My gut feeling is the universities could be brought on board fairly easily. One need only point out how many universities already have campuses that are closed to through traffic.flyingember wrote:
you're missing several really, really big things on that segment
Rockhurst, Stower's, UMKC
So Minnesota Ave was pedestrian and bike only? When/where exactly? I'm not sure its perfectly analogous, but I'd be interested to see what that looked like.aknowledgeableperson wrote:A few decades ago they remade the main street in downtown KCK like that, except for the transit part, parking only in back, and so on. Believe that experiment failed.I really, really, really wish someone in this city was visionary enough to make Troost a bike/ped/transit-only street from 24th to 63rd
chingon wrote:So Minnesota Ave was pedestrian and bike only? When/where exactly? I'm not sure its perfectly analogous, but I'd be interested to see what that looked like.aknowledgeableperson wrote:A few decades ago they remade the main street in downtown KCK like that, except for the transit part, parking only in back, and so on. Believe that experiment failed.I really, really, really wish someone in this city was visionary enough to make Troost a bike/ped/transit-only street from 24th to 63rd
O, that's basically nothing like what I was talking about. Shockingly AKP offered up an apples/oranges comparison and suggested it was somehow evidentiary of whether or not pedestrian/transit only corridors work.loftguy wrote:
It was open to cars, kind of. There were two meandering thru lanes for autos with multiple "plazas" for pedestrians.
Turned out to be unfriendly for either cars or people. Created multiple disconnects and difficulty for either to figure out how to negotiate access and wayfinding. Final nail in the coffin of "old downtown KCK".
Had some great sculpture and fountains by Dale Eldred (of blessed memory) though.
Well, that's kind of what spring to my mind when you mentioned it. Might also explain why I recoiled in horror at the suggestion. Is there an example of what you had in mind?chingon wrote:O, that's basically nothing like what I was talking about. Shockingly AKP offered up an apples/oranges comparison and suggested it was somehow evidentiary of whether or not pedestrian/transit only corridors work.loftguy wrote:
It was open to cars, kind of. There were two meandering thru lanes for autos with multiple "plazas" for pedestrians.
Turned out to be unfriendly for either cars or people. Created multiple disconnects and difficulty for either to figure out how to negotiate access and wayfinding. Final nail in the coffin of "old downtown KCK".
Had some great sculpture and fountains by Dale Eldred (of blessed memory) though.
I was disappointed by that too. But they do want to take it further south sometime in the future. The takeaway for me is that the city is looking at this sewer rebuild as an opportunity to remake some streetscapes. That's good.pash wrote:Sounds like a nice project, if chaglang's info is right. Too bad it's not going farther south. A few more blocks, to Linwood or a beyond, might help encourage more activity east of Martini Corner.
If they wanted to do a few blocks, that 3100 block would be great. But I do think it creates access problems for businesses. For example, there's a midblock Sav-a-Lot in the 3300 block. I have no idea where people would park for that, or what alternate path to the lot might be possible.aknowledgeableperson wrote:Comparison:
In KCK it was on a main street through the downtown area. Troost it would be on a main N/S corridor in the city. Was it purely apples to apples - no. But similar.
The businesses did not like what was in KCK and I would imagine the businesses along Troost would feel the same way.
Can the corridors work? No doubt. But for that long on a major street my guess it would suffer the same fate as the experiment in KCK.
The Trolley Track Trail. Only with transit on it.chaglang wrote: Is there an example of what you had in mind?
Which to me means there's very little to lose (except, I guess, access to the Sav-a-lot). And what is gained, no matter what, is a dedicated-lane transit corridor on the east side that abuts some of the densest residential neighborhoods in the city which already have the highest transit ridership. I mean, what is bringing new businesses to Troost? Tulips?I also question whether doing this while there is little business activity on the street would help bring new business there.
Well...nothing else has worked. I don't think of dedicated-ROW transit as gimmicky, I think of it as the gold standard.It actually seems like a gimmick that only gets used when nothing else has worked.
I would question whether that idea would actually spur any growth. To me that seems a lot more like what they did on Minnesota in downtown KCK: took a failing commercial street, put it on a road diet and waited for magic. In the case of Troost, its not failing, it is utterly failed. A long, central, well connected, green belt and dedicated transit corridor with pockets of good architectural relics seems like a good idea (and a cheap one) to me, but its certainly not going to ever happen, and its probably not worth derailing a thread over...As I far as I can tell, cars are not the problem on Troost. It's 5 lanes wide. You could get it down to 2 lanes, have plenty of parking, and drastically improve the pedestrian experience. I guess that's what I'm saying - there is so much that could be improved on that could spur growth that I don't see a need for something as drastic as closing 40 blocks to autos.
doubtful. Rockhurst isn't going to send everyone in the back way to have a pedestrian friendly road that replaces their major access point.chingon wrote:My gut feeling is the universities could be brought on board fairly easily. One need only point out how many universities already have campuses that are closed to through traffic.flyingember wrote:
you're missing several really, really big things on that segment
Rockhurst, Stower's, UMKC
Stower's I did in fact forget about, but Troost isn't exactly their "front door".
