KCRag Forum

"Property located in dense commercial districts and wealthier residential neighborhoods is considered to be 'more valuable' on a per-unit of area basis than property located elsewhere; film at 11."

(Edit - sniped, but I'm just here for the property tax rant that is almost certainly being queued up by the question.)

swid wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:32 pm "Property located in dense commercial districts and wealthier residential neighborhoods is considered to be 'more valuable' on a per-unit of area basis than property located elsewhere; film at 11."

(Edit - sniped, but I'm just here for the property tax rant that is almost certainly being queued up by the question.)

Steve52 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:14 pm What in the hell is this supposed to mean?

It means that there aren't really any areas outside of the RM-Plaza corridor that can support a streetcar TDD. Brookside-Waldo-Wardparkway is probably a runner up just doesn't have the density/property values.

swid wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:32 pm "Property located in dense commercial districts and wealthier residential neighborhoods is considered to be 'more valuable' on a per-unit of area basis than property located elsewhere; film at 11."

(Edit - sniped, but I'm just here for the property tax rant that is almost certainly being queued up by the question.)

Yes taxes are so incredibly popular among the public here that 8,600 emails to the county managed to remain unread at the assessors office to kick off the New Year.

It also suggests how we really aren't generating a return on the masses of infrastructure required to get people out of the city. The value is in the core.

A decent swath of the Northland is surprisingly high. Barry/I29 area, I guess. I wonder what NKC would look like.

smh wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:12 pm It also suggests how we really aren't generating a return on the masses of infrastructure required to get people out of the city. The value is in the core.

What do you mean "get people out of the city". I thought the idea of all this was to attempt to attract people to live in the urban core.

Steve52 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:10 pm

smh wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:12 pm It also suggests how we really aren't generating a return on the masses of infrastructure required to get people out of the city. The value is in the core.

What do you mean "get people out of the city". I thought the idea of all this was to attempt to attract people to live in the urban core.

He means highways, et al

missingkc wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:48 pm A decent swath of the Northland is surprisingly high. Barry/I29 area, I guess. I wonder what NKC would look like.

The Burlington Creek area of 64th has two five story developments, a street of duplexes and triplexes.
It doesn't take much to increase the density of an area when you do a new projects at this scale in a new area

Follow the 152 corridor between Amity and I-35 and you have low density single family but there's also ~40 denser suburban developments and apartment complexes.

Duplexes and triplexes help, there's a few developments of those south of 72nd.

If we could take right along N. Oak and do frontage infill development mostly with 6-7 story apartment homes above retail you could add thousands of people with TOD principles without it being so dense NIMBYs come out. 64th and N. Oak is a great starting point for this between the extra parking and empty lot.

flyingember wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:17 am

missingkc wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:48 pm A decent swath of the Northland is surprisingly high. Barry/I29 area, I guess. I wonder what NKC would look like.

If we could take right along N. Oak and do frontage infill development mostly with 6-7 story apartment homes above retail you could add thousands of people with TOD principles without it being so dense NIMBYs come out. 64th and N. Oak is a great starting point for this between the extra parking and empty lot.

We are getting off topic a bit, but in Streetcar Phase 3 thread I proposed North Oak as an alignment in the future. I think it makes the most sense and has car lots, washes, and dilapidated buildings with a ton of dense development potential. The distance from HOA bridge to the intersection of Barry Road and North Oak is 10miles BUT the biggest hurdle is getting across HOA bridge - a $30m challenge that really is going to be tough without state/fed help.

flyingember wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:04 am
The appeal is still going. Last week the KCATA requested oral arguments be rescheduled, it was supposed to be heard next week.

The case was originally filed Jan 24, 2017. So we're at two years 10 months into this lawsuit.
To put that in perspective the downtown line had its official groundbreaking May 22, 2014 and it opened for business May 6, 2016.

We should all thank the KCATA for putting so much money into lawyers to maintain the integrity of the trail for the future.

WD82459

It appears the case was finally heard yesterday.

A little over 1 year from filing the appeal

Dave, can you parse out the latest DOT report and whether it's good news for potential funding?

https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.d ... report.pdf

grovester wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:11 pm Dave, can you parse out the latest DOT report and whether it's good news for potential funding?

https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.d ... report.pdf

Official response coming soon. It's good news, but still not a done deal. Done deal = "Full Funding Grant Agreement".

Good to hear, was a little worried about some of the medium/medium low ratings.

grovester wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:46 pm Good to hear, was a little worried about some of the medium/medium low ratings.

I am surprised that the estimated ridership of the extension is only 7,300 Daily Linked Trips. The combined system is projected to have 4.5 million riders per year.

@dave How are the ridership numbers calculated and have they been revised upwards with the continued strong growth of the starter line?

This seems very positive.

normalthings wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:52 pm

grovester wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:46 pm Good to hear, was a little worried about some of the medium/medium low ratings.

I am surprised that the estimated ridership of the extension is only 7,300 Daily Linked Trips. The combined system is projected to have 4.5 million riders per year.

@dave How are the ridership numbers calculated and have they been revised upwards with the continued strong growth of the starter line?

It looks like you're confusing linked and unlinked trips.

https://kcstreetcar.org/wp-content/uplo ... ug2019.pdf

This has trip projections

grovester wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:46 pm Good to hear, was a little worried about some of the medium/medium low ratings.

Well the NY-NJ Hudson Tunnel project only got a medium-high project justification rating when that really should be critical, to put it all into perspective. I think the only thing that could have raised our rating was to pay for more of it.

Federal report ‘good news’ for KC Streetcar expansion

...
KC Streetcar executive director Tom Gerend said Tuesday the report shows the project, which would extend the streetcar line south from Union Station to 51st Street at Brookside Boulevard, “received the highest rating granted” for the category of projects.
...

https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/f ... -expansion

Given several developers have already invested in Midtown based on possibility of streetcar extension, even more may jump in with this 'highest rating' increasing chances of occurring. Hopefully they are TOD minded and not surface lots in front of buildings oriented. The City needs to ensure that doesn't happen.