Page 1 of 73

OFFICIAL - Buck O'Neil Bridge

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:25 pm
by DaveKCMO
no joke, but apparently MoDOT wants to rip out the broadway bridge and build a new one. presumably they'll tout better bike/ped access, in exchange for more lanes and better interchange with I-35/70. i can't imagine this happening without the taking of private property.

thoughts?

Re: OFFICIAL - Buck O'Neil Bridge

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:46 pm
by flyingember
I could see making a deal to not oppose this in exchange for train crossing money. not the perfect situation, but one to take advantage of.

I would have to see a map of the idea but one route I can see them taking it using the current Broadway connection to be a ramp into downtown and re-routing through traffic to follow the current train tracks next to the bluffs/Beardsley. you get a straight shot between I-35 and 169. which is where so much of the current traffic goes

not at all certain how to do the other direction, to/from the EB direction. the to EB ramp is bad most mornings

as for ped access. really? it goes to Harlem, the Airport and ???

Re: New Broadway Bridge

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:47 pm
by pash
.

Re: New Broadway Bridge

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 2:28 pm
by smh
pash wrote:This would almost certainly worsen rather than alleviate the freeway dead zone in the area. Somebody tell MoDOT to start figuring out how to clean up the mess it's made.
Can't do it. MoDOT only qualified to generate mess, not remediate mess.

Re: New Broadway Bridge

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 2:55 pm
by flyingember
pash wrote:This would almost certainly worsen rather than alleviate the freeway dead zone in the area. Somebody tell MoDOT to start figuring out how to clean up the mess it's made.
ironically, I can see the right plan helping with the dead zone. pulling freeway traffic off 5th, 6th and Broadway is desperately needed, no matter how it's done

Re: New Broadway Bridge

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:08 pm
by smh
flyingember wrote:
pash wrote:This would almost certainly worsen rather than alleviate the freeway dead zone in the area. Somebody tell MoDOT to start figuring out how to clean up the mess it's made.
ironically, I can see the right plan helping with the dead zone. pulling freeway traffic off 5th, 6th and Broadway is desperately needed, no matter how it's done
Tunnel!

Re: New Broadway Bridge

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:10 pm
by AllThingsKC
Why don't we just put a lid over the Missouri River like we were going to do with the Downtown Loop?

Re: New Broadway Bridge

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:13 pm
by kboish
AllThingsKC wrote:Why don't we just put a lid over the Missouri River like we were going to do with the Downtown Loop?
Seriously, who put that thing there in the first place? We should just redirect it somewhere else. It really messes with our cities continuity.

Re: New Broadway Bridge

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:58 pm
by Eon Blue
flyingember wrote:I could see making a deal to not oppose this in exchange for train crossing money. not the perfect situation, but one to take advantage of.

I would have to see a map of the idea but one route I can see them taking it using the current Broadway connection to be a ramp into downtown and re-routing through traffic to follow the current train tracks next to the bluffs/Beardsley. you get a straight shot between I-35 and 169. which is where so much of the current traffic goes
Not a bad thought, but coordinating with the railroads will be challenging there. That's probably the second busiest segment of track in KC after Union Station and the geometry is several orders of magnitude more complicated.

Re: New Broadway Bridge

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 6:00 pm
by Eon Blue
TBH, I don't see the need for more lanes. There's not that much traffic going to Wheeler or Harlem. 169 going north is only 4 lanes and they just did a ground-up rebuild on the section next to Murray Yard. About all you'd gain with extra lanes on the bridge is extra queuing space for southbound traffic; something that I don't think justifies the cost.

Re: New Broadway Bridge

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 6:12 pm
by aknowledgeableperson
pash wrote:This would almost certainly worsen rather than alleviate the freeway dead zone in the area. Somebody tell MoDOT to start figuring out how to clean up the mess it's made.
The city built the bridge for access to the airport. Toll was collected for many years.

Re: New Broadway Bridge

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:44 pm
by pash
.

