I-49 Coming to Missouri

[Henry]

Also, I find it annoying that opposition continues to mount against a possible I-49 path into downtown Kansas City, with those dangerous signalized intersections. Something is not right with this picture, with both sides screwed over as it is.

I don't think the opposition to upgrading US 71/Bruce Watkins Drive is there anymore.

In any case, they need to override any existing agreements and declare that since US 71 is now an Interstate south of the area (it wasn't when the improvements were made), they need to upgrade to full Interstate standards on Bruce Watkins for safety issues.

Agreed on that...

For the predominately black neighborhood surrounding Bruce Watkins Drive on the South side of Kansas City, it's very easy to see both the pros and cons of completing I-49 through that part of the city.

The pro's side of the argument are what most of us only see. Bruce Watkins Drive would obviously be much safer and much easier to travel if I-49 was completed into downtown Kansas City. There is no debate about that. It's an undeniable fact. In my own opinion for that reason alone I-49 should be completed into downtown Kansas City. Traffic safety trumps everything else.

More pro's to the argument, having an Interstate going through a certain area of the city would enhance economic development. There's lots of small cities and towns elsewhere in the United States just crying to be added directly into the Interstate highway system. Having an Interstate highway running through your town puts your town on the map. Building a new Interstate highway through that run down part of Kansas City might bring about a lot of new investment and new economic development. Extending I-49 through there could revitalize that area.

The con's: people in that part of town are trying to just survive. If I-49 was extended through there, just how many people in that local neighborhood would be involved in any of the economic revitalization? Would the black folks still be able to afford to stay there?

How many poor, black people in that neighborhood would be eligible to move up into better paying jobs? Or would the neighborhood go through a transformation where the black residents are pushed out in favor of new luxury condos and office complexes for mostly white folks? That's really the ultimate fear. The folks who want I-49 to get built into Kansas City have done little if anything to address the fears of people living in those neighborhoods. Living costs in big cities are getting way the hell out of hand. If someone is living in a rent-controlled apartment on very limited means you can bet he will fight like hell to keep anything from disrupting that arrangement.

Looking at it from the perspective of people who live in that neighborhood they see a completed freeway, as well as the new malls and condos and office towers and all sorts of other stuff that sprout up alongside of it, as a way of pushing them out of the neighborhood.

A really skillful politician could get the highway completed through that area and set up conditions so it wouldn't disrupt the lives of people who have been living in that neighborhood for a long time. The goal should be only about getting the highway completed, not adding a bunch of douchebag yuppie, let's get rich real estate crap along for the ride.

...and those too! FWIW, the US 71 upgrades could be a huge benefit if done right, and I-49 needs to continue to the Downtown Loop. What happens beyond that (and this is where I-29 comes into play) can be discussed in another (preferably Fictional) thread.

[silverback1065]

29 should end at the 35 split, there's no reason for it to go to the downtown loop.  the entire northern leg needs to be redesigned, realign main st, make every cross street cross, and tie 169 directly into the NW corner of the loop, remove that bs 70 does in kansas completely, and sign it on 670, kill 670.  also redesign that mess at sr 9.

[Henry]

29 should end at the 35 split, there's no reason for it to go to the downtown loop.  the entire northern leg needs to be redesigned, realign main st, make every cross street cross, and tie 169 directly into the NW corner of the loop, remove that bs 70 does in kansas completely, and sign it on 670, kill 670.  also redesign that mess at sr 9.

That, too.

[mvak36]

Let's hope the Trunp infrastructure plan covers the Bella Vista Bypass because the 2018-22 MoDOT Southwest District Rural Project List Draft STIP has moved the Award Date for the Bella Vista Bypass from 2020 to 2021 (p. 24/48 of pdf):


....

The Draft STIP was approved yesterday with no changes to the above projects. With the demolition contract, at least there is some progress going on. Hopefully they can get enough funds to build it and not delay it anymore.

