New I-70 for Jackson County???

kcmajik · Post by **kcmajik** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 8:34 pm

Maybe im late on this but the MODOT has a website out there www.i70mis.org about a proposed new I-70 in Jackson County. Sounds exciting but i don't know how it will come out - there are so many rederings for the final road that it's hard to say what exactly will happen. One thing's for sure that a new I-70 from Oak Grove to downtown is a must if Jackson county, especially East Jack is to keep up with the surrounding growth like in JOCO and northland. go check out the website, some good stuff.

KCgridlock · Post by **KCgridlock** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 9:23 pm

Considering I have helped create many maps just like this, I can tell you it's a ways off.

I looked at the proposals and I like the 3A one. Widen I-70 to eight lanes and then restripe and use one lane as HOV lane during peak periods. If we are going to build a metro wide bus system and not rail, then we need to give buses HOV lanes to use or it will never work. People will never used suburban comuter buses in high numbers when they have to sit in traffic with everyone else. But at the same time, I-70 abosolutely needs to be eight lanes just to keep up with the growth out east and spur more growth. I hope Modot finds a way to get it done right, if KC area residents get the new triangle, new I-29 bridge and widening and all the improvements to the east side of I-435 that are planned, then the MO side will have a very nice and modern freeway system.

I am still not sure there is enough leadership in Jeff City to get it done though. I have always proposed that the four Missouri side counties pass a gas tax and rebuild our interstate system on our own and stop fucking around with StL and ruaral Missouri and being embarrised by Kansas roads.

I have also aways said that if our interstate system was like it is in StL, our east suburbs would be more like the west suburbs of StL instead of mostly bedroom suburbs.

But again, nobody sees the big picture and nobody will want to pay for it.

kcmajik · Post by **kcmajik** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 10:22 pm

Exactly - the St Louis system works much like it does in JOCO, if not even better with the modern parallel one-way outerroads similar to those in Houston and Dallas. It does seem as though Kansas City seems to frequently get screwed in the butt with St. Louis taking all the really good proposals and spending the tax money there. The way it's looking right now, there won't be a new Paseo for quite sometime.

I really feel like Kansas City, it particular, Jackson County has been severely neglected by Jeff City. I think it's like what Gridlock said that Kansas City just doesn't have the strong politicians to back anything up. And again we run into the issue with "well if the Northland get's their bridge, then where's our new I-70?" that's not nearly the problem the political issue is however. What did JOCO have to do to get their system or are KS roads just like that everywhere? But like gridlock said it sure would be interesting to see what suburban KCMO would look like if we did have the strength in Jeff City to build the roads they have in STL.

KCN · Post by **KCN** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 12:37 am

Let's hope they do something soon because I-70 is a nightmare. I have seen so many wrecks on that stretch of road, I could write a book about them.

Also, have you seen the website, www.improvei70.org ? They are working with the JackCO folk to design the future I-70. Very interesting stuff. That is, until you read that they don't have a penny of funding, nor any idea who will fund it. But how great would it be to have a 6 lane interstate all across MO, with 8 lanes in KC....

Oh, and be glad I-70 doesn't have feeder roads. They are all over the place down here in TX and I hate them. People enter those roads going 70 mph and it's extremely dangerous. A family of 6 all got hit by one car here in College Station on a road like that.

QueSi2Opie · Post by **QueSi2Opie** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 1:46 am

kcmajik wrote:What did JOCO have to do to get their system or are KS roads just like that everywhere? But like gridlock said it sure would be interesting to see what suburban KCMO would look like if we did have the strength in Jeff City to build the roads they have in STL.

I can't remember the exact ranking that came out in The Star last year, but I believe it said Kansas roads are ranked 3rd or 4th in the nation and Missouri roads are ranked 48th.

KCN · Post by **KCN** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:12 am

I can't remember the exact ranking that came out in The Star last year, but I believe it said Kansas roads are ranked 3rd or 4th in the nation and Missouri roads are ranked 48th.

That's because no one drives on the Kansas roads

KCgridlock · Post by **KCgridlock** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:55 am

Oh yea, KC has been getting the shaft a long time from Jeff City. Basically for the past, god knows how many years, KC & StL have half the MO funds and rurual MO has the other half. But... StL gets 3/4 of the urban portion even though StL is only twice as large as KC on the MO sides. Both cities subsidize the rural areas.

But another problem is money. Missouri has the 6th largest road system in the country and it is the 49th most funded. We have very low gas taxes etc in MO (even though gas is usaully only 2-4 cents higher in KS.)

MO roads were just ranked the worst in the Nation with exception of Hawaii (and they have salt water and volcanos

).

