Generic ongoing KCATA thread

[Belvidere]

This is how mass transit systems get caught in a death spiral. Demand for transit service is not a constant that is waiting to be revealed by finding just the right configuration of bus lines. Transit service in KC is not particularly successful for two reasons: the low density of the city and the low quality of the transit system. If KC is ever going to become more of a thriving urban place and less of one big suburb, the city needs a holistic strategy to increase both density and transit service. And as long as the city doesn't have the former, maybe it doesn't especially matter if you gut the latter (though it will matter for the handful of people who do still genuinely rely on transit, and it will make it that much harder to ever finally change course in the future), but don't expect to find one of your four bus lines just bursting at the seams, guiding you to the perfect alignment for the next streetcar extension. Overall ridership of the system will crater (if it is possible to really "crater" from where it already is) as it becomes even less usable. Far from revealing where the next streetcar extension should go, it will undercut arguments for building anything at all.

If this is true and demand craters with a cut down system, then perhaps there are alternatives that people have found to get where they need to go instead of the bus line. Maybe they found a ride with a friend or rideshare or moved locations or chose a different job or... I'm sure there will be some very much inconvenienced. But, we're talking millions of dollars being spent on a system that obviously is not in demand. And I wholesale reject the idea that cutting our bus system will in any way affect people moving to the city or its progress.

Some people have built their lives around bus access and they don't have alternatives, or they probably would have used them by now. I live around public housing and struggling areas. They need the bus.

I would also be happy to abandon our car and only use the bus if it were reliable, convenient, and safe. I don't mind paying for that. I see it as an asset that could attract people to the urban core if it were a better system.

We are willing to pour massive amounts of money into something like a street car, or highways, and yet feel the bus system is for poor people who need to figure it out. How much have we spent on bike lanes?

[beautyfromashes]

I see it as an asset that could attract people to the urban core if it were a better system.

What people are we going to attract to the urban core because of a better bus system? And how does this help attract new business, development and the financial resources of this city. What is the return on an upgraded bus system?

[Belvidere]

I see it as an asset that could attract people to the urban core if it were a better system.

What people are we going to attract to the urban core because of a better bus system? And how does this help attract new business, development and the financial resources of this city. What is the return on an upgraded bus system?

What I hear from young people and retirees both: they don't want cars. They will move near transit and rent a car as needed. Some people are already doing that. Does it take leadership, imagination, and marketing to promote a better bus system and its benefits? I'm sure it would.

What was the rate of return on bike lanes? What's the rate of return on the South Loop cap? What's the rate of return given what we've spent on the streetcar? Do we have a real number on that?

How are you measuring rate of return? And for whom? How would you rate Power and Light? Was that a good deal for the city or not, in pure financial terms? If you look at it from the perspective of schools and libraries, I imagine they still feel shortchanged.

The streetcar did spur development within a certain corridor, but it didn't spread out very far. I live near it, but not close enough to benefit. Our urban renewal area is kind of a joke.

[SilentSpades24]

This is how mass transit systems get caught in a death spiral. Demand for transit service is not a constant that is waiting to be revealed by finding just the right configuration of bus lines. Transit service in KC is not particularly successful for two reasons: the low density of the city and the low quality of the transit system. If KC is ever going to become more of a thriving urban place and less of one big suburb, the city needs a holistic strategy to increase both density and transit service. And as long as the city doesn't have the former, maybe it doesn't especially matter if you gut the latter (though it will matter for the handful of people who do still genuinely rely on transit, and it will make it that much harder to ever finally change course in the future), but don't expect to find one of your four bus lines just bursting at the seams, guiding you to the perfect alignment for the next streetcar extension. Overall ridership of the system will crater (if it is possible to really "crater" from where it already is) as it becomes even less usable. Far from revealing where the next streetcar extension should go, it will undercut arguments for building anything at all.

If this is true and demand craters with a cut down system, then perhaps there are alternatives that people have found to get where they need to go instead of the bus line. Maybe they found a ride with a friend or rideshare or moved locations or chose a different job or... I'm sure there will be some very much inconvenienced. But, we're talking millions of dollars being spent on a system that obviously is not in demand. And I wholesale reject the idea that cutting our bus system will in any way affect people moving to the city or its progress.

Yes, making a product worse and unusable makes people less likely to use it. Intentionally making a lifeline service worse AND THEN having the stones to say "just get rid of it if people don't use it" is wild. Of course people can't or don't use it, because it's been intentionally underfunded for the last 40 years. If it were properly funded and designed it would have use. Go look at the system we had in 2007, when the system had 55,000 riders. Notice how as more service cuts came, less people rode?

