I-49 Coming to Missouri

[skluth]

Are the two short, wide median sections of Bruce Watkins Drive the only reason I-49 ends at I-435?  By looking at Google Maps, it would not take much in the ROW available to put a freeway through there.  However, it depends on the area residents and money available for this to possibly happen.

Bruce Watkins Drive is the way it is because of a court order. It's a long story.

In other words, no matter how many people get killed on it, there will be no freeway upgrades for as long as that court order is in place.

It wouldn't matter even if local people wanted it upgraded to freeway. This state is too cheap and broke to improve it. Locals would probably be OK with making it freeway if they built a cut-and-cover tunnel. But that's more than the state would be willing to spend even if it were flush with cash.

[The Ghostbuster]

How many think the court order will ever be overturned? Me, I'm not sure.

[silverback1065]

How many think the court order will ever be overturned? Me, I'm not sure.

That court order is insane.

[Grzrd]

In other words, no matter how many people get killed on it, there will be no freeway upgrades for as long as that court order is in place.

How many think the court order will ever be overturned? Me, I'm not sure.

In this post, there is some discussion about how MoDOT, in assessing the safety of Bruce R. Watkins Drive ("BRWD"), distinguishes between minor "rear-enders" with associated relatively minor injuries and wrecks that result in fatalities.  To make a long story short, BRWD has (as of 2010) a relatively high number of "rear-enders" but actually has fewer fatalities than other sections of US 71 in the KC area. As a result, MoDOT has probably concluded that it cannot approach the court to dissolve the order because it cannot make a strong enough case to assert that BRWD is inordinately unsafe.

As more time passes without major wrecks on BRWD resulting in fatalities, the less likely one bad wreck would present a strong enough case for MoDOT to go to the court.

71 will be a freeway one day ... The demographics of the neighborhood could change.  Residents die, new residents who have different views of the freeway will be born, residents will move into the neighborhood ...

a 52 minute May 29, 2014 KCUR (local NPR station) roundtable discussion that includes a MoDOT official, a Mid-America Regional Council (group that supports improved public transit options along the corridor) representative, and a lifelong resident of the neighborhood ....
The comments of the lifelong resident are very interesting. He expresses the belief that racism played a large role in how his community has failed to thrive.  He goes beyond that lament to express his belief that there were "too many cooks in the kitchen" in formulating the BRWD compromise and that the compromise "doesn't serve the needs of anybody".  He also suggests that a "redo of the road" might help to improve his community, but that it would be very expensive.
Using the sample of one, it may be possible that today's community may be open to a "redo".

I think it is more likely that attitudes in the community will change as time marches on, and that the community will eventually jointly approach the court with MoDOT to have the order dissolved.

[Ned Weasel]

In other words, no matter how many people get killed on it, there will be no freeway upgrades for as long as that court order is in place.

How many think the court order will ever be overturned? Me, I'm not sure.

In this post, there is some discussion about how MoDOT, in assessing the safety of Bruce R. Watkins Drive ("BRWD"), distinguishes between minor "rear-enders" with associated relatively minor injuries and wrecks that result in fatalities.  To make a long story short, BRWD has (as of 2010) a relatively high number of "rear-enders" but actually has fewer fatalities than other sections of US 71 in the KC area. As a result, MoDOT has probably concluded that it cannot approach the court to dissolve the order because it cannot make a strong enough case to assert that BRWD is inordinately unsafe.

As more time passes without major wrecks on BRWD resulting in fatalities, the less likely one bad wreck would present a strong enough case for MoDOT to go to the court.

I don't follow your logic here.  If the overall trend is a low amount of fatalities, then wouldn't "the less likely one bad wreck" be a statistical outlier?  I wasn't aware statistical outliers were given that much weight in traffic engineering decisions.

If safety improvements are desired on the expressway portion of US 71/Bruce R. Watkins Drive, has anyone considered downgrading it from an expressway to a conventional road, instead of upgrading it from an expressway to a freeway?  If the reason for collisions on the expressway portion is drivers' expectations of high-speed traffic, then couldn't safety effectively be improved by reconfiguring the road in a way that removes such an expectation?

It seems fallacious to assume that the only way to improve the road is to convert it to a freeway.  Rather, there are several options worth exploring.  For instance, instead of converting it to a freeway, some of that land could potentially be used for infill development--if not in the present day, then perhaps at some point in the future.

Then again, if the rate of major collisions is relatively low, then perhaps it is acceptable to leave the road as an expressway.  The status quo is an option, too.

