Widening I-70
- Chris Stritzel
- Penntower
- Posts: 2406
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:27 pm
Widening I-70
The dreaded discussion (for many) heats up again.
State Senator Bill Eigel (R-Weldon Spring) has pre-filed a bill to explore using money from the State's $6 Billion surplus, and taking 2% of general revenues ($300 million this year) each year for 10 years, to yield $9 Billion to expand I-70 from STL to KC from 2 lanes each direction to 4 lanes. MoDOT estimated widening to 3 lanes would cost $5.5 Billion and utilize the median and recently constructed bridges to do this. A 4 lane configuration would cause many problems (like buying more land and needing to rebuild interchanges).
It should be noted that Eigel is considering a bid for Governor in 2024.
I'd be fine with expanding to 3 lanes only since it's been talked about for a long time, a firm price and plan are identified, and MoDOT has been building bridges to support that configuration. But, I want to know if the State's finances can support this + maintaining the other highways and roads the state maintains. If the cost analysis comes back that this would be a disaster financially, then it shouldn't advance.
But let's say the $5.5 billion is spent on widening to 3 lanes. That leaves $3.5 billion from Eigel's proposal that could be used on infrastructure enhancements elsewhere that would mean more people would benefit. I'm talking about introducing an express service on the River Runner and doing track enhancements (in connection with Union Pacific) for faster and on time service. I'm also talking about working with municipalities statewide to fund road repave jobs, sidewalk replacements, special protected bike lanes (in select areas), rebuilding bridges, and maybe even funding transit enhancements within STL and KC. That could all occur, hypothetically, over 10 years and benefit far more people than just focusing on I-70.
But this brings me to a question and final point, would any of this even be possible if the Personal Property Tax is eliminated? Bill Eigel wants to eliminate that as well, which I'm fine with as long as current obligations are fulfilled. If it was found that spending $9 Billion on infrastructure over 10 years and removing the Personal Property Tax would later yield to tax hikes down the line, then this infrastructure plan should not advance and/or the Personal Property tax will unfortunately have to be maintained. I feel like we can't have both. It has to be one or the other. I'll take the elimination of the Personal Property Tax.
For Eigel being a Conservative, this doesn't sound like a Conservative plan (spend more money and cut taxes in the process). I'm fiscally conservative and I'm baffled at trying to figure this one out in the long-term.
https://missouriindependent.com/2022/12 ... iden-i-70/
State Senator Bill Eigel (R-Weldon Spring) has pre-filed a bill to explore using money from the State's $6 Billion surplus, and taking 2% of general revenues ($300 million this year) each year for 10 years, to yield $9 Billion to expand I-70 from STL to KC from 2 lanes each direction to 4 lanes. MoDOT estimated widening to 3 lanes would cost $5.5 Billion and utilize the median and recently constructed bridges to do this. A 4 lane configuration would cause many problems (like buying more land and needing to rebuild interchanges).
It should be noted that Eigel is considering a bid for Governor in 2024.
I'd be fine with expanding to 3 lanes only since it's been talked about for a long time, a firm price and plan are identified, and MoDOT has been building bridges to support that configuration. But, I want to know if the State's finances can support this + maintaining the other highways and roads the state maintains. If the cost analysis comes back that this would be a disaster financially, then it shouldn't advance.
But let's say the $5.5 billion is spent on widening to 3 lanes. That leaves $3.5 billion from Eigel's proposal that could be used on infrastructure enhancements elsewhere that would mean more people would benefit. I'm talking about introducing an express service on the River Runner and doing track enhancements (in connection with Union Pacific) for faster and on time service. I'm also talking about working with municipalities statewide to fund road repave jobs, sidewalk replacements, special protected bike lanes (in select areas), rebuilding bridges, and maybe even funding transit enhancements within STL and KC. That could all occur, hypothetically, over 10 years and benefit far more people than just focusing on I-70.
But this brings me to a question and final point, would any of this even be possible if the Personal Property Tax is eliminated? Bill Eigel wants to eliminate that as well, which I'm fine with as long as current obligations are fulfilled. If it was found that spending $9 Billion on infrastructure over 10 years and removing the Personal Property Tax would later yield to tax hikes down the line, then this infrastructure plan should not advance and/or the Personal Property tax will unfortunately have to be maintained. I feel like we can't have both. It has to be one or the other. I'll take the elimination of the Personal Property Tax.
