I-29 and I-49

[shoptb1]

I'm pretty sure that I'm not the first one to bring up this topic...but I searched and couldn't find anything related to it.  What are the reasons for and against consolidating I-29 and I-49 when the construction on the remaining segments of I-49 (Shreveport, LA to Fort Smith, AR and Bella Vista, AR to Pineville, MO) are completed.  Would the difficulty in joining the two segments together along US-71 in Kansas City because of NIMBYs be the largest reason against renumbering the both routes (I-29 and I-49) as the same number, or would it be the fact that I-29 is west of I-35 north of Kansas City?   If joined, you'd have a pretty long north-south interstate route from the Canadian border to New Orleans, LA when the whole thing is completed.  (approximately 1,600 miles)

Thoughts?

[Revive 755]

I think I saw something in the past about extending I-29 down US 71 in Missouri, but I may just be remember a fantasy posting by someone.

Now I think the issue would be having to renumber either I-29 or I-49; it would be fairly easy to just resign a continuous route around KC on I-435 and make existing I-29 a 3di.  Though I still expect some year for the flawed ruling/settlement leading to the current pathetic design of US 71 to be overturned (or overruled in Congress, maybe riding on the back of some other bill) and the route fully brought up to freeway standards.

[J N Winkler]

Now I think the issue would be having to renumber either I-29 or I-49; it would be fairly easy to just resign a continuous route around KC on I-435 and make existing I-29 a 3di.  Though I still expect some year for the flawed ruling/settlement leading to the current pathetic design of US 71 to be overturned (or overruled in Congress, maybe riding on the back of some other bill) and the route fully brought up to freeway standards.

I don't think that is going to happen in the next 40 years, and possibly it never will.  This was one of the original "white men's roads through black men's bedrooms" poster children and there is also the fact that Bruce Watkins Drive does not have a free-flow connection to the downtown loop.

[Revive 755]

I don't think that is going to happen in the next 40 years, and possibly it never will.  This was one of the original "white men's roads through black men's bedrooms" poster children and there is also the fact that Bruce Watkins Drive does not have a free-flow connection to the downtown loop.

Looks like free flow connections to me for all movements except to/from I-70 east of the downtown loop (which from a quick glance don't appear to be that crucial there; through NB 71 to EB I-70 would be better using I-435 or 31st and Jackson Avenue):
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=39.097237,-94.573799&spn=0.005787,0.013733&t=k&z=17

Or is this a reference to the speed on those ramps during rush hours? 

[TheStranger]

What I'm wondering: How hard would it be to simply copy what has been done for Minnesota Route 280 (closing off driveways/intersections) and create a de facto limited-access route, with no intersections, without any other construction?  Would that result in local objections like a full-fledged freeway would?

[bugo]

What I'm wondering: How hard would it be to simply copy what has been done for Minnesota Route 280 (closing off driveways/intersections) and create a de facto limited-access route, with no intersections, without any other construction?  Would that result in local objections like a full-fledged freeway would?

Yes.  There are some fairly major roads that cross 71 at grade. 

[TheStranger]

What I'm wondering: How hard would it be to simply copy what has been done for Minnesota Route 280 (closing off driveways/intersections) and create a de facto limited-access route, with no intersections, without any other construction?  Would that result in local objections like a full-fledged freeway would?

Yes.  There are some fairly major roads that cross 71 at grade. 

And I get the sense that any new overpasses would result in complaints...having said that, if overpasses were possible (and no other changes)...here's some thoughts from south to north, in terms of possible access:

Gregory Boulevard: 69th Street's existing right-on/right-off configuration could supplant the existing at-grade

East 59th Street: East 60th Street northbound RIRO, East 57th Street southbound RIRO

East 55th Street: East 53rd Street RIRO

[froggie]

Looks like free flow connections to me for all movements except to/from I-70 east of the downtown loop (which from a quick glance don't appear to be that crucial there; through NB 71 to EB I-70 would be better using I-435 or 31st and Jackson Avenue):

He was referring to the at-grade intersections further south that bugo and Mr. Sampang just commented on.

[Revive 755]

^ I see.

Has the photo enforcement for the northern two stoplights been there for a while or a somewhat  more recent addition?

Unless there was something going on Saturday, US 71 has enough traffic in the off times that would make an extra lane from about 73rd Street down to the Triangle a nice addition.  And if the intersections have to stay, MoDOT should do more - and should have done more when building them the first time.  MoDOT should have built eight through lanes, Michigan lefts (certainly the median space for them), or some other high capacity at grade design.  Or was there something in the court settlement that required a near normal at grade intersection?

[mgk920]

^ I see.

Has the photo enforcement for the northern two stoplights been there for a while or a somewhat  more recent addition?

Unless there was something going on Saturday, US 71 has enough traffic in the off times that would make an extra lane from about 73rd Street down to the Triangle a nice addition.  And if the intersections have to stay, MoDOT should do more - and should have done more when building them the first time.  MoDOT should have built eight through lanes, Michigan lefts (certainly the median space for them), or some other high capacity at grade design.  Or was there something in the court settlement that required a near normal at grade intersection?

