Missouri

[rte66man]

MoDOT is going to close more rest areas for converson to truck parking:  The one on SB I-29 between St. Joseph and KC, and the rest areas on I-35 between KC and Cameron. 

Sorry to hear that. We always used those I-35 rest areas going to and from Minnesota. Now we will have to either gt off at Kearney or Cameron and deal with the cross traffic. Ugh!

[rarnold]

There are gas stations at Exit 34 (MO PP - Lawson/Holt) and Exit 40 (MO 116 - Polo/Lathrop). They aren't rest areas, but they are easier to get in and out of than Kearney and Cameron.

[kphoger]

MoDOT is going to close more rest areas for converson to truck parking:  The one on SB I-29 between St. Joseph and KC, and the rest areas on I-35 between KC and Cameron. 

Sorry to hear that. We always used those I-35 rest areas going to and from Minnesota. Now we will have to either gt off at Kearney or Cameron and deal with the cross traffic. Ugh!

There are gas stations at Exit 34 (MO PP - Lawson/Holt) and Exit 40 (MO 116 - Polo/Lathrop). They aren't rest areas, but they are easier to get in and out of than Kearney and Cameron.

I haven't stopped at the new-ish Trex station at Exit #40 (I still remember when it was an old Phillips 66 station before that was torn down).  But I did stop at the BP in Holt once, and it was awfully small and grungy.  The Phillips 66 station in Holt might be better but, if I were you, I'd try the Trex at Exit #40.

But, actually, you know what?  There's a brand-new Love's truck stop that opened in Cameron, and it's not at the US-36 exit.  It's at the BB Hwy exit (#52), which should be a lot more convenient to use.

[rte66man]

MoDOT is going to close more rest areas for converson to truck parking:  The one on SB I-29 between St. Joseph and KC, and the rest areas on I-35 between KC and Cameron. 

Sorry to hear that. We always used those I-35 rest areas going to and from Minnesota. Now we will have to either gt off at Kearney or Cameron and deal with the cross traffic. Ugh!

There are gas stations at Exit 34 (MO PP - Lawson/Holt) and Exit 40 (MO 116 - Polo/Lathrop). They aren't rest areas, but they are easier to get in and out of than Kearney and Cameron.

I haven't stopped at the new-ish Trex station at Exit #40 (I still remember when it was an old Phillips 66 station before that was torn down).  But I did stop at the BP in Holt once, and it was awfully small and grungy.  The Phillips 66 station in Holt might be better but, if I were you, I'd try the Trex at Exit #40.

But, actually, you know what?  There's a brand-new Love's truck stop that opened in Cameron, and it's not at the US-36 exit.  It's at the BB Hwy exit (#52), which should be a lot more convenient to use.

We have a winner!! Thanks.

[mvak36]

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article273372665.html

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson's push to spend $859 million to expand three key portions of I-70 — near Kansas City, Columbia and St. Louis — is at risk of running out of gas amid a bureaucratic fight over who, exactly, controls state highway dollars.

The Missouri Department of Transportation, led by a governor-appointed commission, faces a backlash from Republican lawmakers after the commission filed a lawsuit that seeks a ruling giving it firm authority to spend hundreds of millions from the state roads fund without legislative approval. The dispute centers on the meaning of a five-word phrase in the state constitution that lawmakers are trying to remove to undercut the lawsuit.

[afguy]

It looks like Gov. Parson's plans for widening I-70 has survived the House's latest budget plan. In addition, $15 million would be set aside for a pharmaceutical center in St. Louis, $1 million for the Powell Hall renovation, $3 million for a Kirkwood Community Center and $48 million for widening I-44.
Missouri House budget backs push to widen Interstate 70, renovate Powell Symphony Hall

House Budget Committee Chairman Cody Smith, R-Carthage, unveiled the latest list of brick-and-mortar projects Tuesday, including $15 million for a pharmaceutical center in St. Louis, $3 million for Kirkwood's community center, $1 million for Powell Symphony Hall – and $859 million to upgrade the interstate near Wentzville, Columbia and Kansas City.

Earlier versions had taken some of that amount for projects on Interstate 44, but in the latest spending blueprint those also are funded at about $48 million. All told, the construction spending outlined in the plan amounts to $2.8 billion.

