Conversion of I-70 to toll road should freak Americans out

[bugo]

It won't be complete until an expressway is built. Let me guess: You believe the I-49 corridor is "complete".

[NE2]

I-70 and I-55 are built.

[Darkchylde]

I do feel that a corridor between Memphis and Kansas City via Jonesboro and Springfield (following US 63, US 60, MO 13, and MO 7 would be beneficial for long-haul traffic. However, it may not be worth it to build the KC to Springfield part since I-49 is close enough.

Most of that particular routing in Missouri is already four lanes, with the exception of part of US 63 from US 60 to near the Arkansas line and I think some of MO 7 near MO 13. The parts of that corridor in Springfield can get a little congested, but the rest doesn't really see enough traffic to need upgrading.

The part that really needs upgraded to make that corridor more viable for long haul traffic is AHTD's problem, not MoDOT's. And considering the terrain, I don't see any widening being likely anytime soon.

[I-39]

Look, there needs to be an increase in the gas tax, simple as that. I'm sorry for the people who don't want to pay more, but we need to keep our highways in good shape and tolls are not the answer. Why could we built the Interstate highway system 50 years ago with all that money and now we as a country are scrapping for pennies when it comes to highway funding? Seriously, this needs to happen.

AND, I would permanently ban the tolling of existing interstate highways unless they already have tolls on them.

[US 41]

I've changed my mind once more. Toll roads are constantly getting money from drivers and are kept in pretty good shape. I personally think if you want to take high quality roads you should have to pay to use them. If you don't like paying tolls, use the old 2 lane highway. I know I say this a lot, but that's how it is done in Mexico and it works good for them. If the Mexican drivers don't like paying tolls, they drive the old 2 lane libres that link their country together. In this case if you don't like tolls, use US 50. I fully support tolling I-70 between St. Louis and KC, and I am one of the drivers that would probably take US 50 across Missouri to save $20-$30.

[NE2]

If you don't like paying tolls, use the old 2 lane highway.

Problem here is US 40 was upgraded on the spot (much still exists as a frontage road, but there are gaps such as between exits 74 and 78 and 121 and 124). It's like Carretera 2 east of La Rumorosa: there is no free alternate (unless you cheat).

[bugo]

I've changed my mind once more. Toll roads are constantly getting money from drivers and are kept in pretty good shape. I personally think if you want to take high quality roads you should have to pay to use them. If you don't like paying tolls, use the old 2 lane highway. I know I say this a lot, but that's how it is done in Mexico and it works good for them. If the Mexican drivers don't like paying tolls, they drive the old 2 lane libres that link their country together. In this case if you don't like tolls, use US 50. I fully support tolling I-70 between St. Louis and KC, and I am one of the drivers that would probably take US 50 across Missouri to save $20-$30.

US 50 is at least an hour longer from downtown to downtown.

[bugo]

I-35 north of OKC was supposed to be a turnpike (continuing on from the Kansas Turnpike) but OTA didn't have enough credit to issue bonds. Then, the Interstate system was created, and OTA turned their plans over to the Department of Highways to be built as a free road.

Are you sure that ODOT used OTA's plans to build I-35? I-35 is very unlike every turnpike built before the '90s: it has curves, and a real median, while the contemporary turnpikes originally had a raised grass median (which still exist in places and were arrow straight with a few big gradual bends in it.

[J N Winkler]

Are you sure that ODOT used OTA's plans to build I-35? I-35 is very unlike every turnpike built before the '90s: it has curves, and a real median, while the contemporary turnpikes originally had a raised grass median (which still exist in places and were arrow straight with a few big gradual bends in it.

I suspect that OTA handed over a tentative alignment to ODOT's predecessor agency.  The construction plans for I-35 north of Oklahoma City do have Department of Highways chopblocks and in all other respects look exactly like construction plans for other Oklahoma Interstates that were always planned as free roads.

Fun fact:  the bridge that straddles the Kansas state line looks exactly like the other bridges on the Kansas Turnpike, which (for original construction in 1955-1956) used a cookie-cutter design with steel girders and curved-arch concrete rails, but was actually built by ODOT's predecessor.

[MikeTheActuary]

In this case if you don't like tolls, use US 50. I fully support tolling I-70 between St. Louis and KC, and I am one of the drivers that would probably take US 50 across Missouri to save $20-$30.

