Missouri

[aboges26]

Does anyone know where the line "Exit 157" on US 36 in Hannibal for the MO 79 interchange came from? Starting from the KS/MO line in St Joseph, that exit is at milepost 191, and should really be exit 191.

Using driving directions on Google from about the green box with 157 to the west side ramp at I-35 I get a distance of 157 miles.

I-35 is the zero point if I-72 is extended across Missouri.  Short-sighted to not use the Kansas stateline, but it is supposed to be more "realistic".

[mvak36]

Does anyone know where the line "Exit 157" on US 36 in Hannibal for the MO 79 interchange came from? Starting from the KS/MO line in St Joseph, that exit is at milepost 191, and should really be exit 191.

Using driving directions on Google from about the green box with 157 to the west side ramp at I-35 I get a distance of 157 miles.

I-35 is the zero point if I-72 is extended across Missouri.  Short-sighted to not use the Kansas stateline, but it is supposed to be more "realistic".

If they extend it west of I-35 (highly unlikely), it would only go till I-29. Not sure that they would need to go west of 29 since they're looking into possibly de-designating I-229.

[roadman65]

https://www.aaroads.com/guides/us-169-south-kansas-city-mo/#gallery-65

  Nice.



https://www.aaroads.com/guides/us-169-south-kansas-city-mo/#gallery-58

Is there supposed to be a US 40 shield here? If there was, why are all those removed as every shield assembly on US 169 south at the exchange south of the Buck O' Neil Bridge has an open space where a US 40 shield exists?

[skluth]

Does anyone know where the line "Exit 157" on US 36 in Hannibal for the MO 79 interchange came from? Starting from the KS/MO line in St Joseph, that exit is at milepost 191, and should really be exit 191.

Using driving directions on Google from about the green box with 157 to the west side ramp at I-35 I get a distance of 157 miles.

I-35 is the zero point if I-72 is extended across Missouri.  Short-sighted to not use the Kansas stateline, but it is supposed to be more "realistic".

If they extend it west of I-35 (highly unlikely), it would only go till I-29. Not sure that they would need to go west of 29 since they're looking into possibly de-designating I-229.

US 36 is already a freeway west of I-29 to Kansas except for the interchange with I-229. It continues as a freeway a couple miles east of I-29. It would not be difficult to eliminate the stoplight at the I-229 interchange, especially given the discussion to remove I-229.

[mvak36]

Does anyone know where the line "Exit 157" on US 36 in Hannibal for the MO 79 interchange came from? Starting from the KS/MO line in St Joseph, that exit is at milepost 191, and should really be exit 191.

Using driving directions on Google from about the green box with 157 to the west side ramp at I-35 I get a distance of 157 miles.

I-35 is the zero point if I-72 is extended across Missouri.  Short-sighted to not use the Kansas stateline, but it is supposed to be more "realistic".

If they extend it west of I-35 (highly unlikely), it would only go till I-29. Not sure that they would need to go west of 29 since they're looking into possibly de-designating I-229.

US 36 is already a freeway west of I-29 to Kansas except for the interchange with I-229. It continues as a freeway a couple miles east of I-29. It would not be difficult to eliminate the stoplight at the I-229 interchange, especially given the discussion to remove I-229.

Yes it is freeway west of there but my question would be where would they extend it to? The state line or further west into Kansas?


iPhone

[SkyPesos]

Does anyone know where the line "Exit 157" on US 36 in Hannibal for the MO 79 interchange came from? Starting from the KS/MO line in St Joseph, that exit is at milepost 191, and should really be exit 191.

Using driving directions on Google from about the green box with 157 to the west side ramp at I-35 I get a distance of 157 miles.

I-35 is the zero point if I-72 is extended across Missouri.  Short-sighted to not use the Kansas stateline, but it is supposed to be more "realistic".

If they extend it west of I-35 (highly unlikely), it would only go till I-29. Not sure that they would need to go west of 29 since they're looking into possibly de-designating I-229.

US 36 is already a freeway west of I-29 to Kansas except for the interchange with I-229. It continues as a freeway a couple miles east of I-29. It would not be difficult to eliminate the stoplight at the I-229 interchange, especially given the discussion to remove I-229.

