MoDOT Reorginzation

[Revive 755]

http://www.modot.mo.gov/bolderfiveyeardirection/documents/GeneralBriefing.pdf

Map of the new districts:
http://www.modot.mo.gov/bolderfiveyeardirection/documents/ProposedDistrictMap.pdf

Lincoln and Warren Counties get added to the St. Louis District from the Hannibal District.  This will probably effectively kill any new interchanges on US 61 in Lincoln County since they will have to compete against other St. Louis area projects.

Montgomery County goes to the Jefferson City District from the Hannibal District.

[J N Winkler]

This is just by the by, but the "General Briefing" PDF reads like it was written by someone who had a gun held to his head and was told, "Be a team player . . . or else."

[Scott5114]

Seems like a logical way to divide the districts up. Joplin and Springfield being in separate districts never did make much sense to me.

[ShawnP]

What is lacking is any cognizant way to increase revunue sources. None at all..............as they said on the Titanic....this only saves time but not the overall end. The end state is a state that cannot maintain even a modicum of decent highway system. As I type I-70 is functionally obselete from KC to STL. It needs BILLIONS to even bring it up to today's standards much less one of twenty years down the road. Take a short gander off I-70 and you will be shocked at some of the poor road conditions. What MODOT needs to do is look at the legislator and say give  us back the gas money you STOLE for decades. If I were MODOT I would put to the exact penny on it's website the amount of money that was taken before Admendment 3.

[Scott5114]

One sensible thing MoDOT could do to save money is to conduct a thorough review of their lettered routes to determine which perform which ones perform an important statewide transportation purpose and which do not. Forcibly download the local routes to the counties and upgrade the rest to primary. Having the whole state subsidize local access roads is a waste of money. (If this is politically unachievable, at least trim back the number of routes in the secondary system–the dead end routes which normally bear double letters are ripe for decommissioning.)

It may just be because I was in the heyday of Amendment 3 whenever I lived there, but Missouri's roads are not that bad. They certainly compare favorably to Oklahoma's.

[Alps]

Scott - Keep in mind that regardless of state or county maintenance, funds come from taxes. In a state like WV, counties and towns have barely any transportation tax money because all the maintenance is done by the state. In NJ, there's extensive county and local maintenance with proportionally different taxes (and perhaps larger county roles overall). Having the state own most roads, including local access, isn't a bad model if you apportion money properly to each region to take care of its needs.

[J N Winkler]

It is also worth noting that there is less difference in highway administration between states than is sometimes implied by signing practices.  Kansas, for example, has a secondary state highway system very similar in concept to lettered routes in Missouri, but it is completely unsigned.  (The secondary state highways in Kansas are subject to a mileage cap of 25,000 miles while the primary state highways are subject to a cap of 10,000 miles.)  Fuel taxes and other highway user revenues do not all go to the primary state highways; the secondary state highways and local roads all get their cut.

The problem with Missouri is that there is just too little revenue sloshing around in the system to satisfy identifiable needs, regardless of jurisdiction and functional classification.  $1 billion a year is (approximately) the KDOT budget, and KDOT serves half the population of MoDOT.  Now MoDOT will have to make do with half the KDOT budget for twice the population KDOT serves.

[ShawnP]

I fear that too increase funding in Missouri from in state sources it will take a I-35W type of tragic incident. As JN put succintly MODOT is trying to put the proverbial finger in the dike. I haved lived in Indiana for the past year and went back to KC for Easter this year and was shocked at some of the outer roads on I-70. Maybe Indiana has left me spoiled as to a state that will somewhat maintain it's roads.

[intelati49]

What is lacking is any cognizant way to increase revunue sources. None at all..............as they said on the Titanic....this only saves time but not the overall end. The end state is a state that cannot maintain even a modicum of decent highway system. As I type I-70 is functionally obselete from KC to STL. It needs BILLIONS to even bring it up to today's standards much less one of twenty years down the road. Take a short gander off I-70 and you will be shocked at some of the poor road conditions. What MODOT needs to do is look at the legislator and say give  us back the gas money you STOLE for decades. If I were MODOT I would put to the exact penny on it's website the amount of money that was taken before Admendment 3.

