OFFICIAL - Buck O'Neil Bridge

[KCPowercat]

Maybe you forget we don't get east coast level federal funds to do things like you just described.

We have to beg the state to HELP chip in on a bridge replacement that they own.

[flyingember]

KC needs to to give people a reason to freaking drive on the surface streets.

And this is the answer only if you solve the pre-req problem, choke points.

To make using the street grid work for more vehicles going north of the river you can do one of two things

1. add more river crossings connections so fewer people are funneled into one spot.
2. Remove a connection so people who don't need to go to an area don't, encouraging through traffic to take 635 or 435 instead

adding ramps to bypass a choke point really is the simplest answer short of dramatic changes to the regional network

[GRID]

Maybe you forget we don't get east coast level federal funds to do things like you just described.

We have to beg the state to HELP chip in on a bridge replacement that they own.

I understand the funding issues. But east coast has little to do with it, well other than Missouri being in a red state that won't properly fund roads and transit. Missouri voters and Missouri government doesn't raise enough local funding to fund roads and transit and that's the reason they don't get a very good share of federal funding since it's mostly based on how much is also raised by local and state revenue sources. MO has very low taxes, very low gas tax, no dedicated transit funding source etc. So they don't get a lot of federal money either. Same reason KC has lost hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for things like transit. When you don't build things like light rail that cost hundreds of millions, you don't get fed matching. KC gets some money for buses while most other cities get 20 times what KC gets because they are building or expanding actual rail systems. It was nice to see that KC finally got something for the streetcar, because they are building something and raising local money for it too. It's not at the level other cities do (denver, charlotte, salt lake etc) but it's better than getting a 20 million dollar great for some buses every five years. Places like Austin and Nasvhille will soon be getting hundreds of millions in federal funding just like MSP, Denver etc did when they first starting building regional light rail. I'm rambling. My point is that cities and states that want to spend a little more on modern infrastructure are the ones that get more federal money too. It would be like me only putting 1% into my 401k even though my employer matches up to 6%. If I invest a bit more myself, I get so much more in return. I'm sure you are just as frustrated as anybody. But this is a city that fought to keep one of the shittiest airports in the world. It's just kind of the culture of the area.

[normalthings]

Maybe you forget we don't get east coast level federal funds to do things like you just described.

We have to beg the state to HELP chip in on a bridge replacement that they own.

I understand the funding issues. But east coast has little to do with it, well other than Missouri being in a red state that won't properly fund roads and transit. Missouri voters and Missouri government doesn't raise enough local funding to fund roads and transit and that's the reason they don't get a very good share of federal funding since it's mostly based on how much is also raised by local and state revenue sources. MO has very low taxes, very low gas tax, no dedicated transit funding source etc. So they don't get a lot of federal money either. Same reason KC has lost hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for things like transit. When you don't build things like light rail that cost hundreds of millions, you don't get fed matching. KC gets some money for buses while most other cities get 20 times what KC gets because they are building or expanding actual rail systems. It was nice to see that KC finally got something for the streetcar, because they are building something and raising local money for it too. It's not at the level other cities do (denver, charlotte, salt lake etc) but it's better than getting a 20 million dollar great for some buses every five years. Places like Austin and Nasvhille will soon be getting hundreds of millions in federal funding just like MSP, Denver etc did when they first starting building regional light rail. I'm rambling. My point is that cities and states that want to spend a little more on modern infrastructure are the ones that get more federal money too. It would be like me only putting 1% into my 401k even though my employer matches up to 6%. If I invest a bit more myself, I get so much more in return. I'm sure you are just as frustrated as anybody. But this is a city that fought to keep one of the shittiest airports in the world. It's just kind of the culture of the area.

KC has already received what they are going to receive in terms of federal funds. A fancier and more expensive bridge will have to be paid for by KC or the state. Agree on need for light rail though

[GRID]

KC needs to to give people a reason to freaking drive on the surface streets.

And this is the answer only if you solve the pre-req problem, choke points.

To make using the street grid work for more vehicles going north of the river you can do one of two things

1. add more river crossings connections so fewer people are funneled into one spot.
2. Remove a connection so people who don't need to go to an area don't, encouraging through traffic to take 635 or 435 instead

adding ramps to bypass a choke point really is the simplest answer short of dramatic changes to the regional network

KC doesn't need another river crossing. None of the existing bridges are anywhere near capacity even during peak hours.

