Americans should be border-line freaking out, and not just those living in Missouri. Right now, Missouri lawmakers are figuring out how much to fleece motorists that use I-70 in the years ahead. The United States Department of Transportation has given Missouri the authority to convert I-70, an existing road that was toll-free, to one that costs as much as 10-15 cents per mile. The U.S. DOT has also given such authority to two other states- indeed the trend continues to grow.
What's so alarming? Existing free-to-use interstates and roads are becoming toll-roads. The craziest thing is that in some cases (such as in North Carolina) the roads are being built or rebuilt using taxpayer money AND the conversion to toll road is happening, so not only are motorists paying to built it, but they're paying to use it. Not only that, but in North Carolina's case, gasoline taxes also just got jacked up to start the new year.
In Missouri's plan, the conversion could cost passenger vehicles $20-$30 for the entire stretch from just east of Kansas City to Wentzville. In the case of truckers, it could be $60-$90!
What's next, folks? Are we going to see my current city, Chicago start to toll the hundreds of miles of local toll-free roads? Where do we draw the line? Can you imagine driving to work and paying $7 in gas and $15 in tolls? This is getting ridiculous! How about politicians across the country stop putting off tough decisions and trim budgets so that instead of our taxpayer dollars funding pork and wasteful spending we spend our money on roads!
http://blog.gasbuddy.com/posts/Conversion-of-I-70-to-toll-road-should-freak-Americans-out/1715-480024-746.aspx
Yawn.
The fact is that current revenue streams don't pay for road construction and maintenance, and as cars become more fuel efficient the problem is only going to get worse.
Road maintenance has always come from user fees- either gas tax or tax appended to the sale of truck tires. Tires last longer and cars get better gas mileage. There are more cars than there were before, but that just means roads are damaged faster than ever before. The FLAT federal gas tax hasn't increased since 1993 (?)- but inflation has certainly occurred- a far smaller percentage of your fuel purchase goes to gas tax today than it did in 1993. Gas costs 3 times more but you're still paying the same 18.4 cents per gallon towards road maintenance as you were 19 years ago.
But yes, it makes sense to pay to build a road and then pay to use it. As soon as you start using a road, it's not as good as it was before. Somebody has to bear that cost- why shouldn't it be the person using the road?
I'm not sure that straight tolls are the answer- but since Americans don't want anything to do with a location based VMT tax and we don't want to pay $6/gallon for gas, it's probably the best we can. You propose cutting spending from other things, and that's a neat idea, but quite vague. Can you be more specific? What would you cut?
Do you think that roads should be entirely user fee based? Do you think that all roads should be self-sustaining, or is there merit to some roads subsidizing other roads? Is it equitable to do that? Why should I, as somebody who works graveyards, be helping to pay for peak hour infrastructure? The six lane road I drive on when I go to work definitely doesn't need six lanes when I'm driving on it, so why should I have to pay for it? Should the guy who lives off a rural road in the middle of Wyoming have to pay $500 every time he leaves his house to help pay for the road to his house? Shouldn't we be subsidizing important freight corridors like I-70 in Missouri to encourage economic growth? If we do that, the consumer will eventually end up bearing the cost either way- does it really matter if the consumer pays in the form of more expensive products or a higher tax bill?
It's a very complicated matter and I don't know the right answer. It's not something that can simply be attributed to "How about politicians across the country stop putting off tough decisions and trim budgets so that instead of our taxpayer dollars funding pork and wasteful spending we spend our money on roads!"
Maybe we should be freaking out about it- but it's something that's probably going to require a cultural/paradigm shift (one possible idea: more localized production. I live in Idaho. Why am I eating Washington potatoes while somebody in Washington eats Idaho potatoes. There has to be a way to make it most efficient for and Idahoan to eat Idaho potatoes and not Washington potatoes), not a bumper sticker.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/missouri-gets-glimpse-of-i--as-toll-road/article_9a36662b-b037-573d-8675-759610bfef8e.html?mode=comments
read the comments from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article that was posted today.
