I-49 Coming to Missouri

[vdeane]

As long as the federal government increasingly leaves it up to states to do more of the planning and funding of highway projects we'll such super highway projects take ever longer amounts of time to complete. We'll see states have to choose projects that benefit them more directly rather than those that benefit the larger system. And the end results of the projects will look like something only designed for a specific region rather than something that makes sense for the larger system (which is one reason why I-69 looks so bad for its entire route).

That is exactly why I'd go back to the previous system of centralized interstate system planning.  I'd even go so far as to evaluate all additions since 1968 and renumber/delete as necessary.

[I-39]

There's just not a huge demand for this to be built. People said the same about I-39 in Illinois. But I drove US 51 several times before I-39 was built and it was already very busy, especially once the bridge across the Illinois River was built. OTOH, I drove US 67 from St Louis to Little Rock on my way to Texas about 18 months ago and saw almost no traffic between Poplar Bluff and Pocahontas. This was in contrast to the steady traffic between Festus and Poplar Bluff and also  south of Pocahontas.

Missouri has more important needs. The biggest quick fix need is Bella Vista. The other big local need is also on the west side of the state, US 71 in KC which is locked in political limbo. Southern Missouri would also prefer upgrading US 63 to Thayer. Too many other priorities come before this. It's a good thing to have on the drawing board. But Missouri doesn't need this until Arkansas figures out how it's going to freeway US 67 between Walnut Ridge and Corning. I'm not sure if Missouri needs this at all.

While I agree there are a few more important needs, I think you are underestimating the potential usage of a completed I-57 between Sikeston and Little Rock. Due to the fact that the combined I-57/30 corridor will largely avoid passing through major metro areas (sans Little Rock), I think there will be a fair amount of induced demand with the corridor.

You said there was little traffic between Poplar Bluff and Pocahontas, I bet I can guess the reason for that. It is simply not desirable for most people as that stretch of highway is mainly a two lane road with no passing lanes. If it were a four lane divided highway like north of Poplar Bluff or south of Walnut Ridge, it would be a different story.

I do think Missouri, assuming the gas tax passes (a big if), should at least finish the four lane divided US 67 between MO 158 and the state line, even if it is only expressway grade to begin with. Then at least they will be ready to go to convert the whole US 60/67 corridor between Sikeston and the state line to interstate standards when Arkansas brings the highway up to their side of the state line (which by the time that happens, the more important things should be finished).

[edwaleni]

Lets not forget that the population of the US is shifting south and west.

I-49, I-57, I-69 are all enhancements to the existing national network that support this shift.

Commerce, industry, leisure are all needed travel forms that require supporting infra to maintain this shift.

A question always asked is, do you wait until the demand is there? Or do you build anticipating that demand so its in place when it occurs?

[Bobby5280]

Lets not forget that the population of the US is shifting south and west.

I-49, I-57, I-69 are all enhancements to the existing national network that support this shift.

I don't really think the Interstate highway system is responding to a Southward and Westward shift in America's population. The I-49 corridor has been a work in progress for roughly 40 years. I can remember when I-49 was little more than a stub from I-10 in Lafayette up to US-190 in Opelousas. The "Future I-57" segment in Arkansas has slowly been getting built for decades. Both I-49 and I-57 would stand to complement the Interstate highway system on the whole when completed.

As for the extension of I-69, there's big parts of that one that are hard to justify. I have no problem with the I-69 routes being built in Texas. Those make sense. The rest of it between Shreveport and Indianapolis is much harder to justify, especially with how bafflingly crooked its path is being built along that stretch. South Texas traffic headed for points in the Northeast US would be better to take other Interstates that follow more direct routes.

Farther West there are giant sized gaps in the Interstate system. For instance, I think there should be a diagonal Interstate running from Central Colorado down to either Oklahoma City or the Dallas area. Colorado now has 5.6 million residents and over 80% of that population resides along or near the I-25 corridor, from Pueblo on up to Fort Collins. Denver's own metro population (2,814,330) now has more than the St Louis MSA (2,807,338). Denver's MSA doesn't include the 600,000+ people not far away in Colorado Springs or the 300,000+ people that make up the Fort Collins-Loveland MSA. The Front Range has a hell of a lot of people for the scant number of highways serving it.

Other super highway projects being planned or built in the US sort of have to be examined case by case to figure their merit. But it's clear politics plays a giant role in shaping these highways.

