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.
The automobile is the most significant invention in the last 150 years and dwarfs all others in magnitude of benefit to life quality that it has afforded. It has been, is, and will continue to be the personal transportation of choice for the majority of Americans. Most people do not want "alternate" transit.
To the extent that there may be a decline in car ownership, it is not being driven by an ideological shift or preference. It is being driven, sadly and regrettably, by the shrinkage of our middle class as our collective wealth disappears overseas and to the coffers of a relative handful of obscenely wealthy elite. That is what is profoundly changing in America in comparison to the America that was full of promise for all that I came of age in 46 years ago.
People of means are still going to want cars and have cars, despite changes in propulsion type that are occurring and will continue to occur. This notion that there is some kind of long-term trend in people not desiring their own personal transportation vehicles is the ultimate in an attempt to apply a sour-grapes style patch over the sad truth. Each day America loses a little of what it once was and gains a little of what the third world has always been.
The idea that Kansas City should plan alternate transit for the future in order to remain competitive with its peer cities is to say....hey, look at us....we can turn back the clock just as fast as you can and reduce life quality with the best of them.
Even most of the very young, who have been programmed to drive the "new urban-ism" and anti-car dogma, will know better before they are 35 and understand this.
What else is truly changing, besides our slide into increasing poverty? The notion that there is some intrinsic value in moving large numbers of people throughout a metro area to the same central location to congregate in very large numbers. Kansas City knows better....and knows where the leading edge really is.
I have three kids between the ages of 24 and 29. When I said before that NONE of them want to live downtown, someone told me that must be because they grew up in Johnson County and have friends there. If the trend was toward moving to urban areas, I'd think that they would want to move there too. They don't.
They also would have a huge problem with giving up their cars! Even if they could get to work/school/social events without a car, what about going to Lawrence, Manhattan, Omaha, Chicago, and wherever else they go?
Maybe my kids aren't the norm, but I actually think there are more like them than unlike them.
The automobile is the most significant invention in the last 150 years and dwarfs all others in magnitude of benefit to life quality that it has afforded. It has been, is, and will continue to be the personal transportation of choice for the majority of Americans. Most people do not want "alternate" transit.
To the extent that there may be a decline in car ownership, it is not being driven by an ideological shift or preference. It is being driven, sadly and regrettably, by the shrinkage of our middle class as our collective wealth disappears overseas and to the coffers of a relative handful of obscenely wealthy elite. That is what is profoundly changing in America in comparison to the America that was full of promise for all that I came of age in 46 years ago.
People of means are still going to want cars and have cars, despite changes in propulsion type that are occurring and will continue to occur. This notion that there is some kind of long-term trend in people not desiring their own personal transportation vehicles is the ultimate in an attempt to apply a sour-grapes style patch over the sad truth. Each day America loses a little of what it once was and gains a little of what the third world has always been.
The idea that Kansas City should plan alternate transit for the future in order to remain competitive with its peer cities is to say....hey, look at us....we can turn back the clock just as fast as you can and reduce life quality with the best of them.
Even most of the very young, who have been programmed to drive the "new urban-ism" and anti-car dogma, will know better before they are 35 and understand this.
What else is truly changing, besides our slide into increasing poverty? The notion that there is some intrinsic value in moving large numbers of people throughout a metro area to the same central location to congregate in very large numbers. Kansas City knows better....and knows where the leading edge really is.
In my post, I tried to avoid the "why" behind the long, slow decline in automobile ownership, and just put it out there as a fact to which the city is slowly responding. I certainly think some of it is the decline of the middle class. Some of it is truly lifestyle choice -- it's happening in wealthy areas as much as the formerly middle class areas (see areas like the prosperous Magnolia neighborhood of Seattle).
I want to avoid getting more off-topic than we already are! ;-)
I have three kids between the ages of 24 and 29. When I said before that NONE of them want to live downtown, someone told me that must be because they grew up in Johnson County and have friends there. If the trend was toward moving to urban areas, I'd think that they would want to move there too. They don't.