I don't think I-49 is going to die of heartbreak if it doesn't go to downtown Kansas City.

[Grzrd]

As more time passes without major wrecks on BRWD resulting in fatalities, the less likely one bad wreck would present a strong enough case for MoDOT to go to the court.

I don't follow your logic here.  If the overall trend is a low amount of fatalities, then wouldn't "the less likely one bad wreck" be a statistical outlier?  I wasn't aware statistical outliers were given that much weight in traffic engineering decisions.

I am saying that one bad wreck resulting in fatalities would be a statistical outlier, which is why I believe MoDOT, after such a wreck, would be unlikely to present a case to the court that BRWD is unsafe enough to warrant dissolution of the court order.

[Ned Weasel]

As more time passes without major wrecks on BRWD resulting in fatalities, the less likely one bad wreck would present a strong enough case for MoDOT to go to the court.

I don't follow your logic here.  If the overall trend is a low amount of fatalities, then wouldn't "the less likely one bad wreck" be a statistical outlier?  I wasn't aware statistical outliers were given that much weight in traffic engineering decisions.

I am saying that one bad wreck resulting in fatalities would be a statistical outlier, which is why I believe MoDOT, after such a wreck, would be unlikely to present a case to the court that BRWD is unsafe enough to warrant dissolution of the court order.

I see what you're saying now.  I misunderstood that sentence the first time.  I thought "less likely" was modifying "one bad wreck," rather than modifying the action performed by "one bad wreck."  My bad for making an assumption.

[bjrush]

In other words, no matter how many people get killed on it, there will be no freeway upgrades for as long as that court order is in place.

How many think the court order will ever be overturned? Me, I'm not sure.

In this post, there is some discussion about how MoDOT, in assessing the safety of Bruce R. Watkins Drive ("BRWD"), distinguishes between minor "rear-enders" with associated relatively minor injuries and wrecks that result in fatalities.  To make a long story short, BRWD has (as of 2010) a relatively high number of "rear-enders" but actually has fewer fatalities than other sections of US 71 in the KC area. As a result, MoDOT has probably concluded that it cannot approach the court to dissolve the order because it cannot make a strong enough case to assert that BRWD is inordinately unsafe.

As more time passes without major wrecks on BRWD resulting in fatalities, the less likely one bad wreck would present a strong enough case for MoDOT to go to the court.

I don't follow your logic here.  If the overall trend is a low amount of fatalities, then wouldn't "the less likely one bad wreck" be a statistical outlier?  I wasn't aware statistical outliers were given that much weight in traffic engineering decisions.

If safety improvements are desired on the expressway portion of US 71/Bruce R. Watkins Drive, has anyone considered downgrading it from an expressway to a conventional road, instead of upgrading it from an expressway to a freeway?  If the reason for collisions on the expressway portion is drivers' expectations of high-speed traffic, then couldn't safety effectively be improved by reconfiguring the road in a way that removes such an expectation?

It seems fallacious to assume that the only way to improve the road is to convert it to a freeway.  Rather, there are several options worth exploring.  For instance, instead of converting it to a freeway, some of that land could potentially be used for infill development--if not in the present day, then perhaps at some point in the future.

Then again, if the rate of major collisions is relatively low, then perhaps it is acceptable to leave the road as an expressway.  The status quo is an option, too.

I don't think I-49 is going to die of heartbreak if it doesn't go to downtown Kansas City.

Outlier wrecks are only given weight when a commissioners daughters, etc are involved

[Scott5114]

I would imagine a big determining factor in what happens to Watkins Drive would be how the I-49 designation changes the traffic patterns in the Kansas City metro once the road is entirely complete. If traffic headed north on I-49 to NB I-35 and I-29 sticks to 435, expect to see BRWD stay the way it is. If, however, pass-through traffic remains on US-71 and connects to I-35 and I-29 downtown, traffic volumes may well make BRWD intolerable enough to the community, even without wrecks, that they swallow their remaining objections and request a freeway.

[Bickendan]

...not that I-35 north of downtown can really handle the added volume.

[J N Winkler]

I don't think the through-through traffic will be a dominating consideration because of Kansas City's size.  The proportion of traffic on a given highway that is through-through (i.e., has no destination in the city) goes down with city population, and (if memory serves) is under 1% for a conurbation of over 1 million.