[Anthony_JK]

For the predominately black neighborhood surrounding Bruce Watkins Drive on the South side of Kansas City, it's very easy to see both the pros and cons of completing I-49 through that part of the city.

The pro's side of the argument are what most of us only see. Bruce Watkins Drive would obviously be much safer and much easier to travel if I-49 was completed into downtown Kansas City. There is no debate about that. It's an undeniable fact. In my own opinion for that reason alone I-49 should be completed into downtown Kansas City. Traffic safety trumps everything else.

More pro's to the argument, having an Interstate going through a certain area of the city would enhance economic development. There's lots of small cities and towns elsewhere in the United States just crying to be added directly into the Interstate highway system. Having an Interstate highway running through your town puts your town on the map. Building a new Interstate highway through that run down part of Kansas City might bring about a lot of new investment and new economic development. Extending I-49 through there could revitalize that area.

The con's: people in that part of town are trying to just survive. If I-49 was extended through there, just how many people in that local neighborhood would be involved in any of the economic revitalization? Would the black folks still be able to afford to stay there?

How many poor, black people in that neighborhood would be eligible to move up into better paying jobs? Or would the neighborhood go through a transformation where the black residents are pushed out in favor of new luxury condos and office complexes for mostly white folks? That's really the ultimate fear. The folks who want I-49 to get built into Kansas City have done little if anything to address the fears of people living in those neighborhoods. Living costs in big cities are getting way the hell out of hand. If someone is living in a rent-controlled apartment on very limited means you can bet he will fight like hell to keep anything from disrupting that arrangement.

Looking at it from the perspective of people who live in that neighborhood they see a completed freeway, as well as the new malls and condos and office towers and all sorts of other stuff that sprout up alongside of it, as a way of pushing them out of the neighborhood.

A really skillful politician could get the highway completed through that area and set up conditions so it wouldn't disrupt the lives of people who have been living in that neighborhood for a long time. The goal should be only about getting the highway completed, not adding a bunch of douchebag yuppie, let's get rich real estate crap along for the ride.

Maybe the folks in that neighborhood need to place a call to the folks at the Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team in Lafayette and get an organization like the Evangeline Corridor Initiative working for Bruce Watkins Drive.

More info here: Evangeline Corridor Initiative page (via Lafayette Consolidated Government)

[skluth]

For the predominately black neighborhood surrounding Bruce Watkins Drive on the South side of Kansas City, it's very easy to see both the pros and cons of completing I-49 through that part of the city.

The pro's side of the argument are what most of us only see. Bruce Watkins Drive would obviously be much safer and much easier to travel if I-49 was completed into downtown Kansas City. There is no debate about that. It's an undeniable fact. In my own opinion for that reason alone I-49 should be completed into downtown Kansas City. Traffic safety trumps everything else.

More pro's to the argument, having an Interstate going through a certain area of the city would enhance economic development. There's lots of small cities and towns elsewhere in the United States just crying to be added directly into the Interstate highway system. Having an Interstate highway running through your town puts your town on the map. Building a new Interstate highway through that run down part of Kansas City might bring about a lot of new investment and new economic development. Extending I-49 through there could revitalize that area.

When you start from a false premise, it's easy to reach bad conclusions. An interstate running through a town that is in the middle of nowhere will increase traffic to the community simply because some people will pull off the highway for services. An interstate through an urban metro area does absolutely nothing for the residents of the neighborhood. It divides and frequently destroys the neighborhood it runs through. Drivers aren't going to exit for services. Businesses rarely build because they are looking for either an already developed area or a greenfield. This has been shown numerous times and is what sparked the anti-freeway revolts of the 60's.

There is little chance of gentrification as their is almost nothing of value along the corridor. The housing stock isn't the old or interesting or dense enough to those looking to live in older housing. It's too far from downtown to appeal to those wanting to walk or bicycle. There's no non-bus mass transit (light rail, streetcar, subway) to appeal to millennials and other non-car commuters. Retailers won't move in until there is the right number of local residents that can support their businesses. A mall won't be built because nobody is building malls anymore except a few outlet malls. For most gentrifiers, a new freeway will decrease the aesthetic of the neighborhood. Gentrifiers want neighborhoods that are walkable. A Bruce Watkins freeway would kill that aesthetic.

