New goals for Kansas City

[Riverite]

Hi all,
I'm a longtime reader, but first time poster. I was wondering what everyone thinks the next big projects a la Big 5, that Kansas City should pursue. I would like to see a new university and a major development around paseo that is privately financed.

[flyingember]

Airport
Commuter rail
Reduce setbacks with Maximums instead to encourage suburban and urban density increase
no parking minimums citywide
A bike lane network

My list is about getting places and encouraging denser growth in all parts of town
Let the market decide what's built beyond that.

[DaveKCMO]

1. complete streetcar to UMKC
2. make KCI great again
3. remove and redevelop north loop (sans baseball)
4. bistate regional transit tax
5. 100,000 more urban core residents (river to waldo, state line to 435)

[Riverite]

Would it be possible to match the funds created with the TDD, utilizing a bistate regional tax. So the region funds half of it and the locality the other part.
I'm just wondering if we could get Joco on board by also matching a light rail to metcalfe from the plaza or west 39th

[DaveKCMO]

Would it be possible to match the funds created with the TDD, utilizing a bistate regional tax. So the region funds half of it and the locality the other part.

yes.

I'm just wondering if we could get Joco on board by also matching a light rail to metcalfe from the plaza or west 39th

joco needs to start with all day bus service first. walk before you can run.

[earthling]

Great first post.

1 - Replace the f'ing airport. This is critical to KC's future. It will take over decade to replace and is already outdated. Whether it goes to JoCo or new terminal at KCI, doesn't matter. The current airport will move KC toward the minor leagues if not replaced. Detractors are not strategic thinkers and need to start thinking 10+ years out.

2 - KC will be in serious trouble long term if it doesn't replace the airport and approve a plan ASAP.

3 - Replace the airport or give up on KC.

4 - Continue to expand streetcar and not just to UMKC. The streetcar is clearly the #1 motivator to attracting dense pedestrian scale development that KC needs more broadly. Develop a 20 year plan for many more lines. Adding more Bcycle stations, improving pedestrian crosswalks would go along with this.

5 - Actually deploy improved regional transit. Lots of good planning but little real effective execution so far. Commuter rail, true rapid bus with dedicated lanes, etc. Understand it needs regional support to happen and likely hard to come by fed funding but still a top 5 issue for KC.

6,7,8,9,10 to infinity - Can't emphasize enough that airport replacement needs to be the #1 #2 and #3 focus. Tulsa and OK City will pass up KC in 10+ years if not addressed now.

Good recent scores: Much broader Troost development than expected, sidewalk improvements finally coming, streetcar impact better than expected,

[DaveKCMO]

4 - Continue to expand streetcar and not just to UMKC. The streetcar is clearly the #1 motivator to attracting dense pedestrian scale development that KC needs more broadly. Develop a 20 year plan for many more lines. Adding more Bcycle stations, improving pedestrian crosswalks would go along with this.

just implement the regional transit plan, an update to smartmoves. each corridor can be implemented in any mode, it's just a matter of funding and political will. if you go by current ridership and eco devo potential (and avoiding MAX lines that aren't past useful life*), the 31st/linwood corridor would be next in line.

* 7-12 years, if using federal funding. main MAX (2005) is past that (hence streetcar), troost (2011) has some time to go, prospect (2019) is in design now, independence and north oak start studying this year (but these latter two would not score higher than 31st/linwood).

[Riverite]

Thank you guys for replying. So the first steps seem to be working on getting people to vote yes for the streetcar and airport. What would the recommendation for regional public transit be, as in what is the next step.

[DaveKCMO]

Thank you guys for replying. So the first steps seem to be working on getting people to vote yes for the streetcar and airport. What would the recommendation for regional public transit be, as in what is the next step.

get kansas.

[earthling]

4 - Continue to expand streetcar and not just to UMKC. The streetcar is clearly the #1 motivator to attracting dense pedestrian scale development that KC needs more broadly. Develop a 20 year plan for many more lines. Adding more Bcycle stations, improving pedestrian crosswalks would go along with this.

just implement the regional transit plan, an update to smartmoves. each corridor can be implemented in any mode, it's just a matter of funding and political will. if you go by current ridership and eco devo potential (and avoiding MAX lines that aren't past useful life*), the 31st/linwood corridor would be next in line.

