Rail to KCI - 2023

[dukuboy1]

If any light rail plan calls for massive park and ride craters next to expensive stations is a no for me dog

Curious, does the train stop outside everyone’s home? Is there a small station on every block? I’m just curious how you expect people to get to the train to use it? Everyone Ubers or takes a cab? Walk, ride a bike, electric scooter? Point being there will have to be some kind of station somewhere to allow for residents to gather and get on the train. Commuter rail station of sorts.

Now if the plan is just to serve out of town business & leisure travelers to get from airport to downtown hotels and attractions then cool no need to worry about stations because it’s just a people mover on railroad tracks, which honestly is all it needs to be. But I’m curious how the citizens of KC can use this people mover

[smh]

Difficult to imagine that any rail line in KC won't be surrounded by parking lots at least initially. The land use is just too sparse to expect anything else (again, initially). A real win, imho, would be significant station area planning, including putting the entitlements in place to allow for a quick turn from parking lot to urban node over the next decade or two.

[phuqueue]

If any light rail plan calls for massive park and ride craters next to expensive stations is a no for me dog

Curious, does the train stop outside everyone’s home? Is there a small station on every block? I’m just curious how you expect people to get to the train to use it? Everyone Ubers or takes a cab? Walk, ride a bike, electric scooter? Point being there will have to be some kind of station somewhere to allow for residents to gather and get on the train. Commuter rail station of sorts.

Now if the plan is just to serve out of town business & leisure travelers to get from airport to downtown hotels and attractions then cool no need to worry about stations because it’s just a people mover on railroad tracks, which honestly is all it needs to be. But I’m curious how the citizens of KC can use this people mover

You are asking for a transit system to accommodate a type of development and a lifestyle that was intentionally designed to be hostile to transit, and the real answer to your concerns is that this is why a rail line through the Northland doesn't really make sense in the first place. But if we imagine a fantasy world in which KC does build a train to the airport, the plan should be to consolidate population in high-density development around the rails. A train to KCI isn't "just to serve out of town business & leisure travelers," but nor is it for "citizens of KC" who stubbornly insist on staying at the end of a quiet cul-de-sac. It would be a transformative project that would need to serve citizens of KC living in dense, urban neighborhoods that don't even exist yet. If people staying in the sprawl want to ride the train too, then sure, take an uber or ride a bike. Or you could beef up bus service on the major arterials and create easements through people's oversized yards to facilitate easier access to those arterials from inside the subdivision, as one possible way to improve transit within the suburbs.

But those people clinging to their suburban dreams are not going to use the train anyway, with or without P&R. In a city like KC, where driving and parking are so cheap and easy, what are the use cases for it? I pretty much only see two: 1) if P&R is cheaper than airport parking, people might park there and take the train the rest of the way, in which case it basically just operates as a parking subsidy that reduces airport revenue; 2) people might take it into the urban core during unicorn events like WS/SB parades that actually do make it difficult to drive and park. Neither of these justifies the cost of building a train. You might see scattered other users -- people who simply like riding trains, or who drive to the train every once in a while to save a little when gas prices spike, or whatever -- but I don't see how P&R lots at train stations in a Northland that otherwise continues to look the way it does today generate the thousands of daily riders needed for a train to work. Which brings us back to "a rail line through the Northland doesn't really make sense in the first place." But as long as we're going to fantasize, we might as well go all-in and fantasize about KC as a real urban city, instead of making the fantasy as shitty as possible by needlessly catering to cars.

[DaveKCMO]

Is Kansas City aware that the era of park and ride is over? Their track record does not inspire confidence.

None are being built for streetcar -- starter line, or either the Riverfront or Main Street extensions. All are taking advantage of our copious existing parking assets. None are being discussed for East/West or NorthRail studies.

A small one (less than 30 public spaces) was built for Prospect MAX at 75th, but it is part of an identified TOD site. East Village Transit Center was built with zero public parking.

So, yeah, I'd say that's a significant shift and I'm proud to be have been at the table to push back on requests to build/manage new parking capacity with scarce transit dollars.

[Cratedigger]

Is Kansas City aware that the era of park and ride is over? Their track record does not inspire confidence.

None are being built for streetcar -- starter line, or either the Riverfront or Main Street extensions. All are taking advantage of our copious existing parking assets. None are being discussed for East/West or NorthRail studies.

A small one (less than 30 public spaces) was built for Prospect MAX at 75th, but it is part of an identified TOD site. East Village Transit Center was built with zero public parking.

