AARoads Forum

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/01/30/10-urban-freeways-that-need-to-come-down/

I saw this yesterday on my phone, is this serious? or just some crackpot blogger trying to get more people to talk about it?

Quote from: silverback1065 on February 18, 2017, 06:31:31 PM
some crackpot blogger trying to get more people to talk about it?

Yes.

It's not crackpot.  Freeways are expensive to maintain.  When they come to the end of their physical life, it's a very valid consideration to see if other alternatives are worthwhile.  And as Baloo just noted, the city, MPO, and state have been looking into it, at least as far back as this past summer.

I've conceptualized a way to potentially remove parts of the northern (I-35/70) leg of the downtown loop, namely the leg between US 169 and MO 9.  It would involve upgrades to I-670 (it's theoretically possible to squeeze another lane in each direction on 670's part of the downtown loop, even under the Convention Center), connecting US 169 to the west (I-35) leg, and better connecting MO 9 to 29/35, but it's theoretically possible and would better tie downtown and the Financial District to the River Market area.

I'm not convinced that removing a much larger segment of I-70 is feasible, but I do think the above-mentioned segment has potential.

I've also read some suggestions about relocating I-35 to a corridor along/next to the railroads from the state line up to I-70, but the topography (there's a decent hill just east of the tracks) plus the design of the 12th St Bridge make that doubtful.

I actually think i-70 should be routed onto 670, and realign 169 to meet the NW corner of the loop

Adam, it's very crackpot.  You're not taking about a glorified ramp here, but a major cross country freeway.

^ A "major cross country freeway" with at least one viable alternative and a couple bypass options outside of the downtown area.  It's not as crackpot as you're making it out to be.

I'm not sure that I like it because you're going to be putting a lot of traffic on that one stretch of highway. Both are used pretty heavily (at least all the times I've been through there).

The other thing to keep in mind is that MODOT doesn't have the money to take on this big of a project. My guess would be KCMO would have to pay a huge chunk of the project cost to do this. But they have their own issues. They're trying to get an $800 million infrastructure bond passed in April that would go towards maintenance of roads, bridges, curbs, sidewalks, etc. After that, they are probably going to try to get a new airport terminal built at MCI because of the threat (perceived or real) of Kansas building a brand new airport in Johnson County, which they just might if the people in KCMO still want to keep the existing terminals the way they are. So I'm not sure it's that much of a priority for them either.

But if these New Urbanists want to pay for it, they're more than welcome to.

Quote from: froggie on February 19, 2017, 02:28:31 PM
^ A "major cross country freeway" with at least one viable alternative and a couple bypass options outside of the downtown area.  It's not as crackpot as you're making it out to be.

It's quite crackpot.  Name the real viable alternate options, and I-670 doesn't cut it due to sheer lack of size.

Hopefully the sensible decision is made and it is rebuilt and widened as needed if it needs it.

I never understood why I-670 is the through route and I-70 takes such a convoluted route.

I think if streetsblog.org had their way, all urban freeways would be demolished. Okay, maybe that's an exaggeration. I'm not a proponent of freeway demolition, my main concern about such is where would the traffic that uses the existing targeted freeway go? It's not like its just going to magically disappear.

I'm guessing some of these New Urbanist types have never experienced getting into a true Manhattan style grid-lock traffic jam. They must believe the larger glut of stop & go traffic will all just somehow move in harmony. Or maybe they think people will only use mass transit to get to or go thru the downtown areas. Nevertheless there are at least a few proposals or projects in progress across the country to remove significant downtown sections of freeway:
- Rochester Inner Loop
- Alaskan Way Viaduct, Seattle
- I-70 North of Downtown Denver
- I-45 around the west side of Downtown Houston
- US-75 between Downtown Dallas & Deep Ellum
- I-280 in Downtown San Francisco
- I-980 in Downtown Oakland
- I-375 in Downtown Detroit
- I-81 in Downtown Syracuse
- I-190 in Downtown Buffalo

I think very disruptive changes to outlets of entertainment and brick & mortar retail may threaten a lot of this "new urbanist" activity. I'm a big movie fan, but I think that entire industry may have a very bleak future thanks to very idiotic moves that are marginalizing the theater business. Without theaters there will be no movie industry. It will all just be TV. The music industry is a shadow of its former self, yet concert ticket price inflation has been outrageous in recent years. Rising pro sports event ticket prices could be their own bubble economy. Stadium price inflation is breaking the bank. More taxpayers are saying no to these billion dollar proposals. Many brick & mortar retailers are under increasing pressure from online merchants, with sales tax being a major problem for retailers with a store front. All is not good in just about every area of "downtown redevelopment" in major cities. But they're plowing along as if these problems don't exist. Let's also not forget the living spaces in many of these downtown mixed use developments usually carry prices so high they should be considered obscene.

With all that being said, freeways are still going to be very very important. And the suburbs are only going to get bigger and bigger. With so much entertainment and commerce taking place online there is less and less need to hop some light rail train to the downtown area.

Quote from: hbelkins on February 19, 2017, 08:12:02 PM
I never understood why I-670 is the through route and I-70 takes such a convoluted route.

I-670 west of I-35 wasn't finished until ca. 1990, a good ~25 years after I-70 through KC was completed.

It stands to reason that when this section opened KS and MO opted to simply extend the 670 designation rather than potentially cause confusion changing the signs on the road everyone already knew as I-70. Or didn't even consider moving I-70 since we're putting more thought into this right now than they did then.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 20, 2017, 05:15:52 PM
I'm guessing some of these New Urbanist types have never experienced getting into a true Manhattan style grid-lock traffic jam. They must believe the larger glut of stop & go traffic will all just somehow move in harmony. Or maybe they think people will only use mass transit to get to or go thru the downtown areas. Nevertheless there are at least a few proposals or projects in progress across the country to remove significant downtown sections of freeway:
- Rochester Inner Loop
- Alaskan Way Viaduct, Seattle
- I-70 North of Downtown Denver
- I-45 around the west side of Downtown Houston
- US-75 between Downtown Dallas & Deep Ellum
- I-280 in Downtown San Francisco
- I-980 in Downtown Oakland
- I-375 in Downtown Detroit
- I-81 in Downtown Syracuse
- I-190 in Downtown Buffalo

I think very disruptive changes to outlets of entertainment and brick & mortar retail may threaten a lot of this "new urbanist" activity. I'm a big movie fan, but I think that entire industry may have a very bleak future thanks to very idiotic moves that are marginalizing the theater business. Without theaters there will be no movie industry. It will all just be TV. The music industry is a shadow of its former self, yet concert ticket price inflation has been outrageous in recent years. Rising pro sports event ticket prices could be their own bubble economy. Stadium price inflation is breaking the bank. More taxpayers are saying no to these billion dollar proposals. Many brick & mortar retailers are under increasing pressure from online merchants, with sales tax being a major problem for retailers with a store front. All is not good in just about every area of "downtown redevelopment" in major cities. But they're plowing along as if these problems don't exist. Let's also not forget the living spaces in many of these downtown mixed use developments usually carry prices so high they should be considered obscene.

With all that being said, freeways are still going to be very very important. And the suburbs are only going to get bigger and bigger. With so much entertainment and commerce taking place online there is less and less need to hop some light rail train to the downtown area.

280 (east of us 101) and 375 should go, 81 never should have went through syracuse.  the rest need to stay.  they should also realign the freeway stub for us 101 to completely line up with van ness ave.  190 seriously makes no sense to me, where would that traffic go? they're already removing 198

Quote from: silverback1065 on February 18, 2017, 06:31:31 PM
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/01/30/10-urban-freeways-that-need-to-come-down/

I saw this yesterday on my phone, is this serious? or just some crackpot blogger trying to get more people to talk about it?

If that were to come down, the most logical routing IMO would be via I-235 around the northwest corner, with the rest of what is now I-70 becoming some odd I-x70.

Quote from: RoadMaster09 on February 20, 2017, 06:57:01 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on February 18, 2017, 06:31:31 PM
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/01/30/10-urban-freeways-that-need-to-come-down/

I saw this yesterday on my phone, is this serious? or just some crackpot blogger trying to get more people to talk about it?

If that were to come down, the most logical routing IMO would be via I-235 around the northwest corner, with the rest of what is now I-70 becoming some odd I-x70.

Do you mean I-435? I-235 is in Wichita.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 20, 2017, 05:15:52 PM
I'm guessing some of these New Urbanist types have never experienced getting into a true Manhattan style grid-lock traffic jam. They must believe the larger glut of stop & go traffic will all just somehow move in harmony. Or maybe they think people will only use mass transit to get to or go thru the downtown areas. Nevertheless there are at least a few proposals or projects in progress across the country to remove significant downtown sections of freeway:
- Rochester Inner Loop
- Alaskan Way Viaduct, Seattle
- I-70 North of Downtown Denver
- I-45 around the west side of Downtown Houston
- US-75 between Downtown Dallas & Deep Ellum
- I-280 in Downtown San Francisco
- I-980 in Downtown Oakland
- I-375 in Downtown Detroit
- I-81 in Downtown Syracuse
- I-190 in Downtown Buffalo

I think very disruptive changes to outlets of entertainment and brick & mortar retail may threaten a lot of this "new urbanist" activity. I'm a big movie fan, but I think that entire industry may have a very bleak future thanks to very idiotic moves that are marginalizing the theater business. Without theaters there will be no movie industry. It will all just be TV. The music industry is a shadow of its former self, yet concert ticket price inflation has been outrageous in recent years. Rising pro sports event ticket prices could be their own bubble economy. Stadium price inflation is breaking the bank. More taxpayers are saying no to these billion dollar proposals. Many brick & mortar retailers are under increasing pressure from online merchants, with sales tax being a major problem for retailers with a store front. All is not good in just about every area of "downtown redevelopment" in major cities. But they're plowing along as if these problems don't exist. Let's also not forget the living spaces in many of these downtown mixed use developments usually carry prices so high they should be considered obscene.

With all that being said, freeways are still going to be very very important. And the suburbs are only going to get bigger and bigger. With so much entertainment and commerce taking place online there is less and less need to hop some light rail train to the downtown area.

The downtown as the primary retail core for a metro area is long past. Same for much productive work in a metro area. Most of my adult working career has been in the suburbs. But nonetheless cities are still drawing massive crowds. I do a lot of my shopping online but I still like the thrill of going downtown with all the pedestrian crowds but mostly I am going as a tourist. Not sure I would want to live downtown, even if the costs are not prohibitive, but I still like to go. And brick and mortar stores have a certain tactile and face to face contact that online commerce lacks. The massive crowds I saw in central London, Brussels, Antwerp, and Denver last year suggest that the city is not quite finished. Admittedly Denver was not nearly as busy as my European examples, but it was not exactly deserted. Also mostAmerican  urban centers have seen an increase in the number of people living right downtown - nothing like the growth on the suburban fringe, but still a significant change to the long downward trend that began in the 40s and 50s.Seattle has grown from 490,000 in 1980 to pushing 700,000 today, which is exceptional, but most other cities have passed the lowpoint as well. New York City is at an all time high with its population in excess of eight million. Cities are a niche, but not they are not on the verge of going away.

The removal of large highways in American cities actually fits this model because it frees up more space for other development, and it reduces noise. If most people going downtown today are tourists, spectators at a ballpark, or a growing number of residents living there without owning a car (even if they are a fraction of the total metro population), do you need all those ten plus lane highways to accommodate a declining work force and a largely tourist retail base?

Then what happens to the Alphabet Loop? I-70 should go where I-670 is anyway. And no matter what, I don't see it on that list anyway.

Quote from: stwoodbury on February 21, 2017, 09:25:15 AM
The massive crowds I saw in ... Denver last year suggest that the city is not quite finished. Admittedly Denver was not nearly as busy as my European examples, but it was not exactly deserted.

I remember when downtown Denver was fairly deserted.  They made a concerted effort to keep it alive back in the 90s.

Quote from: stwoodbury on February 21, 2017, 09:25:15 AM
The removal of large highways in American cities actually fits this model because it frees up more space for other development, and it reduces noise. If most people going downtown today are tourists, spectators at a ballpark, or a growing number of residents living there without owning a car (even if they are a fraction of the total metro population), do you need all those ten plus lane highways to accommodate a declining work force and a largely tourist retail base?

That said, the model for European cities and North American cities is a bit different.  There is a decided lack of density in North American cities when compared to their European kin.  The densest North American cities by far are San Francisco and New York.  New York is actually dense enough that transit works rather well.  Not so much in other areas, which tend to be more car-based by default due to said lack of density.  This is something the freeway teardown folks tend to forget, and it's a bit of very wishful thinking on their part.

Kansas City's public transit network is pretty crappy, as evidenced by the fact that you seldom see more than a few people riding a bus.  But that doesn't mean it couldn't be good.  In fact, Saint Louis–just on the other side of the state–is so much better when it comes to transit.

Quote from: stwoodbury on February 21, 2017, 09:25:15 AM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 20, 2017, 05:15:52 PM
I'm guessing some of these New Urbanist types have never experienced getting into a true Manhattan style grid-lock traffic jam. They must believe the larger glut of stop & go traffic will all just somehow move in harmony. Or maybe they think people will only use mass transit to get to or go thru the downtown areas. Nevertheless there are at least a few proposals or projects in progress across the country to remove significant downtown sections of freeway:
- Rochester Inner Loop
- Alaskan Way Viaduct, Seattle
- I-70 North of Downtown Denver
- I-45 around the west side of Downtown Houston
- US-75 between Downtown Dallas & Deep Ellum
- I-280 in Downtown San Francisco
- I-980 in Downtown Oakland
- I-375 in Downtown Detroit
- I-81 in Downtown Syracuse
- I-190 in Downtown Buffalo

I think very disruptive changes to outlets of entertainment and brick & mortar retail may threaten a lot of this "new urbanist" activity. I'm a big movie fan, but I think that entire industry may have a very bleak future thanks to very idiotic moves that are marginalizing the theater business. Without theaters there will be no movie industry. It will all just be TV. The music industry is a shadow of its former self, yet concert ticket price inflation has been outrageous in recent years. Rising pro sports event ticket prices could be their own bubble economy. Stadium price inflation is breaking the bank. More taxpayers are saying no to these billion dollar proposals. Many brick & mortar retailers are under increasing pressure from online merchants, with sales tax being a major problem for retailers with a store front. All is not good in just about every area of "downtown redevelopment" in major cities. But they're plowing along as if these problems don't exist. Let's also not forget the living spaces in many of these downtown mixed use developments usually carry prices so high they should be considered obscene.

