KCRag Forum

Another dud.

That is so disconcerting and unexpected, you wonder if it's cover for some other reason not to have it on the ballot this year.

grovester wrote:That is so disconcerting and unexpected, you wonder if it's cover for some other reason not to have it on the ballot this year.

Were it not for a big finger, which is pointing at KCS.

I'm already waiting to hear KCS say that it's not their fault - that Union Pacific and the other railroads should agree to let the commuter rail use their tracks to Union Station. More squabbling.

.

FWIW, TKC is saying that KCS is in merger talks with a Canadian RR and didn't want to give up any track space while those talks are in progress. Seems plausible, but also implausible as it's only a few miles of track out of a continental system.

side note: UP has the most (?) votes on the terminal railway board, while KCS is close behind. BNSF, NS, Amtrak, and bit players remain. while KCS was key for heading east along I-70, UP holds all of the cards for:

- a near-majority vote for tench access
- control over river market access from the east
- the rock island corridor that would become our katy trail connection

as for the merger talks, why enter into a long-term financial arrangement if talks were active? makes sense to me.

http://dailyfreepress.com/2013/04/03/gr ... ed-for-19/

the article is directly about the green line light rail/subway extension but there's a choice quote in it relevant for this project and directly relevant to wherever the Jackson County plan gets to put its downtown terminal

“It would certainly increase the [home] prices for people coming into that area,” said Renee Lawyer, realtor at Century 21 Advance Realty in Medford. “People do like to be near public transportation so that’s a selling point.”

She said home prices in the Medford area are not too expensive, but there is already a higher demand for property in the area because of the anticipation of the Green Line extension.

“Medford already has the commuter rail. We’ve actually seen that area change quite a bit and prices go up [because of that],” Lawyer said.

[quote="DaveKCMO"]side note: UP has the most (?) votes on the terminal railway board, while KCS is close behind. BNSF, NS, Amtrak, and bit players remain. while KCS was key for heading east along I-70, UP holds all of the cards for:

- a near-majority vote for tench access
- control over river market access from the east
- the rock island corridor that would become our katy trail connection

as for the merger talks, why enter into a long-term financial arrangement if talks were active? makes sense to me.[/quote]

Dave, since the Sanders Plan is most likely off the table, could the KC Streetcar system over the years expand and become part of a broader regional system for commuters as well? Since the streetcars that KC is looking into buying can travel up to 55 MPH, then I would think it would be possible over time to have a commuter system in place with ROW in the burbs to ensure travel times are quick.

i wouldn't count sanders' plan out permanently. the circumstances around KCS abrupt departure from negotiations are still unclear.

no city has yet to get very far in distance with modern streetcar. even portland is just over 9 miles after 12 years of operation & expansion. doesn't mean KCMO can't do it, but you'd need a broader funding mechanism (like a countywide tax). there are currently no discussions about replacing DMUs with streetcars (even though streetcars were considered in several of commuter corridors) -- the locally-preferred alternative of record is still DMU on existing tracks.

[quote="DaveKCMO"]i wouldn't count sanders' plan out permanently. the circumstances around KCS abrupt departure from negotiations are still unclear.

no city has yet to get very far in distance with modern streetcar. even portland is just over 9 miles after 12 years of operation & expansion. doesn't mean KCMO can't do it, but you'd need a broader funding mechanism (like a countywide tax). there are currently no discussions about replacing DMUs with streetcars (even though streetcars were considered in several of commuter corridors) -- the locally-preferred alternative of record is still DMU on existing tracks.[/quote]


very good and thanks

Commuter rail plans still being discussed

Eastern Jackson County mayors met late last month with executives of the Kansas City Southern Railway after the railroad recently raised concerns, causing County Executive Mike Sanders to delay a planned August vote on a sales tax to support the project.

“The only thing I can tell you is we did have a good face-to-face meeting, and the project is not dead,” Blue Springs Mayor Carson Ross said late last week.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... z&page=all

I hope they go with Union Station as the commuter rail terminus downtown instead of the River Market. It makes more sense, since Kansas City Southern says both have problems with interrupting freight traffic. It seems Union Station would be more flexible for adding additional tracks to bypass stopped, or passing trains. The tracks that run near the River Market seem to carry a lot more freight traffic from the East and West Bottoms. There is less room to add new tracks in that narrow strip north of the River Market around Broadway.

I also think Union Station is better because of the Amtrak station. People can take the commuter lines to Union Station and transfer to Amtrak. People can fly into KCI and take the commuter train to Union Station. and continue on Amtrak to somewhere else on the line--like many of the small towns along the route. It also allows people to get off at Union Station to go to the attractions there and at Crown Center. Families, seniors who no longer drive, or older teens can come in from Odessa, Lee's Summit, or Liberty and go to SeaLife Aquarium for example.

