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.
When Phoenix was building its initial light rail system, the "conservative" opposition was very strong. After it opened, and ridership exceeded expectations, future extensions met with very little resistance.
The light rail system has dramatically increased property values along its route, major office and residential developments have opened up near its stations, and a lot of people think of it as a point of civic pride.
Yes, Phoenix does have the suburbanites that commute from suburb to suburb who have no purpose for the rail, but it does do a good job linking downtown Phoenix with the airport, downtown Tempe (and ASU), and downtown Mesa. I use it to go downtown to catch a ball game (as it's so much easier than parking downtown).
The other thing that the rail may have contributed to is infill redevelopment. Go anywhere along the rail line and you'll see increased density and new development.
Tucson, AZ (with a similar city population to KC) has a 3.9 mile streetcar system that is leading to all kinds of growth and development as well as talks of expansion.
Phoenix and Dallas both started "big" with their projects so they initially could have the biggest impact. A lot of people don't see a lot of value in a 2.2 mile system but both Dallas and Phoenix had 20 mile long starter systems which proved to be successful and led to easier support for expansion.
I'm not saying (like some people do) that KCI is "too far" from downtown, but if it was closer then light rail / streetcars would probably have more support. Phoenix's airport is extremely close to downtown, so they can actually put in a line that serves both downtown commuters and air travelers. KC is not in a position to kill both those birds with the same stone, so it makes it harder to get everyone on board (no pun intended.)
You all make valid points. From the outside, Kansas City appears to be a cow-town with potential to be a Great Midwest Metropolis. So although we have a great geographic location in the center of the country, why don't we make the infrastructure improvements to make this a first-class city?
One of the issues we have in Kansas City blocking these improvements is literally a North/South divided city. The socioeconomic views & challenges are night/day depending on the side of the river you are on. Generally speaking, if you live north of the river, you don't want to pay higher taxes for infrastructure improvements downtown with little or no benefit to the Northland. Likewise, if the shoe were on the other foot, people south of the river won't vote for a project up north, with no value proposition to them. Our public services up north are grossly underfunded. Police, EMS & Fire response north of the river are all a joke. Oddly enough though, the areas that are understaffed and underfunded are also the areas that happen to have the lowest crime/homicide rates in the city.
I don't see a clear answer on how this would even be possible, but based on my research, the only way that I see the light rail/streetcar project ever making it to the airport or UMKC, Westport or the Plaza - or really anywhere beyond the current routes at all, is if:
A) There is a value proposition that benefits the residents of the Northland which convinces them to vote for higher taxes.
B) Most or all of these projects are funded by private investors with no tax encroachment upon those opposed.
C) There was a movement to divide the city into two separate cities, where Kansas City, MO (proper) would be south of the river, and the areas north of the river in Platte & Clay Counties would vote to join North Kansas City, Liberty, Riverside & Parkville, or form separate city entities of their own.
The value to Option C - People north of the river wouldn't have to pay to fund schools their kids don't go to. No 1% tax that doesn't benefit them. They won't have to pay for a streetcar system that doesn't benefit them. The benefit south of the river would be that they could tax the residents of the city who want it, and do whatever they want to prove to the rest of the Metro what they can do. Therefore encouraging expansion. The only thing that would make this any sort of a reality is if they move forward with privatizing the airport improvement project as is being discussed.
You all make valid points. From the outside, Kansas City appears to be a cow-town with potential to be a Great Midwest Metropolis. So although we have a great geographic location in the center of the country, why don't we make the infrastructure improvements to make this a first-class city?
One of the issues we have in Kansas City blocking these improvements is literally a North/South divided city. The socioeconomic views & challenges are night/day depending on the side of the river you are on. Generally speaking, if you live north of the river, you don't want to pay higher taxes for infrastructure improvements downtown with little or no benefit to the Northland. Likewise, if the shoe were on the other foot, people south of the river won't vote for a project up north, with no value proposition to them. Our public services up north are grossly underfunded. Police, EMS & Fire response north of the river are all a joke. Oddly enough though, the areas that are understaffed and underfunded are also the areas that happen to have the lowest crime/homicide rates in the city.
I don't see a clear answer on how this would even be possible, but based on my research, the only way that I see the light rail/streetcar project ever making it to the airport or UMKC, Westport or the Plaza - or really anywhere beyond the current routes at all, is if:
A) There is a value proposition that benefits the residents of the Northland which convinces them to vote for higher taxes.
B) Most or all of these projects are funded by private investors with no tax encroachment upon those opposed.
C) There was a movement to divide the city into two separate cities, where Kansas City, MO (proper) would be south of the river, and the areas north of the river in Platte & Clay Counties would vote to join North Kansas City, Liberty, Riverside & Parkville, or form separate city entities of their own.
The value to Option C - People north of the river wouldn't have to pay to fund schools their kids don't go to. No 1% tax that doesn't benefit them. They won't have to pay for a streetcar system that doesn't benefit them. The benefit south of the river would be that they could tax the residents of the city who want it, and do whatever they want to prove to the rest of the Metro what they can do. Therefore encouraging expansion. The only thing that would make this any sort of a reality is if they move forward with privatizing the airport improvement project as is being discussed.
A lot of this is correct I believe. A good majority of the Northland residents resent paying a 1 % earnings tax for a city that has lost it's tax based. There's also a third segment of the city, The East side and those residents do not care about improvements that benefit the overall experience of the city for residents and visitors. They don't care about a streetcar, they don't care about the airport and they don't care about downtown booming. That's just how it is, you have three segments of one municipality. The Northland should definitely be cut loose to join up with the northland suburbs.
