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.
It's a starter line...if they expand it I will like it a lot. Also, I don't understand why so many people dog the bus...especially the MAX. KCATA/RideKC has a clean new bus fleet and they are working hard to be flexible. I am an educated professional and I use the bus every once and a while. We live in Leawood, and my office is pretty close to home so I have taken the JO (now RideKC) or I ride my bike when the weather is nice because I don't really like to drive my car.
We were in DC recently and a lot of smart people who aren't "poor" (as if it's a good thing to avoid public trans because you want to avoid poor people anyway) use the DC Circulator bus to get around town. The Circulator has pretty widespread appeal and we found it much more comfortable than the Washington DC subways. A comprehensive bus and light rail or streetcar can be very beneficial. Imagine if you want to go down to Westport, Plaza or P+L but don't want to worry about driving home...sure you could Uber, but a good public trans system would make that much more affordable and accessible.
Your comment about "want[ing] to avoid poor people" hits closer to the mark than you may believe. As famed Yale (formerly Penn) sociologist Elijah Anderson ("Code of the Streets," "The Cosmopolitan Canopy") put it in this Next City article I wrote two years ago, buses are seen by many as an extension of "the iconic ghetto" - so much so that even an African-American acquaintance of mine who ended up living in a poor neighborhood still refused to ride one:
Status Anxiety Drives Trains, Shuns Buses | Next City
(Full disclosure: I live in a poor part of East Germantown, a neighborhood in Philadelphia's northwestern section. My daily commute to the Philadelphia magazine offices downtown involves an 8-minute bus ride, a 14-minute express subway trip and a 1-minute trip on a trolley subway (or, if I feel like it, a 5-minute walk from City Hall). I think the wave of reinvestment and "gentrification" may be lapping at its borders: I've noticed a small but increasing number of white faces waiting for and boarding the bus lines I take to the subway over the past month or so.)
I also visit DC fairly often (a dear friend of mine who's in the same line of work lives there) and have used the Circulator to get around as well. I encourage you to spread the gospel to your neighbors in Leawood.
Let me also note here that I like the "RideKC" branding effort among the region's public transportation agencies. I remember when the Kansas City Area Transporation Authority was formed in 1969; this effort provides that seamless user experience that should encourage more people to try transit while maintaining the local control of service Independence and Johnson County residents apparently want.
Your comment about "want[ing] to avoid poor people" hits closer to the mark than you may believe. As famed Yale (formerly Penn) sociologist Elijah Anderson ("Code of the Streets," "The Cosmopolitan Canopy") put it in this Next City article I wrote two years ago, buses are seen by many as an extension of "the iconic ghetto" - so much so that even an African-American acquaintance of mine who ended up living in a poor neighborhood still refused to ride one:
Status Anxiety Drives Trains, Shuns Buses | Next City
The thing about buses is that they are way more flexible...one of my criticisms of the streetcar is that it doesn't offer marginally much quicker service than a BRT, and it is fixed in place so if demand were to suddenly shift east or west it can't be rerouted. On a per-mile cost basis it's so much more ineffecient than a bus line. A clean bus system is much more cost effective and flexible and delivers that "last mile" service that a streetcar/light rail line cannot. The problem is the stigma - which is perplexing to me. Modern buses aren't dirty anymore. They are environmentally much friendlier than they used to be. I spend a bunch of time in Atlanta for work and if you compare the MARTA rail lines to the bus lines, it's not like the rail lines offer a service that is other-worldy compared to the bus. Yet I work with Atlantans who love the rail (Atlanta commutes on highways are BRUTAL) but wouldn't think of taking the bus.
The bus has historically been a symbol of integration of people with different backgrounds and kinship with neighbors from all walks of life. What's more iconic to the fight for civil rights than the city bus? Yet, somewhere along the line it got vilified. I am not trying to "force" people and don't believe in social engineering people to ride public trans, but I just find it curious why there is an inconsistency in consumer taste in this particular instance.
Last edited by KC_Sleuth; 08-09-2016 at 07:11 AM..
The thing about buses is that they are way more flexible...one of my criticisms of the streetcar is that it doesn't offer marginally much quicker service than a BRT, and it is fixed in place so if demand were to suddenly shift east or west it can't be rerouted. On a per-mile cost basis it's so much more ineffecient than a bus line. A clean bus system is much more cost effective and flexible and delivers that "last mile" service that a streetcar/light rail line cannot. The problem is the stigma - which is perplexing to me. Modern buses aren't dirty anymore. They are environmentally much friendlier than they used to be. I spend a bunch of time in Atlanta for work and if you compare the MARTA rail lines to the bus lines, it's not like the rail lines offer a service that is other-worldy compared to the bus. Yet I work with Atlantans who love the rail (Atlanta commutes on highways are BRUTAL) but wouldn't think of taking the bus.
The bus has historically been a symbol of integration of people with different backgrounds and kinship with neighbors from all walks of life. What's more iconic to the fight for civil rights than the city bus? Yet, somewhere along the line it got vilified. I am not trying to "force" people and don't believe in social engineering people to ride public trans, but I just find it curious why there is an inconsistency in consumer taste in this particular instance.