For Eigel being a Conservative, this doesn't sound like a Conservative plan (spend more money and cut taxes in the process). I'm fiscally conservative and I'm baffled at trying to figure this one out in the long-term.
https://missouriindependent.com/2022/12 ... iden-i-70/
- FlippantCitizen
- Western Auto Lofts
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:29 pm
- Location: Chicago
Re: Widening I-70
I70 is in pretty bad shape, being one of the first interstates constructed. It needs investment if not complete reconstruction in many areas but the idea it needs to be three much less four lanes the whole length between KC and STL is laughable. I don"t think lack of lanes are what ails it. If we can negotiate a bunch of money for other kinds of non auto-oriented infrastructure in a package to make it three lanes then I could get behind it.
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 7461
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm
Re: Widening I-70
As somebody who has driven KC to St. Louis at least once a month for 17 years, typically twice, it needs to be 3 lanes all the way across. Flippiant, I assume you think occasional three lanes for passing would be sufficient. I disagree. They have that in one area and all it results in is people driving 90 to 120 MPH to pass everyone (unless there is someone doing 75 in that lane), and then another bottleneck once you get through it because of more semis'.
3 lanes, cars only in the left lane.
I assume the senator's proposal was the same as the one floating around about 15 years ago that has two lanes for trucks separated from two lanes for cars. I think that's overkill unless we are going to reimagine the highway as a new type of corridor that has a rail and data component.
The other major issue is in several locations in the undulating grade that you would never see on a major highway built in the last 40 years. Those need to be leveled out as they dramatically contribute to unpredictable speeds by semis. They try to get up a head of steam heading down those little hills and then can't keep their momentum going up.
But yes, after 70 years it might be time to do something.
3 lanes, cars only in the left lane.
I assume the senator's proposal was the same as the one floating around about 15 years ago that has two lanes for trucks separated from two lanes for cars. I think that's overkill unless we are going to reimagine the highway as a new type of corridor that has a rail and data component.
The other major issue is in several locations in the undulating grade that you would never see on a major highway built in the last 40 years. Those need to be leveled out as they dramatically contribute to unpredictable speeds by semis. They try to get up a head of steam heading down those little hills and then can't keep their momentum going up.
But yes, after 70 years it might be time to do something.
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 7461
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm
Re: Widening I-70
Twice daily express service with once daily local would be my ideal setup. Daily, both directions for all three.Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 4:23 pm The dreaded discussion (for many) heats up again.
State Senator Bill Eigel (R-Weldon Spring) has pre-filed a bill to explore using money from the State's $6 Billion surplus, and taking 2% of general revenues ($300 million this year) each year for 10 years, to yield $9 Billion to expand I-70 from STL to KC from 2 lanes each direction to 4 lanes. MoDOT estimated widening to 3 lanes would cost $5.5 Billion and utilize the median and recently constructed bridges to do this. A 4 lane configuration would cause many problems (like buying more land and needing to rebuild interchanges).
It should be noted that Eigel is considering a bid for Governor in 2024.
I'd be fine with expanding to 3 lanes only since it's been talked about for a long time, a firm price and plan are identified, and MoDOT has been building bridges to support that configuration. But, I want to know if the State's finances can support this + maintaining the other highways and roads the state maintains. If the cost analysis comes back that this would be a disaster financially, then it shouldn't advance.
But let's say the $5.5 billion is spent on widening to 3 lanes. That leaves $3.5 billion from Eigel's proposal that could be used on infrastructure enhancements elsewhere that would mean more people would benefit. I'm talking about introducing an express service on the River Runner and doing track enhancements (in connection with Union Pacific) for faster and on time service. I'm also talking about working with municipalities statewide to fund road repave jobs, sidewalk replacements, special protected bike lanes (in select areas), rebuilding bridges, and maybe even funding transit enhancements within STL and KC. That could all occur, hypothetically, over 10 years and benefit far more people than just focusing on I-70.
