Phase Three Streetcar Expansion

[Anthony_Hugo98]

I'm not talking about streetcar or DMU. I'm talking LRT. I understand that it's possible to use vehicles very similar to what KC using now similar to what is being used in Houston. But the plan needs to be that the line is in a dedicated RoW with large enough platforms for actual trains, not single car trams.

If it counts for anything, CAF makes LRT, as well as longer versions of our current streetcar. Keeping continuity with at minimum the manufacturer would greatly streamline maintenance and parts processing

I understand that, but I don't think most of the line built on Main was designed in accommodate larger trains. Not just the stations, but the track alignment too. And to run larger trains on such a long alignment in mixed traffic would not work very well even if the track and stations could accommodate. I could be wrong though.

I don't know the specific details of how the track on Main was designed. But just from looking at it, I think it would need a lot of sections rebuilt, which may be an option I guess some day, but moving the track to center running etc would probably be cost prohibitive.

No I agree with that point, further extensions outside of main & NKC shouldn’t be curb running, dedicated ROW is feasible for transit and should be utilized for LRT lines. The vehicles could carry over was more so my point, at least the manufacturer at the bare minimum

[AlkaliAxel]

I’m with you for the most part GRID except for two things

1. I like the boulevard idea he initially proposed. I think it’s worth trying to get some sort of center running rail like that

2. I think it should be streetcar or some form of high powered streetcar. I don’t think we should run a fully bloated train down Truman or Independence

[GRID]

I’m with you for the most part GRID except for two things

1. I like the boulevard idea he initially proposed. I think it’s worth trying to get some sort of center running rail like that

2. I think it should be streetcar or some form of high powered streetcar. I don’t think we should run a fully bloated train down Truman or Independence

A boulevard type design is a great idea, I just said to do it without officially designating it a Blvd and making it a parks department street. Unless things have drastically changed, the parks department has always been a total pain in the ass to work with when it comes to things like this.

Also, I agree that a more scaled down transit vehicle is fine. Something more like what they have in Europe with longer trams in dedicated RoW, but that is more about how the infrastructure is designed than how the vehicles are. KC would likely go with the CAF vehicles that are similar to what they currently use.

They may even be able to use the same vehicles if they just design the infrastructure to accommodate coupled cars. Problems will still arise though if you want to run the same trains on Main Street. I guess even single car vehicles are fine if you get higher frequency in return. But Main Street probably can't handle high frequency either without bunching.

The most important thing is dedicated right of way and priority at intersections.

[kas1]

Longer trains really shouldn't be a factor for near-term planning. The capacity of each streetcar train is already some 3x the capacity of a bus, and Kansas City can barely muster enough transit ridership to run core bus routes at decent frequencies. The problem with virtually every major transit proposal in the region is whether it will attract enough riders to even be worth building. If you build something and it's operating over capacity then that's a great problem to have and you can solve it by buying more vehicles and increasing frequency. Yes, that will increase operating costs compared to lengthening the trains, but better frequencies makes the service more convenient and useful, so that's a good way to spend money. If you get to sub-5 minute frequencies and still need more capacity, then it's time to look into other solutions. And whatever gets built today should have provisions for lengthening platforms etc. But that's for deep in the future.

Wrote this before you made your last post and you're kinda saying the same things. But wrt bunching, I vaguely recall reading one time that buses can operate at headways of like 2 or 2.5 minutes before you start to run into problems, and I assume streetcars would be the same. Maybe could even do slightly better if the traffic signals are fully coordinated. You could dump several new services directly onto Main St without problems. And if some of those branches are only using a brief segment of Main St then future capacity problems downtown could be addressed fairly cheaply by just building a second segment through downtown. (Although the gold standard there would just be to build a tunnel and lengthen the platforms for all the stuff you've been building with dedicated ROW. Capacity on surface streets is always going to be very limited and going underground is inevitable for any city that continues growing indefinitely. But a second set of tracks through downtown could be a stopgap measure.)

[Anthony_Hugo98]

Also, I agree that a more scaled down transit vehicle is fine. Something more like what they have in Europe with longer trams in dedicated RoW, but that is more about how the infrastructure is designed than how the vehicles are. KC would likely go with the CAF vehicles that are similar to what they currently use.

They may even be able to use the same vehicles if they just design the infrastructure to accommodate coupled cars.

The options with the Urbos 100 lineup are pretty solid for expansion. I imagine it wouldn’t be too difficult to join units if necessary. Larger vehicles could be dedicated to the more LRT-esque lines, but still have the ability to operate the urban lines if necessary.

[GRID]

I think we are all on the same page and agree that any new lines really need to be in their own RoW. That will also generally allow for easier design of the stations so that they can be expanded at a later date.

Curb running streetcars are not that much better than normal buses and can be worse when vehicles block the tracks since buses can go around.

I really liked the trams in Amsterdam, Zurich and Frankfurt. They are shorter vehicles but they come every few minutes so they have a ton of them. They generally run in mixed use lanes, but those cities also have very few private vehicles and almost no street parking (on major streets) in their center cities so almost no traffic outside of trams, buses and cyclists.

[AlkaliAxel]

I think we are all on the same page

It’s truly incredible

My last request is that we make the side stores/retail adjacent to this route near downtown have some flavor to it. Not just ALL bland colored mixed use. Just atleast by the downtown part of Truman.

