Seriously Dave, you're our advocate on the inside for this. Don't let those morons fuck this up.pash wrote:Please try to open a discussion about eliminating the connection of the two highways entirely. Downtown does not need a new highway interchange. The highway should stop at the north end of the new bridge (or even farther north), and the bridge should be designed to carry car traffic bound for the city into the city, not car traffic bound for the suburbs and for Texas into a new highway interchange built for their convenience in the heart of the city.DaveKCMO wrote:- downtowners (and, to a lesser degree, kcmo) want to eliminate the danger of an at-grade interchange for two federal highways (45% of current SB US-169 trips are not headed to north loop)
There are plenty of other existing, underutilized routes to the suburbs and to Texas. We do not need a major investment to improve this one, particularly not in a metro and a state that already has a vastly overbuilt and underutilized highway system, one that even now we cannot afford to maintain. US 169 is already a secondary designation of I-70 and I-29 in the area, two highways that already connect directly elsewhere. The bridge and drag strip adjacent to downtown airport do not need to be designated as US 169 at all.
Transportation topics in KC
pash wrote:Disgusting. So the grand plan is a bog-standard MoDOT highway overpass of a new bridge? Let me guess: they'll tack on a five-foot wide pedestrian path on one side and pat themselves on the back. Oh, we're so urban and progressive!
Is connecting 169 and I-35 locked in as the highest priority? In my opinion, not only should that not be the main function of a new bridge, it should not happen at all, particularly not if decommissioning the North Loop is still part of the long-term vision for downtown. We do not need massive investments in new infrastructure in order to make it still easier and faster to speed from one suburb to another through the heart of downtown.
It's disappointing that nobody seems to see this as an opportunity to build something that will help rather than hinder downtown's progress as a an attractive place to live and work, or really as anything other than a yet another highway project with the aim of making even easier and faster what is already the nation's easiest and fastest suburban commutes. Where is the bridge that will anchor the west end of a completely reimagined North Loop? Where is the bridge that will make possible new development on the Harlem riverfront and better connect to downtown the Crossroads of the next decade in near North Kansas City? Where is any evidence that anybody who matters gives a shit about anything other than getting from Liberty and Overland Park two and a half minutes faster?
Typical fucking Kansas City.
If they did they the "highway overpass" type, they should base it off of the coincidentally named Kit Bond bridge over the Missouri going into Hermann in Gasconade County. It's actually a cool bridge driving across!
http://www.modot.org/northeast/projects ... gemain.htm
If Broadway Bridge is shut down for 2 years, is an opportunity to push using bus/bikeshare for Northlanders. Setup free park and ride lots at various locations up north with heavily promoted, ideally free bus service for rush hours. It should be a City campaign to encourage using bus, not just a KCATA campaign. When bridge complete, it may draw more daily bus riders in the end.
The transit signals are still there at 12th/Burlington. Could implement a bus lane again.earthling wrote:If Broadway Bridge is shut down for 2 years, is an opportunity to push using bus/bikeshare for Northlanders. Setup free park and ride lots at various locations up north with heavily promoted, ideally free bus service for rush hours. It should be a City campaign to encourage using bus, not just a KCATA campaign. When bridge complete, it may draw more daily bus riders in the end.
Hmm that doesn't seem that bad. In return I bet use would increase dramatically. That would increase demand for new transit lines (including rail lines) and KCATA/RideKC could offset the fare costs with advertisers and sponsors. It's a win-win-win plan. Block the commuter routes, offer a free transit alternative and help develop a free KC transit system that's the envy of cities across the world.DaveKCMO wrote:$9-11 million a year.shinatoo wrote:How much would it cost to just make the whole bus system free, like the street car?
The opportunity has presented itself.
there's been a lot of discussion about pulling the trigger on that -- and not just because of the bridge closure. the city's experience with streetcar is driving it.
farebox recovery in KC is lower than most people expect.earthling wrote:That's much lower than I'd expect. Imagine if most of metro has free bus service how less car dependent KC could become. Am surprised transit proponents in KC aren't heavily pushing for this.
we ARE pushing for this, but quietly. gotta get the elected officials in line first.
I would think you could save that much in just getting cars off the road. Tangibles like road repair and construction, and parking lots. Intangibles like health and....and...other stuff.
Quocunque Jeceris Stabit