bwcrow1s wrote:
OK. Now I'm getting jealous of the street car and expansion. Sure, it's not robust, or sprawling, but it goes to where people are going, or where they want to go. And that's clear. I feel like the sprawling MetroLink situation is frustrating and could be better served by higher speed commuter rail. IE, Shiloh-St. Louis-Airport could just as easily be one stop express train instead. And then a separate spur that goes from STL to Kirkwood. And we could use MetroLink to serve a much more centralized population. Not that we aren't now, but I feel like some of the efficiency is wasted on going to far-flung areas, and people who needed to get to more precise stops in St. Louis from these farther spots could arrive at one central station and transfer to a more localized train, as the current blue line does not. I'm moving from the topic a little bit, but just trying to ascertain why our system is so sprawling -- I was just a kid when Link was first built out on the existing ROW.
I'm not completely caught up in KC goings on, but I assume these developments are still getting subsidized? And the streetcar and expansion is funded by tax initiatives, yes?
MetroLink is just a different animal. I was also a kid when it opened back in '93 and it just made sense in those days to use the old freight railroad ROW to help pay for it. It was actually a pretty ingenious move back then, really. It's built more like a cross between a traditional light rail and a commuter rail train, which has its benefits (higher speed and more capacity than a streetcar) and its drawbacks (the odd station placement and the difficulty to really build TOD around the system). Personally I'd still prefer MetroLink, mainly for the larger system, direct airport connections (in addition to connecting to most of the regions other assets) and higher capacity/speed, plus the ability to manage massive events with crush loads of people like a Stanley Cup parade. A North/South LRT will be a huge boon for the system and will help accomplish more of what you mention here. Plus it won't be mixed traffic, a huge advantage.
Regarding the far flung areas, you have to remember that Metro/Bi-State has a legal obligation to cover the areas that are part of the interstate compact. That includes the City, County and St. Clair County and they have to balance that service in the city with additional service in the suburbs. And the City just so happens to be the smallest jurisdiction. In Kansas City the streetcar and its eventual expansion draw from a TDD that only pulls tax funding from the areas it runs. I'm sure idas or others will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that boundary is the Missouri River on the North to 55th Street on the South, State Line on the West and Paseo on the East (the east boundary is the only one I'm not sure about). Compared to the areas that Bi-State has to cover, that's almost nothing. Bi-State has a much, much larger responsibility to the metro area than the KC Streetcar does.
And yes, subsidies are still running rampant in Downtown Kansas City. This development (which looks fantastic by the way) will be no exception. I don't know that I would consider the streetcar funded with tax "incentives" per say, but it is funded with sales/property taxes collected in the TDD district. Much like MetroLink is funded with sales taxes in its various jurisdictions.
.