So, yeah, I'd say that's a significant shift and I'm proud to be have been at the table to push back on requests to build/manage new parking capacity with scarce transit dollars.

Love to hear it. Thanks Dave

[KC_Ari]

If any light rail plan calls for massive park and ride craters next to expensive stations is a no for me dog

Curious, does the train stop outside everyone’s home? Is there a small station on every block? I’m just curious how you expect people to get to the train to use it? Everyone Ubers or takes a cab? Walk, ride a bike, electric scooter? Point being there will have to be some kind of station somewhere to allow for residents to gather and get on the train. Commuter rail station of sorts.

Now if the plan is just to serve out of town business & leisure travelers to get from airport to downtown hotels and attractions then cool no need to worry about stations because it’s just a people mover on railroad tracks, which honestly is all it needs to be. But I’m curious how the citizens of KC can use this people mover

You are asking for a transit system to accommodate a type of development and a lifestyle that was intentionally designed to be hostile to transit, and the real answer to your concerns is that this is why a rail line through the Northland doesn't really make sense in the first place. But if we imagine a fantasy world in which KC does build a train to the airport, the plan should be to consolidate population in high-density development around the rails. A train to KCI isn't "just to serve out of town business & leisure travelers," but nor is it for "citizens of KC" who stubbornly insist on staying at the end of a quiet cul-de-sac. It would be a transformative project that would need to serve citizens of KC living in dense, urban neighborhoods that don't even exist yet. If people staying in the sprawl want to ride the train too, then sure, take an uber or ride a bike. Or you could beef up bus service on the major arterials and create easements through people's oversized yards to facilitate easier access to those arterials from inside the subdivision, as one possible way to improve transit within the suburbs.

But those people clinging to their suburban dreams are not going to use the train anyway, with or without P&R. In a city like KC, where driving and parking are so cheap and easy, what are the use cases for it? I pretty much only see two: 1) if P&R is cheaper than airport parking, people might park there and take the train the rest of the way, in which case it basically just operates as a parking subsidy that reduces airport revenue; 2) people might take it into the urban core during unicorn events like WS/SB parades that actually do make it difficult to drive and park. Neither of these justifies the cost of building a train. You might see scattered other users -- people who simply like riding trains, or who drive to the train every once in a while to save a little when gas prices spike, or whatever -- but I don't see how P&R lots at train stations in a Northland that otherwise continues to look the way it does today generate the thousands of daily riders needed for a train to work. Which brings us back to "a rail line through the Northland doesn't really make sense in the first place." But as long as we're going to fantasize, we might as well go all-in and fantasize about KC as a real urban city, instead of making the fantasy as shitty as possible by needlessly catering to cars.

+1

[dukuboy1]

If any light rail plan calls for massive park and ride craters next to expensive stations is a no for me dog

Curious, does the train stop outside everyone’s home? Is there a small station on every block? I’m just curious how you expect people to get to the train to use it? Everyone Ubers or takes a cab? Walk, ride a bike, electric scooter? Point being there will have to be some kind of station somewhere to allow for residents to gather and get on the train. Commuter rail station of sorts.

Now if the plan is just to serve out of town business & leisure travelers to get from airport to downtown hotels and attractions then cool no need to worry about stations because it’s just a people mover on railroad tracks, which honestly is all it needs to be. But I’m curious how the citizens of KC can use this people mover

You are asking for a transit system to accommodate a type of development and a lifestyle that was intentionally designed to be hostile to transit, and the real answer to your concerns is that this is why a rail line through the Northland doesn't really make sense in the first place. But if we imagine a fantasy world in which KC does build a train to the airport, the plan should be to consolidate population in high-density development around the rails. A train to KCI isn't "just to serve out of town business & leisure travelers," but nor is it for "citizens of KC" who stubbornly insist on staying at the end of a quiet cul-de-sac. It would be a transformative project that would need to serve citizens of KC living in dense, urban neighborhoods that don't even exist yet. If people staying in the sprawl want to ride the train too, then sure, take an uber or ride a bike. Or you could beef up bus service on the major arterials and create easements through people's oversized yards to facilitate easier access to those arterials from inside the subdivision, as one possible way to improve transit within the suburbs.

