KCRag Forum

.

Yeah, just run it all the way to the state line. Why not? Obviously the why not is that it will piss off commuters, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

mean wrote:Yeah, just run it all the way to the state line. Why not? Obviously the why not is that it will piss off commuters, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

Toll roads in urban areas can work when set up correctly but I would prefer them not to be the main E-W artery through the city. Even with electronic payment, too many people will just be travelling through without payment tags and it can create exasperatingly long lines at booths during certain times of the day.

Houston has several toll expressways but none of them are on the main interstates around the city although the outer loop is a toll highway. Some tollways are tag only meaning they do not have booths, you either have the tag or you do not enter the highway. Those work the best but they aren't ideal for out of towners.

Highlander wrote:

mean wrote:
Houston has several toll expressways but none of them are on the main interstates around the city although the outer loop is a toll highway. Some tollways are tag only meaning they do not have booths, you either have the tag or you do not enter the highway. Those work the best but they aren't ideal for out of towners.

That's strange, how do you just not enter the highway (maybe I'm taking you too literally)...because people get confused and take the exit. For instance in Chicagoland you can just run the tolls (which are generally on beltways) up to three times a year (I think), and this is of course nice for out of towners, and something I do when really desperate, can't find change quick enough or whatever, and my usual route into the city is impassable.

When I say run the toll I mean I come across a huge backup on the cash only lanes and to avoid a collision or a long line I go through the boothless I-Pass lane, for example. Yeah, I'm that idiot bad big city driver...I effing hate driving in big cities.

Anyway, it's about time a toll was implemented on I-70. From my end, it might subdue the absolutely absurd western sprawl of Metro St. Louis. I-270 should have been an even higher priority as a toll, but that bird has flown.

warwickland wrote:

Highlander wrote:

mean wrote:
Houston has several toll expressways but none of them are on the main interstates around the city although the outer loop is a toll highway. Some tollways are tag only meaning they do not have booths, you either have the tag or you do not enter the highway. Those work the best but they aren't ideal for out of towners.

That's strange, how do you just not enter the highway (maybe I'm taking you too literally)...because people get confused and take the exit. For instance in Chicagoland you can just run the tolls (which are generally on beltways) up to three times a year (I think), and this is of course nice for out of towners, and something I do when really desperate, can't find change quick enough or whatever, and my usual route into the city is impassable.

When I say run the toll I mean I come across a huge backup on the cash only lanes and to avoid a collision or a long line I go through the boothless I-Pass lane, for example. Yeah, I'm that idiot bad big city driver...I effing hate driving in big cities.

Anyway, it's about time a toll was implemented on I-70. From my end, it might subdue the absolutely absurd western sprawl of Metro St. Louis. I-270 should have been an even higher priority as a toll, but that bird has flown.

There's plenty of warning that you cannot enter but to the unitiated, it's not a foolproof deterent. When I first moved here, I couldn't believe there would be highways that you actually had EZ Tag on your car to even enter but that is the case. Now that I am used to it, its really an improvement over the booth system with the exception that you can't use it if you are from out of town (but's its only on non through going highways explicetly for commuter traffic). The booths are just turmoil, terribly long lines.

I kind of like it because, while it is expensive, it is also a bit more restrained than some of the interstates which are, frankly, dangerous. The added cost keeps a lot of aggressive probably uninsured people off the highway that don't think about risk - reward choices while driving.

I would never want to see the system on an interstate like I-70 though. Booths just don't work well on highly travelled urban highways and you could not make I-70 a tag only highway.

I've been on the Indiana Toll Road I-80/I-90 plenty of times and have never been involved in a bad snarl because of tollbooths (volume, yes). I guess that would be the equivalent of I-70. I wouldnt call it an urban expressway, same as I wouldnt call the proposed I-70 tollway an urban expressway. Kansas City and St. Louis just push the boundaries of what should realistically be a commuter shed. Obviously you'd have to have both tag lanes and plenty of cash lanes just like on the Indiana Toll Road/I-80/I-90. Probably wouldnt hurt to make the tags compatible with Ohio, IL, and IN ...as they are all compatible up there.