The state is currently sitting on a surplus estimated at about $5 billion. And new revenue figures show the state could add another $1 billion in unspent tax receipts before the end of the fiscal year, giving budget writers even more of a cushion heading into the final weeks of the legislative session.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-house-budget-backs-push-to-widen-interstate-70-renovate-powell-symphony-hall/article_bb7972b4-5264-58f3-a8b0-bee3b314b65d.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

[mvak36]

It looks like Gov. Parson's plans for widening I-70 has survived the House's latest budget plan. In addition, $15 million would be set aside for a pharmaceutical center in St. Louis, $1 million for the Powell Hall renovation, $3 million for a Kirkwood Community Center and $48 million for widening I-44.
Missouri House budget backs push to widen Interstate 70, renovate Powell Symphony Hall

House Budget Committee Chairman Cody Smith, R-Carthage, unveiled the latest list of brick-and-mortar projects Tuesday, including $15 million for a pharmaceutical center in St. Louis, $3 million for Kirkwood's community center, $1 million for Powell Symphony Hall – and $859 million to upgrade the interstate near Wentzville, Columbia and Kansas City.

Earlier versions had taken some of that amount for projects on Interstate 44, but in the latest spending blueprint those also are funded at about $48 million. All told, the construction spending outlined in the plan amounts to $2.8 billion.

The state is currently sitting on a surplus estimated at about $5 billion. And new revenue figures show the state could add another $1 billion in unspent tax receipts before the end of the fiscal year, giving budget writers even more of a cushion heading into the final weeks of the legislative session.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-house-budget-backs-push-to-widen-interstate-70-renovate-powell-symphony-hall/article_bb7972b4-5264-58f3-a8b0-bee3b314b65d.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

That's great to hear. Hopefully it passes the state Senate as well.

[kernals12]

I'm going to ask that difficult question. Is widening I-70 necessary?

[The Ghostbuster]

It likely is. Interstate 70 in Missouri probably should be a minimum of three lanes in each direction for the entire 250.16-mile length.

[skluth]

I'm going to ask that difficult question. Is widening I-70 necessary?

Widening proposals go back at least to when I moved to St Louis in 1987. Proposals have included some downright crazy ideas, including a parallel four-lane highway for trucks inside the four lanes of I-70. (Not sure of how they planned to do this as the current ROW is not wide enough for another four lanes inside the current highway, especially through Columbia.) Six lanes are really needed at this point as I-70 is a fairly busy truck corridor and connects the two largest metros in the state and the two largest between Chicago and DFW. STL is the #21 and KC the #31 largest metro in the US.



You can see in the FHA graphic above that I-44 has a bit more truck traffic though it has less overall traffic. The truck traffic makes a reasonable case to make I-44 six lanes as it's quite hilly as it goes through the Ozarks between Springfield and St Louis.

[MikieTimT]

Widening proposals go back at least to when I moved to St Louis in 1987. Proposals have included some downright crazy ideas, including a parallel four-lane highway for trucks inside the four lanes of I-70. (Not sure of how they planned to do this as the current ROW is not wide enough for another four lanes inside the current highway, especially through Columbia.) Six lanes are really needed at this point as I-70 is a fairly busy truck corridor and connects the two largest metros in the state and the two largest between Chicago and DFW. STL is the #21 and KC the #31 largest metro in the US.



You can see in the FHA graphic above that I-44 has a bit more truck traffic though it has less overall traffic. The truck traffic makes a reasonable case to make I-44 six lanes as it's quite hilly as it goes through the Ozarks between Springfield and St Louis.

Trucks are a much greater bottleneck, on 4 lane interstates anyway, than cars due to governors on most of the fleet company tractors causing miles of 1-2 MPH speed differentials on trucks passing each other.  I-40 between LR and Memphis is even worse for that, but I-44 isn't too far behind.

[kphoger]

I'm going to ask that difficult question. Is widening I-70 necessary?

For what it's worth, here are some numbers:

With 'typical' values, a 30K ADT roughly corresponds to LOS C.  Desireable in a rural area, but definitely under-capacity overall or in an urban area.

[Rothman]

I'm going to ask that difficult question. Is widening I-70 necessary?

Widening proposals go back at least to when I moved to St Louis in 1987. Proposals have included some downright crazy ideas, including a parallel four-lane highway for trucks inside the four lanes of I-70. (Not sure of how they planned to do this as the current ROW is not wide enough for another four lanes inside the current highway, especially through Columbia.) Six lanes are really needed at this point as I-70 is a fairly busy truck corridor and connects the two largest metros in the state and the two largest between Chicago and DFW. STL is the #21 and KC the #31 largest metro in the US.