But those people clinging to their suburban dreams are not going to use the train anyway, with or without P&R. In a city like KC, where driving and parking are so cheap and easy, what are the use cases for it? I pretty much only see two: 1) if P&R is cheaper than airport parking, people might park there and take the train the rest of the way, in which case it basically just operates as a parking subsidy that reduces airport revenue; 2) people might take it into the urban core during unicorn events like WS/SB parades that actually do make it difficult to drive and park. Neither of these justifies the cost of building a train. You might see scattered other users -- people who simply like riding trains, or who drive to the train every once in a while to save a little when gas prices spike, or whatever -- but I don't see how P&R lots at train stations in a Northland that otherwise continues to look the way it does today generate the thousands of daily riders needed for a train to work. Which brings us back to "a rail line through the Northland doesn't really make sense in the first place." But as long as we're going to fantasize, we might as well go all-in and fantasize about KC as a real urban city, instead of making the fantasy as shitty as possible by needlessly catering to cars.

I agree, the train to the airport is a huge pipe dream, but dare to dream. I live in the suburbs, in the Northland in fact. When I travel for business or leisure I use the Park & Ride (3rd party company). It is cheap & easy. However if I had the ability to use a facility like a train for the same price I would, especially if there was a station more convenient to me. Also if I had the ability to use that train for a secondary purpose of getting downtown I would use it as well. I'm all for a commuter rail system & I would use it, even though I am part of the evil empire that has chosen to live in the suburbs. I work downtown and have about a 15-20min commute, which is nothing. However I kind of dig the planet we live on, so I would use a commuter rail system to minimize by time in the car on my commute. Is it perfect, no, but if I can save some driving by using rail transit I would. But again this dream is more of a people mover from the airport to downtown. If there could be a rail plan that uses the street car and LR to make things happen for the Northland I would use it to commute to work and to reach entertainment options in the downtown area. I think there would be others who use it as well. But I fully get the argument that the cost is not justified, and it is just too easy to get around by car, and in most cases car is the only real viable option regardless of where you live in the Metro

[FlippantCitizen]

Curious, does the train stop outside everyone’s home? Is there a small station on every block? I’m just curious how you expect people to get to the train to use it? Everyone Ubers or takes a cab? Walk, ride a bike, electric scooter? Point being there will have to be some kind of station somewhere to allow for residents to gather and get on the train. Commuter rail station of sorts.

Now if the plan is just to serve out of town business & leisure travelers to get from airport to downtown hotels and attractions then cool no need to worry about stations because it’s just a people mover on railroad tracks, which honestly is all it needs to be. But I’m curious how the citizens of KC can use this people mover

You are asking for a transit system to accommodate a type of development and a lifestyle that was intentionally designed to be hostile to transit, and the real answer to your concerns is that this is why a rail line through the Northland doesn't really make sense in the first place. But if we imagine a fantasy world in which KC does build a train to the airport, the plan should be to consolidate population in high-density development around the rails. A train to KCI isn't "just to serve out of town business & leisure travelers," but nor is it for "citizens of KC" who stubbornly insist on staying at the end of a quiet cul-de-sac. It would be a transformative project that would need to serve citizens of KC living in dense, urban neighborhoods that don't even exist yet. If people staying in the sprawl want to ride the train too, then sure, take an uber or ride a bike. Or you could beef up bus service on the major arterials and create easements through people's oversized yards to facilitate easier access to those arterials from inside the subdivision, as one possible way to improve transit within the suburbs.

But those people clinging to their suburban dreams are not going to use the train anyway, with or without P&R. In a city like KC, where driving and parking are so cheap and easy, what are the use cases for it? I pretty much only see two: 1) if P&R is cheaper than airport parking, people might park there and take the train the rest of the way, in which case it basically just operates as a parking subsidy that reduces airport revenue; 2) people might take it into the urban core during unicorn events like WS/SB parades that actually do make it difficult to drive and park. Neither of these justifies the cost of building a train. You might see scattered other users -- people who simply like riding trains, or who drive to the train every once in a while to save a little when gas prices spike, or whatever -- but I don't see how P&R lots at train stations in a Northland that otherwise continues to look the way it does today generate the thousands of daily riders needed for a train to work. Which brings us back to "a rail line through the Northland doesn't really make sense in the first place." But as long as we're going to fantasize, we might as well go all-in and fantasize about KC as a real urban city, instead of making the fantasy as shitty as possible by needlessly catering to cars.

