While KC tries to build four more miles of streetcar in the next ten years... (Kansas City: health insurance, taxi)

[shindig]

Originally Posted by kcmo

It's very difficult to take you seriously when you say "toy" bike. It's like I'm talking to a middle school know it all or reading a Trump tweet. Bikes are no more a toy than a motorized vehicle for an adult using it for the purpose of commuting. If anything, these big 4x4 lifted pickup trucks that you see in "red" suburbs etc do nothing but dump unnecessary pollution into the air via their over sized exhaust systems are more of a "toy" than a bicycle and that's the conservative side of things. Why do you make everything political or about blue cities vs red cities?

A bike rider doesn't need to carry liability insurance because they are generally harmless. A motorized vehicle can be a deadly weapon and can do great damage to property.

So other than just being a freaking right wing nutcase, you have yet to come up with a solid argument against bicyclists and the infrastructure needed to support them other than these backhanded toy bike insults.

Again, visit a real city where bikes are a huge part of the transportation system. In many foreign cities, bikes are actually given priority because they know the cost to support everybody driving their own cars is not sustainable.

This ^^^^^

[KC_Sleuth]

kmco - do you just come on here to constantly **** on KC and trash what it doesn't have or because it doesn't meet your definition of what a good city should have? Why are so into this city-vs-city competition? It doesn't really matter in the long run, and it seems super status-obsessive.

Who cares what 'infrastructure' KC has/doesn't have? Progress has been made, but KC doesn't need to remake itself overnight. Most people who live in KC are probably content with both the city and its pace of change. Playing "keeping up with the jones'" with other cities' is probably unwise.

If you think KC is a backwards craphole, why do you feel the need to come on this board and shame-post it? You live somewhere else.

[MoNative34]

Originally Posted by rwiksell

MoNative asked me a question and I answered it. Without using the internet. What's the problem again?

That's true. I was responding to someone else. Nice when people can articulate their beliefs on their own instead of just doing a search for something they agree with and copying and pasting a link.

[MoNative34]

Originally Posted by SPonteKC

Did it occur to you, with your heightened powers of perception and psychological prowess, that they would already be on the internet, since you asked on an internet forum?

Come up with an argument on your own. Rwiksel did.

[rwiksell]

Originally Posted by MoNative34

That's true. I was responding to someone else. Nice when people can articulate their beliefs on their own instead of just doing a search for something they agree with and copying and pasting a link.

I appreciate that. Although I still think your criticism of SPonteKC is unfounded. He was simply backing up my response with additional information from a reputable source. Again, I don't see the problem.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by KC_Sleuth

kmco - do you just come on here to constantly **** on KC and trash what it doesn't have or because it doesn't meet your definition of what a good city should have? Why are so into this city-vs-city competition? It doesn't really matter in the long run, and it seems super status-obsessive.

Who cares what 'infrastructure' KC has/doesn't have? Progress has been made, but KC doesn't need to remake itself overnight. Most people who live in KC are probably content with both the city and its pace of change. Playing "keeping up with the jones'" with other cities' is probably unwise.

If you think KC is a backwards craphole, why do you feel the need to come on this board and shame-post it? You live somewhere else.

First off, I don't really give a crap what you think about me, but obviously, you have not put a lot of thought into your post. I have posted hundreds of posts praising the good things about KC, especially in other sub-forums. That's hundreds more than you have.

And your general attitude is EXACTLY what has held KC back. You sound the people that wanted to save KCI, save Kemper Arena etc.

I never said KC was backwards or a craphole. I even stated many times that I think KC is a much more cosmopolitan and urban city than Nashville with more to do.

But the city is slow implementing transit and other transportation infrastructure such as bike lanes, recreational trails etc. That doesn't mean it's not doing other things well. KC still has a lot more to offer than Nashville does. However, my point is that Nashville is on a mission to become a 2nd or 3rd tier city while KC has always struggled with such a goal (except in the 1930's or maybe 1970's when the city was really trying to evolve). In 20-30 years, Nashville is likely to be where Denver is today and will have passed KC in almost every way. Obviously you are fine with that and maybe I am too. But it's a topic worth discussing for people that are adult enough to do so.

