Comments on: KC has nation’s highest transportation costs

By: Lance, Kansas City, Missouri

Lance, Kansas City, Missouri — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 04:19:22 +0000

“This city screams Detroit louder every day.”

Ouch.

But did/does Detroit have the heavy Federal presence that KC does? That seemed to buffer KC somewhat from the harshest effects of the last depression.

“a migration of more educated types away from this city.”

Spot on.

By: David

David — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:50:03 +0000

I was recently in Portland for the first time in 8 years and was blown away.

The light rail system was good in 2000, but it has been vastly augmented with a street car system and buses that go everywhere.

I was going to rent a car and my friends told me not to. Parking would just be a hassle. They were right, I went everywhere without a car.. and without WAITING for a bus!

Their gondola is amazing as well. There are no cars around the hospital, you park below and take a gondola to Oregon Health Sciences… Amazing. It felt futuristic, and the panorama of the city was breathtaking.

Chastain’s plan was pathetic, and more based on tourism than reality.., but a well placed gondola system would solve the parking and traffic issues on the plaza. Put a large parking structure around where the closed bar ‘The Drink’ was on top the hill of the West Plaza, have light rail station right beneath the Bernstein and Rein building going down southwest trafficway to Westport and on to the Crossroads… You effectively combine the Plaza and Westport in to one area and its 1000 times better than the Power and White district.

If Kansas City doesn’t collectively focus itself I think you are going to see a migration of more educated types away from this city. It’s sad, but when you see the series of bad choices made in this city… the emphasis placed on sports teams and stadiums over real urban planning, the crumbling bridges and infrastructure… This city screams Detroit louder every day.

By: zinobroobby

zinobroobby — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:58:54 +0000

http://underage-nymphets.free-sex-lolita-bbs.com/index74.html index74.html

By: hythinquinc

hythinquinc — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:48:45 +0000

http://only-lolitas.free-sex-lolita-bbs.com/10-11yo-pedo-lolitas.html 10-11yo pedo lolitas

By: FeeliaHic

FeeliaHic — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:56:51 +0000

http://free-lolitas-pics.elolochka.com/index17.html index17.html

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:56:21 +0000

One of the reasons for the high costs is the preference for certain automobiles in this area. My auto cost is way below the stastics given. I love my automobile and as another person raised in Los Angeles– “You gonna have to pry my dead rigamortized hands from the steering wheel.”
I also ride the Max to City Hall and back and it is great but too often it is only half or less full. Real transportation takes millions of people not hundreds of thousands which is what we have in KCMO.
We should be looking at the most expensive but best long term transportation form which would be underground fixed rail. If we would start digging the tunnels now we would have the routes ready by the time that we have enough people to justify a fixed rail (light rail) form of transportation. Of course what we also have in Kansas City are a lot of sentimental people who just want to ride in a street car of above ground light rail like the old days. Read Clay Chastain with gondolas and ferris wheels and what ever clicks in his carnival brain next.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:37:52 +0000

You got owned Chris

By: lemming

lemming — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:16:57 +0000

Get over it Chris. I was obviously being facetious re: excusung my typos. My brain is sharp enough. Yopu lower yourself even lower by denigrating my opinions and positions in such a way. As for a study about Kansas City’s reluctance to embrace light-rail I need to look no further than the multi;ple ballot initiatives that have failed. That *is* a fact. You can pose as many theoretical questions you want. I’ll defend who and what I want.

*Why dop I bother*

(Please do not “yell” at me. It is bad form and despite your statement to the contrary I have *not* been “yelling” at you.)

Again, my appreciation for your concerns about my welfare. *frikkin’ jerk* (That *is* name-calling.) So much for serious discourse.

By: ChrisM70

ChrisM70 — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:54:39 +0000

Let me state this one more time:

Calling all Kansas Citians fat,lazy and arrogant is not making a point. It’s name calling.

Is it true SOME Kansas Citians are fat? Yes. Lazy? Probably. Arrogant? I’m sure there are some of those too.

However, I didn’t say that Kansas Citians were fat. I said that KC is an overweight city – I am not calling ALL Kansas Citians fat. You may not see the distinction, but I do.

For example: If he could link to a study that a study stated that fat Kansas Citians are more likely to vote against light rail – THAT would be making a point.

On the other hand, if I wrote a comment and said “all bloggers are stupid” is that making a point? No. IT’S NAME CALLING.

Perhaps you shouldn’t type until the drugs wear off and you can type properly with BOTH hands. Or, you could let “Mr. Braun” defend himself.

By: lemming

lemming — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:35:25 +0000

Way to go, Chris! In trying to take me down you have proven much of what Mr. Braun so crudely expressed.

If only your concern for my well being was sincere. Nonetheless, I am on the mend from a severely broken wrist and the subsequent surgery. So please excuse any typos due to my left-handed condition plus a percocet addled mind. ;-p

Pouint-by-point…

1. Exactly! The Chiefs are fairly irrellevant. Certainly explains why you bothered at all with responding to that parfticular missive. But when you do respond you respond with some irrellevant point about grammar. Pot meet kettle. Kettle meet pot.

2. Picking on his spelling *is* lowering yourself to Mr. Braun’s level,IMNSHO. (I’ll get to the generalizations next.)

3. Generalized, you agree that Kansas Citians are fat.

4. Generalized, you concede that KC’s lack of supp[ort for better mass transit can be seen as laziness. To be quite clear, I did not bring up this concept. It was introduced by Mr. Braun and was part of your direct response to his statements before I discussed the issue.

3 + 4 = Fat and lazy. How is Mr. Braun’s statement innaccurate. It was not intended as an arguement but rather a decleration. Plus, why should I prove a point that you have accepted as fact?

5. Again, Mr. Braun raised these issues. I merely took the ball and ran.

6. I was seeking to promote civil discourse. That should have been obvious enough. What did *your* post have to offer to the discussion? I need to prove nothing.

Despite all that… Did you see the recent report that people, on average, are undertaking longer and longer commutes? Also mentioned in the study was a dramatic increase in tele-commuters.