While KC tries to build four more miles of streetcar in the next ten years... (Lancaster: law, dangerous)

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by SPonteKC

You remind me of a lot of midwestern kids who moved away and think perennial hand-wringing about how lame their hometowns are makes them fit in. Midwest expat peeps sure are an overcompensating bunch.

You haven't met the same expat Kansas Citians I have, that's for sure.

And I put kcmo in the same class with them, and with me.

[brooksider2brooklyn]

Originally Posted by SPonteKC

You remind me of a lot of midwestern kids who moved away and think perennial hand-wringing about how lame their hometowns are makes them fit in. Midwest expat peeps sure are an overcompensating bunch.

I don't see any KC expats putting KC down. They all seem to be very supportive of KC while at the same time seeing where KC needs improvement. Actually I think the bigger problem is some of the locals on here. You have one person saying downtown smells like sewage and another on here that anti anything KCMO and they even have KCMO in their screen name. Lovekcmo or something. Sorry I think KC needs a new air terminal man. You guys are a tough crowd.

[SPonteKC]

Originally Posted by brooksider2brooklyn

Sorry I think KC needs a new air terminal man. You guys are a tough crowd.

I do, too. I just don’t think Nashville proposing a big, bold, good light rail plan is an indictment of Kansas City.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by SPonteKC

I do, too. I just don’t think Nashville proposing a big, bold, good light rail plan is an indictment of Kansas City.

If they have even one phase of their light rail open within ten years, it's very much an indictment of Kansas City as it pertains to building regional transit. When did Charlotte start thinking of building a light rail line? Where are they now with light rail? How about Phoenix? Dallas? MSP? The list goes on.

KC is lacking in their infrastructure investment. Transit, airport, recreation are way behind all but only a handful of cities and KC is probably the only major city so far behind in all three.

Even roads, freeways and overpasses and sidewalks in KC are still lagging quite a bit behind many large cities. Outside the Plaza, Crown Center and P&L District, the city's infrastructure still needs a lot of work.

The state spends very little as well. Things are way better then they were 15 years ago, but much of KC's state infrastructure is still pretty dated. I-70 through KC is one of the oldest stretches of urban interstate int the country that has not been replaced.

KCMO is finally starting to move in the right direction with the Broadway Bridge and wrestling the North Loop away from MoDot's 1960's highway planning mentality.

Getting some bike lanes on Grand, building the streetcar, making the KCI terminal a priority, (despite the public being so against it). KC is starting to get the ball rolling.

But it's still behind and most cities are moving much faster at implementing this kind of stuff.

That does not mean that KC is not a great city. I never said Nashville is better or ever will be better than KC, but it will probably pass KC economically and in national importance soon.

Maybe KC will get the terminal built, maybe it will extend the streetcar and build a better regional bus and rail system, maybe it will build up recreation on the rivers, and many dozens of more miles of bike lanes and dedicated trails. There is nothing wrong with looking at what others cities do.

Lots of cities look at KC and are envious of some of the things KC has too. I'm sure Nashville would love to have a Union Station like KC's or the National WWI Memorial or a major league baseball team or a Nelson Art Gallery?

But I wasn't talking about the those things.

[lovekcmo]

Originally Posted by kcmo

If they have even one phase of their light rail open within ten years, it's very much an indictment of Kansas City as it pertains to building regional transit. When did Charlotte start thinking of building a light rail line? Where are they now with light rail? How about Phoenix? Dallas? MSP? The list goes on.

KC is lacking in their infrastructure investment. Transit, airport, recreation are way behind all but only a handful of cities and KC is probably the only major city so far behind in all three.

Even roads, freeways and overpasses and sidewalks in KC are still lagging quite a bit behind many large cities. Outside the Plaza, Crown Center and P&L District, the city's infrastructure still needs a lot of work.

The state spends very little as well. Things are way better then they were 15 years ago, but much of KC's state infrastructure is still pretty dated. I-70 through KC is one of the oldest stretches of urban interstate int the country that has not been replaced.

KCMO is finally starting to move in the right direction with the Broadway Bridge and wrestling the North Loop away from MoDot's 1960's highway planning mentality.

Getting some bike lanes on Grand, building the streetcar, making the KCI terminal a priority, (despite the public being so against it). KC is starting to get the ball rolling.

But it's still behind and most cities are moving much faster at implementing this kind of stuff.

That does not mean that KC is not a great city. I never said Nashville is better or ever will be better than KC, but it will probably pass KC economically and in national importance soon.

Maybe KC will get the terminal built, maybe it will extend the streetcar and build a better regional bus and rail system, maybe it will build up recreation on the rivers, and many dozens of more miles of bike lanes and dedicated trails. There is nothing wrong with looking at what others cities do.

Lots of cities look at KC and are envious of some of the things KC has too. I'm sure Nashville would love to have a Union Station like KC's or the National WWI Memorial or a major league baseball team or a Nelson Art Gallery?

But I wasn't talking about the those things.

