  Sean_of_detroit Member Username: Sean_of_detroit Post Number: 2339 Registered: 03-2008 |
http://www.kctribune.com/artic le.cfm?articleID=18722 Leading Architect Takes a Fresh Look at Streetcars, Union Station Tom Bogdon Published 03/20/2009 - 12:00 a.m. CST ABOUT THE AUTHOR Tom Bogdon Email: editor@kctribune.com Kevin Klinkenberg, a principal in 180 Degree Architects, is a long-time proponent of improved transit in the Kansas City area, particularly a plan that would use relatively inexpensive modern versions of the streetcars that once served the area. Klinkenberg also has a keen interest in the problems and potential of Union Station. Following is a Q and A interview with Klinkenberg, who, as he mentions, was recently elected to serve as the next president of the American Institute of Architects-Kansas City Chapter. Kevin, architects and urban planners like you must see Kansas City and other cities like the rings on tree--you see development patterns when you still see streetcar tracks buried in the streets and they dig them up every once in a while, and you see old shopping districts at old transit stops like 39th & Main or 63rd & Brookside Boulevard… Yeah, it’s really fascinating to sort of look at the different layers. Obviously our city has undergone tremendous change over the last 40 or 50 years and a lot of that change is negative for the city itself, for the inner city, or the urban core – but it’s interesting for somebody like me who wasn’t around 50 years ago to see it was like to experience it. It’s kind of interesting to look at it and peel back the layers and see the different patterns of the way life existed, and the way people got around the city, the way that people lived in the city. Well, I know you are interested in transit, because one of the first times I met you I think it was in connection with a press conference or a public meeting held by the Urban Society to introduce a plan for streetcars. This is when not much was going in the transit field, and this was the first modern discussion I had heard of streetcars, I think… Yeah, that was a little over a couple years ago. What we did in the Urban Society, after Clay Chastain’s plan passed, we felt like the energy surrounding that was all too negative, and nobody was pushing an agenda that was a workable agenda. We just got together as interested citizens with a knowledge of the city to try and figure out how you could craft a plan what would actually achieve the transit goals of the city, which was to create a really workable spine in the heart of the city and also begin to build a culture of using transit in Kansas City, or I should say rebuild because we had the culture many years ago. And so we just did a little workshop that was really centered on the idea of sort of a straw man proposal that we thought was a way to proceed. And then have people sort of attack it, discuss it, whatever. The heart of that was really a streetcar line from the river to roughly the Plaza. We felt it was a really inexpensive, practical way to start doing some rail transit in Kansas City. Did you calculate the cost of that link? We did. We calculated what we thought the cost was based on the averages of other systems that were being built; we did quite a bit of research of similar systems or lines in other cities in terms of their capital costs, their operation costs. A lot of that information is pretty easily available. We also looked at how those lines were funded and found out a lot of them were very creatively funded. Part of our emphasis was that we felt that Kansas City, because we are so far behind other cities in new rail systems, we needed to find a way to fund a new rail line locally and just get something done much more quickly without the federal government’s involvement. Because the federal government tends to favor expansion of existing systems and we don’t have a system. So we felt that that sort of six mile line could be built in the ballpark of $200 to $250 million bucks and when we did our analysis of how to fund that we felt that there were some pretty easy mechanisms to be able to fund that line and even get creative if we wanted to by using TIFs or transportation development districts or those tools. We were actually quite encouraged by that line, when the Kansas City Star followed it up later and they did their own proposal which was essentially a streetcar line but it went a little further north and a little further east and they detailed out what they thought the costs were. We generally liked and agreed with much of their suggestions as well. I think where we disagreed was crossing the river to the north. We just felt like in order to get started with something we needed to keep it really simple and in the heart of city. And then we thought their suggestion of going east on Linwood to Prospect was a very good suggestion and that would be quite inexpensive to do. I would think a line to Prospect and on Prospect would very popular in the African American community… It was interesting. I certainly think taking a line to Prospect on Linwood, we all thought that made a lot of sense, it achieved many goals, ridership but also redevelopment potential along a pretty dense corridor – Linwood and 31st are pretty active, and by Kansas City standards pretty dense in population. We talked a lot about Prospect, had many discussion about it and in the end came down on that it’s really not a street that’s ready for