Capping the Loop

[flyingember]

. KC needs to embrace dedicated true BRT paths as it should entice near same level TOD (transit-oriented development) as fixed rail, especially if free to ride. Obviously much cheaper to deploy/maintain per mile.

deploy, yes. Maintain, depends.

If trying to implement the same capacity and frequency as the trail using 40-person busses, the bus costs more in total than a train.

But as a lighter service line, absolutely cheaper.

[TheLastGentleman]

Was told first step was swapping 670 and 70 signs as it is easier to rid a 3 numbered interstate than 2. then buried parking for north loop (ballpark) stop, then ballpark (amazon or other field) then parks and bldgs above. remember the city will get this land back so payback is property taxes and sales tax rev.

Maybe I'm just dense, but this post doesn't make sense to me. What's this about a ballpark?

[GRID]

Do you think battery busses will replace rail?

Streetcars on rail with overhead wires will be obsolete within five years. Battery and autonomous tech is finally reaching a level that will make them an obvious choice over streetcars for all kinds of reasons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2fR6gCewAk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZepUoOcOSnk

[normalthings]

Do you think battery busses will replace rail?

Streetcars on rail with overhead wires will be obsolete within five years. Battery and autonomous tech is finally reaching a level that will make them an obvious choice over streetcars for all kinds of reasons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2fR6gCewAk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZepUoOcOSnk

But how does it address capacity issues?

[DaveKCMO]

Back to the loop lid discussion, please. We're way off topic.

[dnweava]

The proposal I've been toying with for over a year, cap both north and south loop and drop the westside highway to a parkway by rerouting I-35 to downtown.

[GRID]

They are not changing the alignment of the Lewis and Clark Viaduct (the sharp curve by Fairfax) are they? I thought they were just rebuilding it back the way it was. Your map says it's under construction.

It's not a bad idea to turn I-35 south of Downtown back into a parkway, but it's extremely unlikely to happen and it's even more unlikely to build a new 35 alignment through Armourdale. Politically, that would just be nearly impossible at local and federal levels. You have a better chance of upgrading 7th Street Tfwy to an interstate.

I still think the new Broadway Bridge should not be a high speed bridge that ties into the NW corner of the loop. It's really not needed and you are just adding more high speed limited access freeway lanes and ramps to the downtown area which is what I thought people were trying to reduce. What is wrong with just replacing the Broadway bridge with a nicer, modern bridge that brings in 169 traffic to downtown, but also slows it down and transitions the traffic into the city grid? It sounds like Modot wants to make the new bridge high speed. It's just going to really make it difficult to to make the bridge a pedestrian option and start to build up much needed pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Not to mention it will become more of an urban barrier than it already is. Heart of American Bridge needs a road diet as well where it ties to the downtown loop.

Again, I would route all through traffic through 670. All you would have to do is add a direct connection from WB 670 to what is now NB 70. Right now you would have to exit and use Central to access Fairfax and downtown KCK from WB 670.

With a few modifications, 670 and the east loop could handle all the through traffic.

Make the entire north loop, west loop and Lewis and Clark Viaduct a local parkway system.

[dnweava]

They are not changing the alignment of the Lewis and Clark Viaduct (the sharp curve by Fairfax) are they? I thought they were just rebuilding it back the way it was. Your map says it's under construction.

It's not a bad idea to turn I-35 south of Downtown back into a parkway, but it's extremely unlikely to happen and it's even more unlikely to build a new 35 alignment through Armourdale. Politically, that would just be nearly impossible at local and federal levels. You have a better chance of upgrading 7th Street Tfwy to an interstate.

I still think the new Broadway Bridge should not be a high speed bridge that ties into the NW corner of the loop. It's really not needed and you are just adding more high speed limited access freeway lanes and ramps to the downtown area which is what I thought people were trying to reduce. What is wrong with just replacing the Broadway bridge with a nicer, modern bridge that brings in 169 traffic to downtown, but also slows it down and transitions the traffic into the city grid? It sounds like Modot wants to make the new bridge high speed. It's just going to really make it difficult to to make the bridge a pedestrian option and start to build up much needed pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Not to mention it will become more of an urban barrier than it already is. Heart of American Bridge needs a road diet as well where it ties to the downtown loop.

Again, I would route all through traffic through 670. All you would have to do is add a direct connection from WB 670 to what is now NB 70. Right now you would have to exit and use Central to access Fairfax and downtown KCK from WB 670.

With a few modifications, 670 and the east loop could handle all the through traffic.

Make the entire north loop, west loop and Lewis and Clark Viaduct a local parkway system.

1) Yes it's already under construction. The plans are on the KDOT website (ill post a screenshot) That is why Wyco is officially against removing the north loop as they are already spending a ton of money upgrading their half of the northloop

2) Over 50% of the Broadway bridge traffic is not headed downtown so it makes no sense to have all that traffic detour into downtown and clog up the downtown stoplights.

[GRID]

Phase one is UC which just replaces the viaduct along the existing alignment. I don't think anything beyond that is even in the design phase yet. I could be wrong.

Regardless, if KCK and Kdot are not interested in taking I-70 off the Lewis and Clark Viaduct then all this talk about removing 70 from the north loop is a waste of time. It seems pretty ridiculous to spend so much money and build up all this infrastructure to route through traffic around all this nonsense when it could go straight down 670 (which should be 70). Lewis and Clark viaduct should be there ONLY for access to downtown KCK and Fairfax and it should be called I-670. Those proposed huge flyover ramps for through traffic are just stupid. Look at what they are trying to force through I-70 traffic to do. Makes no sense. There should be no direct access at all from Lewis and Clark viaduct to continue onto WB 70. You should be on 670 if doing that.

