KCRag Forum

grovester wrote:I hadn't heard about a Paseo plan before.

http://fox4kc.com/2016/03/04/midtown-cy ... ike-lanes/

"City officials say they're also considering a bike path that would be the longest in the city. It would cover 19 road miles on The Paseo, and stretch from Independence Avenue to 85th Street."

I wonder if they are counting the mileage as round-trip. From Independence Avenue to 85th Street is about 9 miles, assuming the bike path follows The Paseo the entire route.

they probably mean lane miles. so 9 * 2 would be roughly 19 with all the jogs involved

One lane going north and the other south?

So we just moved to midtown, and work in the crossroads. Been looking for a bike lane, but can't seem to find a safe route.
Google is recommending main, which is a hazard with the streetcar tracks. The alternative is to go up wyandotte to a path through penn valley...which is currently blocked off. And i walked the path. its completely overgrown and not kept up.
Anyone have any advice? Going from 36th/Wyandotte to 21/broadway.

If Main is ok for you until the streetcar tracks take it to Pershing then over to Broadway and the crossroads.

.

I'll second what Pash said. The options suck.

My only addition is that going NB, 36th to Gillham/Oak then to 20th isn't too bad. But at that point you're already almost to Holmes.

Thanks for the suggestions, we saw the path going up where wyandotte goes under 31st. Will try riding around there this weekend and exploring the options. I wish main or broadway had a safer option.

ULCajun wrote:Thanks for the suggestions, we saw the path going up where wyandotte goes under 31st. Will try riding around there this weekend and exploring the options. I wish main or broadway had a safer option.

FWIW, I, among others, have presented this path as a "low hanging fruit" that the City/Parks could upgrade to create a much more viable route into the downtown area. We were told by Deb Ridgway the city's bicycle pedestrian coordinator that this addition is not in the "master plan" and that to improve that path would require modification of the master plan. To modify the master plan would require community meetings and stakeholder input, etc. In short, her response (and thus the city's response) was, "Go fuck yourself."

.

pash wrote:It's absurd, in my opinion, that there weren't bike lanes included in the re-do of Broadway/Penn Valley Parkway a couple of years ago. I mean, it's a route through a fucking park, and they can't even find some space for cyclists on the road that bisects it.

How would you feel if I told you that initially Parks/Public Works included them in the plan, but they were later deleted because they weren't in the bike plan?

Listen to this: http://kcur.org/post/uphill-climb#stream/0

.

Eon Blue wrote:

pash wrote:It's absurd, in my opinion, that there weren't bike lanes included in the re-do of Broadway/Penn Valley Parkway a couple of years ago. I mean, it's a route through a fucking park, and they can't even find some space for cyclists on the road that bisects it.

How would you feel if I told you that initially Parks/Public Works included them in the plan, but they were later deleted because they weren't in the bike plan?

Listen to this: http://kcur.org/post/uphill-climb#stream/0

This.

"To modify the master plan would require community meetings and stakeholder input, etc. In short, her response (and thus the city's response) was, "Go fuck yourself." "

No, that means get organized and work to get it changed. Just because you ask doesn't mean they can and will comply in cases like this. There is a process.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:"To modify the master plan would require community meetings and stakeholder input, etc. In short, her response (and thus the city's response) was, "Go fuck yourself." "

No, that means get organized and work to get it changed. Just because you ask doesn't mean they can and will comply in cases like this. There is a process.

I am familiar enough with the city's bike ped coordinator to stand by my earlier analysis.

is the bike plan the line drawing that was put together by staff more than 15 years ago? If so, I would say we need a plan revision.

the region's first bike signal is now live at petticoat and main: http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics ... 84681.html

DaveKCMO wrote:the region's first bike signal is now live at petticoat and main: http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics ... 84681.html

I would argue it's the second.

There's a signal for bikes to cross 85th on the Trolley Track Trail. It's not biked shaped not is there a green light for bikes, but thats an entire traffic signal around letting bikes safely traverse the street.

Thats exactly the purpose of a bike signal, this one just is designed differently than the one downtown.

flyingember wrote:

DaveKCMO wrote:the region's first bike signal is now live at petticoat and main: http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics ... 84681.html

I would argue it's the second.

There's a signal for bikes to cross 85th on the Trolley Track Trail. It's not biked shaped not is there a green light for bikes, but thats an entire traffic signal around letting bikes safely traverse the street.

Thats exactly the purpose of a bike signal, this one just is designed differently than the one downtown.

that's not a bike signal. it's a traditional mid-block pedestrian crossing (walk signal, painted crosswalk, standard signal head) for a shared-use trail.

http://nacto.org/publication/urban-bike ... nal-heads/

you could argue it, but you'd be arguing it alone.

Think I don't do my homework? One of the most referred to documents in the country for signs and signals is the source.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2 ... dition.pdf
This version is more relevant than 2012 since the signal is older than the most recent edition so it wasn't installed under it.

Go to document page 829.

9A.04 says the signal shall command respect. They don't say that a signal has to be on a bike lane, facing the bike or what it has to look like. It says it's for a bike facility. That includes in street biking and if you look at doc page 845 this section covers shared use paths too.

So a signal meant to help motorists respect bikes, placed at a bike facility and following rules that don't require a bike-shaped signal.

Trolley Track Trail has a bike signal. A signal placed to improve bike safety, not at a bike lane signal. There's no other way to view it.

You're describing a type of signal head. I'm saying it's not the first bike *signal* and the head on the signal is irrelevant for the determination. A straight arrow in a middle lane says I can go straight. A circle says the same even though it can mean I can go right when mot in the middle lane. The signal head could have been a circle with a sign. The bike is clearer but not the only way