Cutting mass transit will definitely impact this city's progress and will further limit the freedom of those who can't drive or do not have the means to. Anyone arguing otherwise is arguing either in bad faith or is woefully ignorant. Strong competitive cities have a strong transit system.

[SilentSpades24]

I see it as an asset that could attract people to the urban core if it were a better system.

What people are we going to attract to the urban core because of a better bus system? And how does this help attract new business, development and the financial resources of this city. What is the return on an upgraded bus system?

This statement very much has a "those people" vibe to it and it makes you like rather scummy.

A usable transit system will attract workers to work at those businesses along transit, it will attract people who utilize the bus, who may just patronize a business that is next to the bus stop. It would attract people who want an urban lifestyle and can actually have it because they live next to good transit. Hell, it attracts people who have no option but use transit and in turn, will be likely to patronize businesses near them. If anything, the question should be what people are we missing and not attracting with transit?

Anecdotally, my mom can't drive. She lives in a walkable neighborhood near transit which gets her to her job, near transit. She patronizes businesses at her transfer point. She is one of many that do so.

[beautyfromashes]

A usable transit system will attract workers to work at those businesses along transit, it will attract people who utilize the bus, who may just patronize a business that is next to the bus stop. It would attract people who want an urban lifestyle and can actually have it because they live next to good transit. Hell, it attracts people who have no option but use transit and in turn, will be likely to patronize businesses near them. If anything, the question should be what people are we missing and not attracting with transit?

I just disagree for this city specifically. Buses are mostly used to avoid intense traffic in heavy traffic urban cores or where owning a car is difficult due to limited parking space or cost. That just isn't Kansas City. I'm sorry, it's just not. In regards to your last question: my goal is to make the urban core the cultural, financial and lifeblood of this metro. We have taken on too much of the responsibility of caring for every downtrodden group while the suburbs take advantage of the care we provide. We have depressed housing, we have neighborhoods that have been decimated where only a few houses are left on a street that used to have dozens. Our school system is terrible relative to the rest of the metro. We carry the burden of paying for amenities like the zoo and stadiums when other areas refuse, and we have to deal with worse roads and services. So, to finally answer your question, we aren't attracting businesses with a bus line. We aren't attracting corporate headquarters with good paying jobs to pull workers back to the city. We are giving excuse to those that say "all social services have to be on the bus line, so this can't be in Leawood or Lee's Summit or Blue Springs". We take all the homeless, all the mentally ill and drug addicted. And we should work to help these people, but we are doing this alone because we always say yes. We aren't attracting families with a bus line and the millions it costs to subsidize it. We aren't attracting more development that increases current or future tax revenue to pay for all we need. And I don't believe that people just stopped living their lives because our bus system got worse. They're likely still doing what they did before. They found an alternative to a free bus. Free. So, no, there isn't demand there. Cut your costs and start spending on something that will increase the standard of living in this city, fix the problems that we have, or use it to attract a return that can be used in the future.

[TheLastGentleman]

The streetcar should be more than enough evidence to show that KC is more than willing to take public transit if it is actually operated well.

The Albuquerque "ART" BRT system apparently gets a 2 milllion+ ridership per year, about the same as the KC streetcar. Seems like a good precendent to me.

[beautyfromashes]

How are you measuring rate of return?

I measure rate of return on how many people come to the city to spend money or move to the city to spend money and pay taxes. Zero people do this for our bus line.

[dnweava]

My proposal, is to make the local routes mostly on a grid without the need to go downtown and these can be achieved by moving the Main Max (no longer needed with streetcar extension) into the Orange route, and tweaking the prospect max. We have 4 main lines that should be high frequent that we can build local routes around instead of a hub.

1) Replace Main Max, 24, and 39th with the single new high frequency Orange Route.
2) Reroute ends of Prospect Max to East Bottoms on north end and to Waldo on South End.
3) remove all bus routes within the streetcar zone, There is zero reason for busses to be on Broadway or Grand.
4) Have a downtown circular route (brown/green)

This is only 13 routes + the streetcar for the urban core and I think this is pretty good coverage, maybe a few tweaks here and there and another local line or two and I think we could have a good urban core system (if the frequency is there). But of course I'm no transit designer, but I've read about other cities like Houston going to a more grid system rather than a spoke/hub system that I think is outdated thinking.

