Just an example of how long it takes KCMO to get anything done and I think it's a pretty damn good example myself.chrizow wrote: every day i wake up and wish that KC had a new, publicly-subsidized 40-story convention hotel.
Yeah, the MAX is nice. And the Troost BRT will be good as well. But I don't think its really an argument as to whether a BRT service or streetcar is more efficient. The MAX is often times a little late and can get held up much easier. I know 2 of 3 minutes isn't much, but often times I am hurrying between school, work, and meeting a friend for lunch. In those situations it is nice to know exactly when the vehicle will be there (within a minute at least) and when the vehicle will arrive at my destination. Rail is way better at this. Pretty indisputable, I thinkLenexatoKCMO wrote: In terms of actual point-to-point getting around convenience I wouldn't count on a streetcar being vastly more efficient the the central spine MAX. I don't know what your living/work situations are but you really can hit the vast chunk of interesting places fairly conveniently using this service.
Not street level rail - it still has to deal with the same traffic, intersections, pedestrians, etc. The biggest slow down on the MAX is probably the on board ticketing - but you don't need rails to fix that problem.nilsson1941 wrote: Pretty indisputable, I think
What I've found, no matter where I've lived is that folks do pretty much the same things everywhere.aknowledgeableperson wrote: As one who has lived in the KC area for almost 59 years iwould say that KC does not suck. Yes, on some issues it does but overall it does not. i know kids (my own kids, their friends, children of our friends) who love the KC area, grown up here and plan to stay here.
Does the KC area have everything? Well, I don't know what everything is but from my experiences it has just about everything that any other metro area this size has to offer. But if you think overall that KC sucks then go ahead and move and move ASAP. Don't need an attitude like that around.
2009 Happiest StatesKCKev wrote:
Forbes Names KCMO 13th Most Miserable City
Forbes Magazine named Kansas City, Mo., as the 13th most miserable city in the U.S. in a report released Thursday.
http://www.kmbc.com/news/22599362/detail.html
St. Louis was seventh!!KCKev wrote:
Forbes Names KCMO 13th Most Miserable City
Forbes Magazine named Kansas City, Mo., as the 13th most miserable city in the U.S. in a report released Thursday.
http://www.kmbc.com/news/22599362/detail.html
I agree 100% with everything you said. The only thing is, you made it sound maybe more complicated than it has to be. If we just had a couple of light rail lines and a few streetcar lines in the urban core, what you just said would happen.Midtownkid wrote: Just gonna jump in to say that I love KC and brag about it all the time in Washington, but I still don't live there...and transit is one HUGE reason why.
KC lacks not only fast public transit, but every thing that should come with it. In DC the Metro connects the city's major neighborhoods and a lot of its suburbs which really brings the metro together. Using the subway you are able to go to different neighborhoods quickly and easily. In KC you have to worry about your car, driving it and parking it (especially if you are going to a bar to get drunk!) If KC got a transit system that was really fast and efficient (a subway would be the best option, although would probably never happen) it should lead to infill development and become more dense as new buildings would need less parking and everyone would want to be close to the metro etc. Places that are now pretty dead, but have a lot of potential such as 31st and Troost would become new nodes if given a metro stop. All of the cities unconnected nodes could become like a web connected by rail. That is KC's problem. Too many cool little individual neighborhoods that are unconnected. With transit, the different neighborhoods could start working together, rather than work against each other.
On a typical day in DC I can wake up on the Hill, go to VA at some point for the gym, then in Chinatown at museum, be in Dupont for happy hour, then back on the hill all without a car or even really thinking about how much I am traveling around.
It's not all about the transit, but also changing people's lifestyles and attitudes. As more people find themselves on foot, the city would need to become more walkable. This would include infill development and denser housing near metro stations.