[skluth]

Lets not forget that the population of the US is shifting south and west.
As for the extension of I-69, there's big parts of that one that are hard to justify. I have no problem with the I-69 routes being built in Texas. Those make sense. The rest of it between Shreveport and Indianapolis is much harder to justify, especially with how bafflingly crooked its path is being built along that stretch. South Texas traffic headed for points in the Northeast US would be better to take other Interstates that follow more direct routes.

The I-69 stretch from Indy to Western Kentucky also makes sense, though it should run down to Hopkinsville and be truncated there. Given that much of the build was already completed, I can also see it running south to Memphis. I agree it makes no sense between Shreveport and Memphis as that is nothing more than an excuse to build an expensive bridge where it's not really needed. (A bridge just south of Memphis would be much more useful and through a less sensitive environment.)

[skluth]

I don't think completing I-57 to Little Rock does anything for DFW-CHI traffic. The I-57 extension shaves 10 miles on the corridor from Little Rock to Sikeston.

That would only be the case if the I-57 corridor were literally routed up through Pocahontas on the exising US-67 alignment. With point A being the junction of I-40 and US-67 in North Little Rock and point B being the junction of I-55 and I-57, I see about a 19 mile saving of distance between Dallas and Chicago if I-57 is run parallel to the Union Pacific line between Walnut Ridge and Corning. My method is using the path measuring tool in Google Earth.

Sparker makes a good point about I-57 potentially functioning as a good relief route for I-40.

Nevertheless, completing I-57 does little for Missouri itself in the grand scheme of things. The corridor is really only beneficial to longer distance commerce outside of Missouri.

Now, it still makes sense for Missouri to bring US-60 up to Interstate standards between Poplar Bluff and Sikeston, but that only fits into Missouri's longer term goal of bringing US-60 up to Interstate standards across the southern part of the state from Springfield to Sikeston. Again, that's a project that's of interest to just that specific region rather than the grander national view of the entire Interstate highway system.

As long as the federal government increasingly leaves it up to states to do more of the planning and funding of highway projects we'll such super highway projects take ever longer amounts of time to complete. We'll see states have to choose projects that benefit them more directly rather than those that benefit the larger system. And the end results of the projects will look like something only designed for a specific region rather than something that makes sense for the larger system (which is one reason why I-69 looks so bad for its entire route).

I used the Google Earth path tool to measure just the distance between the north end of the current freeway east of Walnut Ridge to Corning, which would be the only real difference along the route. (This reduces variables in measurement.) I got a difference of seven miles, making a total of less than 17 miles total. This assumes a straight line from the end of the highway parallelling AR 34 to Knobel and directly north to Corning. Few highways would be built this way, as there are usually obstacles and political decisions that affect the path. The chosen route will likely be affected by where to cross the Black River, so that may also involve some jogging. So the final difference would probably be about 15 miles.

I agree it would be useful, both for Chicago and especially St Louis to Texas traffic. (US 67 currently cuts about 40 minutes driving between STL and Little Rock.) I also think once Arkansas commits to building the highway to Corning, Missouri should at least upgrade US 67 to a four-lane expressway with an interchange at State Line Road to more easily connect to whatever Arkansas decides to build. I just don't want Missouri to end up with a Genoa City situation where they build a freeway to the state line only to have the adjoining state decide the status quo is good enough. 

Again, I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be somewhat beneficial. I'm just arguing it doesn't provide enough to justify the expense.

[mvak36]

The Bella Vista Bypass didn't get selected in this round of INFRA grants. https://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/infra_proposed_awards_6.4.2018.pdf

I guess we just have to hope that the gas tax increase passes this November.

[mvak36]

Here is a snip from uozzim's corrected link:

....

Let's hope the Trunp infrastructure plan covers the Bella Vista Bypass because the 2018-22 MoDOT Southwest District Rural Project List Draft STIP has moved the Award Date for the Bella Vista Bypass from 2020 to 2021 (p. 24/48 of pdf):


....

The Draft 2019-2023 STIP is available on the MODOT site and the Bella Vista Bypass has been moved to a 2022 award date.

[sparker]

Interesting that the projected cost wasn't adjusted for a years' anticipated inflation (remains at $38.232M).  They raised it a whopping $2K for the original 2020 to 2021 pushback.  Makes me wonder that in 2022 the let date will be out to 2026 (the way it's going!). 

[mvak36]

Interesting that the projected cost wasn't adjusted for a years' anticipated inflation (remains at $38.232M).  They raised it a whopping $2K for the original 2020 to 2021 pushback.  Makes me wonder that in 2022 the let date will be out to 2026 (the way it's going!).

Oh. I'm sure it will at this rate lol. If the gas tax increase is approved by the voters, then I could see it happening within the next few years. I am not holding my breath.