I agree, the train to the airport is a huge pipe dream, but dare to dream. I live in the suburbs, in the Northland in fact. When I travel for business or leisure I use the Park & Ride (3rd party company). It is cheap & easy. However if I had the ability to use a facility like a train for the same price I would, especially if there was a station more convenient to me. Also if I had the ability to use that train for a secondary purpose of getting downtown I would use it as well. I'm all for a commuter rail system & I would use it, even though I am part of the evil empire that has chosen to live in the suburbs. I work downtown and have about a 15-20min commute, which is nothing. However I kind of dig the planet we live on, so I would use a commuter rail system to minimize by time in the car on my commute. Is it perfect, no, but if I can save some driving by using rail transit I would. But again this dream is more of a people mover from the airport to downtown. If there could be a rail plan that uses the street car and LR to make things happen for the Northland I would use it to commute to work and to reach entertainment options in the downtown area. I think there would be others who use it as well. But I fully get the argument that the cost is not justified, and it is just too easy to get around by car, and in most cases car is the only real viable option regardless of where you live in the Metro

There is just no way to accommodate people with rail who already live on 1/4 acre lots in the back of dead end subdivisions. Even with park and rides most are not going to utilize the rail, even if a minority who are passionate about it such as yourself would. When I say I'm against park and rides by expensive stations it's because that land and the investment need to result in TOD around the station, not parking craters.

Additionally, it is my belief that the urban network needs to be built out and made fast and frequent before doing suburban rail. What the hell is the point of sprawling LRT or commuter rail when the local routes it would connect to are in shambles in my estimation. Suburban serving rail will not excite me much until there is 20+ miles of local streetcar and the next most important bus routes have 15 minute frequencies even on weekends. I'm sorry but until then there is no point.

I have no interest in voting for some multi billion dollar cap ex to get less than 10,000 riders daily on LRT for their commutes. that in fact is the most optimistic case. Commute times and congestion are not bad enough to get anyone beside the "enthusiast" to commute from the suburbs by rail. Our priority needs to be the urban network. There are to many sites and opportunities to densify the core. When those opportunities are running out then I could b interested in some suburban rail with dense nodes built around the stations and minimal parking. Suburban stations surrounded by surface parking is something I will never support.

[FlippantCitizen]

You are asking for a transit system to accommodate a type of development and a lifestyle that was intentionally designed to be hostile to transit, and the real answer to your concerns is that this is why a rail line through the Northland doesn't really make sense in the first place. But if we imagine a fantasy world in which KC does build a train to the airport, the plan should be to consolidate population in high-density development around the rails. A train to KCI isn't "just to serve out of town business & leisure travelers," but nor is it for "citizens of KC" who stubbornly insist on staying at the end of a quiet cul-de-sac. It would be a transformative project that would need to serve citizens of KC living in dense, urban neighborhoods that don't even exist yet. If people staying in the sprawl want to ride the train too, then sure, take an uber or ride a bike. Or you could beef up bus service on the major arterials and create easements through people's oversized yards to facilitate easier access to those arterials from inside the subdivision, as one possible way to improve transit within the suburbs.

But those people clinging to their suburban dreams are not going to use the train anyway, with or without P&R. In a city like KC, where driving and parking are so cheap and easy, what are the use cases for it? I pretty much only see two: 1) if P&R is cheaper than airport parking, people might park there and take the train the rest of the way, in which case it basically just operates as a parking subsidy that reduces airport revenue; 2) people might take it into the urban core during unicorn events like WS/SB parades that actually do make it difficult to drive and park. Neither of these justifies the cost of building a train. You might see scattered other users -- people who simply like riding trains, or who drive to the train every once in a while to save a little when gas prices spike, or whatever -- but I don't see how P&R lots at train stations in a Northland that otherwise continues to look the way it does today generate the thousands of daily riders needed for a train to work. Which brings us back to "a rail line through the Northland doesn't really make sense in the first place." But as long as we're going to fantasize, we might as well go all-in and fantasize about KC as a real urban city, instead of making the fantasy as shitty as possible by needlessly catering to cars.

I agree, the train to the airport is a huge pipe dream, but dare to dream. I live in the suburbs, in the Northland in fact. When I travel for business or leisure I use the Park & Ride (3rd party company). It is cheap & easy. However if I had the ability to use a facility like a train for the same price I would, especially if there was a station more convenient to me. Also if I had the ability to use that train for a secondary purpose of getting downtown I would use it as well. I'm all for a commuter rail system & I would use it, even though I am part of the evil empire that has chosen to live in the suburbs. I work downtown and have about a 15-20min commute, which is nothing. However I kind of dig the planet we live on, so I would use a commuter rail system to minimize by time in the car on my commute. Is it perfect, no, but if I can save some driving by using rail transit I would. But again this dream is more of a people mover from the airport to downtown. If there could be a rail plan that uses the street car and LR to make things happen for the Northland I would use it to commute to work and to reach entertainment options in the downtown area. I think there would be others who use it as well. But I fully get the argument that the cost is not justified, and it is just too easy to get around by car, and in most cases car is the only real viable option regardless of where you live in the Metro

There is just no way to accommodate people with rail who already live on 1/4 acre lots in the back of dead end subdivisions. Even with park and rides most are not going to utilize the rail, even if a minority who are passionate about it such as yourself would. When I say I'm against park and rides by expensive stations it's because that land and the investment need to result in TOD around the station, not parking craters.