In my mind, I-49 ending at the downtown loop and removing the remaining stoplights on Bruce R. Watkins Drive are separate issues.  I tend to agree with Grzrd that the stoplights will be removed when the community asks that this be done, probably to remove noise and pollution nuisance and after generational change.

There is something about having the downtown loop as a sort of "roundhouse" for I-35, I-29, and I-49 that seems really neat to the roadgeek mind, but I don't think the decisionmakers in MoDOT that would have to request extension of I-49 see the appeal now, or would even if the at-grades were removed.

[Henry]

I don't think the through-through traffic will be a dominating consideration because of Kansas City's size.  The proportion of traffic on a given highway that is through-through (i.e., has no destination in the city) goes down with city population, and (if memory serves) is under 1% for a conurbation of over 1 million.

In my mind, I-49 ending at the downtown loop and removing the remaining stoplights on Bruce R. Watkins Drive are separate issues.  I tend to agree with Grzrd that the stoplights will be removed when the community asks that this be done, probably to remove noise and pollution nuisance and after generational change.

There is something about having the downtown loop as a sort of "roundhouse" for I-35, I-29, and I-49 that seems really neat to the roadgeek mind, but I don't think the decisionmakers in MoDOT that would have to request extension of I-49 see the appeal now, or would even if the at-grades were removed.

And then, there's the problem of having two separate 2di's ending in the same area. If US 71 were to be made into a complete freeway and I-49 extended north on it, there'd still be the argument of what to do with I-29. In a perfect world, it would be moved to what is now I-135 and allowed for a potential extension of I-49 further north, but that's a fictional matter that can be discussed at another time. And let's not forget that this same problem used to exist for I-44 and I-64 in St. Louis, but it no longer does largely due to both routes being extended up to I-70, which is rerouted in the former's case.

[bugo]

There's no reason to renumber I-29. It would only cause confusion and would add no benefit.

[Bobby5280]

Why can't neighborhood leaders, Kansas City's leaders and MoDOT think a little outside the box to solve this problem? The parties involved are just being really being block-headed rather than coming up with a solution that would be beneficial to all.

Granted, little if anything can be done about it right now with Missouri's road funding woes (not to mention the funding problem on the federal end of things). But if the funds were there to build I-49 through to downtown there are ways of getting it done without the highway acting as a barrier.

The most effective, realistic method would be putting the highway into a trench and covering portions of it where the current traffic lights and pedestrian crossing exist. Things like park land, green spaces and even buildings with businesses could be built over the top of the highway. It would not be all that difficult to literally hide the highway from the neighborhood. There are good examples of this approach in other cities.

Klyde Warren Park in downtown Dallas is a great, although expensive example. It covers Woodall Rodgers Freeway for three blocks with park land and even a couple buildings. That park creates more of a walk-able link with the neighborhood North of downtown Dallas.

Columbus, OH has another good example at the N. High Street bridge over I-670. The bridge was widened to fit bars, coffee shops and restaurants onto both sides of the street, hiding I-670 and effectively removing a visual barrier between two halves of a night life district.

Seattle has a few spots where park land covers up Interstate highway. There are two spots on Mercer Island where I-90 is covered by parks. Park on the Lid covers I-90 for half a mile. The other seven bridges over I-90 on Mercer Island are extra wide to include landscaping space for trees, bushes and sidewalks, making the highway less of a barrier for pedestrians and bicyclists. Washington State Convention Center and Freeway Park cover up parts of I-5 in downtown Seattle. A few intersections going over the 520 toll road are wide roundabouts with lots of room for bike/ped access.

Kansas City could actually solve this problem and have a nice landmark at that point on Bruce Watkins Drive rather than a ridiculous, crash prone bottleneck.

[Bickendan]

Even Portland was considering putting a lid over I-405 while Vera Katz was mayor. It's not a bad idea, though I'd like to see the Stadium widened to six lanes between US 26 and NW Everett/Glisan before it gets capped -- and that could be insanely difficult.

[Atomica]

I think that US71 could be converted completely into a freeway - BUT - it would require some unorthodox work.
The at-grade crossings controlled with traffic signals could be eliminated - IF - the following were done:

55th Street and Gregory Blvd - Overcrossings were built for US71 traffic.  Meaning offramps and onramps would have to be built for those streets.  Signals on each of those would have to be put in place.  Perhaps with the wide medians it is better they be LEFT exits.  As undesirable as left-hand ramps are - they would work very well in this situation, even if they resembled the I-244 through the east side of Tulsa.

