Why KC's Lack of Traffic Isn't So Great (Kansas City, St. Louis: unemployment, neighborhoods)

[MoNative34]

I thought about this ridiculous thread on my trouble free morning commute. lmao

Predictable path it's taken, indeed.

[TabulaRasa]

It's really, at its heart, just a dressed up way to complain about perceived ho-hum-ness, honestly. Meh.

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by chicago2kc

Except that your POV expressed many times in this forum that KC is better left as a backwater hick town isn't doing it any favors. The smart people -- those with college educations -- are leaving KC faster than they're arriving.

Kansas City Leaders Grappling With Troubling Trend: Brain Drain

As I said before. It's not about the traffic itself. It's about what the lack of traffic says about the city. You can boast all you want about KC's hohum-ness being a virtue. But that's the best way to become the next Detroit, Cleveland or Toledo.

I'd suggest you read up on how it was that Detroit, Cleveland, and Toledo became Detroit, Cleveland, and Toledo.

[chicago2kc]

Originally Posted by TabulaRasa

It's really, at its heart, just a dressed up way to complain about perceived ho-hum-ness, honestly. Meh.

I won't necessarily disagree with you. One of my biggest concerns for KC is how ho-hum it is and how there's such a collective ambivalence around here about the city's future. There's a lot of people in this city that are better suited for small towns (many of which are already dying) and that perspective seems to drive much of KC's philosophy about what it wants to be. That philosophy has real world impacts beyond traffic and vibe. It's part of the reason that KC recovered so poorly from the recession compared to its peers. It means fewer jobs and fewer opportunities. It means the talent pool gets depleted by people leaving. It means fewer entertainment and cultural opportunities. It means crumbling infrastructure. Complacency is the enemy of success.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by chicago2kc

I won't necessarily disagree with you. One of my biggest concerns for KC is how ho-hum it is and how there's such a collective ambivalence around here about the city's future. There's a lot of people in this city that are better suited for small towns (many of which are already dying) and that perspective seems to drive much of KC's philosophy about what it wants to be. That philosophy has real world impacts beyond traffic and vibe. It's part of the reason that KC recovered so poorly from the recession compared to its peers. It means fewer jobs and fewer opportunities. It means the talent pool gets depleted by people leaving. It means fewer entertainment and cultural opportunities. It means crumbling infrastructure. Complacency is the enemy of success.

Great post, but you are waiting your time on this forum and with "most" KC people in general. Trust me.

[wolfpaw64]

Missouri overall is a slow growth state so its not just KC it's St.Louis as well and both cities are trying to change that however both cities don't get much help if any from the state. I think one thing that favors St.Louis to possible growth is it does have about 9 fortunate 500 companies and the cortex innovation district however that doesn't say much. KC may not have what St.Louis has but its sought as a more favorable desirable city than St.Louis and i live here in St.Louis.. I get what you're saying about the lack of traffic jams and what it might say for city and its region. As many times as I've been to KC i don't think i have been stuck in any type of jam but you know it never crossed my mind vice versa being here in St.Louis theres always seems to be jams even with a stagnant to very slow growth rate.. I think both cities are good cities with potentials to be major boom cities its not if but when.. Back to Traffic though i always say why on earth would anyone want to be stuck in traffic in the first place? I remember being stuck at the toll way just before you pay to get on the New Bay Bridge in Oakland and you talking about having to do both with traffic being literally shut down for nearly 4 hours because a car was stalled on the bridge heading into downtown San Fran. No thank you! KC has it good in a positive way. Theres nothing negative about the lack of traffic KC has plenty of it just the highways are much more friendlier and accommodating for future growth.

[kcmo]

^ * wasting not waiting...

This argument has become as ridiculous as the KCI terminal debate. The OP said the city needs "some" traffic. KC hardly ever feels like a city. I think it could use a little more traffic on the streets and sidewalks. The freeway system is built for a metro of 4 million and it's either overbuilt like in JoCo where I think everybody will eventually have their own lane to commute on or it's barely been touched since 1960 (most of rest of metro). Downtown has almost no bustle. Nobody is saying KC should have chronic traffic and congestion problems. It's so far from that it's not even an issue.

It's like KCI. People want a new terminal to make KCI better. Everybody starts talking about ATL, DFW, DEN, LAX etc as if somehow KCI it going to go from a airport that serves 10 million people a year to an airport that serves 80 million a year. KCI will never ever be like airports people bring up just like KC's traffic will never be like the bay area, DC area, Chicago area, LA area etc. But like KCI's current terminal, does it freaking HAVE to feel like a half deserted ghost town with antiquated infrastructure?

[mjtinmemphis]

KC isn't lacking much when it comes to its peers. It is not booming like Austin or Nashville but the QOL is better imo.

Booming cities may deceive you into thinking they have more amenities and people but when actually looking at what they have to offer they don't stand up to KC. Just because a city has a lot of traffic doesn't mean there is more to offer. Just because a city has an entertainment district doesn't mean they have more entertainment. Just because a city has a growing economy doesn't mean the economy is better.

[James Bond 007]

When I first visited KC in the spring of 2015, one of my first impressions was that they had all these freeways they didn't even really need.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by mjtinmemphis

Just because a city has a growing economy doesn't mean the economy is better.

Patently false most of the time, unless the metro area is heavily geared toward retirees. Most metro areas will experience faster growth through in-migration of population via greater job growth, not as much through natural increase compared to previous decades. In terms of population age structure demographics St. Louis is a hybrid of Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Milwaukee. All three are slower job growth metro areas compared to the US as a whole, although I don't have very recent data that compares total employment change since 2010 on a year to year basis.