Thoughts on Main St. in Midtown

[DanCa]

A V-12?? What's it get? 5 MPG? What people don't realize is that with more and more gas guzzlers on the road creating higher demand for gas, it's pushing the price of gas higher. So those of us who drive responsible, 30 mpg+, low-pollution vehicles are paying more for gas thanks to all the Soccer Moms out there in their 10 mpg Suburban Ussault Vehicles. I saw a petite mom hoist her baby into her Hummer last month (which seemed to be quite a struggle for her) at a grocery store and then she backed into the cart corral. These vehicles are unsafe and not meant to be tupperware/baby haulers.

There are legitimate uses for SUVs and even hummers, but the trend seems to be people buying them who don't pull trailers, haul large loads, need 4wd or even go off-road. They're under the false belief that "bigger = safer" and "I just look cool and bad-ass in my huge, jacked up truck".

[tat2kc]

Oh, we'll get light rail in KC. But only after the highways become virtual parking lots, and gas remains above $2 a gallon. We are not the most foward thinking city. If we were, we would go ahead and put in the infrastructure for light rail, so that as population density increases, a good public transportation system is in place.

But KC will, of course, wait till people are screaming and yelling about congestion, then waste several years to build the system. Joco will be completely against the system, till the rest of the metro proves it is successful, then jump on the bandwagon.

[DanCa]

Don't count on it. Here in Orange County they continually vote against light rail - even though it's quite successful in LA County to the north and San Diego to the south. As far as density goes, O.C. is about as dense as suburbs can possibly get. Over 3 million people in about the same area as JoCo. Traffic couldn't get much worse here either. People here are under the disillusion that they live in a suburban utopia and they fight any perceived urbanization.

[phxcat]

Joco will be completely against the system, till the rest of the metro proves it is successful, then jump on the bandwagon.

You've got that backwards. JoCo will have commuter rail first, since they are the only part of the metro with it on the drawing board, and the rest of the metro will look at it and want to jump on the bandwagon. (hopefully).

That, the more I think of it, was a horribly divisive, prejudiced, and just plain incorrect statement. Mark my words- Johnson Countians will be the first suburbanites in the metro to be in favor of light rail.

[QueSi2Opie]

Joco will be completely against the system, till the rest of the metro proves it is successful, then jump on the bandwagon.

JOCO already has plans for a light-rail system that starts at 119th, runs down Metcalf to I-35, follows I-35 to Union Station.


Commuter Rail - The Argument For…


• In the past two decades, Johnson County grew close to 1/3 of both the area's
population and employment.

• I-35 corridor realized unprecendented growth in traffic volume.


Commuter Rail - What's Been Explored To Date


• Under investigation since 1992

• In November, 1994, Johnson County began an I-35 Commuter Rail Feasibility
Study.

• In October, 1995, the study officially became a federal Major Investment
Study (MIS).

• The MIS was completed and the Locally Preferred Alternative was accepted
in August 1998.

• In conclusion, the commuter rail aternative was selected as the technical
reommendation for the Locally Preferred Alternative.


Commuter Rail - Benefits


• Serve commuters from Johnson County to Downtown Kansas City during peak
travel hours.

• Urban core to Johnson County commute - Bring workers to jobs in Johnson
County.

• Improve air quality.

• Improve area tourism and convention by linking hotels restaurants, shopping
and other attractions on both sides of the state line.

Commuter Rail - Support

Letters in support of project arrived from:

The Cities of: Lenexa
Merriam
Olathe
Overland Park
Westwood
Kansas City, MO
Kansas City, KS

Northeast Johnson County Mayor's Association
The Chamber
Mid-America Regional Council
Johnson County Airport Commission
League of Women Voters
Kansas City Area Transportation Authority

U.S. Congress approved a new TEA-21 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century which includes a $30 million authorization line item for the I-35
Commuter Rail project.

Commuter Rail - Where We Are Today


The task force outlined a potential local match funding scenario. Preliminary
Engineering Phase I began in February, 2000 and is expected to be completed
in August, 2000. This phase includes potential ridership forecasting detail
and railroad negotiations. A 1999 Federal Transit Administration grant of
$1 million and a similar grant in 2000 will pay for 80% of the PE study.

[dangerboy]

Last I heard the Joco commuter rail plan was pretty much in limbo. Once they took a closer look at the feasibility, the cost estimates turned out be a lot higher than originally anticipated. The county took a great progessive step to pursue commuter rail, but so far they seem hesitant to actually spend the necessary money.

