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.
Don’t get me wrong. On a personal level, I enjoy not sitting in traffic. I commute from southern Johnson County to the Plaza every day and rarely have any true traffic to deal with. KC has basically no really bad traffic to deal with. It’s great. No one likes to sit in traffic. But to me, a city without traffic congestion is a bit like an arena without spectators.
A half empty arena is comfortable, you can move around freely, you don’t have to wait in line for concessions or bathrooms, and you can often move to an empty seat for a way lower price than you’d otherwise have to pay. But a half-empty arena means there are underlying problems on a macro level. It means people don't want to be there. It means the team is losing. I think the same is true of KC’s lack of traffic. I’m not saying KC would be better with L.A. style traffic. But if KC were truly healthy, and if it wasn’t wasting a lot of money on freeways, we’d have more congestion. Here’s why I say that:
1. It means slow growth. This is my greatest concern. I wish KC was dynamic and growing. But it’s not. Most cities with bad traffic have the problem they have because they grew too fast for their infrastructure recently or at some point in the past. The infrastructure couldn’t keep up. KC has never had that problem. It has always plodded along, giving plenty of time to build more and more freeways. If KC had healthier growth historically, and currently, there would be more congestion. Again, I’m not saying it would be good for KC to be horribly congested. But I can move around at 5:30 on 435 through JoCo at 70 mph. That’s crazy given that that stretch is one of KC's busiest.
2. It means freeways were built in bad spots. KC has 1.3 times more freeway lane miles than the next closest city. But other cities with lots of traffic have fairly high ratios of freeway to people. Dallas/Ft. Worth is number two, for example. Yet those cities have quite a bit of traffic. I've lived there. I know. I think part of the reason is that we have miles and miles of freeways in areas with very little population. The entire western stretch of I-435 from Olathe to the airport is out in the country. KC grows so slowly that it’s never moved far enough west to meet that stretch. It’s getting close now, but that stretch was built in 1985 – 35 years ago! The eastern side from the Triangle up to I-35 was built in the 60s and 70s. There’s very little development along or near any of it now, and still very little congestion. Honestly, that shouldn't happen. A healthy city should outgrow a freeway built 45 years ago. Part of the problem is KC’s development is so sporadic, with large chunks being separated by open space. But part of the problem is that the freeways were built in spots that are difficult to develop and that were too far away from development in the first place. So large sections are often empty.
3. It means KC is way too spread out for its own good. As mentioned above, KC has splotchy development except for the area due south and southwest from downtown. Lee’s Summit is separated by open area. So is Blue Springs. North of the River is very splotchy in general. The low density, splotchy development makes for longer drives to get to different parts of town, it makes people less likely to venture to other areas and it is a waste of land and resources. It also makes any chance of a more walkable, more urban experience difficult because there is open land to develop, meaning less need to add density.
4. It means KC will only continue to spread, rather than re-develop existing areas. In many cities with traffic, in order to have a short commute (in terms of minutes), you have to live close to work. That means closer-in areas start to redevelop as sprawl continues further away from business districts. Home values start to go up, instead of down, in closer-in neighborhoods and suburbs. In KC, commute times are short even if you live far from work. There’s far less incentive to pay more to live close to work and there’s more incentive to waste gas and increase pollution by driving far distances. That means closer-in neighborhoods don’t hold their values like they do in other cities. It also means that the urban core sees less development because its so easy to live far away and get there by car.
5. It means we’re wasting a ton of money. We are paying our tax dollars for all these freeways that aren’t heavily used. Every added lane or mile of freeway costs millions. Highway 69 through JoCo does not need to be 5 lanes across in one direction. It wasn’t crowded when it was four lanes total in both directions. Now it's half empty even during rush hour. We’re going to have to pay for the upkeep of five lanes instead of two. 435 is definitely convenient. But vast stretches of it are mostly empty. Those stretches aren’t truly necessary. 635 is the same way. But we’re paying millions of dollars for these lightly used roadways instead of focusing on 35 and 70. Perhaps if 435 had been built closer in, it would be more useful. I can’t even believe how much us Kansans paid for the 435/35/10 interchange that wasn’t even that crowded to begin with ... because it will be “someday.”