They also would have a huge problem with giving up their cars! Even if they could get to work/school/social events without a car, what about going to Lawrence, Manhattan, Omaha, Chicago, and wherever else they go?
Maybe my kids aren't the norm, but I actually think there are more like them than unlike them.
Your kids are the norm - just like other kids in most of the US, including this Bay Area....where the only way a lot of kids can afford a car is to live with their parents. And that's exactly what many are doing.
There are more people without cars out here than there because of the prohibitive (think $1850 for a 1-bdrm apartment) housing cost. But I don't know a soul who is without a car because they don't want one.
Trying to keep this civil, so hopefully you understand I'm just giving another point of view and we can debate this topic respectfully.
I fully understand your point of view, but I would like to bring up a few things.
First off, have you ever lived in another city and used another airport as your "home airport"? You may have, but I thought I would ask. I think it makes a huge difference to fly into random airports and use rental cars, ground transit etc vs using an airport on a regular basis and being very familiar with "how" to efficiently use the airport.
I say this because I was a frequent flyer while living in KC and when I lived there, I actually said a lot of the same things locals say. Even though I still pretty much hated the airport because it was crowded, has no services etc, I always thought that other airports were just a pain to use. Now that I'm a frequent flyer out of BWI (and occasionally National and Dulles), I hate KCI with a passion and never understood why I liked it in the first place. I now know for a fact that KCI just doesn't work especially for an airport that only has 10 million passengers a year.
First off, I can be on the freeway in the same amount of time from BWI as KCI. Almost no difference what so ever. BWI "might" be 1-2 minutes longer if you are at a far gate, but KCI's garages can be a PITA and add time, I'll get to that in a second.
BWI has about three times the traffic that KCI does. But it is just as easy to use, if not easier. The parking situation has a similar set up, but BWI is MUCH better and here is why.
Both BWI and KCI have garage parking that is for short term parking and a daily max for $22. Same price as KCI. That alone is odd, parking in KC the same price as east coast? That's what happens when you have no transit options and a monopoly. So anyway, here is the difference. BWI parking is very easy to use and is very close to all gates. As you enter the garage, you enter via ramps directly to the level of the garage you want and there are signs telling you how many spaces per level available. The garage always has plenty of parking. You then just walk across a skywalk to the terminal. At KCI, you have three garages, but their use is not evenly dispersed. The terminal B garage is often full while the other garages are not so busy. So your options are often driving around the B garage looking for a space or worse parking in another garage and taking a bus to the correct terminal. Why anybody would pay $22 a day and do that is beyond me but people do. I don't typically pay $22 a day for parking and park in offsite surface lots, but if you do want to pay $22 a day to park, the situation at BWI and KCI are the same, only you get to use a much nicer terminal in the process.
BWI also has a huge offside garage that is $12 a day. KCI doesn't even have this option at all, you can find some covered parking at the parking spot or something, but there isn't much of that available.
The economy satellite lots of BWI and MCI are the same. KCI is $7 a day. BWI is $8 a day. But again, I prefer BWI, the main reason being that all buses depart (very frequently) from the terminal and BWI uses full size airport buses for parking. KCI's buses are small and get very crowded. I have never seen a major airport use a bus that size to move people with baggage. Even if it's not crowded, the bigger buses are just easier to use when you have luggage. The blue and red buses at KCI are silly and should be more like the rental car buses at KCI. And if you use different airlines at KCI, that can really screw things up since the buses from each terminal only go to specific lots.
So honestly, the parking and is better and time it takes to get off the plane and into a car (be it your own car or somebody picking you up) is the same. I also don't think catching a flight at BWI takes all that much longer, but MCI can be very unpredictable. If it gets busy at MCI, they can't open more TSA lines. At BWI, they can. At any airport including KCI, I like to give myself 30 minutes of buffer time just in case the TSA lines are longer than the typical 5-10 minutes I usually wait in any airport. At KCI you are stuck in a cattle pen if you do get through security in 2 minutes. At BWI, if there is no line, I can go to Chipoltle, grab a paper, walk around the terminal, use a nice restroom etc.