But this brings me to a question and final point, would any of this even be possible if the Personal Property Tax is eliminated? Bill Eigel wants to eliminate that as well, which I'm fine with as long as current obligations are fulfilled. If it was found that spending $9 Billion on infrastructure over 10 years and removing the Personal Property Tax would later yield to tax hikes down the line, then this infrastructure plan should not advance and/or the Personal Property tax will unfortunately have to be maintained. I feel like we can't have both. It has to be one or the other. I'll take the elimination of the Personal Property Tax.
For Eigel being a Conservative, this doesn't sound like a Conservative plan (spend more money and cut taxes in the process). I'm fiscally conservative and I'm baffled at trying to figure this one out in the long-term.
https://missouriindependent.com/2022/12 ... iden-i-70/
- alejandro46
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1358
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:24 pm
- Location: King in the North(Land)
Re: Widening I-70
I-70 suffers from chronic lack of investment that MO's failure to raise the gas tax is a symptom of. Use the surplus to widen it sure, but also upgrade and improve the River Runner to make it more usable and affordable for a weekend trip. Seems like a good sell - widen lanes results in more traffic, but let's try to get some of that car and truck traffic off the road and onto the rails. Obviously a toll would probably be the best to match Kansas but that got shot down many times.
-
- Hotel President
- Posts: 3121
- Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:10 am
- Location: Broadway/Gilham according to google maps
Re: Widening I-70
If the college kids going back to Columbia and the semis all stayed out of the left lane it would be a smooth ride. I cannot stand it when a semi makes a pass on a hill and have to wait 3 minutes for the semi to finally pass the other semi.
- normalthings
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8018
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm
Re: Widening I-70
I remember a big piece being who gets an exit. With plate readers and ez pass might not even need toll booths ?alejandro46 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 9:11 pm I-70 suffers from chronic lack of investment that MO's failure to raise the gas tax is a symptom of. Use the surplus to widen it sure, but also upgrade and improve the River Runner to make it more usable and affordable for a weekend trip. Seems like a good sell - widen lanes results in more traffic, but let's try to get some of that car and truck traffic off the road and onto the rails. Obviously a toll would probably be the best to match Kansas but that got shot down many times.
- grovester
- Oak Tower
- Posts: 4585
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
- Location: KC Metro
Re: Widening I-70
This^normalthings wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 9:43 pmI remember a big piece being who gets an exit. With plate readers and ez pass might not even need toll booths ?alejandro46 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 9:11 pm I-70 suffers from chronic lack of investment that MO's failure to raise the gas tax is a symptom of. Use the surplus to widen it sure, but also upgrade and improve the River Runner to make it more usable and affordable for a weekend trip. Seems like a good sell - widen lanes results in more traffic, but let's try to get some of that car and truck traffic off the road and onto the rails. Obviously a toll would probably be the best to match Kansas but that got shot down many times.
When we drive out on the east coast we hit a couple of toll roads without even knowing. About a month later we get a bill for something like $7.
- alejandro46
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1358
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:24 pm
- Location: King in the North(Land)
Re: Widening I-70
Not even that far. I have my license place registered or use an app to pay Illinois tolls on I-80 and in the Chicagoland area. You no longer even need a physical I-pass reader, as long as your tag is in the system or have an app that can help track and make payments.grovester wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:09 pmThis^normalthings wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 9:43 pmI remember a big piece being who gets an exit. With plate readers and ez pass might not even need toll booths ?alejandro46 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 9:11 pm I-70 suffers from chronic lack of investment that MO's failure to raise the gas tax is a symptom of. Use the surplus to widen it sure, but also upgrade and improve the River Runner to make it more usable and affordable for a weekend trip. Seems like a good sell - widen lanes results in more traffic, but let's try to get some of that car and truck traffic off the road and onto the rails. Obviously a toll would probably be the best to match Kansas but that got shot down many times.
When we drive out on the east coast we hit a couple of toll roads without even knowing. About a month later we get a bill for something like $7.
-
- Western Auto Lofts
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:39 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Widening I-70
4 lanes seems a little excessive... Missouri doesn't handle alot of through traffic.
-
- Western Auto Lofts
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:39 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Widening I-70
I like the idea of 3 lanes and spending other funds on replacing bridges or even something simple like adding lights and modernizing the 70 thru East Kansas City.
- im2kull
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 3980
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
- Location: KCMO
-
- Ambassador
- Posts: 7461
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm
- alejandro46
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1358
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:24 pm
- Location: King in the North(Land)
Re: Widening I-70
I mean youre not wrong. In most/many cases agreed.
