KCMO Downtown Streetcar

[voltopt]

something i thought was interesting is that the River to Crown Center streetcar line was tagged as "essential" in the Star to the proposed commuter line. i think it's essential to the expansion of progressive, real transit in this region, but i don't find it essential to commuter rail in any way. are the MAX stops really that scary to someone from Raytown?

I would equate the Star tagging the streetcar line as "essential" to commuter rail as the transportation equivalent to sportswriters writing glowing memoirs about Derrick Thomas and Buck O'Niel in order to get them into their respective Hall of Fames.  Its essentially marketing and helps adjust the public perspective behind one attainable goal instead of 5 or 10 distracting and contrary goals.  I agree that its probably not essential, but if we can get someone in Washington to believe it is, then it may actually happen.

[trailerkid]

I would equate the Star tagging the streetcar line as "essential" to commuter rail as the transportation equivalent to sportswriters writing glowing memoirs about Derrick Thomas and Buck O'Niel in order to get them into their respective Hall of Fames.  Its essentially marketing and helps adjust the public perspective behind one attainable goal instead of 5 or 10 distracting and contrary goals.  I agree that its probably not essential, but if we can get someone in Washington to believe it is, then it may actually happen.

i'm all for it happening 100%. but we need to stop pretending like bus transit in KC is unacceptable or impractical to the mainstream. as someone else keenly mentioned on this forum, buses are the backbone of your transit system.

[bobbyhawks]

I would equate the Star tagging the streetcar line as "essential" to commuter rail as the transportation equivalent to sportswriters writing glowing memoirs about Derrick Thomas and Buck O'Niel in order to get them into their respective Hall of Fames.

Nobody was trying to fool anyone into voting for Buck O'Neil.  He was not only the single most important ambassador for remembering the Negro Leagues, but he was also the first African American coach in the Major Leagues and a winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  Say what you want about DT, but don't lump Buck into a category of revisionist history.

i'm all for it happening 100%. but we need to stop pretending like bus transit in KC is unacceptable or impractical to the mainstream. as someone else keenly mentioned on this forum, buses are the backbone of your transit system.

Most lines would have to run at least twice as often as they do now.  Nobody with the option of driving is going to strand themselves somewhere if they will have to wait for 30 minutes in the freezing cold/extreme heat to get a slow ride somewhere.  They also need to create better maps for each stop so that most people can figure out where the routes end up.

[LenexatoKCMO]

but we need to stop pretending like bus transit in KC is unacceptable or impractical to the mainstream.

Pretend? 

[bobbyhawks]

Pretend? 

We have a system designed for necessity, and we need to do a better job of considering convenience.  There are few things more convenient than a fixed rail service that is frequent and runs into the night, but a good bus system can also be much more convenient than the one we currently have.  I don't believe anyone is disputing the latter point.

The people who have to ride the bus, ride the bus.  Most people who can avoid it, try to avoid it.  There are obviously many factors that go into this, but it will take a massive shift in the system, not just slowly adding lines and increasing service, to change the perception.  We can do all of the studies of concentrations of people and who needs to get where, but most people who are new to the bus, outside of those with no alternatives, are introduced to the bus (or lack thereof) at night or on the weekends.  Our system will not win many fans with its current schedules.

People will ride a streetcar immediately.  There is no confusion over the route, as it never changes.  It is something different and new.  It may sound hokey, but there is a "big city" feel to a streetcar that isn't matched on a bus.  Current non-bus riders who ride the streetcar will be much more likely to catch a transfer to a bus than they were previously.  I think the streetcar (though I wish we were talking about faster options here) would be a great stimulus to ridership across other public modes of transportation.  It would get people thinking about their transit options, and hopefully, change the perception of the KCATA.  That said, we still need major upgrades in our bus system to make this plan fully work.

[trailerkid]

Pretend?  

bus transit is a legitimate and very practical form of transit in the city. the suburbadroid-type, KC Star employee pretends like it isn't.

It may sound hokey, but there is a "big city" feel to a streetcar that isn't matched on a bus.  

how many street cars are there in NYC vs. buses?

[enough]

we do need better public transit, whether by light rail or streetcar or bus.  all it takes is money.  the city council has been dipping into the already lagging transportation sales tax to fund other things.  they can do that legally (at least from the half-cent sales tax) but the result is a slowly shrinking transit system.

public transit isn't just for the "transit dependent."  granted, it takes some adjusting to go from being "in control" of a motor vehicle to waiting for a bus (though it needn't be very long if you use webwatch) and then discovering freed-up time to read or text or talk or listen or snooze or whatever.  of course it helps if you've chosen to live someplace that has a decent level of transit service.

it's true that more people would ride a rail transit line, provided it's in a high-demand corridor.  but people who say they won't ride transit until we have rail, probably won't ride it even then. 

