Swift City: How Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce Are Transforming Kansas City

In honor of Taylor Swift Week, I decided to delve into how the buzz on Taylor Swift's and Travis Kelce's romance is influencing city life in Kelce's backyard. Sightings of the dynamic duo are not unique to Kansas City, there's plenty of them in LA or on vacation, the difference is that Los Angeles and the Bahamas are no strangers to celebrities and paparazzies, and now Kansas City is getting it's own taste of the "Swifties" and is becoming the place to catch the latest "Tayvis" or "Traylor" (Taylor + Travis) dates.

The Taylor and Travis show has the whole town doing a double-take. So, what exactly does that mean for Kansas City? Buckle up, because we're about to take a whirlwind tour of Swift City's transformation.

1. Traffic Jams in "Swift-Lane": If you've noticed traffic has gotten heavier, it's because the Swifties have taken over the roads turning the fast lanes into "Swift-lanes."

2. Hotels: No Vacancy, but Plenty of Heartbreak: Taylor boosts hotel occupancy rates during her Eras Tour and increased Chiefs ticket sales. It's like every Swiftie is hoping to catch a glimpse of their idol in the hotel lobby, guitar in hand, singing about their latest ex. Fingers crossed that Kansas City won't become the backdrop for the next big break-up ballad.

3. Coffee Shops and Cupcakes: Local businesses are cashing in on the hype. Every coffee shop is offering Taylor-themed drinks. "Love Story Latte," anyone? And let's not forget the cupcakes—if there's one thing Swifties love more than Taylor, it's sugar.

4. Real Estate: Swift Investments: Looking to buy a house in Kansas City? Good luck! Real estate agents are using Taylor Swift lyrics to sell homes. "This house is your 'Blank Space'—write your name!" Property values are skyrocketing, afterall who needs a beach house when you've got a city where Taylor Swift might just buy the house next door?

5. Infrastructure: New Bridges and an Airport Terminal: With all the hype, the city has had to step up its game. New bridges, new roads—everything's getting a Swift upgrade. Just in time for over 12 million Swifties to get their fix on the romance tour a new $1.5 billion airport terminal opened up last year after 4 years of construction and a few more in the planning.

The dynamic duo has brought a fresh wave of excitement and attention to the city, boosting business for hotels and real estate while driving infrastructure developments like new bridges and a cutting-edge airport terminal. Kansas City has become more than just a Midwest stopover—it’s a destination buzzing with star power. And with Taylor Swift's new album drop, "Tortured Poet's Department," the city is bound to keep its newfound spotlight as fans eagerly await the next chapter in this unfolding pop culture love story. Get ready, Kansas City: the Swift effect is just beginning.

Early 1900s Transportation Research Questions

My writing process is a mixture of general topic curiosity, subject matter knowledge, personal perspectives, and tons of research that all gets processed together into thoughts and sentences that eventually make sense and tell a story.

My current writing mission involves writing an article for a transportation think tank about transportation in the early 1900s and the sitting U.S. President.

To give structure these are the three overarching big picture questions functioning as my north star:

1. What did our transportation system look in the early 1900s?

2. Who was William Taft?

3. How did President Taft shape the transportation landscape?

Here are some of the questions that are steering my research curiosity:

1. What were the primary Pre-WWI transportation modes?

2. How did people travel between 1909 - 1913?

3. What was happening in transportation innovation or travel in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and DC between 1909 - 1913?

4. What was going on with the goods movement?

5. How was the automobile evolution coming along?

6. How did Taft travel?

7. How did Hearst travel?

8. Had the airplane been invented yet?

9. What materials were used to make streets?

10. What major bridges were being built during this time?

11. What did leisure travel look like across socio-economic classes?

12. Was this pre, during or post the Titanic sinking?

13. What were the major immigration trends at the time?

14. What was the major transportation technology of the time?

15. Was there any major transportation innovations or policy during Taft's presidency?

16. Which U.S. cities had subways, street cars, or metro systems?

17. How long did it take to travel from DC to New York?

18. Was it common or allowed for women to travel alone between cities?

19. How many railroad companies existed and where did they travel to?

20. What types of bicycles existed and who were the major bicycle makers?
    

The Clean Air Act, Did it Move the Needle?

Since 1970 many have wondered if the Clean Air Act has made a difference in reducing air pollution despite population growth. However, the answer isn't as simple as a "Yes" or "No.

On the one hand, some anti-environmental circles believe there is not an air pollution problem to fix (as they drive their Teslas to keep up with the Joneses) and are unsure why it was even a policy. Then there are others that think we already have too many environmental policies in place that are making things more expensive than they need to be.

On the other hand, some environmental circles believe the Clean Air Act has made a difference, and then others believe that it has only benefited some and has systemically exposed communities of color to more air pollution. In my opinion, it has made a difference, but the benefits have not been equal across the board especially for low income communities.

And while many have studied the data to try an prove their respective cases, the data in this field is a little extra tricky and skeptics abound. There are constant attempts to debunk the notion it has helped improve air quality and to undermine new supporting policies. However, a new study on hard to dilute data has come out this month.

A group of 9 social scientists, led by Yanelli Nunez, PhD from Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health analyzed various data sets covering a 40 year time span, going all the way back to the beginning of the Clean Air Act in 1970.

Their study, An environmental justice analysis of air pollution emissions in the United States from 1970 to 2010, was recently published in Nature Communications on January 17, 2024 and they evaluated air pollution changes in 6 core source generation sectors:

1. Transportation: nitrogen oxides [NOx]

2. Agriculture: ammonia [NH3]

3. Residential: particulate organic carbon [POC]

4. Commercial: nitrogen oxides [NOx]

5. Industry: sulfide dioxide [SO2]

6. Energy: nitrogen oxides [NOx] & sulfide dioxide [SO2]

Overall the study finds that the U.S. has seen reductions in air pollution emissions from various pollution sources since the Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970. The Clean Air Act has in fact helped to substantially improve air quality in the U.S., which is something to celebrate. The study's findings also validate environmental justice concerns that some communities bear a higher burden of air pollution, and more importantly, it provides hard to dispute evidence for environmental justice naysers.

Specifically the data reveals the following key findings:

• Median family income was a driver in air pollution reductions in the major pollution sources.

• Counties with median family incomes above $75,000 had larger declines in industry, energy, transportation, residential and commercial related emissions.

• Racial and ethnic air pollution disparities exist, particularly in the industry and energy pollution generation sectors.

• Mitigating traffic-related pollution in the most burdened areas will be key in reducing current racial, ethnic and economic disparities and preventing them from getting worse as a result of the current electric vehicle adoption trends among higher income households.

In an interview with Columbia Magazine, one of the researchers, Marianthi Kioumourtzoglou, notes that in the study they "provide information about potential racial/ethnic and socioeconomic inequalities in air pollution sources," which can inform future policy development and complement local-level analysis.

Nunez also shares that "policies specifically targeting reductions in overburdened populations could support more just reductions in air pollution and reduce disparities in air pollution exposure." The lessons learned from the 53 years of the Clean Air Act should be used to address the fact that air quality has not improved for everyone, especially as we develop policies to transition to renewable energy resources, "which will have a collateral impact on air quality and, as a result, on public health.