Phase Three Streetcar Expansion

[DaveKCMO]

It's in the Missouri Constitution. Good luck with that.

[normalthings]

It's in the Missouri Constitution. Good luck with that.

I believe Colorado had the exact same issue. Their workaround was that there was no real definition for the terms so their legislature passed a law that provided a very broad definition for what it was (which included transit).

[flyingember]

It's in the Missouri Constitution. Good luck with that.

I believe Colorado had the exact same issue. Their workaround was that there was no real definition for the terms so their legislature passed a law that provided a very broad definition for what it was (which included transit).

There is for Missouri. Sure, it's not a literal definition but no judge would accept that the highway system was meant to include mass transportation based on this text.

The highways and transportation commission (i) shall have authority over the state highway system; (ii) shall have authority over all other transportation programs and facilities as provided by law, including, but not limited to, aviation, railroads, mass transportation, ports, and waterborne commerce

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection. ... &constit=y

The highways and transportation commission shall have authority to plan, locate, relocate, establish, acquire, construct, maintain, control, and as provided by law to operate, develop and fund public transportation facilities as part of any state transportation system or program such as but not limited to aviation, mass transportation, transportation of elderly and handicapped, railroads, ports, waterborne commerce and intermodal connections, provided that funds other than those designated or dedicated for highway purposes in or deposited in the state road fund or the state road bond fund pursuant to sections 30(a) or 30(b) of this constitution are made available for such purposes. No moneys which are distributed to the state transportation fund pursuant to section 30(b) shall be used for any purpose other than for transportation purposes as provided in this section

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection. ... &constit=y

[ToDactivist]

It's in the Missouri Constitution. Good luck with that.

I believe Colorado had the exact same issue. Their workaround was that there was no real definition for the terms so their legislature passed a law that provided a very broad definition for what it was (which included transit).

There is for Missouri. Sure, it's not a literal definition but no judge would accept that the highway system was meant to include mass transportation based on this text.

The highways and transportation commission (i) shall have authority over the state highway system; (ii) shall have authority over all other transportation programs and facilities as provided by law, including, but not limited to, aviation, railroads, mass transportation, ports, and waterborne commerce

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection. ... &constit=y

The highways and transportation commission shall have authority to plan, locate, relocate, establish, acquire, construct, maintain, control, and as provided by law to operate, develop and fund public transportation facilities as part of any state transportation system or program such as but not limited to aviation, mass transportation, transportation of elderly and handicapped, railroads, ports, waterborne commerce and intermodal connections, provided that funds other than those designated or dedicated for highway purposes in or deposited in the state road fund or the state road bond fund pursuant to sections 30(a) or 30(b) of this constitution are made available for such purposes. No moneys which are distributed to the state transportation fund pursuant to section 30(b) shall be used for any purpose other than for transportation purposes as provided in this section

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection. ... &constit=y

Ok do I read this correctly in that the Commission does have jurisdiction over mass transit AND that there are general funds for all types of transit they oversee? Meaning an increased revenue source of any kind (sic fuel or EV tax) benefits all projects AND if the Commission were right-minded they could consider a future allocation moving towards mass vs car-centric programs? Or am I not? I'll give it up if not.

[alejandro46]

An airport train would be great for tourists and urban core travelers. Zona Rosa is dying and Metro North Mall is being re-developed.

However, the distances between these places is just too much to justify - there are better ideas to actually go to the voters and feds with. Ideally, I'd prefer regional transit tax and give the authority to propose a 10-20-30 year roadmap/plan to expand rail and bus services and coordinate with MO/KS/USDOTs on roadway expansions, kind of like what we tried with Next Rail as well as what Austin and Seattle approved.

[flyingember]

Ok do I read this correctly in that the Commission does have jurisdiction over mass transit AND that there are general funds for all types of transit they oversee? Meaning an increased revenue source of any kind (sic fuel or EV tax) benefits all projects AND if the Commission were right-minded they could consider a future allocation moving towards mass vs car-centric programs? Or am I not? I'll give it up if not.

It received $4.8 million in the latest full fiscal year.
So it could fund under 250 feet of track per year at current costs if 100% was given to one project.