With all that being said, freeways are still going to be very very important. And the suburbs are only going to get bigger and bigger. With so much entertainment and commerce taking place online there is less and less need to hop some light rail train to the downtown area.

The downtown as the primary retail core for a metro area is long past. Same for much productive work in a metro area. Most of my adult working career has been in the suburbs. But nonetheless cities are still drawing massive crowds. I do a lot of my shopping online but I still like the thrill of going downtown with all the pedestrian crowds but mostly I am going as a tourist. Not sure I would want to live downtown, even if the costs are not prohibitive, but I still like to go. And brick and mortar stores have a certain tactile and face to face contact that online commerce lacks. The massive crowds I saw in central London, Brussels, Antwerp, and Denver last year suggest that the city is not quite finished. Admittedly Denver was not nearly as busy as my European examples, but it was not exactly deserted. Also mostAmerican  urban centers have seen an increase in the number of people living right downtown - nothing like the growth on the suburban fringe, but still a significant change to the long downward trend that began in the 40s and 50s.Seattle has grown from 490,000 in 1980 to pushing 700,000 today, which is exceptional, but most other cities have passed the lowpoint as well. New York City is at an all time high with its population in excess of eight million. Cities are a niche, but not they are not on the verge of going away.

The removal of large highways in American cities actually fits this model because it frees up more space for other development, and it reduces noise. If most people going downtown today are tourists, spectators at a ballpark, or a growing number of residents living there without owning a car (even if they are a fraction of the total metro population), do you need all those ten plus lane highways to accommodate a declining work force and a largely tourist retail base?

but i think we still need these highways to get the suburbanites to downtown, since they still have to have a car.

Quote from: froggie on February 19, 2017, 02:28:31 PM
^ A "major cross country freeway" with at least one viable alternative and a couple bypass options outside of the downtown area.  It's not as crackpot as you're making it out to be.

Technically two major, mostly cross country freeways, since I-35 also shares part of the section in question, and could gain a nasty weave if shifted to I-670.

From MoDOT's traffic volume maps, it would appear there are a decent number of trucks that use the section of I-70 between the western I-35 interchange and the 3rd Street/Fairfax trafficway interchange in KCK.

---

I see MARC has also given Bruce Watkins Drive an interstate designation as well :biggrin:

I think that the loop in KC is so small that they should reconfigure it as a 6 lane one way counter clockwise loop.

Great post

A.  Seems like someone's buying in to the teardown agenda.
B.  The "3rd lane" on 405 is a slip lane between exits; the only area with more than 2 through lanes is the Fremont   
     Bridge.
C.  Removing the Marquam will create more problems than it solves; unless 205 is expanded to 6-8 lanes along its
     entire route, an efficient and through I-5 is necessary to expedite regional through traffic.
D.  If we're going to keep talking about Portland issues, it would be be appropriate to start a thread in NW and return     
     this thread to KC where it belongs!

i agree, keep it to kc!

Quote from: silverback1065 on February 27, 2017, 08:19:19 AM
i agree, keep it to kc!

The discussion on the other roads serves to poke holes in the thinking of the author.

For example NJ29 along the trenton water front, it floods often enough because it's a flood plain. it wouldn't be usable land for homes.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsnbcmedia.msn.com%2Fi%2FMSNBC%2FComponents%2FPhoto%2F_new%2Fpb-110908-flood-jb-03.jpg&hash=f5e8712024af428398c92b5e91056105baa15737)

I think the main arguement about rerouting i70 in KC is the viaduct. one half of it is at the Century Mark for age.

it sounds like just about every elevated freeway in the us is about due to be rebuilt, and noone has money for it.  i-229 in st joseph is another debate on whether it should be replaced or removed.

I have a nagging suspicion that many urban freeways in the Great Plains region are woefully over-capacity for the majority of the time (save for rush hours M-F). Surface-level boulevards will probably meet commuting demands and greatly reduce the liability to state-level DOT.

229 removal may not be so bad

Quote from: the OP
Is KC really going to remove I-70 downtown?

Maybe.

If they do, they had better have an alternative that doesn't make congestion on the surrounding roads worse.

Quote from: silverback1065 on February 27, 2017, 04:12:15 PM
610 likely will never happen, i think that idea is purely on blogs

You mean 10 in New Orleans?
No, there have been studies and the mayor has talked about the idea. It is typically high on the list of potential tear-downs from the groups that advocate tearing freeways down. Personally, I just think that'll accelerate gentrification in Treme.

And how about Shadeland Avenue in Indy? That certainly doesn't need to be a freeway. But then, it's not like the east side of Indy is experiencing a land crunch.

Add I-180 in Illinois to the list of no impact removals.

Quote from: coatimundi on February 27, 2017, 07:21:45 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on February 27, 2017, 04:12:15 PM
610 likely will never happen, i think that idea is purely on blogs

You mean 10 in New Orleans?
No, there have been studies and the mayor has talked about the idea. It is typically high on the list of potential tear-downs from the groups that advocate tearing freeways down. Personally, I just think that'll accelerate gentrification in Treme.

And how about Shadeland Avenue in Indy? That certainly doesn't need to be a freeway. But then, it's not like the east side of Indy is experiencing a land crunch.

Add I-180 in Illinois to the list of no impact removals.

i think all of those mentioned should be removed.  indy wasted a lot of money last year doing a pavement rehab on the whole thing.  those exits waste so much land.  I dont know why that wasnt incorporated into i-465 back in the day.  noone uses that thing anyway with 465 a mile or 2 away

Saw this in the KC Star this week: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article139727088.html

Seems like they support the removal of the North Loop. IMO, I still don't think it's a good idea.

Quote from: TheStrangerWhich part of the 80 mile 210?  (Unless you meant say the south end of 2 past I-5)

In this case, "LA" likely refers to Louisiana, not Los Angeles.

Quote from: coatimundi on February 27, 2017, 12:57:35 PM

I'm not sure of the status, but there's also been a proposal to remove the Claiborne Avenue viaduct in New Orleans, restoring the avenue to its former glory. I would also like to see that. I-10 could just be routed onto I-610, and a spur could be created to reach the GNO bridge.

Sorry, but HELL TO THE NO on removing the Claiborne Elevated portion of I-10.

First, it handles nearly 120K of traffic from downtown NOLA/Superdome/French Quarter/NOCharity/Westbank Expressway east. You're going to plop all that into a 6-lane Claiborne Avenue boulevard and drive that through Treme?? Really???

Second, I-610 already handles enough traffic as a "bypass" without adding the orphaned traffic using the Ponchatrain Expressway to reach it.

Third, you're creating a serious "wrong way" terminus for hidden I-910 (and ultimately I-49 South), heading northwest to reach I-10 on "southbound" I-49 (and south on "northbound").

I sympathize with the people of Treme who got rooked when the Claiborne Elevated was built originally with no concern toward their neighborhood, but it's there now and a critical artery that simply shouldn't be removed. They need to get with the Evangeline Corridor Initiative here in Lafayette and find a way to integrate it better, not remove it and further divide it through a choked-up "boulevard".

OK....off my soapbox.



[I know, only tangentally related to the OP on I-70 in Denver, but I had to vent. FTR, I feel the same way about that project, though I would support a depressed/capped freeway rather than a "boulevard".]

These freeway removal activist are out of touch.

Quote from: compdude787That is not true. Houston has expanded its freeway network more than any other city over the past two decades, but has seen its traffic congestion increase at a much lower rate than any other city.

You obviously haven't paid any attention to the Katy Freeway debacle...

I must have missed something. How is the Katy Freeway expansion a debacle?

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 07, 2017, 09:54:09 PM
I must have missed something. How is the Katy Freeway expansion a debacle?

yeaj Id like to know as well. The number of congested hours on the freeway has been greatly reduced since its expansion.

Other way around.  Katy Freeway congestion is worse now than it was before the expansion.

i think induced demand is something that people over use, they think that every widening project will cause this.

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 08, 2017, 11:36:47 AM
i think induced demand is something that people over use, they think that every widening project will cause this.

Agreed. The only time when there is more congestion on a freeway after it's been widened is because people who would formerly take other routes to get to their destination, leave earlier or later, or take the bus, have now shifted back to the freeway. This merely goes to show that you still didn't give the freeway enough capacity.

Quote from: froggieOther way around.  Katy Freeway congestion is worse now than it was before the expansion.

I don't agree with this entirely. The expanded freeway has far greater capacity than it did prior to the expansion. I've driven on it numerous times and found it one of the easier drives in Houston. As far as traffic congestion goes there are far worse places. Persistent congestion on the Katy Freeway can be blamed on some factors other than the road.

First of all metro Houston, like several metro areas in Texas, are adding population far faster than just about all the rest of the nation. These highway expansion projects can't keep up with the increasing traffic demands.

Much of Houston has an antiquated street grid. The layout of streets and driveways into businesses are mostly uncontrolled. Newer developments limit the number of connections to major streets and greatly limit driveways that spill traffic directly out on the major streets. Without any filtering controls on traffic movement you get all sorts of surface level gridlock. People run red lights, get into accidents or create other tie ups. Cars trying to leave a freeway like I-10 get stuck on exit ramps. Then the back-ups clog more and more lanes of the freeway itself. This is the essence of Houston style suburban traffic jams. Houston needs to do as much to its surface street network as what is being done to its freeways.

Freeways connecting to the Katy freeway, like I-610, aren't as wide. Neither is I-10 East of the I-610 interchange. That creates a bottleneck. The massive construction project at the I-10, I-610 and US-290 junction creates its own tie ups.

Quote from: froggie on April 08, 2017, 07:17:21 AM
Other way around.  Katy Freeway congestion is worse now than it was before the expansion.

By what measure? Average travel time for an individual, or total person-hours of delay?

Quote from: compdude787 on April 08, 2017, 01:09:59 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 08, 2017, 11:36:47 AM
i think induced demand is something that people over use, they think that every widening project will cause this.

Agreed. The only time when there is more congestion on a freeway after it's been widened is because people who would formerly take other routes to get to their destination, leave earlier or later, or take the bus, have now shifted back to the freeway. This merely goes to show that you still didn't give the freeway enough capacity.

[facepalm]

That IS induced demand! Think of all the people that use the 405 towards Bellevue, who may not have pre-toll lanes? The congestion hasn't been reduced because the road is still operating above-capacity. That capacity is higher, yes, but there's still congestion: people stopped using the 405 because it was outrageously busy, but returned to it post-widening because there was more capacity (having decided it was easier to use the 405 than whatever mode of transport they switched to). And the idea that you "didn't give the freeway enough capacity" is ludicrous. If you widened a freeway every time the population grew, most freeways would be 20 lanes in each direction, which is obviously retarded because that costs far too much to build, never mind maintain.

Don't get me wrong: I hate bottlenecks (particularly shitty interchanges), but the idea that congestion just disappears when you fix said bottleneck is absurd. The only way to reduce congestion is to reduce the number of cars on the road. Period.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 08, 2017, 05:17:38 PM

Quote from: compdude787 on April 08, 2017, 01:09:59 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 08, 2017, 11:36:47 AM
i think induced demand is something that people over use, they think that every widening project will cause this.

Agreed. The only time when there is more congestion on a freeway after it's been widened is because people who would formerly take other routes to get to their destination, leave earlier or later, or take the bus, have now shifted back to the freeway. This merely goes to show that you still didn't give the freeway enough capacity.

[facepalm]

That IS induced demand! Think of all the people that use the 405 towards Bellevue, who may not have pre-toll lanes? The congestion hasn't been reduced because the road is still operating above-capacity. That capacity is higher, yes, but there's still congestion: people stopped using the 405 because it was outrageously busy, but returned to it post-widening because there was more capacity (having decided it was easier to use the 405 than whatever mode of transport they switched to). And the idea that you "didn't give the freeway enough capacity" is ludicrous. If you widened a freeway every time the population grew, most freeways would be 20 lanes in each direction, which is obviously retarded because that costs far too much to build, never mind maintain.

Don't get me wrong: I hate bottlenecks (particularly shitty interchanges), but the idea that congestion just disappears when you fix said bottleneck is absurd. The only way to reduce congestion is to reduce the number of cars on the road. Period.

The widened section of I-405 has improved traffic as opposed to how it was before. The only part that has gotten worse is the section of I-405 where the HOV lane was just converted to the express toll lane without an additional lane being added. Now, I totally get that it's infeasible to make every freeway be like 20 lanes, but rather I support making lane expansion on freeways solely consist of adding just express toll lanes. Space is at a premium and so is freeway capacity. And by the way, I think it's easier to expand roads than to get people (especially Americans) out of their cars, especially considering the way American cities are built. After all, traffic has to get so bad on roads before people get fed up with it and take transit.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 08, 2017, 05:17:38 PM

Quote from: compdude787 on April 08, 2017, 01:09:59 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 08, 2017, 11:36:47 AM
i think induced demand is something that people over use, they think that every widening project will cause this.

Agreed. The only time when there is more congestion on a freeway after it's been widened is because people who would formerly take other routes to get to their destination, leave earlier or later, or take the bus, have now shifted back to the freeway. This merely goes to show that you still didn't give the freeway enough capacity.

[facepalm]

That IS induced demand! Think of all the people that use the 405 towards Bellevue, who may not have pre-toll lanes? The congestion hasn't been reduced because the road is still operating above-capacity. That capacity is higher, yes, but there's still congestion: people stopped using the 405 because it was outrageously busy, but returned to it post-widening because there was more capacity (having decided it was easier to use the 405 than whatever mode of transport they switched to). And the idea that you "didn't give the freeway enough capacity" is ludicrous. If you widened a freeway every time the population grew, most freeways would be 20 lanes in each direction, which is obviously retarded because that costs far too much to build, never mind maintain.

Don't get me wrong: I hate bottlenecks (particularly shitty interchanges), but the idea that congestion just disappears when you fix said bottleneck is absurd. The only way to reduce congestion is to reduce the number of cars on the road. Period.

No this is not correct. How can you say that if stress has been taken off the regional system and not just that one freeway. If a freeway was widened and more cars use it taking cars off of another freeway because additional capacity was added on the newewly expanded freeway, I don't see the induced demand argument being valid on a regional scale. Nothing is inducing demand it just gave drivers a more direct route to their destination and relieved stress from another freeway.