Additionally, it is my belief that the urban network needs to be built out and made fast and frequent before doing suburban rail. What the hell is the point of sprawling LRT or commuter rail when the local routes it would connect to are in shambles in my estimation. Suburban serving rail will not excite me much until there is 20+ miles of local streetcar and the next most important bus routes have 15 minute frequencies even on weekends. I'm sorry but until then there is no point.

I have no interest in voting for some multi billion dollar cap ex to get less than 10,000 riders daily on LRT for their commutes. That, in fact, is the most optimistic case. Commute times and congestion are not bad enough to get anyone beside the "enthusiast" to commute from the suburbs by rail. Our priority needs to be the urban network. There are too many sites and opportunities to densify the core. When those opportunities are running out then I could be interested in some suburban rail with dense nodes built around the stations and minimal parking. Suburban stations surrounded by surface parking is something I will never support.

[grovester]

I assume that any development around future stations will include some type of garage(s).

[DaveKCMO]

If we just focused on building urban streetcar where the city is reasonably dense we would easily surpass the ridership and TOD impact of much larger light rail systems. Serve the airport with express buses.

[FlippantCitizen]

If we just focused on building urban streetcar where the city is reasonably dense we would easily surpass the ridership and TOD impact of much larger light rail systems. Serve the airport with express buses.

Words of wisdom IMO

[chingon]

If we just focused on building urban streetcar where the city is reasonably dense we would easily surpass the ridership and TOD impact of much larger light rail systems. Serve the airport with express buses.

Run for mayor.

[GRID]

If we just focused on building urban streetcar where the city is reasonably dense we would easily surpass the ridership and TOD impact of much larger light rail systems. Serve the airport with express buses.

Been saying that forever.

[FlippantCitizen]

I’d support Dave 100%. The times I’ve met him he didn’t strike me as a that kind of political animal but damn if we should be so lucky.

[rxlexi]

If we just focused on building urban streetcar where the city is reasonably dense we would easily surpass the ridership and TOD impact of much larger light rail systems. Serve the airport with express buses.

Totally agree. We don't need rail to the airport.

[alejandro46]

I support dedicated ROW streetcar only to the airport up Burlington, up North Oak, by Metro North, Zona Rosa and then to KCI. Platte and Clay counties could be asked to fund this. It would be an overall additive to a larger system and help densify a spine in the Northland. There is no need to construct additional Park & Ride, there is plenty of underutilized parking at Metro North crossing & Zona Rosa.

However, I don't think it can be funded based on current population and agree the resources and time are better spent on more urban lines like 31st/Linwood.

This current proposal seems kind of half baked and wishful thinking.

[dukuboy1]

You are asking for a transit system to accommodate a type of development and a lifestyle that was intentionally designed to be hostile to transit, and the real answer to your concerns is that this is why a rail line through the Northland doesn't really make sense in the first place. But if we imagine a fantasy world in which KC does build a train to the airport, the plan should be to consolidate population in high-density development around the rails. A train to KCI isn't "just to serve out of town business & leisure travelers," but nor is it for "citizens of KC" who stubbornly insist on staying at the end of a quiet cul-de-sac. It would be a transformative project that would need to serve citizens of KC living in dense, urban neighborhoods that don't even exist yet. If people staying in the sprawl want to ride the train too, then sure, take an uber or ride a bike. Or you could beef up bus service on the major arterials and create easements through people's oversized yards to facilitate easier access to those arterials from inside the subdivision, as one possible way to improve transit within the suburbs.