* 7-12 years, if using federal funding. main MAX (2005) is past that (hence streetcar), troost (2011) has some time to go, prospect (2019) is in design now, independence and north oak start studying this year (but these latter two would not score higher than 31st/linwood).

Thanks. I would've thought Independence Ave to score highest. That area is one of densest parts of city.

[DaveKCMO]

Thanks. I would've thought Independence Ave to score highest. That area is one of densest parts of city.

in people, not jobs. you need both (in addition to other scores, like travel time savings and eco devo potential).

nextrail scored independence as 63/100 (which just put it in the "fair" category for federal funding potential) and 31st/linwood scored 75/100.

by comparison, main street to UMKC scored 81/100.

[earthling]

^thanks, good info.

[rxlexi]

To those suggesting that "regional" transit should be a top 5 priority - why?

No sarcasm - what is the need or desire for such in KC? I agree it would be totally cool and would support any attempt at say, commuter rail, but I just don't see any need whatsoever, or any real desire on the part suburban dwellers to drive to a park n ride and hop on rail or BRT.

Traffic doesn't pose a significant obstacle, driving will be affordable and parking relatively easy for the foreseeable future. This is strictly talking about commuting from the burbs to core or vice versa (say 10-40 miles).

I could potentially see an effective commuter rail system built as a deterrent to occupying more land use with parking structures DT, but I have a hard time envisioning ridership numbers that would reach more than single digit % of commuters. What am I missing towards this being a "top" priority?

On the contrary, streetcar to Plaza/UMKC makes total sense as a #1 priority at this time - affordable, easy to implement, builds a perfect intra-city spine in a very small linear city. Couldn't be more of a no-brainer re: impact per dollar IMO.

[grovester]

I'd like to think that a "goal" would be forward looking at least 25 years. Traffic will not stay the same and if the area tries to maintain its headways the infrastructure costs will suck all the budget funds from both sides of the state line.

Give me a regional tax that connects inner ring nodes in some way.

KCMO to KCK
Stadiums
Zoo
SW Blvd/Merriam Ln
Independence Ave
Johnson Drive/SM Parkway
NKC

We'll always need freeways, but at least keep downtown traffic at a manageable level going forward.

[taxi]

I've been a fan and supporter of mass transit/rail for over 30 years, but what happens in (say) 10-15 years when self-driving cars take over our freeways?

[flyingember]

10-15 is laughably optimistic.

Look at the ownership model.

When the tech matures anyone will be able to drive. So you'll be more willing to be on the road more and for more years. A 13 year old can take the car out. A 90 year old can take the car out. Both current no or low driving populations.

Driving will have less impact on the person. If all you have is a cost to going to St. Louis for a day more people will, and let their car drive overnight. Many trips don't happen because of time constraints. Suddenly truck traffic can increase because there's no hours limits, fleets can run all their vehicles at all hours.

So owning could just cause congestion, driving need for denser modes of travel.

What about the shared model?

Hailing a shared car doesn't help because it means the car has to come to you, which just increases the miles driven for your trip. It means more public parking needed because there's all this peak demand that won't park in your driveway because you don't own it, and since vehicles have a cost per mile, companies will want to store the vehicles near demand. (some will share underused lots, but this will come with a cost) Some trips will pull to a starting point off peak and wait overnight in lower density areas if you pay enough. Think arriving at 4am, not 8pm.

There's also the economic model. It's going to be a premium service for many years because of low initial supply the vehicles can be sent to a market where prices are higher. So it will start upper class and middle class and try to be used as much as possible. One car won't get an hour of use each day, it will get 8.

And many won't share because they want to own.


There's also going to be a long transition period of availability model line by model line.

