U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > Kansas City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-06-2011, 03:34 PM
 
29,988 posts, read 35,862,752 times
Reputation: 12719

Advertisements

The layout, quick to park, quick to baggage, quick back to your car made the design of KCI one of the most convenient as it was when originally open and still is during low volumn times. However, newer security requirements have narrowed the concourses's walking space so much that during heavy volumn it has negated the design. So, I can understand what you are saying as far as a new terminal.Since I'm either starting or ending at CKI the lack of airport amenties has never bothered me the way it would someone having a layover of several hours.

I wasn't aware that there were no longer any buses to Arrowhead. I understand you point about the line you rode. So, it would seem that it should be simple enough to accomodate the heavily ridden lines.Perhaps the problem is that overall the Metro loses money and thus running under-utilized lines takes away resources where they could be of better and more profitable use?

Last edited by lifelongMOgal; 11-06-2011 at 04:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-06-2011, 09:09 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,504,291 times
Reputation: 5415
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
The layout, quick to park, quick to baggage, quick back to your car made the design of KCI one of the most convenient as it was when originally open and still is during low volumn times. However, newer security requirements have narrowed the concourses's walking space so much that during heavy volumn it has negated the design. So, I can understand what you are saying as far as a new terminal.Since I'm either starting or ending at CKI the lack of airport amenties has never bothered me the way it would someone having a layover of several hours.

I wasn't aware that there were no longer any buses to Arrowhead. I understand you point about the line you rode. So, it would seem that it should be simple enough to accomodate the heavily ridden lines.Perhaps the problem is that overall the Metro loses money and thus running under-utilized lines takes away resources where they could be of better and more profitable use?
The Blue Springs line is so popular because it works. It's nearly as fast as driving, if not faster for some people. If people are willing park in a gravel lot and stand on a city bus for 20 miles then there is demand, but the service has to be there. They will take advantage of a transit option that gets them where they need to go that is time competitive with driving. If they will ride a low grade commuter line like what KC has, then they would certainly love to ride a nice coach commuter bus, park in paved secure park and ride lots etc.

You build a system that works and people will ride it. KC has a huge uncongested freeway system, the area transit system should be taking advantage of it.

I ride all modes of transit in DC and I’ll take a nice comfy commuter coach bus any day over metro rail. The problem with DC is that buses get bogged down in city traffic. No such problems in KC. The busiest freeways have 5-10 minutes delays max (most have none) and there is no surface street congestion.

As far as KCI, even when I start or end at an airport, I like having something inside the terminal if I need it. BWI is about the same size of KCI (maybe a bit more traffic), but they have places to get some food before a flight, cafes to kill time if a flight is delayed. I can take a drink I just bought onto the plane, I can even find a place to sit and not be confined to a few packed gates while the rest of the airport is a ghost town. Parking is just like KCI. Garages are across the street. Long term is a five minute bus ride. I don’t mind the five minute walk to get my luggage, it takes that long for it to come up anyway. KCI’s baggage carousels are so small that you can’t get near them anyway. People crowd around them four people deep and the crowds spill out into the narrow concourses. I like having real bathrooms beyond security and speaking of security, I rarely wait more than 5-10 minutes to get through security. I love having BWI as my home airport and think KC people would like a better terminal too if they knew what one was like.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2011, 10:56 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
7,659 posts, read 5,643,038 times
Reputation: 7505
Quote:
Originally Posted by TabulaRasa View Post
I don't see either as a huge issue. I personally fly infrequently and have no significant airport complaints, and while more transit would be lovely, it's obvious that there isn't the support or demand for it, so it's unsurprising that a more significant system than the one already in place hasn't been fleshed out.
Because neither one is.

The constant drumbeat for "transit" is pure ideology - a "solution" in search of a problem.

And with regard to KCI, the problem is today's unconstitutional over-the-top draconian security and not the airport.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2011, 11:34 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,504,291 times
Reputation: 5415
This mentality I'm seeing from many people here that everything is fine, nothing needs to be improved, we don't need that, why change this, is exactly what got KC into the shape it got into in the late 90's. You can only play the status quo game for so long before the next thing you know, you have to play major catch up with everything.