Again just my point of view.
And DFW can not be duplicated at KCI. The "idea" of the horse shoe terminals are similar, but DFW's terminals are a MUCH larger foot print. They actually have the room to do what they did and create large concourse and large secure areas. MCI does not have this room. Half of KCI's few restaurants are already up in the rafters. I don't think people realize that you can't just do what DFW did. I would be totally on board with doing what DFW if it were possible. But one of their terminals is probably twice as busy as all of KCI. Those are huge terminals compared to KC which are basically curved hallways.
Please chime in though. I would love to here your thoughts on this.
I actually live in New England. I spend about 20-30 working weeks per year in Kansas City. I fly a ton, and use LGA/ JFK, BDL, BOS, and PWM as my 'home' airports. BDL is a good analogy to MCI. (I think you and I talked about BWI in a different thread a few months ago -- but maybe that was another forum).
For me, the paramount issue is time. The only "service" I need at an airport is the occasional urinal, and KC has them in spades along the exterior walls outside of security. I want to arrive at an airport and be at my boarding gate within 5 minutes. At Kansas City, this is easily accomplished. I get out of the taxi/ car directly in front of the TSA checkpoint and go through the line. In the past 3 years, only once has it exceeded 5 minutes, when Frontier and AA had multiple departures within a short period. And TSA responded with extra staff to expedite the line. At BDL (and similar to BWI), regardless of TSA, there is a significant walk/ queue to the checkpoint, followed by a significant walk after the checkpoint. And I find that airports with big box, centralized security tend to have much longer waits at peak times. Yes, I have global entry/ pre-check, etc. Kansas City is simply faster.
It is understandable that TSA wants to reduce its staffing, but I don't think the KC flyers/ taxpayers should have to build a new terminal for that. I also think that whatever function TSA performs now may be wildly different from airport security 10+ years in the future. The whole game might change radically.
Since KC does not have many connecting passengers, the restaurants and bars are lightly used. What Southwest did in terminal B may be a solution for AA/ UA/ US in terminal C, putting services on the old 2d floor -- up rather than out (expanding the security perimeter outward).
I will give you this: that MCI remote parking is a pain. But the circle lots are actually convenient the few times I have used them. I bill my time, so I usually just get in a private car waiting at the curb and head downtown. No need for a rental car for me in KC (everything I need is right downtown). The couple of times I've rented a car at MCI, I agree that the centralized car facility was a time-waster.
But nothing in the new big box terminal plan appears to change remote parking or rental cars, except that the city wants to charge more for parking (or collect more revenue in some fashion).
The great deficiency with KC is the crowded gate areas, but I am in there only at departure and only for 10 minutes tops. And upon arrival, it's shocking how fast I am at the curb. If AA would re-open the Admirals Club, even the departure area crowding wouldn't bother me.
The arrival experience at KC is among the fastest in the world. It takes 2 minutes to get from the jetbridge to the back seat of a waiting car. Compare & contrast with landing at CLT terminal E a few weeks ago, where I had to walk/ escalate/ dodge people and electric carts for 20 minutes to get to ground transportation. Same with Miami, Dulles (remote terminals), JFK (Delta's new gates), MSP, DTW, SEA, etc. Even the relatively convenient LGA and BOS can have a 10-minute exit walk. Kansas City wins that game hands down.
Anyhow, it appears that the city is pushing forward with the big box. We will see what happens.
By security changing radically, I'm referencing, for example, how it is done at Indira Gandhi International DEL -- cars are checked and registration/ license validated at entry points to the terminal roadways, and only verified passengers are allowed in the outer terminal doors, and through a metal detector. This is all far before any TSA-type of security. If you define multiple security perimeters well outside of the gates, then the gate area does not need the same level of control -- easier to come and go and use the services.
