Widening I-70

[DColeKC]

^^^ I do think liberal positions have cost the average American. It's not that your end goal isn't admirable and often easily supported by all political types, it's the path to getting to that goal where the damage is caused. We know that personal vehicles will be the main mode of transportation for at least a few more decades, so we need to make sure that form of transportation is affordable, safe and efficient.

Single mode transportation may be an economic prison but it's a path we picked several decades ago. I have no problem going away from this at some point but don't want to burden the majority of the American public getting there. Make the roads safe, build up rail and continue to develop other forms of transportation. It's a long term plan, the short term plan shouldn't be to do the bare minimum or worse yet, neglect I-70.

[normalthings]

^^^ I do think liberal positions have cost the average American. It's not that your end goal isn't admirable and often easily supported by all political types, it's the path to getting to that goal where the damage is caused. We know that personal vehicles will be the main mode of transportation for at least a few more decades, so we need to make sure that form of transportation is affordable, safe and efficient.

Single mode transportation may be an economic prison but it's a path we picked several decades ago. I have no problem going away from this at some point but don't want to burden the majority of the American public getting there. Make the roads safe, build up rail and continue to develop other forms of transportation. It's a long term plan, the short term plan shouldn't be to do the bare minimum or worse yet, neglect I-70.

What you are saying feels to me like you are agreeing that we maintain what we have today and build new capacity for a multimodal future. But that’s not what we are doing. We are pumping most of our money into new road capacity.

I70 can be rebuilt and built safely without 3 or 4 lanes. What you are describing is Infrastructure lock in and is only made worse when we rebuild highways with more capacity.

[phuqueue]

There is a whole politics thread where you can try to make your arguments about how much "liberal positions have cost the average American," this one doesn't need to be mucked up with that. This thread is about adding lanes to I-70, and we don't have to speak in vague, general terms about what costs a two-lane I-70 imposes on us, because MoDot has provided that number to us (again, less than $35M/year pre-covid), and we shouldn't ignore the cost to "fix" (but not really) that problem with added lanes, which will be at least $5.5 billion for one new lane in each direction, up to $?? billion for the two new lanes in each direction envisioned in this legislation. The private car as main mode of transportation is not an inevitable and natural feature of American society, it's a policy choice. To continue throwing good money after bad on this choice is also a burden on the American public. And as it specifically concerns cross-state travel within MO, alternative modes are not "40 years" away, it does not need to be a "long term plan" to provide them. The River Runner already exists.

[DColeKC]

There is a whole politics thread where you can try to make your arguments about how much "liberal positions have cost the average American," this one doesn't need to be mucked up with that. This thread is about adding lanes to I-70, and we don't have to speak in vague, general terms about what costs a two-lane I-70 imposes on us, because MoDot has provided that number to us (again, less than $35M/year pre-covid), and we shouldn't ignore the cost to "fix" (but not really) that problem with added lanes, which will be at least $5.5 billion for one new lane in each direction, up to $?? billion for the two new lanes in each direction envisioned in this legislation. The private car as main mode of transportation is not an inevitable and natural feature of American society, it's a policy choice. To continue throwing good money after bad on this choice is also a burden on the American public. And as it specifically concerns cross-state travel within MO, alternative modes are not "40 years" away, it does not need to be a "long term plan" to provide them. The River Runner already exists.

How dare we mix politics and tax payer financed infrastructure projects! They certainly don't belong in the same conversation.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

What you are describing is Infrastructure lock in and is only made worse when we rebuild highways with more capacity.

Exactly this. $9 billion spent on expanding I-70 is $9 billion that can't be used on safety improvements, maintaining infrastructure or multimodal transportation elsewhere in the state. If someone actually cares about those things, $9 billion going to an extra lane in each direction on one highway would be seen as laughably stupid.

Here's an idea: pay for it with a toll. If it doesn't pencil out with user fees, should we really be building it? Isn't that the conservative argument for every government program that isn't car infrastructure? I would support an I-70 expansion with a toll. I'm not going to support raiding every spare dollar the state has for it.

[DColeKC]

^^^ I do think liberal positions have cost the average American. It's not that your end goal isn't admirable and often easily supported by all political types, it's the path to getting to that goal where the damage is caused. We know that personal vehicles will be the main mode of transportation for at least a few more decades, so we need to make sure that form of transportation is affordable, safe and efficient.

Single mode transportation may be an economic prison but it's a path we picked several decades ago. I have no problem going away from this at some point but don't want to burden the majority of the American public getting there. Make the roads safe, build up rail and continue to develop other forms of transportation. It's a long term plan, the short term plan shouldn't be to do the bare minimum or worse yet, neglect I-70.

