KCRag Forum

So how does this new info guide a new buck bridge?

A master plan for downtown will take longer than we need to get a bridge plan set, right?

KCPowercat wrote:So how does this new info guide a new buck bridge?

A master plan for downtown will take longer than we need to get a bridge plan set, right?

it doesn't. there's already a process in place to handle the new bridge. the master plan can take that into account, as well as a removed north loop.

they're basically saying do three things supportive of the north loop removal now (MO9, independence ave, new bridge), plus all of these other great recommendations (streetcar, downtown infill, regional cooperation, community outreach, etc.) while you wait for the market to catch up.

So how tough a nut is the 9 highway and Independence Ave reconfiguration?

I'm still not following but I'll let the smart people figure it out. It feels like we arent going to have the momentum needed to replace the buck bridge properly and what we replace it (hopefully not fix) with will not meld in with a north loop plan which may or may not be removal.

DaveKCMO wrote:

KCPowercat wrote:So how does this new info guide a new buck bridge?

A master plan for downtown will take longer than we need to get a bridge plan set, right?

it doesn't. there's already a process in place to handle the new bridge. the master plan can take that into account, as well as a removed north loop.

they're basically saying do three things supportive of the north loop removal now (MO9, independence ave, new bridge), plus all of these other great recommendations (streetcar, downtown infill, regional cooperation, community outreach, etc.) while you wait for the market to catch up.

I think this makes sense, but we should continue to be aspirational in the way we move forward and talk about it. Each step should be a step on that master plan and not a "we don't have enough money" move.

KCPowercat wrote:I'm still not following but I'll let the smart people figure it out. It feels like we arent going to have the momentum needed to replace the buck bridge properly and what we replace it (hopefully not fix) with will not meld in with a north loop plan which may or may not be removal.

Yeah, this is kind of what I was trying to say. I think instead of saying "we can't remove the north loop right now" it should be sold as:

Phase 1: MO9
Phase 2: New bridge
Phase 3: Independence Ave
Phase 4: etc.

I'm making those and that order up obviously. But I think we have to make sure everything we do is with the goal to remove the north loop, not lock it in for another generation.

grovester wrote:So how tough a nut is the 9 highway and Independence Ave reconfiguration?

the good news is that the beyond the loop team was already looking at both of these, so we should get cost estimates as part of that.

Having friends in Columbus park I'm excited for the 9 hwy thing

Any idea when there might be a RFP for the new bridge design? I would love to see another aesthetically pleasing bridge spanning the Missouri River to compliment the Kit Bond Bridge.

Not happening. FAA height limits will keep the bridge pretty low...even lower if it takes a more west angle.

Iconic doesn't have to mean tall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iron_Bridge
A really cool metal truss structure underneath could look nice.

Anything except a boring Lewis and Clark viaduct style would be fine

Thanks

Wait, isn't MO still not funding a new bridge? I thought they were moving forward with repairs to extend the life of the current bridge.

WoodDraw wrote:Wait, isn't MO still not funding a new bridge? I thought they were moving forward with repairs to extend the life of the current bridge.

that funding (35-year band aid) has been allocated, but MoDOT agreed to pause until KCMO finalizes the PEL options and fishes around for extra money to do it the right way (new bridge).

WoodDraw wrote:Wait, isn't MO still not funding a new bridge? I thought they were moving forward with repairs to extend the life of the current bridge.

I think that if possible, the city has a great opportunity to reuse the existing bridge instead of simply demolish it. Reuse has become the new hot ticket across the country, and everything we've demolished in the past has been proven to be short sighted to say the least. We've really shot ourselves in the foot, so let's try not to do it again. Imagine the existing Broadway bridge being reused as a pedestrian/commuter rail connection. That's what we should be talking about and pushing for. Anything less is a colossal waste of existing infrastructure and the money we've poured into that over years past.

I agree, we should not be demolishing this bridge unless we are going to go all in on making 169 a much larger road.
We should be building a NEW bridge and doubling 169's lanes.
We built a new 670 viaduct to handle a tiny amount of traffic - sort of a waste.
However if the West Bottoms ever took off it may end up being a blessing.

