UMKC projects

[beautyfromashes]

I'd like to see the City return it to a 2-lane street. The 4-lane design promotes speeding and is a dangerous design.

Instead of always downsizing roads, how about we try to put more traffic on them to naturally slow the pace? Many of these city roads were built for the traffic there was at the time. When the core emptied out, the roads were more than what was needed. Increase traffic to the former standard and the road will be the perfect size.

[smh]

I'd like to see the City return it to a 2-lane street. The 4-lane design promotes speeding and is a dangerous design.

Instead of always downsizing roads, how about we try to put more traffic on them to naturally slow the pace? Many of these city roads were built for the traffic there was at the time. When the core emptied out, the roads were more than what was needed. Increase traffic to the former standard and the road will be the perfect size.

Do we want more traffic on Brookside Blvd? Why not use the excess ROW for a future streetcar extension, improved Trolley Trail or both?

The future is fewer cars in our cities, not more.

[chingon]

How would one do that vis-a-vis BKS BLVD? The neighborhood is intact, every home there has more automobiles per household than they did when the Boulevard was built in its current state. Where would the increased traffic come from? Also, while it seems unlikely, have you not heard BKS NIMBYs shriek about increased traffic every time anything gets built? I'd love to see the messaging for the "Save BKS....With more Traffic" campaign.

[kcjak]

The reason the streetcar didn't extend through Brookside earlier is that the residents voted against it, iirc primarily because they didn't want the related noise or to lose their beloved trolley trail. How ironic that they don't want to lose something built as a streetcar line to an actual streetcar. I just don't see enough of those residents changing their opinion, even with the success of the streetcar.

[beautyfromashes]

Do we want more traffic on Brookside Blvd? Why not use the excess ROW for a future streetcar extension, improved Trolley Trail or both?

The future is fewer cars in our cities, not more.

There is plenty of dedicated ROW owned by the city for streetcar and Trolley Trail that you don't need to put it in the street. They've basically said this with the extenstion design shifting both north and south lines to the east side of Brookside Blvd already. If/when they extend further, it will be in the grass ROW that is next to the Trolley Trail now.

The future is not less cars. Alternatives to cars will build as density increases to max out current capacity. Of course, you can speed this along (which is what you're saying) by decreasing the capacity or you can wait for the increased demand to fill the capacity there is currently. It doesn't have to be in the areas directly adjacent to the road, but just increased traffic going through the area. This could mean increased jobs downtown that pull people through that area or increased build density or both.

[shinatoo]

Talking to my neighbors, in the 50s and 60s our block had over 100 kids living in it, in about 30 three-bed houses. Our next-door neighbors had eight kids, and our house had six kids, and that was the norm. For most of the last twenty years, it's been one or two people per home. As those people are aging out families are moving in but it's typically one or two kids.

I would love to see Brookside BLVD (and 63rd St for that matter) as three-lane roads with a cycle track. I ride the Trolly Trail often and it's usually to crowded with pedestrians for aggressive biking. Plus suddenly popping out into traffic at the intersections can be a life-altering experience.

I would guess the streetcar south of 51st has a 0% chance of happening. If anything happens south of 51st it should be on Troost where there is potential for development.

[shinatoo]

I don't think we ever voted on anything in Brookside. The powers behind the streetcar know that segment would never qualify for any federal funding.

[chingon]

I would guess the streetcar south of 51st has a 0% chance of happening. If anything happens south of 51st it should be on Troost where there is potential for development.

Hear, hear...though I'm not sure there's any ballot box support for it in that neighborhood either.

[DaveKCMO]

I don't think we ever voted on anything in Brookside. The powers behind the streetcar know that segment would never qualify for any federal funding.

Correct on both.

[phuqueue]

Do we want more traffic on Brookside Blvd? Why not use the excess ROW for a future streetcar extension, improved Trolley Trail or both?

The future is fewer cars in our cities, not more.

There is plenty of dedicated ROW owned by the city for streetcar and Trolley Trail that you don't need to put it in the street. They've basically said this with the extenstion design shifting both north and south lines to the east side of Brookside Blvd already. If/when they extend further, it will be in the grass ROW that is next to the Trolley Trail now.

The future is not less cars. Alternatives to cars will build as density increases to max out current capacity. Of course, you can speed this along (which is what you're saying) by decreasing the capacity or you can wait for the increased demand to fill the capacity there is currently. It doesn't have to be in the areas directly adjacent to the road, but just increased traffic going through the area. This could mean increased jobs downtown that pull people through that area or increased build density or both.

