KCRag Forum

nobody said the arguments had to be cohesive. just that they're antagonistic.

I don't get the argument that rail transit in the urban core wouldn't make people move to the city. I know about 20 people, just in my own life, who wanted to relocate to KC for various reasons (art related jobs/school), but didn't because of a lack of speedy transit (light rail). And as much as true brt is needed, I don't think it even holds a candle to having an influencing on the shaping of a city that light rail/streetcar does.

you all do realize that main street is rotting because the city is still waiting to see what happens with light rail. since it's unlikely the discussion will ever go away, why not get half the price tag of a main street makeover picked up by the feds? you also get improved transit capacity and perhaps even a better-coordinated network at the same time! all for a 3/8-cent sales tax increase!

^So you're saying they're saying it's only justified to keep up Main only if there is LRT?  I highly doubt that.  Main is actually better than I've seen in a while in terms of CID, but worse that I've seen thanks to development that is not streetfront.  You don't need LRT to create policy for streetfront development.

I absolutely do not want LRT through the city.  LRT sucks on regular roads.  They need dedicated paths, which can't be done through urban core.  True BRT down all the main urban corridors running every 5-10 minutes would be 1000% more effective than a single LRT line that would likely run less often.

LRT/commuter rail would be more effective from airport/burbs, not within the core.  

And anywho, this doesn't have anything to do with Cordish decision to kill the residential component.  Plaza has $2M+ hirise condos w/out LRT.  Plaza attracts older people with such money, downtown does not yet and may not even if in full stride.  Downtown will probably be an under 45 place to live for quite a while.  It needs more leased units and mid-range condo conversions to increase pops, not high end condos.

I disagree that over 45 are not attracted to DT so there is no one who will pay for high end new construction.  At the View, all the expensive end units with 3 side exposures and balconys east and west sold out long before the building was even half sold out.  Put in a good product DT, something like the new one at 46 terrace and Broadway, and it will sell.  Not all over 45 with $ are the Kirkwood crowd.  I know of several over 45 that want to sell their suburban manses when the economy gets a little better but have not taken the step of putting a sign in the yard because they do not see anything coming along DT that would fit the size and luxury they desire.

ignatius wrote: ^So you're saying they're saying it's only justified to keep up Main only if there is LRT?  I highly doubt that.  Main is actually better than I've seen in a while in terms of CID, but worse that I've seen thanks to development that is not streetfront.  You don't need LRT to create policy for streetfront development.

I absolutely do not want LRT through the city.  LRT sucks on regular roads.  They need dedicated paths, which can't be done through urban core.  True BRT down all the main urban corridors running every 5-10 minutes would be 1000% more effective than a single LRT line that would likely run less often.

LRT/commuter rail would be more effective from airport/burbs, not within the core.  

And anywho, this doesn't have anything to do with Cordish decision to kill the residential component.  Plaza has $2M+ hirise condos w/out LRT.  Plaza attracts older people with such money, downtown does not yet and may not even if in full stride.  Downtown will probably be an under 45 place to live for quite a while.  It needs more leased units and mid-range condo conversions to increase pops, not high end condos.

A lot of the argument for LRT through the cities urban core is based on intangibles. For whatever reason, development springs up around rail. Buses, even true BRT, will not even come close to what LRT can do in terms of this. Why does rail do that? Well, thats in intangible part. The BRT argument is always so numbers based (it will move X amount people more, or just as efficiently, as streetcar or LRT), but this has so little to do with much of the positive side effects that LRT brings. Rail transit in the urban core is as symbolic as it is practical, and the symbolic nature of adding LRT to the urban core of KC is nothing to scoff at.

^As an actual transit user, would rather have BRT that runs every 5-10 minutes down State Line, SW Tfwy, Broadway, Main, Gilham, Troost, etc than one LRT line that would likely not run as often and at higher run rate.  Transit oriented development works for areas that already do not have ped level development but the urban core already does, so does not benefit as much.  

I suppose it would be great to have both, BRT down all main drags as well as LRT but I'd rather see the robust BRT first, as long as it runs every 5-10 minutes.  Would rather see LRT or commuter rail go to airport first.  LRT means nothing to me, already using MAX from Plaza to Downtown for work, etc.  Just needs to run more often, especially at night/weekends.  There is simply not one benefit LRT would provide for me.

Those who use transit know that options and frequency matter much much more than how fancy the mode is.  

But again, this has nothing to do with Cordish killing the residential development.

nilsson1941 wrote:
Rail transit in the urban core is as symbolic as it is practical, and the symbolic nature of adding LRT to the urban core of KC is nothing to scoff at.

+1. 