The Broadway Extension is not that high volume. I'm afraid that after this new bridge and connections are built, it will be though as it will induce demand and actually pull a lot of traffic that should be on the interstate system into 169. None of the highways in downtown KC are very busy, they all just have really bad design flaws and the loop forces so many lane changes and lane reductions and confused drivers /dangerous maneuvers. 670 from Kansas for example barley has any eastbound traffic at all, yet it backs up because it goes to one lane. Same with 71 North etc. The new bond bridge also pretty low volume. Heart of America - low volume.

Need to get rid of the north loop and west loop all together and make Lewis and clark a local viaduct for the industry access. That should not even be marked as interstate. The 670 trench is 8 lanes and can easily accommodate all the traffic going through downtown. Widen the east loop to eight full non dropping lanes and get rid of all the stupid exits (plenty of room to widen without taking property after removing the exits). Route all the through traffic though a big wide highway with 8 untouched through lanes and you would not need anything else. Create a couple of major exits for downtown and run all that traffic onto a couple of big streets like Truman and a new parkway where the north loop is now. 169/Broadway should be just that, 169 and broadway. If you want to take 35 south, than take the bond bridge or one of the beltway highways. You take the exit to northloop off Broadway and you have no traffic issues at all there. Keeping 169 directly connected to the loop only gums up the southwest corner of the loop which needs to be fixed too by removing the west loop connections. Keep the exit to 14th street and make that a primary exit for NB 35 going to downtown.

You can do all of this for what MoDot will spend doing stupid shit to the loop over the next 20 years. Look at I-70 east of downtown by the stadiums etc. One band aid after another, could have just rebuilt and be a proper modern freeway by now and not be under construction for most of 20 years.

MO and KCMO have some of the worst traffic planners and urban planners I have seen anywhere. Just horrible. Doesn't help that funding is bad, but they could do better on the planning/design side of things too.

I know I'm wasting my time since this project is going to happen the way it is.

[GRID]

Maybe you forget we don't get east coast level federal funds to do things like you just described.

We have to beg the state to HELP chip in on a bridge replacement that they own.

I understand the funding issues. But east coast has little to do with it, well other than Missouri being in a red state that won't properly fund roads and transit. Missouri voters and Missouri government doesn't raise enough local funding to fund roads and transit and that's the reason they don't get a very good share of federal funding since it's mostly based on how much is also raised by local and state revenue sources. MO has very low taxes, very low gas tax, no dedicated transit funding source etc. So they don't get a lot of federal money either. Same reason KC has lost hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for things like transit. When you don't build things like light rail that cost hundreds of millions, you don't get fed matching. KC gets some money for buses while most other cities get 20 times what KC gets because they are building or expanding actual rail systems. It was nice to see that KC finally got something for the streetcar, because they are building something and raising local money for it too. It's not at the level other cities do (denver, charlotte, salt lake etc) but it's better than getting a 20 million dollar great for some buses every five years. Places like Austin and Nasvhille will soon be getting hundreds of millions in federal funding just like MSP, Denver etc did when they first starting building regional light rail. I'm rambling. My point is that cities and states that want to spend a little more on modern infrastructure are the ones that get more federal money too. It would be like me only putting 1% into my 401k even though my employer matches up to 6%. If I invest a bit more myself, I get so much more in return. I'm sure you are just as frustrated as anybody. But this is a city that fought to keep one of the shittiest airports in the world. It's just kind of the culture of the area.

KC has already received what they are going to receive in terms of federal funds. A fancier and more expensive bridge will have to be paid for by KC or the state. Agree on need for light rail though

You would be surprised how much grant money you can get for a highway bridge when you have a robust trails system, and things like that.

[flyingember]

KC needs to to give people a reason to freaking drive on the surface streets.

And this is the answer only if you solve the pre-req problem, choke points.

To make using the street grid work for more vehicles going north of the river you can do one of two things

1. add more river crossings connections so fewer people are funneled into one spot.
2. Remove a connection so people who don't need to go to an area don't, encouraging through traffic to take 635 or 435 instead

adding ramps to bypass a choke point really is the simplest answer short of dramatic changes to the regional network

KC doesn't need another river crossing. None of the existing bridges are anywhere near capacity even during peak hours.