Could the state legislature someday overrule that court ruling if it wanted to?  Eventually, those neighbors are going to get fed up with all of that surface street intersection traffic.



Mike

[US71]

My 2pfennig's worth is to end I-49 at 3 Trails Crossing. No haggling over the at-grades on Bruce Watkins, just end 49 at 435/470.

[shoptb1]

My 2pfennig's worth is to end I-49 at 3 Trails Crossing. No haggling over the at-grades on Bruce Watkins, just end 49 at 435/470.

I'm pretty sure that this is what will be done, with I-29 beginning from downtown extending north and with I-49 beginning at the previous Grandview Triangle (I-435 & I-470) extending south.  However, it just seems like it would just be more efficient if these routes (separated by a relative 12-mile straight line of US-71) could be linked together and consolidated.

[US71]

I'm pretty sure that this is what will be done, with I-29 beginning from downtown extending north and with I-49 beginning at the previous Grandview Triangle (I-435 & I-470) extending south.  However, it just seems like it would just be more efficient if these routes (separated by a relative 12-mile straight line of US-71) could be linked together and consolidated.

Efficient? Yes, but too many locals would scream if 49 was punched through along Bruce Watkins Dr

[shoptb1]

Efficient? Yes, but too many locals would scream if 49 was punched through along Bruce Watkins Dr

There's also the possibility of routing I-29 (or I-49) up I-435 to I-70 and west to the current I-29 intersection for continuity. 

[J N Winkler]

There is, but the length of I-29 inside the I-435 loop would have to become a three-digit route--perhaps I-129?  Ending I-49 at the Grandview Triangle is probably the least messy solution absent upgrades to Bruce Watkins Drive.

[Brandon]

There is, but the length of I-29 inside the I-435 loop would have to become a three-digit route--perhaps I-129?  Ending I-49 at the Grandview Triangle is probably the least messy solution absent upgrades to Bruce Watkins Drive.

It would, but that was not shoptb1's idea.  He was talking about using I-70 between I-435 and the current I-29 to connect the two.

A better question would be: Should I-49 and I-29 be combined?
I would say no because they are already established numbers, each on its own side of I-35.

[As an aside, this is where getting I-45 out of Texas would be a great idea, but that's for the fictional thread, IMHO.]

[Revive 755]

I'm going to say no, as it would leave things open in case the Springfield MO - KC corridor ever needs an interstate number, as well as preserving a number that might be used on said corridor for the US 67, Avenue of the Saints, and/or US 63 corridors.

[bugo]

I'm going to say no, as it would leave things open in case the Springfield MO - KC corridor ever needs an interstate number, as well as preserving a number that might be used on said corridor for the US 67, Avenue of the Saints, and/or US 63 corridors.

AHTD refers to the US 67 freeway as the Future I-30 corridor.  I'd be surprised if it ended up as I-57.

[US71]

It would, but that was not shoptb1's idea.  He was talking about using I-70 between I-435 and the current I-29 to connect the two.

Why use 435? Why not 470 (just for the sake of discussion) ?

[TheStranger]

It would, but that was not shoptb1's idea.  He was talking about using I-70 between I-435 and the current I-29 to connect the two.

Why use 435? Why not 470 (just for the sake of discussion) ?

470 would require quite a bit of backtracking, first eastward then westward, to connect the Grandview Triangle wit I-29 (via I-70)...

[bugo]

I think the Watkins Drive Freeway will be built one day.  Politics change, residents move and die, battles are forgotten.  It's obvious that it is built with expansion in mind.  MoDOT obviously built it that way for a reason.

[shoptb1]

It would, but that was not shoptb1's idea.  He was talking about using I-70 between I-435 and the current I-29 to connect the two.

Why use 435? Why not 470 (just for the sake of discussion) ?

The reason that I suggested I-435/I-70 was just because it was the shortest existing freeway link as an alternate to US-71.  I-435 all the way to I-29 is a possibility, but requires more diverted miles.  I-470 wouldn't be logical in my opinion, as it just requires backtracking along I-70 even further.

[Scott5114]

Were I Pete Rahn I'd gradually do a little upgrade work every five years or so that nobody notices that the route's gradually becoming a freeway. Easier to boil a frog when it's already in the water and what not. When queried about it I'd say "We're not upgrading the Watkins Drive to a freeway! That's our least favorite thing to do! We're implementing a new highway concept never before seen in the US. It's called, um, a..a gazordianplat. Gazordianplat. Yeah."

It's probably for the best that I am not in fact Pete Rahn.

[shoptb1]

When queried about it I'd say "We're not upgrading the Watkins Drive to a freeway! That's our least favorite thing to do! We're implementing a new highway concept never before seen in the US. It's called, um, a..a gazordianplat. Gazordianplat. Yeah."

[J N Winkler]

It's probably for the best that I am not in fact Pete Rahn.

He has actually resigned to take a job in the private sector, so his chair is empty.  Hurry up and get your CV in!