I-70
-
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1367
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:51 pm
- Location: Martin City
Re: I-70
Hopefully they have alteratives on the table that will straighten out the route by removing the Jackson and Benton curves.
The current roadway path is stupid.
The current roadway path is stupid.
Last edited by knucklehead on Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 12651
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm
Re: I-70
Are they not putting the cart before the horse? Shouldn't they decide what they want to do with I-70 across the whole state before studying this small section?
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 14667
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
- Location: Valentine
Re: I-70
Not if you ever want anything done - tie it to that cart and god only knows when you might see action. Besides, I doubt whatever improvements they wind up doing midstate, will extend from border to border. They already have done some pretty complicated modifications on the St Louis approach. If they do ultimately widen through the middle, I also wonder if it will stay consistent through CoMO - I seem to remember the ROW getting pretty narrow there in spots.aknowledgeableperson wrote: Are they not putting the cart before the horse? Shouldn't they decide what they want to do with I-70 across the whole state before studying this small section?
Re: I-70
tunnel, stacking, and commuter rail/light rail are off the table. there are now four options:
- no build (which includes a few improvements that are in a short-range plan)
- fix key bottlenecks (jackson/benton curves, 435 interchange, north loop interchange consolidation)
- add lane capacity
- fix key bottlenecks + transportation improvement corridor (HOV/HOT, reversible, or bus-only lane)
if the next federal reauthorization levels the playing field between modes, there might be a renewed (modot) interest in commuter rail along the corridor. i find it strange that they're willing to talk more buses as a solution but rail "requires a local push". meh.
regardless, nothing in the study is funded, so we're talking a decade (?) before anything happens.
- no build (which includes a few improvements that are in a short-range plan)
- fix key bottlenecks (jackson/benton curves, 435 interchange, north loop interchange consolidation)
- add lane capacity
- fix key bottlenecks + transportation improvement corridor (HOV/HOT, reversible, or bus-only lane)
if the next federal reauthorization levels the playing field between modes, there might be a renewed (modot) interest in commuter rail along the corridor. i find it strange that they're willing to talk more buses as a solution but rail "requires a local push". meh.
regardless, nothing in the study is funded, so we're talking a decade (?) before anything happens.
- dangerboy
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 9029
- Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 8:28 am
- Location: West 39th St. - KCMO
Re: I-70
My impression is that bus is on the table because there is existing locally-funded bus service that could fairly easily be enhanced if dedicated lanes were available. MoDOT has no reason to go forward with commuter rail if the local community isn't pushing for it. And since MARC has essentially dropped commuter rail, I would guess that they are pushing MoDOT to include the buses instead.
-
- The Quiet Chair
- Posts: 8804
- Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
- Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania
Re: I-70
improved bus service = victoria's secret and mary kay on a 500 lb woman with a mustache
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!!
- PumpkinStalker
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 3979
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 12:04 am
- Location: Waldo
Re: I-70
Maybe that can be the new mascot for the ATA
Re: I-70
modot is conducting an “on-line meeting” thru the end of january. view their brief slide show here:
http://modot.org/kansascity/metroi70/su ... nShow2.pdf
you can read comments that have been made do date — or post your own — here:
http://metroi70.blogspot.com/2009/01/we ... l#comments
while modot is offering four alternatives, as noted above, it's entirely legitimate to offer ideas that lie outside those four.
incidentally, their fourth alternative, a "transportation improvement corridor," is incredibly nebulous. modot should be castigated for even offering such a vague alternative.
imho.
http://modot.org/kansascity/metroi70/su ... nShow2.pdf
you can read comments that have been made do date — or post your own — here:
http://metroi70.blogspot.com/2009/01/we ... l#comments
while modot is offering four alternatives, as noted above, it's entirely legitimate to offer ideas that lie outside those four.
incidentally, their fourth alternative, a "transportation improvement corridor," is incredibly nebulous. modot should be castigated for even offering such a vague alternative.
imho.
Re: I-70
Sierra Club questions safety of truck-only lanes on I-70
ugh. just make it three lanes and institute tolls. use what's left of the above $4.1 BILLION price tag to improve passenger rail, park-n-rides, and urban transit.The club?s Missouri chapter argues that trucks will continue to pose a safety risk because they will have to cross from their lanes into the general-purpose lanes on a slip ramp to leave the highway. As the trucks move across the general-purpose lanes to exit the interstate, cars will be in the trucks? blind spot, making the highway more hazardous than the state thinks.
- dangerboy
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 9029
- Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 8:28 am
- Location: West 39th St. - KCMO
Re: I-70
Getting TIGER stimulus money for the truck-only lanes is a long shot. It doesn't meet any of the projects criteria for livability, sustainability, etc. The Feds could definitely give MoDOT money for this lunacy, but hopefully not from TIGER.
Re: I-70
Still don't understand why we can't take US 50 to 4 lanes the whole way and limit truck traffic to local only on that route. It would better service the lake areas and reduce car traffic on I-70 for Much Much less than 4.5 BILLION. Plus it gives better car access to all of the train stops. Hell, take it up to Interstate standards. I-60 NOW.
Re: I-70
if i remember correctly, i asked this question at the public meeting they had last year. they've already sunk a lot of money into US 50 with that hope, only to find trucks and cars sticking with I-70. they may have a legal issue with limiting truck traffic on a rural interstate.shinatoo wrote: Still don't understand why we can't take US 50 to 4 lanes the whole way and limit truck traffic to local only on that route. It would better service the lake areas and reduce car traffic on I-70 for Much Much less than 4.5 BILLION. Plus it gives better car access to all of the train stops. Hell, take it up to Interstate standards. I-60 NOW.
Re: I-70
Of course they don't, there is still over a hundred miles of 2 lane between here and Union, including a 37 mile bottleneck between Salina and California, not to mention the half an hour it takes to drive 25 mph through Salina. You can't expect people to start using that route when it takes longer than the train. Get it up to 4 lane the whole way and you will see a difference. Plus, if you can get it designated as an interstate it will have a huge psychological effect one peoples habits.DaveKCMO wrote: if i remember correctly, i asked this question at the public meeting they had last year. they've already sunk a lot of money into US 50 with that hope, only to find trucks and cars sticking with I-70. they may have a legal issue with limiting truck traffic on a rural interstate.
Re: I-70
I just don't get this whole truck lane thing. I-70 between StL and KC has trucks. More trucks that many midwestern highways.
It does not have anywhere near as many trucks as a LOT of interstates across the country.
What I'm saying is that with so many other needs, spending billions to add truck lanes to I-70 just doesn't make sense. Add a third lane to I-70 across the state, keep trucks out of the third lane and you are set for many decades in MO. We don't need a 8 lane super highway across the state.
Spend 1 billion to widen 70 to six lanes and use the other 2 billion it would have cost to build truck lanes and add high speed rail between StL and KC or use the money to rebuild I-70 in KC which is a total joke.
It does not have anywhere near as many trucks as a LOT of interstates across the country.
What I'm saying is that with so many other needs, spending billions to add truck lanes to I-70 just doesn't make sense. Add a third lane to I-70 across the state, keep trucks out of the third lane and you are set for many decades in MO. We don't need a 8 lane super highway across the state.
Spend 1 billion to widen 70 to six lanes and use the other 2 billion it would have cost to build truck lanes and add high speed rail between StL and KC or use the money to rebuild I-70 in KC which is a total joke.
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 14667
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
- Location: Valentine
Re: I-70
I thought I-70 in Mo claimed the prize for highest concentration of semi traffic in the country?GRID wrote: It does not have anywhere near as many trucks as a LOT of interstates across the country.