KCRag Forum

shaffe wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:11 pm For those proponents of axing any connection to downtown via 169, how are people who live in the western half of the northland supposed to access downtown? If 169 was no longer an option then the only remaining lanes go through NKC or get bottlenecked to a single lane where 29 and 35 merge.

Fairfax. or take the extra 2 minutes (in normal traffic) to 29. Commute would be much longer that way without 169 since traffic would increase. I'd love to invite you to live in Midtown or Brookside or rehab an eastside home. There are lots of opportunities.

Bringing 9 to grade and reducing the north loop plans are going to be impacted/eliminated without better 69 capabilities and those two projects are immensely bigger than a sexy bridge.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:25 pm Bringing 9 to grade and reducing the north loop plans are going to be impacted/eliminated without better 69 capabilities and those two projects are immensely bigger than a sexy bridge.

100% Agree

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:25 pm Bringing 9 to grade and reducing the north loop plans are going to be impacted/eliminated without better 69 capabilities and those two projects are immensely bigger than a sexy bridge.

But see, I don’t even think north loop will be redone even with this bridge. It’s a total bait and switch. The suburbs want to speed their commute and are dangling north loop as a way to get urban people to go for it. They’ll get their quick bridge and north loop will conveniently disappear.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:20 pm

shaffe wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:11 pm For those proponents of axing any connection to downtown via 169, how are people who live in the western half of the northland supposed to access downtown? If 169 was no longer an option then the only remaining lanes go through NKC or get bottlenecked to a single lane where 29 and 35 merge.

Fairfax. or take the extra 2 minutes (in normal traffic) to 29. Commute would be much longer that way without 169 since traffic would increase. I'd love to invite you to live in Midtown or Brookside or rehab an eastside home. There are lots of opportunities.

So the solution for thousands of cars a day is to either have them go through a single lane merge or to go through stoplights in NKC or KCK? There's not that many lanes that cross the river as it is. I don't think eliminating the functionality of two of them is going to have a net positive impact on the region as a whole.

And no, the solution isn't for northlanders to simply move south of the river. People live where they do for a multitude of reasons and the half of the city that lives north of the river deserve river crossings that serve them.

When 169 is shut down, how much longer is your commute?

My commute is at 5:45 in the morning so it's only a few minutes longer to go through NKC. I'm not sure how much longer it is during normal commute times.

I just don't understand what is gained as a whole by inconveniencing such a large swath of the city by taking away one of four bridges that even plausibly serve as a connection to the major job center of the region. Yeah it takes a lot of traffic off of Broadway, but at what cost to the region?

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:56 pm When 169 is shut down, how much longer is your commute?

It would go up by 50%.

I don't take 169 SB because the lights on 9 are faster.

shaffe wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:10 pm My commute is at 5:45 in the morning so it's only a few minutes longer to go through NKC. I'm not sure how much longer it is during normal commute times.

I just don't understand what is gained as a whole by inconveniencing such a large swath of the city by taking away one of four bridges that even plausibly serve as a connection to the major job center of the region. Yeah it takes a lot of traffic off of Broadway, but at what cost to the region?

Because it's a false inconvenience, probably less than someone from Brookside would experience commuting after the streetcar and road diets are implemented. Our highway system is WAY overdone in this city and if adding a few minutes to a commute makes housing less viable on the edge of the northern metro, it's a good thing. Increased commute times improve density.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:35 pm

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:25 pm Bringing 9 to grade and reducing the north loop plans are going to be impacted/eliminated without better 69 capabilities and those two projects are immensely bigger than a sexy bridge.

But see, I don’t even think north loop will be redone even with this bridge. It’s a total bait and switch. The suburbs want to speed their commute and are dangling north loop as a way to get urban people to go for it. They’ll get their quick bridge and north loop will conveniently disappear.

I think MoDot will see the financial benefit in it and hence be a lot easier to make happen.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:39 pm I think MoDot will see the financial benefit in it and hence be a lot easier to make happen.

Not a chance. They'll do a commute study with north loop gone, get pressure from Kansas and claim poverty or "more pressing projects". Never trust MoDot.

Lord help us if they let KS pressure them out of it.

It's a project they can literally make money at.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:51 pm Lord help us if they let KS pressure them out of it.

It's a project they can literally make money at.

If they can make money at it, why aren't they combining it with the bridge project?

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:46 pm Never trust MoDot.

.

Eon Blue wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:03 am

FangKC wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:26 pmWhy the hell is the Brooklyn Bridge (opened 1883) still used daily and the Buck O'Neill Bridge (opened 1956) is too expensive to repair? Do we just not maintain our bridges in Missouri?

The Eads Bridge would like a word here. Ironically, it's maintained by the City of St. Louis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eads_Bridge

The vast majority of the bridges going into Manhattan, NY are older than the Buck O'Neill Bridge, and they all continue to be maintained and in operation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_b ... York_City

GRID wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:28 pm

alejandro46 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:34 am

flyingember wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:52 am

two years

https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/a ... 17590.html

Two years plus we do not get the direct I-35 connection.

The new bridge is meh, but there are more important uses for public funds than keeping the existing bridge up.

I'm so glad not all cities think like this. Can you imagine Cincy or Pittsburgh if they replaced their historic bridges with boring girder bridges and only cared about making sure everybody can never go below 50mph and everything was connected to the interstates.

I'm still just mind boggled that this forum of all places supports this plan.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:36 pm I love Pitt and Cincy. Their bridges have nothing to do with it. I can't imagine 5% of the population do.

Some of the most photographed objects in New York City are the historic bridges. When I drive from the Northland into Downtown, I always take the Broadway Bridge because I like the feeling of crossing on it. I like the view of it approaching it into downtown. I like the feeling of the structure passing by and above me.

NYC bridges are iconic no doubt. NYC would be just as awesome if they had a bunch of new Buck bridges.

flyingember wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:39 pm

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:32 pm Honestly, not even sure why we need the bridge. It saves 2 minutes on the maximum trip from 35 to the Northland. If we really need another bridge access, build the Fairfax connection and let Kansas pay for it.

Today NB is a parking lot all the way towards 14th + the cross streets. Remove 2/3 of the cars and road capacity increases without building an inch of new road. There's a period of time where bike lane conversions can take advantage of the reduced traffic load.
...
This will take strain off the whole system downtown heading towards 169 NB
...
I expect the west side of the loop will become more congested but downtown is much safer and easier to drive

READ HEADLINE.

New O’Neil Bridge Still May See Occasional Backups for I-35 Traffic

https://cityscenekc.com/new-oneil-bridg ... 5-traffic/

So after all this money is spent, backups still predicted to exist on I-35. That's the thing that has been demonstrated before when freeways, highways, and interstates add "capacity." The backups still exist because you are funneling all traffic onto one roadway instead of distributing that traffic over a wider networks of streets and roads. The backups continue on expanded interstates because people think it will be faster and all crowd onto it.

The backups exist because it encourages people to move to edges of the city. They crowd together on single interstates to commute back and forth to the city, instead of encouraging more density in the central city.

Fine, let them wait on the ramps and stop gumming up the local traffic trying to get into downtown.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:46 pm Fine, let them wait on the ramps and stop gumming up the local traffic trying to get into downtown.

This make no sense. Just don't have a direct connection to 35. Still not convinced it's needed. Not in the least.

And you keep coming back and saying that this is about a "sexy" bridge and nothing else. No, it's about the entire package. Everything about this project is a total urban planning disaster, not just how the bridge looks.