Backup cameras took decades to hit all new cars, and that's only because 2018 models have a mandate to include them. Not all cars have touch screens and that tech is mainstream in our pockets. Look at each premium feature and there's similar uptake. You could still buy manual windows for many years after power came out. In 2028 brand new 2018 tech won't be in a majority of cars. Technology is cheap, but the entire car is not and cars are price staggered with features. The tech will start with luxury and fleet vehicles. It will move into midrange and then your economy cars over the years. So each price point uptake is going to be staggered. I don't expect the average buyer will even be looking at self driving for the first 10 years. And then there's another decade because the average car is 10 years old. So that's easily 20 years to hit half of users.

And we haven't even got into interest in using the tech, uptake will be by age over the years. Many people will demand a car they can drive, and let help at times.

[taxi]

I'm glad you've got it figured out. But in the unlikely event you are at least partially incorrect, let's revisit this post in 10 years. At the current rate, you will have over 16,000 posts by then, unless you've got a self-posting computer. But that technology is laughable. That is, if your computer has a sense of humor.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Don't want to hijack the thread and turn it into a self driving car discussion but want to point out why I think you're completely wrong in this paragraph.

It means more public parking needed because there's all this peak demand that won't park in your driveway because you don't own it, and since vehicles have a cost per mile, companies will want to store the vehicles near demand. (some will share underused lots, but this will come with a cost) Some trips will pull to a starting point off peak and wait overnight in lower density areas if you pay enough. Think arriving at 4am, not 8pm.

1. Significantly less public parking would be needed with this model. A. Self driving cars can park way more efficiently because nobody needs to get out of the car. B. Self driving cars could very well be a lot smaller because they'll be designed for trips for individuals instead of people buying a big car because they might need a big car once a year. C. They'd be getting used a ton instead of needing to get stored 95% of the time. There will be significantly less cars in service when they're actually getting used 1/2 the day instead of less than an hour a day.

2. It would cost more money to park downtown than have some car storage facility in the suburbs. Land value + cost of garage means overnight storage in the city is more expensive (especially with how much less electric cars cost to operate per mile). Sure, there would be temporary storage during the day to charge and so they can immediately meet any demand but thinking there's going to be more parking than now makes no sense. Plus, even if they do have parking downtown, it can be kept to the outskirts instead of having a parking garage/surface lot next to every building.

Hell, if the cars are getting used half the day, there's probably enough street parking downtown to handle the demand all day but rush hour.

[flyingember]

Think of how many cars park in someone's parking garage overnight. These all move out to the public sphere.

There's already inefficiency in parking today not in terms of number of spots but availability. There's already excess capacity to meet potential demand and then some. Will a self driving car company get access to most of these spots and will they pay the cost? Parking won't get more efficient anytime soon after introduction and it's going to take time to identify where to park when idle in the near term. Cities won't just let self driving vehicles park for free everywhere.

Inefficiency of demand says the vehicles will be like taxis, idling most of the time. Peak use demand around 7-9 and 4-6 means most cars in this model won't be used most of the day. You need overage to serve an inefficient market, which means most of the cars are underutilized most of the day.

Take all the issues we have today and imagine it takes a decade or more to solve them. There's also going to be places self driving needs overhauls to fix, like pay parking garages need new tech to allow the vehicle in. How does a randomly picked car get access to a secured parking garage?

You won't put shared vehicle parking on the outskirts because this means all your vehicles have to drive back and forth from areas of demand. It has to be easier than owning your own car parked nearby. This is the idea of surge pricing where availability of drivers outdoes demand. With self driving it should be minutes away, brought online from idle immediately and it shows up exactly when needed.

Non-owner operated comes with a network of prep work. I can keep doing the same things I do today, swiping my pass to get into my garage at work, the car just got me there while I read, play a game or watch something.

[JBmidtown]

1. Streetcar extensions (UMKC priority and then riverfront, Linwood, KCK and North KC)

2. Additional MAX lines with more BRT infrastructure.

3. KCI single terminal

4. UMKC downtown arts campus.

5. A focus on bridge loans and other forms of demand-side subsidy for economic equity on the east side. This way blockbusting gentrification doesn't devastate established lower income communities on the east side but allows both forces (lower income minority residents and an influx of affluent white investors) to organically revitalize the east side together.

6. Improved commuter transit options (either through more commuter bus routes or eventual rail).