If you want a freeway through south KC (and I actually think it would be a good idea), you will need to build it to appeal to the residents of the affected neighborhoods. This means a minimally invasive highway that still satisfies the needs of the commuters who are going from the burbs to Downtown KC. The only thing that would probably work for the residents is something like a series of cut-and-cover tunnels. Yes, this is expensive but do you want the freeway built or not? It's not going in as a surface freeway. It's more expensive. Missouri doesn't even have the money to build roads it needs because the anti-tax idiots want all their roads for free. So I don't see the Bruce Watkins corridor freeway ever being built.

[silverback1065]

they'll build it eventually, the land is already there, they won't need to tear down any houses. 

[Bobby5280]

The area of Bruce Watkins Drive in question is not a walk-able space. US-71 doesn't have any sidewalks or bike paths running parallel to it. It's already a pretty busy highway, and one that is accident prone due to the at-grade intersections at Gregory Blvd, 59th Street and 55th Street, not to mention the RIRO's at 69th, 60th, 57th and 53rd streets. The only "safe" places to cross US-71 on this stretch are at the 3 at grade intersections.

When you start from a false premise, it's easy to reach bad conclusions. An interstate running through a town that is in the middle of nowhere will increase traffic to the community simply because some people will pull off the highway for services. An interstate through an urban metro area does absolutely nothing for the residents of the neighborhood. It divides and frequently destroys the neighborhood it runs through. Drivers aren't going to exit for services. Businesses rarely build because they are looking for either an already developed area or a greenfield. This has been shown numerous times and is what sparked the anti-freeway revolts of the 60's.

That's not always the case. Urban and sub-urban development trends are changing in ways not previously seen. Moving farther and farther away from city centers has lost its appeal. That fact was greatly amplified with the housing bubble collapse 10 years ago.

It doesn't take a new freeway for gentrification and yuppie motivations to push low & middle income people out of a neighborhood in favor of luxury development. Just look at San Francisco and most cities in the Bay Area or smaller cities like Santa Fe.

The neighborhoods bordering Bruce Watkins Drive don't look great, but they don't look run down terrible either. But it could get that way due to the city and state neglecting and turning its back on that neighborhood. Currently, a great deal of long distance traffic and other suburban traffic avoids that zone because it isn't a complete freeway. Fewer cars equal less potential business along that corridor. As it stands, it's not like a lot of US-71 traffic is stopping to do business at those three intersections right now. Even if completing the freeway didn't bring about a lot of new business it definitely would improve safety for both motorists and any pedestrians in the area.

Right now Missouri has little if any money for roads due to all the tax cut ideology being preached from the far right -the silly idea that flag waving and prayer is somehow going to pay for everything. If Missouri does get a decent road development budget they could improve Bruce Watkins Drive properly on at least 2 intersections. The one at 55th Street looks like it is locked into having an overpass over 55th due to the big hills in the median where a future highway would be built. The freeway could be trenched and capped with sidewalks, landscaping and green space at Gregory and 59th -basically hiding the freeway from regular street view. That's just two intersections and each wouldn't cost much more than building a SPUI.

[brycecordry]

The area of Bruce Watkins Drive in question is not a walk-able space. US-71 doesn't have any sidewalks or bike paths running parallel to it. It's already a pretty busy highway, and one that is accident prone due to the at-grade intersections at Gregory Blvd, 59th Street and 55th Street, not to mention the RIRO's at 69th, 60th, 57th and 53rd streets. The only "safe" places to cross US-71 on this stretch are at the 3 at grade intersections.