Kansas City is a small city with almost no congestion. And while some of it's peers (which neither Phoenix nor Dallas are) have a modicum of transit infrastructure, very few of them have anything that could possibly be called good, and many more of them have similar uphill battles to KC: Cincy, Milwaukee, Jacksonville, San Antonio, Orlando, Indianapolis, Columbus, Virginia Beach, Austin, etc. It just comes with the territory of being a small city. Many significantly bigger, and often much more congested cities just recently started investing in transit. And when they did, the process had fits and starts just like here. If you are the kind of person who wants to live in a functional urban place but doesn't enjoy the process of building that, this is not the place for you. You can't coast here, this is no place for rear-guarders.
KC would never pass up on all those Norhland tax dollars
You're right, the northland is a big cash cow for the city, they will never give it up. The east side only wants what they want for the east side and could care less about the northland or rest of the city's needs as long as they can get the benefits of other residents tax dollars. I know a lot of east side residents and to them the streetcar, airport, etc is of no interest to them but only to the resident's of the rest of the city or visitors. If they can "gum up" streetcar expansion or a new airport terminal they will do it.
You all make valid points. From the outside, Kansas City appears to be a cow-town with potential to be a Great Midwest Metropolis. So although we have a great geographic location in the center of the country, why don't we make the infrastructure improvements to make this a first-class city?
One of the issues we have in Kansas City blocking these improvements is literally a North/South divided city. The socioeconomic views & challenges are night/day depending on the side of the river you are on. Generally speaking, if you live north of the river, you don't want to pay higher taxes for infrastructure improvements downtown with little or no benefit to the Northland. Likewise, if the shoe were on the other foot, people south of the river won't vote for a project up north, with no value proposition to them. Our public services up north are grossly underfunded. Police, EMS & Fire response north of the river are all a joke. Oddly enough though, the areas that are understaffed and underfunded are also the areas that happen to have the lowest crime/homicide rates in the city.
I don't see a clear answer on how this would even be possible, but based on my research, the only way that I see the light rail/streetcar project ever making it to the airport or UMKC, Westport or the Plaza - or really anywhere beyond the current routes at all, is if:
A) There is a value proposition that benefits the residents of the Northland which convinces them to vote for higher taxes.
B) Most or all of these projects are funded by private investors with no tax encroachment upon those opposed.
C) There was a movement to divide the city into two separate cities, where Kansas City, MO (proper) would be south of the river, and the areas north of the river in Platte & Clay Counties would vote to join North Kansas City, Liberty, Riverside & Parkville, or form separate city entities of their own.
The value to Option C - People north of the river wouldn't have to pay to fund schools their kids don't go to. No 1% tax that doesn't benefit them. They won't have to pay for a streetcar system that doesn't benefit them. The benefit south of the river would be that they could tax the residents of the city who want it, and do whatever they want to prove to the rest of the Metro what they can do. Therefore encouraging expansion. The only thing that would make this any sort of a reality is if they move forward with privatizing the airport improvement project as is being discussed.
I'm going to sheepishly admit I haven't given much thought to there being a North vs South divide in KC,MO, but considering the things you've mentioned I can understand why folks north of the river would be frustrated.
KC goes to the Northland looking for checks (in the form of taxes that apply to all city residents) while having explicit plans to invest the bulk of those checks south of the river. I don't know if the Northland is considered more self-sufficient, and thus less in need of the funds? But yes, there would be legitimate objections to paying for major projects south of the river in place of adequate basic services up north.
On the other hand I'd like to believe expanding the streetcar would be considered directly beneficial to Northlanders in some ways, because an expanded streetcar system could serve as the nucleus for a metro-wide light rail system that might one day have several stops up north. Sure, we don't know ahead of time that things would ultimately work out that way, but streetcar expansion would have to at least be on the table to have those options over the long term.
I'll take a stab at offering proposals that might work well within the requirements for expansion you've listed:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCNorthlander
A) There is a value proposition that benefits the residents of the Northland which convinces them to vote for higher taxes.
What if there's an agreement about ratio of spending? For example every dollar spent on streetcar expansion must be matched by spending on public services north of the river. Plus there's an agreement that the first expansion outside of the urban core / Plaza / UMKC is to the North.
Drawbacks: I'm not sure there'd be that much investment money to go around, plus it seems like the line between negotiations and pork spending could be easily blurred in this type of situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCNorthlander
B) Most or all of these projects are funded by private investors with no tax encroachment upon those opposed.
Very few grand civic projects anywhere are completed without significant private investment, so among its corporate citizens, maybe KC really should start asking more than just H&R Block to invest in bettering the city. I could see the city agreeing to get most of the construction funds from corporations and private donors and even federal grants.
Drawback: realistically, at some point, there would have to be an agreement on taxing all city residents directly for the bulk of the maintenance and upkeep of the completed project/s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCNorthlander
C) There was a movement to divide the city into two separate cities, where Kansas City, MO (proper) would be south of the river, and the areas north of the river in Platte & Clay Counties would vote to join North Kansas City, Liberty, Riverside & Parkville, or form separate city entities of their own.
I'm going to admit to a bias here, but I'm loath to see the city's general tax base shrink any more than it needs to. How about this compromise: agree to the secession of the Northland under the condition that they vote to approve airport modernization and streetcar expansion beforehand, and agree to become an automatic member of a regional light rail system should it ever come about. In exchange, no more paying for schools south of the river or allowing any perceived incompetence at city hall to impact the Northland on a day-to-day basis.
Drawback: this could potentially blur the line between negotiation and bribery.
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.