US 50 is at least an hour longer from downtown to downtown.

The question is, which would you prefer:

You can save time, and pay the toll.

You can save money, and take the slower road.

You can pay a little more on everything via mechanisms like increased fuel taxes, with the ripples of that increases appearing in the increase in transportation costs (some of which, admittedly would appear in the prior two points anyway).

The route between cities can turn to gravel, and bridges collapse, due to a lack of funds to maintain them.

My own personal preference would be to fund infrastructure maintenance through taxes and fees that are somewhat reflective of relative usage (e.g. fuel taxes).  However, the political climate being what it is... tolls seem like a better option than an inability to maintain the roads.

[bugo]

I'll pay the toll almost any time

[kphoger]

No, it isn't. First, you have to deal with St Louis traffic.

Too fucking bad.

That's no excuse for an incomplete highway system.

It's complete. You just don't like the routes that exist.

I used to drive that route a lot, back when I was living in the Chicago area and we traveled regularly to visit my family in Wichita and my wife's family in Branson.  St Louis traffic was routinely bad enough to eventually make me totally avoid the city, using US-54 and I-72 instead–even with lower speed limits, more miles (IIRC), and towns along the way.  From what I've seen on those highways, there is sufficient traffic–including trucks–to warrant a second look at the US-54 corridor from, I'd say, Pittsfield (IL) to at least the Lake of the Ozarks and preferably US-65.

[Sykotyk]

I've driven US54 from I-72 to I-44. It's a pretty good road. There's been some upgrades over the years that make it better.

Highways avoiding major cities for long-distance travelers is actually a good thing and should've been though of in the design instead of the city-to-city-to-city design the interstates went with.

[kphoger]

I've driven US54 from I-72 to I-44. It's a pretty good road.

That's pretty impossible.  US-54 goes all the way to El Paso without ever touching I-44.   

[rte66man]

Are you sure that ODOT used OTA's plans to build I-35? I-35 is very unlike every turnpike built before the '90s: it has curves, and a real median, while the contemporary turnpikes originally had a raised grass median (which still exist in places and were arrow straight with a few big gradual bends in it.

I suspect that OTA handed over a tentative alignment to ODOT's predecessor agency.  The construction plans for I-35 north of Oklahoma City do have Department of Highways chopblocks and in all other respects look exactly like construction plans for other Oklahoma Interstates that were always planned as free roads.

There is one big difference. The original turnpike plans took it farther to the east (closer to Stillwater and Ponca City)  Those plans weren't changed until Kansas built their pike. 

[Revive 755]

I used to drive that route a lot, back when I was living in the Chicago area and we traveled regularly to visit my family in Wichita and my wife's family in Branson.  St Louis traffic was routinely bad enough to eventually make me totally avoid the city, using US-54 and I-72 instead–even with lower speed limits, more miles (IIRC), and towns along the way.  From what I've seen on those highways, there is sufficient traffic–including trucks–to warrant a second look at the US-54 corridor from, I'd say, Pittsfield (IL) to at least the Lake of the Ozarks and preferably US-65.

It appears MoDOT had finishing US 54 north of Mexico on its wish list a while back:

http://www.modot.org/northeast/major_projects/Route54Corridor.htm

However, US Senator Christopher S. "Kit" Bond secured $735,000 for the U.S. 54 Corridor Expansion in Audrain and Pike Counties in 2008 to help move forward a 48-mile, four-lane expressway along Missouri Route J and U.S. 54.  An estimate from 13 years ago when the Environmental Impact Statement was completed presented options ranging from a cost of $256 million to $281 million.

[The Ghostbuster]

If Interstate 70 does become a toll road, will the rest areas be upgraded to service areas with food and fuel. Somehow, I doubt it, but maybe they should.

[US 41]

I'll pay the toll almost any time

I would like to say that is true for me, but I always figure $20-$30 can either put a lot of gas in my car or buy me dinner. So I end up taking the free roads almost every time.

[Sykotyk]

I've driven US54 from I-72 to I-44. It's a pretty good road.

That's pretty impossible.  US-54 goes all the way to El Paso without ever touching I-44.   

Yeah, I cut down to Lebanon, MO on MO-5. Didn't figure I'd need to note each and every road I was on. I've also taken US 54 down to US65 to Springfield on a different trip.