK]

HOWEVER, wouldn't monorail be easier to sell to the public since it would have less of a footprint than light rail? Perhaps making the eminent domain threat less of an issue? My understanding is that this was a major no no for a lot of people in the 2002 vote. I don't know much about this aspect, maybe somebody else does and could offer an answer.....

No, monorail is not easier to sell to the public. The reason is simple, it costs a lot more than light rail. The money is the main deciding factor in a project like this, and with monorail costing double what light rail costs, it would be much more unlikely for the public to support it. Just look at the trouble Seattle has had with their recent expansion of their monorail system.

I am not a supporter of light rail here in Kansas City, however I am tired of Kansas City getting the shaft on transit funding. While KC gets like $6 million in federal funds for BRT, St. Louis is getting hundreds of millions for expanding their rail system. Perhaps KC could get federal funds for commuter rail.