When you start from a false premise, it's easy to reach bad conclusions. An interstate running through a town that is in the middle of nowhere will increase traffic to the community simply because some people will pull off the highway for services. An interstate through an urban metro area does absolutely nothing for the residents of the neighborhood. It divides and frequently destroys the neighborhood it runs through. Drivers aren't going to exit for services. Businesses rarely build because they are looking for either an already developed area or a greenfield. This has been shown numerous times and is what sparked the anti-freeway revolts of the 60's.

That's not always the case. Urban and sub-urban development trends are changing in ways not previously seen. Moving farther and farther away from city centers has lost its appeal. That fact was greatly amplified with the housing bubble collapse 10 years ago.

It doesn't take a new freeway for gentrification and yuppie motivations to push low & middle income people out of a neighborhood in favor of luxury development. Just look at San Francisco and most cities in the Bay Area or smaller cities like Santa Fe.

The neighborhoods bordering Bruce Watkins Drive don't look great, but they don't look run down terrible either. But it could get that way due to the city and state neglecting and turning its back on that neighborhood. Currently, a great deal of long distance traffic and other suburban traffic avoids that zone because it isn't a complete freeway. Fewer cars equal less potential business along that corridor. As it stands, it's not like a lot of US-71 traffic is stopping to do business at those three intersections right now. Even if completing the freeway didn't bring about a lot of new business it definitely would improve safety for both motorists and any pedestrians in the area.

Right now Missouri has little if any money for roads due to all the tax cut ideology being preached from the far right -the silly idea that flag waving and prayer is somehow going to pay for everything. If Missouri does get a decent road development budget they could improve Bruce Watkins Drive properly on at least 2 intersections. The one at 55th Street looks like it is locked into having an overpass over 55th due to the big hills in the median where a future highway would be built. The freeway could be trenched and capped with sidewalks, landscaping and green space at Gregory and 59th -basically hiding the freeway from regular street view. That's just two intersections and each wouldn't cost much more than building a SPUI.

Actually, the first step for a new expressway through that area is for the citizens of the area to initiate a petition, and get a referendum on the ballot. There is a court order legally barring MoDOT from ever conducting major improvements on that stretch (besides preventative maintenance). Neither MoDOT nor any government, be it local, state, or federal, can do anything about it, even if traffic volumes reach unbearable levels.

[Bobby5280]

That's too bad. Lots of accidents, some fatal, occur there already on a frequent basis. I guess it will take a particularly grisly accident with multiple fatalities for attitudes to change.

[silverback1065]

That's too bad. Lots of accidents, some fatal, occur there already on a frequent basis. I guess it will take a particularly grisly accident with multiple fatalities for attitudes to change.

eventually, this will be one of the main reasons why they finish it.

[Bobby5280]

I just don't understand why the groups involved can't work out some kind of deal. Look at the intersection with East Meyer Blvd and US-71 (near Research Medical Center). It's not the most fancy freeway exit, but it does look nice. The surface street intersection above the freeway is attractive. Trees and other landscaping partially obscure the freeway. It has sidewalks and other green space leaving plenty of room for pedestrians. MO DOT could perhaps do something a little more elaborate and attractive for the 2 intersections where a future freeway could go under street level traffic. The Seattle area has some great examples of cut and cover freeway exits. Such improvements could beautify the US-71 corridor while dramatically improving traffic safety and efficiency.

[Anthony_JK]

[...]

Actually, the first step for a new expressway through that area is for the citizens of the area to initiate a petition, and get a referendum on the ballot. There is a court order legally barring MoDOT from ever conducting major improvements on that stretch (besides preventative maintenance). Neither MoDOT nor any government, be it local, state, or federal, can do anything about it, even if traffic volumes reach unbearable levels.

The parties involved in the original court order could file a petition to waive it, or the city of Kansas City could vote to encourage the courts to invalidate the order, with the support of the affected neighborhoods.

[Henry]

they'll build it eventually, the land is already there, they won't need to tear down any houses. 

That's too bad. Lots of accidents, some fatal, occur there already on a frequent basis. I guess it will take a particularly grisly accident with multiple fatalities for attitudes to change.

eventually, this will be one of the main reasons why they finish it.