The buses are not what I would say are integrated. Certain people ride the buses (they want a stop every five feet, want the bus to come down their street instead of walking to a designated streetcar/lightrail line) other will only ride designated streetcar/lightrail lines. Streetcar lines also seemed to spur more economic development than bus lines. Example, if buses improve economic conditions, Prospect would be busy with business and tax dollars for the city. I say forgot certain portions of the city for anymore tax dollars being spent and focus on building things in portions of the city that appreciate things.
The buses are not what I would say are integrated. Certain people ride the buses (they want a stop every five feet, want the bus to come down their street instead of walking to a designated streetcar/lightrail line) other will only ride designated streetcar/lightrail lines. Streetcar lines also seemed to spur more economic development than bus lines. Example, if buses improve economic conditions, Prospect would be busy with business and tax dollars for the city. I say forgot certain portions of the city for anymore tax dollars being spent and focus on building things in portions of the city that appreciate things.
I've not seen in their entirety the flyers Freedom Inc. distributed encouraging East Side residents to vote against the streetcar extensions, but I have seen a piece of them, and I find the argument that this was some form of Jim Crow puzzling to say the least. From what I understand from this distance, the objection was (or may have been) that they didn't penetrate deep enough into the East Side, or that the tax district would extend far beyond the territory where the proposed extensions would be of benefit, or something like that.
But that's still my old stomping grounds you're talking about, and I'd like to see it come back from the undead. And I'm sure I'm not the only East Sider, present or former, who shares that sentiment. Oak Park was a nice neighborhood when I was growing up, and its bones survive intact. I believe it could be one again.
I can tell you that how the bus service is provided makes a difference. A true bus rapid transit facility, like the Transitway in Canada's national capital of Ottawa, does offer those same features that stimulate development that rail lines offer - most notably, actual stations around which the development can cluster. The only facilities of that type I'm aware of in the US are in Pittsburgh (two busways on completely grade-separated structures; I don't think they've done all that much to redevelop land in between their ends - but then again, neither have the three improved LRT lines that feed the downtown subway from its southern suburbs), Los Angeles (the Orange Line, whose ridership is high enough that there's serious talk about converting it to a rail line, as is being done with the Ottawa Transitway now) and central Connecticut (CTfastrak, a dedicated busway along a former interurban ROW between Hartford and New Britain that I understand has at the very least stimulated business activity around its stations so far).
All Prospect Avenue has right now is local bus service. That's not enough. Will Prospect MAX be enough? That's "BRT-lite," which is the more common form of BRT in the United States to date. It should attract more riders than the current service does, which is at least a start.
As for those who "will only ride designated streetcar/light rail lines," well, those are the people KC_Sleuth and I are scratching our heads over.
All the talk to this point has been relevant, I believe. But there appears to be a vital element missing from the conversation.
Despite former mayor Cleaver's dismissive "touristy frou frou" label, regarding light rail, the tourism aspect is actually an important reason to create a strong spine for a regional transit network. Imagine you're one of the following people:
1. A Convention-Goer from another city
2. A Business Traveler with an afternoon off
3. A 20-something planning an evening of bar-hopping
4. A Johnson Countian spending a day "out on the town"
Once the Streetcar is extended to the Plaza and UMKC, all four of these people can easily occupy themselves entirely within a 4-6 block radius from a streetcar stop. Will ANY of these people take the bus? Maybe (maybe!) the 20-something, but it's not likely. There are several reasons why not, but a major one is that they are "outsiders" to the local bus system. They don't know how to pay, they don't know where the busses go, they don't know whether there are friendly people riding them, and they're not motivated to find out for the sake of one afternoon or one night. And why should they be?
However, if you give them a sleek ride, with a a zero-point entry, and a simple route that hits virtually every point likely to be of interest to them, bingo! Make it free and you've sealed the deal.
That being said, I think the Streetcar is also a valuable asset for locals, as the spine of a regional system. But we can't overlook the importance of the Convention & Tourism sector of the Kansas City economy. We tried to overlook it for awhile, but we've finally started to claw our way back, and there are two major jewels in that crown: the Streetcar, and the hotel-building boom. I guess you could say Kansas City is on the right track ::eye roll::
East side blew their chance. Nothing will make them happy. And now with BLM acting so stupid, I think most normal people are going to want to work with areas like the east side less and less anyway. KCMO needs to concentrate on the city from the river to Brookside and make that part of the city thrive. It's really the only part of all of metro KC that worth much anyway. The rest of metro KC is pretty much blah.
East side blew their chance. Nothing will make them happy. And now with BLM acting so stupid, I think most normal people are going to want to work with areas like the east side less and less anyway. KCMO needs to concentrate on the city from the river to Brookside and make that part of the city thrive. It's really the only part of all of metro KC that worth much anyway. The rest of metro KC is pretty much blah.
Strongly disagree. there are so many communities throughout the KC Metro that provide great amenities and high quality of life/standard of living at incredible value. I guess I am not sure what you are using to measure "worth" in this statement.