It also allows people from towns on the Amtrak route to switch at Union Station and connect directly to the line going to KCI. The River Market commuter rail stop would add an additional streetcar or bus trip to/from Union Station to do that. Planners need to anticipate these other users in making the final decision.

I also think politicians and planners should consider moving the Greyhound and Jefferson bus terminal from 12th and Troost to Union Station. In the long run, it makes more sense to have all transportation options centered around Union Station for better transfer options. This will make Union Station serve as a transit hub as well as a museum and office building. It brings more traffic to the station and makes the space inside more marketable. It also makes the east yards of Union Station more marketable as a development site. It would make sense to build a big mixed use office building there over a large, below-grade, parking garage. That site is obviously a potential headquarters site for some company--especially if a transit hub is across the street.

Because there is already a big parking lot there that is below street grade, that site could handle a large building without having to tear down some adjacent building to build a garage. The building could also have entrances on both Main and Grand.

If air rights over the tracks could be obtained, a pedestrian deck could be built there that would connect to the Crossroads, and allow other new buildings to be built north of the tracks that would front the deck. This would maximize the investment in the transit hub.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Union+St ... y,+MO&z=18

FangKC wrote:It seems Union Station would be more flexible for adding additional tracks to bypass stopped, or passing trains.

you'd be wrong. they estimate the cost to be hundreds of millions. they need to excavate, rebuild bridges and such

FangKC wrote:The tracks that run near the River Market seem to carry a lot more freight traffic from the East and West Bottoms. There is less room to add new tracks in that narrow strip north of the River Market around Broadway.

not really, considering there's zero width in some places along the trench

FangKC wrote:I also think Union Station is better because of the Amtrak station. People can take the commuter lines to Union Station and transfer to Amtrak. People can fly into KCI and take the commuter train to Union Station.
...
It also allows people from towns on the Amtrak route to switch at Union Station and connect directly to the line going to KCI.

this project doesn't have the airport in its scope. and also, there's a nearly direct train line from Platte County to the river market location. follow the ASB tracks and you'll see just how simple it would be to add a connection

FangKC wrote:The River Market commuter rail stop would add an additional streetcar or bus trip to/from Union Station to do that. Planners need to anticipate these other users in making the final decision.

exactly. they do. except that I doubt most people would have union station as their final stop. I'd bet more end up in the CBD for which either station works

It's hard to believe that 200 passenger trains a day used to stop at Union Station. The number of freight trains passing through there now must have grown significantly compared to what it was when passenger trains used to stop at Union Station. I can't see that many passenger trains stopping there and that much freight traffic also using those tracks.

It makes me wonder if passenger service used to take priority over freight on those tracks back then, or that freight simply didn't use those tracks. Did freight trains take a different route in those days, and the freight trains just took over the lines running past Union Station once the passenger service declined?

FangKC wrote:It's hard to believe that 200 passenger trains a day used to stop at Union Station. The number of freight trains passing through there now must have grown significantly compared to what it was when passenger trains used to stop at Union Station. I can't see that many passenger trains stopping there and that much freight traffic also using those tracks.

It makes me wonder if passenger service used to take priority over freight on those tracks back then, or that freight simply didn't use those tracks. Did freight trains take a different route in those days, and the freight trains just took over the lines running past Union Station once the passenger service declined?

I thought before AmTrak there were passenger cars and freight cars on the same train combo.

FangKC wrote:It's hard to believe that 200 passenger trains a day used to stop at Union Station. The number of freight trains passing through there now must have grown significantly compared to what it was when passenger trains used to stop at Union Station. I can't see that many passenger trains stopping there and that much freight traffic also using those tracks.

It makes me wonder if passenger service used to take priority over freight on those tracks back then, or that freight simply didn't use those tracks. Did freight trains take a different route in those days, and the freight trains just took over the lines running past Union Station once the passenger service declined?

there's less capacity in the trench for one. they removed one of the four tracks with new minimum space expectations

freight traffic is huge compared to then. there's two recently built (in terms of the railroad) train overpasses inside KC that didn't exist in the 1940s because the at-grade cross was hindering freight trains
http://www.ssti.us/2013/04/freight-rail ... expansion/
as for recent volume, from 2009 to 2011 it jumped by almost 50% in terms of value across the US and a ton of that comes through KC.
the big (UP?) yard out in Kansas is replacing what was one of that company's most overworked yards in terms of size

there's length differences. adding one freight train is like adding a ~10 passenger trains in length. this means a need for longer sidings, more coordination, etc. so doubling freight traffic is far more disruptive than doubling passenger traffic. freight trains are longer now, same issue with train coordination.

