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)
 
 
Old 02-22-2016, 06:42 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,520,931 times
Reputation: 5415

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lovekcmo View Post
Yes, I did/do take 435, it's the most direct route to get from the airport back to civilization. 435 should have been developed before 152 that has been going on in the northland.
How do you figure. You exit to 29 south and you are basically in suburbia right away and by the time you get just a few miles south, it's pretty much built out, then you see the skyline in ten minutes and in the middle of the city in 20 minutes.

If you take 435, you don't ever reach civilization that feels like a major metro. The first signs of anything at all like or 30 minutes out near worlds of fun and even that area is just industrial for the most part.

It's not faster to take 435, but even if it was I would still take another route. Even 29 to 152 east is better than 435. Nothing like picking people up at KCI (a very Podunk feeling airport) and then driving 435 for a hour through nothing with some crap mixed in. I always preferred to drive through developed parts of metro KC to and from KCI especially when picking people up. The time difference is minimal, but that 435 drive is seriously depressing.

When I worked for Burns and McDonnell, they instructed shuttles to drive through the city when they retrieved clients and potential employees because otherwise the first impression of Kansas City was beyond terrible due to the airport and what they see on the way to the office.

BTW, 435 should have never gone north of 152. 152 should be the north leg of 435. I guess it's good that it's there, but it will be 60 years before the north leg of 435 is built up.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-22-2016, 07:56 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,520,931 times
Reputation: 5415
So, I had a little fun with photo shop. I removed the north loop of 435 and routed 435 along the existing 152. 435 north of 152 is extremely low volume and traffic could easily move to other highways. That part of 435 would look like the south leg of 435 with 8-10 lanes etc. Then I moved KCI to just east 29. I don't see the point in this, but lovekcmo said it would be better north of Gladstone rather than where it's at now? But I put it there anyway and rotated it so the terminal more accessible from the south. I also put the airport in one of the only open areas of land in the metro, just east of Raytown. The topography there is very rough so I don't think it's a feasible location, but it would have been much closer to more people there.

Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2016, 08:05 PM
 
Location: Fort Riley, KS
30 posts, read 14,072 times
Reputation: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
It can be okay to fly in and out if you are not flying with your family, especially kids, are not checking bags, are not flying during peak times, are dropped off, don't have to get there early and there are no delays.
I will politely disagree. I've flown in/out of many airports (Thanks, Army!) throughout the country, and there are some airports that are just frickin' horrendous with children (LAX, JFK, OKC) KCI is not one of them. Because there is security point for a group of gates, it's a lot easier to get to a flight. For example, SeaTac usually has 2 multi-laned checkpoints to get into ALL of the gates and it's like trying to wade through tide of humanity. I've flown sans spouse with all three of younger-set kids in/out of KCI and it's been easy.

The only thing that I do wish would be better are the amenities. Better restaurants would rock, yes, but my biggest beef is that KCI has no USO, yet Ft. Leavenworth, Ft. Riley, and Ft. Lost in the Woods all route soldiers through KCI.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2016, 08:22 PM
 
Location: Fort Riley, KS
30 posts, read 14,072 times
Reputation: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
If you take 435, you don't ever reach civilization that feels like a major metro. The first signs of anything at all like or 30 minutes out near worlds of fun and even that area is just industrial for the most part.

It's not faster to take 435, but even if it was I would still take another route. Even 29 to 152 east is better than 435. Nothing like picking people up at KCI (a very Podunk feeling airport) and then driving 435 for a hour through nothing with some crap mixed in. I always preferred to drive through developed parts of metro KC to and from KCI especially when picking people up. The time difference is minimal, but that 435 drive is seriously depressing.
When driving from Ft. Riley, we make it a point to take 635 to 29. Otherwise, I get too many speeding tickets trying to get away from the banjo music.

In all seriousness, going the prescribed route of 435 when traveling eastward on 70, it is depressing and podunk. I'm not saying that other metro areas don't have the airport out in BFE problem (SAV comes to mind), but if KCMO wants to definitely keep the KANSAS feeling in KCI, they've got that feeling in spades.