Yes it is freeway west of there but my question would be where would they extend it to? The state line or further west into Kansas?


iPhone

I'm thinking just the state line. There isn't really anything in Kansas west of St Joseph that needs an interstate.

[mvak36]

Does anyone know where the line "Exit 157" on US 36 in Hannibal for the MO 79 interchange came from? Starting from the KS/MO line in St Joseph, that exit is at milepost 191, and should really be exit 191.

Using driving directions on Google from about the green box with 157 to the west side ramp at I-35 I get a distance of 157 miles.

I-35 is the zero point if I-72 is extended across Missouri.  Short-sighted to not use the Kansas stateline, but it is supposed to be more "realistic".

If they extend it west of I-35 (highly unlikely), it would only go till I-29. Not sure that they would need to go west of 29 since they're looking into possibly de-designating I-229.

US 36 is already a freeway west of I-29 to Kansas except for the interchange with I-229. It continues as a freeway a couple miles east of I-29. It would not be difficult to eliminate the stoplight at the I-229 interchange, especially given the discussion to remove I-229.

Yes it is freeway west of there but my question would be where would they extend it to? The state line or further west into Kansas?


iPhone

I'm thinking just the state line. There isn't really anything in Kansas west of St Joseph that needs an interstate.

This is just my opinion, but it seems like if there are no plans to do anything in Kansas, then I don't think they need to go past I-29. The mile markers could still be from the state line.

Again this is all hypothetical. Let's see if Missouri will build it to I-35 first.

[SkyPesos]

This is just my opinion, but it seems like if there are no plans to do anything in Kansas, then I don't think they need to go past I-29. The mile markers could still be from the state line.

Again this is all hypothetical. Let's see if Missouri will build it to I-35 first.

Could do something similar to I-22 in MS, where the mile markers use US 78's since it goes a bit further west than I-22 to the TN state line. In this case, I-72 could end at I-29 (or even I-35 if it's just planned to cover MO 110), and use US 36's mileage, starting at "exit 6"  for I-29, or "exit 55"  for I-35.

[splashflash]

Although MoDOT has funding issues, I don't care for the large jog MO 125 gets with Concept 2.

That was my first thought too.  But, upon further reflection, I realized I've never used MO-125 as a straight-through route there, and I've hardly ever seen a driver doing so either.  It's my experience that most people are getting on or off US-60 at that point.

Looks like this is moving forward:

The project will cost $25.5 million and is being funded through a cost-share with the City of Rogersville and Greene County. Sanders said if funding is available, an outer road will be constructed between Route 125 and Farm Road 243 to connect existing businesses and homes. The city of Rogersville and Greene County are looking into ways to fund the outer road construction.

https://youtu.be/KRh5HEw5KbM

Revised concept 1

[mvak36]

https://www.kmmo.com/2021/11/12/modot-invites-public-to-discuss-priority-unfunded-transportation-needs/

Missouri's transportation system is a tremendous asset to the citizens of Missouri. The system consists of 33,830 miles of roads and 10,399 bridges, both of which rank among the largest for any state in the nation.

The Missouri Department of Transportation, working with its statewide regional planning partners, have identified $1 billion in annual unfunded needs. From the broader unfunded needs, MoDOT has developed a High Priority Unfunded Needs list to guide the development of projects into funded projects as state and federal transportation funds increase.

According to a news release, public meetings will be held across the state from Nov. 16 through Dec. 9. The full list of the meeting dates, time and locations are here.

A meeting located in the KMMO listening area is scheduled to be held at the Warrensburg Municipal Court, located at 200 South Holden Street, from 4 to 6 p.m. Thursday, December 9.

MoDOT officials say since the passage of Missouri's additional 12.5 cent motor fuel tax increase in July, MoDOT staff have worked with metropolitan planning organizations and regional planning commissions throughout the state to develop a list of high priority unfunded road and bridge needs.

The draft project-specific lists include $4.5 billion of road and bridge projects in three tiers.

