I-70

[TheLastGentleman]

DO. NOT. WIDEN. FREEWAYS.

[Sani]

DO. NOT. WIDEN. FREEWAYS.

Dude. I swear. One more lane. Just one more lane, bro, and then traffic will be fixed. C'mon, just one more lane, man!

[KCPowercat]

70 traffic is pud now and has been pre-pandemic.

[DaveKCMO]

DO. NOT. WIDEN. FREEWAYS.

Lauren Arthur and the Senate Dems on Twitter touting I-70 widening in the new budget. What climate change? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[TheLastGentleman]

DO. NOT. WIDEN. FREEWAYS.

Lauren Arthur and the Senate Dems on Twitter touting I-70 widening in the new budget. What climate change? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Bad urban policy is the last bipartisan issue I guess

[rxlexi]

I guess I'm late to this. I ran across the preferred alternative for 70 from Paseo to US-40.

https://www.modot.org/sites/default/fil ... -12-30.pdf

I find it interesting that they would do all that reconstruction and would not make the entire corridor 4 lanes each way. I'm not typically one for adding lanes, but 4 lanes on each side is sort of the standard for urban freeways and it always seemed like 70 on the entire MO side of metro KC should be 4 lanes each way from downtown to Blue Springs. Going beyond 8 lanes is where you start to really lose efficiency. Transit is great and induced demand and all that, but KC has no regional transit to really speak of and likely never will. And if 70 ever warrants widening past 8 lanes, then I would hope there is some sort of transit being built by then.

Just saying if this is what they plan to build that will last for the next 50 years, it seems a bit short sighted.

I mean I almost feel like MoDot is just being cheap with KC again. I mean is there even a six lane interstate left within 30 miles of St Louis? Metro KC still has 2lane each way lane interstates (35, 29 in northlnad, 470 out east etc). Just saying if you are going to do such an invasive massive reconstruction project, that should not be touched for 30-50 years at least build it to basic metropolitan interstate standards.

Agree with this. Understand the frustrations with continued freeway expansion projects, but 70 on the MO side of KC really needs to be revamped, and capacity added between downtown and Blue Springs while they're modernizing it.

One drive anywhere in the STL metro, including distant exurbs, makes clear the vast disparity in transportation funding/budget in KC vis a vis STL.

[dukuboy1]

I guess I'm late to this. I ran across the preferred alternative for 70 from Paseo to US-40.

https://www.modot.org/sites/default/fil ... -12-30.pdf

I find it interesting that they would do all that reconstruction and would not make the entire corridor 4 lanes each way. I'm not typically one for adding lanes, but 4 lanes on each side is sort of the standard for urban freeways and it always seemed like 70 on the entire MO side of metro KC should be 4 lanes each way from downtown to Blue Springs. Going beyond 8 lanes is where you start to really lose efficiency. Transit is great and induced demand and all that, but KC has no regional transit to really speak of and likely never will. And if 70 ever warrants widening past 8 lanes, then I would hope there is some sort of transit being built by then.

Just saying if this is what they plan to build that will last for the next 50 years, it seems a bit short sighted.

I mean I almost feel like MoDot is just being cheap with KC again. I mean is there even a six lane interstate left within 30 miles of St Louis? Metro KC still has 2lane each way lane interstates (35, 29 in northlnad, 470 out east etc). Just saying if you are going to do such an invasive massive reconstruction project, that should not be touched for 30-50 years at least build it to basic metropolitan interstate standards.

Agree with this. Understand the frustrations with continued freeway expansion projects, but 70 on the MO side of KC really needs to be revamped, and capacity added between downtown and Blue Springs while they're modernizing it.

One drive anywhere in the STL metro, including distant exurbs, makes clear the vast disparity in transportation funding/budget in KC vis a vis STL.

thank you for this and you are spot on 100%. Take I-64 from downtown out to Chesterfield and you will notice a world of difference in the maintenance. * even modern aesthetics of the overpasses with nice looking signage, clearly marked lanes, etc. My guess is STL got a lot of those improvements about 10-15yrs ago so KC is certainly due for improvements.

I get not wanting to have this from a transit standpoint but the reality is people drive cars, and will continue to drive cars. We need to invest in making that drive as easy & efficient as possible. The worse a road or road system, the more issues it can cause on a ripple effect. Do you think cars idling on the highway in a huge traffic snarl turning a 15min trip into 45-60 mins is the answer for better environmental impacts vs. getting people to where they need to go faster and turn off their car? Plus if more electric cars are on the road that is better for "going green" but I'm pretty sure electric cars use the same damn road system. So improvements are needed for sure and they can play well with what is on the horizon.

We would all like mass transit, rail system of some sort. But people have to use it. I think if you build they will come for sure but how many. STL has light rail, which is utilized but still has bad traffic. I do not know what is the best answer but making improvements to the current system is a win for sure as it does help. More is needed and cities need to look at investing back in mass transit and the Urban core. KC is trying but so are a lot of other peer cities. No easy solution.

[beautyfromashes]

One drive anywhere in the STL metro, including distant exurbs, makes clear the vast disparity in transportation funding/budget in KC vis a vis STL.

This will be that cities downfall. You already are starting to see it. They've incentivized people to move to the distant suburbs and the core is taking a hit for it with increased crime, neglect and loss of corporate presence. With an increased demand for urban fabric, Kansas City is in a prime position to pass them, and other peer cities, for vibrancy and renewal.

[FangKC]

Adding lanes to freeways only ends in more car traffic on them, and then slows traffic again. Part of the reason for this is because it encourages more edge suburban development on raw land -- at the expense of density in the urban core-- and then that traffic creates a new backup. I lived in Phoenix and saw this play out in real-time.

Kansas City even has undeveloped land within 10 minutes of downtown and we are still building new subdivisions on the edge!