[bahua]

What ultimately prompts widespread acceptance of public transportation is the point when driving your own vehicle to get around becomes so expensive and so inconvenient that people just become fed up. One piece of that is happening right now: Gas prices are going up a lot

I have no pity, whatsoever for people who complain about gas price increases. Being part of the problem(widespread reliance on private automobiles), these people need to be discouraged. I am, in fact, heartened by this complaining, in that I see it as an indication of forthcoming change.

V12? Wow. Will it come with a few dead arabs, too?

[kcteen]

Yes, commuter rail is technically "heavy" rail, not "light." However, it could be probably the best way to start a new transit system for the metro. The tracks are already layed out, all you need to do is build the platforms (spaced fairly far apart), build some parking lots (hey, JOCOs got some experience here), get the trains, and that's pretty much it (well, its still a lot of work...but comparatively speaking)

I know you work at Transystems, KCgridlock, so I'm sure you know more about its current status. However, I have family friends in the merriam gov. and they have allocated I believe they said over 100,000 over the past years to begin land-purchising for the station. I think actually i confirmed this once searching the joco city budgets online..i'll look later if i have time. Also, the rail lines arre being redone west of Union Station, if you frequent the Boulevard you'll notice they recently did the grading and isn't Transystems building another humongous flyover? I heard that was a snag at least for a few years.

The reason commuter rail is a great start is because it caters to people that need it the most: workers. They would be the primary users of any system implemented at least at the beginning anyways. This cuts down on lost revenue when there aren't enough people taking it for other uses. But perhaps the MOST IMPORTANT reason commuter rail would be a great start would be because it would bring in a tremendous amount of people to Union Station (or whatever downtown terminus they decide upon) and those people will need to be able to get to their jobs. Those workers are gonna want better buses, or at least, actually use the ones we already have, and probably more (read: streetcars, rail lines, etc). If we start bringing in thousands to union station each morning and night than a better regional transit for the river-crown-plaza would naturally follow...and with commuter rail already bringing in the masses there would be a guarantted a good startup base of loyal users.

Read the MARC commuter rail study online...its really interesting.

Also, someone once said in an online editorial that the light-rail plans handled the main st. corridor all wrong. What should be done, according to this article, is lay the tracks but NOT run light rail at least at the start. Instead, run streetcars or something similar on the same lines. Then, later get the nice lightrail cars...i dunno the economics of this but hey if that cuts costs than that sounds like a good idea.


KcTeen

[bahua]

One unfortunate thing about any rail plan with which existing lines would be used is the expense of using them. The Feds pay hundreds of millions per annum to the rail freight companies to keep Amtrak running. Because of this, Amtrak can't run any trains faster than about 90 MPH(because of the condition of the tracks they don't own/maintain), and they often charge more than flying for a ticket(because of their giant rent bill to the freight companies to pay off every year).

Building a rail line from city to city is monumentally expensive, as compared with the operating budget once it's completed. Light rail in Kansas City, even if it is adopted by the general populace, is going to be monumentally expensive, too, but it has to be done. The longer it's delayed, the more it will cost, as land values increase, and the prospect of construction becomes more daunting to the planners, and to the surrounding businesses and residents.

I know it dramatically increases the initial cost, but the transit system needs to own the tracks, and build them, themselves. Paying off a loan is one thing, but constantly paying a lot to rent the tracks is quite another. It's like the choice in linux distributions. You can either have a ready-made solution that will perform marginally(redhat, mandrake, suse, and renting tracks from an owner), or a lot of initial compiling and configuration in exchange for a solid, fast, clean system(gentoo, debian, lfs, and building our own tracks).

[dangerboy]

The MARC study says the proposed line to Odessa from Union Station would carry three times as many people as a JoCo line, I would ride it every day. But remember these are not light rail trains. You are talking about 2-3 trains in the AM and PM rush hours and mabey a noon train. Few people would be able to use the trains for casual city visits, hence "commuter".

But it's part of a bigger transit plan that KC needs badly.

I wish Jackson County and the state of Missouri would get behind commuter rail in a big way. Places like Odessa, Grain Valley, etc. are missing out on a lot of people that would like to live further out, but don't want to face the commute on I-70. Myself included. It could be great for the growth of smaller towns, especially if it isn't highway-oriented.

Of course commuter rail won't attract many riders without better local transit in the urban core. Once people get to Union Station they need a fast bus or light rail route to the Loop, Midtown, or the Plaza.

[FangKC]

Is it really in Kansas City's interest to create additional reasons for urban sprawl? The City itself needs to focus more on in-fill projects and creating higher density of residents within its existing borders. Public transportation relies on higher densities to be successful.