rail right now. And while it’s very worthy of perhaps a second step, as a first step it probably didn’t have the qualifications for that. With the new administration in Washington, President Obama and a Democratic Congress, which has historically been more favorable to transit than Republicans, and with stimulus packages and so on, I think even a high-speed intercity rail option is envisioned in the stimulus package. With the revision of transit funding laws, do you think we could get something together to qualify for some of that funding? I am extremely optimistic about the direction of the Administration and Congress and I think they are going to find a way to begin to really transform how money is spent at the federal level away from highway and road expansion projects back towards more efficient projects such as transit, which really is a better use of our tax dollars. I am not so optimistic about our chances in this area because we are just too far behind other cites. I would love to think we were on the ball enough to get it. But one thing I have been exposed to through our firm’s work--because we work all over the country and in other metro areas and I have seen the planning they have done for transit—I have seen that better regional transportation promotes better land use patterns, but the reality is we just don’t have our act together yet in terms of really being ready to apply for and get funds from the transit money that is going to come from Washington D.C. My fear is that we missed a window of opportunity and we are going to miss one again unless we really get our act together quickly. Get everybody on the same page and be aggressive about promoting specific projects in the metro area. I am very concerned that locally we will miss the boat because we have not been on the ball enough in the region to be prepared for this day. What are some of the advantages you see in streetcars vs. light rail? The biggest advantage obviously is cost. Streetcars are lighter, the tracks are shallower, the cars are smaller, and as a result the system is a whole lot cheaper to build. But still it has the benefits of a rail system, which is that it is a better ride, a more comfortable ride than a bus, it’s more predictable in where it’s going to go and for developers it’s a more predictable investment that they can build development around. That’s more of a generic thing, and I think specifically that Kansas City was built on streetcars. We had a fabulous streetcar system until we stupidly ripped it up in the 1950s. I think what a lot people forget is that this is a city that was built on transit. That was how, when we were a wealthy, successful city, it was a city built around streetcars. And as we moved away from that we have spread ourselves out so thin that now it’s become a challenge to do anything from a municipal perspective because our dollars are stretched so thin and everything else and so I think specific to Kansas City, rebuilding that original network of streetcars which operated in the city is really a key to our long term economic viability. It won’t be cheap in the short-term but we have to make the right kind of investments to set us up for success in the future. So I think we ought to really look to how the city was built originally and find a way to adapt that in increments to find a way to get that going. I have always felt that some combination of streetcars and bus rapid transit would be a really good solution for the city. We are obviously not Chicago or New York, but we can afford certain things. What is the distinction between a streetcar and light rail? Light rail is heavier and longer and moves more quickly. The basic difference is that light rail is designed to move a larger number of people a longer distance. A streetcar is just a circulator within an urban area. The successful light rail operations that you see around the country are generally moving people from a longer distance, maybe from the suburbs into the city, and streetcar lines are moving people around within the city. I happen to think that light rail is like the commuter rail of old and streetcars are really an updated version of the streetcar. You are one of the leading younger architects in Kansas City and have been involved in the American Institute of Architects-Kansas City chapter. Do you see any possibilities that the architects might take the lead in transit planning? Where do you see some leadership emerging? Right now I am president-elect of the AIA in KC; I will be president next year. We are extremely interested and concerned about it and really want to do anything that is in our ability to try and push the agenda for transit. We have members such as Kite Singleton and Tom Nelson with whom that has been an issue near and dear to their hearts for decades. We have many architects who feel like this is important for the health and vitality of the city. It is an important issue for our membership and we would like to find a way to sort of lead on the issue. Right now, one of the things we are trying to figure out is if there is a way for us to facilitate other organizations, including the Urban Society, Urban Land Institute, Urban Planning Association and find a way for a lot of like minded people and groups in this city to try and push something forward, try and get some consensus from the design and professional world about what do we do now. What do we do now that we have had a couple