As far as the KS thing, It is rather unfair to compare the two. KS and MO are very different states. MO is far more populated and has a far bigger and older and bussier road system. The only big busy urban freeways in KS are in the only county that matters in the state, JoCo. They have to take care of JoCo because it produces nearly half the states general revenue.

But...

Why is StL getting more?? If any city should get more, it should be KC. If the Missouri side was getting more of the first class suburban comercial development that JoCo was getting, MO would be getting a net gain in new taxes vs StL where most of the growth is migrating sprawl. KC is smaller than StL but is adding far more people and potentially MO tax dollars if Jeff City would ever wake up.

BTW, just look at what's happening at Little Blue and I-70. Decent infrastruture does spur development.

I also have to agree with the frontage roads. They don't have to be Texas one way frontage road (those do suck IMO), but some sort of supporting infrastructure to the interstate. Commercial development only comes to areas that can handle it.

Build a big arterial road parellel to to I-470 in Lee's Summit and you would not believe the development that would occur and the shoppers and workers and possible more residents that would stay on the MO side of KC.

This in return would create the same chain reaction that StL has where everything is improved like regional MO side funding (screw asking KS for there share) for stadiums, transit, etc. More KC MO side suburban polititions would develop and pull for this area fair share more etc etc.

The big picture people...

You get what you pay for....

kcmajik · Post by **kcmajik** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 3:43 pm

i couldn't agree with you more gridlock

The Summit · Post by **The Summit** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 1:40 am

All so true.

What about I-470? That road has to have some of the most potential in the entire region. I mean it connects eastern jackson county together and connects SKC and OP to Lee's Summit. There is so much land around Raytown Road and View High Drive and up around Unity Village. I know much of this is parkland, but Lee's Summit is running out of room and this area should be the next area to develop. The North South section of 470 is filling up and there is not going to be much room for large office buildings. The east west part could be an extention of 435 (corporate office parks all along it) 470 should be like 270 in the Lou. What do you think about that?

StL_Dan · Post by **StL_Dan** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:46 am

KCNorthlander wrote:
I can't remember the exact ranking that came out in The Star last year, but I believe it said Kansas roads are ranked 3rd or 4th in the nation and Missouri roads are ranked 48th.
That's because no one drives on the Kansas roads

Actually, KS highways and roads are full of traffic throughout the week and weekends.

I'm a STL native and appreciate the hwy system there, but KS roads and major arteries make STL roads and arteries look like gravel roads.

All major KS north/south and east/west roads and streets are double laned, well paved/maintained and are evenly spaced every mile.

STL has more S curves roads than the MO Ozarks.

Very confusing to out of towners.

Driving in KS is a piece of cake. For the most part, you are either driving due north/south or east/west in mile increments on quality roads. STL roads are often one laners with no shoulders.

StL_Dan · Post by **StL_Dan** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 12:02 pm

KCgridlock wrote:But... StL gets 3/4 of the urban portion even though StL is only twice as large as KC on the MO sides.

What is the most recent tally if we subtract KS counties from the KC Metro population base and the "east side" (Illannoy) from STL's numbers?

STL metro 2.0M
KC metro 1.0M

Just a guess. I have nothing to back up those numbers. I think total metro pop for each area, all KS and IL counties included, is:

STL metro 2.4M
KC metro 1.5M

KC metro relies heavily on the KS metro to strenghten it's metro pop numbers. OP and Olathe alone account for about 250,00-300,000 residents. Throw in Lenexa, KCK, Bonner, Leawood and PV and that total might climb to a 350-400 thousand.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

KCgridlock wrote:As far as the KS thing, It is rather unfair to compare the two. KS and MO are very different states. MO is far more populated and has a far bigger and older and bussier road system. The only big busy urban freeways in KS are in the only county that matters in the state, JoCo. They have to take care of JoCo because it produces nearly half the states general revenue.

Agreed.

KCgridlock wrote:Why is StL getting more?? If any city should get more, it should be KC. If the Missouri side was getting more of the first class suburban comercial development that JoCo was getting, MO would be getting a net gain in new taxes vs StL where most of the growth is migrating sprawl.

STL definitely needs the funding to improve hwys more than KC at this point in time. With nearly a million more residents in the STL metro, the roads there take much more of a beating than KC metro hwys and roads.

Plus, STL is still a bigger commercial city than KC. KC is growing, but probably not overtaking STL just yet.

KCgridlock · Post by **KCgridlock** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 1:11 pm

Not that it matters but...

You are right on the MO side thing.

KC 1.1
StL 2.1

Little off on Metro areas

KC 1.85 closer to 2 million if you include new counties to be added this year and well over two million if you include Lawrence.