Creating commuter rail that stretches to small towns miles from the city center only encourages people to move farther out. It also creates a scenario where those residents retain little concern about the inner city, or downtown. They have no personal investment.

The state and county then has to spend more money building highways and streets to accommodate these new residents, and they have less money to maintain already existing infastructure. Missouri highways are already in terrible shape. Imagine if the state and county has to spend scarce resources building more roads and widening existing ones, instead of fixing the ones that already exist.

Another result of urban sprawl is the need to build more new schools in those areas, which makes it harder on already existing schools to get the money they need to make improvements.

Schools are a big draw when people make decisions about where to live. If the state and county spent what money they have improving existing schools in already established neighborhoods, then residents would choose to live in those neighborhoods, instead of moving further out and creating the need to build new ones.

Cities with higher population densities are more successful since the tax base is not as diluted, so there is more money to fund mass transit, schools, and infastructure. Higher-density cities also increase the development of small businesses and produce more income for cities, since they are more people to serve these businesses than in the less-dense suburbs.

[dangerboy]

Is it really in Kansas City's interest to create additional reasons for urban sprawl? The City itself needs to focus more on in-fill projects and creating higher density of residents within its existing borders. Public transportation relies on higher densities to be successful.

Creating commuter rail that stretches to small towns miles from the city center only encourages people to move farther out. It also creates a scenario where those residents retain little concern about the inner city, or downtown. They have no personal investment.

Those towns are being engulfed by sprawl already, commuter rail isn't going to encourage it. What commuter rail can do is make the growth more sensible by taking some of those off of I-70 and introducing them to public transportation.

I agree that Kansas City needs to focus on infill and higher density, but commuter rail is becoming necessary regardless of what the city does within it's own borders.

[bahua]

In-fill = great

reducing car exchaust fumes = even better

[trailerkid]

How do we reduce the "lanage" on Main Street? I realize the suburban style businesses that invaded Main will protest like hell, but the only way to revitalize this area is make it look more urban and less like Metcalf. Main is absolutely ridiculously wide-- it is freaking laughable. Is it very busy? Yes. Are the lanes useful? Yes. But I say clog that beast until you force people to use The Metro. Get people on those sidewalks and Main could become a great urban corridor. BRT that baby all the way down to the Plaza!

[FangKC]

I'd love it if they took the two center lanes and replaced them with a landscaped island with trees.

[bahua]

I'd love to see Main get fewer lanes, but people don't seem to realize that that would make it a less busy street. That's fine with me, though, as it would make it a perfect place for residential development in-fill.

[KCN]

I'd love it if they took the two center lanes and replaced them with a landscaped island with trees.

Or even better, a line for rail

[staubio]

Also, the rail lines arre being redone west of Union Station, if you frequent the Boulevard you'll notice they recently did the grading and isn't Transystems building another humongous flyover? I heard that was a snag at least for a few years.

Some of the work along the Boulevard is actually a brand new track. They are grading into the steep grade on the bluff between Cambridge Circle and the West Bottoms and putting track in that branches off over the SW Boulevard bridge and toward Union Station. More tracks along the corridor can't hurt the cause.

I agree that urban core transit will have a great parasitic boom from any corresponding boom in commuter rail. Once those folks are in the city, they need to get around -- which is natural ridership and an existing transit mindset.

Plus, don't discount the power of masses of people brought to a focal point WITHOUT their cars.

[dangerboy]

I don't hold out much hope for anyone enforcing the Main Street Corridor plan when the Main Street coalition's own offices are in a building that violates it (i.e. entrance faces the parking lot, not the street).

However it is encouraging to see the vacant storefronts filling up. Most recently a hair salon and furniture store in the block with Davey's Uptown. Hopefully MAX will encourage more of this.

[KCK]

How do we reduce the "lanage" on Main Street? I realize the suburban style businesses that invaded Main will protest like hell, but the only way to revitalize this area is make it look more urban and less like Metcalf. Main is absolutely ridiculously wide-- it is freaking laughable. Is it very busy? Yes. Are the lanes useful? Yes. But I say clog that beast until you force people to use The Metro. Get people on those sidewalks and Main could become a great urban corridor. BRT that baby all the way down to the Plaza!

Sorry trailer, but things don't work that way. If you made Main street thinner, motorists would use alternative routes, not the bus, or they might still take Main street, but it would be a mess.

I am not a person who believes in "forced" urbanism. Trying to force people onto the bus is stupid, instead people should want to ride the bus. Trying to force people to live in high densitys is stupid, however if people want to live in those high densitys, that is fine. Take a look at the area around the Plaza, people want to live there, there is no mandate that says that huge single family homes are forbidden, yet it still works.