The future should be fewer cars, so I'm not really sure why we would actively pursue a policy of increasing traffic. Hating traffic is basically the one thing everybody seems to agree on -- drivers hate being "stuck in" traffic (or more accurately, they hate being traffic themselves, though they typically fail to conceive of it that way), pedestrians, cyclists, etc hate the dangers posed by extra cars and aggressive drivers, and the surrounding neighborhoods hate the air pollution and noise. Intentionally trying to increase traffic to somehow make the road safer is a real galaxy brain take.

[smh]

Do we want more traffic on Brookside Blvd? Why not use the excess ROW for a future streetcar extension, improved Trolley Trail or both?

The future is fewer cars in our cities, not more.

There is plenty of dedicated ROW owned by the city for streetcar and Trolley Trail that you don't need to put it in the street. They've basically said this with the extenstion design shifting both north and south lines to the east side of Brookside Blvd already. If/when they extend further, it will be in the grass ROW that is next to the Trolley Trail now.

The future is not less cars. Alternatives to cars will build as density increases to max out current capacity. Of course, you can speed this along (which is what you're saying) by decreasing the capacity or you can wait for the increased demand to fill the capacity there is currently. It doesn't have to be in the areas directly adjacent to the road, but just increased traffic going through the area. This could mean increased jobs downtown that pull people through that area or increased build density or both.

The future should be fewer cars, so I'm not really sure why we would actively pursue a policy of increasing traffic. Hating traffic is basically the one thing everybody seems to agree on -- drivers hate being "stuck in" traffic (or more accurately, they hate being traffic themselves, though they typically fail to conceive of it that way), pedestrians, cyclists, etc hate the dangers posed by extra cars and aggressive drivers, and the surrounding neighborhoods hate the air pollution and noise. Intentionally trying to increase traffic to somehow make the road safer is a real galaxy brain take.

Well said.

[kcjak]

I'm referring to the vote in 2014 to expand the streetcar. Weren't there three options (Main to UMKC, Indep Ave and Linwood) where the Main St extension recommended stopping at UMKC but with the possibility of going all the way down to around 435? Here's a recap of opposition from Brookside residents prior to the vote.

https://insidebrookside.com/2014/02/07/ ... expansion/

I have to defer to Dave's experience in the matter, so maybe my memory isn't what it used to be

[beautyfromashes]

The future should be fewer cars, so I'm not really sure why we would actively pursue a policy of increasing traffic. Hating traffic is basically the one thing everybody seems to agree on -- drivers hate being "stuck in" traffic (or more accurately, they hate being traffic themselves, though they typically fail to conceive of it that way), pedestrians, cyclists, etc hate the dangers posed by extra cars and aggressive drivers, and the surrounding neighborhoods hate the air pollution and noise. Intentionally trying to increase traffic to somehow make the road safer is a real galaxy brain take.

It should but I'm cynical that it will. We'll be lucky to keep the amount of cars that we have on the road now and stop new road and highway construction. But, that'd be like trying to limit the amount of tv's there are in America or McDonalds restaurants. It's so against our near and even distant history. Cars are just too easy and we as Americans will find the quickest, most efficient use of possible resources to accomplish the task. For transit to take hold in an area, it has to be quicker than the alternative or cheap enough to offset the time cost in the average persons brain.

My point about Brookside Blvd was that the goal shouldn't just be chopping lanes off of every possible road in this city. Squeezing the road system won't bring more density. Limit new highway construction but leave roads that are in the core bubble to entice proper build up that could support mass transit projects. So, how about moving traffic off of Wornall and onto Brookside? Wornall probably gets more traffic currently even though it's only two lanes. If the Urban Lab project is adopted, that road would end at the Plaza. If you moved the orientation of Wornall so it connects directly with Brookside you would have enough traffic to slow the pace and encourage efficient movement down Main Street, a major road, instead of dumping into the Plaza. The same could be done for Meyer and 63rd to encourage traffic that meets the current build, thus slowing traffic. It was just a thought.

[phuqueue]

The future should be fewer cars, so I'm not really sure why we would actively pursue a policy of increasing traffic. Hating traffic is basically the one thing everybody seems to agree on -- drivers hate being "stuck in" traffic (or more accurately, they hate being traffic themselves, though they typically fail to conceive of it that way), pedestrians, cyclists, etc hate the dangers posed by extra cars and aggressive drivers, and the surrounding neighborhoods hate the air pollution and noise. Intentionally trying to increase traffic to somehow make the road safer is a real galaxy brain take.