[shindig]

In some ways it is a competition, a competition for jobs, talent, youth, federal funding, etc. Cities that offer more, usually get more. I think still think Nashville is a step below KC and I just don't see their growth continuing at its current pace, just my opinion. It's a nice city, but outside downtown it gets pretty bland and boring. And Denver, even though it is growing and building like crazy, their downtown is still littered with hundreds of surface parking lots. They have come a long way with infill, but I think downtown Denver did more detriment to their downtown in the 1970's-1980's than KC ever did. Both cities are doing well with infill, but Denver is getting a lot more transplants, so it makes sense they would be building more.

[lovekcmo]

Originally Posted by kcmo

It's very difficult to take you seriously when you say "toy" bike. It's like I'm talking to a middle school know it all or reading a Trump tweet. Bikes are no more a toy than a motorized vehicle for an adult using it for the purpose of commuting. If anything, these big 4x4 lifted pickup trucks that you see in "red" suburbs etc do nothing but dump unnecessary pollution into the air via their over sized exhaust systems are more of a "toy" than a bicycle and that's the conservative side of things. Why do you make everything political or about blue cities vs red cities?

A bike rider doesn't need to carry liability insurance because they are generally harmless. A motorized vehicle can be a deadly weapon and can do great damage to property.

So other than just being a freaking right wing nutcase, you have yet to come up with a solid argument against bicyclists and the infrastructure needed to support them other than these backhanded toy bike insults.

Again, visit a real city where bikes are a huge part of the transportation system. In many foreign cities, bikes are actually given priority because they know the cost to support everybody driving their own cars is not sustainable.

people can't just walk in the streets, they use the sidewalks. Adult boys riding bikes on streets should have them licensed like guns perhaps? and pay personal property tax. US cities are not like and hopefully will never be like European cities. The American way of life is just that, unlike other nations. A right wing nutcase? I'm just wanting to Make Kansas City Great Again. : )

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by lovekcmo

people can't just walk in the streets, they use the sidewalks. Adult boys riding bikes on streets should have them licensed like guns perhaps? and pay personal property tax. US cities are not like and hopefully will never be like European cities. The American way of life is just that, unlike other nations. A right wing nutcase? I'm just wanting to Make Kansas City Great Again. : )

Once again, you can klll someone with a gun.

Find me an instance where someone on a bike killed a person by hitting them with the bike and I might cede the point.

Usually, if there's a collision involving a bike and another vehicle, it's the bicyclist who dies if anyone does.

[KC_Sleuth]

Originally Posted by kcmo

However, my point is that Nashville is on a mission to become a 2nd or 3rd tier city while KC has always struggled with such a goal (except in the 1930's or maybe 1970's when the city was really trying to evolve). In 20-30 years, Nashville is likely to be where Denver is today and will have passed KC in almost every way. Obviously you are fine with that and maybe I am too. But it's a topic worth discussing for people that are adult enough to do so.

First, your initial post to start this thread just sounds like it's trying to pick a fight.

Second, does it really matter what 'tier' KC is in relative to others? Nobody ever asks the question "how does this really impact my life?". I mean, KC residents aren't stuck living in Aleppo...if you are above ground today and not living in constant fear for your life this 'tier' ranking stuff is completely meaningless. It's so far up Maslow's hierarchy of needs that it's not even really worth wasting any time thinking about. Not enough 'wine bars' or trendy stuff? Oh, what a shame! People manage to get by living in a 4th or 5th tier city and it's not killing them...(disclaimer: I don't even think it is true - KC does have a lot of stuff for all types..maybe it doesn't have the 'volume' of bigger cities, but how much is really needed?)

Also KC has good biking access. I biked to work almost every day in late summer and early fall.