of pretty serious losses at the ballot box for light rail? What do people think we should do to move forward? I have it on my personal agenda to try and figure out how to lead on that in the next year or two? What do you make of the interest by Jackson County Executive Mike Sanders and some other metropolitan leaders and their interest in this? Do you think the architects and planners could collaborate with Sanders and Co? I know a little bit about what is going on especially with the Three-County initiative, but not a whole lot. I am not following it on a day-to-day basis, but in fact one of our members is Dave Bowers who is the mayor of Raytown, who is an architect, and he is very involved in that initiative. I think all of those things are really good things. MARC is getting ready to do something; the city continues to pursue their ideas. Our issue and concern is that we would really like to get all of this discussion out of the backrooms and into the open and build a workable consensus that would go forward instead of having five different camps all sort of battling each other. All people want transit and want better service in the city, but everybody has their own little idea that they are battling each other on behalf of, and I think many of the ideas that people have are really good ideas, and commuter rail could be viable if done right in this area, but there are also limitations to that approach so I think what we would really like to do is find a way to get all of this stuff out in the open and try to figure out a way as an entire community for us to move forward. I am frustrated by what we have done in the past; what we have done in the past has not worked and I think we have to be honest about that and figure out a whole new method of achieving a plan that will work, not just a new plan, but a new method, a new process to achieve that plan. You mentioned commuter rail, and you know the spiritual heart as well as the physical heart of rail transit, rail travel, railroad travel in Kansas City is Union Station and I think that is one reason that the last light rail proposal failed, the one in November, because it didn’t link to Union Station or really effectively link to it. I think a lot of people were disappointed; I wrote some articles critical of it. Union Station has been a special case because it was disabled by that stupid Two Pershing Square office building. I know former Mayor Dick Berkley has described that building or the location of it right on the tracks as the worst mistake of his administration as mayor, and he served three terms. I wrote an article recently about it saying that if we think ahead and think big about our transit system in the long run there might be some solution to that problem, assuming federal transit funding in the matter. We have four U.S. Senators in this area as well as several members of Congress. Yes, it is a frustrating deal, Union Station is such a symbolic heart of the city and more than that it was a fantastic functioning train station at one point. But you are right that Two Pershing Square and then Science City have essentially destroyed its ability to be a functioning train station at least in the way it was originally intended. It can still work, obviously Amtrak goes there and it can still work, but now it can’t work in the way it was meant to work which was one of the best designs in the country. The question is what do we do now and there are some ways that would bring commuter rail into the area, either at Union Station or right next to it, that would function okay, but in many ways would probably not be using the train station itself; it would almost be creating a new facility right next to it, which seems like a waste. I would love it from a transit standpoint if Two Pershing Square and Science City weren’t where they were, but I am not sure we can do anything about that. It would be interesting to see if there are some creative solutions to deal with that but my guess is there isn’t a solution short of removing those two structures, which seems really unlikely if not impossible. There is probably a way that a structure could be built that preserves Two Pershing Square but where trains go underneath it. I don’t know, I have no idea, it would require someone smarter than me to really study it. But I don’t think just because it’s difficult that it should stop us from looking at things and being bold. There will come a time when that building (Two Pershing Square) will have or be near the end of its useful life. We will have to look at putting a lot of money in it to renovate or whatever else, maybe rebuilding it allowing for trains to go underneath it. I’d personally love it if we could have trains come through Union Station, but short of that I think there could be some ways that we could have trains run in the area, and they would stop a block east of the actual train station between Grand and Main instead of the station itself. To me that would be a real disappointment, and I think it would be to the people of Kansas City. I think they want the station to be a train station. It’s our St. Louis Arch in a way, its the only thing we have that’s on the magnitude of the St. Louis Arch. Perhaps with more liberal transit funding that could contribute to it to… Yeah, you certainly would hope that the station really does need an injection of life on a day-to-day basis. Science City has not really worked the way people thought