Obviously there is the Kansas Turnpike section of I-70, but it's a lot sleepier than I-80/I-90 and I-70 in Missouri.

So there might be a slight slowdown at the booths/electronic pass lanes, but it's worth it to me as a Missouri taxpayer. I'd loose my freakin' gourd if truck only lanes are added to I-70 without a toll. I-70 gets more abuse than the other interstates that radiate east of of St. Louis, all the truck traffic necks down on it coming off I-55 (X2), I-64, and I-70 going west, the same way traffic necks down on I-80/I-90 going towards the northeast, i'd say it's a perfect interstate for tolls.

Just traveled I-44 and I-70 over the weekend. I-44 seemed to have much more truck traffic than I-70 but then that might be because I traveled 44 on Sat and 70 on Sun.

Forget a truck lane along I-70. Forget a toll road. Build a 4 lane highway across the state between 70 and the MO/Iowa border. Rebuild I-70. And gradually increase the MO gas tax up to $.20/gallon to help pay for this and other highway improvements around the state. Also increase the state license fees for both the driver and the auto.

How about we just keep I-70 like it is and build alternate transportation methods that will take cars off the highway?

shaffe wrote:How about we just keep I-70 like it is and build alternate transportation methods that will take cars off the highway?

Of do both?

I just don't get this. All 70 needs is a third lane each way.

GRID wrote:I just don't get this. All 70 needs is a third lane each way.

Agreed. A third lane and trucks limited to the right two lanes, cars limited to the left two lanes.

smh wrote:

GRID wrote:I just don't get this. All 70 needs is a third lane each way.

Agreed. A third lane and trucks limited to the right two lanes, cars limited to the left two lanes.

Works just fine with interstates in much busier corridors all across the country. Not sure why MO needs to build a jersey turnpike. MO is spending years and years studying how to completely over build 70 when it should be just working to widen it to six lanes and reserve some right of way for rail.

70 is smooth right now with fresh asphalt. But there is a disaster under that smooth surface waiting to happen with some of the oldest and most deteriorated subsurface concrete in the country.

I-70 is not that busy. It's busy compared to I-70 in Kansas, but six lanes (8 in columbia) would be plenty to get 70 through the next 50 years or more. Just keep the trucks out of the left lanes as you say.

And don't do tolls. Just raise the super low mo gas tax. Tolls blow and so to the massive footprints of toll interchanges and limited access that come with them.

I was reading a book about transit and it mentioned that in the 70s there was a big push to get semis off the highways (pushed by the rail industry) to improve highway safety. What happened to that movement? Did semi traffic just get safer or did people just shrug their shoulders and say meh.

GRID wrote:I just don't get this. All 70 needs is a third lane each way.

Didn't MODOT release a few years ago a plan to build another 4 lane highway across northern MO roughly following the current 36 highway, which is already mostly 4 lanes? This improved highway could be done along with rebuilding I-70 for the same cost of widening I-70.

new lane now open at 435:

http://www.kmbc.com/news/29824550/detail.html

Indeed, and it's kind of a cluster... confusing, and vaguely Texas-like.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:

GRID wrote:I just don't get this. All 70 needs is a third lane each way.

Didn't MODOT release a few years ago a plan to build another 4 lane highway across northern MO roughly following the current 36 highway, which is already mostly 4 lanes? This improved highway could be done along with rebuilding I-70 for the same cost of widening I-70.

Yeah, 36 already takes some truck traffic related to I-72, some of it is grade seperated. There's a small part in NE MO that is still 2 lanes. I drive the thing from Hannibal to St. Joe a few times a year for work.

vote for your favorite alternative, including transit: http://www.metroi70.com/

http://www.metroi70.com/your-opinion

the good news is it looks like they listened and are on the "no widening," remove ramps plan so far

but some of the items are a joke. like they want to make I-70 go faster but ask about how it could impact economic development in the neighborhoods along it

so add your thoughts to this site

According to the Star there will be some lanes added in places.