Does Light Rail to Prospect Even Make Sense?
By Ron McLinden
There are two reasons to build light rail. One is to move people more efficiently in an existing heavily traveled transit corridor. The other is to stimulate development in a reasonably viable urban corridor.
A cross-town light rail branch line east to Prospect might not serve either purpose. And because ridership projections are likely to be low, it might actually weaken Kansas City's case for federal funding.
Admittedly that's a provocative position to state, but I do so to illustrate that a decision about building a cross-town branch line is not to be taken lightly. Yes, going east in Phase One is important symbolically — almost as important as crossing the Missouri River. Troost has been a dividing line for a long time, and we want to break down that perceived barrier.
Still, is building a cross-town branch line the best use of the money? At nearly $50 million per mile, the 1.75 miles from Main to Prospect would likely cost $80 million.
What else could we get with that $80 million? Well, it would probably buy 30 or 40 miles of BRT (bus rapid transit) like MAX.
Planning for BRT on Troost is already underway and that line is to be in operation in 2009. BRT on Prospect is also being discussed in the context of the proposed cross-town light rail line, but planning for it is not yet scheduled. With $80 million, BRT could be up and running in the Prospect corridor, plus Blue Ridge, Independence Avenue, North Oak, and maybe one or two others, before construction even begins on light rail. BRT is cost-effective public transit.
Consider the proposed cross-town light rail line from a transit rider's standpoint. Most trips on this line would be to make connections to and from the major north-south bus routes — Prospect, Troost, Main (MAX), etc. Those connections are currently made on cross-town bus routes such as 27th Street, 31st Street, and 39th Street. Service on these routes is frequent, as is service on the north-south routes.
Riders headed Downtown on a Troost or Prospect bus from south of Brush Creek are not likely to give up a warm (or cool) seat on a bus and wait for light rail to complete the trip. Their bus is already going Downtown, and it's likely to get them there faster than if they transfer to light rail. What's more, because ridership on the cross-town light rail line will be low, service will be less frequent than on the existing east-west bus lines.
Park and ride? Will a northbound commuter on Bruce Watkins Drive choose to stop and park and board light rail at Brush Creek, just 6 or 8 minutes from Downtown? There's even less likelihood of park and ride from Prospect in the Linwood or 18th Street corridors since they are even closer to Downtown destinations.
So if the cross-town branch line doesn't serve a very useful transit function, how does it do as a development stimulus? Of the three principal corridors being considered, none is a standout.
The Brush Creek corridor looks good in that it makes a gesture toward eventual extension of light rail south along Bruce Watkins Drive. On the other hand, there's relatively little employment within easy walking distance of that corridor between Main and Prospect, and little housing. What's more, development opportunities are limited because it would be a "single-loaded" corridor east of The Paseo due to Brush Creek Park.
Eighteenth Street might look appealing because it would be convenient to locate a light rail maintenance facility near the ATA operations complex at 18th and Forrest. But much of that corridor is light industry, and not very amenable to the kind of residential redevelopment that would generate new transit riders. What's more — and ironically — 18th and Vine interests reportedly oppose light rail on 18th Street.
Linwood might make sense for redevelopment. In fact, Linwood could become a great urban boulevard if redeveloped with medium to high-density housing and supportive retail and services. But that would require buy-in from the Parks Board for a completely different character for Linwood — not a sure thing if their reluctance to embrace the Chastain plan is any indicator.
If a cross-town light rail line is to be included, the decision about where to put it needs to be done in the context of a full and realistic discussion of development potential — including an assessment of private sector interest. Choosing among the three options based on a popularity contest within the Citizen Task Force is not the way to do it. The ATA team and the City Planning Department need to collaborate with the respective communities (and potential developers) and develop sketch plans that have a realistic chance of being implemented. And the City Council needs to commit to incentives and policies that will assure that such development happens.
Without a hard-headed look at redevelopment potential, and assurance that light rail would play a key role in making it happen, it makes little sense to spend $80 million for a cross-town light rail line that would end up being little more than symbolism.
It might make more sense to build a shorter light rail line without the eastward branch in Phase One, and add BRT in corridors throughout the city. Such a package would likely have a lot more appeal to voters throughout the city.
Submitted for the sake of discussion.
Ron McLinden is transit reliant by choice, and serves on the board of directors of the Regional Transit Alliance. His views are his own.
9 comments9 Comments so far
Leave a reply
I think part of the East/West discussion problem is that I think we’re mostly looking atthe wrong corridors. Like you, I don’t see much that is gained by using Brush Creek. In fact, if we wanted one that far South, Cleaver III probably makes more sense. Linwood would be a strong candidate for revitalization, already has some decent jobs along it, is wide enough to support it, and badly need redevelopment. The 39, only a few blocks away, is the most heavily traveled East/West line.