[SilentSpades24]

A usable transit system will attract workers to work at those businesses along transit, it will attract people who utilize the bus, who may just patronize a business that is next to the bus stop. It would attract people who want an urban lifestyle and can actually have it because they live next to good transit. Hell, it attracts people who have no option but use transit and in turn, will be likely to patronize businesses near them. If anything, the question should be what people are we missing and not attracting with transit?

I just disagree for this city specifically. Buses are mostly used to avoid intense traffic in heavy traffic urban cores or where owning a car is difficult due to limited parking space or cost. That just isn't Kansas City. I'm sorry, it's just not. In regards to your last question: my goal is to make the urban core the cultural, financial and lifeblood of this metro. We have taken on too much of the responsibility of caring for every downtrodden group while the suburbs take advantage of the care we provide. We have depressed housing, we have neighborhoods that have been decimated where only a few houses are left on a street that used to have dozens. Our school system is terrible relative to the rest of the metro. We carry the burden of paying for amenities like the zoo and stadiums when other areas refuse, and we have to deal with worse roads and services. So, to finally answer your question, we aren't attracting businesses with a bus line. We aren't attracting corporate headquarters with good paying jobs to pull workers back to the city. We are giving excuse to those that say "all social services have to be on the bus line, so this can't be in Leawood or Lee's Summit or Blue Springs". We take all the homeless, all the mentally ill and drug addicted. And we should work to help these people, but we are doing this alone because we always say yes. We aren't attracting families with a bus line and the millions it costs to subsidize it. We aren't attracting more development that increases current or future tax revenue to pay for all we need. And I don't believe that people just stopped living their lives because our bus system got worse. They're likely still doing what they did before. They found an alternative to a free bus. Free. So, no, there isn't demand there. Cut your costs and start spending on something that will increase the standard of living in this city, fix the problems that we have, or use it to attract a return that can be used in the future.

Again, properly funding a service is how you make it a leveragable asset for a community (Like we literally do with the streetcar). Our transit has been poorly funded so of course it's not an asset right now. People don't stop living their life without transit, but people's lives change significantly without that transit and become harder. Yes, they find ways to get where they need to go, but that burden extends way beyond just those people's lives.

Funding transit isn't the charity case you're making it out to be here, it's an essential infrastructure expense that is necessary for a city. But again, your sentiment clearly shows what your problem is with transit and it's that it attracts "those people". Policy and policy discussions should not be centered on a dislike of people or their services. Your issues in the urban core also aren't just an issue of "caring for the downtrodden" more so those areas being purposefully disinvested in for many many decades, leading to those left being downtrodden, and you aren't going to change that by continuing to disinvest.

You seem to forget that services are located in KCMO not because you "say yes" but because it is a centrally located area of the city and it makes perfect sense to centrally locate services in a major metro. Putting major facilities in the outskirts doesn't help your city at all either.

[SilentSpades24]

My proposal, is to make the local routes mostly on a grid without the need to go downtown and these can be achieved by moving the Main Max (no longer needed with streetcar extension) into the Orange route, and tweaking the prospect max. We have 4 main lines that should be high frequent that we can build local routes around instead of a hub.

1) Replace Main Max, 24, and 39th with the single new high frequency Orange Route.
2) Reroute ends of Prospect Max to East Bottoms on north end and to Waldo on South End.
3) remove all bus routes within the streetcar zone, There is zero reason for busses to be on Broadway or Grand.
4) Have a downtown circular route (brown/green)

This is only 13 routes + the streetcar for the urban core and I think this is pretty good coverage, maybe a few tweaks here and there and another local line or two and I think we could have a good urban core system (if the frequency is there). But of course I'm no transit designer, but I've read about other cities like Houston going to a more grid system rather than a spoke/hub system that I think is outdated thinking.

Our existing system is fairly gridded out in the urban core (as well as East KCK and JoCo), the problem is major employment areas, like KCI, Village West, will need to be served with a "spoked" route, however, those can work to compliment the grid, rather than be a negative.

[beautyfromashes]

My proposal, is to make the local routes mostly on a grid without the need to go downtown and these can be achieved by moving the Main Max (no longer needed with streetcar extension) into the Orange route, and tweaking the prospect max. We have 4 main lines that should be high frequent that we can build local routes around instead of a hub.

1) Replace Main Max, 24, and 39th with the single new high frequency Orange Route.
2) Reroute ends of Prospect Max to East Bottoms on north end and to Waldo on South End.
3) remove all bus routes within the streetcar zone, There is zero reason for busses to be on Broadway or Grand.
4) Have a downtown circular route (brown/green)

Looking at your map, I'd cut it to just blue (streetcar), orange and green (stopping at Independence Ave).