BTW, the gates at IGI Delhi are secured in addition to the 'cordon rouge' security at the TSA-style checkpoint. Yes, you get zapped 3 or 4 times upon departure. Certainly makes our security look like a tempest in a teapot.
I actually live in New England. I spend about 20-30 working weeks per year in Kansas City. I fly a ton, and use LGA/ JFK, BDL, BOS, and PWM as my 'home' airports. BDL is a good analogy to MCI. (I think you and I talked about BWI in a different thread a few months ago -- but maybe that was another forum).
For me, the paramount issue is time. The only "service" I need at an airport is the occasional urinal, and KC has them in spades along the exterior walls outside of security. I want to arrive at an airport and be at my boarding gate within 5 minutes. At Kansas City, this is easily accomplished. I get out of the taxi/ car directly in front of the TSA checkpoint and go through the line. In the past 3 years, only once has it exceeded 5 minutes, when Frontier and AA had multiple departures within a short period. And TSA responded with extra staff to expedite the line. At BDL (and similar to BWI), regardless of TSA, there is a significant walk/ queue to the checkpoint, followed by a significant walk after the checkpoint. And I find that airports with big box, centralized security tend to have much longer waits at peak times. Yes, I have global entry/ pre-check, etc. Kansas City is simply faster.
It is understandable that TSA wants to reduce its staffing, but I don't think the KC flyers/ taxpayers should have to build a new terminal for that. I also think that whatever function TSA performs now may be wildly different from airport security 10+ years in the future. The whole game might change radically.
Since KC does not have many connecting passengers, the restaurants and bars are lightly used. What Southwest did in terminal B may be a solution for AA/ UA/ US in terminal C, putting services on the old 2d floor -- up rather than out (expanding the security perimeter outward).
I will give you this: that MCI remote parking is a pain. But the circle lots are actually convenient the few times I have used them. I bill my time, so I usually just get in a private car waiting at the curb and head downtown. No need for a rental car for me in KC (everything I need is right downtown). The couple of times I've rented a car at MCI, I agree that the centralized car facility was a time-waster.
But nothing in the new big box terminal plan appears to change remote parking or rental cars, except that the city wants to charge more for parking (or collect more revenue in some fashion).
The great deficiency with KC is the crowded gate areas, but I am in there only at departure and only for 10 minutes tops. And upon arrival, it's shocking how fast I am at the curb. If AA would re-open the Admirals Club, even the departure area crowding wouldn't bother me.
The arrival experience at KC is among the fastest in the world. It takes 2 minutes to get from the jetbridge to the back seat of a waiting car. Compare & contrast with landing at CLT terminal E a few weeks ago, where I had to walk/ escalate/ dodge people and electric carts for 20 minutes to get to ground transportation. Same with Miami, Dulles (remote terminals), JFK (Delta's new gates), MSP, DTW, SEA, etc. Even the relatively convenient LGA and BOS can have a 10-minute exit walk. Kansas City wins that game hands down.
Anyhow, it appears that the city is pushing forward with the big box. We will see what happens.
Nice perspective from someone that doesn't live in Kansas City but uses the airport quite frequently. I couldn't live your life, because I dislike flying altogether. Just the headache of it all turns me off....taking off your belt, empyting your pockets, removing your shoes, taking your laptop out of its bag...ughhhh. Then getting stuck sitting next to somebody that smells, is sick, etc......hate it
I have three kids between the ages of 24 and 29. When I said before that NONE of them want to live downtown, someone told me that must be because they grew up in Johnson County and have friends there. If the trend was toward moving to urban areas, I'd think that they would want to move there too. They don't.
They also would have a huge problem with giving up their cars! Even if they could get to work/school/social events without a car, what about going to Lawrence, Manhattan, Omaha, Chicago, and wherever else they go?