The sooner, the better!

[mrsman]

they'll build it eventually, the land is already there, they won't need to tear down any houses. 

That's too bad. Lots of accidents, some fatal, occur there already on a frequent basis. I guess it will take a particularly grisly accident with multiple fatalities for attitudes to change.

eventually, this will be one of the main reasons why they finish it.

The sooner, the better!

And sadly, I believe that an accident has to involve pedestrians to make any movement here. If the mentality in the community is that only outsiders who are driving through are getting into accidents, so why should we care?  But if the current situation is seen as dangerous to those who live there then things will be different.  The danger has to be obvious to the residents, not just the suburbanites driving through.

Although, I cannot believe that the residents are happy with the current situation.  Their intransigence in keeping the highway built is hurting them most of all.  They are in most danger of getting into accidents since they can't avoid the area.  They will suffer the most from the bad effects of pollution.

It is one thing if the whole expressway were not built at all and the neighborhood were kept quiet because there is no road there.  (Example South PAsadena, CA near the I-710 corridor), but here all of the traffic is coming right through their neighborhood anyway and will pose a danger to their residents.  There is no good reason to keep this highway from being built.  The local community needs new leadership - the freeway will benefit the residents.

[skluth]

The area of Bruce Watkins Drive in question is not a walk-able space. US-71 doesn't have any sidewalks or bike paths running parallel to it. It's already a pretty busy highway, and one that is accident prone due to the at-grade intersections at Gregory Blvd, 59th Street and 55th Street, not to mention the RIRO's at 69th, 60th, 57th and 53rd streets. The only "safe" places to cross US-71 on this stretch are at the 3 at grade intersections.

Why would anyone walk along US 71? Walkability in a neighborhood is not about walking along a busy highway. It's about walking from point A to point B. Before the homes and the business corridor along US 71 were destroyed, almost all the streets between 51st and 75th were connected east-west and people could easily walk or bike from a home west of the US 71 corridor to home on the east side. The local residents aren't too happy they no longer have that connectivity nor happy about the lost businesses that either closed or moved elsewhere. 

What do the residents want? I don't know. A couple cut-and-cover tunnels with streets and parkland above would probably be more than enough. Especially if amenities are built like dog and skateboard parks above the tunnels to attract residents. It's expensive. But if you want the road built through the neighborhood, that's probably what it would take. A starting point for negotiation would be one tunnel from 53rd to 60th and a second from 68th to 73rd. There would be no US 71 connection at Gregory Blvd as Meyer Blvd to 75th is about 1.25 miles apart. Current freeway ramps and bridges would remain and be modified to connect with the new highway tunnels. 

This would give both sides what they want. Drivers get a complete freeway along US 71. Residents get their neighborhood walkability back although many of their local small businesses are lost forever. And before complaining of the cost, ask yourself; Do you want the freeway or not?

[Bobby5280]

Why would anyone walk along US 71? Walkability in a neighborhood is not about walking along a busy highway.

It's not about walking along a busy highway. It's about being able to walk across easily. The major complaint about super highways is they create a tremendous physical and visual barrier that splits neighborhoods in half, isolating each side from the other. There is no dispute that freeways are guilty of causing exactly that kind of problem. Super highways are still vital in many places. The obvious compromise is creating these cut and cover freeway crossings that do a lot to hide the highway.

As for businesses along the highway, brick and mortar stores everywhere are in trouble thanks to what seems like unstoppable growth in online shopping. Even if online merchants like Amazon are collecting sales tax they're still mostly taking money out of local economies. Brick and mortar businesses pay far more in taxes (property taxes for instance) and consume far more in local services. And their employees make an impact on the local economy. We could be looking at tens of millions of jobs being lost pretty soon. Then we won't need to worry about improving highways. I design signs for a living, so I know my own job could be eliminated through these trends.

[skluth]

Why would anyone walk along US 71? Walkability in a neighborhood is not about walking along a busy highway.