[trailerkid]

we do need better public transit, whether by light rail or streetcar or bus.  all it takes is money.  the city council has been dipping into the already lagging transportation sales tax to fund other things.  they can do that legally (at least from the half-cent sales tax) but the result is a slowly shrinking transit system.

public transit isn't just for the "transit dependent."  granted, it takes some adjusting to go from being "in control" of a motor vehicle to waiting for a bus (though it needn't be very long if you use webwatch) and then discovering freed-up time to read or text or talk or listen or snooze or whatever.  of course it helps if you've chosen to live someplace that has a decent level of transit service.

it's true that more people would ride a rail transit line, provided it's in a high-demand corridor.  but people who say they won't ride transit until we have rail, probably won't ride it even then.  

the biggest fallacy involved in any discussion is that rail is a panacea for our transit woes. rail will only serve a small sliver of the population and ultimately need to feed into our underfunded, overworked bus system.

[chingon]

I like buses. Increasingly I prefer buses. I'd love to see a rail spine in KC, but that's really about the only fixed guideway I think is worth the price.

Designing a bus-based transit system you can use without route maps, schedules, computer phones or anything else except for a rudimentary understanding of hundred blocks and the ability to consult a very basic schematic displayed at every major bus route intersection would be the single greatest advance in KC public transit in 50 years. And it could be done cheap. Like KC public transit cheap. It takes more balls than money in fact. We have a paucity of both.

Stop numbering bus routes. Give them names - street names - and run them on those streets. Run them frequently for long hours. Put a bus every 10 blocks on the urban grid running every 10 minutes. Cut whatever extraneous routes you have to to do it. Shit, I think they could save money.

[grovester]

..Stop numbering bus routes. Give them names - street names - and run them on those streets...

right on.

[bobbyhawks]

how many street cars are there in NYC vs. buses?

By "big city" feel, I'm not necessarily referring to all big cities.  And the fact is that big cities without a streetcar normally have a much better and more efficient network of subways that don't need streetcars.  New York is a terrible comparison to KC.  There is a big difference in making someone feel like they are in a bigger city than they are in and actually being in a mega city with transit options galore.  NYC doesn't have the space for it most places anyway.  A better comparison size-wise is Valencia, Spain (though it is easy to bring up European cities).

Regardless, I'm not a huge streetcar advocate, but I am an advocate for any form of transit that will compliment the bus system.  To me, there is a tipping point in KC for people, including the city council to take properly funding our transit system seriously.  Whatever is necessary to do this, I am in favor of.  I fail to see how they will wake up on one side of the bed and suddenly decide that doubling the bus program funding will work.  I think they need to be more financially tied to it before they have a rooting/routing interest.  Some form of rail would do this. 

I'm actually for much more grandiose plans, which would involve a subway corridor or elevated platform, but we would need Pendergast again to make that happen.  I have seen streetcars done wrong in places like Little Rock, and they are a joke, but a circular to connect the River/Loop/Crown area could do more benefit here than it does there going 15 MPH between one stretch of bars and the Clinton library.  I think that an investment in rail would be like forcing someone to bet on "fourth street" in Texas Hold Em.  They are much more likely to pay to see the "river" once they have already dedicated so much money.

[mlind]

Remember that streetcars and interurban rail lines were the backbone of public transit until GM, Firestone, etc. bought up the street car lines and replaced them with buses.  And then suburban spread happened and everybody bought cars and cities made parking easy and free/affordable. 

In the 1980's, San Francisco restored the streetcar line that runs from Fisherman's Wharf and along Market Street.  They are using historic cars from lines all over the world.  Tourists love it and it's used by regular commuters as well. This is in addition to BART trains, Muni Metro (rail) and electric & regular buses. 

SF is a compact city where public transit works well, except for the fact that service is being cut right and left due to the city/county/state financial problems.  The US has to accept the fact that public transit is never going to make money and needs to be government supported like it is in Europe. And it needs to be convenient and dependable.

Here is what is really needed: http://englishrussia.com/index.php/2007 ... e-history/

[mean]

I like buses. Increasingly I prefer buses. I'd love to see a rail spine in KC, but that's really about the only fixed guideway I think is worth the price.