[Anthony_Hugo98]

Honestly, any of these plans should also include reduction in Main St parking, and a restriction to private vehicles (except residents and delivery) if it is to be the Spine of the system. The main artery will need to be consistent and predictable to be functional

[AlkaliAxel]

Honestly, any of these plans should also include reduction in Main St parking, and a restriction to private vehicles (except residents and delivery) if it is to be the Spine of the system. The main artery will need to be consistent and predictable to be functional

The aftermath of all this is that I’m not really that keen on a KU Med to TSC line anymore. I think KU med line is fine but maybe make it a lot shorter. And if we’re gonna go long, do it on Truman.

[earthling]

Honestly, any of these plans should also include reduction in Main St parking, and a restriction to private vehicles (except residents and delivery) if it is to be the Spine of the system. The main artery will need to be consistent and predictable to be functional

^Yes for curb running streetcars, need to eventually get rid of the curb parking. I actually prefer curb side as hopping on a streetcar with no fare system to deal with is a very natural extension from the sidewalk. But would work best if no parking along sidewalk that can disrupt service.

[AlkaliAxel]

Honestly, any of these plans should also include reduction in Main St parking, and a restriction to private vehicles (except residents and delivery) if it is to be the Spine of the system. The main artery will need to be consistent and predictable to be functional

^Yes for curb running streetcars, need to eventually get rid of the curb parking. I actually prefer curb side as hopping on a streetcar with no fare system to deal with is a very natural extension from the sidewalk. But would work best if no parking along sidewalk that can disrupt service.

We should do center running on Truman

[earthling]

Yeah I'm thinking for Main, what's appropriate on other lines will vary. Along Main, another option is to only allow permit parking. And if those granted a permit block streetcar they lose the permit after 2 or 3 strikes, with high ticket charge on each block - or maybe just one strike you're out. Something along those lines.

[daGOAT]

Is there anyway we can lobby to make it happen? I still feel like the first step is building housing but if MoDot plans to rebuild soon there has to be some momentum because we are guaranteed they won't consider this themselves.

[AlkaliAxel]

Is there anyway we can lobby to make it happen? I still feel like the first step is building housing but if MoDot plans to rebuild soon there has to be some momentum because we are guaranteed they won't consider this themselves.

For the Truman idea?

[DaveKCMO]

You can't just pick a street because it has space -- in KC they ALL have space. The corridor has to have trip generators now -- residents and jobs, preferably plenty of both. Hardly any of the leading candidates have changed and they're mostly represented by existing transit service today. Start there, just like NextRail did. Hell, they even ranked the corridors for you.

[Anthony_Hugo98]

You can't just pick a street because it has space -- in KC they ALL have space. The corridor has to have trip generators -- residents and jobs, preferably plenty of both. Hardly any of the leading candidates have changed and they're mostly represented by existing transit service today. Start there, just like NextRail did. Hell, they even ranked the corridors for you.

So you’re saying we should just go off the study that got community feedback, ranked the corridors, and even outlined cost for all of them? Pft, that’s way too easy, we are here to over complicate this

[normalthings]

You can't just pick a street because it has space -- in KC they ALL have space. The corridor has to have trip generators -- residents and jobs, preferably plenty of both. Hardly any of the leading candidates have changed and they're mostly represented by existing transit service today. Start there, just like NextRail did. Hell, they even ranked the corridors for you.

So you’re saying we should just go off the study that got community feedback, ranked the corridors, and even outlined cost for all of them? Pft, that’s way too easy, we are here to overcomplicate this

Transit along i70 and trains on Truman have been covered in previous studies

[Anthony_Hugo98]

You can't just pick a street because it has space -- in KC they ALL have space. The corridor has to have trip generators -- residents and jobs, preferably plenty of both. Hardly any of the leading candidates have changed and they're mostly represented by existing transit service today. Start there, just like NextRail did. Hell, they even ranked the corridors for you.

So you’re saying we should just go off the study that got community feedback, ranked the corridors, and even outlined cost for all of them? Pft, that’s way too easy, we are here to overcomplicate this

Transit along i70 and trains on Truman have been covered in previous studies

I’m aware of them, I was more so referencing the mention of Nextrail study by Dave was all, and all those routes were initially touted as possible Phase 3 expansion

[alejandro46]

Linwood and 31st should be the next expansion in my humble opinion.
1. Potential for dense development along almost all of the proposed route including a lot of affordable housing & mixed use midrises.
2. No major dead-zones of just SFH. Running along Truman along I-70 yes there is potential for development, although still boarded by highway. But once you get to 70 South, it's just SFH for 2.5 miles and you fail to connect to the VA. There are still some lower density streaches of Linwood, but the potential for development is much higher based on the existing land uses there now as there are multiple larger apartment projects, high school, Troost corridor redevelopment, and VA. In addition, if you ran one line on 31st and one on Linwood, you'd have plenty of room to have a dedicated lane.
3. No messing around with MODOT/I-70 PITA.

I am not sure why NextRail didn't study Truman even as an option, although 18th street was studied.

*LOL I just saw Dave's comment. I would also note NextRail ranked 31st/Linwood as the next best alignment. But still I don't know specifically why Truman wasn't studied and 18th st. was. Without a cap over 670, you couldn't connect to Main line without running into highway ramps.

[DaveKCMO]

You can't just pick a street because it has space -- in KC they ALL have space. The corridor has to have trip generators -- residents and jobs, preferably plenty of both. Hardly any of the leading candidates have changed and they're mostly represented by existing transit service today. Start there, just like NextRail did. Hell, they even ranked the corridors for you.

So you’re saying we should just go off the study that got community feedback, ranked the corridors, and even outlined cost for all of them? Pft, that’s way too easy, we are here to overcomplicate this

Transit along i70 and trains on Truman have been covered in previous studies

And that landed... where?