Discuss items in the urban core outside of Downtown as described above. Everything in the core including the east side (18th & Vine area), Northeast, Plaza, Westport, Brookside, Valentine, Waldo, 39th street, & the entire midtown area.
aknowledgeableperson wrote:The left turn lane at Sunfresh was added when the place was built. In other words was not part of original construction.
There's no room to add a lane to the SB lanes because of the houses on the west side of the road. The NB lanes would have to jog 10' to the east to make space for the turn lane. Seems unlikely that the city would be willing to do this for a single QT.
A QT does a ton in business each day in terms of sales taxes. Likely way more than the taxes on an empty lot.
The project is sound. It's not the best location if there are others available that would work for QT.
The best design would be to orient the station towards 33rd, get light shading so it doesn't hit residential homes and such. There's a qt next to residential in NKC that shows it can work
"Seems unlikely that the city would be willing to do this for a single QT."
Doubt that the city paid for the left turn lane further south. Would believe that was part of the cost of the developer. Of course QT could pick up the cost but I cannot imagine that for just a QT store. Could anything else go there to help with the cost?
warwickland wrote:There's a lot of gas-less 7-11s here, but they are always slightly decrepit, even in the suburbs. as much as i hate the way QT elbows it's way into neighborhoods (they just tore down a two story urban building at Big Bend and Manchester to build a massive QT right in Maplewood/Richmond Heights highschools front yard), gas-less QTs would be far preferable to 7-11s.
Crack Stop, anyone?
They just put in an urban, gasless 7-11 here in one of the new buildings on Rainbow. I really wish we had more of these, and gasless QTs. They really would be perfect for downtown.
And do we really need another Quik Trip here? The one at Southwest Boulevard and 31st is really close
they built a new QT at I-435 and State Line, the QT at 103rd & Wornall is still open
Well, do you feel that area needed a second QT? I mean QT's no doubt get a lot of business and can be quite challenging to maneuver through during peak hours and a second QT close by could help with that, but it still seems odd and a bit unnecessary.
If they think a Quik Trip will do well at Penn Valley... then cool. I feel like we have plenty of gas stations in that area though, and the QT at 31st and Southwest Boulevard is literally just a few blocks away.
if you want to increase density then basic amenities have to come into an area. There's not much more basic today than gasoline and there isn't one anywhere near that spot. Midtown/downtown is a pain to get gas in right now.
Because while encouraging transit is great, cars are still a necessity for too many people to get to/from work
A fallback position to no needs to be good buffers. A wall with bushes. Maybe out it as part of a bigger project like turn land plus repaving a really bad road
The Volker, Coleman Highlands, Valentine and (I can't remember the other one in the area) Neighborhood Associations are advocating a road diet on SW Trfy in the Plaza/Midtown Area Plan, so a turn lane/stop light wouldn't be frowned upon by the area. Also, QT would jump through hoops to ease the concerns of the neighborhoods, just like they did with the location on Main.
One additional piece of info I learned at our neighborhood association meeting is that (I'm told) QT tried to go in to the Walgreen's location on Broadway and the CVS location on Main when they were available, but was denied both times.
you're not talking about a local KC street but the major route into downtown for Prairie Village, Plaza South and such. take it out and it will be crazy easier for these people to drive to JoCo. the opposite direction it's the best route for northland to Plaza jobs since it keeps traffic off Cleaver/Volker. the big picture of KC needs this street. it's the only street west of US 71 until US 69 in JoCo that connects to 435 with as few lights as it has.
I wouldn't expect it will get a road diet until trains are way more established into Kansas.
just a road diet is thinking way too short-term too. Instead of a diet, I would think that something like the Metrolink tunnel under St. Louis Forest Parkway tunnel (cut and cover) at Wash U would make way more sense. then put in a quiet two-lane road the whole length to Westport Road and leave prepared space for a set of tracks + biking greenway above ground.
keep thinking what more density AND drawing more workers into downtown from the suburbs will take. this means roads for busses and cars and space for trains ans biked. the neighborhoods along SW Blvd are ripe for density increasing projects.
I've heard chatter about a "road diet" for Southwest Trafficway, and I agree that I just don't see this happening. This is the primary artery for residential Kansas City to downtown/ midtown/ Crown Center. No other city street moves this much traffic, and it connects to Ward Parkway and SM Parkway, facilitating travel for residents from the city to points south and west.
Even the left turn at Mill Street which was built around 1990 has had a negative effect on traffic throughput. The city should re-open the pedestrian tunnel there and perhaps add additional tunnels at 33d street and Valentine.
herrfrank wrote:I've heard chatter about a "road diet" for Southwest Trafficway...
the trafficway was a hot topic at the midtown area plan meetings. the throughput could easily remain the same without some of the characteristics that contribute to high (unsafe) vehicle speeds -- elimination of the median, introduction of a shared center-turn lane, all-day on-street parking with bumpouts, and more crosswalks (basically just like broadway).
the left turn at mill street provides necessary local access to a grocery store (and a rare crosswalk for volker residents). i'm not sure it contributed to a reduction in vehicle counts or level of service, so you'd need to cite data to make a convincing argument. even still, the local access should trump through trips.
flyingember wrote:keep thinking what more density AND drawing more workers into downtown from the suburbs will take. this means roads for busses and cars and space for trains ans biked. the neighborhoods along SW Blvd are ripe for density increasing projects.