it would work but that’s a very big and extensive endeavor to undertake. I think as a planner and designer we should always look to be outside of the box a little bit and try to think big where we need to and look at all ideas. I think sometimes ideas we think really are crazy really work out. A lot of people thought it crazy to renovate Union Station in the first place and now people love it and love the fact that we renovated the building and how beautiful it is now. So I don’t think we should ever stop dreaming big and finding big solutions but what me may find, if I were inclined to think what might happen, we might have a short term solution that involves something now for the next 10 to 20 years that doesn’t involve the train station, and then transitions later on to actually using the station when the money and time is right, but that’s just a guess. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19591 Registered: 11-2006 |
Here is an idea....if it is a good idea, allow a private interest to develop it. | ||
Benfield Member Username: Benfield Post Number: 173 Registered: 06-2008 |
quote: I agree and feel the same way about government roads. Let the private sector build and run them and charge tolls. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19600 Registered: 11-2006 |
Really? Welcome Benfield. | ||
Benfield Member Username: Benfield Post Number: 175 Registered: 06-2008 |
quote: Oh sure. I would love to have commuter rail transportation and would be willing to pay for it (the savings alone from getting rid of the second insurance payment, I mean second car, would make it worthwhile) except I'm already subsidizing our auto/road transportation system. So privatize the roads. Sell the interstate highway system at auction or whatever. Then we can talk about privately built commuter rail. The amount of public money spent on roads (and also air travel) trumps what is spent rail. Expecting rail to be privately funded while roads and airports remain publicly subsidized amounts to double taxation on rail users. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8743 Registered: 02-2007 |
time and time again it has been shown that privately operated transit systems are not as efficient as public. one need only look at the green line in queens and compare it to the public system in brooklyn and manhattan. the public system has fewer breakdowns, a better on-time percentage, cleaner vehicles, etc. then look at bridges -- the Ambassador is falling apart as a result of Manny's desire to maximize profit. recent privately built roadways have cost nearly twice what comp. public projects have cost, and the tolls for using them are two-three times as high as comp. public toll roads. Transit is NOT something that has a utility that can simply be measured by profit. it is, in every location it exists, a boon to businesses | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4599 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: The tragic safety record following privatization of the rail system in Britain is yet another shining example of the "free market" at work in transportation. | ||
Alan55 Member Username: Alan55 Post Number: 2627 Registered: 09-2005 |
Yeah! We should also privatize the armed forces! Private corporations always are more effecient and effective! Privatize everything! (Oh wait........I guess Dubya already tried that with Blackwater, and they overcharged for services and slaughtered Iraqi civilians.....) | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19602 Registered: 11-2006 |
Privatize all of them. Regarding efficiency..that could be argued pro and con. The difference is that when it is a private system the negative impact of low efficiency falls to the owner to either accept, or more likely, correct. In a public system, the inefficiency is paid for by everyone and there is little or no incentive to correct anything. | ||
Benfield Member Username: Benfield Post Number: 178 Registered: 06-2008 |
quote: So I should expect to see John Boehner's bill to sell the interstate highway system when? | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19609 Registered: 11-2006 |
Tomorrow, if it were up to me...alas.... | ||
Benfield Member Username: Benfield Post Number: 179 Registered: 06-2008 |
So you admit that a private road system isn't politically viable? Then why would you advocate a dual system where rail transportation is private and roads and air transportation is publicly funded? That is inherently unfair to rail users. In fact, it is the dictionary definition of double taxation. Are low taxes the blessing for only those who follow the mob? I’m not stupid enough to live in a BFE vinyl community with two SUVs and a 30-mile daily commute. Why should I have to subsidize (by barrel of the gun to use Randian rhetoric) that lifestyle while paying the real cost of rail transportation? I wouldn't think Milton Friedman or F.A. Hayek advocated for the marketplace so it could be used as tool for tyranny of the majority. Adam Smith wrote in Wealth of Nations that it was proper for government to take on aspects of the economy that couldn't be accomplished by the private sector. Traditionally, transportation infrastructure (roads, rail lines, airports, maritime ports, etc.) is considered a public responsibility. If you believe that we would be better off with a private transportation system, it is certainly an idea worth considering. Spare not one detail. But don't cheaply argue that rail should be a private enterprise while ignoring the reality that the rest of our transportation system in publicly funded. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19620 Registered: 11-2006 |
