Widening I-70

Come here to talk about topics that are not related to development, or even Kansas City.
User avatar
GRID
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 17083
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Widening I-70

Post by GRID »

normalthings wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 9:43 pm
Anthony_Hugo98 wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 9:17 pm
DColeKC wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 6:11 pm I understand the support on here for rail but lets' be honest, vast majority of people in KC and STL have no interest in using rail between the two cities. I would utilize for a fun family trip but that's about it.
That’s because it runs once a day…
I don’t know……. My anecdotal evidence is that most of my suburban family and friends would prefer to hop on at KC or Lees Summit if there was more frequency and they could get trip times down. 70-80mph with 4 daily trips would be a good goal.

Similarly the train to chicago is time competitive to driving but the lack of frequency makes it unworkable for many.
The vast majority of cars on I-70 are probably not going between metro KC and StL but going through the state. Or people from KC going past StL or StL people going past KC or whatever. Even those that going between the cities are not going from center city to center city. Then you have rural people hopping on 70 to go to the next town and then you have big trucks. Better trains are needed in MO but it would have almost no impact on I-70.

Every time I drive across the state, you can tell that most drivers are not from KC or StL once you get 20 miles from the metros.

70 just needs to be rebuilt to six lanes and be done with it. Anything more than six lanes would be totally stupid. Make the left lane no trucks and enforce proper lane use and six lanes is more than enough capacity. If they have the money to make 70 8 lanes then they should be putting that toward Amtrak and better local transit in the cities.
daGOAT
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:39 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Widening I-70

Post by daGOAT »

the 70 to the 55 is a popular route to Chicago and obviously the 70 West hits Denver but 4 lanes is more than the state will need. It's really NOT that much through traffic in the state of Missouri.
moderne
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5492
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: Mount Hope

Re: Widening I-70

Post by moderne »

A lot of Chicago bound use Hwy 36 from Cameron to Hannibal and pick up I-72 in Illinois. Less traffic and fewer large towns(and no St. Louis).
bchociej
Ambassador
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 12:02 pm
Location: Mission

Re: Widening I-70

Post by bchociej »

normalthings wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 9:43 pm
Anthony_Hugo98 wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 9:17 pm
DColeKC wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 6:11 pm I understand the support on here for rail but lets' be honest, vast majority of people in KC and STL have no interest in using rail between the two cities. I would utilize for a fun family trip but that's about it.
That’s because it runs once a day…
I don’t know……. My anecdotal evidence is that most of my suburban family and friends would prefer to hop on at KC or Lees Summit if there was more frequency and they could get trip times down. 70-80mph with 4 daily trips would be a good goal.

Similarly the train to chicago is time competitive to driving but the lack of frequency makes it unworkable for many.
Agreed. I traveled KC-STL for work for years, often by Amtrak. The train was usually quite full. We also did many trips by car when we lived in STL to come back for holidays, and plenty of college students make ~50% of the journey relatively often.

I'm thoroughly convinced that some speed & frequency improvements, along with service to Columbia, would make rail really, really popular. You don't need nearly a majority of drivers to switch for the project to be considered wildly successful.
City Council Member for Ward 4 in Mission, KS
User avatar
Cratedigger
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1813
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:32 pm

Re: Widening I-70

Post by Cratedigger »

bchociej wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:34 pm
I'm thoroughly convinced that some speed & frequency improvements, along with service to Columbia, would make rail really, really popular.
Absolutely. Mizzou kids paying under $50 to get home? Easy sell
TheBigChuckbowski
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3546
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Longfellow

Re: Widening I-70

Post by TheBigChuckbowski »

GRID wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:24 am The vast majority of cars on I-70 are probably not going between metro KC and StL but going through the state.
Okay...why exactly should Missouri invest billions of dollars so people driving through the state don't hit any traffic? Especially before making a legitimate investment in rail connecting the two major cities in the state with the state capitol and main college town.

I get that people don't like to touch the brakes when they're driving but this thread is so out of character for this forum, it's staggering.
moderne
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5492
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: Mount Hope

Re: Widening I-70

Post by moderne »

Shame on those who stray from ideological purity.
dukuboy1
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1031
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 12:02 pm

Re: Widening I-70

Post by dukuboy1 »

moderne wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:13 pm A lot of Chicago bound use Hwy 36 from Cameron to Hannibal and pick up I-72 in Illinois. Less traffic and fewer large towns(and no St. Louis).
this route is by far the fastest and easiest route into Chicago. Just the ability to get across MO without any traffic at all really and 4 lanes (2 in each direction) is worth it.