"You've got that Kansas feelin'
Whoa, that Kansas feelin'
You've got that Kansas feelin'
No place like Home...Home...Home...woah"

Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2016, 08:54 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,520,931 times
Reputation: 5415
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatJamIAm View Post
I will politely disagree. I've flown in/out of many airports (Thanks, Army!) throughout the country, and there are some airports that are just frickin' horrendous with children (LAX, JFK, OKC) KCI is not one of them. Because there is security point for a group of gates, it's a lot easier to get to a flight. For example, SeaTac usually has 2 multi-laned checkpoints to get into ALL of the gates and it's like trying to wade through tide of humanity. I've flown sans spouse with all three of younger-set kids in/out of KCI and it's been easy.

The only thing that I do wish would be better are the amenities. Better restaurants would rock, yes, but my biggest beef is that KCI has no USO, yet Ft. Leavenworth, Ft. Riley, and Ft. Lost in the Woods all route soldiers through KCI.
I can see what you are saying. I'm sure airports in general are pretty hit and miss with children. KCI would suck if you are caught there with during a delay or it's very crowded, but other airports would suck too. Flying with young children sort of sucks no matter what, but I do think a new terminal would make things better rather than worse with children.

Did you know that Fort Leavenworth is the biggest single user of KCI? One more reason the location of the airport is fine. You can't have it near everybody.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2016, 08:56 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,520,931 times
Reputation: 5415
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatJamIAm View Post
When driving from Ft. Riley, we make it a point to take 635 to 29. Otherwise, I get too many speeding tickets trying to get away from the banjo music.

In all seriousness, going the prescribed route of 435 when traveling eastward on 70, it is depressing and podunk. I'm not saying that other metro areas don't have the airport out in BFE problem (SAV comes to mind), but if KCMO wants to definitely keep the KANSAS feeling in KCI, they've got that feeling in spades.

"You've got that Kansas feelin'
Whoa, that Kansas feelin'
You've got that Kansas feelin'
No place like Home...Home...Home...woah"

KCI alone definitely confirms nearly all the standard "kansas" stererotypes of KC. You land in a field next to cows and all you can see is the terminal for miles, if you are lucky. If you are on the other side of the plane, all you see is empty land, not even the terminal. Then you walk into a very dated, dark, tiny terminal that is basically a bus shelter with lots of seats. Taking 435 away from KCI into MO or KS after you land only enhances those confirmations .
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2016, 09:09 PM
 
Location: Fort Riley, KS
30 posts, read 14,072 times
Reputation: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
I can see what you are saying. I'm sure airports in general are pretty hit and miss with children. KCI would suck if you are caught there with during a delay or it's very crowded, but other airports would suck too. Flying with young children sort of sucks no matter what, but I do think a new terminal would make things better rather than worse with children.

Our kids have been flying since they were 5 months old, so \_(ツ)_/ 99% of the time, they're better behaved than your typical drunken passenger with entitlement issues, and, thankfully, having flown as much as they have, they aren't *those kids*

Our favorites have been MSP because of the awesome soldier assistance center and abundance of restuarants/shops, and DTW, now that it's not like flying into the gates of hell like it was in 1998/1999 when it was overhauling the runways and still functioning as Northwest's hub. Errgggghhhh...

If KCI installs more bathrooms and/or family bathrooms in the new terminal, we'd be total flying BFF's.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2016, 10:19 PM
 
12,615 posts, read 14,630,194 times
Reputation: 14131
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
KCI alone definitely confirms nearly all the standard "kansas" stererotypes of KC. You land in a field next to cows and all you can see is the terminal for miles, if you are lucky. If you are on the other side of the plane, all you see is empty land, not even the terminal. Then you walk into a very dated, dark, tiny terminal that is basically a bus shelter with lots of seats. Taking 435 away from KCI into MO or KS after you land only enhances those confirmations .
Funny how you take everything you see as negative and attribute it to Kansas even though you are talking about Missouri. All the things you mention are Missouri things because, after all, the airport is in Missouri, not Kansas. Missouri has plenty of cows and empty land. And the airport that you despise so much is in Missouri, not Kansas.