This is why the best way to get the streetcar across the river is to bundle it into a road project

https://treasurer.mo.gov/bank/FundRepor ... dFunds.pdf

0% of fuel taxes go towards it
An EV tax would need to be added as a funding source

It's 1% of vehicle purchase sales taxes (2% of 50%) so it goes up when people buy more and larger vehicles

One-half of the proceeds from the state sales tax on all motor vehicles, trailers, motorcycles, mopeds and motortricycles shall be dedicated for highway and transportation use and shall be apportioned and distributed as follows: ten percent to the counties, fifteen percent to the cities, two percent to be deposited in the state transportation fund, which is hereby created within the state treasury to be used in a manner provided by law and seventy-three percent to be deposited in the state road fund

from and after July 1, 2008, one hundred percent of the aforesaid one-half of the proceeds of the state sales tax on all motor vehicles, trailers, motorcycles, mopeds and motortricycles which is not distributed by subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section 30(b) shall be deposited in the state road bond fund

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection. ... &constit=y

[normalthings]

KCATA has released an RFP for implementation, financing, and communication strategies for a transit expansion. Mentioned BRT, Streetcar, Etc

[DaveKCMO]

KCATA has released an RFP for implementation, financing, and communication strategies for a transit expansion. Mentioned BRT, Streetcar, Etc

https://www.kcata.org/procurement/regio ... consultant

[normalthings]

Tampa looking at a 8.5 mile modern streetcar expansion. Hopefully we can pursue some big expansions too!

Plenary submitted an unsolicited proposal to Tampa for an 8.2 mile public private partnership streetcar development. City liked the idea and held a public RFP that Plenary responded to again. $700 million construction price tag with a $13 million O&M budget. Proposed opening in 2026

https://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/ne ... ntown.html

https://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/ne ... ntown.html

[grovester]

Apparently we are headed for a 21st century roaring 20's, so yes, let's get onboard!

[smh]

Little late to discussion, but why would I pay $30 for a bus (even a nice bus) to the airport if I could take an Uber for the same price? Honest question. I hadn't heard the $30 figure thrown around before and I recognize it's just a hypothetical but curious what prompted that as a figure. I suppose I expected something like $9 (roughly the price of a rail trip to DIA from downtown Denver, or the FlyAway bus in LA).

I really want a quality bus to KCI, and it seems very feasible, I just think if it is the same price as Uber then Uber wins because I can leave whenever I want. One upside perhaps is with set pricing I know if I roll back into KCI at midnight on a Sunday I should be able to take the bus rather than be subject to Uber's surge pricing.

[DaveKCMO]

That $30 certainly didn't come from me. Unsubsidized pricing certainly explains why people abandoned Super Shuttle for Uber.

[flyingember]

Little late to discussion, but why would I pay $30 for a bus (even a nice bus) to the airport if I could take an Uber for the same price? Honest question.

The answer is express priority access to reach the airport. Imagine if the bus can average 60mph while cars are in stop and go 20mph traffic in the winter or because of a wreck or there's way too many commuters trying to get to work at the same time.

That's why it's always a train that's proposed, because people understand how that would work when laying rail

[smh]

Little late to discussion, but why would I pay $30 for a bus (even a nice bus) to the airport if I could take an Uber for the same price? Honest question.

The answer is express priority access to reach the airport. Imagine if the bus can average 60mph while cars are in stop and go 20mph traffic in the winter or because of a wreck or there's way too many commuters trying to get to work at the same time.

That's why it's always a train that's proposed, because people understand how that would work when laying rail

But none of these problems exist on I-29. And again, I can take the bus for $9 in L.A which for sure suffers from congestion problems and has a lot of the bus only infra to speed up the process. I'm just saying, if the price is the same I don't see the bus as particularly competitive versus taxi/uber.

[Riverite]

Little late to discussion, but why would I pay $30 for a bus (even a nice bus) to the airport if I could take an Uber for the same price? Honest question.

The answer is express priority access to reach the airport. Imagine if the bus can average 60mph while cars are in stop and go 20mph traffic in the winter or because of a wreck or there's way too many commuters trying to get to work at the same time.

That's why it's always a train that's proposed, because people understand how that would work when laying rail

But none of these problems exist on I-29. And again, I can take the bus for $9 in L.A which for sure suffers from congestion problems and has a lot of the bus only infra to speed up the process. I'm just saying, if the price is the same I don't see the bus as particularly competitive versus taxi/uber.

What about just incorporating it into our free public transit, honestly it will make people more serious about living downtown without cars. As someone who traveled a lot when in university, public transit to and from the airport as well as price was something I would always factor in before making a decision.

I’m fearful that Making it 30 dollars will cost the city money anyways and just leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth

[flyingember]

Little late to discussion, but why would I pay $30 for a bus (even a nice bus) to the airport if I could take an Uber for the same price? Honest question.

The answer is express priority access to reach the airport. Imagine if the bus can average 60mph while cars are in stop and go 20mph traffic in the winter or because of a wreck or there's way too many commuters trying to get to work at the same time.