Tier one includes $543 million and includes projects we could accomplish in the time of the current five-year Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as federal and state funding levels increase. These projects have good estimates. Tier two is worth $2.1 billion and includes projects beyond the current STIP time-frame with broader estimates. Tier three includes $2.2 billion of projects that are also beyond the current STIP time-frame with broader estimates. In addition, MoDOT staff worked with the planning partners to identify $1 billion in multimodal needs.

The draft document and comment forms are available online through December 22. For more information, call MoDOT at 888-ASK-MODOT (275-6636) or visit www.modot.org.

Draft document located at: https://www.modot.org/unfundedneeds
Public Meeting Schedule: https://www.modot.org/high-priority-unfunded-needs-public-meetings

[rarnold]

Connect a future I-72 with I-70 and I-335/Kansas Turnpike in Topeka. The Kansas City area would be upset (so it will never happen) but it would take some pressure off of I-35 in Johnson County and bring some traffic that is headed to the west/southwest off of I-70 in Missouri.

[SkyPesos]

Connect a future I-72 with I-70 and I-335/Kansas Turnpike in Topeka. The Kansas City area would be upset (so it will never happen) but it would take some pressure off of I-35 in Johnson County and bring some traffic that is headed to the west/southwest off of I-70 in Missouri.

Why would they be upset that a bypass shaves off traffic in their area? I thought they would like having a bit less congestion.

[skluth]

Connect a future I-72 with I-70 and I-335/Kansas Turnpike in Topeka. The Kansas City area would be upset (so it will never happen) but it would take some pressure off of I-35 in Johnson County and bring some traffic that is headed to the west/southwest off of I-70 in Missouri.

Why would they be upset that a bypass shaves off traffic in their area? I thought they would like having a bit less congestion.

It doesn't have to be an interstate. Kansas could build a toll road from Topeka to US 36 across from St Joseph. The new toll road could also pay for upgrading KS 4 to four lanes across the Kansas River.

[Revive 755]

Draft document located at: https://www.modot.org/unfundedneeds
Public Meeting Schedule: https://www.modot.org/high-priority-unfunded-needs-public-meetings

From Page 34 (or 35/73) of the draft document:

KANSAS CITY URBAN JACKSON US 71 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ACROSS BRUCE R. WATKINS $25,2544

Really curious to see what type of safety improvements MoDOT has in mind.

EDIT:  From Page 38:

OUTHWEST RURAL JASPER MO 171 LANE EXTENSIONS, GUARDRAIL UPGRADES, AND SIGNAGE FOR INTERSTATE DESIGNATION FROM I‐49 TO I‐44. $2,013

[mvak36]

Draft document located at: https://www.modot.org/unfundedneeds
Public Meeting Schedule: https://www.modot.org/high-priority-unfunded-needs-public-meetings

From Page 34 (or 35/73) of the draft document:

KANSAS CITY URBAN JACKSON US 71 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ACROSS BRUCE R. WATKINS $25,2544

Really curious to see what type of safety improvements MoDOT has in mind.

That's interesting. I'm not sure what they can do for the stoplight part without the removal of the injunction. Maybe it's for the freeway parts of Bruce Watkins.

I thought another interesting project I saw was on page 37 (38 of 73 of pdf) where they talk about the companion bridge to the I-70 Mississippi River bridge. Are they expecting a huge traffic increase that they need another bridge?

[ilpt4u]

I thought another interesting project I saw was on page 37 (38 of 73 of pdf) where they talk about the companion bridge to the I-70 Mississippi River bridge. Are they expecting a huge traffic increase that they need another bridge?

I'd rather see access to the Stan Span from the Inbound I-70 Express Lanes before getting the companion bridge

[rarnold]

Connect a future I-72 with I-70 and I-335/Kansas Turnpike in Topeka. The Kansas City area would be upset (so it will never happen) but it would take some pressure off of I-35 in Johnson County and bring some traffic that is headed to the west/southwest off of I-70 in Missouri.

Why would they be upset that a bypass shaves off traffic in their area? I thought they would like having a bit less congestion.

Businesses would be upset. Less traffic would mean fewer people purchasing goods and services. Yes, less congestion would be a plus, but losing out on the business would lead to complaints to legislators, thus killing the project.