The Broadway Extension is not that high volume. I'm afraid that after this new bridge and connections are built, it will be though as it will induce demand and actually pull a lot of traffic that should be on the interstate system into 169. None of the highways in downtown KC are very busy, they all just have really bad design flaws and the loop forces so many lane changes and lane reductions and confused drivers /dangerous maneuvers. 670 from Kansas for example barley has any eastbound traffic at all, yet it backs up because it goes to one lane. Same with 71 North etc. The new bond bridge also pretty low volume. Heart of America - low volume.

Need to get rid of the north loop and west loop all together and make Lewis and clark a local viaduct for the industry access. That should not even be marked as interstate. The 670 trench is 8 lanes and can easily accommodate all the traffic going through downtown. Widen the east loop to eight full non dropping lanes and get rid of all the stupid exits (plenty of room to widen without taking property after removing the exits). Route all the through traffic though a big wide highway with 8 untouched through lanes and you would not need anything else. Create a couple of major exits for downtown and run all that traffic onto a couple of big streets like Truman and a new parkway where the north loop is now. 169/Broadway should be just that, 169 and broadway. If you want to take 35 south, than take the bond bridge or one of the beltway highways. You take the exit to northloop off Broadway and you have no traffic issues at all there. Keeping 169 directly connected to the loop only gums up the southwest corner of the loop which needs to be fixed too by removing the west loop connections. Keep the exit to 14th street and make that a primary exit for NB 35 going to downtown.

You can do all of this for what MoDot will spend doing stupid shit to the loop over the next 20 years. Look at I-70 east of downtown by the stadiums etc. One band aid after another, could have just rebuilt and be a proper modern freeway by now and not be under construction for most of 20 years.

MO and KCMO have some of the worst traffic planners and urban planners I have seen anywhere. Just horrible. Doesn't help that funding is bad, but they could do better on the planning/design side of things too.

I know I'm wasting my time since this project is going to happen the way it is.

There's a lot to unpack here but the weirdest one is to widen the east loop to 8 lanes. Yes, another widening is exactly what is needed....

The term "traffic planner" shows exactly why it's a mess.

[beautyfromashes]

Why do we even need a new bridge there? Why not just make a 70 connector to the Fairfax bridge?

[Midtownkid]

I worry that lowering Oak Street between downtown and the Heart of America Bridge will slow down river crossing and create a big headache for commuters and pedestrians. The idea of connecting the RM to Columbus Park is great, but will they really be connected? There will be a very busy roadway in-between the two. Drivers trying to get home will have to stop at stoplights there and traffic will get backed-up creating more gridlock around the Federal Court House. Drivers may opt to take a different route. That would increase traffic on the other two bridge crossings.

As it stands now, you can walk from RM to Columbus Park fairly easily. Yes you have to go under a big concrete bridge, but at least the highway traffic is not in your way. That project seems like a lot of money for little gain. Throw some of that money into areas of the loop that actually have major issues.

[GRID]

And this is the answer only if you solve the pre-req problem, choke points.

To make using the street grid work for more vehicles going north of the river you can do one of two things

1. add more river crossings connections so fewer people are funneled into one spot.
2. Remove a connection so people who don't need to go to an area don't, encouraging through traffic to take 635 or 435 instead

adding ramps to bypass a choke point really is the simplest answer short of dramatic changes to the regional network

KC doesn't need another river crossing. None of the existing bridges are anywhere near capacity even during peak hours.

The Broadway Extension is not that high volume. I'm afraid that after this new bridge and connections are built, it will be though as it will induce demand and actually pull a lot of traffic that should be on the interstate system into 169. None of the highways in downtown KC are very busy, they all just have really bad design flaws and the loop forces so many lane changes and lane reductions and confused drivers /dangerous maneuvers. 670 from Kansas for example barley has any eastbound traffic at all, yet it backs up because it goes to one lane. Same with 71 North etc. The new bond bridge also pretty low volume. Heart of America - low volume.

