Both the Kansas City and St. Louis papers have general articles about adding HOT lanes and/or new facilities with mention of a loop outside of I-435, and there's this editorial about a Kansas rep talking about a new, possibly toll highway west of K-7 between Lansing and Leavenworth (http://www.leavenworthtimes.com/article/20130718/OPINION/130719217/1009/NEWS). Is there a connection between the two, or are these two separate projects?
I found this map in a PDF a week ago. I can't recall the source though, it was some kind of study.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FE2KzJSF.jpg&hash=c27264fb665075f701f876796d2a1cda01a15ce7)
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 19, 2013, 09:38:13 PM
Both the Kansas City and St. Louis papers have general articles about adding HOT lanes and/or new facilities with mention of a loop outside of I-435, and there's this editorial about a Kansas rep talking about a new, possibly toll highway west of K-7 between Lansing and Leavenworth (http://www.leavenworthtimes.com/article/20130718/OPINION/130719217/1009/NEWS). Is there a connection between the two, or are these two separate projects?
Kansas City's freeways are already underutilized compared to most freeways systems in the country. Why should HNTB (among others) be allowed to delay their days of reckoning by proposing such boondoggles as this?
I see the PDF maker is ahead of himself/themselves, with an I-49 label inside I-435.
Quote from: brad2971 on July 20, 2013, 12:37:50 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 19, 2013, 09:38:13 PM
Both the Kansas City and St. Louis papers have general articles about adding HOT lanes and/or new facilities with mention of a loop outside of I-435, and there's this editorial about a Kansas rep talking about a new, possibly toll highway west of K-7 between Lansing and Leavenworth (http://www.leavenworthtimes.com/article/20130718/OPINION/130719217/1009/NEWS). Is there a connection between the two, or are these two separate projects?
Kansas City's freeways are already underutilized compared to most freeways systems in the country. Why should HNTB (among others) be allowed to delay their days of reckoning by proposing such boondoggles as this?
Be allowed to delay whose days of reckoning?
This is probably far too premature. There isn't appreciable development beyond I-435 in Wyandotte and Leavenworth counties. If anything is needed, it would be between I-35 and I-49 in south Johnson County–I'd place the west terminus around Gardner or so and the east between Raymore and Peculiar. A freeway spur from I-29 to Leavenworth might also make sense.
Quote from: txstateends on July 20, 2013, 06:00:22 PM
I see the PDF maker is ahead of himself/themselves, with an I-49 label inside I-435.
Saw that too?
Quote from: Steve on July 22, 2013, 03:48:13 AM
Quote from: brad2971 on July 20, 2013, 12:37:50 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 19, 2013, 09:38:13 PM
Both the Kansas City and St. Louis papers have general articles about adding HOT lanes and/or new facilities with mention of a loop outside of I-435, and there's this editorial about a Kansas rep talking about a new, possibly toll highway west of K-7 between Lansing and Leavenworth (http://www.leavenworthtimes.com/article/20130718/OPINION/130719217/1009/NEWS). Is there a connection between the two, or are these two separate projects?
Kansas City's freeways are already underutilized compared to most freeways systems in the country. Why should HNTB (among others) be allowed to delay their days of reckoning by proposing such boondoggles as this?
Be allowed to delay whose days of reckoning?
I am of the firm belief that there are too many engineering firms like HNTB in what is still a recessionary environment for that industry. Chasing pie-in-the-sky "projects" like a second beltway for a metro area that doesn't really need one is proof that HNTB is looking for something to do.
In most industries in this economy, lack of work combined with a recession tend to create mega-mergers, on the cheap. HNTB could stand to be bought out by another competitor. That's what I mean by reckoning.
Just so you know, lest this flare up...I believe we do have at least one HNTB employee on the board ;)
Quote from: txstateends on July 20, 2013, 06:00:22 PM
I see the PDF maker is ahead of himself/themselves, with an I-49 label inside I-435.
Someday, right? :P
Quote from: brad2971 on July 28, 2013, 11:02:17 PM
Quote from: Steve on July 22, 2013, 03:48:13 AM
Quote from: brad2971 on July 20, 2013, 12:37:50 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 19, 2013, 09:38:13 PM
Both the Kansas City and St. Louis papers have general articles about adding HOT lanes and/or new facilities with mention of a loop outside of I-435, and there's this editorial about a Kansas rep talking about a new, possibly toll highway west of K-7 between Lansing and Leavenworth (http://www.leavenworthtimes.com/article/20130718/OPINION/130719217/1009/NEWS). Is there a connection between the two, or are these two separate projects?
Kansas City's freeways are already underutilized compared to most freeways systems in the country. Why should HNTB (among others) be allowed to delay their days of reckoning by proposing such boondoggles as this?
Be allowed to delay whose days of reckoning?
I am of the firm belief that there are too many engineering firms like HNTB in what is still a recessionary environment for that industry. Chasing pie-in-the-sky "projects" like a second beltway for a metro area that doesn't really need one is proof that HNTB is looking for something to do.
In most industries in this economy, lack of work combined with a recession tend to create mega-mergers, on the cheap. HNTB could stand to be bought out by another competitor. That's what I mean by reckoning.
... You do realize that these projects are not just generated by the engineering companies who then look for handouts from agencies? It's the agencies themselves that are proposing these ideas. There has been a lot of consolidation in recent years because of the shrinking market in the current economy,
because there are fewer projects coming from the agencies. You seem to fail to grasp how the engineering sector works.
Quote from: Rover_0 on July 29, 2013, 03:22:08 AM
Quote from: txstateends on July 20, 2013, 06:00:22 PM
I see the PDF maker is ahead of himself/themselves, with an I-49 label inside I-435.
Someday, right? :P
By the way, Kansas City's NPR station sometimes refers to US 71 between I-435 and Downtown as I-49, or sometimes "49 Highway," in traffic reports. I'd like to think it's wishful thinking, but I suspect another force is at work here (no, not a government conspiracy).
I believe this is the PDF Chris was referring to:
http://kdotapp2.ksdot.org/5CountyStudy/pdfs/phase_2_final_report/Potential_Outer_Loop_4-11-13.pdf
The report itself indicates that constructing an outer beltway as a full freeway is not anticipated to be necessary, and recommend instead that Edgerton Road between K-10 and 199th, and 199th between Edgerton and I-49, be widened to 4-lane arterial roads..