Yes, it is not politically viable given the weakness of our politicians. Adam Smith's statement carries the qualifier that the private sector not be capable of the task. I propose that besides defense and legislating to protect individual property rights in contractual relationships, that nothing else meets (or must meet) the criteria of that qualifier. | ||
Benfield Member Username: Benfield Post Number: 180 Registered: 06-2008 |
quote: I know that because I just said it five minutes before you did. I also said that transportation has traditionally fallen in the "for government" category. A fact that you don't deny. You think it should be different but you have yet to offer anything other than vague platitudes to support your position. quote: I propose your personal feelings are irrelevant. Either you privatize the entire transportation infrastructure or you don't privatize it at all. To only advocate partial privatization when it's politically easy is to create a system where the government picks winners and losers. But you probably didn't think that far ahead because you are what? 19-years-old and halfway through Atlas Shrugged so you have all the answers. I'm done with you... | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 1768 Registered: 12-2007 |
Ayn Rand I Rand so far a way It's a new song by flock of bats | ||
Cinderpath Member Username: Cinderpath Post Number: 961 Registered: 05-2006 |
Hi Benfield- your quote of "Adam Smith wrote in Wealth of Nations that it was proper for government to take on aspects of the economy that couldn't be accomplished by the private sector. Traditionally, transportation infrastructure (roads, rail lines, airports, maritime ports, etc.) is considered a public responsibility. " Is quite correct, as well noting, all forms of transport are in one way or another subsidized, even though many don't like to admit public roads are indeed a subsidized form transportation. Don't bother trying to convince CC Batson, facts and logic mean nothing compared with his blind ideology of a utopian pure capitalist system that functions properly, with out problems (monopolies, etc), even though it has never existed in history. (Message edited by Cinderpath on March 24, 2009) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4606 Registered: 10-2003 |
I think Lowell should make Detroityes.com a true "free market" forum, and charge $1 a post. | ||
Ruxy17 Member Username: Ruxy17 Post Number: 107 Registered: 08-2007 |
woudn't privatization of roads result in an instant monopoly? isn't the point of free market capitalism that there is a choice between service/product vendors and this competition promotes companies to offer the best service/product for the best price? so say the roads were privatized, and you wanted to drive from ferndale to pontiac and wanted to take the most direct route. so what, you'd have five M-1's all right next to each other and the consumer/driver would choose which road he took based on who offered the best prices and driving conditions? some things simply don't lend themselves to privatization. services like roads are one of those things. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19625 Registered: 11-2006 |
Why would that be a monopoly instantly? Remember also that coercive (government) monopolies are the only kind that are harmful. Wonder of wonders, those are the only type of monopolies that are legal. | ||
Ruxy17 Member Username: Ruxy17 Post Number: 108 Registered: 08-2007 |
ok let's try this again cc: a monopoly is exclusive control of a commodity or service. if a company owned woodward, they'd have exclusive control of woodward. sure, you could take another route, but that only works in developed areas. what about in rural areas, where there is only one road for miles? or long distance trips? let's say Acme Road Co. owns I-75. If I want to go to Florida, I have one choice: I-75. Either that, or go way out of my way or take surface streets. So Acme would have a monopoly, or exclusive control of the route from here to Florida. | ||
Benfield Member Username: Benfield Post Number: 184 Registered: 06-2008 |
quote: | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19696 Registered: 11-2006 |
Another entity could create, own, and operate a competing road (or rail, or whatever)...not a monopoly. The logic is flawed. Here is an analogy...Target is a monopoly, because only Target owns Target stores. Second flaw; who "owns" the roads now? What is the competition (and who owns them)? Answer? Government...the worst kind of monopoly...a coercive monopoly using the threat of force to remain so. That (coercive monopoly) is what Smith is referring to. Our government, acting within its' constitutionally limited authority, would eliminate coercive private based monopolies by eliminating the threat of force via laws....not by obstructing an individual or corporation from exercising their private property rights via antitrust legislation. | ||
East_detroit Member Username: East_detroit Post Number: 2070 Registered: 11-2003 |
Please stop using the roads that I helped pay for. Thanks. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19754 Registered: 11-2006 |
We both did, with a gun to our heads. |