This is just the sort of thinking that decimated urban Kansas City. A road diet for Southwest Trafficway would be bad for suburbanites, true, but the way to build great urban neighborhoods is to cater to the people who live in them, not to the people speeding through them.
Totally agree. We need to not think of Midtown as a pass thru between Brookside and downtown.
Ultimately this part of KC is going to progress as quickly as KC Life wants it to. All of this land is empty because it was part of KCL's plan to create a giant office park.
herrfrank wrote:I've heard chatter about a "road diet" for Southwest Trafficway...
the trafficway was a hot topic at the midtown area plan meetings. the throughput could easily remain the same without some of the characteristics that contribute to high (unsafe) vehicle speeds -- elimination of the median, introduction of a shared center-turn lane, all-day on-street parking with bumpouts, and more crosswalks (basically just like broadway).
the left turn at mill street provides necessary local access to a grocery store (and a rare crosswalk for volker residents). i'm not sure it contributed to a reduction in vehicle counts or level of service, so you'd need to cite data to make a convincing argument. even still, the local access should trump through trips.
I think one of the major things that causes speeding on this road is the fact that the traffic lights at each intersection seem to work completely independently of one another, instead of being synchronized. So you often see people speeding just to clear the next light before it turns red. The red light cameras at 39th were a cheesy way to try and capitalize on this situation, but they didn't do anything for the underlying problem--lights not set up to work together as a system.
flyingember wrote:keep thinking what more density AND drawing more workers into downtown from the suburbs will take. this means roads for busses and cars and space for trains ans biked. the neighborhoods along SW Blvd are ripe for density increasing projects.
This is just the sort of thinking that decimated urban Kansas City. A road diet for Southwest Trafficway would be bad for suburbanites, true, but the way to build great urban neighborhoods is to cater to the people who live in them, not to the people speeding through them.
SW trafficway went in because of demand to get downtown. I really doubt that decimated urban KC
It's not about speeding through, it's about keeping access to jobs. That's what this street was built for and what it still is today.
flyingember wrote:keep thinking what more density AND drawing more workers into downtown from the suburbs will take. this means roads for busses and cars and space for trains ans biked. the neighborhoods along SW Blvd are ripe for density increasing projects.
This is just the sort of thinking that decimated urban Kansas City. A road diet for Southwest Trafficway would be bad for suburbanites, true, but the way to build great urban neighborhoods is to cater to the people who live in them, not to the people speeding through them.
This is the logic that lead to the fatal traffic lights on Bruce R. Watkins Drive.
I believe SW Trafficway was designed to be a trafficway and move people quickly and efficiently, taking traffic off of other roads that were more pedestrian oriented. If they are going to spend money to improve it, they should build some pedestrian bridges over it.
It is not about moving suburbanites. I've lived in 2 places in midtown and now downtown for over 20 years and I've used it constantly, relying on it to be quick and direct.
The combination of Main, Broadway, and SW Boulevard is probably wide enough to accommodate the traffic volume if SW Trfy went away tomorrow. That it went in shortly after the peak of KC's downtown and before the highways were finished makes me think it's at least drastically oversized and possibly completely redundant.
I've always been curious about what Belleview/Summit and the intersection around Mill St looked like before the Trafficway went in, but haven't been able to find any photos. Does anyone know of any online resources?
chaglang wrote:The combination of Main, Broadway, and SW Boulevard is probably wide enough to accommodate the traffic volume if SW Trfy went away tomorrow. That it went in shortly after the peak of KC's downtown and before the highways were finished makes me think it's at least drastically oversized and possibly completely redundant.
I would argue to keep SW Trafficway a traffic mover (could use better ped crossings, but not a ped-friendly street) and make Main and Broadway slower and more ped friendly in all regards.
chaglang wrote:The combination of Main, Broadway, and SW Boulevard is probably wide enough to accommodate the traffic volume if SW Trfy went away tomorrow. That it went in shortly after the peak of KC's downtown and before the highways were finished makes me think it's at least drastically oversized and possibly completely redundant.
I would argue to keep SW Trafficway a traffic mover (could use better ped crossings, but not a ped-friendly street) and make Main and Broadway slower and more ped friendly in all regards.
Broadway seems drastically underused, but that could just be my perception. Even slowing SW Trafficway down and narrowed to something more in keeping with a residential area, and using Broadway to pick up the slack would be a huge improvement. Brookside Boulevard isn't great, but it shows that a street carrying that kind of capacity doesn't have to be totally unfriendly.
chaglang wrote:The combination of Main, Broadway, and SW Boulevard is probably wide enough to accommodate the traffic volume if SW Trfy went away tomorrow. That it went in shortly after the peak of KC's downtown and before the highways were finished makes me think it's at least drastically oversized and possibly completely redundant.
I've always been curious about what Belleview/Summit and the intersection around Mill St looked like before the Trafficway went in, but haven't been able to find any photos. Does anyone know of any online resources?
the angle of Westport Rd is clear, the country club line follows the modern Mill St across it
then the triangle of Westport Road, 39th, Belleview/Summit becomes clear
NE of it, The Norman School will gives you Summit St to the west, which is still one of it's names
then if you move to the 1958 topos, it's the first to show SW Tfwy finished
