A few mentions of this around the web:
http://www.downtownkc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/gdap_final_web1.pdf (http://www.downtownkc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/gdap_final_web1.pdf)
http://kansascity.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2015/01/TAP-Report-Executive-Summary-Website.pdf (http://kansascity.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2015/01/TAP-Report-Executive-Summary-Website.pdf)
It's a pretty laughable excuse for a freeway, and it's a God-awful routing for northbound I-35 traffic, so the world won't be missing much if it's gone. I presume I-35 and I-70 would use the southern portion of the loop instead, which, unfortunately, isn't much better, but, once the South Lawrence Trafficway is completed, it will be easy for long-distance traffic to bypass Downtown Kansas City from any direction.
I could see this being potentially feasible. I may draw something up that includes it and a few other concepts from that downtown plan:
- Deck over I-670 (would probably need to be widened or improved if the North Loop is taken out).
- Provide a connection between I-29/35 and the Heart of America Bridge.
- Tie US 169 more directly into the west leg of the downtown loop, or possibly relocate that closer to the railroad.
- A realigned I-35 south of downtown, closer to the railroads to the west.
I'd love to know where all the traffic's supposed to go if they do get rid of the northern leg of the Downtown Loop. There's no room to add capacity to the southern leg of the loop (I-670) and nowhere else near the city center to route a through east-west Interstate. Both the northern and southern legs are packed full of cars during a good bit of the day as it is.
How likely is it that the North Half of the Downtown Loop will be removed in the future?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 06, 2016, 06:37:11 PM
How likely is it that the North Half of the Downtown Loop will be removed in the future?
More likely than you ceasing to ask dumb questions.
Quote from: Darkchylde on May 06, 2016, 06:23:56 PM
I'd love to know where all the traffic's supposed to go if they do get rid of the northern leg of the Downtown Loop. There's no room to add capacity to the southern leg of the loop (I-670) and nowhere else near the city center to route a through east-west Interstate. Both the northern and southern legs are packed full of cars during a good bit of the day as it is.
This.
They would have to route both 35 and 70 through the southern loop and there's no room to expand 670 like Darkchylde said. And, if it hasn't been said enough already, MODOT doesn't have any money to do this project. I really hope this gets shut down.
Quote from: mvak36 on May 06, 2016, 11:54:11 PM
Quote from: Darkchylde on May 06, 2016, 06:23:56 PM
I'd love to know where all the traffic's supposed to go if they do get rid of the northern leg of the Downtown Loop. There's no room to add capacity to the southern leg of the loop (I-670) and nowhere else near the city center to route a through east-west Interstate. Both the northern and southern legs are packed full of cars during a good bit of the day as it is.
This.
They would have to route both 35 and 70 through the southern loop and there's no room to expand 670 like Darkchylde said. And, if it hasn't been said enough already, MODOT doesn't have any money to do this project. I really hope this gets shut down.
If there's too much downtown traffic after the freeway removal, then perhaps congestion pricing would be a better alternative than adding freeway capacity. Also, have you considered the possibility that the project could pay for itself in reduced maintenance costs once all those overpasses are gone?
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 07, 2016, 03:32:00 AM
If there's too much downtown traffic after the freeway removal, then perhaps congestion pricing would be a better alternative than adding freeway capacity. Also, have you considered the possibility that the project could pay for itself in reduced maintenance costs once all those overpasses are gone?
I agree on the overpass maintenance costs, but I'm not sure if they will be able to put in toll lanes (I assume that's what you meant by congestion pricing). They've been trying on and off over the years to put tolls on 70.
I took a quick look at the situation. Contrary to some claims, I think it would be possible to do something similar to 70/71 in Columbus, OH along the southern leg. Retaining walls would likely be needed, but those retaining walls could also serve as the anchor for the proposed/suggested freeway lid. Another factor in favor of widening the southern leg is that an extra-wide left shoulder already exists in the eastbound direction. The only potential pinch point would be where the AT&T building is on Oak St.
Would it be expensive? Yes. Would it be painful during construction? Probably. But that doesn't mean it isn't technically feasible. I do believe it is.