[skluth]

The Bella Vista Bypass didn't get selected in this round of INFRA grants. https://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/infra_proposed_awards_6.4.2018.pdf

I guess we just have to hope that the gas tax increase passes this November.

It looks like none of the grants cover more than about half the cost and many cover significantly smaller amounts than requested. I don't know if Missouri would have moved up the Bella Vista bypass unless it was all covered because, well, Missouri. It does need to be done though. It's downright idiotic it's taken this long.

[Gordon]

You think that Missouri would save some from every year's budget to  this job. How are they going to come up with the funds in 2022 year unless they pass a gas tax. I don't see there budgeted amount growing.

[txstateends]

Still amazes me... only ~15 or so miles to do.  It's not like they're spanning the Grand Canyon or boring a long tunnel through a mountain.  This could have already been done.  If the gap were the length of Texarkana to Fort Smith I could see at least some delay or whatever.  Why bother adding I-49 to US 71 in MO and changing I-540 to I-49 in AR if nothing but financial foot-dragging occurs for the *very short* part in between.
(/soapbox)

[US71]

Still amazes me... only ~15 or so miles to do.  It's not like they're spanning the Grand Canyon or boring a long tunnel through a mountain.  This could have already been done.  If the gap were the length of Texarkana to Fort Smith I could see at least some delay or whatever.  Why bother adding I-49 to US 71 in MO and changing I-540 to I-49 in AR if nothing but financial foot-dragging occurs for the *very short* part in between.
(/soapbox)

MoDOT ran out of money after upgrading the rest of 71 to Kansas City , which they did because Arkansas wasn't ready at the time.

[mvak36]

Still amazes me... only ~15 or so miles to do.  It's not like they're spanning the Grand Canyon or boring a long tunnel through a mountain.  This could have already been done.  If the gap were the length of Texarkana to Fort Smith I could see at least some delay or whatever.  Why bother adding I-49 to US 71 in MO and changing I-540 to I-49 in AR if nothing but financial foot-dragging occurs for the *very short* part in between.
(/soapbox)

MoDOT ran out of money after upgrading the rest of 71 to Kansas City , which they did because Arkansas wasn't ready at the time.

Won't this project have to be let out by the time the CAP sales tax ends in Arkansas (in 2022/2023)? Maybe they will just build it out to the state line and have a road to nowhere.

[US71]

Still amazes me... only ~15 or so miles to do.  It's not like they're spanning the Grand Canyon or boring a long tunnel through a mountain.  This could have already been done.  If the gap were the length of Texarkana to Fort Smith I could see at least some delay or whatever.  Why bother adding I-49 to US 71 in MO and changing I-540 to I-49 in AR if nothing but financial foot-dragging occurs for the *very short* part in between.
(/soapbox)

MoDOT ran out of money after upgrading the rest of 71 to Kansas City , which they did because Arkansas wasn't ready at the time.

Won't this project have to be let out by the time the CAP sales tax ends in Arkansas (in 2022/2023)? Maybe they will just build it out to the state line and have a road to nowhere.

Arkansas is ready to roll once Missouri gets going (or they say they are). "Road to nowhere" pretty much sums up the current state of the Bella Vista Bypass. The 4-Lane ends at a county road and you have guess which way take you back to town.

[mvak36]

FWIW, the new Missouri governor supports the gas tax.

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Mike Parson offered initial support Tuesday for raising the state's gasoline tax to help rebuild roads and bridges across Missouri.

On his second full working day as governor, the man who took over for scandal-plagued Gov. Eric Greitens told reporters that improving the state's transportation network will be a priority in his administration.

"I'm going to be supporting infrastructure in the state of Missouri and, yes, if that's part of the infrastructure plan,"  he said. "I think that is important. We need to make sure we've got a good plan in place."

Maybe there is a small chance it will help the chances of it passing.

[skluth]

FWIW, the new Missouri governor supports the gas tax.

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Mike Parson offered initial support Tuesday for raising the state's gasoline tax to help rebuild roads and bridges across Missouri.

On his second full working day as governor, the man who took over for scandal-plagued Gov. Eric Greitens told reporters that improving the state's transportation network will be a priority in his administration.

"I'm going to be supporting infrastructure in the state of Missouri and, yes, if that's part of the infrastructure plan,"  he said. "I think that is important. We need to make sure we've got a good plan in place."

Maybe there is a small chance it will help the chances of it passing.

A GOP governor supporting a gas tax.    I need to check if hell has indeed frozen over.

[mvak36]

FWIW, the new Missouri governor supports the gas tax.

