I-70 truck only lanes across Missouri draft SEIS

[Revive 755]

http://www.improvei70.org/I-70%20Draft%20SEIS%20for%20Web%20Site/Draft%20SEIS%20Table%20of%20Contents.pdf

IMO this idea is an incredible waste of time and money.  They cost more than just widening to six lanes (which MoDOT can't afford to do anyway), they do not truly separate truck  and car traffic since trucks must still use the general purpose lanes to exit, and they do not serve the majority of traffic on I-70.

[Chris]

Dedicated truck lanes are much more expensive to operate and maintain, and there's still a problem with trucks wanting to overtake eachother, so you would need an additional 2 lanes each way to handle the truck flow. I think it's better to widen I-70 to six lanes all the way, and wider where needed.

[Sykotyk]

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Just add an extra lane to I-70 each way (like I-70 in IN and OH will), and restrict trucks from the left lane.

Problem solved. And in heavy traffic, you have three lanes each way for everyone.

Sykotyk

[Scott5114]

Separate truck lanes is an idea that's been kicked around a lot. It was part of Rick Perry's Trans-Texas Corridor pipedream, for instance. I can think of a few benefits here. I would think that keeping trucks away from the general traffic might be safer. You also have the advantage of the general lanes then not suffering as much damage since there's no truck traffic on them. If there's a wreck you can easily divert traffic to the other set of lanes.

Even though truck traffic will have to get onto the general lanes to exit, there aren't a lot of places in central Missouri that trucks would need to exit to. And for major truck traffic destinations, direct ramps could be added for interchanges so that trucks don't have to get onto the other carriageway to exit.

I don't pay taxes in Missouri, so it'll be interesting to see how their experiment goes. Who knows, if it works, maybe this sort of setup could be something we see all over the place. I could see a four-carriageway interstate in rural areas transforming from a truck/car divide seamlessly into an express/local divide.

[Revive 755]

Feds approve I-70 TOL SEIS:
http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/1433332.html

[enough]

the decision by fhwa is permission only.  they don't say that it's a wise or cost-effective thing to do, or that they'll fund it.

reader comments in response to the kansas city star story are interesting.  many agree with posts on this forum that it makes more sense to just re-build with 3 lanes each way, and/or that rail capacity should be increased to make long-distance freight rail faster and more reliable.

fortunately, modot doesn't have money to do anything.  they are hoping to get $200 million in federal stimulus money to build the first 30 miles, but people who should know give them little chance of getting the money.

it's interesting that the graphic used by the star with its story -- taken from modot's project website -- shows a red-car-in-trucker's-blind-spot wreck about to happen as the truck takes the slip ramp to get to the next exit.  if modot ever does build the first 30 miles they're going to have every single truck making a simliar move to get to and from the truck-only lanes.

also, it's ironic that modot has selected the 30 miles of i-70 with the least traffic for its experiment.  modot will double capacity where it's needed least.  and that 30 miles passes through the district of the state senator who chairs the transportation committee.  coincidence?

but again, modot doesn't have the money to build.

[Chris]

2008 I-70 volumes. As you can see, most rural sections are between 20,000 and 35,000 AADT. Even if traffic would double, widening the freeway to six lanes would make more sense... If they really want to spend a lot of money (which they don't have) they'd better 8-lane it with a future option for truck-only lanes.

I turned the image 90 degrees because otherwise it'd be too wide to fit on screen, and resizing it would make it illegible.

[Bryant5493]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTUf3qZQvf4


Be well,

Bryant

[enough]

emanuel cleaver, u.s. congressman from kansas city, missouri, has doubts about separate truck lanes, according to the kc tribune.

http://www.kctribune.com/article/KC_News_Features/Tom_Bogdon/Will_Gov_Nixon_OK_Stimulus_Grant_Bid_for_TruckOnly_Lanes_on_I70/19073

The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) received Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approval this week of its environmental impact statement for MoDOT's plan to add trucks-only lanes to I-70 across the state. Now MoDOT is ready to close the deal by getting Gov. Jay Nixon's endorsement of MoDOT's plan to use $200 million (or all) of Missouri's allocation of federal TIGER stimulus funds to kick off construction.

But wait a minute. There are huge environmental as well as safety objections to MoDOT's trucks-only extra lanes plan, including from the Sierra Club, which is considering legal action, and from U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, who told KCTribune:

"I have some very serious reservations about a plan that invests so significantly in more highway miles,"  the Congressman and former Kansas City mayor said. "At a time when the rest of the country seems to be looking toward moving passenger cars off the road by investing in high-speed rail, Missouri seems intent on building a stretch of highway unlike any in the world.

"Rather than investing in jobs and transportation that look to a greener future, this plan essentially repeats the mistakes of the past,"  Cleaver continued. "For $200 million, only a 30-mile section of this experiment will be built with no real plan to raise the additional billions needed to complete the project.

"Should, by some miracle, we be able to fund a 10-lane highway across the state, at the completion of the project we will have sunk such a huge sum into an outdated mode of transportation we will need to maintain in perpetuity,"  Cleaver concluded. "This is not progress, it is regress."

[Chris]

It's like you hear the Sierra Club talk themselves... 

@&!& I thought this kind of nonsense rhetoric was limited to Europe. 

[Chris]

My thoughts about the Sierra Club & similar clubs:

They always have high hopes for rail & public transportation that will solve all traffic growth and problems by relocating a significant amount of budget towards rail projects.