It's not about walking along a busy highway. It's about being able to walk across easily.

You had previously stated

The area of Bruce Watkins Drive in question is not a walk-able space. US-71 doesn't have any sidewalks or bike paths running parallel to it.

You stated sidewalks or bike paths running parallel to the highway. This is why I explained what walkability means. Please don't lecture me for accurately quoting you and clarifying the meaning, especially when you ignore the rest of the quote when I explained the exact same thing you then went on to explain after I already explained it. 

I also agree with you that many storefront businesses have been lost to the internet. I do think some would have survived along with the plumbers, dry cleaners, and other local businesses that can't be satisfied by distant office.

I think we're both generally in agreement here in that we both think it would be good to build the highway with cut-and-cover tunnels. The details are for the planners. It's expensive, but the only solution which will get the US 71 freeway completed.

[US71]

Why would anyone walk along US 71?

Photos? 

[Bobby5280]

You stated sidewalks or bike paths running parallel to the highway. This is why I explained what walkability means. Please don't lecture me for accurately quoting you and clarifying the meaning, especially when you ignore the rest of the quote when I explained the exact same thing you then went on to explain after I already explained it.

Practice what you preach when it comes to that "lecturing" crap. Just about anyone here in this forum is 100% correctly aware of what walkability means. No one needs it explained to them, especially in the tone illustrated above. This discussion isn't of life and death importance to me. It won't bother me to tune out this thread if need be. If you're getting your panties in a bunch because I didn't dot my eyes and cross my tees to the anal retentive degree of a contract lawyer then that's your problem. The fact remains that section of Bruce Watkins Drive is dangerous to both motorists and pedestrians because of the irregularity of a freeway disrupted by 3 traffic signals. The fact remains there are very obvious (but not cheap) solutions to completing I-49 through that part of Kansas City while dramatically improving pedestrian access across that corridor (and maybe even parallel to it).

[Scott5114]

I design signs for a living, so I know my own job could be eliminated through these trends.

I wouldn't worry too much about your job–while you could design a sign anywhere, shipping something that large gets really expensive, really quickly. Amazon cuts their shipping costs by having a network of regional warehouses, but for a bespoke sign, that would mean having multiple manufacturing centers, and that's pretty unlikely to be cost-effective. Much easier to just design, manufacture, and ship locally.
Post Merge: August 15, 2017, 07:16:54 PM

Why would anyone walk along US 71?

Photos? 

I'm pretty sure I've walked alongside you at a meet, but I dunno if anyone took photos...

Oh, wait, you meant the other US-71

[Bobby5280]

I wouldn't worry too much about your job–while you could design a sign anywhere, shipping something that large gets really expensive, really quickly. Amazon cuts their shipping costs by having a network of regional warehouses, but for a bespoke sign, that would mean having multiple manufacturing centers, and that's pretty unlikely to be cost-effective. Much easier to just design, manufacture, and ship locally.

The problem is widespread decimation of the brick and mortar retail sector will have far-reaching consequences. Lots of local businesses, such as heating & air companies, landscapers, electricians and much more derive a big part of their business from brick and mortar retailers. And then there's all the people those retailers employ. Eliminate those jobs and you have a major loss to the tax base and cash flow base of the community. Oklahoma is already struggling badly enough with a terribly short-sighted tax policy. Throw a whole lot of service industry people out of their jobs thanks to the convenience of online shopping and the situation will get a whole lot more ugly. Sign companies are among the first to feel economic down-turns. Thankfully Oklahoma dodged some of the worst effects of the great recession. I still remember the dot-com bubble bust at the end of the 1990's. We damned near went out of business with that down-turn.

I only cringed at all the glowing news reports about all the jobs the new Amazon distribution hub in Oklahoma City will create. For every job in that distro hub there's probably 100 jobs or even much more in the brick and mortar sector being eliminated. And a bunch of those jobs Amazon is creating might be temporary. That company is really big on automating things.