Need to get rid of the north loop and west loop all together and make Lewis and clark a local viaduct for the industry access. That should not even be marked as interstate. The 670 trench is 8 lanes and can easily accommodate all the traffic going through downtown. Widen the east loop to eight full non dropping lanes and get rid of all the stupid exits (plenty of room to widen without taking property after removing the exits). Route all the through traffic though a big wide highway with 8 untouched through lanes and you would not need anything else. Create a couple of major exits for downtown and run all that traffic onto a couple of big streets like Truman and a new parkway where the north loop is now. 169/Broadway should be just that, 169 and broadway. If you want to take 35 south, than take the bond bridge or one of the beltway highways. You take the exit to northloop off Broadway and you have no traffic issues at all there. Keeping 169 directly connected to the loop only gums up the southwest corner of the loop which needs to be fixed too by removing the west loop connections. Keep the exit to 14th street and make that a primary exit for NB 35 going to downtown.

You can do all of this for what MoDot will spend doing stupid shit to the loop over the next 20 years. Look at I-70 east of downtown by the stadiums etc. One band aid after another, could have just rebuilt and be a proper modern freeway by now and not be under construction for most of 20 years.

MO and KCMO have some of the worst traffic planners and urban planners I have seen anywhere. Just horrible. Doesn't help that funding is bad, but they could do better on the planning/design side of things too.

I know I'm wasting my time since this project is going to happen the way it is.

There's a lot to unpack here but the weirdest one is to widen the east loop to 8 lanes. Yes, another widening is exactly what is needed....

The term "traffic planner" shows exactly why it's a mess.

Downtown KC has multiple interstates meeting. While Downtown desperately needs a freeway diet, there needs to be a consistent 8 lane portion through downtown to handle all the highway traffic. Right now highway traffic is all over downtown on terribly designed roads chocking off downtown in every direction and the Broadway Bridge will only add more. The north and west loop are unnecessary. The north loop should be converted to an at grade city street that is pedestrian and cycle friendly. The west loop just needs to have some of its ramps saved for access to 12th Street etc, but the through interstate lanes should be removed. And once again, 169 should simply transition to Broadway and be an entry point to downtown, not another freeway through downtown.

Then you widen the east loop which again has plenty of room to make it an 8 lane cross section without taking any additional land, especially after you remove all the little on and off ramps which only add to the problems. A new 8 lane rebuild on the east loop could be an improvement to the fabric of the street grid in that area if done properly, The existing setup of the east loop is a lot of wasted space, grass etc. Trench it like the south loop and you also have options for decking it. A rebuilt east loop with 8 lanes could be hidden as part of the ballpark development. The way it is now is a cluster fuck and massive footprint for the volume of traffic it can handle.

Then you would have 8 lanes to work with from the southwest corner of the loop to the northeast corner of the loop that and handle all the traffic. 71 North would have its own two dedicated lanes, while 70 and 35 would have their own lanes on the east loop.

Again, get rid of most of the exits downtown and build a couple of super exits that dump traffic into major downtown thoroughfares that would then distribute the traffic to other downtown streets. Those major streets should be Truman eastbound and westbound, Broadway and Grand and a new at grade thoroughfare/parkway that would replace the north loop. Now you have a way to distribute traffic to downtown for large events too. No way in the world would a ballpark work in downtown KC with the existing loop setup.

This new Broadway bridge design is only making things worse. The loop needs an entire rebuild and half of it needs to be removed. Traffic would actually flow much better and downtown would be much better off too because it would free up tons of land taken up by on and off ramps and highway right of way.

[flyingember]

Induced demand says "handle" becomes "filled with"

If you remove the north loop and install a parkway it won't remove traffic. Do you know what the parkways with super exits are today? The north and west loop. I-70 is as fast as N. Oak and as wide as Ward Parkway and the speed limit of Shoal Creek Parkway.

All you would gain is traffic signals and that's not a huge change over stop and go traffic without them.

The only way to send freeway traffic elsewhere is to not widen any other road and not add lanes. Reduce the total capacity of the system so people start choosing other under utilized routes like The Paseo that have people using the grid.

I used to drive daily from the east side, up 71 and to the northland. It was often as fast to hop off 71 on the Paseo at 22nd and take it to Admiral and then cut over to HOA. Because it was native capacity that was under used.

Besides, lowering the speed limit does as much to add capacity as anything. If you follow the three second rule a 25mph one lane road holds nearly as many cars as a 3-lane road at 60mph.