[TheBigChuckbowski]

We need to invest in making that drive as easy & efficient as possible. The worse a road or road system, the more issues it can cause on a ripple effect. Do you think cars idling on the highway in a huge traffic snarl turning a 15min trip into 45-60 mins is the answer for better environmental impacts vs. getting people to where they need to go faster and turn off their car? Plus if more electric cars are on the road that is better for "going green" but I'm pretty sure electric cars use the same damn road system.

No, expanding highways is not "going green." No, we should not invest in people moving to Blue Springs.

[taxi]

Nobody takes I-70 anymore. It's too crowded.

[Sani]

I agree we shouldn't widen freeways for the sake of added capacity, but I do think a lot of I-70 needs to be improved to modern safety standards. That was the main reason for The New I-64 in St. Louis. Some of the bridges dated back to the 1930s, and the interchanges were designed before engineers really understood how to build them, frankly. There were lots of small hills blocking forward visibility and tight curves. Only half of the project added an additional lane in each direction.

For I-70, I don't think it's a matter of widening for widening's sake, but much of it does need to be rebuilt with modern geometry requirements, and we may not need three lanes across the whole state, but some portions in KC, Columbia, and STL do need it with the existing volume of traffic.

[GRID]

I agree we shouldn't widen freeways for the sake of added capacity, but I do think a lot of I-70 needs to be improved to modern safety standards. That was the main reason for The New I-64 in St. Louis. Some of the bridges dated back to the 1930s, and the interchanges were designed before engineers really understood how to build them, frankly. There were lots of small hills blocking forward visibility and tight curves. Only half of the project added an additional lane in each direction.

For I-70, I don't think it's a matter of widening for widening's sake, but much of it does need to be rebuilt with modern geometry requirements, and we may not need three lanes across the whole state, but some portions in KC, Columbia, and STL do need it with the existing volume of traffic.

I was just surprised they didn't just make the whole thing 8 lanes vs like 80% of it that's all. Seems like you can rebuild it, straighten the curves and add the lane and not have to touch it for a long time. Regardless, it will be nice when its rebuilt. I-70 through KC makes the city feel very old and deteriorating.

And 70 only needs to be widened in a few sections across MO. It should be six lanes to Oak Grove at the very least. 70 in the Blue Springs, Grain Valley area is flat out dangerous. Especially around Adams Dairy.

[aknowledgeableperson]

At one time wasn't there an option to rebuild I70 with some improvements and improve US Highway 36 across Missouri to interstate highway standards and tying into I72 on the Illinois side and eventually connecting to I70 in Topeka on the Kansas side? Thought the total cost would be about the same as the current plans for I70. That would have lighten the load on I70 by giving an alternate route to and from Chicago and the west. Thought the economic interests of the businesses along I70 was against this plan.

[dnweava]

Adding lanes to freeways only ends in more car traffic on them, and then slows traffic again. Part of the reason for this is because it encourages more edge suburban development on raw land -- at the expense of density in the urban core-- and then that traffic creates a new backup. I lived in Phoenix and saw this play out in real-time.

Kansas City even has undeveloped land within 10 minutes of downtown and we are still building new subdivisions on the edge!

It's 100% the schools. If Raytown had the better rated schools, people wouldn't have leapfrogged over it to live in Lee's summit.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Adding lanes to freeways only ends in more car traffic on them, and then slows traffic again. Part of the reason for this is because it encourages more edge suburban development on raw land -- at the expense of density in the urban core-- and then that traffic creates a new backup. I lived in Phoenix and saw this play out in real-time.

Kansas City even has undeveloped land within 10 minutes of downtown and we are still building new subdivisions on the edge!

It's 100% the schools. If Raytown had the better rated schools, people wouldn't have leapfrogged over it to live in Lee's summit.

I'm not sure about the quality of education now in the Raytown schools but it wasn't that long ago it was rated very good. Most of the area in Raytown was developed long ago and Lees Summit has been building up for decades now.

[dukuboy1]

We need to invest in making that drive as easy & efficient as possible. The worse a road or road system, the more issues it can cause on a ripple effect. Do you think cars idling on the highway in a huge traffic snarl turning a 15min trip into 45-60 mins is the answer for better environmental impacts vs. getting people to where they need to go faster and turn off their car? Plus if more electric cars are on the road that is better for "going green" but I'm pretty sure electric cars use the same damn road system.

No, expanding highways is not "going green." No, we should not invest in people moving to Blue Springs.

agree to disagree, thanks for your mature response. Facts are facts. People are going to live all over the Metro. Density is a goal for sure but I70 needs help for sure. It has been neglected for far too long

[DaveKCMO]

There's a lot of space between maintenance and addressing safety issues (like the curves and too-short downtown ramps, which are unfortunately outside of the scope of the project) and widening 190 miles of mostly rural interstate.

[dakkottadavviss]

It looks pretty likely that they’re gonna move forward with widening I-70 across the state. The new budget has 2.8 billion in funding to expand I-70. Yikes. Like 10% of that would be enough to fund a new 5-10 mile long light rail line. Can’t ever expect this state to put more than a few pennies into public transit…

[Chris Stritzel]

It looks pretty likely that they’re gonna move forward with widening I-70 across the state. The new budget has 2.8 billion in funding to expand I-70. Yikes. Like 10% of that would be enough to fund a new 5-10 mile long light rail line. Can’t ever expect this state to put more than a few pennies into public transit…

I wish we could build a light rail line of that length for $280 million. North-South MetroLink in St. Louis costs over a billion dollars for a route from Grand and Natural Bridge to Chippewa and Jefferson via Jefferson. Perhaps that would get a federal match with some local funds, but even then, we’d need more money. 20% of the I-70 funds + federal match would likely yield enough for a great light rail line.