KCRag Forum

FangKC wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:26 pm At this point, I would rather they not add a bypass to I-35 and just put a new bridge that empties on Broadway. Screw all the people who what to blast through downtown to Johnson County.

OMG THANK YOU! This is what I have been saying all along!

GRID wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:33 pm

normalthings wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:03 pm I am still not sure why so many buildings have to be demolished. If we allowed Broadway to be completely closed, is this something that could be avoided?

Why would you even think of closing the connection to Broadway to maintain this connection to the interstate system?

It's the "BROADWAY" Bridge, not the I-35W Bridge. There is a reason people can do donuts and drag races down Grand. Because it doesn't go anywhere and has almost no through traffic on it. You want that on Broadway too?

Why can't the Broadway Bridge be the Broadway Bridge and take away all access to the loop? People can take other routes to avoid downtown or for driving through downtown to get to crossroads, plaza etc.

My mind is honest to god blown by this fascination with making sure 169 is basically I-35 Alternate (even if it cuts off one of Downtowns few remaining roads that goes someplace.)

I know I don't even live there anymore, but this is driving me nuts lol.

I meant closing down the broadway bridge connection for the duration of construction. Build the new ramp exactly where the current ones are and preserve the buildings on both sides. I would really like to at least preserve the row of historic buildings along Independence Blvd.

Beacon hill exists despite 71, not because the bridges are sexy, which I don't see at all and there are jereey barriers all up and down 71.

This bridge gets us ped and bike crossing, a new 100 year bridge, and better connections where bottlenecks happen now. I hope they can find some money to sexy it up but I'm not going to throw a fit because it is a boring bridge. Just like the new terminal, functionality comes first to me.

normalthings wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:36 pm

GRID wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:33 pm

normalthings wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:03 pm I am still not sure why so many buildings have to be demolished. If we allowed Broadway to be completely closed, is this something that could be avoided?

Why would you even think of closing the connection to Broadway to maintain this connection to the interstate system?

It's the "BROADWAY" Bridge, not the I-35W Bridge. There is a reason people can do donuts and drag races down Grand. Because it doesn't go anywhere and has almost no through traffic on it. You want that on Broadway too?

Why can't the Broadway Bridge be the Broadway Bridge and take away all access to the loop? People can take other routes to avoid downtown or for driving through downtown to get to crossroads, plaza etc.

My mind is honest to god blown by this fascination with making sure 169 is basically I-35 Alternate (even if it cuts off one of Downtowns few remaining roads that goes someplace.)

I know I don't even live there anymore, but this is driving me nuts lol.

I meant closing down the broadway bridge connection for the duration of construction. Build the new ramp exactly where the current ones are and preserve the buildings on both sides. I would really like to at least preserve the row of historic buildings along Independence Blvd.

Oh, okay. I agree with that too. KC has shut down that bridge for months at a time with very little effect on regional traffic. There is just so much capacity. So yeah, if it saves buildings they should just close it for sure.

I also think the entire west and north loop needs to go away. You want to stay on 35, then stay on 35 up north, it's like 2 minutes longer than 169 (or faster if you don't go through stop lights like you do now.)

GRID wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:33 pm

normalthings wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:03 pm I am still not sure why so many buildings have to be demolished. If we allowed Broadway to be completely closed, is this something that could be avoided?

Why would you even think of closing the connection to Broadway to maintain this connection to the interstate system?

It's the "BROADWAY" Bridge, not the I-35W Bridge. There is a reason people can do donuts and drag races down Grand. Because it doesn't go anywhere and has almost no through traffic on it. You want that on Broadway too?

Why can't the Broadway Bridge be the Broadway Bridge and take away all access to the loop? People can take other routes to avoid downtown or for driving through downtown to get to crossroads, plaza etc.

My mind is honest to god blown by this fascination with making sure 169 is basically I-35 Alternate (even if it cuts off one of Downtowns few remaining roads that goes someplace.)

I know I don't even live there anymore, but this is driving me nuts lol.

