Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse
"evaluating an east-west, high-capacity transit connection between The University of Kansas Health System and a terminus on the east side of Kansas City, MO. The vision for the East-West Corridor is to create a fast, efficient, and attractive public transit service that aligns with existing Streetcar and MAX services."
With the mention of high capacity, does that mean that they need the upgrade to handle the ridership on an overly-busy existing service?
|
The problem is that the next-best route is probably in and close to Downtown KC and might even parallel the existing route, if only for a few blocks. Whenever a "phase 2" is funded publicly, there is pressure to build in an area that doesn't already have the service, even if the ROI is lower.
This is how we end up with systems that fan long distances in every direction (i.e. DART, Denver, etc.) yet get low ridership, when it's likely that the higher ROI and networking effect could be achieved by creating a second line that partly serves an area that already has service.
For example, in Los Angeles, the extension of the u/c Wilshire subway to DT Santa Monica would probably get higher ridership and ROI than the same sum spent on various light rail projects around the region. But it's not going to happen for a long time because Santa Monica already has the Expo Line.