Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sprjus4]

^ IIRC MoDOT doesn't like posting expressways at 70, with some of the exceptions being due to political pressure.

I’m surprised there’s not any, especially given US-36 serving as an alternate to I-70. A higher speed limit would make the route more attractive potentially, being able to cruise at 70 mph all the way to I-35 without major costly upgrades.

[The Ghostbuster]

What is the speed limit on US 36 currently? 65 MPH?

[MikieTimT]

What is the speed limit on US 36 currently? 65 MPH?

That's what it looks like in rural areas.

https://goo.gl/maps/ykvQ383yNLBTtbbw7

[zzcarp]

What is the speed limit on US 36 currently? 65 MPH?

That's what it looks like in rural areas.

https://goo.gl/maps/ykvQ383yNLBTtbbw7

Yes, max speed is 65 on US 36 except for right around the I-35 interchange at Cameron, west of I-29 in St. Joseph, and in the Hannibal area.

[2trailertrucker]

The reason for the 65 mph could be the farm equipment that still uses US 36 to get back and forth to the fields.

[sprjus4]

The reason for the 65 mph could be the farm equipment that still uses US 36 to get back and forth to the fields.

Does this not happen on US-63, which is also a non-limited-access four lane divided highway?

[skluth]

The reason for the 65 mph could be the farm equipment that still uses US 36 to get back and forth to the fields.

Does this not happen on US-63, which is also a non-limited-access four lane divided highway?

US 63 goes through Jefferson City which means legislators drive that way to get to the capital. Which recalls this recent post:

^ IIRC MoDOT doesn't like posting expressways at 70, with some of the exceptions being due to political pressure.

[Revive 755]

^ MO 7 from a little east of I-49 to the far western outskirts of Clinton is also posted at 70.

US 60 east of Poplar Bluff to Sikeston should mostly be 70 as well IMHO (and 75 when finally upgraded to a full freeway).

[sprjus4]

The reason for the 65 mph could be the farm equipment that still uses US 36 to get back and forth to the fields.

Does this not happen on US-63, which is also a non-limited-access four lane divided highway?

US 63 goes through Jefferson City which means legislators drive that way to get to the capital. Which recalls this recent post:

^ IIRC MoDOT doesn't like posting expressways at 70, with some of the exceptions being due to political pressure.

That’s crazy the speed limit is higher, not because of design or functional class (limited access, no access control, divided, undivided, etc.), but solely political. Both routes are more than capable of a 70 mph posted speed limit.

[afguy]

The governor signed the budget today which will pave the way for widening I-70 across the state, but he vetoed the $2.5 million set aside for studying extending I-72 across the state. In addition, he vetoed funding for studying expansion of I-44 and making safety improvements to U.S. 63.

But, Parson vetoed $28 million to study a widening of Interstate 44, as well as similar projects seeking to improve traffic flow near Hannibal and on U.S. Route 63 near Cabool. They had been inserted into the spending blueprint to win votes from rural lawmakers who don’t represent districts near I-70.

The governor also cut $2.5 million to study the conversion of U.S. Route 36, an east-west route across northern Missouri, to interstate highway status.

While spending down some of the state’s more than $6 billion surplus was a priority for lawmakers before normal budgetary pressures begin to return, Parson said some of the legislative earmarks placed in the blueprint should be handled by local governments.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/government-politics/parson-cuts-more-than-a-half-billion-dollars-from-massive-missouri-state-budget/article_4d28a1d4-1794-11ee-8003-3fa0a44f8907.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

[sprjus4]

Why? Both are reasonable items to study, at the very least I-44.

[vdeane]

How would local governments handle things like studying I-44 and US 36/I-72?  Those roads cross the entire state!

[skluth]

I'm surprised at the disparity in cost of the two vetoed studies, $28M for I-44 compared to $2.5M for I-72. It makes me wonder if the I-44 study may not have been vetoed if the cost were closer the $2.5M figure because parts of I-44 seriously need widening. I can see the I-72 study being cancelled as it's more a feel-good study for Northern Missouri; no chance I-72 happens in the next ten years though incremental improvements (like better traffic flow around Cameron) could happen without an I-72 study. I don't know what was vetoed concerning improved traffic flow around Hannibal. If it was just something like improved stop light timing I'd have vetoed it too. Hannibal needs a bypass, at least one connecting US 61 south of town to US 36 west of town; traffic could still use US 36 and US 24 as they currently exist even with the diamond interchange where the two highways meet. It would beat having to go through Hannibal. The slowdown isn't that bad in a car though it seems every time I went through Hannibal since the AotS opened there was another stop light. But all that stopping and starting must suck for truck drivers.