I think this is a fine idea actually but that's not the requirements we are dealing with. Cutting off all 35 access is not in the cards. Pushing all that traffic to 35/29.is going to remove any possibility of removing the north loop, which is a much bigger wish for the neighborhood.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:44 pm Beacon hill exists despite 71, not because the bridges are sexy, which I don't see at all and there are jereey barriers all up and down 71.

This bridge gets us ped and bike crossing, a new 100 year bridge, and better connections where bottlenecks happen now. I hope they can find some money to sexy it up but I'm not going to throw a fit because it is a boring bridge. Just like the new terminal, functionality comes first to me.

The beautified bridges make the area nicer. Beacon Hill would still be there, but once it's built up, it will be nicer and a more pleasant place to live than say where I-70 cuts through the east side. And I have been in some of those homes that over look 71. The highway looks nice. It's still a highway, but I'm not sure I would pay the same for a house that looked over something more similar to what I-70 looks like over by Benton or Indep Ave.

For 250 million, you can build a nicer looking bridge for Broadway, get rid of the stupid connection to I-35, build up the recreational connections on both sides of the bridge and probably have a nice down payment to save the old bridge to tie it into everything as well.

I want whatever bridge enables north loop removal. It is my understanding that direct ramps support the eventual removal of i35 so I have been accepting of that component. I would like to see movement on north loop removal at the same time that this is discussed.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:48 pm

GRID wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:33 pm

normalthings wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:03 pm I am still not sure why so many buildings have to be demolished. If we allowed Broadway to be completely closed, is this something that could be avoided?

Why would you even think of closing the connection to Broadway to maintain this connection to the interstate system?

It's the "BROADWAY" Bridge, not the I-35W Bridge. There is a reason people can do donuts and drag races down Grand. Because it doesn't go anywhere and has almost no through traffic on it. You want that on Broadway too?

Why can't the Broadway Bridge be the Broadway Bridge and take away all access to the loop? People can take other routes to avoid downtown or for driving through downtown to get to crossroads, plaza etc.

My mind is honest to god blown by this fascination with making sure 169 is basically I-35 Alternate (even if it cuts off one of Downtowns few remaining roads that goes someplace.)

I know I don't even live there anymore, but this is driving me nuts lol.

I think this is a fine idea actually but that's not the requirements we are dealing with. Cutting off all 35 access is not in the cards. Pushing all that traffic to 35/29.is going to remove any possibility of removing the north loop, which is a much bigger wish for the neighborhood.

If the east loop were rebuilt, the south loop could easily handle all the traffic.

Trying to connect to the west loop creates far more congestion and confusion than just running the interstates through the south and east loops with a few major exits for downtown instead of 20.

That's not what the studies show. Maybe we aren't considering spending enough billions though.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:59 pm That's not what the studies show. Maybe we aren't considering spending enough billions though.

Rebuilding the east loop would have to be in the same price range as 435&70 in KCMO.

normalthings wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:55 pm I want whatever bridge enables north loop removal. It is my understanding that direct ramps support the eventual removal of i35 so I have been accepting of that component. I would like to see movement on north loop removal at the same time that this is discussed.

The north loop and west loop should be removed from the interstate system. That means either downgraded to parkways etc or totally removed.

The only real problem that comes from that is what do you do with the Lewis and Clark viaduct. It should have never been rebuilt by modot. Talk about a colossal waste of money that was. A six lane elevated highway is replaced when another six lane elevated highway not even a mile away and runs parallel. Neither have hardly any traffic related to their potential capacity but produce tons of independent movements for the loop to handle.

670 is severely under utilized, especially west of the loop.

So I would have removed the lewis and clark viaduct instead of rebuilding it. Only keep parts of it to maintain access from the west bottoms to fairfax etc and keep parts of it for a streetcar/pedestrian bridge to connect the two downtowns.

670 would become 70. The north/south spur from 70 to downtown KCK could become 670.