What you are saying feels to me like you are agreeing that we maintain what we have today and build new capacity for a multimodal future. But that’s not what we are doing. We are pumping most of our money into new road capacity.

I70 can be rebuilt and built safely without 3 or 4 lanes. What you are describing is Infrastructure lock in and is only made worse when we rebuild highways with more capacity.

I'm indifferent on adding more lanes, what I'm saying is let's not neglect it and let it get worse because the end goal is to make it harder for people to use single mode transportation. However, if they're going to need to pump a few billion into it, why not consider options that make it safer and more efficient?

Your info about MODOT spending more on new capacity is news to me and very interesting. I'm just in the camp of not phasing out current methods until new ones are viable. That means some overlap and more money. The idea of not doing anything to make driving your vehicle, which is 90% of this countries main method easier is a bully tactic trying to force a new way of life. Don't we have the proof showing that tactic doesn't work and only costs us more money?

[Chris Stritzel]

My understanding is toll roads are banned in Missouri unless the roads and bridges they’re put on are operated by private enterprises. I could be misunderstanding that, but that explains why there are no tolls on our highways and only one toll on a bridge at, I think, the Lake of the Ozarks.

Edit: Google says voters shot toll roads down in the 1970 and 1992 elections. So I guess it’s true about them being banned here.

[FlippantCitizen]

Talking about the costs and who bear them... how about those of us that drive relatively few miles and consistently opt for alternative modes? They're talking about spending billions from the general fund on this, it's our money too and it is a massive subsidy to drivers. We already make it incredibly easy to drive. I'm not saying lets explicitly make it harder but lets come to grips with how heavy our hands are already on the scale and rebalance. I70 needs some updates, maintenance and attention. But there should be real questions asked about whether capacity needs to be added and what the real trade off are when we think about spending money on capacity as opposed to maintenance, other transportation modes, or just about anything else you could think of (they are talking about using general funds after all).

You will always be able to get in your personal vehicle and go wherever you want whenever you want. I just want to be less responsible for subsidizing your ability to do so. Spending 9 billion dollars so your avg speed on a four hour drive can be boosted by four mph pisses me off as a taxpayer. Sure, get things straightened out with modern design updates and safe shoulders to help with clearing wrecks and blah blah blah. But doubling the lane capacity of the route is an objective example of insanity and waste.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

My understanding is toll roads are banned in Missouri unless the roads and bridges they’re put on are operated by private enterprises. I could be misunderstanding that, but that explains why there are no tolls on our highways and only one toll on a bridge at, I think, the Lake of the Ozarks.

Edit: Google says voters shot toll roads down in the 1970 and 1992 elections. So I guess it’s true about them being banned here.

Yes, they're banned, and getting rid of that idiocy should be a priority over spending billions of dollars.

[TheLastGentleman]

The buck/broadway bridge had tolls for a very long time. The ban must’ve been relatively recent

[moderne]

The Paseo also was a toll bridge.

[dukuboy1]

if memory serves me the Old Broadway Bridge had tolls into the 80's. The Bridge over by the Argosy into Fairfax had tolls until they replaced in the early 2000's. I do not recall Paseo bridge having tolls, but having lived in the Northland since 1976 (iwas 3 when we moved here) I do recall those bridges and the old ASB

[phuqueue]

^^^ I do think liberal positions have cost the average American. It's not that your end goal isn't admirable and often easily supported by all political types, it's the path to getting to that goal where the damage is caused. We know that personal vehicles will be the main mode of transportation for at least a few more decades, so we need to make sure that form of transportation is affordable, safe and efficient.

Single mode transportation may be an economic prison but it's a path we picked several decades ago. I have no problem going away from this at some point but don't want to burden the majority of the American public getting there. Make the roads safe, build up rail and continue to develop other forms of transportation. It's a long term plan, the short term plan shouldn't be to do the bare minimum or worse yet, neglect I-70.

What you are saying feels to me like you are agreeing that we maintain what we have today and build new capacity for a multimodal future. But that’s not what we are doing. We are pumping most of our money into new road capacity.

I70 can be rebuilt and built safely without 3 or 4 lanes. What you are describing is Infrastructure lock in and is only made worse when we rebuild highways with more capacity.

I'm indifferent on adding more lanes, what I'm saying is let's not neglect it and let it get worse because the end goal is to make it harder for people to use single mode transportation. However, if they're going to need to pump a few billion into it, why not consider options that make it safer and more efficient?

Your info about MODOT spending more on new capacity is news to me and very interesting. I'm just in the camp of not phasing out current methods until new ones are viable. That means some overlap and more money. The idea of not doing anything to make driving your vehicle, which is 90% of this countries main method easier is a bully tactic trying to force a new way of life. Don't we have the proof showing that tactic doesn't work and only costs us more money?