[bugo]

I think that US71 could be converted completely into a freeway - BUT - it would require some unorthodox work.
The at-grade crossings controlled with traffic signals could be eliminated - IF - the following were done:

55th Street and Gregory Blvd - Overcrossings were built for US71 traffic.  Meaning offramps and onramps would have to be built for those streets.  Signals on each of those would have to be put in place.  Perhaps with the wide medians it is better they be LEFT exits.  As undesirable as left-hand ramps are - they would work very well in this situation, even if they resembled the I-244 through the east side of Tulsa.

Shut up, Steve Gum.

[Atomica]

Who is Steve Gum?  I don't know who Steve Gum is.

[Anthony_JK]

I don't follow your logic here.  If the overall trend is a low amount of fatalities, then wouldn't "the less likely one bad wreck" be a statistical outlier?  I wasn't aware statistical outliers were given that much weight in traffic engineering decisions.

If safety improvements are desired on the expressway portion of US 71/Bruce R. Watkins Drive, has anyone considered downgrading it from an expressway to a conventional road, instead of upgrading it from an expressway to a freeway?  If the reason for collisions on the expressway portion is drivers' expectations of high-speed traffic, then couldn't safety effectively be improved by reconfiguring the road in a way that removes such an expectation?

It seems fallacious to assume that the only way to improve the road is to convert it to a freeway.  Rather, there are several options worth exploring.  For instance, instead of converting it to a freeway, some of that land could potentially be used for infill development--if not in the present day, then perhaps at some point in the future.

Then again, if the rate of major collisions is relatively low, then perhaps it is acceptable to leave the road as an expressway.  The status quo is an option, too.

I don't think I-49 is going to die of heartbreak if it doesn't go to downtown Kansas City.

Problem is, though....the remaining segments of US 71/Bruce Watkins Drive are already freeway. Only these sections are the anomaly. It's not a good thing to transition a road from freeway to expressway to local arterial and then back again.

The most effective, realistic method would be putting the highway into a trench and covering portions of it where the current traffic lights and pedestrian crossing exist. Things like park land, green spaces and even buildings with businesses could be built over the top of the highway. It would not be all that difficult to literally hide the highway from the neighborhood. There are good examples of this approach in other cities.

From the photo I saw in this thread, topography would rule out a cut-and-cover/cap approach. Elevated with special features to soften the impact would be the best solution. Maybe the community of KC would like to pay a visit to Lafayette and witness the I-49 Connector design/corridor study for a decent template?

[Atomica]

Or could Modot do what ODOT did in Tulsa when they built the I-244, but with overcrossings for US71/Watkins traffic and left-hand onramps and offramps?  Besides, there would be need for only one signalised intersection - the left ramps would act as a second street, but all of the traffic on and off US71 would go through those ramps at 55th and Gregory. 
Also, I note that there are side streets off the side that are right turn off and on only.  An extra 250yd lane each way would not hurt - there would be ample space to slow from 55 to 15mi/h and accelerate vice versa, especially with more modern vehicles capable of faster acceleration rates...even IF it has an Arroyo Seco effect.  Keeping trucks off those exits to 53d and 57th (I think that's where they are) would also help.

[Bobby5280]

From the photo I saw in this thread, topography would rule out a cut-and-cover/cap approach. Elevated with special features to soften the impact would be the best solution. Maybe the community of KC would like to pay a visit to Lafayette and witness the I-49 Connector design/corridor study for a decent template?

Take a look at the topography of Mercer Island in Seattle. The heavily landscaped lids over I-90, particularly the half mile long Park on the Lid, negotiate through some very hilly, irregular territory. Add to that the more complex nature of I-90 with both separate local and express/HOV lanes.

The 55th Street intersection along Bruce Watkins Drive has a decent sized hill on the South side. The 59th Street intersection isn't level, but it's not really bad either, just a bit of an incline. There is a greater incline going Southbound at the Gregory Blvd. intersection. Even with the sloping incline, the cut/cover/landscape approach would still work. There would be a pretty good chunk of earth to remove, but it's nothing unusual. I saw just as much, if not more hillside removed with the I-44 expansion in Tulsa East of the Arkansas River. The construction process would be pretty unsightly (but not very disruptive), but the end result would be really nice. Short tunnels under Gregory and 55th would be another option, but more expensive and limiting in terms of capacity for adding lanes.

[bugo]

If (when) they convert the Watkins Deathway to a freeway, it will be built in the middle of the current road (which is basically a pair of one way frontage roads). It was designed with this in mind.

