I-35

[KC_JAYHAWK]

It seems like there isn't a single route you can take anywhere without the construction. I435 from the Kaw River to 87th Street in Lenexa is under construction now too.

At least it's a sign of progress

[bahua]

Can anything be done to slow traffic along Ward Parkway, Wornall, and Brookside? 50 MPH traffic is intimidating to pedestrians and is truly dangerous.

I see police camped out along WPkwy all the time, and half the time I see them, they have a shiny speeder pulled over.

It'd be nice, though, to convert it into a real parkway, like Boston's Storrow Drive, or San Francisco's 25th Avenue, with limited access, ped-bridges, and a slightly higher speed limit. I doubt that such a proposal could get past the affluent residents who live right on WPkwy, so the threat of ticketing seems the best that the city can do.

[eliphar17]

Also, don't forget the new interchange construction at 87th and I-35 and U.S. 69 over the next two years. I'm glad that I leave for college this summer. Sounds like the highways will be a bitch the next few years.

[MC86]

What about the 1-435 N to I-70 to downtown???

[DanCa]

I'm very pro-light rail and think it would serve a purpose in Urban KC, but I have wondered about the I-35 traffic study done recently and the claim that commutes are bad. I know last summer I drove from 435 & Metcalf to downtown in under 30 minutes during rush hour which was amazing to me. The southbound side was heavier but I saw no areas where traffic was stopped.

I just don't see the point in an I-35 commuter rail line or even a need for more lanes. I think Kansas Citians perception of "bad traffic" is quite different from cities with actual bad traffic. I don't always agree w/Jerry Heaster but on this, I tend to agree. I could be wrong since I don't drive I35 daily.





Drive past commuter myths

By JERRY HEASTER

Columnist


The occasional media flurry about the need to improve our transit infrastructure hereabouts always stumbles on the one premise from which all other ideas seem to flow:

Contrary to what many transportation gurus would have you believe, Interstate 35 between Johnson County and downtown Kansas City isn't a problem. Hasn't been a problem for the 26 years I've been commuting on it daily to and from 95th Street in Lenexa.

The anecdotal lead for the latest recent effort described a guy who'd like a light rail system to ease congestion on I-35 because his commutes range from 30 minutes on good days to an hour on bad days.

What congestion?

Despite the usual rising-volume data experts trot out to make their case for more construction and exotic supplementary conveyances, the I-35 situation is entirely manageable. My 15-mile ride on a good day is 22-23 minutes. On a so-so day, it's 30-35 minutes, and on the once-twice a year worst-case horrendous experience it can stretch to 45-50. Only snow will make it an hour or more.

Meanwhile, in truth, during morning or evening rush hour, a half-hour or 45-minute commute of 15 or 20 miles is a breeze. Folks in L.A., Chicago, Washington, Atlanta, etc., would kill for those kinds of numbers.

We're spoiled, and we don't need to spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on cement and esoteric infrastructure like light rail. What we need is more competent, smart, considerate drivers. If there's a delay on your morning and evening commute on I-35, it's usually because some moron has been speeding recklessly, slowing to gawk at fender benders, mindlessly changing lanes to gain two seconds, and — my favorite — “multitasking,â€

[Tosspot]

That is so for the status quo it is sickening. Why is it so many people here want this city to stagnate?

[KCK]

The article is a little misleading. Notice the author commutes from 95th street. That is by no means a long commute. Does he even think about those commuting from 159th, or 179th, or farther out? The reality is that he lives in an old suburb, and that those who live farther out are the ones who will have the worst problems. I guess he also doesn't realize JOCO is growing. Right now traffic isn't bad, but what about 20 years from now? Do we wanna be the morons like Phoenix, or think ahead wisely like Atlanta?

[KCPowercat]

Notice the author commutes from 95th street. That is by no means a long commute. Does he even think about those commuting from 159th, or 179th, or farther out?

I feel no pity for somebody having a long commute if they live at 179th street. There are homes available for the same price much closer in, move closer if commuting is a huge issue.

To the original point, I don't travel it much but I don't think it's what people in other cities would call terrible. More like normal. That being said I would rather see a commuter rail line than an additional of "HOV" lane of traffic added....I just don't see the benefit outweighing the cost.

