KCRag Forum

bus-on-shoulder was eliminated from the "preferred alternative".

missouri has a waiver to toll existing I-70 lanes. expect this to be a hot topic in 2015 since voters and the legislature have continually botched new funding schemes for transportation.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... ll&ana=twt

DaveKCMO wrote:missouri has a waiver to toll existing I-70 lanes. expect this to be a hot topic in 2015 since voters and the legislature have continually botched new funding schemes for transportation.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... ll&ana=twt

Luckily Missouri has two usable alternative routes. One is actually a preferred alternative to I-70 to Chicago!
I would expect tolling to come in well under expectations.

As I recall the private tollways in Texas and Indiana have this problem.

I don't remember what the toll routes are in Austin, but everyone I talked to about it indicated that nobody uses them and they are largely regarded as stupid.

News: https://www.kansascity.com/news/politic ... 81977.html
Editorial: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/edit ... 30357.html

“Assuming there’s congestion, do roadway expansions work? The short answer is no.”
"Will future Kansas Citians look back at the 2020s wondering if more, wider highways were the best we could imagine?"

"But that's what everyone else did and it didn't work, so why can't we do it here and have it also not work?"

Has anyone ever looked at just wholly removing 71? Seems like we could replace with a boulevard and be fine. 70 probably not, but maybe we can improve shielding.

alejandro46 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 6:05 pm Has anyone ever looked at just wholly removing 71? Seems like we could replace with a boulevard and be fine. 70 probably not, but maybe we can improve shielding.

I’ve always thought that could be a good ROW for LRT in the future, you’d have much better development patterns adjacent to a ROW for rail than Roads

alejandro46 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 6:05 pm Has anyone ever looked at just wholly removing 71? Seems like we could replace with a boulevard and be fine. 70 probably not, but maybe we can improve shielding.

Might be too new to consider right now. Might have to wait long while longer. I think removing the north and east loops are the discussion we're going to have moving forward. South will just become the rerouted I-70 and the west will remain as the link to 35 (and maybe 169 will partially become 35 up to 29 where it then shares a route to the current split just north of North KC).

Be bold, make it a 20 year project. Things are going to happen fast, I imagine, once generations finally swap control.

alejandro46 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 6:05 pm Has anyone ever looked at just wholly removing 71? Seems like we could replace with a boulevard and be fine. 70 probably not, but maybe we can improve shielding.

Political hot potato

There are decades of acrimony around what we now call US-71 aka The Bruce Watkins Freeway. It was a politically hot item in the 1940s (had some Central High versus Paseo High overtones), and continued to be until current day. Lots of racial overtones in the 1960s and 1970s. That highway has actually outlived most of the neighborhoods it severed.

Don't know what that last sentence means. I live 4 blocks from 71 and my neighborhood is not dead. Please do not turn 71 into a parkway. There already is a parkway parallel (Paseo). All that truck traffic on a surface road braking and then gearing up would be a horrible noise nuisance, as it is along 71 south of Brush Creek. Freeway access is actually helping renaissance in adjacent neighborhoods now, people who want to live in the city, but have easy access to the rest of the metro.

moderne wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:54 pm Don't know what that last sentence means. I live 4 blocks from 71 and my neighborhood is not dead. Please do not turn 71 into a parkway. There already is a parkway parallel (Paseo). All that truck traffic on a surface road braking and then gearing up would be a horrible noise nuisance, as it is along 71 south of Brush Creek. Freeway access is actually helping renaissance in adjacent neighborhoods now, people who want to live in the city, but have easy access to the rest of the metro.

I mean, sounds like something that is worth studying, right? Wouldn't most of the truck traffic just take 435->I70?

Is all I'm asking is has there ever been a study done, not 100% let's remove it etc. I know there is the current study being done as far as I know, but I think that's more mitigation.

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.

Is it any different? Seems the same?

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:47 pm Is it any different? Seems the same?

Total reconstruction. Straightening the curves etc. They do look to have four lanes going east from downtown most of the way to 40 but only 3 lanes going west till around Benton, so similar to what it is now.

Adding that fourth lane would probably require enough additional property purchases to drive up the cost significantly. I know that was a big part of why Highway 40/Interstate 64 in St. Louis was rebuilt with six lanes instead of eight from Kingshighway to I-170.

GRID wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:48 pm

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:47 pm Is it any different? Seems the same?

Total reconstruction. Straightening the curves etc. They do look to have four lanes going east from downtown most of the way to 40 but only 3 lanes going west till around Benton, so similar to what it is now.

ahh okay now I see where the current road is. Yeah I mean not a lot of room to work with I guess but seems whatever. is there any cool new interchange designs to help manage traffic in unique ways given lack of space?

I know it doesn't show it here but does this hamper any hope of a nice east loop if they are tying it in on the west side basically the "same"?

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:53 pm

GRID wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:48 pm

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:47 pm Is it any different? Seems the same?

Total reconstruction. Straightening the curves etc. They do look to have four lanes going east from downtown most of the way to 40 but only 3 lanes going west till around Benton, so similar to what it is now.

ahh okay now I see where the current road is. Yeah I mean not a lot of room to work with I guess but seems whatever. is there any cool new interchange designs to help manage traffic in unique ways given lack of space?

I know it doesn't show it here but does this hamper any hope of a nice east loop if they are tying it in on the west side basically the "same"?

No, this is just east of Paseo. That's probably why they are not doing anything west of Paseo because nobody knows what is happening with the loop.

I think there is room for an additional WB lane without taking much property. It sees like it's just a cost thing. Or Traffic volumes are actually going down on I-70.

It's kind of like the Streetcar. You spend years rebuilding the corridor, you would think Main Street would get a total reconstruction with new sidewalks, curbs etc while they are doing it. Most of the cost is utilities etc, so take advantage of the situation. You don't get many chances to rebuild a corridor like that.

But budgets are tight.

GRID wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 7:57 pm

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:53 pm

GRID wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:48 pm

Total reconstruction. Straightening the curves etc. They do look to have four lanes going east from downtown most of the way to 40 but only 3 lanes going west till around Benton, so similar to what it is now.

ahh okay now I see where the current road is. Yeah I mean not a lot of room to work with I guess but seems whatever. is there any cool new interchange designs to help manage traffic in unique ways given lack of space?

I know it doesn't show it here but does this hamper any hope of a nice east loop if they are tying it in on the west side basically the "same"?

No, this is just east of Paseo. That's probably why they are not doing anything west of Paseo because nobody knows what is happening with the loop.

I think there is room for an additional WB lane without taking much property. It sees like it's just a cost thing. Or Traffic volumes are actually going down on I-70.

It's kind of like the Streetcar. You spend years rebuilding the corridor, you would think Main Street would get a total reconstruction with new sidewalks, curbs etc while they are doing it. Most of the cost is utilities etc, so take advantage of the situation. You don't get many chances to rebuild a corridor like that.

But budgets are tight.

Ahh okay cool, now I see it ends at Paseo well before the loop interchange. I should pay more attention before posting nonsense questions.