[Bobby5280]

Agreed, the often debated freeway obviously would be built inside that large median between the two frontage roads that have pretended to be the mainline lanes for many years. The three intersections spanning over the freeway just need to be re-designed more intelligently. That way everyone can be happy. I would even go so far as to say MoDOT and Kansas City could sweeten the deal by capping the freeway with some extra park land or green space in another spot or two.

Right now, that wide median in the middle of Bruce Watkins Drive is serving no other purpose than a place for trees and other stuff to grow randomly. The land isn't being used by anything else. That unused space, along with the heavy, freeway oriented traffic is already creating a serious barrier for walkability. That zone would actually be more walk-able if a freeway was diverting the thru traffic off of those surface frontage road streets.

[Anthony_JK]

From the photo I saw in this thread, topography would rule out a cut-and-cover/cap approach. Elevated with special features to soften the impact would be the best solution. Maybe the community of KC would like to pay a visit to Lafayette and witness the I-49 Connector design/corridor study for a decent template?

Take a look at the topography of Mercer Island in Seattle. The heavily landscaped lids over I-90, particularly the half mile long Park on the Lid, negotiate through some very hilly, irregular territory. Add to that the more complex nature of I-90 with both separate local and express/HOV lanes.

The 55th Street intersection along Bruce Watkins Drive has a decent sized hill on the South side. The 59th Street intersection isn't level, but it's not really bad either, just a bit of an incline. There is a greater incline going Southbound at the Gregory Blvd. intersection. Even with the sloping incline, the cut/cover/landscape approach would still work. There would be a pretty good chunk of earth to remove, but it's nothing unusual. I saw just as much, if not more hillside removed with the I-44 expansion in Tulsa East of the Arkansas River. The construction process would be pretty unsightly (but not very disruptive), but the end result would be really nice. Short tunnels under Gregory and 55th would be another option, but more expensive and limiting in terms of capacity for adding lanes.

But, wouldn't you still have to level the grade even in the sloped sections in order to make the cap/landscape approach work? That would probably require some work in leveling the frontage roads, which could possibly cut into the cross streets....increasing the ROW impact, the residential takings, and the costs.

I'd say that a decent compromise is to stick with an elevated overpass for the Gregory Blvd section, and an extended overpass for the 59th to 53rd Street segment; with the freeway mainlines at grade in between. You could use Context Sensitive Solution design and asthetics to ease the visual impact through walkways, greenscaping, and provisions for public transportation (mostly, buses). Having the through traffic removed from the surface roads would be in and of itself a major safety relief. And, it would be much cheaper than a cap or a depressed freeway, and quicker to construct.

[Bobby5280]

But, wouldn't you still have to level the grade even in the sloped sections in order to make the cap/landscape approach work? That would probably require some work in leveling the frontage roads, which could possibly cut into the cross streets....increasing the ROW impact, the residential takings, and the costs.

There is already more than enough ROW in the median for a new freeway. Existing buildings and the existing lanes of US-71 would not need to be displaced regardless of whether a new I-49 freeway was dug into a trench, built at-grade or even elevated.

The new freeway, with this build and cap concept, would have to be dug into a trench. It doesn't matter if the freeway is running perfectly level, just as long as it in a deep enough trench to give an existing intersection enough clearance.

A lot of earth in the median would certainly have to be moved, but digging and grading work on that scale is pretty routine with all sorts of superhighway projects. I can recall the expansion of TX-114 West of Grapevine back in the late 1990's. I've stopped for fuel at a 7-Eleven on the corner of N. Carroll Ave. and TX-114. That used to be an at grade intersection. Now TX-114 is a freeway that's at least 17' to 20' below the previous grade of TX-114.

I'd say that a decent compromise is to stick with an elevated overpass for the Gregory Blvd section, and an extended overpass for the 59th to 53rd Street segment; with the freeway mainlines at grade in between.

The anti-freeway types and other activists aren't going to go for that because the freeway in that type of design would still be a significant barrier for people on foot, bicycles, etc. Visually it would create more of a divide than the one that already exists along US-71 there. I can only see people in that part of Kansas City allowing the freeway to be built in that manner if there was a rash of fatality accidents at those 3 busy intersections.

Make no mistake, digging out and building a below-grade superhighway and creating three or more large, landscaped caps would not be cheap. It would be quite a bit more expensive than the more conventional approach (at grade main lanes with overpasses at the intersections). That extra expense might make the difference between the road being built or not at all.