The 405 in LA is a good example as it did reduce rush hour to an extent but is still clogged. I highly doubt anyone said oh boy look at those new lanes and decided to use it for that fact. That's a freeway I think would be good having an additional  7-10 lanes each way. Congestion would be greatly reduced.

You don't need to widen every freeway to 20 lanes each way for it to be efficient. Most will become slower during rush hour but to narrow the number of hours that happens I think many freeways in LA could solve by adding 5-6 additional lanes each way being a mixture of tolled and free lanes along with some new transit options.

Outside of rush hour, the DFW metro freeways flow extremely well for a city of 7 million. Compare that to Portland, OR! Oklahoma City doesn't really need any freeways that need to be widened except I-40 to Shawnee to six lanes and I-35 from DTOKC to Norman should be 8-10 lanes. Other than that they'd work much better if they would fix the bottlenecks and interchanges. Las Vegas freeways work pretty well except I-15 in North Vegas which backs up a lot.

My point is saying that every freeway needs 20 lanes each way to flow is vastly exaggerated. I don't expect to see an agency like Caltrans widen the 405 to 20 more lanes each way which would solve traffic congestion on that road for the next 100 years even during rush hour, but they do need to continue adding lanes to provide for a smoother commute and using the included demand argument has no weight. It doesn't factor in regional issues only focuses on the single stretch of road. Going and not adding any lanes on congested freeways is not the way to go. I support increased transit but not at the expense of freeway investment.

Quote from: compdude787After all, traffic has to get so bad on roads before people get fed up with it and take transit.

While that would ultimately happen if the DOTs didn't do their job, that would essentially be forcing people to live a lifestyle they don't want to live. I am against that. Currently you have the opportunity to live car free in many major cities.

Even in my hometown of OKC where it mainly car oriented, it's getting easier and easier to live without a car. So people have that option. They don't need to be bitching about the entire city being accessible by foot but I do support the entire city being accessible by car. If you're against that, than feel free to explain to me how you'd have a city operate with no cars. There are cities with no rail transit, but there aren't any cities with no roads.

Quote from: froggie on April 08, 2017, 07:17:21 AM
Other way around.  Katy Freeway congestion is worse now than it was before the expansion.

Then it wasn't widened enough. As Bobby pointed out, the other freeways around the area are subpar.

Also Houston is adding an insane amount of people in the area. Thats probably a key factor to that.

As another poster pointed asked, I too would like to know where you got this info and how it was calculated.

Come to think of it, in any other economics model, we don't use terms like "induced demand".  For example, if there was demand for 10 widgets, but only 5 could be produced, we wouldn't attack a factory that could produce 3 more as "inducing demand" and saying that widgets will always be undersupplied and that the real solution is to reduce widget production so people switch to something else.  Why do we with roads?  Also, I remember reading the Jane Jacobs book, where she was talking about the transit changes that came to NYC in the 50s/60s when the streets went one way, and how she was saying it was bad because the changes were causing people to consolidate trips, switch to driving, or just stay home/go somewhere else... exactly the same things she proposed as a good thing for drivers just a few pages earlier, and which continue to be touted as a good thing (for drivers - never for pedestrians/cyclists/transit riders) today.  Why the double standard?  Seems to me like driving has suddenly become uncool or something.  Now, granted, trying to make driving work in a dense urban environment isn't practical if everyone drives... but it seems to me as if a large part of the problem is the fact that our economy is currently centralizing into a few mega urban areas, with the rest of the country left to transfer people and businesses to these areas.  I would think it would be better to decentralize the economy rather than force everyone to change their lifestyle against their will.  There is no reason why all economic activity has to happen in a few large urban areas.

Quote from: vdeane on April 09, 2017, 12:24:03 AM
Come to think of it, in any other economics model, we don't use terms like "induced demand".  For example, if there was demand for 10 widgets, but only 5 could be produced, we wouldn't attack a factory that could produce 3 more as "inducing demand" and saying that widgets will always be undersupplied and that the real solution is to reduce widget production so people switch to something else.  Why do we with roads?

The company producing those extra 3 widgets isn't bound by law to do an environmental impact analysis before they increase production. Nor are they bound by law to ask the general public, including people who actively dislike widgets, to comment on their proposal to do so.

Their additional widget production probably also:
- won't take up 150+ acres of real estate like building a new 10-mile freeway does
- won't cost a billion dollars to start up.
- won't force families to relocate out of their homes in order to make way for it
- won't force large numbers of families not directly in the way to deal with increased air and noise pollution from it being nearby, or the psychological impact of it forming a barrier through the middle of their neighborhood.
- will probably be paid for with the company's own money rather than taxpayer money
- will probably produce a direct return on the initial investments (roads, unless tolled, do not)


We do this with roads because, unlike with most goods and services, increasing the available supply is expensive, resource intensive, and often politically challenging. To the point where it is often easier to try and convince people to change their travel habits than to build more roads to accommodate the travel habits they would ideally like to have.

Roads are also not quite unique in this regard - you see similar tactics employed in the utility industry. Your local electric company probably has various offers available where they will pay you to use less electricity, simply because that is both less expensive and more politically feasible than building more electric generation and transmission infrastructure (which in turn is controversial for many of the same reasons roads are).

So you want to tell people how to live basically. Yeah I'm against that.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 08, 2017, 11:01:42 PM
Even in my hometown of OKC where it mainly car oriented, it's getting easier and easier to live without a car. So people have that option. They don't need to be bitching about the entire city being accessible by foot but I do support the entire city being accessible by car. If you're against that, than feel free to explain to me how you'd have a city operate with no cars. There are cities with no rail transit, but there aren't any cities with no roads.

One advantage that OKC has that many cities in the US does not is that its freeway system was entirely built out as planned, with no freeways canceled due to opposition or cost. As a result, it more or less functions as it should. There are a few weak links due to outdated infrastructure, but in general, the only thing that really causes backups are incidents and construction.

Most other cities saw at least one freeway cancellation, meaning that the traffic that link would have carried ends up having to be shifted elsewhere, so the system cannot effectively self-balance as it was designed to.

What it seems to boil down to is that the choice to reside in a dense urban environment is accompanied by a certain set of contingent requirements -- the proximity to other residents renders a multitude of activities acceptable in a more diffused situation such as found in suburbs, exurbs, or rural areas troublesome or even obnoxious within a denser setting.  If no one in my own household objects, I can play Mahler's 3rd followed by Steely Dan or even old Creedence at 85-90dB without generating ill will, as I live in a house on a lot; if I were to attempt to do that in an apartment/condominium block, I'd be getting -- at minimum -- a nasty note from management within a few hours, likely preceded by neighborly banging on the walls!  If one can afford it financially & logistically, urban living does have its advantages -- but it also carries with it the need to function communally to a large degree.  Some can pull it off better than others -- those who aren't willing to dispense with a number of individual prerogatives are better off locating themselves in a more individualized setting -- which usually means more widely dispersed living quarters such as found on the urban periphery.  But those who are ready to accept an intrinsic loss of personal freedom for the ability to immerse one's self in an urban genre are sui generis those who will in fact thrive within that atmosphere. 

Nevertheless, even if one elects an urbanized lifestyle, that doesn't mean any sort of intrinsic rejection of material things -- it just makes one more selective as to what would be appropriate/function well within the set of circumstances surrounding that choice.  When an urban resident wants something, there needs to be an efficient way to get it to them; disrupting or arbitrarily limiting commerce by removing egress facilities doesn't bode well for the continued well-being of city dwellers.  They haven't taken a vow of economic chastity; they're just scaling their possessions to match their situations -- they're still living in that storied "material world", sized to fit!  More the lineal descendants of the "yuppies" of the '80's than the "hippies" of the 60's/70's, with the addition of 30-some-odd years of technology.  Sure, there are the exceptions -- but those serve simply to elucidate the rule.  And few of them will go into convulsions at the mere sight of a freeway or an Interstate trailblazer; they're part of the urban environment that was chosen.  Not that even more urban freeways -- or expansion of the current network(s) -- is appropriate (it isn't), but to expend public funds on teardowns and peripheral reroutes might not be the optimal use of ever-scarce money.  Put it into light rail, trolleys, expanded bus service -- just don't waste it to satisfy a vocal minor contingent.  In this case, they're choosing to live in downtown Kansas City -- not a village in an old Bavarian duchy!       

driving is still cool, if you look at the stats, driving is increasing again.  the point i'm trying to make is to give people more choices to get around.  you don't need to drive everywhere, sometimes you want to walk, bike, or try the bus or subway. 

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 09, 2017, 05:10:47 AM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 08, 2017, 11:01:42 PM
Even in my hometown of OKC where it mainly car oriented, it's getting easier and easier to live without a car. So people have that option. They don't need to be bitching about the entire city being accessible by foot but I do support the entire city being accessible by car. If you're against that, than feel free to explain to me how you'd have a city operate with no cars. There are cities with no rail transit, but there aren't any cities with no roads.

One advantage that OKC has that many cities in the US does not is that its freeway system was entirely built out as planned, with no freeways canceled due to opposition or cost. As a result, it more or less functions as it should. There are a few weak links due to outdated infrastructure, but in general, the only thing that really causes backups are incidents and construction.

Most other cities saw at least one freeway cancellation, meaning that the traffic that link would have carried ends up having to be shifted elsewhere, so the system cannot effectively self-balance as it was designed to.

That's a great point. I never thought about that, though I've always wondered if ODOT ever had the intention of of NW 39th Expressway being converted to a freeway. There is the ROW to do and even if they wanted more they could buy from the surrounding land as most of it is just parking lots. The problems I'd foresee is downtown Bethany(probably need to build a cap and park being very costly but they could use the cut and cover method) and the Lake Overholser area presenting some issues.

I'd assume that the west side would need to grow by 100 thousand more people or so and I-40 start to get really clogged before they would consider this as I'm sure opposition would be strong.

Quote from: vdeaneCome to think of it, in any other economics model, we don't use terms like "induced demand".  For example, if there was demand for 10 widgets, but only 5 could be produced, we wouldn't attack a factory that could produce 3 more as "inducing demand" and saying that widgets will always be undersupplied and that the real solution is to reduce widget production so people switch to something else.  Why do we with roads?  Also, I remember reading the Jane Jacobs book, where she was talking about the transit changes that came to NYC in the 50s/60s when the streets went one way, and how she was saying it was bad because the changes were causing people to consolidate trips, switch to driving, or just stay home/go somewhere else... exactly the same things she proposed as a good thing for drivers just a few pages earlier, and which continue to be touted as a good thing (for drivers - never for pedestrians/cyclists/transit riders) today.  Why the double standard?  Seems to me like driving has suddenly become uncool or something.  Now, granted, trying to make driving work in a dense urban environment isn't practical if everyone drives... but it seems to me as if a large part of the problem is the fact that our economy is currently centralizing into a few mega urban areas, with the rest of the country left to transfer people and businesses to these areas.  I would think it would be better to decentralize the economy rather than force everyone to change their lifestyle against their will.  There is no reason why all economic activity has to happen in a few large urban areas.

There is definitely a big trend of large city metro areas sucking population up from smaller cities and towns. Young people who have been able to make the move migrate away from smaller towns to bigger cities for better career and social opportunities. Nothing is new about that. However, smaller towns and cities now are finding it more difficult than ever to fund the basics a municipality is expected to provide, things like streets, police departments and schools.

Here in Oklahoma the state's budget debacle is hitting public education hard. A friend of mine who is a teacher in Frederick, OK told me the town of Tipton now has no more teachers in its public school. Classrooms are now "virtual" with teachers giving classes on TV screens. Lower paid "mentors" keep tabs on the students. When a town's school goes to hell the town ends up dying. Families who can move will do so.

Quote from: Plutonic PandaThat's a great point. I never thought about that, though I've always wondered if ODOT ever had the intention of of NW 39th Expressway being converted to a freeway. There is the ROW to do and even if they wanted more they could buy from the surrounding land as most of it is just parking lots. The problems I'd foresee is downtown Bethany(probably need to build a cap and park being very costly but they could use the cut and cover method) and the Lake Overholser area presenting some issues.

While it would make sense to add that part of Route 66 into metro Oklahoma City's freeway network, I don't think such a project is do-able. There isn't enough ROW to lay down a traditional urban freeway with frontage roads. Too much commercial development to the edge of the road in many places. Only a few spots have partial frontage roads. A new freeway would have to be built elevated over existing NW 39th Street all way way across Bethany. Such freeway designs are not popular politically.

Oklahoma City may have successfully planned out its original freeway network. But the cities and towns in that metro area have been terrible at planning for growth in recent decades. The Kilpatrick Turnpike could have been a larger outer loop from Edmond down through Mustang and back over to Norman. It would have provided a more effective long distance traffic bypass of the Oklahoma City core. Instead the potential corridor has been blocked or badly encroached by unorganized development.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 09, 2017, 03:06:56 AM
So you want to tell people how to live basically. Yeah I'm against that.

Me too! Urban planning should be done in response to how people get around the city, rather than as a means of coercing people to get around the city in a certain way. Today, most urban planners (especially the new urbanists) basically want to reduce car trips, which is never going to happen because to pretty much every American, cars=independence and freedom of movement. I know I hated not having a driver's license and after an issue with me not being able to get a hold of my mom for me to get a ride home from a Boy Scout event, I was like "I really want to take driver's ed now!!" And besides, I know I'm not the only one who dislikes buses! Even light rail seems like a glorified bus to me with the only difference being, it's a choo-choo train!  :-D

Quote from: compdude787 on April 09, 2017, 05:20:37 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 09, 2017, 03:06:56 AM
So you want to tell people how to live basically. Yeah I'm against that.

Me too! Urban planning should be done in response to how people get around the city, rather than as a means of coercing people to get around the city in a certain way. Today, most urban planners (especially the new urbanists) basically want to reduce car trips, which is never going to happen because to pretty much every American, cars=independence and freedom of movement. I know I hated not having a driver's license and after an issue with me not being able to get a hold of my mom for me to get a ride home from a Boy Scout event, I was like "I really want to take driver's ed now!!" And besides, I know I'm not the only one who dislikes buses! Even light rail seems like a glorified bus to me with the only difference being, it's a choo-choo train!  :-D

haha yeah I agree with all of this twenty times over. I can't wait to get another car again. I'm eyeing the Alfa Romeo Giulia.