That's why it's always a train that's proposed, because people understand how that would work when laying rail

But none of these problems exist on I-29. And again, I can take the bus for $9 in L.A which for sure suffers from congestion problems and has a lot of the bus only infra to speed up the process. I'm just saying, if the price is the same I don't see the bus as particularly competitive versus taxi/uber.

You're not thinking 4th dimensionally

Second Creek is bringing 40,000 homes to the area north of 152 between 169 and I-29.

We're planning a transit system for 2050, not today. The infrastructure being planned right now needs to account for traffic on I-29 to look like 435 without needing the endless widening like Kansas has done.

A non-stop bus that costs something while free service is local isn't completely unreasonable

[smh]

The answer is express priority access to reach the airport. Imagine if the bus can average 60mph while cars are in stop and go 20mph traffic in the winter or because of a wreck or there's way too many commuters trying to get to work at the same time.

That's why it's always a train that's proposed, because people understand how that would work when laying rail

But none of these problems exist on I-29. And again, I can take the bus for $9 in L.A which for sure suffers from congestion problems and has a lot of the bus only infra to speed up the process. I'm just saying, if the price is the same I don't see the bus as particularly competitive versus taxi/uber.

You're not thinking 4th dimensionally

Second Creek is bringing 40,000 homes to the area north of 152 between 169 and I-29.

We're planning a transit system for 2050, not today. The infrastructure being planned right now needs to account for traffic on I-29 to look like 435 without needing the endless widening like Kansas has done.

A non-stop bus that costs something while free service is local isn't completely unreasonable

Okay.

[smh]

The answer is express priority access to reach the airport. Imagine if the bus can average 60mph while cars are in stop and go 20mph traffic in the winter or because of a wreck or there's way too many commuters trying to get to work at the same time.

That's why it's always a train that's proposed, because people understand how that would work when laying rail

But none of these problems exist on I-29. And again, I can take the bus for $9 in L.A which for sure suffers from congestion problems and has a lot of the bus only infra to speed up the process. I'm just saying, if the price is the same I don't see the bus as particularly competitive versus taxi/uber.

What about just incorporating it into our free public transit, honestly it will make people more serious about living downtown without cars. As someone who traveled a lot when in university, public transit to and from the airport as well as price was something I would always factor in before making a decision.

I’m fearful that Making it 30 dollars will cost the city money anyways and just leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth

Well, there is a bus today, but it takes an hour from downtown. So I think the concept was a faster bus at a premium price. But a person could always ride the regular bus if desired/worked for your schedule.

[WoodDraw]

Little late to discussion, but why would I pay $30 for a bus (even a nice bus) to the airport if I could take an Uber for the same price? Honest question. I hadn't heard the $30 figure thrown around before and I recognize it's just a hypothetical but curious what prompted that as a figure. I suppose I expected something like $9 (roughly the price of a rail trip to DIA from downtown Denver, or the FlyAway bus in LA).

I really want a quality bus to KCI, and it seems very feasible, I just think if it is the same price as Uber then Uber wins because I can leave whenever I want. One upside perhaps is with set pricing I know if I roll back into KCI at midnight on a Sunday I should be able to take the bus rather than be subject to Uber's surge pricing.

Because you’ll change your behavior afterwards. With no parking, and regular, nice buses, you’ll schedule time around when they will be there,

So you want to park your car and pay x per day or take a bus?

[alejandro46]

I think cars will continue to be the number 1 form of transport to the airport. Cheap parking along and easy access upon landing. If I am on a longer trip, I typically Uber. Uber rates are going to be 20-30$ depending on location. 1x bus per hour isn't reasonable for most people I think. More frequent, cheaper routes are better like a BRT of some kind with the airport as a northern terminus. I bet something like that could be done for much cheaper than the $1.2bln streetcar to the airport would cost, but maybe without the spin off transit oriented dense development along the line. Will have to see if we get a BRT to Truman and how that pans out with any development along that area.

Tampa looking at a 8.5 mile modern streetcar expansion. Hopefully we can pursue some big expansions too!

Plenary submitted an unsolicited proposal to Tampa for an 8.2 mile public private partnership streetcar development. City liked the idea and held a public RFP that Plenary responded to again. $700 million construction price tag with a $13 million O&M budget. Proposed opening in 2026

https://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/ne ... ntown.html

https://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/ne ... ntown.html

I started a thread about Tampa's proposed streetcar overhaul. Interesting that a third party is offering to 'manage' a new route for them unsolicited. Seems like after the proposed expansion they are working on the Tampa Airport would be the next reasonable stop, but not sure why what this company brings to the table. Transit to a city's airport really is a great tool for big conventions and conferences in town so everybody doesn't have to rent cars or uber everywhere. Just stinks that our airport is so far out.