[KCK]

Notice the author commutes from 95th street. That is by no means a long commute. Does he even think about those commuting from 159th, or 179th, or farther out?

I feel no pity for somebody having a long commute if they live at 179th street. There are homes available for the same price much closer in, move closer if commuting is a huge issue.

To the original point, I don't travel it much but I don't think it's what people in other cities would call terrible. More like normal. That being said I would rather see a commuter rail line than an additional of "HOV" lane of traffic added....I just don't see the benefit outweighing the cost.

I know you have no pity for them, but KCP, you can't deny the fact that regardless of whether we like it or not, those areas will experience rapid growth and increased traffic. We must plan for that.

[KC0KEK]

I agree that even though I-35 isn't bad compared to other cities, we need to plan now or it won't remain that way for much longer.

That said, I wonder how much effect the proposed JoCo commuter rail line would really have. One challenge is that as in many cities, more (most?) people now live in one suburb and commute to another. The JoCo line would be more effective if most I-35 commuters lived in JoCo and worked downtown -- something that hasn't been the case in decades and might never be again, even with more businesses moving into the urban core. Would someone who lives in Olathe take the train to their job in Overland Park, especially if they then have to take a bus from the train station to the office? I would, if I were in that position, but I suspect that I'm the exception rather than the rule.

[KCK]

I agree that even though I-35 isn't bad compared to other cities, we need to plan now or it won't remain that way for much longer.

That said, I wonder how much effect the proposed JoCo commuter rail line would really have. One challenge is that as in many cities, more (most?) people now live in one suburb and commute to another. The JoCo line would be more effective if most I-35 commuters lived in JoCo and worked downtown -- something that hasn't been the case in decades and might never be again, even with more businesses moving into the urban core. Would someone who lives in Olathe take the train to their job in Overland Park, especially if they then have to take a bus from the train station to the office? I would, if I were in that position, but I suspect that I'm the exception rather than the rule.

It's possible that it could work out, problem is that in Johnson County, the employment centers are too fragmented and sparse. There are many office parks, many office buildings, many different places where many people work. It would be difficult to set up compared to a dense downtown setting where 100,000 people work in a single square mile.

[KC0KEK]

It's a similar situation on Long Island, where I grew up: There's extensive commuter rail, but it all runs east-west. You can't take a train from your home on the north shore to your job on the south shore. So although the LIRR alleviates a lot of traffic, rail isn't as effective as it could be.

[KCPowercat]

I know you have no pity for them, but KCP, you can't deny the fact that regardless of whether we like it or not, those areas will experience rapid growth and increased traffic. We must plan for that.

Adding highway lanes only allows people to live further out with reduced commute times. Smart growth is what we need to adopt in all burbs, not just raging sprawl.

[KC0KEK]

Adding highway lanes only allows people to live further out with reduced commute times.

The irony is that rail had the same effect until about the '50s, when highways started to become a bigger driver of sprawl.

[Tosspot]

I know you have no pity for them, but KCP, you can't deny the fact that regardless of whether we like it or not, those areas will experience rapid growth and increased traffic. We must plan for that.

Adding highway lanes only allows people to live further out with reduced commute times. Smart growth is what we need to adopt in all burbs, not just raging sprawl.

KCP-- that is the law of induced demand that you speak of. And you are right, perpetually widening highways and/or building more is nothing but appeasement to the traffic lobby and insistent sprawl dwellers.

[DanCa]

I agree it's best to plan early, but I still don't see the demand for even a commuter train to JoCo. Do you really think someone in Olathe is going to drive to a train station on I-35, park, wait for a train and then happen to work within walking distance of the train station downtown? (other than a handful of environmentally sensitive people) Highly unlikely. They could get downtown to work quicker by just staying in the car and driving. People always take the path of least resistance.

I don't think JoCo does or ever will have the density to cause traffic to be that bad. You have to realize that JoCo and most all KC suburbs are much more spread out than cities with bad traffic. Average lot size is huge in JoCo. Where I live (traffic hell) we have more than twice as many people per sq. mile in the suburbs. This is what really causes the awful traffic, among other things.

