On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:03:34 -0400, John R Cambron 10 minutes - oh my! That's why I laugh at the thought of towns like KC having a "rush hour". If it makes them feel better, it's okay if they call it rush hour and complain to high heaven about all the traffic, but if the traffic is only backed up 2 miles and it only takes 10 minutes.....
There's a reason the state of Missouri is spending however many millions it is to re-do the Grandview Triangle. That's one of the notorious bottlenecks. Another is I-435 on the Kansas side of the metro. Another are the bridges across the Missouri River.
Kansas City has what I would call *moderate* congestion, but it has steadily been increasing. Just as in many other areas, if you can avoid the freeways during peak times, you'll be ahead. The peak times do seem to be shorter than in other metropolitan areas where I've lived. Kansas City peaks seem to run 6.30-8.30 am and 4.30-6 pm. I'd be interested, though, in seeing better statistics than my impressionistic rendering of the situation can give.
Kansas City rush hour question 2944I think this is a good idea, but the Southwest Trafficway has a lot of lights and does not move very quickly from my experience. With the...
-- Mark Roberts "A man does not show his greatness by being at one extremity, Oakland, Cal. but rather by touching both at once." NO HTML MAIL -- Blaise Pascal Permission to archive this article in any form is hereby explicitly denied.