I know this isn’t a popular perspective. But I’ve lived in 6 cities. The growing, dynamic cities feel crowded. KC has an unbelievable lack of traffic. People here have no idea. Even a 25% increase would be pretty easy to deal with. And again, I enjoy not sitting in traffic. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that driving around KC feels like being at empty stadium or arena. It makes one wonder where all the people are. It’s nice, but it feels ... empty. It feels un-city like. It feels like something’s missing. I feel like a city that’s winning has crowds – just like a team that’s winning has crowds.
I agree. When I'm in KC, the lack of traffic is actually bizarre. You get on I-29 from KCI and head downtown and weekday traffic is like it's 3AM here in the DC metro. We will say something about the lack of traffic every time we go to KC and start driving. I'm just not used to such low density traffic in a major metro. Yet people in the left lane still drive 45mph causing odd slowdowns when there no traffic.
But it's much worse in the city. MUCH WORSE. KC has almost zero urban surface street traffic. I'm not talking about congestion, I'm just talking about the roads in most of KC's urban core are barely used at all. Main St, Grand, Broadway, all major roads and they are never busy. It's rare if you hit a traffic signal and more than two car in a queue.
Downtown/Crossroads/Crown Center is worst of all. You can be downtown at 1PM on a weekday in the middle of a 70 degree summer day and there is almost nobody on the roads and very few pedestrians, cyclists too. Compared to almost any major or midsized or even small city in the country, Downtown KC feels like a ghost town. I realize it has gotten better with the new residential development and along the streetcar route, but KC still has a very empty feeling to it and most visitors from other major cities will notice it right away. If you are near the arena before an event or something, that's how most downtown areas feel all the time all across a good portion of the downtown area.
KC needs some bustle. Because it's so easy to drive and park within 20 feet of your destination there (and you are never more than a few blocks from a freeway entrance) it lacks that bustle that I actually enjoy.
I see your point but I like driving in the KC Metro. It is easy to travel from here to there in KC. I lived in Grandview and commuted 3 nights a week to Lenexa. Easy-peasy commute. Our rent in Grandview for a 3 BR, 1BA house was only $750 a month. We moved away to Washington state in September of 2017.
I couldn't believe the ease in getting around in KC. I was born in Seattle and raised just north of Seattle in a small town called Edmonds. As I got older in Seattle Seattle's traffic got worse and worse, to the point that it took 2 1/2 hours to get from Everett to Renton, a suburb southeast of Seattle. You needed to hit your brakes over and over and over again on Seattle's freeways. Not much fun.
In contrast to this, in the KC Metro boom you're where you're going without a lot of stress and strain. I really didn't mind driving in the KC Metro. I was a bit freaked out when a local guy was shooting at older white men on the trails during that time period. So glad they apprehended the guilty party there. Yikes.
KC is old and looks old. But I think a lot of business people and some government workers are trying in many spots to make KC a favorable equation to live in. I left that job, moved to Washington state and now live back in southern New Mexico. You wanna talk about easy-peasy freeway driving here! Wow! We grumble here when we have 4 cars in front of us at a traffic light! But I'm totally down with that. Easier is better while driving. Ya know, sometimes I turn my Foghat, Guess Who and Tragically Hip tunes down and just think about things in general while I drive - both in the city and out in the country and on the freeway system of New Mexico, Texas, Arizona, Utah and the like. Driving is way better when you're not stressing out. Seattle driving=stressful.
I see your point about growth but Kansas City's citizens should all shout out praises for the local traffic engineers in the Kansas City Metro. You people have it good there. Now, don't get me wrong. People lose it on the freeway occasionally in Kansas City, too. But it's so stress-free compared to Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, etc. So much better.