Imagine if there was a 'Wesport' station at 39th and Broadway. 39th could be redeveloped from Main to 'restaurant row'. 39th would become a major pedestrian corridor so building retail and housing up between Broadway and the Trafficway would just make since. Then as you add that extra housing, people who move there might consider just living without a car. This would reinforce the retail and the metro system. If the city accepts this new way of living, the new growth can continue. Then all of the sudden, Westport has grown to its full potential and KC starts to 'suck' a little less.
They listed high taxes as being a reason for us to be miserable. Maybe I'm mistaken, but doesn't KCMO have some of the lowest taxes around? I know Missouri taxes are definitely low.KCKev wrote:
Forbes Names KCMO 13th Most Miserable City
Forbes Magazine named Kansas City, Mo., as the 13th most miserable city in the U.S. in a report released Thursday.
http://www.kmbc.com/news/22599362/detail.html
No doubt, light rail in KC would be great. But the price of housing in DC far outweighs any benefit presented by light rail. A friend of mine there said people were spending 60-70% of their income on rent or mortgage. They have no extra cash for eating out or any extras. So the question comes down to: Would you rather have a really cool, affordable home or an easy way to get around?Midtownkid wrote: Just gonna jump in to say that I love KC and brag about it all the time in Washington, but I still don't live there...and transit is one HUGE reason why.
KC lacks not only fast public transit, but every thing that should come with it. In DC the Metro connects the city's major neighborhoods and a lot of its suburbs which really brings the metro together. Using the subway you are able to go to different neighborhoods quickly and easily. In KC you have to worry about your car, driving it and parking it (especially if you are going to a bar to get drunk!) If KC got a transit system that was really fast and efficient (a subway would be the best option, although would probably never happen) it should lead to infill development and become more dense as new buildings would need less parking and everyone would want to be close to the metro etc. Places that are now pretty dead, but have a lot of potential such as 31st and Troost would become new nodes if given a metro stop. All of the cities unconnected nodes could become like a web connected by rail. That is KC's problem. Too many cool little individual neighborhoods that are unconnected. With transit, the different neighborhoods could start working together, rather than work against each other.
On a typical day in DC I can wake up on the Hill, go to VA at some point for the gym, then in Chinatown at museum, be in Dupont for happy hour, then back on the hill all without a car or even really thinking about how much I am traveling around.
It's not all about the transit, but also changing people's lifestyles and attitudes. As more people find themselves on foot, the city would need to become more walkable. This would include infill development and denser housing near metro stations.
Imagine if there was a 'Wesport' station at 39th and Broadway. 39th could be redeveloped from Main to 'restaurant row'. 39th would become a major pedestrian corridor so building retail and housing up between Broadway and the Trafficway would just make since. Then as you add that extra housing, people who move there might consider just living without a car. This would reinforce the retail and the metro system. If the city accepts this new way of living, the new growth can continue. Then all of the sudden, Westport has grown to its full potential and KC starts to 'suck' a little less.
It's just sad when your cities biggest asset is that its cheap...Downtowner wrote: No doubt, light rail in KC would be great. But the price of housing in DC far outweighs any benefit presented by light rail. A friend of mine there said people were spending 60-70% of their income on rent or mortgage. They have no extra cash for eating out or any extras. So the question comes down to: Would you rather have a really cool, affordable home or an easy way to get around?
It may seem like that to your friend, but people here (including myself) definitely go out and drink and eat at restaurants regardless of income. lol. My rent usually takes a little less than 50% of my income. And in DC it doesn't matter if you are in the district, VA or MD, rent is going to be more than in KC. That is just the way is its. Why not have a cool house that isn't quite as affordable w/ a cool neighborhood and easy access to transit as opposed to a cheaper, bigger, easier to park at house with no real neighborhood and no real connections to other neighborhoods.Downtowner wrote: No doubt, light rail in KC would be great. But the price of housing in DC far outweighs any benefit presented by light rail. A friend of mine there said people were spending 60-70% of their income on rent or mortgage. They have no extra cash for eating out or any extras. So the question comes down to: Would you rather have a really cool, affordable home or an easy way to get around?