If Missouri can cut 10 miles of the Lettered county(?) highways per county, then the Total cut would be 1,430 miles.  Which is 6.5% of the current road mileage.  Just in Franklin county, I can find 10 Lettered highways (appx. 50 miles) with less than 1,000 AADT each.

Sure, the lettered highways receive less funding than the primary highways per mile, but figure 3% of $1 Billion is $30 Million dollars to appropriate to the Bella vista Bypass for example.

[Revive 755]

It is also worth noting that there is less difference in highway administration between states than is sometimes implied by signing practices.  Kansas, for example, has a secondary state highway system very similar in concept to lettered routes in Missouri, but it is completely unsigned.  (The secondary state highways in Kansas are subject to a mileage cap of 25,000 miles while the primary state highways are subject to a cap of 10,000 miles.)  Fuel taxes and other highway user revenues do not all go to the primary state highways; the secondary state highways and local roads all get their cut.

Really?  Does this secondary system include some of the former US Routes that were moved to a nearby interstate, like is done in Illinois?

[Scott5114]

Scott - Keep in mind that regardless of state or county maintenance, funds come from taxes. In a state like WV, counties and towns have barely any transportation tax money because all the maintenance is done by the state. In NJ, there's extensive county and local maintenance with proportionally different taxes (and perhaps larger county roles overall). Having the state own most roads, including local access, isn't a bad model if you apportion money properly to each region to take care of its needs.

I understand that. What I am saying is that especially with the state running so short on money, it makes sense to spend critical state dollars, which come from taxpayers statewide, on the most important roads, which benefit everyone. At first glance it might not seem like a St Louis resident would benefit from Route 13 but having a strong KC-Springfield corridor greatly benefits the overall state economy. So it makes sense for a St Louisian to pay to maintain that road.

Now look at a lettered route in, say, Christian County. There is a benefit to allowing rural residents easier access to the main highway system, yes, but it is a drop in the bucket in terms benefit to the statewide economy than a major highway would be. However if you zoom in to a more small-scale effect, yes, it greatly benefits the county for its residents to be mobile. Ozark benefits more than the state does when folks in Nixa can get out and about. So I think the local governments should pay for local roads. They may not have much funding either, but if the state has more money to work on statewide improvements, it will benefit everyone.

[Alps]

Well what happens is the poorer and/or less populated counties can't collect much tax, so they can't maintain their roads to very good standards. Same system as the US, where more taxes come from the coasts and end up funding the "heartland." It sounds noble to say "state dollars should only serve state needs" until you consider that the state has an interest in maintaining a minimum level of service to all people. In a state with a lot of disparities like WV, a state-run model makes a lot of sense (I've come around to this viewpoint after many years). In a state with more even funding distributions like NJ, counties can have a lot of responsibility because they're able to collect enough funds.

[Scott5114]

Hm. This is true. Sadly, there is no magic funding system that will make things come out all right. I would advocate for the less populated counties merging if they can't maintain their taxbase but I have a feeling the people living there would usually disagree with that.

Perhaps what could be done is to create a state aid programs to assist the poorer counties but then you run into the problem of preventing counties that "don't need it" from taking money anyway and turning it into essentially the same funding setup as when the state ran everything, but with more bureaucracy.

The solution is simple. We blow up all the houses on rural dead-end streets and stop maintaining those roads altogether.

[Alps]

The problem with counties is similar to railroads. Merge all the low-volume railroads together, and you have a huge collection of low-volume roads that still doesn't generate much revenue. It's not total number of people (or total number of railroad miles), it's the density that matters for funding. The more people (and companies, etc.) per mile of road, which is correlated with area density, the more funding the county can take in and distribute.