I guess I don't get the mentality at all. I'm the same with with my house as I am with my city. Always looking for ways to make it nicer to live in, more fun to entertain with, always updating it with modern touches such as lighting, tile or whatever every chance I get and it always pays off in the end because it's always one of the better homes on the bock when it's time to sell or rent. The best part though is that I was able to enjoy these improvements in the mean time.

I'm the same way with cities. But I honestly feel like I'm in the minority.

I have to be the only one that gets excited about zoo improvements, union station projects, liberty memorial, transit, a new stadiums or arenas etc. These things are like going to NFM and picking out a brand new living room set to me. I look less at the extra five bucks a month it will cost me and more at the future fun times I will have at the zoo with my family.

If it's an infrastructure improvement or a new cultural attraction or entertainment option, I'm all for it and am more than willing to help pay for it. You only live once.

Must just be my personality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2011, 11:48 AM
 
29,988 posts, read 35,862,752 times
Reputation: 12719
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
This mentality I'm seeing from many people here that everything is fine, nothing needs to be improved, we don't need that, why change this, is exactly what got KC into the shape it got into in the late 90's. You can only play the status quo game for so long before the next thing you know, you have to play major catch up with everything.

I guess I don't get the mentality at all. .....
IMO, the status quo game is throwing money at projects that don't fix the fundamental flaws of Kansas City and its livibility, primarily, the nearly half centry of the cr*ppy school district.

Build bigger and better sports stadium, arenas, more convention centers, and airports is all very nice but the tax base will not expand and Kansas City will not become a place more people want to relocate to and live until it has a public school district to which people find safe and worthy of sending their children. So, IMO, your approach is the one Kansas City has been using and it is the status quo. Of course, I'm only a taxpayer in the county and city who has watched her tax dollars to the school district and to special "revenue" projects be wasted x 30 years; so, my vote doesn't count.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
........ I love having BWI as my home airport and think KC people would like a better terminal too if they knew what one was like.
There was no reason to be insulting. You don't think people who fly have ever seen any other terminals besides MCI?

Last edited by lifelongMOgal; 11-07-2011 at 11:56 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2011, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,504,291 times
Reputation: 5415
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
IMO, the status quo game is throwing money at projects that don't fix the fundamental flaws of Kansas City and its livibility, primarily, the nearly half centry of the cr*ppy school district.

Build bigger and better sports stadium, arenas, more convention centers, and airports is all very nice but the tax base will not expand and Kansas City will not become a place more people want to relocate to and live until it has a public school district to which people find safe and worthy of sending their children. So, IMO, your approach is the one Kansas City has been using and it is the status quo. Of course, I'm only a taxpayer in the county and city who has watched her tax dollars to the school district and to special "revenue" projects be wasted x 30 years; so, my vote doesn't count.


There was no reason to be insulting. You don't think people who fly have ever seen any other terminals besides MCI?
Well, it wasn't meant to be an insult. The vast majority of people that fly out of KCI are not frequent flyers and have not set foot in most comparable sized airports to even compare. Often people think about that time they flew to JFK or ATL and hated the experience and think that's what they will get if KC were to build a new terminal. Even those that fly often, may not be able to understand what it's like to have a hometown airport that actually offers basic amenities, spacious, well lit, open concourses etc.

My point is that I think people in KC would be pleasantly surprised that a new terminal could be built that would add all the amenities, be more modern and welcoming to visitors and user friendly to those connecting while still maintaining short lines through security, close parking etc.

I honestly don't think most people know this. I have been told many time how people love KCI because it has plenty of parking lots and free shuttle buses. I'm like huh? What airport doesn't beside the big nasty ones I guess. If you don't live in Denver or Indianapolis, I guess you would never use their long term parking would you.

BTW, I'm just as supportive with the not so sexy things like schools, sidewalks, sewers, police, street lights etc as I am with convention hotels and arenas. I think you have to offer the entire package. Culture and entertainment is just as important as public parks and schools and police IMO. But I'm not going to devoid myself of enjoying a nice zoo because one area school district can't get its act together. But I too am just one voter/taxpayer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2011, 01:40 PM
 
3,008 posts, read 4,166,613 times
Reputation: 1524
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
Because neither one is.