It should but I'm cynical that it will. We'll be lucky to keep the amount of cars that we have on the road now and stop new road and highway construction. But, that'd be like trying to limit the amount of tv's there are in America or McDonalds restaurants. It's so against our near and even distant history. Cars are just too easy and we as Americans will find the quickest, most efficient use of possible resources to accomplish the task. For transit to take hold in an area, it has to be quicker than the alternative or cheap enough to offset the time cost in the average persons brain.

That’s the thing though, a car is not by some immutable law of nature the “quickest, most efficient” option, we have simply made it that way through policy choices. We have overbuilt our roads (especially in KC), we have overbuilt our parking, we have made it as easy as possible to drive, even demolishing our existing built environment to better accommodate cars, we have hidden the costs of driving as much as possible, and we have made it inconvenient or difficult or outright impossible to get around by other means. But we didn’t have to do that, and we don’t have to keep doing that. Various European cities restrict or prohibit cars in the city center, so driving isn’t so quick or efficient there. In Tokyo you generally can’t park on the street and have to show that you possess private parking when you get a car, so that’s not so easy or convenient either. These other countries offer extreme examples that, granted, KC is far from prepared to emulate, but they illustrate the fact that this is not about “luck,” it’s about choices. And while I understand the impulse to expect KC to continue making the wrong choices in this area, that’s just a self-fulfilling prophecy if even people on a board like this are gonna take the attitude of “fuck it, we’re doing more traffic.”

My point about Brookside Blvd was that the goal shouldn't just be chopping lanes off of every possible road in this city. Squeezing the road system won't bring more density. Limit new highway construction but leave roads that are in the core bubble to entice proper build up that could support mass transit projects. So, how about moving traffic off of Wornall and onto Brookside? Wornall probably gets more traffic currently even though it's only two lanes. If the Urban Lab project is adopted, that road would end at the Plaza. If you moved the orientation of Wornall so it connects directly with Brookside you would have enough traffic to slow the pace and encourage efficient movement down Main Street, a major road, instead of dumping into the Plaza. The same could be done for Meyer and 63rd to encourage traffic that meets the current build, thus slowing traffic. It was just a thought.

I don’t understand how you think roads support mass transit. Roads support cars. The buildup you will entice if you continue to design your city around cars will itself be built for cars. But KC already has way more than enough roads to support even far more traffic than it currently experiences. We shouldn’t be trying to grow traffic to “meet the current build,” we should be right-sizing the build to suit the level and types of traffic that we want to see, which should ideally be very little car traffic and a lot of foot, bike, and transit traffic. I understand that KC is a long way from accomplishing this and currently lacks a built environment that is particularly suited for it, but as they say, Rome wasn’t paved over and turned into a parking lot in a day.

I’m also not seeing how it is “efficient” to put enough additional cars on a street that it slows down the flow of traffic. Obviously slower traffic is desirable, but traffic that is slowed because there’s too much if it is basically by definition inefficient. The best way to slow traffic isn’t to max it out so that nobody can move, it’s to engineer streets in ways that induce users to use them as intended. But instead we design quasi-expressway stroads in this country and then are baffled that people speed on them.

[beautyfromashes]

Foot, bike and public transit will never be the quickest except in one condition….gridlock, and that’s only when there’s an off-street subway-type option. Even then, waiting for train, transferring once or twice and walking to your destination is almost always slower. The idea that you can jump in a vehicle and take any road to get to your destination is super efficient, when time is your main factor. Even your European model of rapidly limiting traffic shows that the only way to slow car growth is to force it. So, you have to force dense build construction causing the gridlock that pushes people towards transit. This is basically the goal of road diets. You create gridlock to push people to alternatives. But, many times you don’t have to diet to get the increased traffic you desire. Hence, the expample of Brookside. Increased traffic also causes slower speeds because the spaces between are less causing more caution. Solves the driving speed danger and less expensive than totally redoing miles of a road.

[langosta]

Foot, bike and public transit will never be the quickest except in one condition….gridlock, and that’s only when there’s an off-street subway-type option. Even then, waiting for train, transferring once or twice and walking to your destination is almost always slower. The idea that you can jump in a vehicle and take any road to get to your destination is super efficient, when time is your main factor. Even your European model of rapidly limiting traffic shows that the only way to slow car growth is to force it. So, you have to force dense build construction causing the gridlock that pushes people towards transit. This is basically the goal of road diets. You create gridlock to push people to alternatives. But, many times you don’t have to diet to get the increased traffic you desire. Hence, the expample of Brookside. Increased traffic also causes slower speeds because the spaces between are less causing more caution. Solves the driving speed danger and less expensive than totally redoing miles of a road.