there's less tracks in general. think of the katy trail and there's multiple routes like that across Missouri no longer used.
inside KC the 3rd and Wyandotte terminal is gone, the rock island bridge is blocked off and their corridor is unused, there's a rail bridge in the bottoms gone completely. subdivisions cross old rail lines across the metro.

back then trains used to do the jobs of more long-haul trucks. industry was more regional. so a product went from Missouri to Oklahoma. this means freight went on smaller trains shorter distances and having a more mesh design was beneficial. now they go from China to LA to KC to a truck to Oklahoma. so trains now by design follow the same route more often to the same intermodal destinations. now trains are better off taking a less complex web which is why many tracks were abandoned and we're in the situation we are.

The question is does all this freight traffic necessarily have to go right through the center of the city? Is it time for bypass tracks that go around the metro much like I-435 provides a way around the center of the City for much traffic.

There is a also some safety concern for some carriage, since some toxic and dangerous materials are shipped by rail right through the center of the metro.

I recall seeing a story--I think on 60 Minutes years ago--that indicated the danger of shipping radioactive material through large cities from nuclear plants. It was part of the plan to bury it underground in Nevada. I think that plan has been placed on hold.

It seems freight traffic pretty much holds future commuter rail traffic hostage.

I'm surprised actually that there haven't been additional rail bridges constructed over the Missouri next to the old Hannibal and ASB bridges from the rail yards in North Kansas City. That seems like a big bottleneck--especially since Hannibal Bridge tracks don't go east into the East Bottoms, and the ASB Bridge doesn't go west into the West Bottoms. If freight traffic has increased that much over past decades, it would seem that bridge infrastructure would need to be expanded as well since there are large rail yards in North Kansas City and the East Bottoms.

FangKC wrote:The question is does all this freight traffic necessarily have to go right through the center of the city? Is it time for bypass tracks that go around the metro much like I-435 provides a way around the center of the City for much traffic.

It's more complicated than just building bypass tracks. Even if a train is purely run-through, you still need new crew and fueling terminals at the very least. Besides that, building the tracks themselves would be an immense expense and the routes would be very circuitous by the time they got far enough away from everything to make everybody happy. There used to be a couple alignments that could have been viable cutoffs around the heart of the city, but those have since been abandoned and gobbled up by the sprawl monster. Whether or not that was short-sighted on the part of the railroads is certainly up for debate. Further out, something like the segment of the old Katy line between Sedalia and Parsons could have been used as a regional bypass, but its financial viability would have been doubtful. The railroads have to run a cost/benefit analysis looking at routes like that, considering the capacity versus congestion costs. Unlike state DOTs, railroads have to make rational decisions about their networks when it comes to things like this.

Cliff notes: it would be cheaper to expand the trench.

There is a also some safety concern for some carriage, since some toxic and dangerous materials are shipped by rail right through the center of the metro.

I recall seeing a story--I think on 60 Minutes years ago--that indicated the danger of shipping radioactive material through large cities from nuclear plants. It was part of the plan to bury it underground in Nevada. I think that plan has been placed on hold.

It seems freight traffic pretty much holds future commuter rail traffic hostage.

I'm surprised actually that there haven't been additional rail bridges constructed over the Missouri next to the old Hannibal and ASB bridges from the rail yards in North Kansas City. That seems like a big bottleneck--especially since Hannibal Bridge tracks don't go east into the East Bottoms, and the ASB Bridge doesn't go west into the West Bottoms. If freight traffic has increased that much over past decades, it would seem that bridge infrastructure would need to be expanded as well since there are large rail yards in North Kansas City and the East Bottoms.

It's not an especially big bottleneck given the traffic patterns through that area. There are wyes at the north end of each bridge that give the railroads full routing versatility on the north side before they cross the river. The big traffic increases going north-south across the river in the area were from coal traffic, which is tapering off enough that the railroads are apprehensive about making any upgrades to boost capacity for it. Oil traffic has increased substantially, but it's still a small piece of the pie. Major east-west traffic crosses the river at the Truman Bridge or further east at Sibley. Even if the Hannibal and ASB Bridges were replaced and upgraded, there isn't enough room on the south side of the river to build the necessary connecting tracks.

It's hard to believe that 200 passenger trains a day used to stop at Union Station.

It seems that the number of passenger trains at Union Station peaked in 1917, and the number of tickets sold in 1920.