Raising federal and state gas taxes 10c/gal each wouldn't impact anyone severely on an individual basis, but would drastically increase revenue. Just sayin'...
If I lived in Missouri and had to drive frequently between St. Louis and Kansas City, I would start to use US 50.
I'm not a fan of toll roads though fully understand the merits of their purpose. But I don't wanna be nickeled and dimed to death just to get from point A to point B. Sure you could take an alternative route but you shouldn't have to. As others mentioned, increasing the gas tax just a little would be equitable but everyone is afraid of that word. Something has got to change, plain and simple. Our infrastructure is aging and the current revenue system is inadequate. Maybe adding lets say a $10 fee when you renew your drivers license could help. It's really frustrating though that everyone wants a world class highway and bridge system buy nobody wants to pay for it. That formula isn't working. Let's face it, revenues are declining and the costs are going up.
QuoteRaising federal and state gas taxes 10c/gal each wouldn't impact anyone severely on an individual basis, but would drastically increase revenue. Just sayin'...
For sure- and I think that has to be the start of a multi-pronged way to solve this problem. But mention raising taxes in this economy and you're not getting re-elected. The only time people really embrace new taxes these days is option sales taxes earmarked to a specific project- unfortunately "let's repave I-70" isn't as splashy as "let's build a brand new freeway" and is far less likely to pass.
It's definitely the best short term fix until we figure out the long term fix (and that's not forcing people on buses or light rail) - we can't just keep raising the gas tax into perpetuity, but raising it back to the same percentage of total gas price as it was 20 years ago has to be seen as a fair thing to do.
QuoteIt's really frustrating though that everyone wants a world class highway and bridge system buy nobody wants to pay for it.
Yep.
I don't think most people have a problem if the road were built using tolls in the first place, but I think there will be signficant resistance if the road were constructed without tolls and then tolls added at a later date. I am not arguing the merits of different sources of funding and why more is needed, except that I would fight a VMT tax with every fiber of my being, due to privacy considerations, even though many in my field are pushing it.
My main point is that I think others will have the same instinct as me, which is to find another route. And if enough people do that, the traffic on the parallel routes will increase more than is forecasted while the traffic and revenue traffic projections may fall short on the toll facility. And I suspect many long distance trucks would use I-80 in Iowa, US 36 further north in Missouri or other interstates in lieu of I-70 through Missouri. In other words, demand for a tolled I-70 may be more elastic than they think.
QuoteI don't think most people have a problem if the road were built using tolls in the first place, but I think there will be signficant resistance if the road were constructed without tolls and then tolls added at a later date. I am not arguing the merits of different sources of funding and why more is needed, except that I would fight a VMT tax with every fiber of my being, due to privacy considerations, even though many in my field are pushing it.
My main point is that I think others will have the same instinct as me, which is to find another route. And if enough people do that, the traffic on the parallel routes will increase more than is forecasted while the traffic and revenue traffic projections may fall short on the toll facility. And I suspect many long distance trucks would use I-80 in Iowa, US 36 further north in Missouri or other interstates in lieu of I-70 through Missouri. In other words, demand for a tolled I-70 may be more elastic than they think.
And that's why something like a VMT tax is probably an inevitability. I'm as against it as you are for privacy considerations, but it seems like the most efficient option for user fees. Push people from I-70 to US-36, and then you're going to have to start tolling US-36 to keep it maintained. Eventually you run out of alternate routes or you have expensive toll booths everywhere- which in itself are inefficient because you're paying to maintain those.
Shunpiking works in the short term- but the damage cost to drive a load of potatoes down US-50 is probably more than it is to drive down I-70 (I assume US-50 isn't as well built, property values around US-50 would be more likely to be impacted by noise pollution than property values around I-70, etc). Eventually the truck driver is going to have to pay the true cost, so in the long run it's better just to stay on I-70.