The problem isn't total capacity, it's bad merging and trading places. The north loop is at a crawl because the inside lane changes from being I-70 to I-35 and everyone slows down to merge which builds on itself. Traffic often speeds up when off the loop.




Today Broadway is just an entrance into downtown, there's no direct connections to any other freeway, it exits directly onto city streets for 100% of downtown bound traffic. The problems are the same area also hosts transitions for other roads in a small area and if you keep the viaduct for local traffic this remains the case. If you replace I-70 with a parkway the route still serves the same function. Adding a better HOA connection with a parkway would take some cars, but it doesn't change the total traffic equation to just push traffic around.

In this idea the Broadway Bridge design helps because it reduces the number of cars that enter downtown streets.

Even better, with the east loop to 169 now as a easier primary route north, it reduces the number of vehicles that see value in taking the north loop to stay on I-35, no matter the style. So you gain and induce a shifting of capacity while adding zero freeway lanes.

Basically, the east loops changes enable removing the north loop

Keep the west loop, redirect a lot of downtown exiting traffic to it via 12th St to it and a new parkway where Indep Ave is
redirect I-35 with new ramps to have one side of the trench be I-35 and the other I-70 with no need to change sides to stay on the same route.
have zero new exits off the new I-70 in the trench
put all the exits on the east side of the loop with no new lanes, even remove some, and use a texas style parallel road that feeds to most streets from 14th to 6th with a single common onramp for everyone

[beautyfromashes]

Do we really need four river bridges though?

[flyingember]

Do we really need four river bridges though?

There's five into KCK from downtown

[KCPowercat]

This new Broadway bridge design is only making things worse. The loop needs an entire rebuild and half of it needs to be removed. Traffic would actually flow much better and downtown would be much better off too because it would free up tons of land taken up by on and off ramps and highway right of way.

We were told by the traffic engineer people that the new Buck bridge had to do these direct connections to 35 in order to facilitate just what you are staying. Remove the north loop. That's the only reason those here are in favor of what the new bridge design is.

[normalthings]

Clarkson-Massman JV is soliciting bids for subs on the new Broadway Bridge. HNTB is the designer it appears.

[kboish]

Does this bridge have any renderings?

[KCPowercat]

Does this bridge have any renderings?

hOA

[moderne]

Maybe the HOA but with the road deck higher on the south, like the current bridge.

[flyingember]

It looks like the actual design is coming early next year. If this is correct, the names given above can't win the bid for a few more months

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... -soon.html

MoDOT representatives this week completed interviews with developers that responded to a request for qualifications between late July and early August, project director Mary Miller told the Kansas City Business Journal.

A project timeline calls for MoDOT to issue a request for proposals on Aug. 31 and choose a developer based on apparent best value in February.

Afterward, Miller said, a few months of final design work is likely to follow, with motorists likely starting to see construction next summer. Officials aim to fully complete the bridge replacement project by Dec. 1, 2024.

...

The assessment also crystallized a preferred new bridge design, which calls for removal of the existing bridge, its south approach span and Broadway between Fourth and Fifth streets.

Under that design, the new bridge would be elevated over Woodswether Viaduct. Flyover spans elevated over Interstate 70 and Fifth Street would connect to I-35, while spans over 3rd Street and ramps on walls down to 5th Street would lead to an ultimate Broadway connection.

Compared to alternatives, the preferred design is expected to reduce regional travel times for commuters, reduce traffic volume on local streets and minimize conflict points at intersections. The design also is set to include a shared use path connection for bike and pedestrian access on Fifth Street.

Jon Stephens, CEO of the Port Authority of Kansas City, said he has followed the bridge replacement closely and ultimately hopes for a "thoughtful" project in terms of pedestrian and bike-friendly connection to the River Market area.

"We're very committed to making sure that the project integrates well with the neighborhood so it allows for continued development and enhancements of the amenities we have on the riverfront and so it doesn't become a barrier," he said.

So that's the central or west alternative. the description could describe either.

https://www.modot.org/sites/default/fil ... ives_0.pdf

[normalthings]

^^^ Massman Clarkson JV must be trying to get pricing and teams together or something. They are 100% trying to get subs for this project right now.