18th Street doesn’t make any sense to me other than being able to use the ata area for train car storage and maybe to help with tourist traffic to the 18th and Vine museums….
I don’t know why there is no discussion of Truman Road (more practical for park and ride because it goes into downtown) or Independence Avenue (which would really spur redevelopment along this route and also connect the Northeast neighborhoods to downtown). I can’t help but think that Linwood, Truman Road or Independence Ave would be better fits than 18th or Brush Creek, which don’t make a whole lot of sense.
And the park’s board is still living in about 1950…I’ve never been so disappointed in a group of people in my entire life. They’d be laughable if they didn’t suck so bad.
Independence Ave makes no sense due to it’s location. Ridership is limited and the urban effect is almost nil. Exactly how high a ridership influence will that route have. Plus you are already downtown, what does it add? Or who does it help? And what would be the projected ridership? Truman road is better but it suffers from the same issues as Independence Ave. If what you are looking for is an area ripe for development and with a justifiable level of ridership, then you must be talking about Brush Creek/Swope Parkway/Blue Parkway. Development possibilities are huge and ridership potential is also off the charts, especially if you include the Lees Summit/Blue Springs extension considerations. Linwood Blvd doesn’t offer much unless or until the light rail moves toward Independence, Lees Summit or Blue Springs. BRT on Prospect, Troost and Main or Broadway is a good idea.
once again i agree with most of ron’s points.
a truly rapid train (55 mph or greater above or below ground) running north/south from the plaza to the river market should be the initial plan. quality is more important than quantity. this simple line tied to appropriate east/west brt lines at rail transit stations (47th, 39th, linwood, penn valley, crown center/union station, crossroads, sprint center, civic center, river market) along with supplementary brt lines on troost, prospect, and possibly broadway would establish the bones for a good transit system in the urban core. the success of this solution and the increased density it would create, alone would promote expansion to the north, south, east, and west. but because politics is about the individual rather than the greater good, we will get a watered down solution that is far less effective.
Larry,
The #24 down Independence Ave is the 5th most heavily traveled bus route in KCMO. The top 3 most heavily traveled routes are all North/South lines (Troost, Prospect and the Max line). #4 is the 39 (39th St — 3600 monthly riders), #5 is the 24 (Independence Ave -3300 riders)) and #6 is the 31 (31st St — 2200 riders).
If current ridership is at all a criteria, there is no way that a Brush Creek is a superior option to either Linwood or Independence Ave.
Independence Ave, similar to Truman, also provides the quickest link to Independence which has expressed an interest in a rail route. All of the Eastern routes connect in with the 3 busiest North/South bus lines which is necessary.
Based on current ridership, the Linwood route would probably have the highest initial projections due to being sandwiched between both the 31 and the 39 (neither of those streets are really wide enough to support a rail line along with traffic — especially east of 71 highway).
But I think long-term, the Indy route may have greater opportunities for expansion.
i’m quite confident that all of the routes have good expansion possibilities and development potential, but i’m not sure why the consultants aren’t sharing that info with the public yet.
linwood also has the best “social justice” reasons, if yesterday’s USA Today article is any indication. i believe there is also strong support for that corridor from certain pro-transit forces.
the other thing that hasn’t been discussed is the operational aspects of the eastern spur. would all trains run on the spine whether they terminate on the plaza or prospect? will frequency be the same as the spine or similar to MAX south of the plaza? do the answers change based on which corridor you choose? while these are detailed questions, for me they have an impact on which route is chosen if all other things are equal (and admittedly, they are not).
Ok Dave, now you’re withholding information. Of what USA Today article do you speak?
Of the 3 main corridors that are being discussed, Linwood, to me, is the only one that makes sense based on current ridership paterns….
http://tinyurl.com/2metlr
i think it’s important to remember that since the spur is only 2 miles and connects with heavily used routes that already terminate downtown, there are other things to weigh heavily here besides existing bus ridership. if that was the case, MAX would have debuted on prospect.
Wow. Thanks for the article. I missed that yesterday.
I agree that other things other than ridership play a roll…but I have hard time seeing how any of the other routes have an advantage of either Linwood or Independence Av, based on with all things being considered…
I am sorry to add that the Max is not rapid at all, it is simply a little quicker than the conventional bus routing.
In order to really be rapid there has to be lanes dedicated to buses only and priority signaling otherwise
it is just a bus stuck in traffic with fewer route stops.
True rapid bus routes do have a role to play, and I welcome any improvement to the pitiful state of the present service.
It is unfortunate that Kansas City is so far behind cities like Denver, Portland, Charlotte and Salt Lake City when it comes to transit planning.