[tat2kc]

I have to agree with Dan, traffic in KC, anywhere, is not bad. Yes, its more crowded than 10 years ago, but its still not a bad drive. Adjusting your leave time by 10-15 minutes either way can make a huge difference. But, at the same time, we do need to plan ahead and prepare for the time when traffic will be a big issue. Regardless of what is decided, it would take years to implement any plan to reduce congestion. Unfortunately, most people don't want to think long term, they want to wait till the problem is here and then try to fix it.

There is more than enough room for growth within the 435 loop, all around the metro area. The cities, counties, and states involved would do well to invest their money in infrastructure improvements with the loop, including creative re-development of existing retail and office space. Instead of tax breaks for building farther out, tax breaks for redevelopment and restoration of existing housing stock within the loop. There are some really great neighborhoods in the loop, on both sides of the state line. There already exists homes, schools, churches, stores, offices and recreational facilities that are under utilized, for no other reason than people want the "new and exciting".

Maintainng the transportation infrastructure we have, and making these aging neighborhoods the "new places to be" would do wonders to alleviate traffic congestion on I-35 and other major highways.

[Thrillcekr]

Traffic on 35 isn't bad at all up north of the river. If you travel through the northland or wyandotte county it's a breeze travelling up and down the interstates to work for the most part.

I agree with Powercat as far as not feeling any pity. If you want to be a dumb ass and buy a new house in the farthest out areas of the city that are located along the most heavily travelled parts of the local freeway system then you don't have anything to complain about. That's just the sacrifice you're going to make so get used to living inside your car 10 hours a week on your commute to work and be happy. Doesn't make any sense to me why anyone would want to pay 10% more to live in the same house just to put up with that misery but to each his/her own.

Any sort of metro-wide light rail would most likely be a bi-state issue that would involve a vote in all the counties that comprise the kc metro area because it takes a ton of money to build one of those. I can guarantee you that it will fall flat on its face in Clay, Platte, and Wyandotte counties and probably in Jackson County too. Why? Well, I live very near the airport which is about as far out as it goes up here. From the airport itself, I can get to downtown, the Legends area in KCK, Liberty or just about any vital area to me in 15 minutes or less whether traffic is at its peak hours or not. There is still a ton of property in as close or closer than I am that can be bought and lots of empty spots left to be developed. The same can be said for WyCo. Why the hell would I or the 300, 000 other people in Platte and Clay vote yes to be taxed on something that we don't need and probably wouldn't use much?

Until the population spreads itself around,and traffic becomes a problem for most, there is not going to be light rail in KC.. I voted against it last time and I'll do it again until driving to work becomes an inconvenience for me. The only people really affected right now are the people in South/Western JoCo and Eastern Jackson. Those people need to either move or deal with it and shut up because they made their own bed. I think a few have already figured that out already because there is an increasing number of people arriving up north from places like OP and Blue Springs. JoCo might be able to figure out a way to fund their own light rail but I doubt it because they are too busy trying to squander money on crap they really don't need or have any use for like that arena.

[bahua]

I know you have no pity for them, but KCP, you can't deny the fact that regardless of whether we like it or not, those areas will experience rapid growth and increased traffic. We must plan for that.

I disagree. To me, success in those areas is only indicative of a failure to attract/keep those people, by the urban core, and should serve as a fire under someone's ass to improve the city. The city's self-defeating policies are to blame, and people complaining about a 35-mile commute in a metro area as sparsely populated as Kansas City, immediately makes me ask, "why don't these people just live in the city?"

They don't because the city has become an unattractive place to live, to most people, and the worst part is that most people don't really feel bad about it.

"That's the way cities work."

"KC is past its prime."

"The whole of KC cannot become a nice place ever again."

"There will always be poor neighborhoods in the city. That's what cities are for."

Before I start raving about tax policy, I will cut myself off, and just say that more people should at least notice that a city as small as Kansas City should not have people living as far away as it does. The distance mentioned is comparable to much larger cities, that actually have the density and land value to explain such long commutes. It should strike people as odd that there are people commuting to downtown KCMO from places as far out as Gardner, Grain Valley, Kearney, Stilwell, Bonner Springs, and Platte City.

[skim82]

Does anybody know what that tunnel-looking structure is between 75th and 87th off 69 hwy in joco???  I know this was discussed in an earlier thread, but that tunnel is way too small for automobilies isn't it???