Downtown Loop

[aknowledgeableperson]

San Diego, Austin, Denver would have this shithole highway leveled and ready for cranes in 2 years.
This city is such a worthless tard. It should have been done over a decade ago.
Everyone is staring at the 32 acres put into the design, all the historical buildings lost and thinking wtf were they thinking?
Don't tell me it "ain't that easy." 150% accident rate compared to all other MO Highways and this shit has been allowed to stay in place for decades? We've had idiots running this city for decades - idiots.

It isn't up to the city or state to decide. It is a federal highway and it is the feds decision to make.

[aknowledgeableperson]

The thing is unless the city and the state wants to pay the entire cost of the project you have to get the federal share of funds. That in itself will be a long process. The feds control the process.

[flyingember]

The thing is unless the city and the state wants to pay the entire cost of the project you have to get the federal share of funds. That in itself will be a long process. The feds control the process.

It's about a half mile different to Kansas for I-70 to head via the south loop.

If the signage has to change, like there isn't a decision to ignore the change in length, statewide that's around 2500 mileage signs alone. (249 miles * 5 for each mile * 2 for each direction) There's many blue info signs. There's documentation digitally and in print. Many exit numbers will change since every exit will be half a mile closer to Kansas.

it's not just a project to take out a road, it could be much larger than that.

[aknowledgeableperson]

There will also be tons of traffic studies to be done. Just consider the amount of traffic during rush hour that is on the north and south portions of the loop. Eliminate one and you just might overload the other three sections of the loop. Then of course how does eliminating one section affect the traffic inside the loop as well as the roadways around it. And not just talking about local traffic but the long distance traffic coming into KC from any direction and leaving any direction from KC.
Just think of the years spent so far studying the options of what to do with I-70 through the state.

[herrfrank]

There will also be tons of traffic studies to be done. Just consider the amount of traffic during rush hour that is on the north and south portions of the loop. Eliminate one and you just might overload the other three sections of the loop. Then of course how does eliminating one section affect the traffic inside the loop as well as the roadways around it. And not just talking about local traffic but the long distance traffic coming into KC from any direction and leaving any direction from KC.
Just think of the years spent so far studying the options of what to do with I-70 through the state.

Traffic studies would be needed, but anecdotally I doubt that the existing I-670 would have any problem with the additional load. It's four lanes (although some are painted out for a stretch) in each direction. I also doubt that MODOT would renumber I-70 statewide for the minimal decrease in mileage to the Kansas border.

Two possible trouble spots:

I-35 northbound routed via I-670 would need to possibly re-align so that the current left exit from I-670 to the eastern loop becomes a right exit flyover to the current US71 northbound roadway and the eastern loop. Without a change, the current configuration would require that I-35 northbound through-traffic to cross all of the I-70 eastbound through-traffic to exit. There's not a lot of room in the ditch as is, but I'm sure an engineer can figure this one out.

I-70 eastbound to the Broadway Bridge. Lots of additional signage will be needed, as this traffic will have to cross over (switch with) the I-35 southbound through-traffic. I don't see any way around this, because I-70 through-traffic needs to migrate to the left-most lanes, with I-35 south through-traffic needs to migrate to the middle lanes, and the Broadway road exit and the Broadway bridge connection (the rump west loop) would need to be in the right-most lanes. The spaghetti bowl at Truman and Campbell may need to be completely reconfigured

[flyingember]

I would ignore I-35 downtown. I would reroute it entirely. You can either detour 35 all the way at Olathe and take it around 435 to Claycomo or you detour it at 635 to Gladstone. Since 435 is 6 lanes and bypasses the interchange mess around N. Oak I would pick that route myself.

If there doesn't need to be an effort to send long distance traffic past downtown on that path you can simplify any changes dramatically.
Imagine if this project did the same thing in Kansas. take 6 lanes of freeway for several miles and turn it into a 4 lane parkway with brand new land to build on. Keep the same limited access style but it's designed to discourage long distance through traffic using it with a 40mph limit. People take SW Trafficway and Ward Parkway to work from Clay County so it's doable. The viaduct traffic into downtown would connect directly to 169

[scooterj]

I also doubt that MODOT would renumber I-70 statewide for the minimal decrease in mileage to the Kansas border.

