Removing the north leg of downtown freeway loop... (Kansas City, Fairfax: insurance, neighborhood)

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by luzianne

People always say that, and when I went to California I was surprised that I saw just as many obese people there as I do in KC, despite the stereotypes. I expected everyone in California to be thin and beautiful. They're not.

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.

[lovekcmo]

Originally Posted by CrownVic95

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.

I love this quote and find it to be true.

Bike lanes are a "progressive" irritation and intimidation tool and serve no other purpose

[rwiksell]

Originally Posted by CrownVic95

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.

How are they intended to intimidate, exactly?

Honest question.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by CrownVic95

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.

As the owner of a three-speed I use to tool around Germantown, I can attest that they do serve a useful purpose: namely, they allow me to use the street without annoying those people in cars, who whoosh right by me.

Bike use rises with the addition of bike lanes because it's the bicyclists who feel intimidated by the motorists.

The "vehicular cyclists" actually argue that bike lanes are a plot by motorists to hog the road for themselves and infantilize bike riders, who are entitled to use the same general traffic lanes cars do in the manner in which cars use them, according to the rules of the road. This means riding with the traffic flow on the right side of the lane (for slower traffic) - or for the more forceful advocates of this approach, taking the entire lane by riding in its center. It also means obeying the rules of the road: stop at stop signs and red lights, signal your turns with hand signals, yield to pedestrians, and so on.

[SPonteKC]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

Shifting metrics aside (all trending worse or holding steady with time), the percentage of obesity and overweight populace is a healthcare disaster in the US. Adding bike lanes will only move things in the right direction by making active lifestyles a priority as an investment for the metro area.

Rankings, both in the top 10 in percentage terms for adult obesity: Adult Obesity in the United States: The State of Obesity
#7 Kansas
#10 Missouri

Sorry your KC vendetta is both wrong and irrelevant to this discussion, man. You need to move on. Delete away, though. I'll keep calling you out on your bull****.

There's a difference between states and metros. Kansas City is the 60th in percentage of the population that is obesity & overweight of the top 100 metros, with 1 being the most overweight and 100 being the least.

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

As the owner of a three-speed I use to tool around Germantown, I can attest that they do serve a useful purpose: namely, they allow me to use the street without annoying those people in cars, who whoosh right by me.

Bike use rises with the addition of bike lanes because it's the bicyclists who feel intimidated by the motorists.

The "vehicular cyclists" actually argue that bike lanes are a plot by motorists to hog the road for themselves and infantilize bike riders, who are entitled to use the same general traffic lanes cars do in the manner in which cars use them, according to the rules of the road. This means riding with the traffic flow on the right side of the lane (for slower traffic) - or for the more forceful advocates of this approach, taking the entire lane by riding in its center. It also means obeying the rules of the road: stop at stop signs and red lights, signal your turns with hand signals, yield to pedestrians, and so on.

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.

[twan2001]

cut


anyways, Kansas City lands right in the middle at 51st out of the 100 largest metros.
https://wallethub.com/edu/fattest-ci...america/10532/
side note, kudos to St Louis at 72nd (the higher the better). They are doing something right.


Edited again! LMAO, I don't know what is allowed to be said here.

[kcbluesprings]

Originally Posted by kcmo

When you say "both" viaduct, do you mean the two Lewis and Clark bridges or both the I-70 and the I-670 viaducts?

I-670 has plenty of capacity to serve downtown KCK. If you follow the I-70 signs through KC now, the highway has very sharp turns and narrows down to one or two lanes in several place due to lanes dropping. So the 70 route through KCMO and KCK is totally worthless. When 670 was built, the only reason they did not re-route 70 across 670 was because KCK thought it would hurt their downtown economy. The highway system has little do with downtown KCK's problems.

Why I propose is to reroute all I-70 traffic across the I-670 viaduct. The only major improvement needed to do that would be to widen the freeway where it goes through the SW corner of the loop near bartle hall. EB 670 narrows to one lane there, WB 670 narrows to two lanes. That can be fixed. Otherwise the rest of the downtown freeway system can handle the traffic.

To maintain access to downtown KCK most traffic would be diverted to I-670 and a new ramp would be built from WB 670 to what is currently NB/EB 70. You also have access from the west loop. One of the Lewis and Clark bridges could carry car and trucks while the other bridge would carry streetcars, a bike path and be a linear elevated park connecting Kaw Point to Berkley Park. Your idea of routing the bike trail along the river front is good too if they can somehow make that work. If so you could decommission one of the bridges.

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.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by SPonteKC

You violated the terms of the forum that state only disgruntled expats are allowed to voice opinions on Kansas City stuff.

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.

[SPonteKC]

Originally Posted by kcmo

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.

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.