KCRag Forum

My employer is involved tangentially in the streetcar project, but as they have no need for architects in their contract I'm not involved. But I'm flattered that anyone thinks I am swaying the discussion. I should ask for a raise, right after I explain to my office that, yes, they do employ architects.

You're seeing a lot of what you assign to conflict of interest or conspiracy simply because people tend to be interested in the same things they do for a living. So if you're a transportation engineer of some sort, there's a good chance you work at a transportation engineering firm, are interested in local transportation projects, and are probably in favor of the streetcar. That's not automatically a conflict of interest.

And you should know better than to trust what you hear people bragging about in bars.

i'm pro-streetcar and do not stand to make a dime from it. in fact, i will pay many dimes for it, in the form of real estate assessments and sales tax. this is true for hundreds, if not thousands, of folks who will vote "yes" on phase 2 streetcar.

but them's the breaks if we want KC transit to rocket into the 1990s with fixed rail.

to suggest, with zero proof, that anyone who supports streetcar is directly benefiting financially from it is completely ridiculous and violates one of the many logical fallacies in that chart - ad hominem.

chrizow wrote:i'm pro-streetcar and do not stand to make a dime from it. in fact, i will pay many dimes for it, in the form of real estate assessments and sales tax. this is true for hundreds, if not thousands, of folks who will vote "yes" on phase 2 streetcar.

but them's the breaks if we want KC transit to rocket into the 1990s with fixed rail.

to suggest, with zero proof, that anyone who supports streetcar is directly benefiting financially from it is completely ridiculous and violates one of the many logical fallacies in that chart - ad hominem.

Everyone who lives in the KC metro is going to benefit from the street car. People who support the street car live in the KC metro. Therefore, everyone that supports the street car will benefit from it.

BOOM! Logic bomb!

shinatoo wrote: Everyone who lives in the KC metro is going to benefit in some way from the street car. BOOM! Logic bomb!

NO WAY!

KC SUX OMG BOONDOGGLE WHHHARRRGARBLLLL

chrizow wrote:but them's the breaks if we want KC transit to rocket into the 1990s 1890s with fixed rail.

Just sayin'.

real talk.

loftguy wrote: Here's the bombshell, in my view. They said it is the common, informed assessment that airport operations are making decisions to try to force the decision to build a new airport. Planned blight, in a sense. Making the existing facilities less comfortable, convenient, sensible for travelers and airlines, with the expectation that then the public and airlines will provide greater support for investing in new facilities.

I've been saying this for years. That's why they keep changing the story on why we supposedly need a new terminal. Bunch of red-herrings. First it was the convenience of rebuilding south of the existing runways, then TSA, then deicing, then facility neglect (Remember the leaky pipes pic?), then because the airlines want it (Who quickly rebuffed that argument themselves..LOL)..and now that each and every one of those have been proven false...now what?

im2kull wrote:

loftguy wrote: Here's the bombshell, in my view. They said it is the common, informed assessment that airport operations are making decisions to try to force the decision to build a new airport. Planned blight, in a sense. Making the existing facilities less comfortable, convenient, sensible for travelers and airlines, with the expectation that then the public and airlines will provide greater support for investing in new facilities.

I've been saying this for years. That's why they keep changing the story on why we supposedly need a new terminal. Bunch of red-herrings. First it was the convenience of rebuilding south of the existing runways, then TSA, then deicing, then facility neglect (Remember the leaky pipes pic?), then because the airlines want it (Who quickly rebuffed that argument themselves..LOL)..and now that each and every one of those have been proven false...now what?

The only thing that will sell, basic cost. Prove the cost of what needs to be done to keep it standing, compare to the cost of building new.

Do what's cheaper

Yes, prove what needs to be done to keep it standing. Don't arbitrarily throw out big, scary numbers with no facts behind them that make keeping what we have comparable to a new terminal: show me.

And once you've shown me a detailed itemized list of what we "need", give me a chance to audit it and make sure you're not padding the numbers with a bunch of unnecessary nonsense, or inflating the costs of things to make a new terminal more feasible.

Frankly, everything any particular government entity does should be under this much public scrutiny, people just don't care enough, myself often included. Yeah, they audit themselves, but auditors who don't play along have very short and painful political careers.

Yes, Absolutely.