If you are in KC and using I70 to get to Chicago you are doing it wrong 8)
shinatoo
Ambassador
Posts: 7392
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: Widening I-70

Post by shinatoo »

TheBigChuckbowski wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 11:51 am
GRID wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:24 am The vast majority of cars on I-70 are probably not going between metro KC and StL but going through the state.
Okay...why exactly should Missouri invest billions of dollars so people driving through the state don't hit any traffic? Especially before making a legitimate investment in rail connecting the two major cities in the state with the state capitol and main college town.

I get that people don't like to touch the brakes when they're driving but this thread is so out of character for this forum, it's staggering.
One, it's not just tapping your breaks. At peak times it's literally hours in 60 mph traffic, or worse, sitting perfectly still for an hour or two.

Two, traffic is just going to get worse. In ten years I-70, with two lanes, will take longer than taking the train on a regular basis.

Three, I-70 is nearing 70 years old and needs to be rebuilt. MoDOT has been prepping for three lanes with its bridge replacements. We should invest in the future while we are rebuilding.

Four, you can do both with 8 billion. Upgrade I-70 and upgrade the River Runner.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Widening I-70

Post by phuqueue »

"Sitting perfectly still for an hour or two," is that a joke? I don't even know how many times I've crossed the state on I-70 and I've never sat in totally stopped traffic for any reason other than a crash, and I've never been stopped for "an hour or two." I'm not going to say it's never happened to anybody, but I am going to say it's sufficiently rare that it's not worth pouring billions of dollars into trying to prevent it. Nor do I really have any sympathy for the plight of the poor driver stuck going a mere 60mph. And this is all assuming that simply adding capacity would really improve traffic flow anyway, an argument that this board usually (correctly) rejects in other contexts.

The point that there is enough money to both expand I-70 and upgrade the train is probably factually true but also functionally irrelevant. Is there an actual proposal to put any of that money into the River Runner? People are talking about it in this thread, but it certainly doesn't appear anywhere in the article linked in the first post, nor in any other article about this proposal that I've been able to find. The actual bill proposes to establish the "Interstate 70 Improvement Fund," which "shall be used solely" to widen or improve I-70. Dream all you want about higher frequencies, faster journeys, service to Columbia, whatever, but the River Runner is not connected to the I-70 proposal in any way outside the imaginations of people in this thread. You can do both with $8 billion, but MO is only going to do one.
shinatoo
Ambassador
Posts: 7392
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: Widening I-70

Post by shinatoo »

phuqueue wrote: Sat Dec 10, 2022 9:37 am "Sitting perfectly still for an hour or two," is that a joke? I don't even know how many times I've crossed the state on I-70 and I've never sat in totally stopped traffic for any reason other than a crash, and I've never been stopped for "an hour or two." I'm not going to say it's never happened to anybody, but I am going to say it's sufficiently rare that it's not worth pouring billions of dollars into trying to prevent it. Nor do I really have any sympathy for the plight of the poor driver stuck going a mere 60mph. And this is all assuming that simply adding capacity would really improve traffic flow anyway, an argument that this board usually (correctly) rejects in other contexts.

The point that there is enough money to both expand I-70 and upgrade the train is probably factually true but also functionally irrelevant. Is there an actual proposal to put any of that money into the River Runner? People are talking about it in this thread, but it certainly doesn't appear anywhere in the article linked in the first post, nor in any other article about this proposal that I've been able to find. The actual bill proposes to establish the "Interstate 70 Improvement Fund," which "shall be used solely" to widen or improve I-70. Dream all you want about higher frequencies, faster journeys, service to Columbia, whatever, but the River Runner is not connected to the I-70 proposal in any way outside the imaginations of people in this thread. You can do both with $8 billion, but MO is only going to do one.
This is 100% what this forum is. If you are wanting legislation from this forum you might want to adjust your expectations.

And yes, I have sat still on I-70 probably 10 times in the last 20 years. All because of accidents. That could be improved by 3 lanes and proper shoulders.