Quote from: US-43|72 on January 18, 2012, 07:58:32 PM
Raising federal and state gas taxes 10c/gal each wouldn't impact anyone severely on an individual basis, but would drastically increase revenue. Just sayin'...
I'd pay $6/gallon. especially if the IRS increased the per-mile rate correspondingly.
I don't get the anathema towards toll roads. There is this idea that once a road 'is paid off' there should not be any toll on it anymore ... because, apparently, it is rendered perpetually impeccable and free of decay?
In the end, I don't think tolling existing roadways is a viable solution, for all the reasons stated in the previous post.
As far as VMT is concerned, I don't want big brother or the insurance companies seeing how many miles I drive. I don't see any way to measure it other than some kind of electroinic device that is resident in my car, and how would you pay for putting all of those devices in the US vehicle fleet? Finally, I fear in the end we would end up with both gasoline taxes and VMT taxes, the worst of both worlds. I would just assume see the gasoline tax indexed for inflation to take care of party of th needs.
The problem is that cars are getting more fuel efficient without getting lighter- a Prius does just as much damage to the road as a Ford Ranger, but the Ranger pays a heck of a lot more in user fee. That's not really equitable either.
Long run, gasoline is going away. It's happening, finally, as we speak. We need to have something in place for when a large chunk of cars on the road aren't using gas. I don't really know how you user fee an electric car without using VMT- maybe add an energy charge onto your power bill at home?
Privacy considerations not withstanding (and I really hope somebody thinks of something better because of that), you could include VMT transponder costs in vehicle registration fees- which would spread the cost around a lot easier and better than having tollbooths every few miles
Gasoline is not going away and should not go away, electric cars are not going to be viable until or unless the battery problem is solved, despite the government trying to ram them down our throats. And IMHO, VMT taxation will not be accepted by the bulk of the public. BTW, if they want to stick a surcharge on the electric bills for electric car users that are out there, that works fine for me.
QuoteAnd IMHO, VMT taxation will not be accepted by the bulk of the public.
I agree- I think that's very true. That's why this is a very tricky issue and may rely more on a paradigm shift than any particular fiscal policy. If the solution rests in fiscal policy, nobody has come up with an adequate solution yet.
In the meantime, we can try to solve known problems. People have longer distance commutes than ever before in history. Let's try to move jobs closer to homes- let's see what we can do to reduce driving and freight transport without diminishing lifestyle. Why does the business day have to start at 8 AM and end at 5 PM for everybody? That's a lot harder, but long term I think it's the only thing that will a) work and b) keep everybody happy. Gosh- if we could cut peak period congestion down by even 10% across the country, we'd have a hell of a lot less infrastructure to invest in.
Solve the city problem and you can focus on rural freight links like I-70. The vast majority of transportation funding these days is going to urban areas. Start to solve that problem and you can divert more of that money to long distance corridors.
The original plan for the Interstates was called Toll Roads and Free Roads.This is not a new idea
No one has pointed out that Missouri Voters have voted down andy kind of tax for the roads and under Missouri law they can again so dont jump to a national conclusion ,there are local issues here.Please dont freak out America
I could easily telecommute; if that became the most natural modality of work, especially in the Office Space sector, we'd be saving so much time, effort, and money.
QuoteNo one has pointed out that Missouri Voters have voted down andy kind of tax for the roads and under Missouri law they can again so dont jump to a national conclusion ,there are local issues here.Please dont freak out America
It absolutely is a national issue- Missouri, for the reasons you stated, is probably a worst case example- but the highway trust fund is broke. General fund monies are paying for highway dollars. The state of highway funding is very much an under-talked about national crisis.
QuoteI could easily telecommute; if that became the most natural modality of work, especially in the Office Space sector, we'd be saving so much time, effort, and money.
Exactly. Service sector folks need to go to work five days a week- but if you're not really communicating with clients except over the phone, and you can do work at home just as easily as you can at an office, it's ridiculous for an employer to require you to expend resources and damage roadways to come in five days a week. Come in once or twice a week to show you're getting things done/attend whatever meetings, and work the other three or four at home. With technology these days, there's very little you can't do from home. You can forward your phone to your house, VPN to the server, and conference via Skype.