And I understand the Broadway Bridge carries a lot of traffic to points beyond downtown, mostly 35 south for people going to JoCo and Midtown. But do that with a ramp, not the entire bridge. Maybe they will surprise me with what they come up with. I just don't have a lot of faith. Modot's plans for the north loop was terrible with an even bigger footprint than the current corridor with a bunch of collector / distributor lanes etc.

You let Modot and Kdot "fix" the downtown loop and you will end up with twice the number of lane miles, ramps etc in the downtown area when it needs less.

[Imarealperson]

On 670 heading East under Bartle, the bottleneck with only one Eastbound Lane needs to be corrrected.

[GRID]

On 670 heading East under Bartle, the bottleneck with only one Eastbound Lane needs to be corrrected.

Yes, that's one of the worst choke points in downtown. It makes the capacity of the 670 viaduct totally worthless.

You fix that by first not allowing the west loop access to EB 670. (or WB 670 access to the west loop) and also rebuilding the bridges to allow space for more lanes under the big interchange.

Then you have two lanes of NB 35 and 2 lanes of EB 670 come together with four lanes under bartle. It used to be four EB lanes, but they removed a lane with markings. They need to stripe 670 back to 4 lanes each way.

Then you would have two lanes split off to EB 70 and two lanes split off to NB 29/35.

You already have a lane that adds and drops to SB 71.

Widen the east loop to 4 lanes each way from the SE corner of loop to Bond bridge and remove most of the exit ramps. Build one big high capacity exit for downtown in that area.

[FangKC]

Cost reduced by not capping Baltimore to Wyandotte segment because of steep grade.

Advocates for South Loop Deck to Seek MoDOT Support

https://cityscenekc.com/advocates-for-s ... t-support/

[horizons82]

You have to wonder if there are already discussions to do something else with the baltimore/wyandotte block. If they're saying Lowes would be an equity partner, you would think they'd want that block covered.

[moderne]

Omitting the Baltimore/Wyandotte block might mean the remaining 3 blocks would not require expensive exhaust systems? Also that block along with the adjoining 2 empty bldngs on 14th might be the site for a smaller exhibition hall linked with the total convention complex.

[shinatoo]

I thought the Baltimore/Wyandotte block would make for a great outdoor amphitheater.

[normalthings]

Omitting the Baltimore/Wyandotte block might mean the remaining 3 blocks would not require expensive exhaust systems? Also that block along with the adjoining 2 empty bldngs on 14th might be the site for a smaller exhibition hall linked with the total convention complex.

I hadn't thought that the 4 block scheme didnt need special venting. Regardless, I don't know how I feel about another hall being built. I thought that we never really fill our current convening spaces? If I am wrong then yes let's built more space there.

[flyingember]

Omitting the Baltimore/Wyandotte block might mean the remaining 3 blocks would not require expensive exhaust systems? Also that block along with the adjoining 2 empty bldngs on 14th might be the site for a smaller exhibition hall linked with the total convention complex.

I hadn't thought that the 4 block scheme didnt need special venting. Regardless, I don't know how I feel about another hall being built. I thought that we never really fill our current convening spaces? If I am wrong then yes let's built more space there.

Just counting the convention center and sprint center
And including every announced hotel room
And putting two people in every room downtown

There’s 7x the convention space to downtown hotel rooms

There’s more space than that downtown such as Crown Center, Union Station can hold 2000 just in one space. The Westin has 31 spaces of various sizes and there’s a number of other smaller spaces across downtown.

In a hypothetical where we could fill all convention and meeting space every weekend we could use another 30,000 rooms before adding meeting space

[FangKC]

I thought the Baltimore/Wyandotte block would make for a great outdoor amphitheater.

\
Or a modern version of the Spanish Steps.

[FangKC]

Loews Exec Calls for Decking South Loop at Downtown Council Event

Loews Hotel Chairman Jonathan Tisch strongly backed an ambitious plan to deck part of the South Loop where it slices through downtown at the annual luncheon of the Downtown Council Thursday.

“When I think about a big idea, it’s right outside this convention center and that is a cap over the highway,” Tisch told the audience in the Kay Barnes Ballroom at Bartle Hall.
...
The proposal to build a cap with a park above the South Loop advocated by Tisch has received renewed attention over the past year.

Last March, a study by HNTB commissioned by the Downtown Council estimated a four-block section of the freeway could be decked and landscaped for $139 million, significantly less than the previous $200 million estimate.

Last summer, officials said they’d approach the Missouri Department of Transportation to seek funding assistance and had scaled back the proposal to three blocks.
...

https://tinyurl.com/ycuho85y

[kas1]

I wish the people involved in this would focus on getting MODOT to allow some commercial development over the trench. Earlier in the thread I posted about the project in Columbus which built retail over their highway in a very similar type of spot with no government money aside from generous tax breaks. Adding a substantial chunk of retail to this project would lower the effective cost of the project (in the form of reimbursing the upfront costs) and thereby make it much more likely to actually happen. For example, on the block bounded by Main and Walnut they could put a retail strip fronting Main and another one fronting Walnut, leaving the center of the block open. That opening would satisfy the ventilation requirements without either the expense of a mechanized system or the ugliness of leaving a big gap right in the middle of a park. That block in theory should pay for itself, leaving just three blocks of park to pay for rather than four.

And imo, it would actually improve the project overall. Linear parks form barriers, and breaking up the park space with some retail would tie the two neighborhoods together much more seamlessly and encourage more pedestrian flow. The park space is already divided up by the roads, and that limits the benefit you might otherwise get from having four blocks of contiguous park space.