Re: New Broadway Bridge

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:04 pm
by flyingember
Eon Blue wrote:TBH, I don't see the need for more lanes. There's not that much traffic going to Wheeler or Harlem. 169 going north is only 4 lanes and they just did a ground-up rebuild on the section next to Murray Yard. About all you'd gain with extra lanes on the bridge is extra queuing space for southbound traffic; something that I don't think justifies the cost.
the northland is expected to add around 80-100K people over the next few decades. Shoal Creek has room for 20-30K more, First and Second Creek has room for 60-70K. Liberty is opening up space imminently for 15-30K. Parkville/KC is improving MO 64, which will open up space on that side of I-29

there's only 150K people today in KC North

there's going to need to be a minimum of a doubling of bridge lanes unless a train can be built to take a large amount of it. The Bond Bridge already has one more lane each direction ready and that's not going to be enough long-term even with transit.

I doubt US 169 can be upgraded to 6 lanes in the current spot because of the airport. The question is where the northland can fit the lanes without sending people down other corridors like 635 to JoCo? Or will more people live and work to the north, never venturing downtown? It's worked for College Blvd. KC Could upgrade part of the northland into a business district. After all, with current trends half the council districts will be in the northland, splitting half the city's money along the river. Would have the political base to not need the bridge crossings as much and still grow KC.

Re: New Broadway Bridge

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:23 pm
by aknowledgeableperson
KC Could upgrade part of the northland into a business district.
Years ago that was the plan. More or less it was to be office buildings along I-29 to the airport. This was to be KC's answer to JoCo along I-435. Of cousr part of the plan was built but still much left to do. As northland's populatin builds I expect to see more office building construction.

Re: New Broadway Bridge

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:42 pm
by gem
Word on the street is that this is at least ten years away from happening.

Re: New Broadway Bridge

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:24 pm
by Eon Blue
flyingember wrote:
Eon Blue wrote:TBH, I don't see the need for more lanes. There's not that much traffic going to Wheeler or Harlem. 169 going north is only 4 lanes and they just did a ground-up rebuild on the section next to Murray Yard. About all you'd gain with extra lanes on the bridge is extra queuing space for southbound traffic; something that I don't think justifies the cost.
--snip--

I doubt US 169 can be upgraded to 6 lanes in the current spot because of the airport.

--snip--
This is all I was referring to--the engineering of this specific situation--not the macroeconomics of projected Northland growth in the next half-century.

Re: New Broadway Bridge

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 3:49 pm
by flyingember
Eon Blue wrote:
flyingember wrote:
Eon Blue wrote:TBH, I don't see the need for more lanes. There's not that much traffic going to Wheeler or Harlem. 169 going north is only 4 lanes and they just did a ground-up rebuild on the section next to Murray Yard. About all you'd gain with extra lanes on the bridge is extra queuing space for southbound traffic; something that I don't think justifies the cost.
--snip--

I doubt US 169 can be upgraded to 6 lanes in the current spot because of the airport.

--snip--
This is all I was referring to--the engineering of this specific situation--not the macroeconomics of projected Northland growth in the next half-century.
right, but engineering challenges are surmounted with money when growth means "there's more road needs."

see JoCo.

it's why my original idea was to make a road-transit partnership. no political fight for helping reduce the need for more regionally impacting highway widenings. it's not like the current 169 interchange doesn't need improvements just for the urban aspect

Re: New Broadway Bridge

Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:45 am
by DaveKCMO
petition to include bike/ped in the new bridge: http://bikewalkkc.org/content/broadway- ... es-bikeped

Re: New Broadway Bridge

Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 12:44 pm
by voltopt
Just do this! One big plan!

See - Broadway has DIRECT access off the west side of the loop. Local traffic on the FORMER north loop (which is now a boulevard, serving all of downtown's exiting needs) interacts directly with this new Broadway access at an interchange that would be over the west edge of the bluff and away from downtown, essentially west of Washington Street. The only interstates would be the east and south loop, and they would only have a couple of exits - downtown bound traffic from the interstates would be fed into this 'boulevard' which would then move traffic to local streets - Grand, Main, Wyandotte, Broadway, 12th, etc. It makes too much sense.

Image

Re: New Broadway Bridge

Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 12:48 pm
by voltopt
For reference, the blue is the extent of Interstate Highway, I-35/I-70. The Lewis & Clark Viaduct and north loop would be the US-24 boulevard, with local access. This could candle the exiting from the freeways for the north side of the loop, without all of the terrible interchanges that exist now. It would also stitch the two parts together. The former west side of the loop would be for direct access to two things - a straight connection to the Broadway Bridge and an interchange or intersection for the US-24 Boulevard. The yellow dots indicate other potential exits.

Image