Nashville will probably surpass KC soon, other cities will to and will pass St Louis, but for different reasons. I don't see what the deal about having Bike lanes are for a city. If someone wants to ride a bike, throw it in your car and take it to your local park and peddle around. Bike lanes shouldn't be in/on the streets that we drive our cars on. Bikers in street "bike" lanes are a hinderance to traffic and a danger for themselves. Parks are the place for bikes.

[sub]

Originally Posted by lovekcmo

Nashville will probably surpass KC soon, other cities will to and will pass St Louis, but for different reasons. I don't see what the deal about having Bike lanes are for a city. If someone wants to ride a bike, throw it in your car and take it to your local park and peddle around. Bike lanes shouldn't be in/on the streets that we drive our cars on. Bikers in street "bike" lanes are a hinderance to traffic and a danger for themselves. Parks are the place for bikes.

There is a bike-as-transportation movement going on.
If done well, bikes have separate lanes with physical barriers between them and cars. I kind of love it. The fewer crazies on the road the better.

I've spent the last week in Nashville. Can't leave soon enough. It's thriving, but in a chaotic way.
It's decades behind KC in terms of streets and highways. Fast growth is part of it, but these people seem to have no clue how a city is put together. I dread going anywhere, and there's a lot of trashiness mixed in with nicer developments. Southern parts of the area seem nice enough, but it's not on the scale of what KC has to offer.
The bike lanes are a nice touch, but they're not quite there with that either.
Overall, from what I remember of living in KC, it is vastly more pleasant than Nashville. Especially for day-to-day activities and anything more family oriented.

[rwiksell]

Originally Posted by lovekcmo

Nashville will probably surpass KC soon, other cities will to and will pass St Louis, but for different reasons. I don't see what the deal about having Bike lanes are for a city. If someone wants to ride a bike, throw it in your car and take it to your local park and peddle around. Bike lanes shouldn't be in/on the streets that we drive our cars on. Bikers in street "bike" lanes are a hinderance to traffic and a danger for themselves. Parks are the place for bikes.

This sounds intentionally ignorant. As if bikes are recreational toys and not a functional mode of transportation for those who (a) can't afford a car, (b) want to get in shape, or (c) don't like sitting in traffic or contributing to the pollution and traffic problem.

Every time you see a bike on the street, just think of that as one less car in front of you at a stoplight, when you want to turn right on red.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by lovekcmo

Nashville will probably surpass KC soon, other cities will to and will pass St Louis, but for different reasons. I don't see what the deal about having Bike lanes are for a city. If someone wants to ride a bike, throw it in your car and take it to your local park and peddle around. Bike lanes shouldn't be in/on the streets that we drive our cars on. Bikers in street "bike" lanes are a hinderance to traffic and a danger for themselves. Parks are the place for bikes.

Totally retrograde - and ahistorical - thinking there.

Bicycles were basic transportation when they were introduced, and the "safety bicycle" - the design with wheels of equal size and a chain drive - caused their numbers to explode in the 19th century. The first large-scale movement for all-weather, smooth paved roads was the one launched by the League of American Wheelmen (now the League of American Bicyclists) in the 1880s.

The laws of every state treat bicycles as vehicles entitled to use the road, specifically the portion of it devoted to use by vehicular traffic. The only exception are those high-speed roads designated for motor vehicle use only, and in those areas where freeways are the only roads connecting two or more places, bicycles are usually permitted to travel on the shoulder.

That cars have largely supplanted them as basic transportation does not mean they have been relegated to the status of playtoys or strictly recreational vehicles (and most recreational vehicles are also allowed on the roads general traffic uses). They remain basic transportation, and as such are entitled to use the same roads other vehicles use.

In fact, there's a segment of the bicycling community that refers to its members as "vehicular cyclists." These people oppose bike lanes because they believe they infantilize bicyclists and encourage motorists to not treat bicycles as vehicles belonging on the road. For all I know, this crowd promoted the "Bike May Use Full Lane" signs you see on some streets.

Roads are the place for bikes.

[lovekcmo]

Originally Posted by rwiksell

This sounds intentionally ignorant. As if bikes are recreational toys and not a functional mode of transportation for those who (a) can't afford a car, (b) want to get in shape, or (c) don't like sitting in traffic or contributing to the pollution and traffic problem.

Every time you see a bike on the street, just think of that as one less car in front of you at a stoplight, when you want to turn right on red.

Bikes are a form of a toy. Bikes are not the same as automobiles and should not be considered a form of transportation as a car. They are recreational exercise purpose equipment and should be ridden in parks, etc, not on the same streets that share autos. This thinking that bikes are equal or better than autos and should share the same space is ridiculous.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by lovekcmo

Bikes are a form of a toy. Bikes are not the same as automobiles and should not be considered a form of transportation as a car. They are recreational exercise purpose equipment and should be ridden in parks, etc, not on the same streets that share autos. This thinking that bikes are equal or better than autos and should share the same space is ridiculous.

Sorry, you're completely off base here, and I gave you the links to demonstrate otherwise.

They were basic transportation, not toys, and they retain that role around the world. Including in societies where auto ownership has grown and become widespread.

I usually don't go here, but: Your explanation of what bikes are and the purpose for which they were created has no grounding in reality or history, and your arguments do not deserve to be taken seriously therefore.