KCRag Forum

I really like this plan.

voltopt wrote:For reference, the blue is the extent of Interstate Highway, I-35/I-70. The Lewis & Clark Viaduct and north loop would be the US-24 boulevard, with local access. This could candle the exiting from the freeways for the north side of the loop, without all of the terrible interchanges that exist now. It would also stitch the two parts together. The former west side of the loop would be for direct access to two things - a straight connection to the Broadway Bridge and an interchange or intersection for the US-24 Boulevard. The yellow dots indicate other potential exits.

This could free up some land for more drive-thru fast food restaurants... DT needs a McDonalds!!

someone start a facebook page.

That is brilliant! Almost too smart for MODOT. How do we get this into the right people's hands?

We need to advocate for this, but if you want to see its chances of success look at what happened with the campaign to remove the portion of I-70 in St. Louis between the new Mississippi River bridge and the Poplar Street Bridge. That segment was just as redundant as the north loop and boulevard-izing it would have been even more straight forward. Instead, the highway (both the depressed and elevated portions) are staying and getting re-branded as an extension of I-44.

/parade rain

KCtonic wrote:That is brilliant! Almost too smart for MODOT. How do we get this into the right people's hands?

many of the right people lurk on this forum.

Eon Blue wrote:We need to advocate for this, but if you want to see its chances of success look at what happened with the campaign to remove the portion of I-70 in St. Louis between the new Mississippi River bridge and the Poplar Street Bridge. That segment was just as redundant as the north loop and boulevard-izing it would have been even more straight forward. Instead, the highway (both the depressed and elevated portions) are staying and getting re-branded as an extension of I-44.

/parade rain

there's no way it was just as redundant. Remember, they didn't get their really inner loop built in st. louis. to this day it's a stub at 22nd, and their second loop, I-170, was never finished

take out that sunken segment at downtown and suddenly you lose the commercial connection between north and south. why would anyone place their business downtown if it means more work to get around town?

flyingember wrote:there's no way it was just as redundant. Remember, they didn't get their really inner loop built in st. louis. to this day it's a stub at 22nd, and their second loop, I-170, was never finished

take out that sunken segment at downtown and suddenly you lose the commercial connection between north and south. why would anyone place their business downtown if it means more work to get around town?

If you view downtown as a destination for local traffic, then having the stubs of the removed highway terminate into downtown makes sense. Pass-through traffic on I-70 can go on into Illinois, by passing downtown, same with pass-through traffic on I-55.

At its narrowest point, the trench section of I-70 is only four lanes. That capacity could be matched closely enough by an at-grade boulevard.

Eon Blue wrote:

flyingember wrote:there's no way it was just as redundant. Remember, they didn't get their really inner loop built in st. louis. to this day it's a stub at 22nd, and their second loop, I-170, was never finished

take out that sunken segment at downtown and suddenly you lose the commercial connection between north and south. why would anyone place their business downtown if it means more work to get around town?

If you view downtown as a destination for local traffic, then having the stubs of the removed highway terminate into downtown makes sense. Pass-through traffic on I-70 can go on into Illinois, by passing downtown, same with pass-through traffic on I-55.

At its narrowest point, the trench section of I-70 is only four lanes. That capacity could be matched closely enough by an at-grade boulevard.

you really misunderstand the goal of the new I-70 route in St. Louis if you recommend that.

the very goal of the new bridge was to cut the amount of traffic on each bridge by moving one interstate worth off of it. if you remove the trench suddenly all that traffic from Missouri side I-70 to I-55/I-44 traffic has to now take two bridges instead of one. so the models for the road scale suddenly don't work.

for Broadway in KC look at actual traffic patterns today. there's a huge number of large trucks that can't do anything but follow the freeway. the goal is not to shove more traffic onto less major roads which is why this mockup parkway idea will never work. you can't combine I-70 and I-35 onto the south side of the loop without a massive widening project of the trench, since there's only a single through lane westbound.

What percentage of Missouri-side traffic going between I-70 and I-44/I-55 originates outside of I-270?

It's really too bad we f*cked up with our outer highway loops and turned them into sprawl development tools instead of actual bypasses.

1. Kansas City – 1.262
2. St Louis – 1.070
3. Houston – .822
4. Cleveland – .816
5. Columbus – .779

I knew that KC had the most free miles per capita, i had no clue St Louis was #2. St Louis has really screwed up with its highways in actually making it a city that could be poised for a urban renewal comeback. 70, 44, and 64 all just cut through the heart of the city and slice and dice up neighborhoods. St Louis is just a poorly planned city. Looking at STL freeways on Google Maps just makes me want to puke.

flyingember wrote:you really misunderstand the goal of the new I-70 route in St. Louis if you recommend that.

And I perfectly understand MoDOT's goal. For them, highway Level of Service is the only determinant for Quality of Life, regardless of all other factors. The extreme opposite has to be advocated for if an acceptable solution is to be found in the middle.

Eon Blue wrote:What percentage of Missouri-side traffic going between I-70 and I-44/I-55 originates outside of I-270?

that's a very good question. I'd be intrigued to see the long distance counts and what the most popular routes are across st louis and kc

One question here. With what I have seen in this thread, will the existing I 670 route handle the extra traffic that the elimination of the I 70 route will put on it. As I recall there is only one lane each way under Bartle Hall and putting 3 interstates together will only force this bottleneck even tighter.

There's no way it could handle it. Reduction to one lane now is already a joke for a major interstate. It would have to be expanded to at least two, preferably three the entire way with A coupe of auxiliary lanes at exits. That being said if they ever did redo the loop downtown I would 100% hope that is the design.

.

I would hate to see the Broadway Bridge demolished. I like that bridge.

However, if it can't be avoided, I would like to see the replacement be an innovative design similar to this bridge being proposed in China. While this is a pedestrian bridge, this design might be adapted for a vehicle, bike, and pedestrian bridge over the Missouri.

I would also like to see the areas under the bridge along the river bank re-landscaped and designed for pedestrian access and beauty.

http://inhabitat.com/next-architects-mo ... mpetition/

"Dad, please can we drive across the bridge again! Pleeeaase....!!!"

nothing says a cool, innovative design can't be a low design.

go look at the Grand bridge over I-35 at the artistic lights
the panels on the bridges over 670

there was a really nifty thing done on the I-45 approach over the causeway to Galveston, TX, the concrete median is wave patterned for an ocean feel and the light trusses all mirrored the same. could do a KC version of that idea.

could do a colorful concrete design like a dark red for everything except the road desk why are all bridges only tan or gray?

fencing could be something other than chain link. the broadway bridge over 670 is somewhat non-standard

could do a more classic design with actual brick facings

and so on

I can't imagine a new bridge being anything but as utilitarian as the HOA bridge. Replacing the bridge will be a headache as the old one would have to be removed first. Unlike the Paseo there is no space on either side to put a new crossing. I'm sure the FAA would prefer a bridge without a high superstructure as on the current bridge. As for decommisioning the north loop: The Lewis and Clark/I-70 is the primary vehicular and truck access to the leading industrial area of KCK, Fairfax. KCK and GM just would not allow losing interstate access(despite 635 spur on the west).