But our state legislators will wait until it's Mad Max like conditions before they will do anything.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Widening I-70

Post by phuqueue »

I'm not asking the forum to create legislation, but if we're gonna talk about something, we should be honest about what we're talking about. It's one thing to just fantasize about what ought to be done, which, yeah, is the main thing that goes on in many of the threads here and I don't really have a problem with, but it's something else to respond to criticism of an actual, concrete proposal by saying we can also do the fantasy thing too, when actually nobody has any intention of doing it. Even if there really is a good reason to spend billions of dollars widening the highway before investing in rail, that reason is not "we can just do both," at least not until doing both is actually on the table.

I still don't see any good reason to widen the highway, whether it's MoDot's estimated cost of congestion or anecdotes about having to sit in standstill traffic once every two years. Of all the ways MO could spend billions of dollars, making it even easier for people to drive has to be near the bottom of the list.
moderne
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5492
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: Mount Hope

Re: Widening I-70

Post by moderne »

How about making it safer near top of list?
User avatar
DColeKC
Ambassador
Posts: 3724
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Widening I-70

Post by DColeKC »

Why am I not shocked that those opposed to widening or improving I70 have also been very vocal about climate change. Widening I-70 is seen as some kind of backwards progress to their end goal of less individual freedom to drive where you want when you want and do it safely and conveniently. Make things more expensive, more dangerous and essentially force people into things that’s better for the environment.

The common person pays the price over and over again. Gas prices, cost of vehicles and on and on.

This country drives. This country will always be a nation where people want the ability to jump in a personal vehicle and go. Make our roads safer and capable of handling traffic at proper speeds. Because life is short and we should be able to spend it doing things meaningful, not stuck in traffic.
shinatoo
Ambassador
Posts: 7392
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: Widening I-70

Post by shinatoo »

DColeKC wrote: Sun Dec 11, 2022 12:20 pm Why am I not shocked that those opposed to widening or improving I70 have also been very vocal about climate change. Widening I-70 is seen as some kind of backwards progress to their end goal of less individual freedom to drive where you want when you want and do it safely and conveniently. Make things more expensive, more dangerous and essentially force people into things that’s better for the environment.

The common person pays the price over and over again. Gas prices, cost of vehicles and on and on.

This country drives. This country will always be a nation where people want the ability to jump in a personal vehicle and go. Make our roads safer and capable of handling traffic at proper speeds. Because life is short and we should be able to spend it doing things meaningful, not stuck in traffic.
I keep hearing this goal from the right and I have never heard it from the left. In passing or in serious. Seams like fear mongering right out of "the left want to take away all your guns and religious freedoms" play books.

Having cars sit idling in traffic on I70 doesn't help the environment.

There is no movement to take away your car. There is movement to make your car less necessary.
User avatar
normalthings
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: Widening I-70

Post by normalthings »

In Europe, Asia, Africa, and the biggest us cities I am given the choice to walk,bike, TNC, transit, or drive and all are doable.

In KC I have the freedom to not choose any for of transportation other than a single mode, the most expensive and least efficient of all options.
User avatar
DColeKC
Ambassador
Posts: 3724
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Widening I-70

Post by DColeKC »

shinatoo wrote: Sun Dec 11, 2022 2:22 pm
DColeKC wrote: Sun Dec 11, 2022 12:20 pm Why am I not shocked that those opposed to widening or improving I70 have also been very vocal about climate change. Widening I-70 is seen as some kind of backwards progress to their end goal of less individual freedom to drive where you want when you want and do it safely and conveniently. Make things more expensive, more dangerous and essentially force people into things that’s better for the environment.

The common person pays the price over and over again. Gas prices, cost of vehicles and on and on.

This country drives. This country will always be a nation where people want the ability to jump in a personal vehicle and go. Make our roads safer and capable of handling traffic at proper speeds. Because life is short and we should be able to spend it doing things meaningful, not stuck in traffic.
I keep hearing this goal from the right and I have never heard it from the left. In passing or in serious. Seams like fear mongering right out of "the left want to take away all your guns and religious freedoms" play books.

Having cars sit idling in traffic on I70 doesn't help the environment.

There is no movement to take away your car. There is movement to make your car less necessary.
I’m not sure you’re understanding my point. Someone literally just said they don’t support spending any money to make it easier to drive. I also support other forms of transportation or working on those other options but I’m not willing to let the most popular method suffer to fast track different options. Clear mismanagement of the energy sector by our governments push for cleaner forms of energy has caused hardships on most all of us.