Just curious though, how many states are considered to be donor states for gas taxes? Maybe the formula needs changed?
Here's the Heritage Foundation report- and if there's anybody you can trust for a matter like this it's the libertarian Heritage Foundation
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/04/federal-highway-program-shortchanges-more-than-half-the-states
In map form, you're looking at most of the south/southwest and midwest/great plains. 28 states are donors. It's the northeast and sparsely populated states that really benefit. Alaska gets 5 times what it puts in.
In fairness, though, I agree with some inequality. If I live in the middle of Wyoming (which gets 1.5x what it puts in), I pay the same amount (more, actually. Wyomingites drive more miles per year than any other state) in fuel tax as somebody in Michigan (which gets .8 what it puts in). Why should I be denied a road in front of my house? Those rural areas, and you can exclude Alaska from this argument, are still vital links but nobody lives in that state. I-80 in Wyoming is the only extended stretch of interstate with mostly trucks (52%), and most of those are neither originating nor terminating in Wyoming. There's a reason for somebody from Michigan to subsidize it, then. For instance, it's presumably in the interest of Ford Motor Company to be able to send cars to northern California, which helps Michigan's economy.
That said, no reason somebody from Michigan should be paying out more than they get while somebody from Minnesota gets more than they pay.
Quote from: corco on January 18, 2012, 09:55:03 PM
Here's the Heritage Foundation report- and if there's anybody you can trust for a matter like this it's the libertarian Heritage Foundation
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/04/federal-highway-program-shortchanges-more-than-half-the-states
In map form, you're looking at most of the south/southwest and midwest/great plains. 28 states are donors. It's the northeast and sparsely populated states that really benefit. Alaska gets 5 times what it puts in.
In fairness, though, I agree with some inequality. If I live in the middle of Wyoming (which gets 1.5x what it puts in), I pay the same amount (more, actually. Wyomingites drive more miles per year than any other state) in fuel tax as somebody in Michigan (which gets .8 what it puts in). Why should I be denied a road in front of my house? Those rural areas, and you can exclude Alaska from this argument, are still vital links but nobody lives in that state. I-80 in Wyoming is the only extended stretch of interstate with mostly trucks (52%), and most of those are neither originating nor terminating in Wyoming. There's a reason for somebody from Michigan to subsidize it, then. For instance, it's presumably in the interest of Ford Motor Company to be able to send cars to northern California, which helps Michigan's economy.
That said, no reason somebody from Michigan should be paying out more than they get while somebody from Minnesota gets more than they pay.
I agree with what your saying to an extent about the inequality though I think all states should get more back than they are currently getting. A lot of roads here in Michigan are being done cheaply because there isn't much money and we know doing things the cheap way isn't always the best way. Off hand I can think of M-18 in Roscommon County, kinda looks like gravel and tar. Driving on it seems loud and it spits up a lot of stones.
And that's why we need to be creative. Is it fair that you should have shitty roads while you subsidize other people's roads? Definitely not. Is it fair that an Alaskan that probably pays more in fuel tax than you do should not get to have access to a road? Definitely not.
The existing system fails on a bunch of levels, and it goes beyond just shifting money around. There's no known good way to achieve both objectives short of everybody paying a lot more than they want to, which is why we need to start re-evaluating transportation in its entirety.
They wanted to introduce the VMT in the Netherlands, but it failed due to opposition. The greatest alleged effect would have been a reduction of congestion by pricing people off the road and reduce peak hour travel. However more recent studies found out mobility is less price-elastic than what was previously assumed, as even $ 9.00 gasoline didn't have any effect on the mileage driven.
Though the cases of the United States and the Netherlands / Europe are different. In Europe, mobility is just seen as a cash cow, European motorists frequently generate 4 or 5 times more revenue than what is actually spent on road infrastructure. It's not necessarily a funding issue, though European funding for roads remains tight, but that's due to politics, not because motorists aren't paying enough to maintain and expand the road networks. There's enough money generated by motorists to 10-lane every rural freeway and keep them toll free.
