Northlanders (and many others) have maintained for years that they won’t support any light rail ballot that doesn’t go to the airport, even though they overwhelmingly voted against the 2002 plan that did go there. Yesterday the Star provided some of the first public analysis of the airport rail idea, and they found a really low cost/benefit ratio.  Despite the idea of airport rail being popular, the Star found that the few people would actually use it in our spread out metro area.  Even transit-dense cities like Portland and New York have low usage of airport rail links.

So how can we provide a good transit link to the airport?  Denver provides a good model.  They have an express bus system called SkyRide that offers four routes connecting both Downtown and suburbs to the airport, with 18 free park-and-ride lots. Fares range from $7 to $11, and buses run frequently for 22 hours a day.  It’s a huge difference from KC’s #29 bus that runs infrequently and only during business hours.

We can have a transit system that provides fast, frequent, and reliable service to KCI from all over the metro area, as long as we don’t get trapped in the thinking that every single transit line must be rail.


Comments

9 Comments so far

  1. Tim on July 14, 2008 11:12 am

    I almost always take the #129 to and from the airport. It runs from 5:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekdays. In general, the bus system in KC is pretty good. Sure, in some places transit is better, but waiting 20 minutes for a bus or train always seems longer when you’re waiting by yourself, and even in the biggest cities it doesn’t drop you off at the door.

  2. mean on July 14, 2008 11:19 am

    Uhhh, New York has airport rail links? You mean the LIRR that doesn’t actually go to MacArthur?

  3. Mark on July 14, 2008 10:27 pm

    So where exactly will Light rail make sense in a low density area like Kansas City. The proposed “starter line” will carry people from one bus line to another and maybe from a shopping center to a park and ride parking lot on north Oak. The Max does that right now.

  4. Hippstar on July 16, 2008 12:15 am

    So light rail isn’t an efficient means of getting people to the airport and people won’t use it very much even though they demand it.

    So how’s this different from light rail in general?

    The problem, of course, is that buses aren’t sexy and most people would rather die than take a bus somewhere. I don’t know what the solution is. I guess build light rail even though it’s horribly inefficient in terms of cost/benefit ratio. Light rail can conceivably become a transport mode of choice in KC; buses will never have mass appeal.

  5. Tim on July 16, 2008 12:24 am

    The thing that scares people about a bus is the lack of tracks means they’re not 100% sure about the route. Regardless of what people say, they will use rail. The permanence of the tracks is a great comfort they haven’t fully evaluated. That and $7/gallon gas will make it pretty tempting.

  6. ballz on July 16, 2008 7:26 am

    ahhhh yes! my favorite blogger proving they are a jack of all trades and master of none.

  7. patrick on July 16, 2008 7:30 pm

    “The problem, of course, is that buses aren’t sexy and most people would rather die than take a bus somewhere.”

    This is, of course, not true. Bus ridership is way up across the board thanks to record-high gas prices.

  8. Hippstar on July 17, 2008 6:00 pm

    Bus ridership is up but you don’t hear people clamoring for a multi-billion dollar expansion of bus service.

    For whatever reason, most (not all) would much rather use light rail than a bus.

    I agree that $7 gas will make light rail seem not so expensive.

  9. AllnADaysWork on July 22, 2008 3:45 pm

    Don’t forget about the Airport Express. You can catch it at any hotel downtown. Its probably about $20 each way. Cabs have a maximun fare they can charge for a ride to the airport also. Not sure what that has changed to because of gas prices.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind