KCRag Forum

TheBigChuckbowski wrote: So, you're saying an area that is a half-block wide is more important in the success of Kansas City than having good public transportation?

?

The issue isn't wether or not 670 should be capped--if KC was rolling in cash then the no-brainer decision would be yes! cover it up!

But we're not rolling in cash.  We have to choose what we spend our money on.  I think capping it is important, but there are many more important things that need our attention and money.

Save capping 670 for later.

let's see where the funding can come from before throwing out the idea.

correct.  the abandoned rail bridge that was moved from under the broadway bridge to union station was privately financed, right?  if it had come from the General Fund, or from CIMO, then i would have been upset. 

As others have said about the spending priority I would have to agree.  Why spend a big amount of money when a smaller amount will get the job done?  There are far more important things to do than to "cap the highway".

Want to tie the north and south sides of the loop together?  How can we do it the quickest, easiest, and cheapest way?  Leave the loop open but widen the sidewalks on the bridges and higher railing.  Even install ped. only bridges between the car traffic bridges.

KCPowercat wrote: let's see where the funding can come from before throwing out the idea.

Agreed. Yeah, a light rail line and other things previously mentioned are probably more important if we only have one pool of money to work from. However, this thing hasn't even gone through the planning, engineering, or design process yet, much less a decision on where the funding would come from. Everyone needs to realize it's still conceptual, which is why the city is offering the invitation for the project to be studied.  Let's be patient and see how things play out before we all annoint ourselves Overseer of City Projects and Finance.

aknowledgeableperson wrote: How can we do it the quickest, easiest, and cheapest way?

Typical Kansas Citian solution right there.

And while we're at it issuing RFP's, lets also issue them for the sewers, new curbs, and new streets.  Deal?

Burton wrote:
:lol:Typical Kansas Citian solution right there.

So you would spend, say, $200M instead of, say, $20M to get the same job done?  Are you trying to just make it easier to get walkers from one side to another? Or are you wanting to 'hide' the freeway?  Create some greenspace?  Or what?  If it is just to accomodate the walkers then $200M seems like a high amount.

If you were spending your own money what would you do?

Burton wrote: for the chance to tie together two of the city's most active districts?

Active in terms of what? There 10 different neighborhoods in Midtown and further south that are more active.

200 MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!! NO WAY!!!!!! THATS WHAT THE NEW PASEO, AND FREEWAY IMPROVEMENTS ARE GOING TO COST!!!!!! ADD PEDSTRIAN BRIDGES, REPLACE THE OLD OVERPASSES, AND ADD SOME URBAN TOUCHES TO IT, AND BE DONE WITH IT!!!!! LETS GET LIGHTRAIL FUNDING FIGURED OUT FIRST!!!!!!

trailerkid wrote:


Active in terms of what? There 10 different neighborhoods in Midtown and further south that are more active.

Active in terms of current development. Possibly streetlife and activity in the coming years.

aknowledgeableperson wrote: So you would spend, say, $200M instead of, say, $20M to get the same job done?  Are you trying to just make it easier to get walkers from one side to another? Or are you wanting to 'hide' the freeway?  Create some greenspace?  Or what?  If it is just to accomodate the walkers then $200M seems like a high amount.

If you were spending your own money what would you do?

Connectivity. Physical and psychological. Could be done with either greenspace or buildings. I had no problem walking from downtown Boston to the North End last month over the big dig, it was pretty enjoyable actually. As for the dollar amount, first of all nothing has been set in stone yet on any figures, or how it would be financed. Secondly, if I have a hole in my plumbing, I don't stick a wad of gum over it because it's the cheapest and easiest way to fill the hole. I'm not disagreeing that we have other more pressing issues that need immediate funding, I just think we should wait for professionals to do a study on the project to see if it is feasible, then see some funding options, and then debate if the project is worth the cost.

Burton wrote: Active in terms of current development. Possibly streetlife and activity in the coming years.

Yeah...I would just worry about it when the possibility of activity becomes more of an issue. I think it is premature considering there are existing projects in much greater need of financial support. Further, is this infrastructure project #1 (or even #21) on the list for residents and businesses downtown?

I can't even believe people are considering this above other infrastructure improvements.  This is total luxury.  It doesn't help people do anything or generate any income.  Would it be a good way to cover up an eye-sore?  Yeah.  But it's not that big of a deal when compared to other things.

As for doing studies and seeing where funds will come from, then yeah, sure, do them.  But before those even start, start and finish studies on the sewers and sidewalks and streets.

Come back to it in 10 years.

Or, like a normal city should do, allow market forces to accomplish it.

Yea, I'd at least wait until the surface lots are filled before I'd consider doing this. It would be awesome, but I can think of about 20 things I'd rather have done first.

I do hope they make it more pedestrian friendly in the meantime.

It looks like sidewalk improvements for the bridges are forthcoming.

if the city's outlay was minimal, then i'd support it right now. this might be possible by selling the air rights for private development and/or using funds from modot and the feds.

But as it stands, I don't see this happening without it being either entirely or almost entirely financed from the general fund(ie. debt).

I liked the idea proposed for pad buildings over the freeway. Two between some of the bridges would do a lot to provide the connection and cover over I-670. Private investment would seem to be a better way to achieve this.

Someone on this board explained the problems with making I-670 more tunnel than trench, specifically issues with security, hazmat, and ventilation.

I like the idea of a dedicated pedestrian way; bridge-sized but no vehicular traffic, best placed just to the south of the Sprint Center. And another between Main and Walnut.  These could double as green space. Seattle has a spot like this.

Add all this up and I-670 is transformed, nearly covered, and the south-loop and dowtown are virtually reconnected. I'm no engineer, or planner and have no estimate for the cost of this; is it possible that this approach could come in less than the estimates quoted in the Star for the deck?

How about we re-route traffic to the north loop, turn the old south loop trench into a gigantic septic tank and cover it with greenspace.  Two birds, one stone.