[phuqueue]

This is how mass transit systems get caught in a death spiral. Demand for transit service is not a constant that is waiting to be revealed by finding just the right configuration of bus lines. Transit service in KC is not particularly successful for two reasons: the low density of the city and the low quality of the transit system. If KC is ever going to become more of a thriving urban place and less of one big suburb, the city needs a holistic strategy to increase both density and transit service. And as long as the city doesn't have the former, maybe it doesn't especially matter if you gut the latter (though it will matter for the handful of people who do still genuinely rely on transit, and it will make it that much harder to ever finally change course in the future), but don't expect to find one of your four bus lines just bursting at the seams, guiding you to the perfect alignment for the next streetcar extension. Overall ridership of the system will crater (if it is possible to really "crater" from where it already is) as it becomes even less usable. Far from revealing where the next streetcar extension should go, it will undercut arguments for building anything at all.

If this is true and demand craters with a cut down system, then perhaps there are alternatives that people have found to get where they need to go instead of the bus line. Maybe they found a ride with a friend or rideshare or moved locations or chose a different job or... I'm sure there will be some very much inconvenienced. But, we're talking millions of dollars being spent on a system that obviously is not in demand. And I wholesale reject the idea that cutting our bus system will in any way affect people moving to the city or its progress.

Sure, there could be "alternatives," and the fact that people currently choose the bus over those alternatives indicates that the bus is the better option. Simply forcing people who are doing A to do B instead doesn't mean B was preferable to A all along. You can wholesale reject whatever you want, but in ten years you yourself will be the one on this board arguing that "we don't need to be spending money on more streetcars when nobody uses transit in KC anyway." Between your anti-public transit stance here, your free parking advocacy from that other thread a few months ago, your vociferous defense of the detached SFH in yet another recent-ish thread, etc, I genuinely don't understand what you actually get or want out of the city. I don't mean that as some kind of attack or whatever, it's just an honest observation. It seems like the lifestyle that you want is already available to you in any of a number of communities on either side of the state line, from Olathe to Liberty. As far as I can tell, the only thing keeping you in KC is your antipathy toward those other places, even as you seemingly want KC to be just like them.

I just disagree for this city specifically. Buses are mostly used to avoid intense traffic in heavy traffic urban cores or where owning a car is difficult due to limited parking space or cost. That just isn't Kansas City. I'm sorry, it's just not. In regards to your last question: my goal is to make the urban core the cultural, financial and lifeblood of this metro. We have taken on too much of the responsibility of caring for every downtrodden group while the suburbs take advantage of the care we provide. We have depressed housing, we have neighborhoods that have been decimated where only a few houses are left on a street that used to have dozens. Our school system is terrible relative to the rest of the metro. We carry the burden of paying for amenities like the zoo and stadiums when other areas refuse, and we have to deal with worse roads and services. So, to finally answer your question, we aren't attracting businesses with a bus line. We aren't attracting corporate headquarters with good paying jobs to pull workers back to the city. We are giving excuse to those that say "all social services have to be on the bus line, so this can't be in Leawood or Lee's Summit or Blue Springs". We take all the homeless, all the mentally ill and drug addicted. And we should work to help these people, but we are doing this alone because we always say yes. We aren't attracting families with a bus line and the millions it costs to subsidize it. We aren't attracting more development that increases current or future tax revenue to pay for all we need. And I don't believe that people just stopped living their lives because our bus system got worse. They're likely still doing what they did before. They found an alternative to a free bus. Free. So, no, there isn't demand there. Cut your costs and start spending on something that will increase the standard of living in this city, fix the problems that we have, or use it to attract a return that can be used in the future.

The bolded part is quite simply not true, and for a very obvious reason: buses get stuck in traffic too. Buses are not separate and apart from other modes of public transit, and people use them for the same reasons that they use public transit in general, because they can't or don't want to drive. Will "a bus line" attract businesses or out of towners to KC? No, there is probably not such a straightforward, one dimensional relationship there, Joe Outoftowner doesn't see the bus driving by and decide this is where he's going to move himself or his business. But are there people who wouldn't ever even consider moving to KC because it only offers the same limited, essentially suburban lifestyle as any number of other places across the country? Yes, there are. "A bus line" doesn't change that, but a full, functional transit system is a necessary component of creating the kind of vibrant urban area that could change that. KC should be spending more, not less, on buses, while also chipping away at parking, reducing road capacity, and adding density throughout the city. This is how you build a place that people want to be in, which is how you then "increase the standard of living" and "fix the problems that we have." Slashing all of the spending that you don't like might be penny wise but it is also pound foolish.