JEFFERSON CITY • Gov. Mike Parson offered initial support Tuesday for raising the state’s gasoline tax to help rebuild roads and bridges across Missouri.

On his second full working day as governor, the man who took over for scandal-plagued Gov. Eric Greitens told reporters that improving the state’s transportation network will be a priority in his administration.

“I’m going to be supporting infrastructure in the state of Missouri and, yes, if that’s part of the infrastructure plan,” he said. “I think that is important. We need to make sure we’ve got a good plan in place.”

Maybe there is a small chance it will help the chances of it passing.

A GOP governor supporting a gas tax.    I need to check if hell has indeed frozen over.

I emailed MODOT last week asking if they are going to put up a list of projects that they will do if this gas tax passes, similar to what they did back in 2014. I haven't heard back from them yet, but I will update this post as soon as I do.

EDIT: They replied that they didn't know of any list. IMO, they should probably put out a list of projects so that the gas tax has a better chance of passing.

[TXtoNJ]

FWIW, the new Missouri governor supports the gas tax.

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Mike Parson offered initial support Tuesday for raising the state's gasoline tax to help rebuild roads and bridges across Missouri.

On his second full working day as governor, the man who took over for scandal-plagued Gov. Eric Greitens told reporters that improving the state's transportation network will be a priority in his administration.

"I'm going to be supporting infrastructure in the state of Missouri and, yes, if that's part of the infrastructure plan,"  he said. "I think that is important. We need to make sure we've got a good plan in place."

Maybe there is a small chance it will help the chances of it passing.

A GOP governor supporting a gas tax.    I need to check if hell has indeed frozen over.

GOP is ever so slowly shifting from a "no new taxes, ever" approach to "new taxes are fine if they are end user fees and/or determined by consumption". Gas taxes fall in the latter.

[silverback1065]

in indiana the gas tax was called a "user fee" and it passed

[Gordon]

 The Federal build grant applications would probably be worth to Missouri if they would come with some more to match what they set aside finish I 49. Here are the requirements. Deadline date to submit application is July 19th 2018.  The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 made available $1.5 billion for National Infrastructure Investments, otherwise known as BUILD Transportation Discretionary grants, through September 30, 2020.  For this round of BUILD Transportation grants, the maximum grant award is $25 million, and no more than $150 million can be awarded to a single State, as specified in the FY 2018 Appropriations Act. At least 30 percent of funds must be awarded to projects located in rural areas.

[US71]

in indiana the gas tax was called a "user fee" and it passed

to-may-toe / to-mah-toe

[skluth]

Correction: I should have been more clear. This is my suggestion for what MODOT should prioritize to promote the gas tax. It covers most areas of the state with what I think are the regional priorities. It is not from MODOT. My bad. 

A short list of projects for MODOT in support of the tax

Bella Vista
US 61 Hannibal bypass
Complete US 71 freeway in South KC (with cap over highway like I-10 in Phoenix)
Piecemeal upgrade of I-70 to six lanes (as it's useless to try it as one project in today's political environment)
Piecemeal upgrade of _I-44 to six lanes (see above)
Upgrade US 63 to four lanes from Iowa to Arkansas
New I-70 Missouri River bridge

Other possibilities
Mississippi River bridge to Kentucky (probably more important than completing the four lanes of US 67 to Arkansas in SE MO)
I-70 bypass of Columbia
Continue four-laning US 50 across state
Freeway conversion of US 61 from Wentzville to Bowling Green

I'd also love it if they got rid of the reversible lanes on I-70 in St Louis and just made it four lanes each direction from the casino to Union Blvd. Not a high priority but the reversible lanes are mostly wasted space as they are currently used.

[I-39]

A short list of projects for MODOT in support of the tax

Bella Vista
US 61 Hannibal bypass
Complete US 71 freeway in South KC (with cap over highway like I-10 in Phoenix)
Piecemeal upgrade of I-70 to six lanes (as it's useless to try it as one project in today's political environment)
Piecemeal upgrade of _I-44 to six lanes (see above)
Upgrade US 63 to four lanes from Iowa to Arkansas
New I-70 Missouri River bridge

Other possibilities
Mississippi River bridge to Kentucky (probably more important than completing the four lanes of US 67 to Arkansas in SE MO)
I-70 bypass of Columbia
Continue four-laning US 50 across state
Freeway conversion of US 61 from Wentzville to Bowling Green

I'd also love it if they got rid of the reversible lanes on I-70 in St Louis and just made it four lanes each direction from the casino to Union Blvd. Not a high priority but the reversible lanes are mostly wasted space as they are currently used.

So they didn't say anything about finishing the four lane US 67 to the state line?