In my opinion, KC has the right amount of traffic on the freeways. Delays existing during the morning commute and after work commute toward and away downtown respectively just like you would expect. The fact that there are delays is good enough for me to suffice as the city is not dead. I will say though that it is dead on the surface streets of downtown and that could use some more bustle. Main Street seems so dead especially north past Union Station.
I agree that some freeways are needlessly wide. It's mostly so built up in JoCo and you can notice the stark differences in freeway infrastructure between the Missouri side and the Kansas side. I drive the whole length of I-635 from time to time and I have no idea why it needed to be 6 lanes across. I also agree with you on how wide Overland Pkwy/US-69 is as well. The Northland is a fast growing part of KC and it's strangely not very congested even at the worst times. Our freeways north of the river don't go past 6 lanes unless near an interchange. That's why it's strange to me why there is so little traffic with minimal amount of lanes. The worst you would see is a 15 min back up between I-29/35 split and the Bond Bridge.
I think lots of cities in KC's tier are the same way though. I do wish KC would have a bit more density and walkability but the residents like the way it is and we can't really fault them for that. When I was in Seattle I-5 was deplorable inhumane traffic. It took maybe 3 hours to get from Sea-Tac to past Everett. Same with the commute on US-101 from San Jose to SF and I haven't even experienced the grid lock at the toll booth before the Bay Bridge yet which would probably be the worst spot ever. I'll always see the small traffic in Kansas City as an advantage though I do recognize it's a result of slow growth and large sprawl.
Nope. Prior Chicago resident, here, too, and I'll take here, any day, from a traffic perspective. 150 million percent prefer the pace and overall atmosphere, here.
We went back and lived in the Chicago metro, briefly and temporarily for my husband's work (north shore; previously, I'd lived in the city proper) when we were first married...I hadn't lived there for a decade, and my husband never had. It really solidified how much I've grown to prefer the volume of traffic, the pace, the not having people on top of me that comes of more than a decade in KC. There was a lot I loved about Chicago when I did live there the first time around, but I now know I could never go back. KC doesn't feel empty to me. It feels relaxing. So much more relaxing.
I also lived in Lee's Summit for about three of the 12 years I've lived in the KC metro, and I absolutely LOVED that it was, as noted, separated from KC by open, undeveloped area, and truly its own community. The one suburb flowing into another, virtually indiscernable from one to another thing has never been my cup of tea.
Where have you seen a half empty arena? Royals? That's the only thing I can think of, but that's not surprising when you consider the number of games a baseball team plays vs the number a football team plays. I would think it would be the norm for MLB stadiums, although there might be a few that are always sold out.
Kansas City has the finest traffic engineering I've ever seen for a large American city. Standard Chevron traffic flow that is absolutely unbeatable. Rock to some fine Tragically Hip whilst you drive in that.
Nope. Prior Chicago resident, here, too, and I'll take here, any day, from a traffic perspective. 150 million percent prefer the pace and overall atmosphere, here.
We went back and lived in the Chicago metro, briefly and temporarily for my husband's work (north shore; previously, I'd lived in the city proper) when we were first married...I hadn't lived there for a decade, and my husband never had. It really solidified how much I've grown to prefer the volume of traffic, the pace, the not having people on top of me that comes of more than a decade in KC. There was a lot I loved about Chicago when I did live there the first time around, but I now know I could never go back. KC doesn't feel empty to me. It feels relaxing. So much more relaxing.
I also lived in Lee's Summit for about three of the 12 years I've lived in the KC metro, and I absolutely LOVED that it was, as noted, separated from KC by open, undeveloped area, and truly its own community. The one suburb flowing into another, virtually indiscernable from one to another thing has never been my cup of tea.
For the record, I personally wouldn't want KC to have Chicago or LA type traffic. Heck, KC wouldn't know what to do with Austin or Nashville type traffic.
But is it asking to much to have more than six cars and six pedestrians around the entire downtown area? KC could use a little more urban congestion for sure. Nothing that would even cause delays, just somewhat busy streets and sidewalks to make it feel like people actually live and work there. I know lots of people live and work in urban KCMO, but it always feels so empty compared to other similar sized cities.
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.
