U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > Kansas City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-25-2017, 07:00 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
7,702 posts, read 5,676,430 times
Reputation: 7570

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
I didn't agree with what granite said about KC being obese, but these types of posts are growing annoying.

Maybe us expats should just walk away from the KC forum (I don't plan to but just saying). Do you seriously want the alternative again? This forum was once overrun by KCMO hating JoCo loving people. I think the "expats" contribute more to this KC forum (both constructive criticism and positive) than the vast majority of local pro city members.

Six months of posts from CrownVic95, Kate, Luz, lovejoco and KC forum would be total crap unless you want to pretend JoCo has the best schools on the planet and talk about that all day long.

I never said nor thought KC was obese, I just said the city lacks urban recreation. I have always said that. And compared to nearly ever other city in the country, KC is way behind on this specific issue. Even other cities that are far behind KC with transit, are much further ahead than KC with recreation (Cincy, Columbus and Indy come to mind). That does not mean KC doesn't excel in other areas because it does.

More people need to say something so something gets done just like with KCI Airprot. Or you will have the crownvics and luzians of KC running the show.
Right....because we all know that commentary in this forum determines whether anything gets done or not.

The remark highlighted in purple is blatantly false....at least back to October 2007 when I joined. There have been times when we saw more challenges and push-back to your attacks, but they were always defensive measures. KCMO hating they were not and the forum was never "overrun".

Samantha (who some of us miss dearly) was excellent and essentially unmatched in the skill with which she rattled your cage with her defenses of her neighborhood that you relentlessly belittled. Maybe you felt "overrun" by her.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-26-2017, 12:10 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,712 posts, read 18,581,602 times
Reputation: 5441
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPonteKC View Post
I wasn't referring to you. Even when we disagree - and even then I usually agree with you on substance but not tactics - I don't think you have a vendetta, or are disgruntled. Some times I think you're wrong. Sometimes I think you're right. I usually mention both in equal measure a they occur.

That said, your personal annoyance at my opinions of mine or how I voice them is of little concern to me. There's an ignore feature if it's too much for you, or, if you want to make a case for how GraniteStater's trolling and misinformation are important contributions to the forum (which I don't really care about) or the city (which I do) then feel free. I'll read them, chuckle a little, and probably reply of I have time and interest.
First off, I know we are generally on the same page and I'm not asking you to agree with me all the time. I'm just saying you will often act like those that don't live in KC have no purpose here, especially when a post is not chamber of commerce material. I get it. You love the city and try to stick to the positive aspects of it and consider any criticism as "whining". I have always said that my positive posts outnumber my critical posts by a large margin, however, I will always feel that all of my posts have the same passion behind them. To make a place a better place. Not everybody will agree with my posts, but that's always been my intention. I think the same can be said by most expats that regularly post here, even crownvic, even though we have a totally different idea of what we imagine a better place would be.

I don't use the ignore feature on internet forums .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2017, 12:28 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,712 posts, read 18,581,602 times
Reputation: 5441
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbluesprings View Post
Sorry, I'm a little late to this party. I'm relatively new to this forum, so I hope to be back a little more often. But to the topic at hand.....

You talk about Downtown KCK, but what about Fairfax? As a truck driver, I use the I-70 Viaduct almost every day when I'm working. Many times I have to deliver into Fairfax. That is a major arterial in and out of there, and the only one that's accessable from the south end of the district. I agree with you that we have too many highways carving up downtown, and some moderately poor planning was done in order for it to make this happen, but be careful what you wish for. Maybe traffic counts are a little bit lower during certain parts of the day, but during the times of 6-9 AM and 4-6 PM I'm usually stuck in a traffic jam. God help us if that road gets removed without proper planning. We should at least wait until there's less reliability on the automobile, and light rail can be expanded outward into the northland and out east. I am in favor of capping I-670 and building over it and bridging the gap between the loop and the Crossroads, although, I'm not sure what the regulations would be, since you would essentially be turning it into a tunnel.
Traffic on the Kansas side (both 70 and 670) is extremely low, so with proper planning, some consolidation of highways would easily work without creating traffic problems.

The easiest and likely most effective fix would be to build a direct ramp from westbound 670 to what is basically northbound 70 in KCK. That would give I-70 traffic direct access to Fairfax.

Another potential idea is to keep one of the viaducts open for local access, but take the interstate route off the viaduct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2017, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Germantown, Philadelphia
3,705 posts, read 1,800,770 times
Reputation: 2245
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
I take you at your word that you obey the rules of the road and ride for a purpose other than to annoy "cage" drivers.

For every one of you, there are two who don't and don't.
Just curious: does the sign below appear on any streets in the Kansas City area?



This sign, which was added to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) in 2009, advises motorists that bicycles may occupy the entire general traffic lane (by riding in its center, as cars do) on this street. This is what most "vehicular cyclists" advocate instead of bike lanes. Given the differences in speed, though, I suspect that this annoys "'cage' drivers" even more, especially those who argue, as one I know who changed his name to that of a well-known (absent) character in an Ayn Rand novel did, that motorists have an absolute right to drive as fast as they want (or as the design allows) on any road.