StL 2.6 -2.7

I'm just saying that MO could snag more development in KC if the MO side had better infrastructure (bringing more money and people to MO as well). I know StL needs it just as bad though. I all comes down to funding. But I strongly belive that KC and StL should at least split the money relative to our populations. KC should get it's fair share.

StL_Dan · Post by **StL_Dan** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 1:24 pm

KCgridlock wrote:Not that it matters but...

You are right on the MO side thing.

KC 1.1
StL 2.1

Little off on Metro areas

KC 1.85 closer to 2 million if you include new counties to be added this year and well over two million if you include Lawrence.

StL 2.6 -2.7

I'm just saying that MO could snag more development in KC if the MO side had better infrastructure (bringing more money and people to MO as well). I know StL needs it just as bad though. I all comes down to funding. But I strongly belive that KC and StL should at least split the money relative to our populations. KC should get it's fair share.

I agree....KCMO and metro east should definitely get it's fair share of state funding.

KCN · Post by **KCN** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 2:04 pm

StL_Dan wrote:
KCNorthlander wrote:
I can't remember the exact ranking that came out in The Star last year, but I believe it said Kansas roads are ranked 3rd or 4th in the nation and Missouri roads are ranked 48th.
That's because no one drives on the Kansas roads
Actually, KS highways and roads are full of traffic throughout the week and weekends.

All major KS north/south and east/west roads and streets are double laned, well paved/maintained and are evenly spaced every mile.

Well yeah, in JoCo the roads are very busy, but outside JoCo and Sedgewick Co, KS roads have very light traffic so they don't wear down, and the entire state is on a gridded road system. I'd imagine that contributes to their #3 ranking. MO can't have gridded roads due to terrain. Compare rural I-70 in MO to rural I-35 in KS. Seems like 70 has 3 times the traffic. But for us storm chasers, KS is perfect chase country due to the layout of their roads and the fact that no one is on them. Take it from someone who has been in nearly every county in both KS and MO

Also, KS has a turnpike to generate revenue.

KCN · Post by **KCN** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 2:10 pm

KCgridlock wrote: KC 1.85 closer to 2 million if you include new counties to be added this year and well over two million if you include Lawrence.

Do you know what counties those are going to be?

StL_Dan · Post by **StL_Dan** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 2:26 pm

KCNorthlander wrote:
KCgridlock wrote: KC 1.85 closer to 2 million if you include new counties to be added this year and well over two million if you include Lawrence.
Do you know what counties those are going to be?

It seems to me that KC wants to be take away OKC's title as the largest city in America in terms of square mileage.

KC has got some premo cow grazing land

KCgridlock · Post by **KCgridlock** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 2:44 pm

KC and StL proposed MSAs. KC adds Johnson MO and Franklin KS. StL adds a couple as well.
KC and Lawrence were to be a CMSA but Lawrence refused in 1990 I believe.

Here are the proposed MSAs, with year 2000 urbanized area. As you can see, StL is even more spread out than KC outside the core metro area.
KC and StL core urbanized areas are not that different.

KCgridlock · Post by **KCgridlock** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 2:49 pm

Here is another map showing a 60 mile circle around KC and StL. Again using 2000 census numbers,
KC's circle has over 2.4 million and StL has 2.7.
again, showing the "regions" are not so diffrent.

I love to make maps

.

KC_JAYHAWK · Post by **KC_JAYHAWK** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 4:53 pm

Great maps grid...looking at the second map, it appears metro KC is bigger than metro STL. Is this correct? I assume both cities are on the same scale. They are very interesting to look at, let's just hope we get more density in that area, who cares about OKC being the biggest city by square miles, their density is probably around 300-400/sq. mile whereas KC I would imagine is more around 800-1000/sq. mile. The more dense the city, the more it becomes a city.

Post by **dangerboy** » Wed Feb 19, 2003 9:01 am

Those I-70 studies are pie in the sky right now, they basically show the best-case scenarios if MoDOT had any money to build them. Until we allocate more transportation money nothing is getting built. In other words, it's gonna take a tax increase to do anything. We are already near the bottom of all states in the amount of money we spend on roads.

Regarding the KC vs STL funding issue... look at where the rich people live. In STL they all live on the MO side of the metro (Ladue, Clayton, Chesterfield) etc. In KC they are more evenly split between Ward Parkway and Mission Hills. This a big part of why STL gets more state money, they have more clout.

Look at where donations came from for the Carnahan/Talent Senate race.

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/zip.as ... &special=N

The large majority came from St. Louis zip codes. Except for 64112 (plaza and sunset hills) and 641113 (Ward Parkwdy) the top zip codes were mostly in St. Louis. For the Talent campaign an out of state zip code made the top ten (Mission Hills). Not even our wealthy republican MO suburbs like Lee's Summit or Platte County contributed much money.