Two possible trouble spots:
I-35 northbound routed via I-670 would need to possibly re-align so that the current left exit from I-670 to the eastern loop becomes a right exit flyover to the current US71 northbound roadway and the eastern loop. Without a change, the current configuration would require that I-35 northbound through-traffic to cross all of the I-70 eastbound through-traffic to exit. There's not a lot of room in the ditch as is, but I'm sure an engineer can figure this one out.

Not sure I understand this as you don't explain where you are starting from.
Northbound I-35 approaching downtown already feeds into I-670 east and becomes 70 East just after passing 71.
The I-670 tunnel (south loop) allows you continue on I-35 and I-29 northward toward the river.

I-70 eastbound to the Broadway Bridge. Lots of additional signage will be needed, as this traffic will have to cross over (switch with) the I-35 southbound through-traffic.

The way I read this, the problem here is that with the north loop gone, northbound I-35 to I-29 traffic has a very short distance to completely cross all of the lanes of I-70 (currently I-670) traffic in order to continue north past downtown. Currently many motorists use the north loop to mitigate this... the lighter traffic load and longer distance on the north loop makes crossing all those lanes much easier (and safer) there than in the south loop. With the north loop gone, all of that traffic gets put into the south ditch and has to make that cross-over in a very short distance. Hence the need for some sort of flyover that would somehow connect northbound I-35 to northbound 71/35/29 directly without needing to cross I-(6)70. It would probably require a major reconfiguration of that nasty interchange in the SE corner of the loop and likely costs us a few surface lots in the process.

[shinatoo]

US 169 is at or near interstate standards. Why not just designate that as I-29 from the Broadway Bridge to Vivion. Then the south loop would be I-35/70. The I-670 designation would go away all together. The Lewis and Clark Viaduct would return to being the Lewis and Clark Viaduct.

[moderne]

US 169 is nowhere near interstate standards. It is only 4 lanes and has no shoulders at all. An out of gas car causes traffic to back up into the entire DT loop mixmaster and south bound back up to briarcliff. Also lots of drainage problems. I dont see anyway to widen it given that it is bounded by rail on the east and the river on the west.

[dnweava]

The more I think about it, I don't think removing the highway would actually work, the south loop couldn't handle the extra traffic. I think removing a few ramps and redoing some of the road connections as part of the broadway bridge replacement could improve the traffic backup at broadway/north loop stoplights. building a park over the highway would be a better idea IMO . build parks over both the south and north loops. That highway land isn't needed for development as you can see in my map there is a shitton of land that is downtown or downtown adjacent that can be developed.

Orange = surface parking lots or other land to be redeveloped
Red= removed highway ramps
Green = park deck over highway

[DaveKCMO]

funny thing about traffic: you remove one outlet and the cars just go somewhere else. keep in mind we're just fretting about our brief rush hours. all other hours the loop remains clear and full speed ahead (faster than posted speeds, actually).

a grade-separated, un-signalized connection from US-169 to I-35 would make things flow much smoother (and probably induce as much demand as a new lane).

[JBmidtown]

The choice is clear: bye bye north loop.

[mean]

Yeah, the idea that the south loop can't handle the increased load from removing the north loop seems silly. Congestion is virtually nonexistent. Making south loop congestion marginally worse for an hour or so a day should be a non-concern. I mean, it will be a HUGE concern of course, because people are deluded into believing traffic here is bad, but we really should be doing everything we can to make automobile commuting, parking, etc., as painful as possible in a sort of inverse of how we have for decades done the opposite and made it as painful as possible to not have a car.

[flyingember]

The major problem with the loop isn't capacity, it's design driven. If the paths available are way less complex the flow will be simpler.

We saw this with the Grandview triangle. while it added lanes it also massively simplified a stupid interchange design. so for any given number of cars the newer design can handle more of them daily.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

I agree. Anytime brakes are hit in the south loop, it's not because of traffic being at capacity, it's because people are forced to change lanes to stay on the same highway.

[dnweava]

I think that not having enough land or surface lots is not so much the problem with the north loop.
Vacant land is plentiful.
The problem is that the interstate cuts off downtown from the river market.
It destroys the urban landscape by creating an ugly 2 block wide barrier.
Putting a deck over that monstrosity will never happen, it's way too wide.
It would cost infinitely more than a south loop deck.