Separate, marked bike lanes actually do not remove this caveat; a bicyclist who wishes to do so may still occupy a general traffic lane on a street with a marked bike lane and may do so by riding in its center. (Just as a pedestrian who wished to do so has a right to walk in the middle of that general traffic lane.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbluesprings View Post
Sorry, I'm a little late to this party. I'm relatively new to this forum, so I hope to be back a little more often. But to the topic at hand.....

You talk about Downtown KCK, but what about Fairfax? As a truck driver, I use the I-70 Viaduct almost every day when I'm working. Many times I have to deliver into Fairfax. That is a major arterial in and out of there, and the only one that's accessable from the south end of the district. I agree with you that we have too many highways carving up downtown, and some moderately poor planning was done in order for it to make this happen, but be careful what you wish for. Maybe traffic counts are a little bit lower during certain parts of the day, but during the times of 6-9 AM and 4-6 PM I'm usually stuck in a traffic jam. God help us if that road gets removed without proper planning. We should at least wait until there's less reliability on the automobile, and light rail can be expanded outward into the northland and out east. I am in favor of capping I-670 and building over it and bridging the gap between the loop and the Crossroads, although, I'm not sure what the regulations would be, since you would essentially be turning it into a tunnel.
"Tunnels" formed by capping over freeways previously in trenches usually do not have the same restrictions on hazardous materials that underwater tunnels do. Nor, for that matter, do most tunnels bored through land masses like mountains. The difference is this: Since many underwater tunnels lie just beneath the bottom of the body of water they cross*, an explosion in the tunnel would likely open a hole that water would come rushing through. All you'd get with a mountain or under-deck tunnel is a bunch of dirt or chunks of concrete falling into it, and one can usually dig that stuff out without much trouble. It's also more likely that there will be survivors in that latter case.

*The most common method of building an underwater tunnel is: A trench is dug in the soil at the bottom of the body of water. Prefabricated tubular tunnel segments are then lowered into the trench and attached to previously sunk segments, and water barriers between the segments removed. The process is repeated until the tunnel is complete, then the tubes are covered with fill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2017, 11:52 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
7,702 posts, read 5,676,430 times
Reputation: 7570
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl View Post
Just curious: does the sign below appear on any streets in the Kansas City area?



This sign, which was added to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) in 2009, advises motorists that bicycles may occupy the entire general traffic lane (by riding in its center, as cars do) on this street. This is what most "vehicular cyclists" advocate instead of bike lanes. Given the differences in speed, though, I suspect that this annoys "'cage' drivers" even more, especially those who argue, as one I know who changed his name to that of a well-known (absent) character in an Ayn Rand novel did, that motorists have an absolute right to drive as fast as they want (or as the design allows) on any road.

Separate, marked bike lanes actually do not remove this caveat; a bicyclist who wishes to do so may still occupy a general traffic lane on a street with a marked bike lane and may do so by riding in its center. (Just as a pedestrian who wished to do so has a right to walk in the middle of that general traffic lane.)
I can't answer your question, as I haven't been there since 2000.

One can put up all the hip and trendy left-fringe driven signs they wish and it won't change one iota the fact that in no rational mind do cars and bikes safely share busy streets, with cyclists aggressively asserting their right to the same space.

50 years ago and for 10 years before that, I spent my life on a bike, as did all the other kids in the neighborhood. There was no problem. Why? Because we weren't two-wheeled attitudes. And everyone today knows what I'm talking about.

Again, not saying you are one. But you are hugely out-numbered by those who are and they have ruined it for all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2017, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Germantown, Philadelphia
3,705 posts, read 1,800,770 times
Reputation: 2245
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
I can't answer your question, as I haven't been there since 2000.

One can put up all the hip and trendy left-fringe driven signs they wish and it won't change one iota the fact that in no rational mind do cars and bikes safely share busy streets, with cyclists aggressively asserting their right to the same space.

50 years ago and for 10 years before that, I spent my life on a bike, as did all the other kids in the neighborhood. There was no problem. Why? Because we weren't two-wheeled attitudes. And everyone today knows what I'm talking about.

Again, not saying you are one. But you are hugely out-numbered by those who are and they have ruined it for all.
My point here was this:

That sign doesn't reflect "trendy left-fringe thinking" but the rules of the road as they have existed since the dawn of the Automobile Age.

I'll grant that the attitudes of bicycle advocates (and there have been those for decades as well: The League of American Bicylists was founded in 1880 as the League of American Wheelmen - by the way, it is the oldest "good roads" group in the country, as bikes also ride better on all-weather paved roads) have changed since the 1970s, but part of that change in attitude comes from a confluence of history and shifts in consciousness.