Imho transit pulls ahead when you don’t SUBSIDIZE the car. When we SUBSIDIZE cars, we construct artificially wide and fast roads that push people away from economically and environmentally sound patterns of development and transportation.

[beautyfromashes]

Imho transit pulls ahead when you don’t SUBSIDIZE the car. When we SUBSIDIZE cars, we construct artificially wide and fast roads that push people away from economically and environmentally sound patterns of development and transportation.

What transit isn’t subsidized though? I suppose if financial concerns were the primary focus, walking and biking would the clear winner. They also allow anywhere travel though, in most cases, would take more time and would be less accessible to the elderly or those with physical difficulties and are more difficult in bad weather.

[herrfrank]

Reduce speeds on the Brookside Autobahn

Yes, the obvious solution. I cross that signalized intersection in car, on bike and on foot quite often and people are driving way above the posted speed limit.
I don't understand why KCMO makes it so difficult to put in speed bumps. It is the easiest and cheapest and most effective solution to get people to slow down.

The whole road is a speed bump. I don't know how anyone travels that fast without rattling their teeth out. Supposed to be getting resurfaced soon. But yes, you need to be alert when crossing. It was especially bad when the power was out.

What is the problem this thread is trying to solve? Brookside Blvd already has much less traffic than Ward Pkwy and as someone upthread noted, less than Wornall just a couple of blocks to the west. The metro is configured north-south, so these three roads, plus to some degree Troost and State Line are the primary roads for this entire section of the city. More than one hundred thousand people live between I-435 and Gregory who need to get to the Plaza area occasionally. Leawood, Red Bridge, Waldo -- these people shop at Whole Foods also.

51st and Brookside has a traffic signal. That it was briefly out of service should not require road re-design. If the signal timings need to change, that might make sense. But heavy, private car traffic to Whole Foods is going to continue forever. That is part of the business model for a luxury grocer like this. I would assume clever people will learn to use Oak rather than crossing on 51st Street, which doesn't really lead anywhere to the west past Loose Park

This part of town already reminds me of an east coast streetcar suburb more than most -- something like Newton or Ardmore or even parts of Queens. It seems to be working well. When we actually achieve true gridlock, even for just 15 minutes, then we can re-visit this intersection.

[taxi]

Yes, the obvious solution. I cross that signalized intersection in car, on bike and on foot quite often and people are driving way above the posted speed limit.
I don't understand why KCMO makes it so difficult to put in speed bumps. It is the easiest and cheapest and most effective solution to get people to slow down.

The whole road is a speed bump. I don't know how anyone travels that fast without rattling their teeth out. Supposed to be getting resurfaced soon. But yes, you need to be alert when crossing. It was especially bad when the power was out.

What is the problem this thread is trying to solve? Brookside Blvd already has much less traffic than Ward Pkwy and as someone upthread noted, less than Wornall just a couple of blocks to the west. The metro is configured north-south, so these three roads, plus to some degree Troost and State Line are the primary roads for this entire section of the city. More than one hundred thousand people live between I-435 and Gregory who need to get to the Plaza area occasionally. Leawood, Red Bridge, Waldo -- these people shop at Whole Foods also.

51st and Brookside has a traffic signal. That it was briefly out of service should not require road re-design. If the signal timings need to change, that might make sense. But heavy, private car traffic to Whole Foods is going to continue forever. That is part of the business model for a luxury grocer like this. I would assume clever people will learn to use Oak rather than crossing on 51st Street, which doesn't really lead anywhere to the west past Loose Park

This part of town already reminds me of an east coast streetcar suburb more than most -- something like Newton or Ardmore or even parts of Queens. It seems to be working well. When we actually achieve true gridlock, even for just 15 minutes, then we can re-visit this intersection.

As I mentioned, I cross Brookside at 51st often and in a variety of modes. I've been working less than a block away and have heard a few crashes and several near misses/tires screeching. Many drivers going both N and S on Brookside tend to haul ass. I guess they wanna make that light. Maybe changing it to a flashing red would help.

[beautyfromashes]

As I mentioned, I cross Brookside at 51st often and in a variety of modes. I've been working less than a block away and have heard a few crashes and several near misses/tires screeching. Many drivers going both N and S on Brookside tend to haul ass. I guess they wanna make that light. Maybe changing it to a flashing red would help.

I'd almost guarantee you the crashes and tires you've heard are from people going north trying to turn left at the light. People from Overland Park for some reason don't understand that a full green means turn but yield to traffic. They take it as a green arrow like would be in the suburbs and hit the gas.