Do you have an example of what you're thinking about, that's already been built and has shown that it can at least sustain existing businesses? I'm skeptical that a jogging trail with busses would be helpful.chingon wrote:The Trolley Track Trail. Only with transit on it.
Yeah, that's where you lose me. There might be very little there, but those businesses are obviously serving a market that few others will. Treating Troost as a tabla rasa for a transit experiment is similar to the mentality that pushed highways through the poor sections of town. If this is such a great idea, let Brookside or Waldo or the Plaza do it first.chingon wrote: Which to me means there's very little to lose (except, I guess, access to the Sav-a-lot). And what is gained, no matter what, is a dedicated-lane transit corridor on the east side that abuts some of the densest residential neighborhoods in the city which already have the highest transit ridership. I mean, what is bringing new businesses to Troost? Tulips?
Nothing else working is not a reason for doing what you're proposing. It's a reason (justified, certainly) for doing something different than what's been tried before... which is basically nothing. Troost has failed, but it failed by design. To my knowledge, there's never been a plan for it to succeed. If there were a pile of failed plans for the street, I'd be more receptive to your idea. But jumping right to banning cars seems drastic.chingon wrote: Well...nothing else has worked. I don't think of dedicated-ROW transit as gimmicky, I think of it as the gold standard.
We could always take this over to the Troost Developments thread...chingon wrote: ...and its probably not worth derailing a thread over...
Again, we are talking about wild hypothetical pipe-dreams here, not reality, but to your point: there is only one direct vehicle access point from Troost into the Rockhurst campus. and it leads into a massive (3/4 of a city block) surface lot, which also abuts 54th and Tracy.flyingember wrote: Rockhurst isn't going to send everyone in the back way to have a pedestrian friendly road that replaces their major access point.
show me a university that blocks off one of only three major streets to their campus. through, sure, but To?
El Eje Ambiental in Bogota.chaglang wrote: Do you have an example of what you're thinking about, that's already been built and has shown that it can at least sustain existing businesses? I'm skeptical that a jogging trail with busses would be helpful.
Whoa. Your aspersions of classism are off base and not really constructive. One could just as easily argue that "treating Troost as it treated under the status quo is similar to the mindest that made it like it is today". Are you a classist because you don't think Troost should get any investment except maybe a road diet that is empirically proven to fail by what happened in KCK in the 80s?Treating Troost as a tabla rasa for a transit experiment is similar to the mentality that pushed highways through the poor sections of town.
Cool. I will check it out.chingon wrote: El Eje Ambiental in Bogota.
Not really off base at all. You're proposing doing something fairly radical. I'm saying that there are probably other things that could be tried before we nuke the street.chingon wrote:Whoa. Your aspersions of classism are off base and not really constructive. One could just as easily argue that "treating Troost as it treated under the status quo is similar to the mindest that made it like it is today". Are you a classist because you don't think Troost should get any investment except maybe a road diet that is empirically proven to fail by what happened in KCK in the 80s?
Well, we both agree that the current model is not working. And that without intervention it will continue to flounder. But I think that if it happens, it will happen for a dozen reasons that have nothing to do with transit. I'm not even convinced that transit is among the most pressing issues that street faces.chingon wrote:Ignoring the eastside is one of the primary critiques of every redevelopment plan/transit experiment/napkin drawing proposed in this city for the last 50 years. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If someone proposed a transit experiment (like a streetcar) and said, "this is such a good idea, let's do it in from Downtown to the Plaza, then if it works great, we can see if the Eastside ever deserves it" there'd be howling about how "the Westside gets everything/what do we get", and I can see the Eastside's point. I cannot, however, see yours. Except that you don't think its a good idea to make it a ped/transit mall. That's fine. You may well be right, we'll certainly never find out. You are definitely wrong that I have some kind of classist motive for thinking it'd be a good fit for Troost. I think it would be more expedient than dealing with narrow-minded nimby's in Brookside, sure, and a great deal easier dealing with a limited and transient business community than an entrenched and monied one. But that's not why I think Troost is a better fit for an experiment. I think its a better fit for the same reason terminal cancer patients are a better fit for experimental treatments than people with colds: they need it. And I may be wrong that such and experiment would work at all. I am definitely right, though, that Troost will continue to flounder and crumble under its current model, and we'll definitely both get to see that continue to play out.
This is interesting. I am really curious as to how he'll make that work at that price.Ollie Gates development: The barbecue magnate has his eye on the part of Beacon Hill that’s across Bruce Watkins Drive and northeast of the new housing. He proposes building 16 single-family homes, again in the $300,000 to $400,000 range. “We think the location is premier,” attorney Mark Bryant said, adding that they hope to have a development agreement within 30 days.