I find it hilarious that KC has so few bridges spanning the MO river while most of our peers have more and better bridges.
MODOT has been a complete failure to our metro. The city has to push the envelope.
The Northland is the highest growth area of the city and the city should be thinking 30 years ahead on this.
169 is simply not large enough. The only way to go wider is to encroach on Wheeler Airport's land.

NorthOak wrote:I agree, we should not be demolishing this bridge unless we are going to go all in on making 169 a much larger road.
We should be building a NEW bridge and doubling 169's lanes.
We built a new 670 viaduct to handle a tiny amount of traffic - sort of a waste.
However if the West Bottoms ever took off it may end up being a blessing.

I find it hilarious that KC has so few bridges spanning the MO river while most of our peers have more and better bridges.
MODOT has been a complete failure to our metro. The city has to push the envelope.
The Northland is the highest growth area of the city and the city should be thinking 30 years ahead on this.
169 is simply not large enough. The only way to go wider is to encroach on Wheeler Airport's land.

1. Doubling the lanes is literally impossible.
2. Bridge Envy is pointless.
3. I agree with you. MODOT as well as the rest of the state gov. has failed us. When STL wants something even if its more extravagant or such they get it but when we ask for stuff its "government waste" for them to help us.
4. Expanding roads for projected growth in 30 years is why the Northland is filled with wide multi-lane roads that go nowhere and or are unused.
Building large roads is not 2047 thinking, its 1980s thinking. We need to plan how light rail and or commuter rail will serve the Northland, not big roads built now that may never get used and will be is disrepair by the time 2047 roles around anyways.

im2kull wrote:

WoodDraw wrote:Wait, isn't MO still not funding a new bridge? I thought they were moving forward with repairs to extend the life of the current bridge.

I think that if possible, the city has a great opportunity to reuse the existing bridge instead of simply demolish it. Reuse has become the new hot ticket across the country, and everything we've demolished in the past has been proven to be short-sighted to say the least. We've really shot ourselves in the foot, so let's try not to do it again. Imagine the existing Broadway bridge being reused as a pedestrian/commuter rail connection. That's what we should be talking about and pushing for. Anything less is a colossal waste of existing infrastructure and the money we've poured into that over years past.

No one really complains about us tearing down the Paseo Bridge?
I think it is virtually impossible for the current bridge to be connected in any way to a commuter rail system? There is really no cost-effective use if any for rail on the bridge. A new rail bridge to replace the Hannibal bridge would be a much better option and would require removal of the current Broadway Bridge.
I also don't think 30-50 Million to keep the bridge from falling over is worth the cost to help the 50 people who walk across the river every day. Especially when you consider the new bridge will potentially have wide sidewalks.
"anything less is a colossal waste of existing infrastructure and the money we've poured into that over the past years". We may as well keep the current KCI terminal. Because even though it too is literally falling apart, has reached the end of its useful life, and doesn't serve our current needs We spent money to build it in the 70's. What you suggest is following the sunk cost fallacy.

ldai_phs wrote:1. Doubling the lanes is literally impossible.

No, it's literally not impossible.
1) Look at a satellite image after the bridge. 2 more lanes can be added by encroaching into the Airport.
R. Gebaur Rd, the frontage to Wheeler has virtually NO traffic on it at all.
A flyover would be required between Armour and the Water facility, that would be costly but still doable.
It wouldn't be easy, but there is certainly room to do it.
After the flyover there's enough room to add as many lanes as desired to I-29.
Other cities build these flyovers, they are a necessity.
MODOT and KC always take the cheapest possible road.
Southwest Trafficway/ I-35 southwest out of the loop is a perfect example.
That should have been an elevated highway at least until the fork.
Instead MODOT kept the old (grounded) roadway and merely added lanes and ramps, cutting off the West Side from downtown.
If it can be done cheaper and less safe - MODOT will find a way.


No one has bridge envy - unless it's you.
The bridge assessment of other cities shows how pathetic MODOT and KC have been to transitioning the river.
And while better public transit is needed, your mantra of "less highways" is partial insanity.
You simply don't live in the real world.

Any decent urban planner will tell you increasing lanes does nothing to improve congestion, in fact, it typically makes it worse. It's called the rule of induced demand.