Light rail is sexy.  Busses aren't.  I know a LOT of people who have never stepped foot on a bus but, who'd vote for a 3/8 cent tax for LRT in a heartbeat.  It's a status symbol. 

LRT is permanent, bus routes are not.

nilsson1941 wrote:For whatever reason, development springs up around rail. Buses, even true BRT, will not even come close to what LRT can do in terms of this.

There are a lot of factors that affect development around transit (be it heavy rail, LRT, buses, etc).  For example the existing land uses near a station, pedestrian connectivity, whether there is potential for redevelopment in the first place (not to mention all of the market forces that dictates what is feasible at any given time).  There are plenty of examples of rail stations that have zero development nearby, just as there are examples of awesome transit oriented development.  There are very few true BRT lines in the U.S (like three or so) and all have opened in the last couple of years so it's difficult to provide head-to-head development impact comparisons just yet.  However, studies that have looked at the development impacts of these systems have found that where appropriate t.o.d policies have been put in place (the same policies you might apply around a rail station) there have been positive impacts.  You can check out more mature examples in Canada and South America where significant investment has happened.
(this is an interesting slide show about development impacts around some lines both here in the U.S and abroad)

I agree completely that there is a certain panache and perception associated with LRT.  But it's important to separate out the perception of regular local buses operating in mixed traffic and picking up/dropping off passengers at the curb, from a true BRT system that operates more like a surface running LRT system.   Where the BRT system is differentiated from the local bus system, there are similar positive perceptions (for example, in Las Vegas, which is kind of a hybrid system, they have rail like vehicles and off board ticketing, and that was more than different enough for folks to see the system differently from the local buses).  

bbqboy wrote: LRT is permanent, bus routes are not.

true-BRT routes are permanent as well.  It would be very hard to just relocate two lanes worth of dedicated roadway along with the stations.

ComandanteCero wrote: true-BRT routes are permanent as well.  It would be very hard to just relocate two lanes worth of dedicated roadway along with the stations.

All I can say is when I visit a new city, the first thing I do is head to the rail/subway stop with a map in hand.  Figuring out a new city's bus routes and ticketing procedures can be confusing as hell.  One can say this is just touristy frou frou, (and I'd prefer a dedicated right of way) but rail of any sort brings stability and requires politicians to alott resources due to the initial expense and dedicated nature.  Bus routes are a lot easier to abandon, regardless of the type.  BRT can always be leveled and paved over when the road needs resurfacing (brt lanes aren't immune to erosion).  Tearing down a plastic overhang really isn't much, but ripping up the rail lines is a completely different story.

Re: convention argument...
While I'm flattered there are folks following my every post, my comment was that our transit system would embarrass the city compared to today's standards which are light rail, BRT, heavy rail, etc. I am not advocating that we build light rail, but illustrating that we need to build something that is contemporary. LRT is not the best option, but it's what most cities have. We could build a real BRT that simulates LRT to the point no one knows the difference. 

LRT on Main would not be fast. Where are people getting this idea it would?

There are a lot of folks who don't understand what "true BRT" is referring to.

A) MAX is not "true BRT".  Also, the local bus you see running around is not "true BRT" either.

B) System maps/schedules of a "true BRT" line would be no different, no more complicated, than most LRT system maps/schedules.  

C) The vehicles would not look like regular buses, the stations would not look like regular bus shelters, and the routes would operate primarily on reserved right of ways.

Here's a little video about the Orange Line in L.A.  It operates on a 14 mile exclusive "busway" on what used to be an old rail right of way.  They use large articulated buses.  It has traffic signal priority, off-board ticketing, and dedicated stations.  They also used part of the old rail r.o.w for bike paths.  It has higher ridership than the LRT Silver Line, and inspired the proposal for a large mixed-use "transit village" called Tarzana Crossing.  

http://www.streetfilms.org/las-orange-l ... bike-path/

Here's a video about the granddaddy BRT that has inspired everyone else:  The Curitiba BRT system, still pretty close to being the gold standard.

http://www.streetfilms.org/curitibas-brt/

From what I remember, the Cordish residential was supposed to run $300-350/sq. ft.  So you'd pay $300-350k for a 1000 sq. ft. condo, but also have a full tax bill.  I still think the city should have approved the TIF for the 4 star hotel Cordish was proposing as long as there were some strings as far as who the 4 star hotel was.  Downtown needed a shiny new hotel as well as a condo tower in the heart of P&L.  Also, there needs to be some apartments go up somewhere within a couple blocks of P&L.  I think P&L is really going to take a hit if the city doesn't get more housing closer to it.  One of the biggest advantages the Plaza has is that so many people live there.