Designing a bus-based transit system you can use without route maps, schedules, computer phones or anything else except for a rudimentary understanding of hundred blocks and the ability to consult a very basic schematic displayed at every major bus route intersection would be the single greatest advance in KC public transit in 50 years. And it could be done cheap. Like KC public transit cheap. It takes more balls than money in fact. We have a paucity of both.

Stop numbering bus routes. Give them names - street names - and run them on those streets. Run them frequently for long hours. Put a bus every 10 blocks on the urban grid running every 10 minutes. Cut whatever extraneous routes you have to to do it. Shit, I think they could save money.

Can we appoint you the head of KCATA, please? Seriously. This has seemed so obvious to me for so long.

[trailerkid]

And the fact is that big cities without a streetcar normally have a much better and more efficient network of subways that don't need streetcars.  

wait, subways and elevated rail negate the need for streetcars? you sure about that? it's my understand that streetcars turned into buses. and now buses are turning back into streetcars. neither do anything close to what a subway or elevated rail is capable of doing.

[enough]

the specific transit technology employed in any given city or corridor -- bus, streetcar, light rail, elevated, subway, etc -- is generally influenced by the potential demand / need for service, plus factors such as funding availabillity and prevailing mode preferences.  it's almost pointless to debate the merits of one over another without taking other factors into consideration. 

[phuqueue]

I should preface by saying that I don't actually know anything about transit (as far as what systems are best for garnering ridership, for TOD, most cost-effective, etc etc) besides what I read you guys post on here, but I was wandering around Geneva the other day and started wondering if it might be worthwhile for KC to pursue trolleybuses instead of streetcars.  You get the same general benefits (better for the environment, fixed route, etc) but you don't have to tear up the street to install rails, so it's cheaper and, I imagine, much quicker to build.  Off the top of my head I can't actually think of an American city with trolleybuses so I'm not sure how they'd play with the crowd that attaches some stigma to buses in general -- I mean they're basically the same as a streetcar, they just run on rubber tires in the street -- but it seems like it wouldn't be the worst compromise in the world, maybe even replace the MAX with a trolleybus BRT.  I guess that's assuming that the biggest cost associated with an actual streetcar is with the rails, though, not the catenary (which seems like a pretty safe assumption but I don't really have any clue).  I have no idea, but maybe a trolleybus costs enough that you may as well just go all the way to streetcar at that point.  Anyway, just a random idea, interested to hear what you guys who probably all know more about transit than I do think of it.

(I guess I should probably also mention, I don't know but I may be in the minority, but I don't particularly find catenary wires to be an eyesore, I actually kind of like them when they're all strung up over the streets in European cities, feels like they add something to the cityscape)

[GRID]

Street car technology WILL NOT WORK as the spine and distrubution system for all of the central urban corridor of KCMO.

They will be no better than the current MAX buses, actually, they would probably be much slower.

Does anybody in KC have any freaking idea what they are doing when it comes to transit?

Streetcars are an awesome way to connect areas.  KU Med to Plaza / UMKC.  Brookside to Plaza, West Side to 18th and Vine.  Hyde Park to South Plaza etc.

Real BRT or Light Rail is needed at the terminus of the commuter rail lines.

[mean]

Off the top of my head I can't actually think of an American city with trolleybuses so I'm not sure how they'd play with the crowd that attaches some stigma to buses in general -- I mean they're basically the same as a streetcar, they just run on rubber tires in the street -- but it seems like it wouldn't be the worst compromise in the world, maybe even replace the MAX with a trolleybus BRT.

For what it's worth, I've personally seen them in Philadelphia and Seattle, and I understand San Fransisco has some, too. Probably a few other cities.

[mlind]

Odd note from Oakland/Berkeley CA

Just as the widely used commuter rail line called the Key System was being shut down, the Bay Area started planning for BART, the commuter line.  In the marketing materials for BART, it was described as an elevated dual rail system - in other words, a train.

Let's reinvent the wheel.

[phuqueue]

For what it's worth, I've personally seen them in Philadelphia and Seattle, and I understand San Fransisco has some, too. Probably a few other cities.

Haven't been to any of those places in years (or in Seattle's case, at all), but I guess it's not surprising that some places have them.  I wonder if anyone knows how successful they are there compared to regular buses and/or rail lines.  I'd guess in a place like Philadelphia or SF the transit system already gets too much use regardless of mode employed to really provide an accurate example of what to expect for KC, though.