Maybe my kids aren't the norm, but I actually think there are more like them than unlike them.
I think most people who are born/raised in JoCo have an anti-urban attitude because they hear from early in life that downtown is dirty, dangerous, and you're told not to go there.
In Denver, there isn't that attitude, at least not on a large scale. Downtown is active, fun, and everything you need is there. There are many young people living downtown, and you can walk to bars, clubs, stores, theater, music, work, etc. Honestly, I don't think I'd want to live downtown KC either, just because there isn't as much to do or walk to. If you can't walk to everything you need and meet people, then what would the point be? If I moved to KC and wanted urban living, I'd choose a place near the Plaza or Westport.
As for cars, I hate driving. I'd like to have my car be only for weekend getaways and the odd trip further from home. Driving is always stop/go/stop/go. Not really freedom, IMO. If you live in a rural area, then it would feel like freedom
I have three kids between the ages of 24 and 29. When I said before that NONE of them want to live downtown, someone told me that must be because they grew up in Johnson County and have friends there. If the trend was toward moving to urban areas, I'd think that they would want to move there too. They don't.
They also would have a huge problem with giving up their cars! Even if they could get to work/school/social events without a car, what about going to Lawrence, Manhattan, Omaha, Chicago, and wherever else they go?
Maybe my kids aren't the norm, but I actually think there are more like them than unlike them.
Kansas City is not typical compared to other larger metropolitan areas because it has not seen a very large level of gentrification compared to many other places, and it has not seen the job growth within the core urban developed area like many other metros. KCMO addressed that this is the likely function of continued job declines in the core urban area built environment, and that fact alone just does not speed along gentrification, improved highly functioning neighborhoods, transit growth, income growth, and improved demographics. That is also why many professionals leave Kansas City region in the younger age ranges because they can find a far better urban amenity package elsewhere along with a better economy.
I believe KC is in the running for the RNC convention in two years. I would think a lack of decent hotel rooms downtown would ruin any chances.
Honestly I think that will be the single thing that will keep KC from getting the convention. KC's airport is not the best when it comes to non stop flights to the coasts etc, but you can get to KC. KC's middle of the country location keeps it doable. Some smaller coastal cities (Portland, OR for example) can be more of a PITA to get to for more people.
But KC's hotel situation is a mess. And the way they are trying to make this a KCMO/KCK thing is very bizarre. KCK has almost no decent hotels. A lower end downtown Hilton and a bunch of class b type hotels way out by the speedway. So KC is going to bus people away from cultural and touristy areas of the city like the plaza, crown center and downtown and ask people to stay in super dead and isolated Downtown KCK and clear out by the Legends next to an outlet mall 20 miles from the convention center?
I don't know. Personally, I think the city would have a better chance if they waited till the next one, had some more hotels (near the convention center and close to the touristy areas of the city) and try again.
But hey, if they get it, it will be great for the city, so I hope they do. I'll just be shocked if they do get it.
I think most people who are born/raised in JoCo have an anti-urban attitude because they hear from early in life that downtown is dirty, dangerous, and you're told not to go there.
In Denver, there isn't that attitude
This is one of the main reasons I literally fell in love with Denver after spending some time there. You can live in the city or suburbs, doesn't matter, nearly everybody there seems to really respect, enjoy and take advantage of the central city. Other than maybe traffic, I just never heard anybody say negative things about urban Denver, no matter where you were or who you talked to. I think a good portion of the people that do live in suburban denver would live in the city, but for whatever reasons they don't. Different world.
Many metro areas have this attitude. Denver seems to have one of the better regional attitudes, but lots of other cities are similar. KC has always been on the other end of that spectrum. You almost have to rip on KCMO to fit into many suburban circles there. I found myself in that uncomfortable situation many times when I lived in the MO side suburbs and from my experience at many places of work, it's even worse in the JOCO suburbs. Hopefully this is getting better in KC too, but I still think it has a long way to go.
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.