You can see in the FHA graphic above that I-44 has a bit more truck traffic though it has less overall traffic. The truck traffic makes a reasonable case to make I-44 six lanes as it's quite hilly as it goes through the Ozarks between Springfield and St Louis.

Meh.  That graphic is ancient now.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^^ I'd like to see an updated version of that map.

[MikieTimT]

^^^^ I'd like to see an updated version of that map.

The way things are going demographically with Russia, China, and Europe in general, by 2040 our largest trading partners are likely Canada and Mexico, which will draw more traffic through Texas, Southern California, Washington State, Michigan, and New York.

[skluth]

^^^^ I'd like to see an updated version of that map.

Best I could find

2015



Projection for 2040

[kphoger]

2017 data:

Estimated Average Daily FAF Volumes for Trucks on National Highway System

Estimated FAF Flow for Trucks Going To, From, and Within Missouri on National Highway System

Estimated FAF Flow for Trucks Passing Through Missouri on National Highway System

[mvak36]

They were speaking about the I-70 expansion projects on the news today: https://www.kmbc.com/article/getting-into-gear-i-70-project-back-in-the-budget-heart-of-the-matter/43602488

They have a transcript of the video in the same link, but what Jason Hancock said in the video caught my attention (sorry for the all caps but that's how the transcript is shown):

BUT, JASON, WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS SOME CONSTERNATION EVEN AMONG REPUBLICANS THIS SESSION. WHY THE ABOUT FACE? I THINK THE HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE SORT OF BEGAN TO REALIZE THAT THIS MIGHT BE A ONCE IN A LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY TO TO FIX A PROBLEM THAT'S BEEN NEGLECTED IN THIS STATE FOR FOUR YEARS, IN YEARS. I MEAN, I-70, THERE'S BEEN REPORTS GOING BACK 20, 30 YEARS SAYING IT NEEDS TO BE REBUILT, IT NEEDS TO BE EXPANDED. AND I THINK THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE BEGAN TO LEAN ON PEOPLE AS WELL. I THINK ANOTHER POSSIBLE MOTIVATION WAS THAT THE SENATE IS LOOKING AT DOING THE WHOLE THING. YOU KNOW, THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT MAYBE PUTTING MORE MONEY IN BORROWING, USING FUNDS FROM RETIRED BONDS AND JUST GETTING THIS DONE, YOU KNOW, LIKE STATE LINE TO STATE LINES ALL THE WAY. AND I THINK THE HOUSE WANTED TO AT LEAST HAVE THEIR PROPOSAL, THEIR PLAN IN PLACE SO THAT THEY HAVE A NEGOTIATING POSITION, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY THERE'S NO STARTING FROM ZERO HERE. I THINK SOMETHING IS GOING TO GO TOWARDS FIXING UP I-70 IN THIS BUDGET. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF OF SCALE NOW.

[mvak36]

They were speaking about the I-70 expansion projects on the news today: https://www.kmbc.com/article/getting-into-gear-i-70-project-back-in-the-budget-heart-of-the-matter/43602488

They have a transcript of the video in the same link, but what Jason Hancock said in the video caught my attention (sorry for the all caps but that's how the transcript is shown):

BUT, JASON, WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS SOME CONSTERNATION EVEN AMONG REPUBLICANS THIS SESSION. WHY THE ABOUT FACE? I THINK THE HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE SORT OF BEGAN TO REALIZE THAT THIS MIGHT BE A ONCE IN A LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY TO TO FIX A PROBLEM THAT'S BEEN NEGLECTED IN THIS STATE FOR FOUR YEARS, IN YEARS. I MEAN, I-70, THERE'S BEEN REPORTS GOING BACK 20, 30 YEARS SAYING IT NEEDS TO BE REBUILT, IT NEEDS TO BE EXPANDED. AND I THINK THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE BEGAN TO LEAN ON PEOPLE AS WELL. I THINK ANOTHER POSSIBLE MOTIVATION WAS THAT THE SENATE IS LOOKING AT DOING THE WHOLE THING. YOU KNOW, THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT MAYBE PUTTING MORE MONEY IN BORROWING, USING FUNDS FROM RETIRED BONDS AND JUST GETTING THIS DONE, YOU KNOW, LIKE STATE LINE TO STATE LINES ALL THE WAY. AND I THINK THE HOUSE WANTED TO AT LEAST HAVE THEIR PROPOSAL, THEIR PLAN IN PLACE SO THAT THEY HAVE A NEGOTIATING POSITION, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY THERE'S NO STARTING FROM ZERO HERE. I THINK SOMETHING IS GOING TO GO TOWARDS FIXING UP I-70 IN THIS BUDGET. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF OF SCALE NOW.