What strikes me most is that the U.S. gas tax hasn't been inflation adjusted for two decades, just like some toll roads haven't increased their tolls for years while the cost of upkeep and expansion continues to increase, often even faster than the rate of inflation. Which means resources to fund roads are dwindling.
A gas tax is not the only way to generate revenue. In Europe people often have to pay an annual road tax, which in some countries may exceed $ 1000 per year. Furthermore, high taxes are levied on motor vehicles in some countries (for instance 75% tax in Denmark, and a 25% sales tax comes on top of that, effectively resulting in a 100% tax on cars). So there are basically three types of taxation on motoring; ownership, usage and fuels, each of which is in fact sufficient to fund the road network operations.
I don't think it's a good idea to follow the European example of over-taxing motorists, but some "thinking outside the box" may be required. It's a taxed road, it's a toll road, or it's no road, someone once said. There is no such thing as a free road.
Quote from: Chris on January 19, 2012, 07:42:01 AMThey wanted to introduce the VMT in the Netherlands, but it failed due to opposition.
Same in the UK, but it will remain part of every European Government's agenda while it remains the EU Commission's agenda.
Just a few observations:
* There are ways to perform VMT charging which get around the privacy concerns by taking payment while allowing the identity of the fee-payer to be obfuscated, at least in real time. Oregon DOT has experimented with a pilot program along these lines.
* An across-the-board 10c/gallon increase in the fuel tax would be a start, but in actuality the expert consensus is that fuel taxes need to be tripled at the federal and state level just to plug existing infrastructure deficits while maintaining capital improvement at an acceptable level. Tripling would take taxes to around $1-$1.20/gallon in most states, which is fairly high but still low by European standards and also far smaller than the fluctuations in the price of fuel which have occurred since 2005.
* Comparing the "damage" caused by a Ford Ranger to that caused by a Toyota Prius is not really meaningful. Roads are generally designed to accommodate 18-wheelers and the fourth-power law means that, compared to an 18-wheeler, the damage caused by either a Ford Ranger or a Toyota Prius (or indeed any other type of four-wheeled private passenger vehicle) is negligible. It is more meaningful to speak about the needs for improvement created by different types of vehicle. Cars are a major driver of congestion in cities, which leads to pressure for expensive capacity increases, while trucks are a big driver of rehabilitation costs on trunk haulage routes like the rural Interstates.
* At the margin it can make more sense to incentivize rail freight transport (especially for bulk cargoes) than to try to expand the ability of the road system to handle additional freight. Each situation has to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
* A modest amount of cross-subsidization through the federal-aid program is one way we sustain a regional development policy. The amount is modest because each state is guaranteed to get back at least 90% of what it pays in the federal gas tax. There is ideological opposition (particularly in the Republican Party) to having a regional policy at all, but do you really want to bear the consequences of not having one? These could range from the expansion of existing pockets of poverty and the emergence of new ones to gridlock in Congress since there would be nothing to log-roll.
* There is a trade-off between localizing production and exchange relationships and centralizing production to reap scale economies. Depending on the goods or services involved, localization of production (purely to reduce stress on the transport networks) could result in higher prices for consumers which would not necessarily be counterbalanced by surpluses arising from the transport networks (e.g. reduced congestion). (In regard to the specific example of Washington potatoes eaten in Idaho, would you say that this is a nonsensical trade relationship, involving wasteful use of transport services, if Idaho potatoes were considered a premium product while Washington potatoes were intended for everyday eating? Remember Akerlof's rule--"Export the best because it is more likely to pay the freight.")
