KCRag Forum

Um...what about Waldo? 

honestly, i think we seriously need a cheap link to the airport. once a visitor has to get a car, there's little to prevent them from getting around with it for the rest of the trip. other than that, the MAX is doing it's job (with some obvious improvements). if we had LRT it would likely be on the street level anyway (underground is too expensive for such low density), so it wouldn't be that much faster than the MAX anyway. all of the major commuter studies have focused on the I-35 and I-70 corridors, which his plan obviously doesn't address. to me, it's either replace the MAX and cover the airport-river-crown-plaza or just spend money on more BRT lines and improve the existing connections/transfers across the metro.

bbqboy wrote: For what reason? There's mainly single family dwellings if you draw a SE arrow towards there.

There are still a heck of a lot more bus riders in that neighborhood than in Mission or Raytown(or anything the MAX hits, south of the Plaza). I think it would be very well ridden if it followed a route toward the populous SE side.

regardless if Chastain's proposal even gets anywhere... light rail is something this city def. needs. 

Sure there are the critics, but if done right, light rail can spur development, and increase density in the places we need it the most.  Not to mention that although many members of this forum would benefit from light rail, so will the economically challenged, as they have to leave their neighborhoods to find a good job. 

God knows KC could use some REAL form of public transportation...  Now may be a great time to look into this, as the public may be fed up with 2.99/gallon of gasoline.

Where would all of you guys and gals draw N/S and E/W lines to connect Town Centers/Business Districts?
If the idea is to add riders to the transit Grid I say you'd follow that model.

Any chance an airport link would hurt the rental-car tax revenue that we rely on for the arena?  I would suppose many business travelers continue on to Johnson County and the rest of the metro besides just Downtown, but there one could expect to see some changes in the revenue.

And I like Michael®'s phased plan.

Agreed Micheal...as much as better transit is needed, if the backers try to do too much too quickly, the whole idea will get relegated to the purview of porkbarrel projects in the minds of the voters.

As much as I'd like to see a rail line that includes Mission, where it would go? There's already so much residential and commercial development in NE JoCo. Wouldn't something have to be torn down or tunneled under? Or would you run the line down Roe to I-35 and then jump onto a line built using the freight railroad's ROW to go into downtown?

Chastain is awesome, he has more vision that most leaders in this city do.  What he does is better than sitting on our hands like we are now.

The Airport link is a no go. It should be last on the list. You have to create a ladder so that residents can traverse the Metro Area's Major Attractions by a combination of LRT and Bus. Tourists/Business Travelers should be secondary.

Add: Run it down the middle of Johnson Drive. Hit the Plaza, Fairway, Mission, Merriam, Shawnee Town Centers.....

KC0KEK wrote: As much as I'd like to see a rail line that includes Mission, where it would go? There's already so much residential and commercial development in NE JoCo. Wouldn't something have to be torn down or tunneled under? Or would you run the line down Roe to I-35 and then jump onto a line built using the freight railroad's ROW to go into downtown?

If you are going to do something on the KS side I would say the easiest would be to build accross SMPwy to connect up with whatever is being built in Missouri at the Plaza.  SMPwy has a pretty damn wide easment most of its length so the impact on surroundings might be pretty minimal.  

I like the idea of the incremental approach but I don't know if voters will ever go for something if they don't think it is ever going to run anywhere near them.  Might as well do the usual politician thing and promise that the rail system will run anywhere and everywhere and than scale back after the referendum passes, citing "cost overruns".  

GRID wrote: Chastain is awesome, he has more vision that most leaders in this city do.  What he does is better than sitting on our hands like we are now.

Chastain is well intentioned and backs the right horse but his actual plans are generally overly ambitious and well off the mark.  The critical need is 1) link DT and midtown, 2) link commuter areas with DT and 3) link the airport to DT.  Swope Park and the Nelson are red herrings, keep it potential high passenger areas, it's going to need to pay for itself.    I think it's critical that the right light rail proposal gets backed and I generally agree with Michaels assessment of what that should be.  Start small, build out.  My fear with Chastain, and I was around for several of his earlier schemes, is that he gives light rail a bad name simply due to guilt by association. 

By the way, I think an airport connection is absolutely and ultimately essential.  It would be a huge boom for business DT if business travellers could get from KCI to Kansas City DT by a conveniently placed light rail link. 

If people have the money to fly, they don't need Light Rail.
  Look at SF-30+ years before they got to the Airport.
You are talking about using LRT as an economic tool vs. a people mover as an alternative to driving-
both good things but different priorities

Michael® wrote: what year did SF get LRT to thier airport?

Technically, never, but the BART extension opened in 2003-
http://bayrailalliance.org/bart/sfox_ridership.html

chingon wrote: i'm worried that if they have a rail line from the zoo to the airport black people from other cities might fly here and rob the animals from our zoo.

That is funny as hell...I laughed my ass off...

bbqboy wrote: If people have the money to fly, they don't need Light Rail.
  Look at SF-30+ years before they got to the Airport.
You are talking about using LRT as an economic tool vs. a people mover as an alternative to driving-
both good things but different priorities

i completely disagree. i have plenty of money to fly. i just hate driving and finding my way by car in cities i don't know well. how successful would chicago be if everyone had to drive into the loop after getting off a plane at o'hare. not that KC is particularly difficult to get around in, but i'd rather people be out on the street and seeing the sights instead of clogging up the freeways and getting lost.