Does this mean that there won't be EXITS 2A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-J-K-L-M-N-P-Q-R-S-T-U-V-W-X-Y anymore? :-(
I always wondered what would happen if someone took a small radius downtown urban loop and made it into a 6-8 Lane one direction counter clockwise fully access controlled loop.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on July 29, 2016, 11:03:23 PM
I always wondered what would happen if someone took a small radius downtown urban loop and made it into a 6-8 Lane one direction counter clockwise fully access controlled loop.
I've actually thought that would be a good idea for the Downtown Kansas City freeway loop, but you'd have to redo a ton of the ramps. Removing the worst one or two segments of the loop seems more economically feasible.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on July 29, 2016, 11:03:23 PM
I always wondered what would happen if someone took a small radius downtown urban loop and made it into a 6-8 Lane one direction counter clockwise fully access controlled loop.
That would actually be really interesting to see! Basically it would be like a giant roundabout. :)
You know, I'm all for that idea, however ambitious it sounds.
FWIW, about 25 years ago, I found on the shelf of ODU in Norfolk the study report (Parson's-Brinkerhoff?) that laid out the design for the KC inner loop.
Quote from: compdude787 on July 30, 2016, 08:08:00 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on July 29, 2016, 11:03:23 PM
I always wondered what would happen if someone took a small radius downtown urban loop and made it into a 6-8 Lane one direction counter clockwise fully access controlled loop.
That would actually be really interesting to see! Basically it would be like a giant roundabout. :)
And it might also allow for better separation between express and local traffic on the expressways. (I.e. separating the traffic wanting to exit onto Downtwn streets vs. traffic that is driving through downtown to interchange between I-29, I-70, I-35, and US 71/I-49. Of course, if it were to actually happen in KC, you'd need to redo a lot of the existing ramps to accommodate a one-way loop.
There was talk about doing that with I-5 and I-405 in Portland, reserving the bottom decks of the Marquam and Fremont Bridges for local traffic.
How about this, route 70 on the southern leg, and onto 670, remove the northern leg and the rest of 70, connect 169 to be a continuous part of the west leg of the loop. replace the north leg with an at grade boulevard, with roundabouts instead of signals. Crazy or feasible?
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 20, 2016, 06:40:14 PM
How about this, route 70 on the southern leg, and onto 670, remove the northern leg and the rest of 70, connect 169 to be a continuous part of the west leg of the loop. replace the north leg with an at grade boulevard, with roundabouts instead of signals. Crazy or feasible?
But you're still left with this issue (see below). Changing the numbers doesn't magically make vehicles disappear.
Quote from: mvak36 on May 06, 2016, 11:54:11 PM
Quote from: Darkchylde on May 06, 2016, 06:23:56 PM
I'd love to know where all the traffic's supposed to go if they do get rid of the northern leg of the Downtown Loop. There's no room to add capacity to the southern leg of the loop (I-670) and nowhere else near the city center to route a through east-west Interstate. Both the northern and southern legs are packed full of cars during a good bit of the day as it is.
This.
They would have to route both 35 and 70 through the southern loop and there's no room to expand 670 like Darkchylde said. And, if it hasn't been said enough already, MODOT doesn't have any money to do this project. I really hope this gets shut down.
Quote from: kphoger on September 20, 2016, 06:50:37 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 20, 2016, 06:40:14 PM
How about this, route 70 on the southern leg, and onto 670, remove the northern leg and the rest of 70, connect 169 to be a continuous part of the west leg of the loop. replace the north leg with an at grade boulevard, with roundabouts instead of signals. Crazy or feasible?
But you're still left with this issue (see below). Changing the numbers doesn't magically make vehicles disappear.
Quote from: mvak36 on May 06, 2016, 11:54:11 PM
Quote from: Darkchylde on May 06, 2016, 06:23:56 PM
I'd love to know where all the traffic's supposed to go if they do get rid of the northern leg of the Downtown Loop. There's no room to add capacity to the southern leg of the loop (I-670) and nowhere else near the city center to route a through east-west Interstate. Both the northern and southern legs are packed full of cars during a good bit of the day as it is.
This.
They would have to route both 35 and 70 through the southern loop and there's no room to expand 670 like Darkchylde said. And, if it hasn't been said enough already, MODOT doesn't have any money to do this project. I really hope this gets shut down.
you have a point, just an idea. It would look a lot like downtown indy's 3 leg inner loop, with west street being the secret 4th leg. If it were all at grade, you could add more lanes, but it would get dangerous for bikers and peds with it being at grade.