Union Station

[Highlander]

KC doesn't have bad traffic as a catalyst for change - most people seem perfectly happy commuting from the far flung burbs because, even in rush hour traffic, the commute time from DT to the burbs rarely tops 20-25 minutes.

I don't know how long you've been gone, but this is not true anymore. KC is still relatively unscathed in comparison to Houston, Atlanta, etc., but commute times have increased 10-15 minutes across the board.
I do downtown south on I-35 to 95th St every morning and the commute takes a solid 35-40 minutes. And that's a backwards commute! It really shows how many jobs have moved to Johnson Cty in the last 10 years.

I've been gone a while (although I am back frequently) and do not doubt you are right that things have changed but I was speaking more of the kind of traffic that routinely turns what should be a 20 minute drive into an hour or more ordeal. That's what I face on a daily basis if I don't leave my house by 5:30 AM - and face it again on the way home as the highways don't start moving again until 7 PM. It forces people to make lifestyle choices they would not normally make - like suburbanites moving into the city or reliance on public transportation. KC doesn't really have that kind of traffic problems - but Houston and Dallas do. Houston doesn't have the sense of community to support any kind of urban rail system so people either cope or move into the city and pay a premium for real estate. I've never experienced that kind of congestion in KC - I suspect it happens from time to time but does anybody really make lifestyle choices in KC to avoid being a hostage to traffic?

[flyingember]

KC doesn't really have that kind of traffic problems - but Houston and Dallas do. Houston doesn't have the sense of community to support any kind of urban rail system so people either cope or move into the city and pay a premium for real estate. I've never experienced that kind of congestion in KC - I suspect it happens from time to time but does anybody really make lifestyle choices in KC to avoid being a hostage to traffic?

1. Houston is finishing up construction of three rail extensions, has two more on the drawing board needing funding and a sixth in advanced planning. It's slow but they're getting there and way quicker than KC is. I have family in urban core Houston, the residential market there is growing, slowly, but it's growing.

2. KC congestion is on the scale of Houston. they have 3x the population with 3x the traffic. You have to compare apples to apples. It's not as impacting at Houston but it doesn't have to be in order to be as impacting. Traffic slows to a crawl in KC every day in the same spots in 3-5 different directions. And unlike Houston we don't have HOV lanes and unlike Dallas, we don't have commuter rail. so you have to sit in it.

3. absolutely. I won't live in certain parts of the city to avoid the traffic and driving. and I leave for work 30 minutes earlier than I would like to in order to not sit in traffic. It does clear up reasonably quickly but it means working 10.5 hours instead of 8.5 to avoid it

[Highlander]

KC doesn't really have that kind of traffic problems - but Houston and Dallas do. Houston doesn't have the sense of community to support any kind of urban rail system so people either cope or move into the city and pay a premium for real estate. I've never experienced that kind of congestion in KC - I suspect it happens from time to time but does anybody really make lifestyle choices in KC to avoid being a hostage to traffic?

1. Houston is finishing up construction of three rail extensions, has two more on the drawing board needing funding and a sixth in advanced planning. It's slow but they're getting there and way quicker than KC is. I have family in urban core Houston, the residential market there is growing, slowly, but it's growing.

2. KC congestion is on the scale of Houston. they have 3x the population with 3x the traffic. You have to compare apples to apples. It's not as impacting at Houston but it doesn't have to be in order to be as impacting. Traffic slows to a crawl in KC every day in the same spots in 3-5 different directions. And unlike Houston we don't have HOV lanes and unlike Dallas, we don't have commuter rail. so you have to sit in it.

3. absolutely. I won't live in certain parts of the city to avoid the traffic and driving. and I leave for work 30 minutes earlier than I would like to in order to not sit in traffic. It does clear up reasonably quickly but it means working 10.5 hours instead of 8.5 to avoid it

The point was that traffic in KC isn't really the catalyst for change like it is elsewhere -- it doesn't matter if Houston or anywhere else is 2X, 3X, or 5X larger. I'm not saying KC doesn't have traffic issues but it's nothing on the scale of the larger cities like Houston and Dallas. That scale is what creates change as in "necessity is the mother of invention". KC's traffic may piss a few people off but it's rarely going to change deeply seated prejudices about living in the city and public transportation. Consequently, with reference to the original post - I don't think we have enough of a system to have a "hub" and it's not likely to be in place anytime soon (it's decades away).