Strongly disagree. there are so many communities throughout the KC Metro that provide great amenities and high quality of life/standard of living at incredible value. I guess I am not sure what you are using to measure "worth" in this statement.
I don't mean it's not worth anything. I mean KC needs to first make the unique and interesting parts of the city the most desirable it can so the city can attract new companies, residents, conventions, tourists etc and stop trying to convince areas like the east side, JoCo etc that the urban core is just as important to them.
There is almost nothing in the rest of KC that can not be found in almost any major community in america. Honestly, I don't think KC's suburbs are all that great anyway. They are average at best. Northland, JoCo, Lee's Summit etc are just average suburbia that will be attractive to people looking for that no matter what, if they want to move to KC in the first place.
Having a thriving urban core should be the number one goal of the entire area. Sure Overland Park and Lee's Summit will thrive even if KCMO were rotting away, but they would be even better if KCMO were thriving too.
As someone that travels the county and sees every major city in the country at least once every few years. I really don't think metro KC outside of the urban core (includes KCMO to Waldo west of Paseo and a little bit of NE JoCo) is all that impressive. The rest of KC really is very meh to me. Too much decay, too sprawly, too many freeways and under used land etc. The drive to the speedway or stadiums for example is just depressing, JoCo has more roads than buildings and highway medians sometimes big enough to build buildings (435 west loop). Way too much grass and unused space. 435 on the east side looks like it goes through an unimproved rural area or it's just rural or industrial (industrial as in junk yards).
Concentrate on the cool part of the metro. Sure help the northland grow, do what you can for the east side, but concentrate on the part of the city that can really make a difference.
As someone that travels the county and sees every major city in the country at least once every few years. I really don't think metro KC outside of the urban core (includes KCMO to Waldo west of Paseo and a little bit of NE JoCo) is all that impressive. The rest of KC really is very meh to me. Too much decay, too sprawly, too many freeways and under used land etc. The drive to the speedway or stadiums for example is just depressing, JoCo has more roads than buildings and highway medians sometimes big enough to build buildings (435 west loop). Way too much grass and unused space. 435 on the east side looks like it goes through an unimproved rural area or it's just rural or industrial (industrial as in junk yards).
KC is a spread-out town. A lot of people like it that way - I guess I am failing to see how that is an absolute negative. Every city has junk yards - that's unavoidable. KC has sort of contained their junk yards to a couple areas, whereas more dense cities have to pack those into actual neighborhoods and it impedes quality of life for even more residents (go to Queens or Bronx or Anacostia and see the industrial pads mixed into residential high-dense neighborhoods).
Yes, some of the greenfields/grass needs some watering or maintenance. We have stretches of unused land. But most of it is well tended to. It provides and promotes more open space instead of just dense building after building. I guess it's just a matter of taste, but I would certainly rather have swaths of grass and trees than just office buildings. Plus our spacing/denisty allows most neighborhoods (in the core and out) to have large yards. And we have plenty of restaurants/entertainment options, so it's not like a lack of buildings creates a serious drain on quality of life.
Also, outside of conventions, I don't know if we are really supposed to be a "tourist" town. Sure we'll pull a bunch of people from the region, but nobody's flying to KC just to vacation outside of a sporting event or some other thing. That's not our lane...we may as well work within our lane...which is, providing a high-quality lifestyle and vibrant economy for residents. I think KC area overall does a good job of that.
I mentioned I spend a bunch of time in Atlanta for work. Atlanta is considered an "alpha" city. But I don't see some huge extreme quality of life advantage there as compared to here. And they have huge stretches of unused land and industrial sites near highways. In fact, the only advantage I have ever seen there is 1) a subway to the airport; and 2) lots of flights which make for cheaper travel. Other than that, quality-of-life wise, KC is pretty darned close.
Last edited by KC_Sleuth; 08-10-2016 at 12:16 PM..
I didn't say anything about the quality of life. I just don't think KC is very impressive outside the river crown plaza plus a few surrounding districts and suburbs. Metro KC is fine. It does have a lot of suburban blight and funky suburban/rural areas (KCK, far Southeast KCMO etc). JoCo is just so average and seems very dated to me compared to modern corporate suburbs of big cities. It really seems to have barely changed in since the 1980's. Nothing wrong with it, but I don't get the hype at all. They are trying with Leawood park plaza and lenexa town center, not a fan though because the surrounding area is just so blah. Northland is okay, can be pretty blue collar though at least in Clay County but also average suburbia at best. Zona Rosa, Downtown NKC, Downtown Liberty and Briarcliff are okay, I like the trees, hills etc of those, but they are smallish. Downtown Lee's Summit is nice and you have the lakes in Eastern Jackson. I hate the village west area of KCK. Just not my thing at all. So lots of places to live a nice suburban life, but anything to write home about in metro KC outside the city? Not in my opinion. Maybe Lee's Summit and maybe Lawrence.
When you go to KC, you visit Downtown, Penn Valley Park, Plaza, Westport, Nelson, River Market, Crown Center etc.
Oh and the Washington DC area has way more greenery than the KC area does. You can hardly see any development from most freeways in the region. It's not that I want to see everything built up at all.
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 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.