[rarnold]

Connect a future I-72 with I-70 and I-335/Kansas Turnpike in Topeka. The Kansas City area would be upset (so it will never happen) but it would take some pressure off of I-35 in Johnson County and bring some traffic that is headed to the west/southwest off of I-70 in Missouri.

Why would they be upset that a bypass shaves off traffic in their area? I thought they would like having a bit less congestion.

It doesn't have to be an interstate. Kansas could build a toll road from Topeka to US 36 across from St Joseph. The new toll road could also pay for upgrading KS 4 to four lanes across the Kansas River.

Sure, I am okay with a toll road. In fact, I remember seeing that elsewhere, expanding the turnpike to Atchison.

[Revive 755]

I thought another interesting project I saw was on page 37 (38 of 73 of pdf) where they talk about the companion bridge to the I-70 Mississippi River bridge. Are they expecting a huge traffic increase that they need another bridge?

Might be nice to have for the next time there is work on the PSB and the MLK and/or Eads Bridges are unavailable.  Plus MoDOT won't build access between the Stan Span and the south without the second bridge.

[SkyPesos]

Isn't the current Stan Spam wide enough for reconfiguring to 6 lanes? If so, I don't see the need for a twin span for a long time. At this time, it's better to replace and widen the I-270 Mississippi River crossing first imo.

[mvak36]

Isn't the current Stan Spam wide enough for reconfiguring to 6 lanes? If so, I don't see the need for a twin span for a long time. At this time, it's better to replace and widen the I-270 Mississippi River crossing first imo.

It could be widened to 6, but then there would be no room for the shoulders.

That second span was listed in Tier 3 of the Unfunded needs so it's not like they need to do it anytime soon. I'm guessing with this extra money they're getting from the bill, they will probably finish the Tier 1 and part of Tier 2 projects and the rest get moved up the list.

[Scott5114]

Connect a future I-72 with I-70 and I-335/Kansas Turnpike in Topeka. The Kansas City area would be upset (so it will never happen) but it would take some pressure off of I-35 in Johnson County and bring some traffic that is headed to the west/southwest off of I-70 in Missouri.

Why would they be upset that a bypass shaves off traffic in their area? I thought they would like having a bit less congestion.

Businesses would be upset. Less traffic would mean fewer people purchasing goods and services. Yes, less congestion would be a plus, but losing out on the business would lead to complaints to legislators, thus killing the project.

A city the size of Kansas City doesn't depend on pass-through traffic as a major part of its economy. If you're doing business in Kansas City, it's because you are in Kansas City for a reason. Hallmark, Sprint, and H&R Block are not going to give a damn if I-72 lets people bypass KC or not.

[SkyPesos]

Connect a future I-72 with I-70 and I-335/Kansas Turnpike in Topeka. The Kansas City area would be upset (so it will never happen) but it would take some pressure off of I-35 in Johnson County and bring some traffic that is headed to the west/southwest off of I-70 in Missouri.

Why would they be upset that a bypass shaves off traffic in their area? I thought they would like having a bit less congestion.

Businesses would be upset. Less traffic would mean fewer people purchasing goods and services. Yes, less congestion would be a plus, but losing out on the business would lead to complaints to legislators, thus killing the project.

Highly doubt. Or else St Louis would've complained to legislators when I-57, and later the US 36 widening, became a thing, and that it's less people going through the city using I-55 and I-70. Kansas City just happen to not have any long-distance bypasses yet.

[mvak36]

I know I've said in this thread that I-72 doesn't need to go past I-29 but if they find the money and political will to build it all the way to Topeka, then go right ahead .

Effectively, it seems like it would be a bypass of I-70 in Missouri. I don't think anyone would complain if some of the truck traffic gets reduced on 70.

[mvak36]

https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/11/buc-ees-travel-center-headed-springfield-council-debates-incentive/9124629002/

Once built, the superstore will be located just northeast of Springfield at the intersection of I-44 and Mulroy Road. Beard said the chain hopes to break ground sometime this year and finish construction 12 to 15 months after that.

Looks like I'll be making a trip down to Springfield when this opens .