The other catalyst for getting a decent public transportation system is ideology. KC has a committed core of urbanist but we aren't there yet on that front either....certainly not like Denver and Portland. It is obvious from reading the comments in the star that our Midwest culture is pretty insular and stuck in the 70's.

[pash]

.

[loftguy]

I'm not saying KC doesn't have traffic issues ...

KC doesn't have traffic issues.

No, we have highway issues.

And the issues with highways are going to grow, as we increasingly take on local responsibility for their maintenance.

The federal good fairy is putting away the wand.

[LenexatoKCMO]

I think the truth lies solidly in the middle of the black and white positions argued above.

Does KC have the kind of gridlock necessary to move transit to the top of political priorities across the metro? No.

But traffic has gotten way more noticeable and inconvenient the last several years. To the point where the issue at least likely registers on some minds in ways it wouldn't have before. Historically there was no commute distance too far to deter most KC home buyers; I think that is getting to be less and less true. I think there are probably more people who really don't like their commute and wouldn't mind an alternative if it was there.

Baby steps

[KCroots]

Consequently, with reference to the original post - I don't think we have enough of a system to have a "hub" and it's not likely to be in place anytime soon (it's decades away)

Exactly but this is the time to plan such transportation needs and get something in the works to help bring growth back to the downtown area. IMHO nothing helps a cities growth more than having a first class, easy to use, fast public transportation system. Not the tired stereotype system of uninviting dirty city transit buses that are simply shuttling poor people around town. A true system the entire city can be proud of (and use) and thats also inviting for tourist and out of town travelers.

I haven't lived in KCMO in almost 40 years but I have a desire to one day return to the city where I was born and lived until I was 8 years old. (thus my user name "KCRoots")

However there has been so much decline in KCMO that the city really isn't all that inviting to even someone like me with roots there. Don't get me wrong, I know the old saying that goes, "if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem". So let me make it clear I am not complaining or criticizing as much as I am pointing out what I see are realities and trying to assess options.

I also admit I don't know the city's current dynamics or demographics very well and have spent a great deal of time reading blogs, websites and other such places like KCrag to get better informed on these issues. I think its great to learn of a proposed light rail line down main street and therefore it encourages my interest in possibly buying property along such a rail line to develop the property into a multi-use business location. I like the lower crossroads area the most (due to my roots) but I'm still not sure thats the best place for an investment should I return.

Again Union Station for me is the city landmark near where I want to relocate and I just feel its use as a huge transportation hub would help the city and any investment I made there. Thanks for listening to me just openly think out loud.

[FangKC]

I would make the argument that Kansas City is no longer in decline. The City is regularly getting media exposure on many rankings and lists--including up and coming downtowns.

We have had an incredible amount of investment in downtown in the past decade. Billions of dollars worth. We are getting to the point that there aren't many buildings left to redevelop downtown, so all that is left will be new infill buildings.

Downtown has vastly increased the amount of activity on the streets at night.

The one real area that does need improvement is retail, like the apparel store you mentioned opening.

I think at some point Union Station will become a transit hub again.

[mykn]

Davekcmo can fill in with the specifics, but I would have my doubts about union station becoming a transit hub. The Jackson county regional rail people wanted to make union station the main terminal but the rail shipping companies put up a fight because they didn't want it interfering with their business. That's why it's now planned for to river market.

[shinatoo]

This is how you do it right.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_2 ... en-30-year

[KCroots]

I would make the argument that Kansas City is no longer in decline. The City is regularly getting media exposure on many rankings and lists--including up and coming downtowns.

My apologies, as my comment regarding the decline of KCMO was more directed at the overall decline in KCMO,not specifically the downtown area.

Actually in regards to downtown, they have razed so much of it and whats left is basically a shell of its former self and combined with the number of surface parking lots, Downtown is basically at the point it can only go upwards. The many surface parking lots are blank canvases waiting to be developed and are much better to have than blight and crumbling abandoned buildings IMHO.

However go to other parts of KCMO just outside of downtown along Troost, Prospect or other such places and the decline seems that it's on par with some areas of Detroit. I was reading a blog by a guy named Mark Smith titled midtown miscreant and he has a few posts on blight in the KCMO area which are very sad but informative.

So while downtown might be seeing a revival of sorts the overall city on the East side seems to be dying a slow cancerous death like so many other places across the United States. This truly causes Downtown to suffer as well. but this is just MHO

Regarding Union Station, yes I can see how the freight railroads want to block the progress of Union Station becoming a transportation hub again, but this is out of their own greed of having to spend money re-routing major rail lines and to me it falls under the heading of selfishness, but it is what it is. One day KCMO will look back and regret that it didn't make plans to have US become a transportation hub again, and of course the tax payers will be the one's who foot the costly bill of mistakes.