Here's an article about what the state Senate wants to do: https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/politics/i-70-multi-billion-dollar-facelift-across-missouri/63-23b9431f-8657-4231-ae28-2d5744145dab

According to the Improve I-70 site, the estimated remaining unfunded portions (if the governor's $859 million request is approved) is $1.891 billion. Will be interesting to see what comes out of the negotiations between the House and the Senate.

This is just my opinion, but it sounds like the minimum that will get approved is the $859 million for the governor's request, knock on wood.  Anything after that would be icing on the cake.

[mvak36]

https://missouriindependent.com/2023/04/19/missouri-senate-committee-triples-funding-for-widening-i-70-across-the-state/

https://news.stlpublicradio.org/government-politics-issues/2023-04-18/i-70-widening-moves-forward-in-house-senate-wants-to-expand-it-to-include-the-whole-road

[mvak36]

I found something interesting in the version of the budget that passed the Missouri House. There was an amendment that passed that included $2.5 million for a study to improve US36 to I-72.

https://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills231/amendpdf/0019H03.16H.pdf

AMEND House Committee Substitute for House Bill 19, Page 14, Section 19.317, Line 4 by:
inserting immediately thereafter the following:
"Section 19.318. To the Department of Transportation
For an engineering study related to improvements to upgrade the U.S. Highway 36 corridor to
Interstate 72
From Budget Stabilization Fund (0522)............................................................$2,500,000";

Not sure how much of the corridor they will study if this makes it through the Senate.

If anyone cares, here's the link to the House Bill: https://house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB19&year=2023&code=R. I believe this is the same bill where they included the funding for I-70 but I haven't been able to find a text for the bill.

EDIT: Found some other info on what is in the House bill.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article274504616.html

The construction budget passed by the House Thursday includes a combined $48 million for an environmental study and improvements to I-44. It also includes $20 million of state funding toward a $200 million park planned atop Kansas City's I-670.

[The Ghostbuster]

Couldn't they put an extension of Interstate 72 on the back burner? Improving Interstate 70 should be a much higher priority.

[mvak36]

Couldn't they put an extension of Interstate 72 on the back burner? Improving Interstate 70 should be a much higher priority.

It's just a study. It doesn't mean construction is anytime soon.

Honestly, if they have money to put towards a study for US36 conversion, then I am hoping they put something towards building the Hannibal Bypass in this bill. I think that is a more urgent need.

[mvak36]

If anyone cares, here's the link to the House Bill: https://house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB19&year=2023&code=R. I believe this is the same bill where they included the funding for I-70 but I haven't been able to find a text for the bill.

Found what got sent to the Senate. Here is what is included in the House bill for MODOT. These could all change once this bill goes through the Senate. In addition to the projects already mentioned, there is some funding for the Hannibal Bypass and the Future I-57 corridor.

Section 19.300. To the Department of Transportation
2 For the planning, design, land acquisition, utility relocation, and
3 construction of an exit from U.S. Highway 50 in or near the city of
4 Lone Jack
From General Revenue Fund (0101). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,866,000

Section 19.301. To the Department of Transportation
2 For the planning, design, land acquisition, utility relocation, and
3 construction of interchange improvements to Route 370 at Salt
4 River Road
From General Revenue Fund (0101). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6,600,000

Section 19.303. To the Department of Transportation
2 For the planning, design, land acquisition, utility relocation, and
3 construction of capacity improvements on Interstate 44 between
4 U.S. Highway 13 and U.S. Highway 65
From General Revenue Fund (0101). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $28,000,000

Section 19.304. To the Department of Transportation
2 For an environmental impact study related to improvements to the
3 Interstate 44 corridor
From General Revenue Fund (0101). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20,000,000

Section 19.306. To the Department of Transportation
2 For distribution to a county with more than two hundred thousand but
3 fewer than two hundred thirty thousand inhabitants, for the
4 planning, design, and construction of a bridge and improvements
5 to the two roads connected by said bridge, as well as other
6 intersection improvements related to an economic development
7 project
From General Revenue Fund (0101). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $12,000,000

Section 19.307. To the Department of Transportation
2 For the maintenance and repair of minor and low volume routes
From General Revenue Fund (0101). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100,000,000

