KCRag Forum

Cost.

The new “good bridge” is substantially funded, if voters renew PIAC in April.

Good Bridge as in one that connects directly to i35 on Quality Hill?

Nice signature project to get voters to approve piac

ldai_phs wrote:Good Bridge as in one that connects directly to i35 on Quality Hill?

yes, as well as providing bike/ped access.

ldai_phs wrote: I reread his originally post and he said he thinks we should build a new bridge, but it should be 8 lanes wide as should the rest of the highway.
Great Idea

No, all of the lanes don't end at Broadway - you're misunderstanding.
The new bridge would connect to I-35S and 70W at Quality Hill with a possible exit at Broadway.

Then you whine about "we have no money."
Anything done is going to be costly. Spend enough to do it right.

KCPowercat wrote:Nice signature project to get voters to approve piac

Maybe. Some people may not think its an appropriate use of PIAC.

NorthOak wrote:

ldai_phs wrote: I reread his originally post and he said he thinks we should build a new bridge, but it should be 8 lanes wide as should the rest of the highway.
Great Idea

No, all of the lanes don't end at Broadway - you're misunderstanding.
The new bridge would connect to I-35S and 70W at Quality Hill with a possible exit at Broadway.

Then you whine about "we have no money."
Anything done is going to be costly. Spend enough to do it right.

I don’t really remember when I said that. And the conversation from when I said that. But I don’t think what I said has to do with what your saying.
Update: I was talking about someone who wanted to make 169 a widened express way from the Northland to downtown. Then build expensive flyover to connect it to pre existing over built roadways. While also bulldozing prime Realestate in the Briarcliff area

kboish wrote:

KCPowercat wrote:Nice signature project to get voters to approve piac

Maybe. Some people may not think its an appropriate use of PIAC.

I mean I'd much rather MoDot love up to their responsibilities too and I guess they said they would to maintain the status quo...so us wanting something better seems and okay use of PIAC...Northland and south should both see great benefits so that will help too.

Yeah. I don’t disagree. it needs to be done, but there are a lot of local streets that could use that money- so I’m just saying it may not be a signature project to sell the vote on

ldai_phs wrote:While also bulldozing prime Realestate in the Briarcliff area

This is funny, because it's already an expressway here and there's no way that bulldozing anything in this neighborhood would be required.

kboish wrote:

KCPowercat wrote:Nice signature project to get voters to approve piac

Maybe. Some people may not think its an appropriate use of PIAC.

Then they can vote the renewal down in April. It's a major piece of KCMO infrastructure and a public improvement (the P and I in PIAC).

kboish wrote:Yeah. I don’t disagree. it needs to be done, but there are a lot of local streets that could use that money- so I’m just saying it may not be a signature project to sell the vote on

PIAC renewal will up the street resurfacing to 25% (at the expense of frilly "in district" spending): http://cityclerk.kcmo.org/liveweb/Docum ... yLY6AKvxv8

Now that the Complete Streets ordinance is passed, those resurfacing projects will become Complete Streets projects.

Didn't we just vote for street resurfacing as part of the infrastructure improvement approval a year or two ago? Or was that just for sidewalks?

kcjak wrote:Didn't we just vote for street resurfacing as part of the infrastructure improvement approval a year or two ago? Or was that just for sidewalks?

"arterial street reconstruction" (think wornall road), not resurfacing. up to $150 million on sidewalks.

‘Beyond the Loop’ Seeks to Relieve Downtown Freeway Damage

https://cityscenekc.com/beyond-the-loop ... -meetings/

Go take the survey.

www.surveymonkey.com/r/NorthLoop2

Can anybody handicap the odds of these options? I love the remove option best but I just feel that will be too much change for people to comprehend how it would work....

Also the remove option doesn't seem as likely as all the connections options in the survey leave i70 as a connector.

That survey seems glitchy in chrome.

Worked fine for me but I'm confused why I'm asked to rank the same option twice....once for overhead design and once for aethstetics?

KCPowercat wrote:Worked fine for me but I'm confused why I'm asked to rank the same option twice....once for overhead design and once for aethstetics?

That was the glitch.