Bruce Waktins Dr/71 Hwy and the stoplights

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by KC_Retiree

Yes and they didn't want their neighborhoods to be split by the freeway. I am not sure the lights accomplish any of the stated reasons for their existence. They really accomplish nothing.

The lights really need to go away. Not only do they delay traffic, they are dangerous. I'm glued to my rear view mirror every time I approach the first light coming up 71 from the south. It won't be cheap because the highway is now at grade with cross roads where intersections are controlled by lights and a lot of entrenchment, rebuilding and closures would need to happen to fix the situation retroactively.

Actually, the amount of rebuilding will be minimal because of the way the surface parkway was built.

Recall that I noted upthread that the median of the parkway is wide enough to insert a six-lane freeway in it. That means that the berm to support the road could be built while traffic continued to flow on the surface parkway. (The road certainly won't be depressed — it's not depressed anywhere else it runs save for the 63d Street/Meyer Boulevard interchange.)

Then, once that's complete, the only closures needed would be the ones to connect the new on- and off-ramps to the cross streets (55th/59th, Gregory Boulevard — I doubt the 51st Street turnoff would be upgraded to an interchange) to the frontage roads and the ones needed to build the bridges over the cross streets. Then, finally, there would need to be a closure to connect the new freeway to the existing one and make the parkways frontage roads via ramps. (And conceivably, the frontage roads would make the intermediate interchanges at 55th/59th streets and Gregory Boulevard unnecessary.)

BTW, my condolences to you and your family for having your property condemned twice for KC freeways. According to documents available in the National Archives, President (and General of the Army) Dwight Eisenhower, for whom the Interstate Highway System is now named, was appalled to see a swath of Washington, DC, being cleared to push one of the Interstates through. He relayed to one of the Federal Highway Administration staff that he envisioned that the Interstates would connect the cities but not run through them. (That was the standard practice in most European countries. And the 1944 Federal Government report that ultimately led to the creation of the Interstate Highway System referred to the roads as "interregional" highways. The turnpikes on which they were based also did not run through already-developed areas for the most part.)

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by lovekcmo

You made good, strong points. Now you have me thinking about the downtown loop. I've seen pictures online, from the 1940's and was surprised at how dense with neighborhoods, of homes, churches in all directions, but especially east of downtown, all now gone because of the interstate. entire neighborhoods were demolished for I-70 east of downtown. My home church was originally at 9th and Harrison and was demolished for the loop. The thing about Bruce Watkins is, it's there now, close the streets/stoplights and make it an interstate, have bridges where the cross streets are now.

Oh, btw, having seen the end product of the compromise, I agree with this general sentiment expressed by most of the people posting to this thread.

But the frontage roads should remain in place for a reason I hinted at in the post above this one.

[KC_Retiree]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

Actually, the amount of rebuilding will be minimal because of the way the surface parkway was built.

Recall that I noted upthread that the median of the parkway is wide enough to insert a six-lane freeway in it. That means that the berm to support the road could be built while traffic continued to flow on the surface parkway. (The road certainly won't be depressed — it's not depressed anywhere else it runs save for the 63d Street/Meyer Boulevard interchange.)

Then, once that's complete, the only closures needed would be the ones to connect the new on- and off-ramps to the cross streets (55th/59th, Gregory Boulevard — I doubt the 51st Street turnoff would be upgraded to an interchange) to the frontage roads and the ones needed to build the bridges over the cross streets. Then, finally, there would need to be a closure to connect the new freeway to the existing one and make the parkways frontage roads via ramps. (And conceivably, the frontage roads would make the intermediate interchanges at 55th/59th streets and Gregory Boulevard unnecessary.)

BTW, my condolences to you and your family for having your property condemned twice for KC freeways. According to documents available in the National Archives, President (and General of the Army) Dwight Eisenhower, for whom the Interstate Highway System is now named, was appalled to see a swath of Washington, DC, being cleared to push one of the Interstates through. He relayed to one of the Federal Highway Administration staff that he envisioned that the Interstates would connect the cities but not run through them. (That was the standard practice in most European countries. And the 1944 Federal Government report that ultimately led to the creation of the Interstate Highway System referred to the roads as "interregional" highways. The turnpikes on which they were based also did not run through already-developed areas for the most part.)

Took a look at this on Google Map. Yes, you are most likely correct they could route the highway across the existing median using the existing road as ramps once the interchanges are complete. There seems to be more than ample room to do that. Almost like they had some forethought.

If US71 ever becomes I49, my family will have the distinction of having been eminent domain(ed) twice for the interstate system. Eisenhower brought the idea for the interstate system back from Germany. I have driven extensively on the German autobahn and one feature I really enjoy about it is that it avoids going through the German cities. There was no wholesale destruction of German cities to build the system. The US interstate system was a great achievement but the decision to take it through cities was among the worst decisions ever made in the United States. People think I'm crazy when I say that but the results speak for themselves. Not only in the absurd downtown islands that exist today (KC being one of the worst examples) but so many other problems were created and made possible - sprawl, lack of walkability, associated health issues, automobile dependence, depressed urban cores, and unsustainability. The latter will crash down on us towards mid century.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by KC_Retiree

Took a look at this on Google Map. Yes, you are most likely correct they could route the highway across the existing median using the existing road as ramps once the interchanges are complete. There seems to be more than ample room to do that. Almost like they had some forethought.

If US71 ever becomes I49, my family will have the distinction of having been eminent domain(ed) twice for the interstate system. Eisenhower brought the idea for the interstate system back from Germany. I have driven extensively on the German autobahn and one feature I really enjoy about it is that it avoids going through the German cities. There was no wholesale destruction of German cities to build the system. The US interstate system was a great achievement but the decision to take it through cities was among the worst decisions ever made in the United States. People think I'm crazy when I say that but the results speak for themselves. Not only in the absurd downtown islands that exist today (KC being one of the worst examples) but so many other problems were created and made possible - sprawl, lack of walkability, associated health issues, automobile dependence, depressed urban cores, and unsustainability. The latter will crash down on us towards mid century.

<clap clap clap clap clap>

I've seen the document in the National Archives where a Federal Highway Administration staff member relays to a board meeting President Dwight Eisenhower's shock at seeing land inside the District of Columbia being cleared for a freeway; the staff member relayed the President's understanding that the Interstates were supposed to go around rather than through the cities.

I agree with you 100 percent that the decision to route the Interstates through the cities was one of the worst the Federal government has ever made. That noose around downtown Kansas City has strangled it, despite the best efforts of the Downtown Council and several developers to resuscitate it.

Can't +1 you again, so doing this.