[edwaleni]

I'm surprised at the disparity in cost of the two vetoed studies, $28M for I-44 compared to $2.5M for I-72. It makes me wonder if the I-44 study may not have been vetoed if the cost were closer the $2.5M figure because parts of I-44 seriously need widening. I can see the I-72 study being cancelled as it's more a feel-good study for Northern Missouri; no chance I-72 happens in the next ten years though incremental improvements (like better traffic flow around Cameron) could happen without an I-72 study. I don't know what was vetoed concerning improved traffic flow around Hannibal. If it was just something like improved stop light timing I'd have vetoed it too. Hannibal needs a bypass, at least one connecting US 61 south of town to US 36 west of town; traffic could still use US 36 and US 24 as they currently exist even with the diamond interchange where the two highways meet. It would beat having to go through Hannibal. The slowdown isn't that bad in a car though it seems every time I went through Hannibal since the AotS opened there was another stop light. But all that stopping and starting must suck for truck drivers.

The Hannibal Bypass study is already underway and active. There are 3 routes they are looking at and somewhere in AARoads, there was a brief discussion on it. I remember posting on it some time ago.

I suspect, but I haven't read it, the scope of the I-44 study was much broader than the I-72 conversion study and may account for the higher cost of it.

Not to get off topic, but I seriously believe I-44 needs a rethink in several places. Legacy geometry, cost cutting decisions in the late 60's/early 70's by simply reusing US-66 ROW in places.  Valleys that were difficult (or expensive) to cross so they made massive cliffside cuts to make the bridges smaller. Newer pre-cast bridge tech make bridges much cheaper to build and maintain than the common steel spans of the 60's/70's.  I would love to run a computer based analysis on that route and see what it comes up with based on current material costs and labor rates.

[Rothman]

Compared to the study costs of the I-81 Viaduct, the cost seems reasonable for I-44, especially given its sections up in Saint Louis.

[Plutonic Panda]

I don’t think it’s fair to compare the I-81 project studies to a midwestern state with much lower infrastructure costs than a place like New York. The I-81 study again was a joke. The tunnel option should have been chosen as a long term project with ROW preserved for the portals and such. The elevated rebuild was unlikely given NYDOTs anti freeway stance. So how many millions of dollars did we waste to study a project to get alternatives when we knew all along what they were going to choose anyways? Just gotta go through these motions.

Even if the study was legit which I don’t buy, I don’t find it comparable to studying rural portions of I-44 in Missouri.

[Rothman]

I don’t think it’s fair to compare the I-81 project studies to a midwestern state with much lower infrastructure costs than a place like New York. The I-81 study again was a joke. The tunnel option should have been chosen as a long term project with ROW preserved for the portals and such. The elevated rebuild was unlikely given NYDOTs anti freeway stance. So how many millions of dollars did we waste to study a project to get alternatives when we knew all along what they were going to choose anyways? Just gotta go through these motions.

Even if the study was legit which I don’t buy, I don’t find it comparable to studying rural portions of I-44 in Missouri.

Your opinion on the tunnel certainly was not supported by not one, but two major studies.

The I-81 studies cost upwards of $60m, due to the public pressure to do the second tunnel study.

$60m for a relatively short piece of infrastructure in a compact urban area verses $29m for a comprehensive study of an Interstate the passes through a diagonal length of Missouri in varied urban and rural settings?  Bargain.

[J N Winkler]

I wonder about downstream consequences in terms of support for I-70 improvements from legislators who don't represent districts overlapping that corridor.  Why should they vote to expand that highway when the governor is just going to exercise his line-item veto on their own priorities?

[Plutonic Panda]

I don’t think it’s fair to compare the I-81 project studies to a midwestern state with much lower infrastructure costs than a place like New York. The I-81 study again was a joke. The tunnel option should have been chosen as a long term project with ROW preserved for the portals and such. The elevated rebuild was unlikely given NYDOTs anti freeway stance. So how many millions of dollars did we waste to study a project to get alternatives when we knew all along what they were going to choose anyways? Just gotta go through these motions.

Even if the study was legit which I don’t buy, I don’t find it comparable to studying rural portions of I-44 in Missouri.

Your opinion on the tunnel certainly was not supported by not one, but two major studies.

The I-81 studies cost upwards of $60m, due to the public pressure to do the second tunnel study.