[KCroots]

This is how you do it right.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_2 ... en-30-year

I totally agree and it's what I was already saying, but here's a quote from the article you linked.

"Public projects, like arenas, aren't enough to drive the economy, but infrastructure, like FasTracks, helps change the face of the region,"

- the Brookings' Bradley said.

Until KCMO understands this and does something similar it will continue to lag behind and have slow growth downtown.

[DaveKCMO]

This is how you do it right.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_2 ... en-30-year

we could actually do this, if we were willing to spend a billion dollars.

[KCroots]

This is how you do it right.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_2 ... en-30-year

we could actually do this, if we were willing to spend a billion dollars.

you're absolutely correct, and it seems the tax payers are just tired of the empty promises and disappointments regarding these types of projects. I know private investors can do a lot more than the government in terms of development and at times the government and regulations often hinder more than help such growth.

With enough support and money anything can be accomplished, the question is do the people want it bad enough and apparently not yet

[flyingember]

This is how you do it right.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_2 ... en-30-year

we could actually do this, if we were willing to spend a billion dollars.

you're absolutely correct, and it seems the tax payers are just tired of the empty promises and disappointments regarding these types of projects. I know private investors can do a lot more than the government in terms of development and at times the government and regulations often hinder more than help such growth.

With enough support and money anything can be accomplished, the question is do the people want it bad enough and apparently not yet

As I recall, private developers wanted to tear down Union Station.

Can and Will are two entirely different things

[mean]

This is how you do it right.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_2 ... en-30-year

we could actually do this, if we were willing to spend a billion dollars.

Better that than this crazy airport talk.

[GRID]

This is how you do it right.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_2 ... en-30-year

we could actually do this, if we were willing to spend a billion dollars.

Better that than this crazy airport talk.

Same idea. Investment in infrastructure. Denver's union station is funded via sales taxes. An airport is typically funded by user fees and other revenue generated by the airport itself. How is replacing an aging and inefficient airport terminal designed for a different era any different than replacing an aging and inefficient train terminal designed for a different era?

It was not that long ago that Denver didn’t even know what they wanted to do with Union Station, it’s incredible how quickly they can implement ideas there and not just with transit but also their airport, convention hotel etc.

[kboish]

The beauty of being in one county/state, the only major city in the state, and the state capitol...once you have an effective leader you can get shit done.

[DaveKCMO]

Better that than this crazy airport talk.

if only the financing were remotely comparable. with about 164,859 rail boardings/alightings last year, you'd never generate enough user fees (or rent from amtrak) to cover bonds*.

le sigh.

you'd need to -- gasp! -- follow denver's blueprint of massive investment in regional transit to attract enough private capital willing to risk a big chunk of it on the station being the centerpiece.

we'd also need to boot the GSA and tear down two pershing to restore the tracks and platforms underneath the north concourse.

* not a bond finance expert!

[mean]

Better that than this crazy airport talk.

if only the financing were remotely comparable. with about 164,859 rail boardings/alightings last year, you'd never generate enough user fees (or rent from amtrak) to cover bonds*.

le sigh.

you'd need to -- gasp! -- follow denver's blueprint of massive investment in regional transit to attract enough private capital willing to risk a big chunk of it on the station being the centerpiece.

we'd also need to boot the GSA and tear down two pershing to restore the tracks and platforms underneath the north concourse.

* not a bond finance expert!

Actually, I was thinking we should go ahead and raise the parking fees at the airport, tack on some additional fees-that-aren't-taxes-I-swear to the concessions, but instead of using that money to repay a bond used to build an airport terminal, use it to repay a bond used to boot the GSA, tear down two Pershing, restore the tracks and platforms, and prepare Union Station to be a regional transit hub.

All this along with whatever charter modifications would be needed for that, of course.

Vastly better use of the money than building a new airport, imo, and far more relevant to the needs and wants of residents.

Then when it comes time to build a new airport terminal, maybe we can hit this new revenue stream of rail commuters with user fees and fees-that-aren't-taxes on Union Station concessions! And maybe when it's time for road maintenance, we can levy a special fee on tacos. This is progressive thinking, people.

edit: I realized too late that it probably would have been a better joke to have the taco fee pay for sewer maintenance, even if it is a bit on-the-nose.