Is KC really going to remove i-70 downtown?

[mvak36]

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).

[silverback1065]

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. 

[mvak36]

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.

[silverback1065]

most cities zoning laws are awful

[Bobby5280]

Some 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.

[silverback1065]

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

[silverback1065]

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

[silverback1065]

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

[Bobby5280]

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.

[intelati49]

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

[sparker]

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.

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

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?

[silverback1065]

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.

[SD Mapman]

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.

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.

[Revive 755]

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.

[silverback1065]

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.

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

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.

[mvak36]

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.

The 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.

[silverback1065]

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?

[mvak36]

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.

[SD Mapman]

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!

[Scott5114]

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.

[sparker]

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.   

[mvak36]

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.   

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.