Any hope for future KC LRT?

[mean]

Generally speaking, I agree that engineers can have flawed plans. But let's not forget who this guy is--Doug Malewicki has been designing transportation systems for a very long time, including the Saturn V rocket that put men on the moon, the B-2 Bomber, and various other military and personal aircraft, as well as creating uber-efficient transit ala the California Commuter...the list goes on and on. So the guy's no hack, he knows wtf he's doing. Which I will concede doesn't mean a real-world implementation of SkyTran couldn't possibly be plagued with problems, but...so what!?

Flaws in the initial deployment or no, why can't WE be the first ones? I FULLY support taking big risks for big rewards. Why can't we be the ones who say, "we acknowledge there will be setbacks and problems and we resolve to work through them until we have the best transit system in the world," instead of playing Nervous Nelly and waiting for someone else to do it first? I'm soooo tired of that mentality. What happened to the pioneering spirit of Kansas City? That used to be what this place was all about; now we're a bunch of scared wimps, shivering in the dark, being passed up by freaking Little Rock. Makes me sick. :/

[Beltonhawk]

I would love to see the Feds get involved in a project like this. They give all kinds of money for alternative transportation and transportation assistance, and KC would be a good guinea pig for them to experiment on. Hell, they paid beteween 80 and 90% of the Scout system, so why not do something like this in KC? As has been pointed out, we don't have anything better, but are approaching the time when something will need to be done.

Plus, talk about putting KC on the national map and changing the country's perception of the city that people hate so much. Imagine 2008 with a SkyTran system running from the Plaza, to Union Station, Sprint Center/P&L, and even one longer commuter line running to a commuter parking lot in LS, Independence, OP, KCI, etc...

Tell me that wouldn't change some people's opinions of KC, and solve a lot of our cities needs at the same time?

[Thrillcekr]

Well, if we did it, I say we try it out on a smaller scale first. It would be kind of cool to see one of those go from downtown into the west bottoms. I think linking those two areas would be a big help as far as stirring up interest from developers into the bottoms anyhow. Make it so that after visitors had made their rounds and got their fill of downtown they could get on that Sky thingamajig and check out other destinations in the bottoms without a hassle. That would make the bottoms into somewhat of an extended downtown don't you think? Plus, assuming they figure out something constructive for Kemper, it would offer people staying in the downtown hotels a broader menu of entertainment. It would also be a great promotional tool for the engineer. He could then say "see...this works...I proved it".

[ComandanteCero]

the main issue with prt (private rapid transit, of which skytran is one of various competing models) in general right now is the ability of of these prt companies to build test lines (so that they can work out engineering kinks and what not), until they are able to build one they can't get the FTA to come in and inspect it and approve it (and thus governments, be it city or state, won't come anywhere near approving such a line, since they are untested and inspected). Maybe we can start a letter writing campaign to get the state of Missouri to host a test line facility, and get this whole prt revolution jumpstarted

[Tosspot]

That would make the bottoms into somewhat of an extended downtown don't you think?

As far as I am aware, the West Bottoms were indeed once part of downtown, and are still technically regarded as part of downtown. But in this we see the damage wrought by building freeways through the heart of urban cores. Now the Bottoms are physically remote and disconnected to the rest of the fabric.

[Thrillcekr]

That would make the bottoms into somewhat of an extended downtown don't you think?

As far as I am aware, the West Bottoms were indeed once part of downtown, and are still technically regarded as part of downtown. But in this we see the damage wrought by building freeways through the heart of urban cores. Now the Bottoms are physically remote and disconnected to the rest of the fabric.

Well I say its time that we reconnect it then toss. I love the bottoms. Those old buildings have so much character.

[shinatoo]

This thing is AWSOME!!!

Where is Clay Chastain when you need him?

Would be nice if there was a four seater. Couldn't really travel to the airport with small children. But hell, I guess it's one person to a car on the freeway.

10mil a mile. That's 250mil from the plaza to the airport.

[Thrillcekr]

I just thought of another reason why starting with a small scale one would be a good idea. The city could probably come up with the money to build it without having to have voter consent. Since people tend to vote no on things like that which they know little about, or are skeptical of, then having a small one would give people a chance to get familiar with it and become believers in the product. Then, assuming that is successful, a large scale project could be put up before the voters and would surely pass.

[mean]

Malewicki estimates that SkyTran guideway can be built for about $700,000 per mile. That figure assumes a mass implementation, though, and can thus apply economies of scale. Assuming a small implementation, we might quadruple that to $2.8 million per mile.

I like a test line going to the Bottoms, but there's just nothing there to go TO, sadly, and I fear such a line would be underused and maligned by the citizenry as a stupid idea, which would then be used to poo-poo the whole shebang and any hopes of future PRT systems. A better test line might be from Union Station(?) to...downtown, 12th and Grand? That's about 1.4 miles, so maybe $4 million plus the cost of the vehicles. Chump change, really. The same route realized as light rail could easily be $40 million or more.

[Thrillcekr]

Malewicki estimates that SkyTran guideway can be built for about $700,000 per mile. That figure assumes a mass implementation, though, and can thus apply economies of scale. Assuming a small implementation, we might quadruple that to $2.8 million per mile.

I like a test line going to the Bottoms, but there's just nothing there to go TO, sadly, and I fear such a line would be underused and maligned by the citizenry as a stupid idea, which would then be used to poo-poo the whole shebang and any hopes of future PRT systems. A better test line might be from Union Station(?) to...downtown, 12th and Grand? That's about 1.4 miles, so maybe $4 million plus the cost of the vehicles. Chump change, really. The same route realized as light rail could easily be $40 million or more.