The constant drumbeat for "transit" is pure ideology - a "solution" in search of a problem.

And with regard to KCI, the problem is today's unconstitutional over-the-top draconian security and not the airport.
When it comes to public transit in cities where it doesn't really exist or you have an outdated bus only system, the only thing taxpayers see is the possibility of a higher tax bill in the form of property and/or sales tax. They don't really see the benefit of having a good transportation system and how much they could/would actually save by taking an effective mass transit. KC is 313 sq miles so travel can get pretty steep in the pocket for a lot of people. Indy is 361 sq miles of land. Taking myself, before I started working from home fulltime, would drive 35 miles one way from Northern Johnson County (the county just south of Marion) to Northern Marion County (96th and Meridian). Roundtrip 71.8 miles to be exact. Using an average calculation of miles, gas price, average mpg, I would save a ton by not having to fill up twice a week ($50 at 3.25 a gallon). I imagine a lot of KC people esp. those further out or commuting from another county are in the same boat.

I used the calculation formula on the CICS Web site, CICS - Central Indiana Commuter Service which could be a useful tool for those truly wanting better transit options like KC that you can stick in someones face and let them get an idea for themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2011, 02:11 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
7,659 posts, read 5,643,038 times
Reputation: 7505
Quote:
Originally Posted by msamhunter View Post
When it comes to public transit in cities where it doesn't really exist or you have an outdated bus only system, the only thing taxpayers see is the possibility of a higher tax bill in the form of property and/or sales tax. They don't really see the benefit of having a good transportation system and how much they could/would actually save by taking an effective mass transit. KC is 313 sq miles so travel can get pretty steep in the pocket for a lot of people. Indy is 361 sq miles of land. Taking myself, before I started working from home fulltime, would drive 35 miles one way from Northern Johnson County (the county just south of Marion) to Northern Marion County (96th and Meridian). Roundtrip 71.8 miles to be exact. Using an average calculation of miles, gas price, average mpg, I would save a ton by not having to fill up twice a week ($50 at 3.25 a gallon). I imagine a lot of KC people esp. those further out or commuting from another county are in the same boat.

I used the calculation formula on the CICS Web site, CICS - Central Indiana Commuter Service which could be a useful tool for those truly wanting better transit options like KC that you can stick in someones face and let them get an idea for themselves.
No, they first and foremost see (where "transit" is concerned) that they don't want to use it and much prefer their cars.

Most people are perfectly capable of weighing the pros, cons, and costs for themselves and already have. If there were a desire/demand for more "transit", there would be more "transit".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 08:15 AM
 
Location: IN
20,170 posts, read 34,496,158 times
Reputation: 12508
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
No, they first and foremost see (where "transit" is concerned) that they don't want to use it and much prefer their cars.

Most people are perfectly capable of weighing the pros, cons, and costs for themselves and already have. If there were a desire/demand for more "transit", there would be more "transit".
Yet I don't understand why you don't see how the inherent inefficiencies of the sprawled out environment will not work well in the long-term. Maybe people will demand higher density areas that have all the infrastructure and city services in place instead of constantly demanding new services and amenities from taxpayers who prefer an outlying rural town that they live in to stay smaller instead of growing into a large mess. Then, when population increases these once "smaller towns or cities" have to entice even more businesses to move in to compensate for the low tax base in the first place. The cycle continues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 08:50 AM
 
Location: Tower Grove East, St. Louis, MO
12,064 posts, read 27,216,465 times
Reputation: 3739
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
No, they first and foremost see (where "transit" is concerned) that they don't want to use it and much prefer their cars.

Most people are perfectly capable of weighing the pros, cons, and costs for themselves and already have. If there were a desire/demand for more "transit", there would be more "transit".
That's actually not entirely true. LA has been known for years for having a rather terrible public transit system -- at least when compared to comparab;y sized cities -- and a recent poll showed that more than 2/3 of them support government investment in public transit infrastructure.

Poll says most voters in L.A. region favor more public transit - latimes.com

Quote:
Amanda Eaken of the NRDC said the data show that “if Southern California voters were in charge of our transportation plans, the region would look very different.”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > Kansas City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top