DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 9:45 pm
It's almost like you can't acknowledge who was involved in the project...
oh, I knew that. it's what makes your points so sad. One big success and you moved into a role where you're maintaining the status quo with tiny changes to the existing network in ways that decrease ridership per capita
the bus system redesign is at 18 months and counting and the biggest transit system change proposed isn't even part of it. No one cared to try and figure out how the system redesign would work with the free fare council proposal and update the documents.
The system is so badly designed people are moving away from areas served by the bus and every plan across the last few does nothing to look at increasing service where people are moving to. On the latest plan system improvements serve shrinking populations with service cancelations in growing populations
https://www.flatlandkc.org/people-place ... nsas-city/
This map data is useful since it's timely to the 2019 redesign program
there's a new industrial center within 10 minutes from downtown and there's no plan in ridekc next to serve it. where's the relationship to couple the Riverside eco dev planning with transit planning? it's well under the 10 year timeframe given since it exists today. with the system redesign you're canceling their only service instead. there's clearly a lack of interest in building relationships there. As you can see from the proposed 231 cancelation, building relationships needs to be a much bigger focus and this will come with being willing to make 50 year network promises. That developers can count on the bus in the same sense as they can the permanence of laying rail.
Worse, if the goal is to increase revenue wouldn't it be best to grow ridership with express routes? Implementing a limited stop BRT line on N. Oak that takes a $95 monthly fare would be financially advantageous. A premium express suburban system can have half the ridership for the same amount of gross revenue Financially the city would be better off putting in bus lanes on N. Oak to enable this since it can subsidize premium price riders at a smaller percentage of the cost. But no one is taking BRT on N. Oak seriously.
this is why no one talks about the bus to the airport, because people don't trust it to stick around. people want permanent and reliable. they want to think that they can take that new job and move to that new apartment and the bus will be there in 20 years without question. and too often, this isn't the case
And where's the one seat ride from N. Oak to the plaza? this one is such a no brainer that marc has it on their map.
http://www.kcsmartmoves.org/
And it's worse, an alternating main max service extension from 3rd/grand costs nothing extra if it replaces the current 201 route at peak use. The entire city voted yes to fund a single rail line that did that more than a decade ago and no one has learned the lesson that people want more transit service that doesn't add 15-30 minutes because there's this strange idea everyone should transfer downtown no matter what. A State Ave-Indep Ave single line should be a no brainer since it connects KCK to Paseo Industrial with no transfer.
The worst in terms of planning is today's 21 and today's 234. 234 is suspended right now, but it was scheduled to arrive on the half hour and 21 to arrive on the hour. that's a 30 minute transfer if someone wanted to travel two miles. the system redesign proposes canceling both routes. and making it worse, both routes terminated at the same spot so it easily could have been one single bus route. Antioch center was redeveloped with a grocery store right next to the transit center. it takes really bad planning to see increased demand by the public to visit next to a transit center and the answer is to reduce service to it.
The lack of focus on the fundamentals of building a network clearly has induced car use across the city.
There's no big picture system redesign that shows cities what they get if they think big, showing how there's goals of adding service to more people and it will be there in 30,40,50 years without question if you help fund it
What we need is someone to have a plan that they know can't be built today and put them on the map as promises. The equivalent of presenting streetcar expansion to the NKC city council despite the chances of building something being zero right now even if they get involved.
What's so hard about promising people certain rail, BRT and bus lines will be upgraded to rail when there's funding? Give people something to aim for. Come in and show what it will take.
posting.php?mode=quote&f=9&p=614126
"once we have a source of revenue" isn't a promise Promise people if there's revenue it won't be canceled, that they can rely on it.
Just like with phase 3 streetcar. Make the promise for what rail lines will be built if a way to fund it is found. Induce demand for people to tell the state and county they want funding for improved transit.
there's clearly demand for rail transit and saying "no" isn't how you get the public's trust to pass a regional tax. Planning needs to say "yes, but..."