I kind of like taking 435 home from the airport. It's a prettier drive than I-70 to 635. But I can only do that when I'm alone; my husband likes the direct route better than the scenic route and groans if I take 435.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2016, 10:50 PM
 
Location: Fort Riley, KS
30 posts, read 14,072 times
Reputation: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by luzianne View Post
I kind of like taking 435 home from the airport. It's a prettier drive than I-70 to 635. But I can only do that when I'm alone; my husband likes the direct route better than the scenic route and groans if I take 435.
After living in Wisconsin for the first 20 of my life, I'm quite done with bucolic scenes of cow posteriors and rolling acres of farmland... Not to mention driving through an hour and a half of more farmland to get from Fort Riley to the outskirts of KCK (minusing out time for Topeka, Lawerence), I'll take civilization and 635.

More power to you for enjoying the scenic route. I'd enjoy it, too, if it weren't for the previous hour and a half of samesuch scenery to get to KC. By the time I get to the outskirts, it's time to fill the empty and empty the full, so having places to do so - and that are are easy in/out - is a must. There just isn't that much on 435 unless you swing around past the airport.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2016, 05:44 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,520,931 times
Reputation: 5415
Quote:
Originally Posted by luzianne View Post
Funny how you take everything you see as negative and attribute it to Kansas even though you are talking about Missouri. All the things you mention are Missouri things because, after all, the airport is in Missouri, not Kansas. Missouri has plenty of cows and empty land. And the airport that you despise so much is in Missouri, not Kansas.

I kind of like taking 435 home from the airport. It's a prettier drive than I-70 to 635. But I can only do that when I'm alone; my husband likes the direct route better than the scenic route and groans if I take 435.
I know there is little difference between "rural" Kansas and Missouri (at least in the KC area), but the fact is that Kansas has much more pronounced stereotypes than Missouri. People expect flat, farms, cows, no vegetation, boring etc while Missouri really has little to no image at all outside of St Louis. It's still flyover county, but its image is very different than Kansas. It's more tied to St Louis, rivers etc while Kansas City is tied to Kansas and images of Wizard of Oz, tornadoes, farms etc. It is what it is. And the entire process of landing at KCI from the fact that you are not likely to see major civilization for the entire descending flight pattern to stepping into an airport that looks like it should be in Topeka, not a major city. Then you drive for 30-45 minutes via 435 which is actually more rural than most stretches of I-70 across Missouri.

I get what you are saying about liking to take 435. Lots of people take it for various reasons. Less traffic being the number one reason, not wanting to go through the city or change highways several times etc.

But if you are wanting to impress out of towners on their first visit to KC such as recruiting younger people from the coasts or bringing in business people to make deals etc, the last thing you want to do and make them feel like the KC area is some giant rural/industrial community with nothing going on and KCI + the drive from KCI to many suburban areas, makes KC feel exactly like that. I have picked up many people at KCI for their first visit to KC and taken 435 a few times due to construction etc and the difference it creates in people's initial reaction to KC is significant. Those that rent their own car and drive 435 always had a terrible impression of KC and had to be really sold on the city. When you land at a ****ty airport and drive for an hour through rural and industrial/run down areas to get anywhere, like the drive from KCI to the stadiums via 435, it really does create a pretty negative image of the city. That's why I always take 29 to KCI, it just has a better feel. I prefer urban.

I still remember back in college when some roommates flew into KC from Chicago to Warrensburg. They always thought KC was a very small/rural city because of KCI and the drive to Warrensburg from KCI. One day one of them went to KCI to pick up the other and their car broke down on the north leg of 435. They didn't have cell phones at the time and they had to walk miles and miles to even find an occupied business to make a phone call. I mean there is NOTHING up there for miles. At least if you take 29, you are close to stuff at every exit.
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.


 
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
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