Well, I know there is nothing there but I was kind of thinking it would be a segment of a larger redevelopment plan. I figured that once downtown really got going (after P&L is finished) then maybe the city could try to draw interest in the bottoms by tossing that out on the table to a group of developers as some sort of reassurance to their commitment to the bottoms and the survival of whatever projects they could come up with down there.

One thing I thought of that might fit nicely down in the bottoms is a new amphitheater. I know I absolutely hate Verizon. I only go there because there isn't another choice for seeing big name acts outdoors. I've actually decided against going to concerts there on many occassions because it is so far and takes too much time to get out. That kind sucks when you have to get up at 5 am to go to work. The place is old and the service there sucks. It's a far drive for most people and, because of the limited number of escape routes, it is often times a real bitch to get in and out of there.

[ComandanteCero]

my understanding is that when they say test line it literally means at a test facility somewhere, so they can experiment and fine tune. (probably on a farm somewhere, so they don't have to spend money on acquiring rights of way). It's kind of like those crash dummy centers, except it would be a reasonably long line line where they could run tests on the equipment.

[mean]

It's worth nothing that there aren't any rights of way involved with elevated "guideway-on-a-pole" systems. Makes for cheap urban installation:

Small, lightweight, elevated systems need permissions, and/or easements, but no full, dedicated, separate right of way on the ground. The ground and much space under it can be used for many other purposes. Road easements are useful, but not needed. Light elevated transport can use sidewalks, or even backyards, with no problem. SkyTran runs 30 feet up, almost silently, with no local emissions or pollution.

[ozone84]

It seems the major obstacles to a fixed-guideway system are the initial cost and the subsequent maintainence.

My dream transit system would be the Phileas:

http://www.apts-phileas.com/

or the Civis

http://www.commuterpage.com/civis/

All the appeal and function of light rail, but a fraction of the infrastructure costs. Both can be driven like a bus or guided by electronic means. The Phileas uses imbedded magnets in the guideway, the Civis is optically guided by markers (not so great when the snow flies).

The guidance system pulls them right up to "stations" just like rail. They're articulated just like rail. They look like rail. But at the end of the day or if maintainence is needed you can take manual control and drive the thing home to the existing bus barn. You can run them on a combination of dedicated lanes in the city street and twin-pad roadways (like down the old Trolley Trail?)

Nobody wants to try and sell a fixed-guideway system on the theory that people will ride it because it's "cool" but they've done studies that show that part of the appeal and success of fixed-guideway is the "wow" factor that people will look out their hotel window and think "wow I want to ride on that thing, it's cool!"

I'm curious as to what everyone's thoughts are on this?

[ozone84]

Oh yeah one more thing. Check out the movie link on this page. Has some great renderings of what a Civis installation would look like

http://www.nc3d.com/gallery/album02

[mean]

It seems the major obstacles to a fixed-guideway system are the initial cost and the subsequent maintainence.

I call BS.

It is a given that transportation capacity must be increased as population increases, so what we're talking about is adding capacity. The cost of installing prefabricated fixed guideway (ala SkyTran and similar) is microscopic compared to the grading and surfacing and whatnot associated with installing track for light or heavy rail, or adding lanes to existing roads. There is no compelling cost argument in favor of trad rail or roads, period.

Your bus things are cute, but no way. Look at all the moving parts. Moving parts are what break. Moving parts are what eventually wear down and must be repaired or replaced (i.e. maintenance). Three buses in one will only break down three times as often and require three times as much maintenance. Compare this to any maglev system, where there are no moving parts during normal operation, and you can see that your "more maintenance" argument is utter hogwash.

[ozone84]

Wow mean. I didn't realize expressing ideas or asking for opinions was not allowed. "BS" "Cute" and "hogwash?" I would take you to task about your theory that an articulated bus would break down "three times as much" but I'm sure you know much more about that type of thing than I do. I suppose my engineering background and years of calculating MTBF (that's Mean Time Between Failure) for design is trumped by your complete command of the written word. Wasting my time with years of third-order non-linear differential equations and now I find out all I had to know was three things break three times as much? Damn!

I'll take my "cute" ideas elsewhere. I won't bother you again. The board is yours...

[Thrillcekr]

Wow mean. I didn't realize expressing ideas or asking for opinions was not allowed. "BS" "Cute" and "hogwash?" I would take you to task about your theory that an articulated bus would break down "three times as much" but I'm sure you know much more about that type of thing than I do. I suppose my engineering background and years of calculating MTBF (that's Mean Time Between Failure) for design is trumped by your complete command of the written word. Wasting my time with years of third-order non-linear differential equations and now I find out all I had to know was three things break three times as much? Damn!

I'll take my "cute" ideas elsewhere. I won't bother you again. The board is yours...

They don't call him mean for nothing.

[mean]

Guess Stewie needs to change his diaper. Sheesh.

You'd think someone claiming to be an engineer could take a little more criticism.

Defend your ideas, buddy! It shouldn't be that hard for a big shot engineer like you! Did you work on the Saturn V project with Doug Malewicki, designer of SkyTran? Or does your "engineering background" consist of a junior college course? How should I know what background you do or don't have?

A real engineer would explain why I'm wrong, not get defensive and run away like a scolded child. Guess his mean time to failure was 9 posts.

[mean]

Also, if you can demonstrate how:

1) Building or adding road lanes is more economical than digging holes and inserting prefab poles which require no rights-of-way, and
2) A giant, fuel-guzzling tri-bus is more economical and less prone to failure than a tiny, fuel efficient pod with no moving parts

Then you are a damn genius and need the Nobel Prize.

[ComandanteCero]

mean, there's no reason to be so aggressive and disrespectful. It doesn't help your argument nor does it promote an open and civil space for discussion, which is what many of us want this forum to be.