Quote from: Bobby5280

Quote from: Plutonic PandaThat's a great point. I never thought about that, though I've always wondered if ODOT ever had the intention of of NW 39th Expressway being converted to a freeway. There is the ROW to do and even if they wanted more they could buy from the surrounding land as most of it is just parking lots. The problems I'd foresee is downtown Bethany(probably need to build a cap and park being very costly but they could use the cut and cover method) and the Lake Overholser area presenting some issues.

While it would make sense to add that part of Route 66 into metro Oklahoma City's freeway network, I don't think such a project is do-able. There isn't enough ROW to lay down a traditional urban freeway with frontage roads. Too much commercial development to the edge of the road in many places. Only a few spots have partial frontage roads. A new freeway would have to be built elevated over existing NW 39th Street all way way across Bethany. Such freeway designs are not popular politically.

Oklahoma City may have successfully planned out its original freeway network. But the cities and towns in that metro area have been terrible at planning for growth in recent decades. The Kilpatrick Turnpike could have been a larger outer loop from Edmond down through Mustang and back over to Norman. It would have provided a more effective long distance traffic bypass of the Oklahoma City core. Instead the potential corridor has been blocked or badly encroached by unorganized development.

I think it could be doable if the will was there. I mean when you get a chance if you have Google Earth check out the North Dallas Tollway through Highland Park. They could so something like that? They might have to sacrifice shoulders in the middle though.

The original section of the Dallas North Tollway, part of which goes through the Highland Park neighborhood, was built in the 1960's on an old railroad corridor. That's a much different conversion than taking a busy commercial street and converting it into a freeway.

If NW 39th Street was to be converted into a freeway I think the only plausible solution would be digging the new freeway deep in a trench and having frontage roads for businesses built cantilever style. The frontage roads would be partially hanging over the freeway. Dallas' North Central Expressway had to take this approach during the 1990's when it was expanded. The problem is this approach would be very expensive and possibly very disruptive to existing businesses along the corridor.

Yeah I'm guessing it would require traffic congestion to become a serious issue in OKC before anything like that is considered and as it stands now traffic congestion is almost non existent in that metro.

People are not being coerced into driving. Do any of you have to have your arms twisted into driving your cars? I think compdude787 is spot on in his assessment.

Exactly.  We need to improve mobility for other modes - for many decades, policy was car-centric to the point where many areas are impossible to navigate without one - not just suburbs, but even some cities!  It has to be done right, though, not at the cost of making things worse off for drivers.  A road diet on an overly wide street to improve bicycle/pedestrian connectivity is a good thing (often for drivers, too, since these usually means the addition of a turn lane where one didn't exist).  A road diet on an already congested arterial is another matter, and I don't support schemes like the Pennsylvania Turnpike to divert toll revenue to transit.  Unfortunately, there ARE a significant number of people who are truly anti-car and seek to INCREASE congestion to drive (pun not intended) people into using transit, and it feels like they're the ones setting the terms of the debate right now.  Highway widenings, if targeted right, can do a lot of good without taking too much land, and should not be ruled out entirely like many want.  And development should absolutely be guided in a less traffic-increasing way.  Do we really need to build a whole new shopping plaza when there's one sitting a couple miles down the road half-empty, for example?  And there are so many houses sitting vacant, that these neighborhoods should probably be redeveloped before building new ones.

Cars are not efficient use of space. Dense cities, on the other hand, are. The two just don't mix well; never have, and never will.

Cities that are really spread out work well with cars (Kansas City for example), because they aren't dense. There's less of a chance that a whole bunch of cars will be in one area at the same time, creating some sort of traffic jam.

On the other hand, cities that are super dense (Vancouver, NYC, Tokyo) don't work well with cars, because cars take up too much space relative to the operator. It's basic mathematics. As WaPo put it (https://goo.gl/dQKjnb) last March;

Quote from: Jarrett Walker, Washington Post Opinion
1) A city is a place where people live close together, so there's not much space per person. 2) Cars take up a lot of space per person. 3) Therefore, cities quickly run out of room for cars.

I know it sounds like an over-simplification, but it really is rather simple. Cars are not good use of a space. Invest in it all you want outside of "the city", but within the city, most every other mode of transport is a better use of space, so it's going to get priority.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 10, 2017, 05:48:02 PM
People are not being coerced into driving. Do any of you have to have your arms twisted into driving your cars?

^ This x 1000. I'm glad there's quite a few other people on here that agree with me! :)

Quote from: compdude787 on April 10, 2017, 06:52:00 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 10, 2017, 05:48:02 PM
People are not being coerced into driving. Do any of you have to have your arms twisted into driving your cars?

^ This x 1000.

No, no no. People are coerced into driving when local city planners refuse to accept the idea that more than two modes of transportation exist (walking and driving). No one is ever forced to do anything (nice strawman, ghostbuster), but when they have to actually leave their fucking homes, they need options. Most American cities already have a very good road system (infrastructure quality not-withstanding). If we can focus our efforts on incentivising drivers to switch their modes of transport from driving to literally anything else, we can help keep congestion from growing any more, without having to invest billions into our roads.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 10, 2017, 07:38:55 PM

Quote from: compdude787 on April 10, 2017, 06:52:00 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 10, 2017, 05:48:02 PM
People are not being coerced into driving. Do any of you have to have your arms twisted into driving your cars?

^ This x 1000.

No, no no. People are coerced into driving when local city planners refuse to accept the idea that more than two modes of transportation exist (walking and driving). No one is ever forced to do anything (nice strawman, ghostbuster), but when they have to actually leave their fucking homes, they need options. Most American cities already have a very good road system (infrastructure quality not-withstanding). If we can focus our efforts on incentivising drivers to switch their modes of transport from driving to literally anything else, we can help keep congestion from growing any more, without having to invest billions into our roads.

Or we can let the market decide and if people want to give up their cars and live in an urban area they can do so.

So far they are deciding they want the suburban lifestyle which requires wide roads and freeways.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 10, 2017, 06:50:14 PM
Cars are not efficient use of space.

With that logic, neither are trucks. Or, even horse drawn carriages, which I'm pretty sure took up the same amount of space that trucks do today, and were used to get around in cities for hundreds of years.

Quote from: compdude787 on April 10, 2017, 10:07:18 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 10, 2017, 06:50:14 PM
Cars are not efficient use of space.

With that logic, neither are trucks. Or, even horse drawn carriages, which I'm pretty sure took up the same amount of space that trucks do today, and were used to get around in cities for hundreds of years.

Trucks have to be big. And they are often banned from certain roads specifically because of their large size. Cars, on the other hand, continue to grow larger and larger, yet they don't accommodate any more people than they did 40 years ago (if not less, given that no cars come with front bench seats like they often did).

Horse-drawn carriages were used for transport in cities only for the very wealthy and those that absolutely needed to use it. Most people rode trolleys or walked (living as close to the city as possible to minimise walking).

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 10, 2017, 08:51:40 PM
Or we can let the market decide and if people want to give up their cars and live in an urban area they can do so.

So far they are deciding they want the suburban lifestyle which requires wide roads and freeways.

I'm not sure who "they" are, but all I'm seeing in my area is more and more skyscrapers and townhouses, both signs of increasing density. Maybe things are different where you are. I'm not suggesting that cars aren't the way forward for everyone. I'm simply suggesting that cars don't work well in cities, and that other modes of transport make much better economic sense for both the operator and user. If you wanna live in 'burbs, commuting 40 miles a day into the city, fine. But don't fucking bitch about traffic.

Quote from: jakerootIf we can focus our efforts on incentivising drivers to switch their modes of transport from driving to literally anything else, we can help keep congestion from growing any more, without having to invest billions into our roads.

One problem is alternative solutions like light rail or subways tend to cost staggering amounts of money to build, typically running into multiple billions of dollars. Only the biggest cities can try to afford these things. A more modest sized metropolis like Oklahoma City could not manage it, especially with the state's current financial situation. I don't understand why the construction costs are so high. A railroad doesn't eat as much real estate as a big superhighway project. Once these subway or light rail lines are built they don't always generate the ridership necessary to turn a profit.

Is there such a thing as anyone enjoying taking the bus to work? The strolls how ever many blocks to/from the bus stop and waiting out in the weather for the bus to arrive isn't always fun either. For most cities "mass transit" equals bus lines, not light rail or subways. Outside of that there's walking or riding a bicycle. Towns like mine aren't laid out worth a damn for that. I wish I could ride my trail bike back and forth to work, but I'm literally risking my life riding a bicycle on Lawton's streets with the kinds of inattentive drivers we have here.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 10, 2017, 11:57:09 PM

Quote from: jakerootIf we can focus our efforts on incentivising drivers to switch their modes of transport from driving to literally anything else, we can help keep congestion from growing any more, without having to invest billions into our roads.

One problem is alternative solutions like light rail or subways tend to cost staggering amounts of money to build, typically running into multiple billions of dollars. Only the biggest cities can try to afford these things. A more modest sized metropolis like Oklahoma City could not manage it, especially with the state's current financial situation. I don't understand why the construction costs are so high. A railroad doesn't eat as much real estate as a big superhighway project. Once these subway or light rail lines are built they don't always generate the ridership necessary to turn a profit.

There's little to no chance that a city could, on its own, build out a massive light rail/commuter rail/BRT network. Federal funding gets jobs like this done. But it's no different for roads. Cities routinely seek federal funds to help with road construction/reconstruction.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 10, 2017, 11:57:09 PM
Is there such a thing as anyone enjoying taking the bus to work? The strolls how ever many blocks to/from the bus stop and waiting out in the weather for the bus to arrive isn't always fun either. For most cities "mass transit" equals bus lines, not light rail or subways. Outside of that there's walking or riding a bicycle. Towns like mine aren't laid out worth a damn for that. I wish I could ride my trail bike back and forth to work, but I'm literally risking my life riding a bicycle on Lawton's streets with the kinds of inattentive drivers we have here.

If I lived in the Midwest, I'm not sure I'd bother with the bus or bike either. Most cities out there are laid out in a way that promotes growth without compromising traffic flow (primarily by limiting dense development); cars work well. Here in Seattle, the trend has been towards dense development (mostly due to geographic restrictions). For dense development to be a success, there needs to be an efficient transportation network to get those who live in the dense area in and around town. Cars are good in low dense areas because there's less people in that area to occupy road space. But in dense areas, cars (mathematically) are just not good fits (too many cars in one area). Do you get coerced into public transit? Sure, especially when the twenty storey tower you moved into lacks parking. But that's kind of the way things go. This country is growing, and our transportation methods need to grow along with it.

One compound word: "trip-chaining".  Regardless of residential venue (urban/other); it's hardly doable unless a car or other individualized vehicle is readily available.  There's a lot of people out there who would rather avoid driving -- but they find it necessary to do so in order to optimize their time regarding work vs. "downtime" -- doing shopping (both necessities and optional purchases), errands, social activities, etc.  With work taking up seemingly more of our time in this day & age, it's become more and more necessary to multi-task to conserve time; trip-chaining while commuting is a natural and logical extension of that necessity. 

Some may cite online purchases as an alternative (let the FedEx guy do the heavy lifting!) -- but there are still large numbers of us who don't view everything as fungible -- a lot of items (particularly "big-ticket" merchandise) are best selected and purchased after actually viewed -- and occasionally handled or sampled -- by the potential purchaser.  I've gotten into long and often unresolved arguments with certain mobility-phobic advocates (invariably NYC-based -- Eric Joffe, I'm looking at you!) who have stated that they've adapted their purchasing habits to include a high level of "blind" transactions in which merchandise is acquired on "spec" alone (somewhat mitigated by the presence of generous return policies on the part of some vendors).  But even that stretches the rules of economics -- eventually the customer pays for the shipping (and return) activities, either directly or through increases in basic pricing to accommodate the potential dissatisfied customer -- which increases the costs to all customers, urban-based or not.         

Quote from: jakeroot on April 11, 2017, 12:14:35 AM
For dense development to be a success, there needs to be an efficient transportation network to get those who live in the dense area in and around town.

Hang around any college urban-planning program (or don't, if you're argument-averse!) and you'll find the inverse of the above statement to serve as the raison d'etre of their efforts & belief structure -- i.e., if you want to deploy an efficient transportation network, you need a high level of dense development in place.  In Seattle and other tightly boundarized cities, it's a no-brainer; there's simply no room to squeeze in significant additional numbers of cars, much less more freeway lanes or facilities.  But still most residents own at least one vehicle, to use as needed to accommodate a "normal" life that includes a modicum of commercial activity; whether or not that vehicle is used for commuter purposes depends upon too many variables to list here -- mostly having to do with distance & specific residence location.  But unless one (or two or three) has squeezed their self into such a small living space that material possessions of any bulk just won't fit, a vehicle -- or access to one -- is almost a requirement.
   

is there a single city where the transit actually makes a profit?  also, it would be nice to have better designed suburbs, more "griddy" less squiggly dead end subdivision streets.  I live in the Indy area, and the lack of boundaries makes the city essentially have no incentive to be dense, it's larger than NYC (by land only), yet less than a million people live in Indy proper.  It would be great to have another choice besides a car to get around.  So many streets here have no sidewalks, bike lanes, only lanes for cars.  And IndyGo (bus system here) is garbage.

Honestly, I don't understand the attraction of living in super-dense areas.  It's unfortunate that our economy is centering around such spaces more and more.  I need my privacy.  I don't want to be right on top of other people 24/7 - I'd go stir crazy (such is also why I can't deal with an open-concept office).  I don't want to have to live my life according to the bus schedule.  I can't deal with the uncertainty of whether the bus will arrive on time.  For these reasons, driving is the clear choice for me.

Yet, I can't stand congestion either.  I can't deal with a long commute; I already spend enough time at work, placing free time at a premium (I never learned how people manage to cram everything they do into 24 hours; every day feels too short), so I don't want to take any more of it away than I have to.  I also don't do on-street parking (partly because I suck at parallel parking, partly because I feel less secure doing so, but mostly because I hate the uncertainty of where I'd get to park and because I don't want to do the snow removal dance).  This pushes me out to the suburbs (apartments with parking/driving situations that I like DO exist even in urban areas, but they are way too expensive for anyone who isn't rich), but that causes issues with commute length and congestion.  I just can't win, and with current development/planning trends, the situation will just keep getting worse.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 10, 2017, 08:51:40 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 10, 2017, 07:38:55 PM

Quote from: compdude787 on April 10, 2017, 06:52:00 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 10, 2017, 05:48:02 PM
People are not being coerced into driving. Do any of you have to have your arms twisted into driving your cars?