In reality, it may siphon off 1 or 2 percent of traffic by relocating 30 - 50% of budget. The result: marginally higher ridership for rail but significant less money for reducing road bottlenecks and problems, resulting in far more congestion, thus more emissions. And then this is called "green policy".... 

The correlation between existing bus services and rail is far higher than between cars and rail. Bus services in the United States have a fair high amount of ridership. Building a light rail doesn't attract that much drivers, but those who travelled by bus before. Manhattan is another point, but Manhattan / NYC is the exception, rather than the rule.

[Revive 755]

I think the Sierra Club is kind of right on this one though.  Having a 55 mph truck trying to weave through a platoon of 70 mph vehicles is asking for crashes.  Plus, if "70 percent of the trucks on I-70 in Missouri travel all the way across the state," maybe they should be encouraged to use alternate corridors like US 36, depending on their final destination.

The US has allowed too many useful rail corridors to be abandoned, such as the one parallel to I-70 between Indianapolis and at least Dayton, Ohio and instead tried to run way too much rail traffic through Chicago.  The main freight and only passenger line between St. Louis and KC gets congested around St. Louis, and I would like to see an official study to see if the congestion that seems to exist on the Mississippi River rail bridges is really there.  And it would be useful to get one mode of freight traffic free from oil price fluctuations.

[Chris]

I think the Sierra Club is kind of right on this one though.  Having a 55 mph truck trying to weave through a platoon of 70 mph vehicles is asking for crashes.  Plus, if "70 percent of the trucks on I-70 in Missouri travel all the way across the state," maybe they should be encouraged to use alternate corridors like US 36, depending on their final destination.

Nah, remember European countries have such speed differences between trucks and cars. It's not uncommon in Germany to see cars passing at 100 + mph while trucks do 55 mph. And yet, Germany is one of the countries with the lowest traffic fatalities. I don't think the speed difference is a major problem, especially when trucks just keep right.

I'm not sure if a rail corridor would take a significant amount of trucks off the road. These days, the "just-in-time" philosophy is used, with factories, distribution centers and shops keep low stocks and are supplied by trucks. Rail freight is not suitable for that kind of transportation demand. Rail is good for bulk, like grain, cars or other commodities that are traveling across the continent. The problem with rail is, that it's inflexible, slow and often expensive.

[mightyace]

The problem with rail is, that it's inflexible, slow and often expensive.

As a North American railfan, let me address the three issues:

1) Inflexible - very little argument here.  It's the same for passenger as well as freight and why light rail/subway and commuter rail systems work best on high density established corridors.

2) Slow - It depends on what you're moving.  "Loose car" railroading, which is the closest equivalent to LTL (Less Than Truckload Lot), is usually much slower than trucking.  Due to the nature of rail, you can only run so many trains per day on a track whereas a truck can leave as soon as it's ready.  However, it can be fast and not just for "bulk" commodities, the bulk of UPS ground freight between the west coast and the east travels by rail and intermodal high value freight (read LCD TVs, etc.) can move quickly and time-competitive with trucks.  However, this only works for high volume corridors where you can run that traffic as one train.

Or, in short, mostly true, but there are exceptions.

3) Expensive - Freight rates for rail vs. truck are often lower in favor of rail.  However, it's the inconsistency of rail delivery that's the killer and increases the true cost to the shipper to much higher than trucks.  It's more that and than the speed as ocean freighters are much slower than trucks or trains but reach port on a regular schedule.

i.e. If I'm managing a factory or warehouse, I need to count on my supplies arriving when I need them and it doesn't matter as much how long it takes to get there as long as it's consistent.

[Chris]

I don't think starting up a whole rail vs road discussion is very useful (I have participated in such discussions many times, and you'll end up at square one). However, I do think policy should be made on realism, and not ideology.

To return to the original topic of truck only lanes, did MODOT made a financial comparison between the truck only-setup and a regular widening to six lanes?

[mightyace]

I don't think starting up a whole rail vs road discussion is very useful (I have participated in such discussions many times, and you'll end up at square one). However, I do think policy should be made on realism, and not ideology.

Suffices to say that, while we may disagree with the reasons, I do agree that the current state of the American rail system does not make it a viable option to significantly reduce trucks on the road.

I won't take it any further, either.  You and I have been around that block enough times already. 

To return to the original topic of truck only lanes, did MODOT made a financial comparison between the truck only-setup and a regular widening to six lanes?

Someone else will have to find the link for me, but I do remember reading the document(s) with the alternatives discussed and simply widening I-70 was part of it.  So, that means that they have studied the build cost of six general purpose lanes vs the truck only lanes.  However, I doubt that they've studied which alternative is better overall.

[Chris]

I think the best thing to do is to widen I-70 gradually when more funding becomes available. The whole 200-or so miles do not need to be widened within 3 years, but can be done gradually. Traffic volumes are now still low, so it isn't a big issue if they don't finish the widening within 10 years. 200 miles is a long stretch to widen, and it took countries like Germany also 10 - 15 years to widen significant amounts of Autobahn to six lanes.

[mightyace]

I think the best thing to do is to widen I-70 gradually when more funding becomes available. The whole 200-or so miles do not need to be widened within 3 years, but can be done gradually. Traffic volumes are now still low, so it isn't a big issue if they don't finish the widening within 10 years. 200 miles is a long stretch to widen, and it took countries like Germany also 10 - 15 years to widen significant amounts of Autobahn to six lanes.

Agreed, this is what Ohio has been doing for the last several years in six laning I-71 in the state.  Unfortunately, they seem to have stopped the process.  But, half a loaf is better than none!