$60m for a relatively short piece of infrastructure in a compact urban area verses $29m for a comprehensive study of an Interstate the passes through a diagonal length of Missouri in varied urban and rural settings?  Bargain.

So it seems the tunnel clearly was interested in a tunnel. You also always love to leave out what I’ve mentioned multiple times is that my tunnel proposal DOES NOT BUILD THE TUNNEL NOW. It leaves ROW for future portals, TBM staging area, and anything else that would come with it like ventilation stacks. In the meantime the surface boulevard is built. The tunnel can come in the 2030s, 2040s, 2050s, just leave the option open for the future. I don’t bank on the downfall of towns not ever needing better and bigger infrastructure in the future. I understand there are pressing issues NYDOT needs to focus on other than a tunnel under Syracuse right now.

Also, I’ll agree to disagree with comparing a New York City to a rural area in Missouri. But I like to keep an open mind. Why would a study of a rural portion of I-44 in Missouri cost $28 million?

[The Ghostbuster]

Forget about Interstate 81 in Syracuse, anything about that is for this thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18020.1375. Stick to the thread topic which is “Future of I-72 in Missouri?”

[Plutonic Panda]

Well I-72 in Missouri isn’t happening anytime soon so what is there to talk about? Furthermore that project in NY was brought up because someone compared its studies to one in Missouri which genuinely thought they were being sarcastic in the I-70 Missouri thread but I guess not.

[Sapphuby]

Forget about Interstate 81 in Syracuse, anything about that is for this thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18020.1375. Stick to the thread topic which is “Future of I-72 in Missouri?”

I'd go as far to say we were still on topic since we mentioned how Parson had vetoed the 2.5 million study allocated towards a possible I-72 extension to St. Joseph and at the same time a 28 million dollar study for I-44, details in the thread, not elaborating, and it brought up the topic of absurd study fund allocating, especially for I-81 (which is what you didn't want talked about here) "needing" 60 million for a second tunnel study, and kind've for I-44, but given where it is compared to the much more rural I-72 throughout all of the flattest plains Missouri has to offer, I personally don't think it's as extreme as people market it to be, so I'd say we're doing just fine.

[Rothman]

I don’t think it’s fair to compare the I-81 project studies to a midwestern state with much lower infrastructure costs than a place like New York. The I-81 study again was a joke. The tunnel option should have been chosen as a long term project with ROW preserved for the portals and such. The elevated rebuild was unlikely given NYDOTs anti freeway stance. So how many millions of dollars did we waste to study a project to get alternatives when we knew all along what they were going to choose anyways? Just gotta go through these motions.

Even if the study was legit which I don’t buy, I don’t find it comparable to studying rural portions of I-44 in Missouri.

Your opinion on the tunnel certainly was not supported by not one, but two major studies.

The I-81 studies cost upwards of $60m, due to the public pressure to do the second tunnel study.

$60m for a relatively short piece of infrastructure in a compact urban area verses $29m for a comprehensive study of an Interstate the passes through a diagonal length of Missouri in varied urban and rural settings?  Bargain.

So it seems the tunnel clearly was interested in a tunnel. You also always love to leave out what I’ve mentioned multiple times is that my tunnel proposal DOES NOT BUILD THE TUNNEL NOW. It leaves ROW for future portals, TBM staging area, and anything else that would come with it like ventilation stacks. In the meantime the surface boulevard is built. The tunnel can come in the 2030s, 2040s, 2050s, just leave the option open for the future. I don’t bank on the downfall of towns not ever needing better and bigger infrastructure in the future. I understand there are pressing issues NYDOT needs to focus on other than a tunnel under Syracuse right now.

Also, I’ll agree to disagree with comparing a New York City to a rural area in Missouri. But I like to keep an open mind. Why would a study of a rural portion of I-44 in Missouri cost $28 million?

Dear heavens, we're talking the entire length of I-44, which is not all rural, so the comparison is quite apt.

In terms of your unique tunnel proposal, it belongs in Fictional Highways and I'll not address it fully here.  Leaving that much ROW available and empty for future portals in the middle of downtown Syracuse?  Talk about something that should be considered possibly sarcastic...

[Plutonic Panda]

I’ll agree to disagree and leave it at that. You aren’t worth debating on this issue.

[Rothman]

I’ll agree to disagree and leave it at that. You aren’t worth debating on this issue.

Yep, putting your own back-of-the-envelope proposal up against the findings of the studies that actually were done based upon all sorts of data...not worth it.

Flounce away, Scarlett O'Hara.