^ This x 1000.

No, no no. People are coerced into driving when local city planners refuse to accept the idea that more than two modes of transportation exist (walking and driving). No one is ever forced to do anything (nice strawman, ghostbuster), but when they have to actually leave their fucking homes, they need options. Most American cities already have a very good road system (infrastructure quality not-withstanding). If we can focus our efforts on incentivising drivers to switch their modes of transport from driving to literally anything else, we can help keep congestion from growing any more, without having to invest billions into our roads.

Or we can let the market decide and if people want to give up their cars and live in an urban area they can do so.

So far they are deciding they want the suburban lifestyle which requires wide roads and freeways.

The market can only decide to a certain point.  When ridership is low but not nonexistent, the public transit network either disappears or becomes functionally worthless.  At that point, the people who still need or prefer to use public transit no longer realistically have that as an option.  And so you could think of transit as a public service that must at least be maintained to a minimum, in order to ensure there actually is something left to be decided.

An example of this is the western suburbs of Chicago, where I used to live without a car.  I took evening classes at a community college in Glen Ellyn.  There was a bus line to the college, but it only ran every so often and didn't run at all at night (no buses in that part of the county ran late).  So, while I could get to college by bus, I had to figure out other ways of getting home again.  For me, that often involved asking around in class at the beginning of each quarter for a regular ride home; just as often, it involved standing outside the campus doors with a hitchhiking sign.  That "system" isn't for everybody, and it should not be considered sufficient.  I met several people during my time in the area who said they would like to take evening classes to further their education, but the lack of evening bus routes made it an impossibility.  "Letting the market decide" would lead you to believe there is no demand for evening ridership on that bus line, but such is not the case; in reality, there isn't enough demand for RTA to keep the line operating into the evening hours.  Diverting more funds to public transit in the area and improving the network would make riders magically appear–latent demand you didn't know was there.  The only way to justify the current system is to say that people who cannot afford their own car don't deserve to have their mobility subsidized to the same extent as people who can afford their own car.

I made do in the area at the time, using a combination of modes of transportation:  commuter rail, bus, bicycle, roller blades, walking, hitchhiking.  But, in that environment, people are very much coerced into driving a car.  When you cannot get from A to B without a car, or it's maddeningly difficult to do so, then you are coerced to get a car to drive.

Quote from: vdeane on April 11, 2017, 01:37:56 PM
Honestly, I don't understand the attraction of living in super-dense areas.  It's unfortunate that our economy is centering around such spaces more and more.  I need my privacy.  I don't want to be right on top of other people 24/7 - I'd go stir crazy (such is also why I can't deal with an open-concept office).  I don't want to have to live my life according to the bus schedule.  I can't deal with the uncertainty of whether the bus will arrive on time.  For these reasons, driving is the clear choice for me.

Yet, I can't stand congestion either.  I can't deal with a long commute; I already spend enough time at work, placing free time at a premium (I never learned how people manage to cram everything they do into 24 hours; every day feels too short), so I don't want to take any more of it away than I have to.  I also don't do on-street parking (partly because I suck at parallel parking, partly because I feel less secure doing so, but mostly because I hate the uncertainty of where I'd get to park and because I don't want to do the snow removal dance).  This pushes me out to the suburbs (apartments with parking/driving situations that I like DO exist even in urban areas, but they are way too expensive for anyone who isn't rich), but that causes issues with commute length and congestion.  I just can't win, and with current development/planning trends, the situation will just keep getting worse.

there's nothing wrong with your preferences, some people do want less dense, and sometimes rural life.  i just argue for better built suburbs in general. 

Greatly worded, Bobby. I agree 110%.

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 11, 2017, 02:14:40 PM

Quote from: vdeane on April 11, 2017, 01:37:56 PM
Honestly, I don't understand the attraction of living in super-dense areas.  It's unfortunate that our economy is centering around such spaces more and more.  I need my privacy.  I don't want to be right on top of other people 24/7 - I'd go stir crazy (such is also why I can't deal with an open-concept office).  I don't want to have to live my life according to the bus schedule.  I can't deal with the uncertainty of whether the bus will arrive on time.  For these reasons, driving is the clear choice for me.

Yet, I can't stand congestion either.  I can't deal with a long commute; I already spend enough time at work, placing free time at a premium (I never learned how people manage to cram everything they do into 24 hours; every day feels too short), so I don't want to take any more of it away than I have to.  I also don't do on-street parking (partly because I suck at parallel parking, partly because I feel less secure doing so, but mostly because I hate the uncertainty of where I'd get to park and because I don't want to do the snow removal dance).  This pushes me out to the suburbs (apartments with parking/driving situations that I like DO exist even in urban areas, but they are way too expensive for anyone who isn't rich), but that causes issues with commute length and congestion.  I just can't win, and with current development/planning trends, the situation will just keep getting worse.

there's nothing wrong with your preferences, some people do want less dense, and sometimes rural life.  i just argue for better built suburbs in general. 

True.  I prefer older suburbs to the sprawling mix of HOAs with a bunch of curvy cul de sacs for that reason.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 11, 2017, 08:55:28 PM
One thing that transit advocates fail to take into account when discussing transit in the Great Plains states is the climate. In Oklahoma City, you can have highs in the 20s in the winter and highs up to 110 in the summer, with humidity much higher than hotter cities like Phoenix or Las Vegas. Biking into a 30-mph headwind is no cakewalk either. Not to mention the threat of severe weather. Anyone who has a choice in the matter is not going to choose to bike or walk (or probably even ride the bus) in such conditions.

And then there's the threat of severe weather. I wouldn't want to get caught out waiting for the bus on a Moderate risk day.

According to the 2014 American Community Survey Analysis of bicycle commuting in American cities (https://goo.gl/bjaVyb), the top 27 cities for cycling don't seem to have a lot in common. It's really a who's who of best cycling infrastructure ("if you build it, they will come"). Standout cities in terms of climate and/or arduous infrastructure include;

3: Boulder, CO (similar if not heavier swings in temp than OKC, but less humid (though also stormy));
7: Portland, OR (rainy and hilly, though moderate in terms of temp (though summers can hit 100F often), also often windy);
9: Fort Collins, CO (read: Boulder);
11: Missoula, MT (very cold winters, hot thundery weather in summer);
12: Bloomington, IN (hot and humid, thundery spring and summer, mildly snowy);
13: Madison, WI (hot and humid, thundery spring and summer, very cold and snowy winters);
14: Flagstaff, AZ (very cold snowy winters)
15: Ann Arbor, MI (cold snowy winters, hot and humid summers)
17: Minneapolis, MN (read: Madison)
18: Iowa City, IA (cold winters, probably hot and humid, thundery summers)
19: Gainesville, FL (great winters, but hot, humid, stormy summers)
20: San Francisco, CA (great weather but super hilly)
21: Bellingham, WA (mild-ish weather year round but very rainy and hilly in parts)
23: Washington, DC (cold often snowy winters, hot humid thundery summers)
24: Seattle, WA (mild-ish weather year round but very rainy and very hilly)
25: College Station, TX (read: Gainesville)
26: Tempe, AZ (great winters but fucking hot as shit in summer, regardless of humidity)

Note that of the top 27, six are in the Midwest region. Obviously that's not a ton, and the West Coast still leads the way. And certainly climate plays a large role. But to suggest that climate in and of itself is a reason to forget about cycling is premature, especially if the city in discussion lacks proper cycling infrastructure (only so many cyclists are comfortable riding in the street with other cars).

Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2017, 12:20:33 AM
.......the top 27 cities for cycling don't seem to have a lot in common. It's really a who's who of best cycling infrastructure ("if you build it, they will come"). Standout cities in terms of climate and/or arduous infrastructure include;

Noticed that only 17 of the 27 cities on the list are included here.  As a former Oregon denizen (PDX metro), in the time I lived there I was given to understand that Eugene was considered one of the top cycling cities.  (Disclosure: I don't bicycle due to a couple of inner-ear issues; I tend to fall over sideways when attempting to balance on something!)  U of O graduates were particularly adamant about Eugene being one of the best locations for not only cycling but other outdoor physical activities: relatively low altitude, much less rain than Portland, very clean air -- which is why it was dubbed "Track City USA" -- which also provides relatively ideal cycling conditions.  I'm wondering if it was one of the omissions from the original list.   

As an aside...........I was wondering if this thread will ever return to KC!

Quote from: sparker on April 12, 2017, 12:40:22 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2017, 12:20:33 AM
.......the top 27 cities for cycling don't seem to have a lot in common. It's really a who's who of best cycling infrastructure ("if you build it, they will come"). Standout cities in terms of climate and/or arduous infrastructure include;

Noticed that only 17 of the 27 cities on the list are included here.  As a former Oregon denizen (PDX metro), in the time I lived there I was given to understand that Eugene was considered one of the top cycling cities.  (Disclosure: I don't bicycle due to a couple of inner-ear issues; I tend to fall over sideways when attempting to balance on something!)  U of O graduates were particularly adamant about Eugene being one of the best locations for not only cycling but other outdoor physical activities: relatively low altitude, much less rain than Portland, very clean air -- which is why it was dubbed "Track City USA" -- which also provides relatively ideal cycling conditions.  I'm wondering if it was one of the omissions from the original list.

Allow me to retort:

Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2017, 12:20:33 AM
.......the top 27 cities for cycling don't seem to have a lot in common. It's really a who's who of best cycling infrastructure ("if you build it, they will come"). Standout cities in terms of climate and/or arduous infrastructure include;

Eugene is on the list. And while it's rainy like Portland, it's usually mild temps year-round and pretty flat. Not really that challenging.

I excluded other cities because they were obvious, like Davis, Palo Alto, and Mountain View.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2017, 12:43:04 AM
Eugene is on the list. And while it's rainy like Portland, it's usually mild temps year-round and not very flat. Not really that challenging.

I excluded other cities because they were obvious, like Davis, Palo Alto, and Mountain View.

Sorry -- I was using 2nd-hand information supplied by not unbiased acquaintances; as a non-cyclist, that's about the extent of my info; I was just reiterating what I had heard.  But then Eugene is indeed on the full list; you answered my question.  I guessed that since the southern portion of that city is indeed a bit hilly, that would furnish at least a sampling of the "arduous" aspect of the post criteria.  Interesting that the excluded cities are all near or adjacent to major universities, which these days host vast hordes of bicycle traffic.  Perhaps one of the more trying aspects of bicycling in that environment is the avoidance of -- literally -- running into one another!  More than once I've driven down El Camino Real in Palo Alto and witnessed a few dozen cyclists converging on one or another intersection (more often than not Embarcadero) and cross ECR in one pack like NASCAR drivers on a restart!  Always wondered what would occur once they collectively came to the single-lane RR underpass a block east (shared with auto traffic)! 

Some of the top bicycle friendly cities are in either blazing hot or bone chilling cold climates. But I'm going to call bullshit on the implied idea that lots of people are going to be out riding bicycles in terrible weather conditions if bike paths are there.

I have family in Denver and Colorado Springs and have visited both cities many times. When the weather is warm or at least pleasant (and not windy as hell) yeah, you'll see some bike riders on the bike paths in those cities. When it's snowy, icy and/or barely above zero people aren't going to be commuting via pedal power unless they have absolutely no other choice.

The weather can get pretty freaking hot here in Lawton during the summer. On the occasions I've rode my trail bike to work I've had to ride at a slow enough pace to keep from breaking into a sweat and soaking wet spots on the arm pit and back areas of my shirt before getting to work. Thankfully I wouldn't have to worry about that so much on the way home. But I would be sweating good in 100°+ heat.

Agreed 100% with Scott5114 on the wind thing. Pedaling into a head wind, especially the kind of wind we routinely get in Oklahoma, is not any fun at all. And, yeah, if you don't pay attention to the weather report and severe storms roll in at quitting time you're going to be trying to bum rides from friends to get home and possibly leaving your bike at the office.

Quote from: sparker on April 12, 2017, 01:21:00 AM

Need to make a correction. When I said "not very flat", I meant the opposite: "pretty flat".

In lousy weather I'm not going to be riding my trail bike anywhere. I'm not going to walking to and waiting at a bus stop either. I'm going to be in my truck, out of the bad weather, getting from point A to point B faster.

Same here. I won't be riding my bike the majority of the year in OKC because of the weather.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 12, 2017, 05:09:10 PM
In lousy weather I'm not going to be riding my trail bike anywhere. I'm not going to walking to and waiting at a bus stop either. I'm going to be in my truck, out of the bad weather, getting from point A to point B faster.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 12, 2017, 05:42:16 PM
Same here. I won't be riding my bike the majority of the year in OKC because of the weather.

Okay? You guys don't have to. But there are plenty of people who are willing to do everything you're not. Living in a city is not always about what's most comfortable. If you like comfort, I'd suggest rural Wyoming. Plenty of room for one-car-per-person out there.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2017, 05:53:31 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 12, 2017, 05:09:10 PM
In lousy weather I'm not going to be riding my trail bike anywhere. I'm not going to walking to and waiting at a bus stop either. I'm going to be in my truck, out of the bad weather, getting from point A to point B faster.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 12, 2017, 05:42:16 PM
Same here. I won't be riding my bike the majority of the year in OKC because of the weather.

Okay? You guys don't have to. But there are plenty of people who are willing to do everything you're not. Living in a city is not always about what's most comfortable. If you like comfort, I'd suggest rural Wyoming. Plenty of room for one-car-per-person out there.

The Oklahoma City that exists in your head is evidently not the one that was actually built in Oklahoma.

Honestly, before we get bike lanes/trails, I'd like to have sidewalks.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 12, 2017, 07:26:02 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2017, 05:53:31 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 12, 2017, 05:09:10 PM
In lousy weather I'm not going to be riding my trail bike anywhere. I'm not going to walking to and waiting at a bus stop either. I'm going to be in my truck, out of the bad weather, getting from point A to point B faster.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 12, 2017, 05:42:16 PM
Same here. I won't be riding my bike the majority of the year in OKC because of the weather.

Okay? You guys don't have to. But there are plenty of people who are willing to do everything you're not. Living in a city is not always about what's most comfortable. If you like comfort, I'd suggest rural Wyoming. Plenty of room for one-car-per-person out there.

The Oklahoma City that exists in your head is evidently not the one that was actually built in Oklahoma.

Honestly, before we get bike lanes/trails, I'd like to have sidewalks.