But those people clinging to their suburban dreams are not going to use the train anyway, with or without P&R. In a city like KC, where driving and parking are so cheap and easy, what are the use cases for it? I pretty much only see two: 1) if P&R is cheaper than airport parking, people might park there and take the train the rest of the way, in which case it basically just operates as a parking subsidy that reduces airport revenue; 2) people might take it into the urban core during unicorn events like WS/SB parades that actually do make it difficult to drive and park. Neither of these justifies the cost of building a train. You might see scattered other users -- people who simply like riding trains, or who drive to the train every once in a while to save a little when gas prices spike, or whatever -- but I don't see how P&R lots at train stations in a Northland that otherwise continues to look the way it does today generate the thousands of daily riders needed for a train to work. Which brings us back to "a rail line through the Northland doesn't really make sense in the first place." But as long as we're going to fantasize, we might as well go all-in and fantasize about KC as a real urban city, instead of making the fantasy as shitty as possible by needlessly catering to cars.

I agree, the train to the airport is a huge pipe dream, but dare to dream. I live in the suburbs, in the Northland in fact. When I travel for business or leisure I use the Park & Ride (3rd party company). It is cheap & easy. However if I had the ability to use a facility like a train for the same price I would, especially if there was a station more convenient to me. Also if I had the ability to use that train for a secondary purpose of getting downtown I would use it as well. I'm all for a commuter rail system & I would use it, even though I am part of the evil empire that has chosen to live in the suburbs. I work downtown and have about a 15-20min commute, which is nothing. However I kind of dig the planet we live on, so I would use a commuter rail system to minimize by time in the car on my commute. Is it perfect, no, but if I can save some driving by using rail transit I would. But again this dream is more of a people mover from the airport to downtown. If there could be a rail plan that uses the street car and LR to make things happen for the Northland I would use it to commute to work and to reach entertainment options in the downtown area. I think there would be others who use it as well. But I fully get the argument that the cost is not justified, and it is just too easy to get around by car, and in most cases car is the only real viable option regardless of where you live in the Metro

There is just no way to accommodate people with rail who already live on 1/4 acre lots in the back of dead end subdivisions. Even with park and rides most are not going to utilize the rail, even if a minority who are passionate about it such as yourself would. When I say I'm against park and rides by expensive stations it's because that land and the investment need to result in TOD around the station, not parking craters.

Additionally, it is my belief that the urban network needs to be built out and made fast and frequent before doing suburban rail. What the hell is the point of sprawling LRT or commuter rail when the local routes it would connect to are in shambles in my estimation. Suburban serving rail will not excite me much until there is 20+ miles of local streetcar and the next most important bus routes have 15 minute frequencies even on weekends. I'm sorry but until then there is no point.

I have no interest in voting for some multi billion dollar cap ex to get less than 10,000 riders daily on LRT for their commutes. That, in fact, is the most optimistic case. Commute times and congestion are not bad enough to get anyone beside the "enthusiast" to commute from the suburbs by rail. Our priority needs to be the urban network. There are too many sites and opportunities to densify the core. When those opportunities are running out then I could be interested in some suburban rail with dense nodes built around the stations and minimal parking. Suburban stations surrounded by surface parking is something I will never support.

Agree with you on one sentence for sure “I'm sorry but until then there is no point.” this whole idea has no point beyond pie in the sky dreaming at this point. I agree grow out street car line to service the urban areas of KC from the Riverfront south to Waldo. See what happens in the next 10 yrs in terms of residents & density & other business development. The northland will continue to add residents as well but in a broad swath across several different municipalities. Let’s see what KCMO will do and then maybe look at expanded rail. But we are 25 yrs minimum to seeing any kind to rail based mass transit on any level crossing the River. The biggest area for tax base growth within KCMO is the northland. Let’s see what revenue can be generated & after general city services are met look into the pipe dream that is rail to the airport

[KC_Ari]

Cities in the USA popped up centralized around rail towns. Waiting for it to suddenly 'work' also isn't going to create a desired result, it will create more sprawl. Build the line to airport if it gets KS/JoCo to pitch in and expand the rest of the line in denser parts of the metro. Zone the areas surround the station such that denser development will occur. There is no 'fixing' the exurbs of the Northland.

[DaveKCMO]

If we just focused on building urban streetcar where the city is reasonably dense we would easily surpass the ridership and TOD impact of much larger light rail systems. Serve the airport with express buses.

Run for mayor.

I don't like people that much. You have to REALLY like talking to and being around people all the time at that level. It would be physically exhausting. I considered in-district council as a future aspiration, but I can get a lot done without the toxicity of city hall surrounding me at all times.

Case in point: Regional funding. It's happening. Lots of new momentum behind the scenes, people willing to put aside petty border wars and mistrust to pursue a permanent improvement in time for World Cup or the tipping point for the climate, whichever comes first.