There’s no fear mongering here, it’s happened and is happening. I’m not claiming they want to “take our cars away”. If I want to head to STL on a whim, I can do so at anytime in my personal vehicle. If my only options are public transportation I’m forced to use the predetermined schedule. One day public transportation may be the faster and more convenient option. Until that’s the case, I don’t think we should neglect the current most popular form of transportation. I don’t think we stick with two lanes and patch work because we should make driving harder.

They don’t want to take our cars, they want to make it harder and more expensive to use them.
User avatar
DColeKC
Ambassador
Posts: 3724
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Widening I-70

Post by DColeKC »

normalthings wrote: Sun Dec 11, 2022 8:31 pm In Europe, Asia, Africa, and the biggest us cities I am given the choice to walk,bike, TNC, transit, or drive and all are doable.

In KC I have the freedom to not choose any for of transportation other than a single mode, the most expensive and least efficient of all options.
Ok, so we neglect our roads, make your only current option more expensive and more dangerous so we can have maybe 2 other viable options in 40 years.
User avatar
normalthings
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: Widening I-70

Post by normalthings »

DColeKC wrote: Sun Dec 11, 2022 10:10 pm
normalthings wrote: Sun Dec 11, 2022 8:31 pm In Europe, Asia, Africa, and the biggest us cities I am given the choice to walk,bike, TNC, transit, or drive and all are doable.

In KC I have the freedom to not choose any for of transportation other than a single mode, the most expensive and least efficient of all options.
Ok, so we neglect our roads, make your only current option more expensive and more dangerous so we can have maybe 2 other viable options in 40 years.
US spends more on new capacity than maintenance. MODOT spends a lot more on new capacity than maintenance. You can maintain what you have today, rebuild what needs rebuilding the same size or smaller, and push that new capacity budget over more diverse options.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Widening I-70

Post by phuqueue »

DColeKC wrote: Sun Dec 11, 2022 12:20 pm Why am I not shocked that those opposed to widening or improving I70 have also been very vocal about climate change. Widening I-70 is seen as some kind of backwards progress to their end goal of less individual freedom to drive where you want when you want and do it safely and conveniently. Make things more expensive, more dangerous and essentially force people into things that’s better for the environment.

The common person pays the price over and over again. Gas prices, cost of vehicles and on and on.

This country drives. This country will always be a nation where people want the ability to jump in a personal vehicle and go. Make our roads safer and capable of handling traffic at proper speeds. Because life is short and we should be able to spend it doing things meaningful, not stuck in traffic.
There are many reasons beyond climate change to not want to encourage people into cars, including fostering vibrant and walkable urban environments. I think I post on a message board somewhere that is focused on that goal. If you want to talk about making things "more dangerous," 40,000 people are killed in car crashes each year, and adding extra lanes to facilitate higher speeds is not a safety improvement (though I don't have a problem with investing in actual safety improvements and already said in a previous post that if the highway needs to be rebuilt then rebuild it, but a rebuild doesn't have to entail new lanes). It's funny that you think my position is somehow to blame for "the common person paying the price" in higher gas prices, cost of vehicles, etc -- I'm the one advocating for giving people other options so that they don't have to pay those prices at all. What you try to spin here as "individual freedom" is an economic prison in which people are forced into buying a piece of equipment that costs thousands of dollars up front and requires ongoing operational and maintenance costs of thousands and thousands more dollars. Car culture is not "freedom," it's a scam. We don't spend our lives "stuck in traffic," we spend them being traffic.
They don’t want to take our cars, they want to make it harder and more expensive to use them.
No, I don't want to spend billions of dollars to make it easier to use them. Nobody is saying to rip out the existing interstate and force you to take gravel roads all the way to St. Louis. But we are talking about spending anywhere from $5.5 billion to $9 billion (or maybe/probably even more, since MoDot hasn't actually priced out four lanes) to solve a "problem" that in this thread has been described as "having to wait three minutes for a semi to pass another semi" or "hours in 60mph traffic." These are frivolous complaints. I was apparently ignored when I pointed out in an earlier post that MoDot itself only attributes a cost of less than $35M per year to congestion on rural I-70 and advocates for solutions other than simply adding capacity (which, again, does not work anyway). There's seemingly never enough money for the state to do anything that actually matters, but when it comes to an easy but actually ineffective solution to a problem that is practically imaginary in the first place, suddenly it's all just Monopoly money.
Post Reply