I-70 basically needs rebuilt in many sections. There is a high volume of traffic especially truck traffic. It makes sense to rebuild and add a third lane, either truck only or HOV, etc. but also working to improve interchanges (especially 63/70 in Columbia) and improving the River Runner service.
- grovester
- Oak Tower
- Posts: 4585
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
- Location: KC Metro
Re: Widening I-70
Adding lanes without restricting truck traffic is pointless, they will continue their current behavior in any added lanes.
- FlippantCitizen
- Western Auto Lofts
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:29 pm
- Location: Chicago
- GRID
- City Hall
- Posts: 17255
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
- Contact:
Re: Widening I-70
I-70 is not even six lanes all the way through Blue Springs. I mean it should be six lanes from Route 7 in Blue Springs to Odessa or at the very least Grain Valley before even thinking about widening it across the state. Same with I-35 in the Northland. It's silly that it's only 2 lanes each way from I-29 up through Liberty.
Meanwhile, Every highway coming out of StL is 6-8 lanes way out past the exurbs in every direction. I have this feeling that if they did widen I-70 across the state, it would start from the StL side of the state and 70 would be six (or 8?) lanes wide between Columbia and metro StL before it's widened all the way through Blue Springs.
I-70 across Missouri is not that busy. Way busier than I-70 across Kansas though. I drive to KC at least once a year and things finally calm down once you get to Missouri (past StL) on I-70, especially with trucks. So many trucks in IN, OH etc. It's insane.
However because 70 across MO has never actually been rebuilt (it has in most the rest of the country), it's gong to really really suck when they do start rebuilding it because it will be very disruptive.
Snapped this on my last drive to KC somewhere in rural IN.
Meanwhile, Every highway coming out of StL is 6-8 lanes way out past the exurbs in every direction. I have this feeling that if they did widen I-70 across the state, it would start from the StL side of the state and 70 would be six (or 8?) lanes wide between Columbia and metro StL before it's widened all the way through Blue Springs.
I-70 across Missouri is not that busy. Way busier than I-70 across Kansas though. I drive to KC at least once a year and things finally calm down once you get to Missouri (past StL) on I-70, especially with trucks. So many trucks in IN, OH etc. It's insane.
However because 70 across MO has never actually been rebuilt (it has in most the rest of the country), it's gong to really really suck when they do start rebuilding it because it will be very disruptive.
Snapped this on my last drive to KC somewhere in rural IN.
- FlippantCitizen
- Western Auto Lofts
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:29 pm
- Location: Chicago
Re: Widening I-70
I don't know why giving a massive public subsidy to car commuters gets anyone excited on this board. I70 has some dangerous design elements completely separate from the number of lanes. I fully support remedying them. But the city does not need one more lane mile of limited access highway. I mean holy shit guys.
And the longer we can delay any boondoggle projects like adding lanes to highways inside the metro, the more time we have to convince people there are better way. And sorry not sorry, I really don't care about anyone's car commute from Grain Valley or Liberty. It's too easy as it is.
And the longer we can delay any boondoggle projects like adding lanes to highways inside the metro, the more time we have to convince people there are better way. And sorry not sorry, I really don't care about anyone's car commute from Grain Valley or Liberty. It's too easy as it is.
- GRID
- City Hall
- Posts: 17255
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
- Contact:
Re: Widening I-70
It's a safety issue. While 8-10 lane urban interstates are counter productive. Four lane interstates in metro areas is downright dangerous. That I-70 and Adams Dairy Parkway interchange is extremely dangerous and crashes happen there all the time. It's just too busy for there to only be two lanes. All traffic is forced into the passing lane while the slow lane is the merge lane.FlippantCitizen wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 10:19 am I don't know why giving a massive public subsidy to car commuters gets anyone excited on this board. I70 has some dangerous design elements completely separate from the number of lanes. I fully support remedying them. But the city does not need one more lane mile of limited access highway. I mean holy shit guys.
And the longer we can delay any boondoggle projects like adding lanes to highways inside the metro, the more time we have to convince people there are better way. And sorry not sorry, I really don't care about anyone's car commute from Grain Valley or Liberty. It's too easy as it is.