I've been once, but I spent most of my time within the city center and Bricktown areas. Seemed nice enough.

I'd recommend perhaps investing a few bucks into pedestrian infrastructure before the ADA gets lawsuit-happy with y'all.

The CBD/Bricktown is quite nice and is arguably the most urbanized area of Oklahoma. Most of Oklahoma City is not like that, however, and it is these parts of the city that the majority of Oklahoma City's population lives in.

I spend most of my time in Norman, not Oklahoma City, so I can only speak to my experience here with any reliability. Norman's sidewalks, where they exist, are for the most part well-maintained and follow ADA rules. However, as far as I can tell, Norman only requires a sidewalk to be built when property is developed. If you are walking down a street with undeveloped lots mixed with developed property, the sidewalk will end at the property line of the vacant lot and resume once you reach the next developed lot. There are some streets where the sidewalk starts and stops several times in the space of a block.

Norman has a few bike lanes, but they are all on minor collectors and as far as I can tell not used by anyone. I am in the process of purchasing a house alongside such a bike lane, so I'll keep an eye on it and let you know if my observations are different.  You do see the odd cyclist here and there on the arterials, but they are the type with the spandex suits and fancy helmets that would cycle into the gates of Hell if there was a bike lane there. I have never seen anyone in Oklahoma cycling in business-type clothing that would imply they were using a cycle for transit.

My best friend walks to work, but he does so because of a lack of a working car and he has a professed preference for the cold, so the only weather that really bothers him is the heat in June to September. He also owns the business he works at, so he can move his schedule around to avoid bad weather. Most of our social group think he's a little crazy for walking eleven miles round-trip each day.

Here's the thing. It fine and well if it's a good well constructed road. But I-70/35 isn't. If my memory is correct, the road is close to falling apart in some places. Something has to give, and three lanes of traffic isn't going to cut it. (99k 670, 70k I70NB, 58k 35sb, 80k 70WB)

Most of the arguments are as if there isn't access to the CBD. Thankfully, the newer section (670) actually has okay surface level access north and south. Up north and west (35/70) (Again if I remember correctly) are lacking *good* access. (Aka some, but not great) so if you do reconstruct the road there's going to be some give there.

Hopefully, there's a middle ground and in twenty years from the next reconstruction we can ignore capacity (Assuming self  driving cars take over) issues everyone can fight over nothing.

With regards to bicycling, one also must not overlook the social inertia aspect. We have a very strong car culture. We don't really have a bike culture.

Growing up, every time we needed to go anywhere, it involved everyone getting in the car. I had a bike as a child, sure, but I only ever rode it around our quiet little neighborhood where there were very few cars or occasionally in the park. It was a toy, not a means of transportation.

To this day, at 29 years old, I have never ridden a bicycle on a city street. I have no concept of what it's like beyond encountering other people doing it. Indeed, I don't own a bicycle and I'm a few months away from it being a decade since the last time I rode one anywhere.

But I own a car, and use it frequently without thinking much of it. Sometimes for trips I could accomplish by bicycle - if I had one and were comfortable using it. Except I don't and I'm not. The idea of biking on city streets seems rather intimidating and I've yet to find an impetus to confront this. Or to spend several hundred bucks on a bike, which I would need to do before I could. Or figure out where to store said bike when not in use, since the place where I live has plenty of car parking but no officially sanctioned bike parking.


Now let's imagine that when growing up I had actually used my bike to go places as opposed to as just a toy. Let's imagine that it seemed perfectly normal and natural to me to hop on my bike to go to the store, because it's something that I'd been doing since childhood and something that seemingly everyone does. Let's imagine that every apartment building had a nice well-maintained bike room; that just about every store, restaurant, business of any sort had a bike rack out front. And at the same time let's imagine that officially sanctioned parking for cars basically didn't exist, that owning one while living in an apartment came with the pain in the ass of figuring out where you could put it without the owner of the nearest building having it towed away because they think it's unsightly, and that once you had that figured out using it to go anywhere provided similar challenges at most destinations since good luck finding a store with car parking spaces out front.

Mode choice is usually not made with all options being given fair consideration. People default to what's normal for them, and the degree to which a particular mode is accommodated follows, in aggregate, what society thinks is normal. If we treated bikes like we treat cars, or vice versa, people's decisions would be very different.

I know, objectively, that there is a lot of unrealized potential out there for bicycles. When you factor traffic/time spent looking for parking into car use, bikes are often statistically the fastest means of accomplishing a particular trip within a city. But we're socially conditioned to not consider them, resulting in us making the inefficient choice (in terms of both time and money) to drive for the sake of sticking with what we're used to.

Quote from: Duke87 on April 13, 2017, 12:30:57 AM
With regards to bicycling, one also must not overlook the social inertia aspect. We have a very strong car culture. We don't really have a bike culture.

Growing up, every time we needed to go anywhere, it involved everyone getting in the car. I had a bike as a child, sure, but I only ever rode it around our quiet little neighborhood where there were very few cars or occasionally in the park. It was a toy, not a means of transportation.

To this day, at 29 years old, I have never ridden a bicycle on a city street. I have no concept of what it's like beyond encountering other people doing it. Indeed, I don't own a bicycle and I'm a few months away from it being a decade since the last time I rode one anywhere.

But I own a car, and use it frequently without thinking much of it. Sometimes for trips I could accomplish by bicycle - if I had one and were comfortable using it. Except I don't and I'm not. The idea of biking on city streets seems rather intimidating and I've yet to find an impetus to confront this. Or to spend several hundred bucks on a bike, which I would need to do before I could. Or figure out where to store said bike when not in use, since the place where I live has plenty of car parking but no officially sanctioned bike parking.


Now let's imagine that when growing up I had actually used my bike to go places as opposed to as just a toy. Let's imagine that it seemed perfectly normal and natural to me to hop on my bike to go to the store, because it's something that I'd been doing since childhood and something that seemingly everyone does. Let's imagine that every apartment building had a nice well-maintained bike room; that just about every store, restaurant, business of any sort had a bike rack out front. And at the same time let's imagine that officially sanctioned parking for cars basically didn't exist, that owning one while living in an apartment came with the pain in the ass of figuring out where you could put it without the owner of the nearest building having it towed away because they think it's unsightly, and that once you had that figured out using it to go anywhere provided similar challenges at most destinations since good luck finding a store with car parking spaces out front.

Mode choice is usually not made with all options being given fair consideration. People default to what's normal for them, and the degree to which a particular mode is accommodated follows, in aggregate, what society thinks is normal. If we treated bikes like we treat cars, or vice versa, people's decisions would be very different.

I know, objectively, that there is a lot of unrealized potential out there for bicycles. When you factor traffic/time spent looking for parking into car use, bikes are often statistically the fastest means of accomplishing a particular trip within a city. But we're socially conditioned to not consider them, resulting in us making the inefficient choice (in terms of both time and money) to drive for the sake of sticking with what we're used to.

This, I feel, is most people's attitude toward biking, recreation.  I love to ride my bike, but not for transportation.  Also, riding in a street is very intimidating, because the roadway isn't designed for mixed traffic in many areas. 

just how bad of shape is the loop in?

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 13, 2017, 07:47:18 AM
just how bad of shape is the loop in?

I'm not a civil engineer, but I don't think it's that bad. The road seems ok but idk about the overpasses/etc., The problem with the loop (on that section) is the short merging distance on the on/off ramps. The only way I could see this removal happening is if they can somehow widen that south loop. Otherwise they're creating a big bottleneck where they're funneling all the 35 and 70 traffic through one stretch.

Quote from: mvak36 on April 13, 2017, 09:16:07 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 13, 2017, 07:47:18 AM
just how bad of shape is the loop in?

I'm not a civil engineer, but I don't think it's that bad. The road seems ok but idk about the overpasses/etc., The problem with the loop (on that section) is the short merging distance on the on/off ramps. The only way I could see this removal happening is if they can somehow widen that south loop. Otherwise they're creating a big bottleneck where they're funneling all the 35 and 70 traffic through one stretch.

i bet the bridges are what is really the problem.  also, why put an exit at main/delaware?  looks like it would cause major weaving issues.  is the west leg going to be removed?

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 13, 2017, 09:30:04 AM

Quote from: mvak36 on April 13, 2017, 09:16:07 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 13, 2017, 07:47:18 AM
just how bad of shape is the loop in?

I'm not a civil engineer, but I don't think it's that bad. The road seems ok but idk about the overpasses/etc., The problem with the loop (on that section) is the short merging distance on the on/off ramps. The only way I could see this removal happening is if they can somehow widen that south loop. Otherwise they're creating a big bottleneck where they're funneling all the 35 and 70 traffic through one stretch.

i bet the bridges are what is really the problem.  also, why put an exit at main/delaware?  looks like it would cause major weaving issues.  is the west leg going to be removed?

They should probably get rid of that exit. That would help solve the weaving issues.

If they remove the north loop, then I think that they should remove the west loop and have 70 take over I-670 (Kansas would have to agree to this).

Quote from: mvak36 on April 13, 2017, 09:58:05 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 13, 2017, 09:30:04 AM

Quote from: mvak36 on April 13, 2017, 09:16:07 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 13, 2017, 07:47:18 AM
just how bad of shape is the loop in?

I'm not a civil engineer, but I don't think it's that bad. The road seems ok but idk about the overpasses/etc., The problem with the loop (on that section) is the short merging distance on the on/off ramps. The only way I could see this removal happening is if they can somehow widen that south loop. Otherwise they're creating a big bottleneck where they're funneling all the 35 and 70 traffic through one stretch.

i bet the bridges are what is really the problem.  also, why put an exit at main/delaware?  looks like it would cause major weaving issues.  is the west leg going to be removed?

They should probably get rid of that exit. That would help solve the weaving issues.

If they remove the north loop, then I think that they should remove the west loop and have 70 take over I-670 (Kansas would have to agree to this).

it looks like the west and north portions could be removed, then expand the east and south if necessary. 

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 13, 2017, 10:02:58 AM

Quote from: mvak36 on April 13, 2017, 09:58:05 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 13, 2017, 09:30:04 AM

Quote from: mvak36 on April 13, 2017, 09:16:07 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 13, 2017, 07:47:18 AM
just how bad of shape is the loop in?

I'm not a civil engineer, but I don't think it's that bad. The road seems ok but idk about the overpasses/etc., The problem with the loop (on that section) is the short merging distance on the on/off ramps. The only way I could see this removal happening is if they can somehow widen that south loop. Otherwise they're creating a big bottleneck where they're funneling all the 35 and 70 traffic through one stretch.

i bet the bridges are what is really the problem.  also, why put an exit at main/delaware?  looks like it would cause major weaving issues.  is the west leg going to be removed?

They should probably get rid of that exit. That would help solve the weaving issues.

If they remove the north loop, then I think that they should remove the west loop and have 70 take over I-670 (Kansas would have to agree to this).

it looks like the west and north portions could be removed, then expand the east and south if necessary.

Yeah. I'm not sure that the south portion has enough room to expand.

most cities zoning laws are awful

Quote from: Scott5114Some of the major arterials have "sharrows" painted on them, but makes it as much of a bike lane as painting "00" and "18" on the pavement would make it a runway.

I got a pretty good laugh from that.

sharrows are a lazy attempt for a city to claim they did something to be more bike friendly.

i also have seen situations where a one way road is striped as a 2 way, where car traffic stays oneway and bike traffic is 2way, one direction is sharrow and the other is bike only.  it looks awful and honestly looks confusing

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4282923,-86.9168208,42m/data=!3m1!1e3

also, is i-229 really going to be removed in st joseph?  it doesn't seem like it's needed anymore

If I remember correctly the big problem with I-229 in St Joseph is the really high cost of rehabilitating or rebuilding the double deck highway bridge running next to the Missouri River. The existing double deck structure next to the river bank is tall and unsightly. It arguably blocks off a lot of potential downtown development near the river front. Of course there's a busy rail line running next to the double deck bridge; that poses a significant obstacle to development too. With the current arrangement the downtown river front area will remain ugly and industrial looking. No developer will ever want to build something nice next to that.

There's no room along the river front to build I-229 at grade or in a trench (and then a trench would have its own serious flooding concerns). Long term, it seems like a foregone conclusion that double deck structure will be eventually removed. I-229 would get turned into a disconnected pair of freeway spurs.

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 19, 2017, 07:45:24 AM
also, is i-229 really going to be removed in st joseph?  it doesn't seem like it's needed anymore

Now this one I can see. We're talking <10,000 cars for a mostly viaduct road.

When it's up for rehabilitation I can see a big fight happening

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 19, 2017, 10:26:08 AM
If I remember correctly the big problem with I-229 in St Joseph is the really high cost of rehabilitating or rebuilding the double deck highway bridge running next to the Missouri River. The existing double deck structure next to the river bank is tall and unsightly. It arguably blocks off a lot of potential downtown development near the river front. Of course there's a busy rail line running next to the double deck bridge; that poses a significant obstacle to development too. With the current arrangement the downtown river front area will remain ugly and industrial looking. No developer will ever want to build something nice next to that.

There's no room along the river front to build I-229 at grade or in a trench (and then a trench would have its own serious flooding concerns). Long term, it seems like a foregone conclusion that double deck structure will be eventually removed. I-229 would get turned into a disconnected pair of freeway spurs.

Quote from: intelati49 on April 19, 2017, 10:31:05 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 19, 2017, 07:45:24 AM
also, is i-229 really going to be removed in st joseph?  it doesn't seem like it's needed anymore

Now this one I can see. We're talking <10,000 cars for a mostly viaduct road.

When it's up for rehabilitation I can see a big fight happening

I haven't driven on 229 since the '90's, but it looks like a conventional 4-lane viaduct could be constructed over the BNSF tracks  to replace the (apparently) problematic double-deck section.  Of course, it would have to clear double-stack container railcars -- but at least it wouldn't be 70-80 feet above ground level and less of an obstacle to river views.  This is indeed a tough one -- but most of the discussion needs to occur at the city/state level as to the benefits vs. detriments regarding keeping an intact loop route in the first place.

Someone should do a study on how much traffic would increase on surrounding streets in the event of an Interstate 229 tear-down. But no such proposal has been made to tear down Interstate 229, correct?

