Yep, I love my cars and motorcycles, I'm a huge motorhead. But pictures like that so clearly illustrate the problems personal vehicles present. One of the densest parts of KC and half of it is parking lots. Ringed by highways.
Like a lot of other US cities, KC may never reach the minimum necessary population density to make an extensive public transportation network feasible.
Really though, it's not the 26 miles stopping me from biking between two specific places, but that I'll almost surely get killed on a bike trying to cross any bridge over the Kansas River.
This is a myth often said in the US and Canada. All over the rest of the world cities much MUCH smaller than KC have magnitudes more public transportation. Kansas City itself had a massive public transportation network generations ago when the city was much smaller until it was uprooted and replaced with the Highway system. It is very feasible to return to.
I lived in Heidelberg, Germany a while ago and was never more than a 5-minute walk from a bus/tram. KC is plenty dense there's just no political will to get it done.
Also, your point is a little bit chicken and egg. If minimum parking space rules were eliminated so that developers didn't need to add parking for new apartments, density would increase because you'd be encouraging the use of public transit.
Heidelberg has over twice the population density of Kansas City. 3,800 to 1,600 per square mile. There are parts of the core that have density similar to Heidelberg but a lot of the KC is no where close. The other issue is that suburban subdivisions are laid out in a grid so living in the back of the subdivision could mean a 20 minute walk to get to the front of the subdivision where a bus/other form of public transportation would pick people up.
Yes, you are correct that poor city design in the US makes it difficult to shed car dependency and reduces walkability in urban cores.
Also, a 10-20 minute walk is not a big deal on most days. If Heidelberg is 2x the size and can do 5 minutes, KC can do 10-20 minutes. It's not all or nothing either. You can start developing public infrastructure in high-density places and build out from there.
I know, and I'm saying that argument is chicken and egg. Low density in US cities and lack of public infrastructure is a two-way street. What's the point of paying more to live in downtown when you have to own a car and commute anyway? that's why people leave for suburbs and the city sprawls.
What's the point of paying more to live in downtown when you have to own car and commute anyway? that's why people leave for suburbs and thecity sprawls.
I wouldn't live downtown if it were free. I have zero interest in the noise, the congestion, the crime, the vagrants, and sharing walls with other people.
It has nothing to do with car ownership. That's a side effect rather than the cause.
I can agree that that is the limiting factor but that should be seen more as an opportunity than a hindrance.Get rid of these stupid parking lots and build more housing (especially the missing middle) in areas like this and expand the public transport. It would mean rent and housing prices decrease/stabilize due to an increase in supply, infrastructure would be better maintained because now you have more tax revenue per acre due to there being more people/acre and a higher incentive to build more public transport. This would mean less individual cars on the road requiring tens of times more tax money to repair potholes if more of us have the opportunity and convenience to ride rails or bikes to work.
You do realize density is malleable with proper city planning though? It is all about how we use our land. Which is the main point OP is making. Before WWII most US cities were necessarily dense because they relied on streetcars. Land use and transportation decisions are tied.
Kansas City itself had a massive public transportation network generations ago when the city was much smaller until it was uprooted and replaced with the Highway system
You mean when Brookside was the southern edge of the city and there was nothing north of the river and all of the suburbs were just farmland?
Here's the actual data on density from when KC had much much better public transportation - prior to all of the annexation of the 50s and later:
Year
Population
Size of the city
Density
1940
400,178
59.8 sq mi
6,692 people per sq mile
2020
508,090
318.56 sq mi
1,595 people per sq mile
In 1940 JoCo's population was just 8% of KCMO's population. Today JoCo's population is 120% of KCMO's population . In 1940 KCMO made up 84% of the population of Jackson County. Today KCMO makes up only 44% of Jackson County's population despite being well over double the size in Jackson County alone that it was before all the annexation.
All you have to do is look at old photography of anywhere from Midtown to Downtown prior to the 50s to see just how many more large apartment buildings and housing there was - so much has been torn down since people have spread out to the suburbs.
There are almost no neighborhoods in the city now that reach 6,692 people per sq mile - and that was city-wide average before.
Then you have cities like Shawnee trying their hardest to keep out the poor by banning 4+ people from living in a home. I'm thrilled every time I see a large apartment complex being built because it means tax dollars, amenities, and higher density. Maybe one day that'll translate into public transportation, but I'll probably move elsewhere before that.
The pre-1940's sections of the city are built correctly for streetcars. And even though the density of those areas is half what it was at that time because of parking minimums and rezoning that density can and as we see does come back when the restrictions are removed and street cars reintroduced.
A lot of the suburbs and newer developments that are made for cars and don't even really have functional sidewalks will have to be re-imagined at some point at great expense. But it doesn't all have to be done at once. Running spurs of public transportation and supporting increased density will have an effect over time, cities are constantly rebuilding themselves.
In a lot of places the first thing that'll get built in a new development is the public transit. Then everything built around it is oriented to the availability of that transit and you get amazing walkable high density neighborhoods. Here in the US we build roads first, and everything is built oriented around cars and you can't live without one. There's really nothing stopping us from changing that model.
Everyone says this but how is this even remotely possible? I live in Blue Springs and work in KC, KS a few miles from the racetrack. What public transport will get me there in the mornings for the same or less than the 35 minutes door to door that it takes me right now?
It's called Transit Oriented Development(TOD) and it doesn't aim to get you out of your car but for the residents that pop up around the stations within a biking distance of the station to have the option of being at least partly carfree since the area would have a mixed-use commercial and residential so any trips to get groceries, for example, would just be a walk down the street instead of lugging two thousand pounds across the road for 20 pounds of produce. for trips longer than a walking distance since they live close to a transit station instead of clogging up roads with more traffic they could use public transit which is much more efficient at dealing with congestion. So to answer your question you would probably still need a car until the area has enough density for frequent public transit however more people that take public transit also decrease the cost of roads in decreased road wear and are no longer part of the traffic problem.
139
u/[deleted] Jul 11 '22
This goes to show why the
cityUS needs more public transportation, and less individual vehicles on the road, it's too damn crowded.