If you're indifferent to adding lanes and only worried about neglecting the highway, you can go away, because this thread is about adding lanes to the highway and nobody has taken the position that it should be neglected and allowed to get worse. You can make safety enhancements or perform maintenance or even a full rebuild to keep the road in usable condition without adding more lanes. The idea of not doing anything to make it easier not to own and drive a private vehicle is the real "bully tactic," strong-arming people into accepting the status quo. That is a status quo in which 40,000 people are killed and millions injured every year in car crashes, a status quo that costs "the common person" thousands of dollars (adding up cumulatively to literally trillions of dollars across all "common people") per year, and, not for nothing, yes, a status quo that is contributing to climate change and environmental destruction, costing yet trillions of dollars more. But I suppose all of that is worth it for you to be able to jump in your car and drive to St. Louis "on a whim." I don't imagine that you even actually do that too often, but it's critically important that you know that you can.

[Highlander]

The Paseo also was a toll bridge.

You are right. I did not remember that the Paseo bridge required a toll. The toll booths were removed in 1972 when the bridge became a link for I35/29. Not sure what I-35 traffic did prior to 1972 and whether it traversed the city unabated. I am old enough to remember but rarely went north of the river in those days.

On a separate note, I have to go to St Louis early in 2023. Last time I was on I70 east to St Louis was 2012 and it was already somewhat of a white knuckle road at that time. Any ideas on when the best time would be to make the trip in terms of traffic? Total discretion on when - just cannot be a weekend.

[normalthings]

The Paseo also was a toll bridge.

You are right. I did not remember that the Paseo bridge required a toll. The toll booths were removed in 1972 when the bridge became a link for I35/29. Not sure what I-35 traffic did prior to 1972 and whether it traversed the city unabated. I am old enough to remember but rarely went north of the river in those days.

On a separate note, I have to go to St Louis early in 2023. Last time I was on I70 east to St Louis was 2012 and it was already somewhat of a white knuckle road at that time. Any ideas on when the best time would be to make the trip in terms of traffic? Total discretion on when - just cannot be a weekend.

Over night

[GRID]

70 in Missouri needs to be six lanes simply because it's a heavy truck route. Two lanes are not enough to allow for lots of trucks and a decent flow of cars. There is no room for merging, passing etc without potential conflicts. Maybe the entire thing doesn't need it, but most of it should be six lanes. It by no means needs to be any more than six lanes wide. The traffic volumes come nowhere near justifying more than three lanes each way.

Outside of metro St Louis, I-70 across MO is not that busy especially west of Columbia. Even in metro KC, traffic barely goes over 100k a day in just the short stretch by the stadium the rest is under 90k. Most of the interstates in StL are 140k vehicles a day and up. The only busy highway in KC is the south loop of 435 west of the triangle. Between Odessa and Columbia, volumes are very low on 70.

Like all interstates across the entire USA. The biggest problem with our highways is enforcing lane use and etiquette. Americans need to figure out that you should always pass on the left and never pass on the right and you should always move over to the furthest right lane that matches your speed to allow cars to pass you on the left no matter their speed or yours.

Till we have better drivers, you can widen even rural highways to 6 lanes each way and people will still muck everything up especially on hills.

But three lanes each way is optimal for just a free flowing highway with lots of trucks regardless of volume. No trucks in fast lane and two full lanes for cars to pass each other and the middle lane for trucks to pass each other and move over for merges without disrupting fast lane traffic. But even with low volumes, that will fail just as bad as only two lanes if people don't use the lanes properly.

[FangKC]

One needs to consider widening simply because Kansas City KEEPS ADDING more and more logistic centers that increase truck traffic to other cities via interstate highways running through the Metro. Logistics, distribution, and shipping are big economic drivers. We are the second largest rail center, but trucking is also significant.

[alejandro46]

Agreed. The heavy truck volume causes a significant problem with trucks trying to pass each other delaying traffic. The Columbia I-70 & Hwy 63 interchange is a major safety concern that needs to be addressed as a priority. I've seen countless wrecks and backups there.

https://www.columbiatribune.com/story/n ... 115946002/

[FangKC]

One really notices the effect of truck traffic on the interstates during a heavy rain storm. When they pass it can make it really hard to see the road because of the spray of water thrown onto one's vehicle from them.

[alejandro46]

https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/pa ... ate-speech

Parson calls for $860 million to rebuild and widen I-70 in MO suburbs, STL suburbs and in Columbia.

$35m so Amtrak doesn't hit anymore cars. So basically the bare minimum there.