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 19, 2017, 04:52:01 PM
Someone should do a study on how much traffic would increase on surrounding streets in the event of an Interstate 229 tear-down. But no such proposal has been made to tear down Interstate 229, correct?

i saw an article a day or 2 ago that said as of now, they are just going to keep doing repairs, so it's there for the foreseeable future. st. joseph seems like too small a city to deserve a 3 digit interstate, maybe it was much larger back in the day.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 19, 2017, 10:26:08 AM
It arguably blocks off a lot of potential downtown development near the river front... No developer will ever want to build something nice next to that.

I don't think downtown St. Joe will EVER get revitalized; it's way too sketchy and depressed.

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 19, 2017, 09:00:55 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 19, 2017, 04:52:01 PM
Someone should do a study on how much traffic would increase on surrounding streets in the event of an Interstate 229 tear-down. But no such proposal has been made to tear down Interstate 229, correct?

i saw an article a day or 2 ago that said as of now, they are just going to keep doing repairs, so it's there for the foreseeable future. st. joseph seems like too small a city to deserve a 3 digit interstate, maybe it was much larger back in the day.

St. Joseph (I-229) Pop: 77,147
Butte, MT (I-115) Pop: 33,854
Hennepin, IL (I-180) Pop: 724
There's smaller towns with 3dis.

The north part of I-229 (the super rural part) is useful if you're coming from extreme NE Kansas and want to get on I-29. I drive it semi-frequently, and really like not having to stop when I pass through St. Joe.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 19, 2017, 10:26:08 AM
There's no room along the river front to build I-229 at grade or in a trench (and then a trench would have its own serious flooding concerns). Long term, it seems like a foregone conclusion that double deck structure will be eventually removed. I-229 would get turned into a disconnected pair of freeway spurs.

Looks to me that you might be able to put I-229 mostly at grade with a retaining wall on the river side - not sure how it might work out with the floodplain/comp storage requirements.  The tightest section would appear to be between Locust Street and Angelique Streets.

Quote from: SD Mapman on April 19, 2017, 09:11:29 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 19, 2017, 10:26:08 AM
It arguably blocks off a lot of potential downtown development near the river front... No developer will ever want to build something nice next to that.

I don't think downtown St. Joe will EVER get revitalized; it's way too sketchy and depressed.

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 19, 2017, 09:00:55 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 19, 2017, 04:52:01 PM
Someone should do a study on how much traffic would increase on surrounding streets in the event of an Interstate 229 tear-down. But no such proposal has been made to tear down Interstate 229, correct?

i saw an article a day or 2 ago that said as of now, they are just going to keep doing repairs, so it's there for the foreseeable future. st. joseph seems like too small a city to deserve a 3 digit interstate, maybe it was much larger back in the day.

St. Joseph (I-229) Pop: 77,147
Butte, MT (I-115) Pop: 33,854
Hennepin, IL (I-180) Pop: 724
There's smaller towns with 3dis.

The north part of I-229 (the super rural part) is useful if you're coming from extreme NE Kansas and want to get on I-29. I drive it semi-frequently, and really like not having to stop when I pass through St. Joe.

180 was built for a defunked factory, not really for hennepin.

I hope they don't tear down I-229. It can be rebuilt as a dounce decker with new artwork and parks added along it allowing better connects. I think that could easily spur some development if the demand is there. Removing the freeway won't cause a demand for housing there.

QuoteI hope they don't tear down I-229. It can be rebuilt as a dounce decker with new artwork and parks added along it allowing better connects. I think that could easily spur some development if the demand is there. Removing the freeway won't cause a demand for housing there.

Much of the issue on what happens to the roughly 40 year old bridges will come down to money. Currently MoDOT is having to spend a good bit on maintenance. I saw a report they spent $2 million in 2015 replacing bad bearings and patching crumbling concrete. It reminds me of the costly patch work ODOT was having to do to the elevated I-40 bridges in downtown Oklahoma City before they relocated I-40 a few blocks South.

In another 10-15 years MoDOT will have to do major repairs on the I-229 double deck bridges. Currently the rehab work is estimated at $50 million. With the kind of unreasonable cost inflation we're seeing for things like road construction there's no telling how much higher that cost could be in the year 2025-2030 time frame. A complete re-build of that I-229 segment would be costly. Because of the river and rail lines any re-build alternative would have to be elevated. Things like parks don't tend to work so well next to elevated highways. They do work if they can be capped over the top of trenched highways, but that's not an option in this case due to the flood threat.

Removing the I-229 double deck bridge won't spur housing development along the river front. However an open view of the river front would open the door for more revitalizing work to happen in downtown St. Joseph. I don't think it would hurt very much for the current I-229 freeway to have a gap between the Francis/Felix St exit and the US-36 freeway interchange.

Couple of articles yesterday that are indirectly related to the North Loop removal.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article145534779.html
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article145551219.html

The first article talks about the dangerous curves on the Lewis and Clark Viaduct on I-70 in Kansas City, KS. KDOT doesn't have any funding to rebuild the viaduct and those curves to today's standards (thanks a lot Brownturd). This is my opinion, but if they decide to remove the North Loop on the Missouri side, maybe Kansas will demolish the viaduct and route 70 across the South Loop.

The second article is about the Buck O'Neil bridge but it does talk about the loop removal proposal towards the end of the article.

QuoteThe Beyond the Loop project, which held its first public meeting in February, is intended to look at a regional plan that could reimagine the bridge, the North Loop of Interstate 70 and the surrounding transportation, economic and environmental issues.

The planners knew going in that there was no funding sources identified, but that they could provide visionary proposals by early 2018 that could inspire financial commitments.

The thinking by the regional planners, Achelpohl said, was that there would be time to launch the Beyond the Loop study "before (issues with the future of the bridge) got hot again."

It's hot now.

Seems like the bridge is taking priority for now. So we will have to wait and see what happens.

that entire portion of 70 in ks should be torn down, i don't know what the hell they were thinking with that curve.  How was that ever a good idea?

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 20, 2017, 06:05:05 PM
that entire portion of 70 in ks should be torn down, i don't know what the hell they were thinking with that curve.  How was that ever a good idea?

That was built with different standards at the time. Cars have gotten faster since those days and the standards have changed.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 20, 2017, 12:19:44 PM
I don't think it would hurt very much for the current I-229 freeway to have a gap between the Francis/Felix St exit and the US-36 freeway interchange.

As long as it wouldn't become a speed trap!

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 20, 2017, 06:05:05 PM
that entire portion of 70 in ks should be torn down, i don't know what the hell they were thinking with that curve.  How was that ever a good idea?

It was built in 1907.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 21, 2017, 06:58:44 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 20, 2017, 06:05:05 PM
that entire portion of 70 in ks should be torn down, i don't know what the hell they were thinking with that curve.  How was that ever a good idea?

It was built in 1907.

Wow!  It was born the same year as my dad -- and it's outlived him by 18 years!  But seriously, what are the traffic counts on both the 70 and 670 crossings?  Would consolidation into one facility (presumably along 670) require significant expansion to handle that aggregate count?  Or would a rebuild/realignment of the I-70 facility be more effectual way of dealing with the situation (if not ideal to the "teardown" proponents)?  IMO, those questions need to be answered before any major activity occurs.   :hmmm:

Quote from: sparker on April 21, 2017, 03:40:42 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 21, 2017, 06:58:44 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 20, 2017, 06:05:05 PM
that entire portion of 70 in ks should be torn down, i don't know what the hell they were thinking with that curve.  How was that ever a good idea?

It was built in 1907.

Wow!  It was born the same year as my dad -- and it's outlived him by 18 years!  But seriously, what are the traffic counts on both the 70 and 670 crossings?  Would consolidation into one facility (presumably along 670) require significant expansion to handle that aggregate count?  Or would a rebuild/realignment of the I-70 facility be more effectual way of dealing with the situation (if not ideal to the "teardown" proponents)?  IMO, those questions need to be answered before any major activity occurs.   :hmmm:

Maybe they could build a park over the highway like they did in St. Louis. They could remove the Main St interchange and have the Broadway interchange only accessible from the west (no on/off ramps to EB I-70/NB I-35) and do the opposite for the MO-9/Locust St. That would take care of the weaving issues and keep people happy.

Apparently KS is going to repair the Lewis and Clark Viaduct. I was reading this article about the  the Buck O'Neil bridge (http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article163788243.html) when I saw this at the bottom of the article:

QuoteKansas added another concern when its Legislature freed up funding for the state's plan to repair the Lewis and Clark Viaduct project – the Interstate 70 bridge that leads many people west out of downtown.

That work would likely close westbound lanes that could otherwise serve as an alternative route for commuters heading north and west if the Buck O'Neil Bridge were to be closed.

"Conceivably, both could be closed at the same time,"  said Ron Achelpohl, MARC's director of transportation and environment.

I couldn't find any other information on the Lewis and Clark project. I will update this post if I find any info.

Quote from: mvak36 on July 27, 2017, 09:49:43 AM
Apparently KS is going to repair the Lewis and Clark Viaduct. I was reading this article about the  the Buck O'Neil bridge (http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article163788243.html) when I saw this at the bottom of the article:

QuoteKansas added another concern when its Legislature freed up funding for the state's plan to repair the Lewis and Clark Viaduct project – the Interstate 70 bridge that leads many people west out of downtown.

That work would likely close westbound lanes that could otherwise serve as an alternative route for commuters heading north and west if the Buck O'Neil Bridge were to be closed.

"Conceivably, both could be closed at the same time,"  said Ron Achelpohl, MARC's director of transportation and environment.

I couldn't find any other information on the Lewis and Clark project. I will update this post if I find any info.

do they plan on removing the death curve too? also, why the hell would they route 70 and the us highways on the substandard portion?  i'm sure it was built before 670 was, but they should have at least swapped routes when 670 was done, you don't want a main route to travel the shittier path. 

Quote from: silverback1065 on July 27, 2017, 10:13:52 AM

Quote from: mvak36 on July 27, 2017, 09:49:43 AM
Apparently KS is going to repair the Lewis and Clark Viaduct. I was reading this article about the  the Buck O'Neil bridge (http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article163788243.html) when I saw this at the bottom of the article:

QuoteKansas added another concern when its Legislature freed up funding for the state's plan to repair the Lewis and Clark Viaduct project – the Interstate 70 bridge that leads many people west out of downtown.

That work would likely close westbound lanes that could otherwise serve as an alternative route for commuters heading north and west if the Buck O'Neil Bridge were to be closed.

"Conceivably, both could be closed at the same time,"  said Ron Achelpohl, MARC's director of transportation and environment.

I couldn't find any other information on the Lewis and Clark project. I will update this post if I find any info.

do they plan on removing the death curve too? also, why the hell would they route 70 and the us highways on the substandard portion?  i'm sure it was built before 670 was, but they should have at least swapped routes when 670 was done, you don't want a main route to travel the shittier path.

No clue. I only saw it mentioned in that article. I can't find anything about it anywhere else.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 21, 2017, 06:58:44 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 20, 2017, 06:05:05 PM
that entire portion of 70 in ks should be torn down, i don't know what the hell they were thinking with that curve.  How was that ever a good idea?

It was built in 1907.

The viaduct that now carries WB I-70 over the river may have been, however Historic Aerials shows that in 1955 traffic off the end of the viaduct only went straight ahead to the intersection of 4th and Minnesota. The infamous curve can be seen in early stages of construction in 1959, and partially open in 1963.

But yes, even in the 1950s, design standards for freeways were less robust than they are now. We had a lot less experience with them then.

I do also think that we as a society have in general come to expect much higher standards of safety than we did then. For example when this road was being built there was no such thing as OSHA yet.

Another article that mentions the upcoming Lewis and Clark Viaduct construction: http://www.kshb.com/traffic/funding-issues-lead-to-potential-closures-of-two-major-bridges-for-construction-at-the-same-time

QuoteLewis & Clark, which carries the westbound lanes of I-70 over the river, will be under construction for two years beginning next spring.

I still can't find any concrete information on the project so I am not sure what the scope of the project will be. But I found the open house presentation from 2012 that contains the Preferred Alternative (http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/subsites/lewis-and-clark/LCViaductI70/PDFs/Online-Meeting-FINAL.pdf) on Page 11 (It does improve those curves). Pages 12 through 14 also have some good info.

Article from last week regarding the Lewis and Clark Viaduct: http://wyandottedaily.com/mayor-asks-kdot-to-delay-i-70-viaduct-bridge-work/

Basically, the mayor wants KDOT to hold off on the project till KCMO figures out what they're going to do with the North Loop.

What does he mean "reclaim the riverfront"?  the road really isn't the only thing blocking that, the rr tracks are too, plus who wants to live on that part of the river anyway, it's an industrial area isn't it?!

^ Doesn't mean it would remain industrial.   As an example, a couple former industrial areas and a warehouse area near downtown Minneapolis have redeveloped quite nicely...

Kansas City big dig?

Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on February 22, 2017, 10:51:15 PM
I think that the loop in KC is so small that they should reconfigure it as a 6 lane one way counter clockwise loop.

I like this idea. The loop isn't that big as to add a lot of time to a trip around downtown, and there could be left and right hand exits for the major interchanges (I-35 north, I-35 south/I-70 west, I-70 east. Then traffic would only have to move across at most 3 lanes of traffic to hit those exits. Like a local/express setup without a separation.

Its proximity to downtown, at least in my view, makes the land too valuable to be used for industrial purposes. You could have excellent waterfront developments along there.

The railway shouldn't present a big issue. If possible, it should be sunk below ground (or, the new development built over it). But, even if it would end up at-grade with the rest of the development, it would be a pretty cool tourist attraction: a railway running right through what is otherwise a pedestrianised zone. Pretty sure they have some examples of that in Europe (ignoring the woeful examples in Asia).

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 17, 2017, 05:35:47 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 16, 2017, 11:31:28 PM
Its proximity to downtown, at least in my view, makes the land too valuable to be used for industrial purposes. You could have excellent waterfront developments along there.

You could, but I wouldn't bet on it. Check out the massive BNSF railyard just to the southwest; any relocation of rail lines is going to have to still tie into that somehow. Also, the area has been industrial in character since the 1950s, possibly earlier. In this case, industry is probably the highest and best use because of how densely packed and interconnected all that stuff is. You're talking about taking a decent chunk of the local economy and moving it...where exactly, and for what purpose, so someone can build a ritzy thingy there?

Stranger things have happened, but there's enough low-hanging fruit on the Missouri side, and even in other neighborhoods of KCK, that I wouldn't hold my breath.