[langosta]

I remeber onetime reading a comparison of transit worker pay and Detroit’s drivers made a fraction of those in Kansas City (within the last 2 years or maybe 3). Do we have a cost control issue here?

Could not find that graphic but did some digging and KCATA and NYC MTA bus drivers start at nearly the same hourly rate. Few data points I found directly on their respective transit agency websites. One example amongst many on how KCATA may not be doing a good job of managing costs.

Agency: Starting Rate to Top Rate per Hour

NYC MTA: $26.19 to $37.42 per hour
KCMO: $25.71 to $32.14 per hour
Cleveland: $25.45 to $33.93 per hour
STL: $23.60 to $29.50 per hour
Indianapolis: $23.00 to ?? per hour
Cincinnati: $20.00 to $23.58 per hour (website was a little unclear)
Detroit: $19.15 to $25.61 per hour (recent pay bump)

KCATA is near and dear to me. Alot of the passionate and talented staff I knew have retired or left since COVID (not to say the current are bad, just don't know them anymore).

[KCPowercat]

cutting the 11 bus is dumb.

[SilentSpades24]

cutting the 11 bus is dumb.

Yeah, I don't get that at all, especially with 85 being kept around as is.

In theory though, aside from the Westside, all parts of the route are served in some manner still. In theory you could redesign a few routes to eliminate the need for it all together, however, that doesn't seems feasible currently.

[SilentSpades24]

From the meeting yesterday, if more funding is found, #63, #75, #11, and #39 weekend service are the routes/services that would be priority to be kept around.

Also, Main MAX to be replaced in October by #47 and a connector from Plaza to Waldo (I'd make that change now and be done with it to be honest....).

[DaveKCMO]

I'm curious how they approach the Main MAX and 47, considering the streetcar is 6 months away. I'd have to think they don't keep duplicate services like that, but who knows. I think it's a big mistake to cut the 28 and 57, yet the 85 will be kept. 85 is duplicated for most of it's route and could be eliminated (and could save a route like 57). 11 is another big loss, but most of that route will continue to be served at least (aside from the Westside).

To me, it's insulting that KCATA couldn't (or wouldn't) put this information out quicker, and that people are finding out through a KCUR article.

This is a disaster and it falls on the hands of KCMO, Jackson County and the KCATA. They all knew this day would come, yet (seemingly) no effort was made to avoid this catastrophe.

Main MAX will convert to frequent Brookside/Waldo connector service from the Plaza streetcar stop. This assumes KCATA can still afford what was in the Main Street Extension plan for connecting bus service.

Absolutely this falls on the head of Mayor Q, and Jackson County to a lesser degree (they weren't funding ANY service, but certainly could have as they watched East Jack cities slash their services).

KCATA is in an impossible position: Wait until the KCMO budget is published, then react. The Mayor and Council -- current and former -- have allowed Public Works to loot the 1/2-cent sales tax for YEARS, and specifically Mayor Q allowed the looting of COVID relief for LED streetlights and then had the gall to add liquidated damages to the annual KCMO/KCATA contract (so the number you see budgeted is way smaller in monthly invoices).

[DaveKCMO]

I remeber onetime reading a comparison of transit worker pay and Detroit’s drivers made a fraction of those in Kansas City (within the last 2 years or maybe 3). Do we have a cost control issue here?

Could not find that graphic but did some digging and KCATA and NYC MTA bus drivers start at nearly the same hourly rate. Few data points I found directly on their respective transit agency websites. One example amongst many on how KCATA may not be doing a good job of managing costs.

Agency: Starting Rate to Top Rate per Hour

NYC MTA: $26.19 to $37.42 per hour
KCMO: $25.71 to $32.14 per hour
Cleveland: $25.45 to $33.93 per hour
STL: $23.60 to $29.50 per hour
Indianapolis: $23.00 to ?? per hour
Cincinnati: $20.00 to $23.58 per hour (website was a little unclear)
Detroit: $19.15 to $25.61 per hour (recent pay bump)

KCATA is near and dear to me. Alot of the passionate and talented staff I knew have retired or left since COVID (not to say the current are bad, just don't know them anymore).

You have to pay more to address the staffing crisis. KCMO forced KCATA to do another wage increase after a successful labor negotiation in 2022.

[GRID]

How much does the 1/2 cent sales tax generate annually?