Bicycles were the first significant improvement in personal transportation. In the 1890s, they were as numerous as cars are now in some places after the invention of the "safety bicycle" with its equally-sized wheels and chain drive. But the rise of the automobile displaced the bike's role as basic transport - by the 1970s, to the point where, as it appears to me you still do, motorists tended to ignore bicycles completely...

...which made life difficult for those who still used them for that purpose, a group that was admittedly small in number but began to grow with rising concern for both the environment and personal health (bikes are better for both). The move to add designated bike lanes to streets and highways was one answer to that serious imbalance; the rise of the "vehicular cyclists" was at once a counter to that approach and a second answer.

Legally speaking, the "vehicular cyclists" are correct in their arguments. Bicycles, which have never had requirements for licensing or insurance any more than horse-drawn wagons have had, are vehicles that - like pedestrians, horses and horse-drawn vehicles - have the full run of the road space. We separated pedestrians out largely because the streets were in poor condition, and walking in them would ruin clothing thanks to the dirt and horse waste. Automobiles are a relatively recent addition to the road space, and a set of laws arose to control how they functioned in it. The fact that they dominate the road now does not eliminate the right of those other forms of transport to use it; as bicycles are significantly faster than any other vehicle, except a horse running at full gallop, they ought to be relegated to the vehicular road space rather than the pedestrian one. And that means that on a street marked with lanes for general traffic, "bicycles may use the full lane" -they have always been able to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2017, 03:26 PM
 
Location: KCMO (Plaza)
290 posts, read 231,920 times
Reputation: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
Especially not beautiful.

And KC is nowhere near the most obese metro. Bike lanes are a "progressive" irritation and intimidation tool and serve no other purpose.
You still live out in the Bay Area right, CrownVic95? Are the bike lanes in my more conservative hometown of Walnut Creek a progressive irritation too? I'm sure they would be interested in that assessment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2017, 05:57 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
7,702 posts, read 5,676,430 times
Reputation: 7570
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl View Post
My point here was this:

That sign doesn't reflect "trendy left-fringe thinking" but the rules of the road as they have existed since the dawn of the Automobile Age.

I'll grant that the attitudes of bicycle advocates (and there have been those for decades as well: The League of American Bicylists was founded in 1880 as the League of American Wheelmen - by the way, it is the oldest "good roads" group in the country, as bikes also ride better on all-weather paved roads) have changed since the 1970s, but part of that change in attitude comes from a confluence of history and shifts in consciousness.

Bicycles were the first significant improvement in personal transportation. In the 1890s, they were as numerous as cars are now in some places after the invention of the "safety bicycle" with its equally-sized wheels and chain drive. But the rise of the automobile displaced the bike's role as basic transport - by the 1970s, to the point where, as it appears to me you still do, motorists tended to ignore bicycles completely...

...which made life difficult for those who still used them for that purpose, a group that was admittedly small in number but began to grow with rising concern for both the environment and personal health (bikes are better for both). The move to add designated bike lanes to streets and highways was one answer to that serious imbalance; the rise of the "vehicular cyclists" was at once a counter to that approach and a second answer.

Legally speaking, the "vehicular cyclists" are correct in their arguments. Bicycles, which have never had requirements for licensing or insurance any more than horse-drawn wagons have had, are vehicles that - like pedestrians, horses and horse-drawn vehicles - have the full run of the road space. We separated pedestrians out largely because the streets were in poor condition, and walking in them would ruin clothing thanks to the dirt and horse waste. Automobiles are a relatively recent addition to the road space, and a set of laws arose to control how they functioned in it. The fact that they dominate the road now does not eliminate the right of those other forms of transport to use it; as bicycles are significantly faster than any other vehicle, except a horse running at full gallop, they ought to be relegated to the vehicular road space rather than the pedestrian one. And that means that on a street marked with lanes for general traffic, "bicycles may use the full lane" -they have always been able to do so.
Everyone is entitled to a viewpoint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA650 View Post
You still live out in the Bay Area right, CrownVic95? Are the bike lanes in my more conservative hometown of Walnut Creek a progressive irritation too? I'm sure they would be interested in that assessment.
Yes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2017, 07:23 AM
 
1,298 posts, read 990,598 times
Reputation: 658
I get it that bikes have a right to ride down the middle of the street, but here's the catch:

On most urban 2-lane roads it's illegal to pass. You're not allowed to cross the center line to go around the vehicle in front of you. But what if that vehicle is a bicycle going 10 mph? Or worse (as some have suggested) a very assertive pedestrian?

There is no rational way to pretend that bicycles and pedestrians can be treated just like cars on the road. I'm in favor of bike lanes. Or, failing that, public education to remind motorists to be respectful to all modes of transportation (and let those modes use the sidewalk, or hug the curb.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2017, 08:37 PM
 
519 posts, read 471,275 times
Reputation: 325
I don't see the point though of removing the north or south loop portions. They are both trenches/moats around downtown, would one of them if removed, be filled up with dirt? They are there, neither should be there and actually the north loop going east west is a more scenic drive than the south loop. If anything they both should just be capped and be tunnels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > Kansas City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top