Now you have gotten rid of a TON of movements, exits and merges downtown. All through interstate traffic would be on the 8 lane stretch of 670 and a rebuilt 8 lane east loop.

This would require a major rebuild of the east loop and major mods to the three remaining corners of the loop, but it can be done and the end results would be a drastic improvement.

I wish this project wasn’t holding north loop removal hostage. We should be able to get the stupid thing removed without compromising with the rest of this awful freeway system. We should be removing all urban freeways

GRID wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:20 pm

normalthings wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:55 pm I want whatever bridge enables north loop removal. It is my understanding that direct ramps support the eventual removal of i35 so I have been accepting of that component. I would like to see movement on north loop removal at the same time that this is discussed.

This would require a major rebuild of the east loop and major mods to the three remaining corners of the loop, but it can be done and the end results would be a drastic improvement.

Hundreds of millions in rebuilds. I am just not sure where those funds would come from.

670 through the loop isnt big enough nor can it be expanded right? I mean even now it's a mess through the loop and 670 coming east into the loop backs up for a mile


How about bunch's idea?

https://twitter.com/EricWBunch/status/1 ... 42560?s=19

I just can't believe this 10x bigger rebuild idea hasn't been thought through and determined it's feasibility.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:24 pm 670 through the loop isnt big enough nor can it be expanded right? I mean even now it's a mess through the loop and 670 coming east into the loop backs up for a mile.


How about bunch's idea?

https://twitter.com/EricWBunch/status/1 ... 42560?s=19

East coming into the loop could be greatly improved by adding a 2nd e/w through lane. Bunches idea could be good. I would really like to see the new Broadway ramps built exactly over the current ones so that those old RM buildings can be saved.

normalthings wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:23 pm

GRID wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:20 pm

normalthings wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:55 pm I want whatever bridge enables north loop removal. It is my understanding that direct ramps support the eventual removal of i35 so I have been accepting of that component. I would like to see movement on north loop removal at the same time that this is discussed.

This would require a major rebuild of the east loop and major mods to the three remaining corners of the loop, but it can be done and the end results would be a drastic improvement.

Hundreds of millions in rebuilds. I am just not sure where those funds would come from.

So instead of doing it right the first time, you literally spend decades doing parts of it wrong and redoing them over and over and still end up with a shitty end result. See I-70 east of downtown. Modot has been fucking with that for decades especially around the stadiums, and most of it still looks like shit and doesn't function well.

Downtown loop is the same deal. Modot is not looking long term here, they are just maintaining what's there. Actually in the case of the Broadway bridge, they are just making the loop more complex.

So just like the Lewis and Clark, which should have been downgraded from the interstate system way back when 670 was built, this new 169 interchange just makes a proper rebuild of the loop that much more difficult and costly.

There is zero chance a baseball stadium will ever work in downtown KC with those highways the way they are right now. That east loops needs a total rebuild and major mods to the rest of the loop are necessary to accommodate stadium type peak traffic. So if the city is truly serious about a stadium, then it's going to have to happen.

Again, this comes down to the planning folks at city hall and the culture of the community. This is not a huge project from a national perspective. You are talking about less than a mile of major rebuild and some mods to the other ramps. So yeah, a few hundred million. But not a billion or more. KCMO and MOdot just need to get their act together and figure out what the hell they want.

Modot still thinks KC wants 1950's. KCMO just doesn't seem to know what they want.

I's now the community's fault? Damn man.

Maybe your idea isn't actually feasible? I can't believe some engineering companies haven't figured this out and proposed it if it was feasible.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:24 pm 670 through the loop isnt big enough nor can it be expanded right? I mean even now it's a mess through the loop and 670 coming east into the loop backs up for a mile


How about bunch's idea?

https://twitter.com/EricWBunch/status/1 ... 42560?s=19

The 670 trench could handle the traffic if the correct mods were made in other areas.

Studies have shown it can handle the traffic with nemoving the north loop and lowering 9 highway but only with better 69 to 35 connections.