I still think all the surface lots and dead buildings around the north loop is what disconnects downtown from city market, not just the highway. The south loop has nice artwork on the bridges which helps and downtown and the crossroads doesn't feel disconnected. I think we should look into these examples for both the north and south loop, would be cheaper than a full blown park that is blocks long. Would probably be a few million to widen each bridge, rather than 100 million or whatever ridiculous amount it would cost for a full blown deck that is blocks long, and way cheaper than removing the whole highway.
.
Wyandotte, Walnut, and Grand over the North loop would be the 3 bridges that I would focus on first with this type of project.

[FangKC]

This continued fascination with putting a baseball stadium in the North Loop needs to be put to bed. It's a stupid idea, and people need to quit suggesting it. If there is going to be a baseball stadium in the downtown area, this is not the location for it. There are better locations that would not be as disruptive.

If Buzz Willard is so willing to give up the North Loop parking lots for a baseball stadium 20 years from now, then why doesn't Tower Properties advertise their properties are for sale now, so that they can start getting developed right away?

In one respect, there are some advantages to a single overseeing developer to develop the North Loop. It's the opportunity to develop cooperative parking garages to serve multiple tenants and projects in the area. It doesn't make sense for each developer to build a separate garage to only serve their tenants. It also opens up opportunities for existing smaller building owners to get access to parking, and give up their small individual lots that exist between those buildings. This allows infill to occur in situations where it otherwise wouldn't, and the street-wall rebuilt. A good plan would involve doing a survey of surrounding properties and smaller existing surface lots, figuring out needs, and how to rearrange parking so that the small lots go away and the land gets a new infill building. Some property owners also might not need as many spaces if the people that work, or shop, in their buildings also live downtown and walk to work or stores. It also helps prevent the need to demolish older existing buildings to create individual parking lots for specific tenants, or to fit in garage for that one project.

Once that is dealt with, the overseeing developer should open up development to individual parcels to separate developers. There are many reasons for this. You don't have so much property in the hands of one property owner. You have different timetables of development. You get a greater mix of uses. You don't get a developer with just one mindset. There would be more variety of architectural styles and sizes. You have different developers that have access to difference sources of capital. The risk is spread among multiple parties. You don't have a situation where smaller developers are completely shut-out.

We want to encourage small developers, and not just mega-developers, because that does two things: brings a higher number of potential developers into the equation; and, gives smaller developers more experience. We need to be encouraging more people to get involved in the local development game. Smaller developers are more likely to be local, and we also want to grow these new, small developers into more experienced, larger developers. I think Kansas City has the problem of not having enough experienced developers. We can't just have three or four bigger local developers. We need about 10 more Sunflower Development Groups. Yet, we need to also allow small developers to gain the experience.

While all the new housing downtown is encouraging, I'm still concerned about maintaining the job base there, and growing it. We don't want to create a situation of reverse-commuting in that there are not enough jobs downtown to employ the thousands of people living there. Development of the North Loop interstate certainly increases sites for larger corporate headquarters, and being able to also include structured parking in the project for their employees that live in other areas of the Metro. But that is not really the problem, because we have other locations right now where we could construct larger office buildings.

Because of its' low cost of rental space, Kansas City does have a great opportunity to market itself to companies in more expensive Metros--especially those where middle and lower-income workers are being priced out of the market. There are many companies that don't necessarily need to relocate their corporate headquarters, or entire operation, to the KC Metro. However, there are many lower-paying jobs that could be relocated here, and their employees would be more able to afford housing and living expenses. I'm surprised more of the big financial institutions in NYC haven't done this already. You don't need all your employees to be on Wall Street. BATS has proved you don't have to be in NYC to get market share of the financial markets. It's certainly much cheaper to build and rent office space here than in NYC, San Jose, or San Francisco.

[missingkc]

dnweava, I think something similar to your first example is planned for Baltimore as part of the convention hotel.

[missingkc]

harbinger911, single developer doesn't seem to quite be the key to rapid development. Hasn't East Village been essentially a single developer project? Crown Center certainly has and there's a bit of vacant space there. It's got to be the right single developer.

[flyingember]

harbinger911, single developer doesn't seem to quite be the key to rapid development. Hasn't East Village been essentially a single developer project? Crown Center certainly has and there's a bit of vacant space there. It's got to be the right single developer.

Single developer means single funding source. Single owner property means the overall goals of that owner takes hold. Like Commerce Bank wanting large amounts of surface parking.

That's why you need the overall coordinating group to not have beyond a fixed price financial stake.