Section 19.308. To the Department of Transportation
2 For Interstate 70 capacity improvements
From General Revenue Fund (0101). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $859,000,000

Section 19.309. To the Department of Transportation
2 For right of way acquisition and utility improvements in Butler County
3 along U.S. Highway 67 from County Road 352 south to the
4 Arkansas state Line
From General Revenue Fund (0101). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10,000,000

Section 19.310. To the Department of Transportation
2 For the planning, design, land acquisition, utility relocation, and
3 construction of a bypass around the city of Hannibal on U.S.
4 Highway 61
From General Revenue Fund (0101). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,000,000

Section 19.311. To the Department of Transportation
2 For capital improvements and maintenance and repair to a joint-use
3 military and civilian airport located in a county with more than
4 eighty thousand but fewer than one hundred thousand inhabitants
5 and with a county seat with more than seventy thousand but fewer
6 than eighty thousand inhabitants
From Budget Stabilization Fund (0522). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,200,000

Section 19.312. To the Department of Transportation
2 For the planning, design, and construction of an airport terminal in a city
3 with more than thirty-six thousand five hundred but fewer than
4 forty thousand inhabitants, provided that local matching funds
5 must be provided on a 50/50 state/local basis
From Budget Stabilization Fund (0522). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $350,000

Section 19.313. To the Department of Transportation
2 For the planning, design, and construction of a multimodal facility and
3 extension of a rail spur to serve said facility in a county with more
4 than seventy thousand but fewer than eighty thousand inhabitants,
5 provided that local matching funds must be provided on a 50/50
6 state/local basis
From Budget Stabilization Fund (0522). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,000,000

Section 19.314. To the Department of Transportation
2 For road improvements in a county with more than nine thousand nine
3 hundred but fewer than eleven thousand inhabitants and with a
4 county seat with fewer than two hundred inhabitants
From General Revenue Fund (0101). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,366,000

Section 19.315. To the Department of Transportation
2 For the planning, design, land acquisition, utility relocation, and
3 construction of a bypass around the city of Macon on U.S.
4 Highway 63
From General Revenue Fund (0101). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,500,000

Section 19.316. To the Department of Transportation
2 For distribution to a city with more than eleven thousand but fewer than
3 twelve thousand five hundred inhabitants and located in a county
4 with more than one million inhabitants, for the planning, design,
5 and construction of a four lane bridge with a multipurpose trail,
6 provided that local matching funds must be provided on a 50/50
7 state/local basis
From General Revenue Fund (0101). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,000,000

Section 19.317. To the Department of Transportation
2 For a corridor location and environmental impact study for a new west
3 corridor related to Central City Road in Jasper County
From General Revenue Fund (0101). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,100,000

Section 19.318. To the Department of Transportation
2 For an engineering study related to improvements to upgrade the U.S.
3 Highway 36 corridor to Interstate 72
From Budget Stabilization Fund (0522). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,500,000

...

Section 19.423. To the Department of Economic Development
2 For the planning, design, and construction of a park above an interstate in
3 a city with more than four hundred thousand inhabitants and
4 located in more than one county, provided that local matching
5 funds must be provided on a 50/50 state/local basis
From Budget Stabilization Fund (0522). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20,000,000

[skluth]

Couldn't they put an extension of Interstate 72 on the back burner? Improving Interstate 70 should be a much higher priority.

It's just a study. It doesn't mean construction is anytime soon.

Honestly, if they have money to put towards a study for US36 conversion, then I am hoping they put something towards building the Hannibal Bypass in this bill. I think that is a more urgent need.

A study for conversion can come to the conclusion that an interstate conversion isn't necessary or won't be necessary for decades. It could simply be a way to prevent future connections to US 36, from business driveways to subdivision entrances. It could also highlight the places where it may be easier to build it now before it becomes completely untenable (like around I-35 in Cameron). Better to catch these problems now before being left with a situation like US 412 in Siloam Springs.

It's also possible this is to placate some whiny state legislator. There's not an assembly in existence that doesn't have at least a few whiny members. Given my experiences living in Missouri for most of my adult life, I'd guess this is more likely than my first paragraph hypotheses.

I agree that a Hannibal bypass and six-laning I-70 are far more important than a cross-state I-72. I'd also add six-laning I-44, fixing the I-70/US 63 clusterf***, finishing US 50 as four lanes across the state, and even making US 63 four lanes south of Jeff City are all higher priorities than a cross-state I-72.