I'll admit, it's a bit of a stretch. I think that, if there's an area near downtown that is ripe for redevelopment, this is probably the area. Re-zoning is not at all unusual. Here in the Tacoma area, the city of Ruston was always known for its smelter, which encompassed an admittedly much smaller area, but was nonetheless a large functioning industrial estate. Nowadays, it's a thriving center of commerce with a bunch of new apartments and homes. The smelter eventually closed due to pollution, so it was bound to be demo'd soon enough anyways. But it was a great location that was being wasted.

As for the location in question, while there are certainly other waterfront areas that could be developed, none are quite so close to downtown. I don't know if I see any West Bottoms developments happening anytime soon, due to all the active industrial buildings in the area. But if these places ever close, I think it's a great plot of land with high potential.

I'm not sure I'd call downtown developments "ritzy". They're meant more to be accessible than expensive. There for people who don't want to live 30 minutes from downtown. Middle-class is a good description of these types of people. They just don't want to own a car. The way KC has grown, it's hard to adopt a car-free lifestyle. Because I love my car so much, I really like to see these urban, high-density lifestyle developments because they detract from congestion growth, but still contribute to the economy.

As far as I-70, its alignment through there does seem odd. I'd rather they round out the Beardsley Road interchange, and straighten out I-670 and just put the I-70 designation on that route. That would detract from the appeal of West Bottoms for industrial purposes, certainly. But I think that's the mayor's goal here.

https://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/bureaus/kcMetro/pdf2017/LewisandClarkViaductBridgeReconstruction.pdf

Also, the westbound bridge is part of the November 2017 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15260.msg2269138#msg2269138) letting.

Update last week on Broadway bridge: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article183660706.html

An article today from the Kansas City Star brings attention to a survey for the public to give their input as to what should be done with the north side of the downtown loop: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article186871238.html

QuoteThe Beyond the Loop survey is part of a planning process that is helping define "what's the future that we want and what infrastructure do we need to get there,"  said Danny Rotert, a strategic consultant at Burns & McDonnell.

The survey basically asks what should be done to meet the area's needs for the next 50 years. The answers will help the project team decide the best ways to plan future roadway investments.

The survey contains four main alternatives being studied for the north loop:

▪  The No Build alternative leaves the north loop the same as it is today with no modifications.

▪  The Safety Adjustments alternative would consolidate ramps, make minor safety changes, and lower Missouri 9.

▪  The Compressed Footprint alternatives have four options that would reduce I-70 to two lanes and shift it to the north, south or middle.

▪  Full Removal alternative would remove I-70 and re-designate Interstate 670 as the new I-70. Independence Avenue and Sixth Street would become the primary east/west connection through the north side of downtown.

The survey also asks for opinions on the rehab or replacement of the Buck O'Neil Bridge (US 169) and the alignment of Missouri 9. The survey, along with more detailed plans for each alternative, can be found at http://www.beyondtheloopkc.com/survey.

the shift sounds like a horrible idea, no exits, and its 4 lanes?  how is that even a remotely good idea?  just get rid of it if it comes down to that one!
i'd vote for full removal personally.

I actually like the idea of the safety adjustments. They could potentially build a park over the highway like they did in St. Louis.

The safety adjustments alternative also seems like the best option to me. Taking away existing lanes makes no sense. As for the bridge, I'll defer on which option to choose.

i think that they should connect the bridge to the 35 interchange just west.

I'm torn between the safety improvements and full removal, and the compressed footprint sounds is a stupid idea indeed.

was the giant roundabout like design never a true consideration? (it's a one way loop with more lanes)

Quote from: mvak36 on November 28, 2017, 08:11:28 PM
I actually like the idea of the safety adjustments. They could potentially build a park over the highway like they did in St. Louis.

A lot of the money for the Arch Grounds renovation came from private funding. I can't see Missouri building a park over the highway in Downtown KC if they won't do it where one is already needed - US 71 between 55th and 75th. Missouri, and especially MODOT, doesn't have the money to build parks over highways right now anyway.

Quote from: skluth on December 07, 2017, 11:50:31 PM

Quote from: mvak36 on November 28, 2017, 08:11:28 PM
I actually like the idea of the safety adjustments. They could potentially build a park over the highway like they did in St. Louis.

A lot of the money for the Arch Grounds renovation came from private funding. I can't see Missouri building a park over the highway in Downtown KC if they won't do it where one is already needed - US 71 between 55th and 75th. Missouri, and especially MODOT, doesn't have the money to build parks over highways right now anyway.

That US71 park would have probably been built when MODOT had money but the neighborhood there has a consent decree preventing MODOT from making any improvements unless the citizens vote to get rid of the consent decree.

MoDOT has to pay off all the bonds that they took in the 2000's for projects like I-64, Musial Bridge, etc., approximately $200 million of their revenues every year is going to pay off these bonds. Unless they get some help from the legislature like a gas tax increase, etc., that's probably gonna continue.

Anyways, the reason I like the covered option for the North loop is because there is a lot of traffic on both the North and South loops. If you take away the North loop, it will just be a cluster on the south part of the loop. It's not like the South loop can be expanded either.

Quote from: skluth on December 07, 2017, 11:50:31 PM

Quote from: mvak36 on November 28, 2017, 08:11:28 PM
I actually like the idea of the safety adjustments. They could potentially build a park over the highway like they did in St. Louis.

A lot of the money for the Arch Grounds renovation came from private funding. I can't see Missouri building a park over the highway in Downtown KC if they won't do it where one is already needed - US 71 between 55th and 75th. Missouri, and especially MODOT, doesn't have the money to build parks over highways right now anyway.

MODOT has no money for anything

I found some info about the Lewis and Clark Viaduct reconstruction in Kansas: http://www.modot.org/kansascity/documents/LCV-Handout_10.13.17.pdf.

This info was from last October. I still haven't found any KDOT info about this project other than the above handout.

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 03, 2017, 01:11:26 PM
was the giant roundabout like design never a true consideration? (it's a one way loop with more lanes)

Man, it's been so long since I first read about it, that I really have no idea whether it was an official consideration or just a roadgeek idea.

Quote from: kphoger on January 02, 2018, 12:55:32 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 03, 2017, 01:11:26 PM
was the giant roundabout like design never a true consideration? (it's a one way loop with more lanes)

Man, it's been so long since I first read about it, that I really have no idea whether it was an official consideration or just a roadgeek idea.

I doubt that was ever serious consideration. The amount of weaving would be insane.

Starting next week, they will close WB 70 to start construction on the new WB Lewis & Clark Viaduct.

http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/bureaus/kcMetro/pdf2018/LewisandClarkClosing.pdf
http://fox4kc.com/2018/01/23/2-year-closure-of-westbound-lewis-and-clark-bridge-on-i-70-set-to-begin-next-week-kdot-says/

Quote from: mvak36 on January 25, 2018, 01:26:13 PM
Starting next week, they will close WB 70 to start construction on the new WB Lewis & Clark Viaduct.

http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/bureaus/kcMetro/pdf2018/LewisandClarkClosing.pdf
http://fox4kc.com/2018/01/23/2-year-closure-of-westbound-lewis-and-clark-bridge-on-i-70-set-to-begin-next-week-kdot-says/

wait what's the final design on that stretch? are they getting rid of the death curve?
it's also weird that there's no ramp for 35 south to 670 west

Quote from: silverback1065 on January 25, 2018, 02:33:43 PM

Quote from: mvak36 on January 25, 2018, 01:26:13 PM
Starting next week, they will close WB 70 to start construction on the new WB Lewis & Clark Viaduct.

http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/bureaus/kcMetro/pdf2018/LewisandClarkClosing.pdf
http://fox4kc.com/2018/01/23/2-year-closure-of-westbound-lewis-and-clark-bridge-on-i-70-set-to-begin-next-week-kdot-says/

wait what's the final design on that stretch? are they getting rid of the death curve?
it's also weird that there's no ramp for 35 south to 670 west

Not sure what the final design looks like. They are getting rid of the Westbound death curve. Not sure about the eastbound one. Maybe once they get funding for it.

Based on what I'm  reading of the plans for the L&C westbound Viaduct replacement, the removal of the westbound 35 MPH "Death Curve" is not a part of this project.

Quote from: route56 on January 31, 2018, 01:04:41 PM
Based on what I'm  reading of the plans for the L&C westbound Viaduct replacement, the removal of the westbound 35 MPH "Death Curve" is not a part of this project.

doesnt this project make the death curve permanent ?

Quote from: silverback1065 on January 31, 2018, 06:39:00 PM
doesnt this project make the death curve permanent ?

The plans do show a future re-aligned westbound I-70; however, the plans indicated that the future I-70 is to be constructed "by others." It does seem that they can't fix the curve until they have the money to replace the eastbound bridge.

(Interestingly, the westbound bridge is the newer of the two bridges, yet it is being replaced first. They don't build 'em like they used to  :cool:)

EDIT/UPDATE!:
http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/subsites/lewis-and-clark/LCViaductI70/PDFs/Online-Meeting-FINAL.pdf

According to this KDOT presentation, the re-alignment of the westbound I-70 curve is Phase 3 of the overall plan. What is currently being let is Phase 1.

I don't know when they will have the money, but one KDOT Public Affairs Officer got fired for a negative comment about the lack of funding  :popcorn:

Quote from: route56 on January 31, 2018, 06:59:43 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on January 31, 2018, 06:39:00 PM
doesnt this project make the death curve permanent ?

The plans do show a future re-aligned westbound I-70; however, the plans indicated that the future I-70 is to be constructed "by others." It does seem that they can't fix the curve until they have the money to replace the eastbound bridge.

(Interestingly, the westbound bridge is the newer of the two bridges, yet it is being replaced first. They don't build 'em like they used to  :cool:)

EDIT/UPDATE!:
http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/subsites/lewis-and-clark/LCViaductI70/PDFs/Online-Meeting-FINAL.pdf

According to this KDOT presentation, the re-alignment of the westbound I-70 curve is Phase 3 of the overall plan. What is currently being let is Phase 1.

I don't know when they will have the money, but one KDOT Public Affairs Officer got fired for a negative comment about the lack of funding  :popcorn:

I think if Kansas raises the income tax levels back to what they had before the Brownback cuts, they will hopefully not raid the road fund anymore to balance the budget.

IMO, they should just get rid of the viaduct entirely, and re-sign I-670 as I-70. Seems logical.

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on February 12, 2018, 02:23:40 PM
IMO, they should just get rid of the viaduct entirely, and re-sign I-670 as I-70. Seems logical.

that's what i've been saying. also tie US 169 into i-35 cosign them until exit 234.  Sign what's north of that us 69, existing us 69 gets to be a state road of a random number. Remove that stupid death curve, and tie that into independence and sign it as us 24 only.  also take 69 of metcalf, it makes no sense being routed on that road anyway.

Quote from: silverback1065 on February 12, 2018, 04:56:16 PM

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on February 12, 2018, 02:23:40 PM
IMO, they should just get rid of the viaduct entirely, and re-sign I-670 as I-70. Seems logical.

that's what i've been saying. also tie US 169 into i-35 cosign them until exit 234.  Sign what's north of that us 69, existing us 69 gets to be a state road of a random number. Remove that stupid death curve, and tie that into independence and sign it as us 24 only.  also take 69 of metcalf, it makes no sense being routed on that road anyway.

KCK is a big proponent of keeping the viaduct and I-70 intact. Plus, there needs to be a route for trucks to the fairfax area. Connecting 169 to I-35 with free flow ramps is being studied (same study that is looking into decommissioning the north leg of the loop).

Quote from: KCKCK is a big proponent of keeping the viaduct and I-70 intact.

I know they're in the middle of rehabilitating the viaduct, but if I-70 gets moved to I-670, I think it'd be better to just remove the viaduct altogether and bring that corridor down to grade.  Would actually improve access to the West Bottoms since there's no ramps along the viaduct.

QuotePlus, there needs to be a route for trucks to the fairfax area.

There would be, either via whatever route replaces the viaduct (as I mentioned), or via the Central Ave between its 670 ramps and its 70 interchange.

QuoteConnecting 169 to I-35 with free flow ramps is being studied (same study that is looking into decommissioning the north leg of the loop).

Which would be done by relocating the Broadway Bridge...part of the same study.

Quote from: froggie on February 21, 2018, 06:03:42 PM

Quote from: KCKCK is a big proponent of keeping the viaduct and I-70 intact.

I know they're in the middle of rehabilitating the viaduct, but if I-70 gets moved to I-670, I think it'd be better to just remove the viaduct altogether and bring that corridor down to grade.  Would actually improve access to the West Bottoms since there's no ramps along the viaduct.

QuotePlus, there needs to be a route for trucks to the fairfax area.

There would be, either via whatever route replaces the viaduct (as I mentioned), or via the Central Ave between its 670 ramps and its 70 interchange.

QuoteConnecting 169 to I-35 with free flow ramps is being studied (same study that is looking into decommissioning the north leg of the loop).

Which would be done by relocating the Broadway Bridge...part of the same study.

I wonder what will happen if KCMO decides to get rid of the loop (I still think it's a bad idea because that means there will be twice as much traffic on the south part of the loop and no room to expand it, but that's just my two cents). I'm not sure why Kansas started rebuilding the viaduct before KCMO decides on the future of the North loop (maybe safety reasons???, but I think the project was on the books way before the North Loop talk started).

I did email KDOT about when they're planning on doing the other parts of the viaduct but still haven't heard back.

my idea wouldn't remove the viaduct, it would just make it a surface street.

Wouldn't a surface street be horribly congested? How much traffic uses that portion of Interstate 70 anyway?

Quote from: silverback1065 on February 22, 2018, 10:00:11 AM
my idea wouldn't remove the viaduct, it would just make it a surface street.

Because of the nature of that viaduct, can't have the latter without the former.

in mo it would be a surface street, 70 would be on 670, 670 would be gone, the surface street would be signed as us 24. it would be elevated from 35 out to the death curve. 

The only reason why I don't want them to remove I-70 in downtown Kansas City is because I don't want the EXIT 2A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-J-K-L-M-N-P-Q-R-S-T-U-V-W-X-Y stuff.

@Gnutella Not removing I-70 only keeps the alphabet exit numbers. I think you mean you want to remove I=70 from the north loop. Removing I-70 potentially removes those exit numbers.

@silverback1065 I doubt US 24/US 40 would be kept if the north loop becomes at-grade intersections. I think the city will take over maintenance of the road instead of MoDOT and US 24/US 40 would move with I-70 to where I-670 currently is.