[johndoe]

There is a court order legally barring MoDOT from ever conducting major improvements on that stretch (besides preventative maintenance).

Interesting, is that document available online? I wonder just how "major" an improvement would have to be.  I.e.turn lanes, islands?

[rte66man]

There is a court order legally barring MoDOT from ever conducting major improvements on that stretch (besides preventative maintenance).

Interesting, is that document available online? I wonder just how "major" an improvement would have to be.  I.e.turn lanes, islands?

http://modotblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/missouri-has-first-in-nation-economic.html

Scroll down to the following:

"MoDOT said...
Bruce R. Watkins Drive, a 10.2-mile, divided state highway between the 3-Trails Crossing interchange and the Downtown Loop, was completed in October 2001. The project includes $220 million in construction; $55 million in right-of-way costs; $15 million to design; and nearly $6 million for beautification and enhancements.
The intersections on Bruce R. Watkins Drive at 55th Street, 59th Street and Gregory Boulevard that are controlled by traffic signals are not planned for changes. The residents along this drive fought diligently to demand these restrictions. Neither MoDOT nor the Missouri General Assembly can change this. It is a court-mandated design, negotiated to end a class-action lawsuit that delayed construction of Bruce R. Watkins Drive for two decades. Any change must be initiated in federal court.
Let me provide some history. What is now Bruce R. Watkins Drive started out in 1951 as a Kansas City Plan Commission concept to connect the south with the north along Route 71. At the time America was beginning a post-World War II highway expansion era that was soon to launch the interstate system. Four-lane, divided highways and limited-access freeways were seen as the next step in America's transportation future. The South Midtown Freeway (as the concept was then named) was envisioned as a major element of the city's highway master plan. It has evolved into a community asset far different than what was originally envisioned. By the mid-1960s, Kansas City officials had gained support for the project and received Highway Commission approval of a corridor plan. By 1970 properties on the south side of the project, from Bannister Road to 63rd Street, were being acquired. A lawsuit filed in the early 1970s by property owners in the path of the project stalled progress for more than a decade.
By 1987 work was again under way, but the design had changed. No longer a controlled-access freeway, the project was changed to a trafficway with signalized intersections at several key points and added emphasis on building a more attractive drive to complement neighborhoods. The final segment of Bruce R. Watkins Drive was completed by the end of 2001. The last segment, from 31st Street to the downtown loop, rapidly moves a large volume of traffic directly south instead of filtering it east and southwest through I-70 and city streets.
You have a highway carrying 70,000 vehicles a day a year after it opened (2001), which is more than I-70 at Blue Springs. Counts taken by MoDOT in August 2002 show that combined average annual daily traffic northbound and southbound at 47th Street is 70,734 vehicles. The same average daily count on Watkins Drive at Truman Road just south of the busy Downtown Loop is 51,719 vehicles. In 20 years it is expected to be more than 80,000 vehicles daily. Ample right of way was acquired to someday allow MoDOT to reconstruct the three signal-controlled, at-grade intersections to grade-separated interchanges, allowing traffic on Bruce R. Watkins Drive to flow unimpeded. Neither MoDOT nor the city of Kansas City can initiate this change. It is up to the citizens, who must raise the issue again through the court system to amend the class-action agreement. But what is in place now is safe, as long as motorists obey all traffic controls, posted speed limits and avoid distractions while driving.
February 25, 2009 at 8:53 AM"

I'll do some digging and see if I can find anything on he Federal Court level.

[dvferyance]

29 should end at the 35 split, there's no reason for it to go to the downtown loop.  the entire northern leg needs to be redesigned, realign main st, make every cross street cross, and tie 169 directly into the NW corner of the loop, remove that bs 70 does in kansas completely, and sign it on 670, kill 670.  also redesign that mess at sr 9.

It should be. I thought the duplex was there becasue it was planned to be extended farther south. But since US 71 became I-49 and not I-29 there is no reason for it to be there. MM1 is at the spit with I-35 anyways so no exits would have have to be changed to reflect the new mileage.