QuoteComparing the "damage" caused by a Ford Ranger to that caused by a Toyota Prius is not really meaningful. Roads are generally designed to accommodate 18-wheelers and the fourth-power law means that, compared to an 18-wheeler, the damage caused by either a Ford Ranger or a Toyota Prius (or indeed any other type of four-wheeled private passenger vehicle) is negligible. It is more meaningful to speak about the needs for improvement created by different types of vehicle. Cars are a major driver of congestion in cities, which leads to pressure for expensive capacity increases, while trucks are a big driver of rehabilitation costs on trunk haulage routes like the rural Interstates.
Of course it's meaningful. A Prius pays considerably less user fee than a Ford Ranger to cause the same amount of damage. Even if the damage caused is negligible, the point still stands that one car is paying significantly more user fee than the other while causing just as much road wear. I chose vehicles with similar curb weights just so nobody would try to undercut the argument because of that difference. I'm not arguing that these vehicles cause anything like the damage trucks cause, just that one pays more than the other for what is supposed to be the same purpose.
Quote(In regard to the specific example of Washington potatoes eaten in Idaho, would you say that this is a nonsensical trade relationship, involving wasteful use of transport services, if Idaho potatoes were considered a premium product while Washington potatoes were intended for everyday eating? Remember Akerlof's rule--"Export the best because it is more likely to pay the freight.")
For the most part, yes. There are certainly premium potato products grown in Idaho and Washington, maybe more in Idaho than Washington, but the overall distribution of potato breed is very similar.
Quote from: nds76 on January 18, 2012, 05:54:18 PM
Americans should be border-line freaking out, and not just those living in Missouri. Right now, Missouri lawmakers are figuring out how much to fleece motorists that use I-70 in the years ahead. The United States Department of Transportation has given Missouri the authority to convert I-70, an existing road that was toll-free, to one that costs as much as 10-15 cents per mile. The U.S. DOT has also given such authority to two other states- indeed the trend continues to grow.
What's so alarming? Existing free-to-use interstates and roads are becoming toll-roads. The craziest thing is that in some cases (such as in North Carolina) the roads are being built or rebuilt using taxpayer money AND the conversion to toll road is happening, so not only are motorists paying to built it, but they're paying to use it. Not only that, but in North Carolina's case, gasoline taxes also just got jacked up to start the new year.
In Missouri's plan, the conversion could cost passenger vehicles $20-$30 for the entire stretch from just east of Kansas City to Wentzville. In the case of truckers, it could be $60-$90!
What's next, folks? Are we going to see my current city, Chicago start to toll the hundreds of miles of local toll-free roads? Where do we draw the line? Can you imagine driving to work and paying $7 in gas and $15 in tolls? This is getting ridiculous! How about politicians across the country stop putting off tough decisions and trim budgets so that instead of our taxpayer dollars funding pork and wasteful spending we spend our money on roads!
http://blog.gasbuddy.com/posts/Conversion-of-I-70-to-toll-road-should-freak-Americans-out/1715-480024-746.aspx
You must be new here. We've been discussing stuff like this for years now.
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on January 18, 2012, 08:49:43 PM
Gasoline is not going away and should not go away, electric cars are not going to be viable until or unless the battery problem is solved, despite the government trying to ram them down our throats. And IMHO, VMT taxation will not be accepted by the bulk of the public. BTW, if they want to stick a surcharge on the electric bills for electric car users that are out there, that works fine for me.
Are you in denial about oil being a non-renewable resource or something. It's going to go away, it's just a question of when and if we're prepared for it. Also, we have the technology today to make electric cars (and computers, phones, and everything else) work: capacitors. A capacitor stores more charge than a battery, chargers MUCH faster than a battery (minutes instead of hours), and never needs to be replaced (unlike batteries, which cease to effectively hold much of any charge after a couple of years). We just need to refine them for commercial use. But nobody does that because we are in love with oil.
Quote from: corco on January 19, 2012, 11:30:55 AMOf course it's meaningful. A Prius pays considerably less user fee than a Ford Ranger to cause the same amount of damage.
Actually, no. The Prius subsidizes the Ford Ranger, in fact.
* Curb weight of 2011 Ford Ranger = 3302 lb
* Curb weight of 2011 Toyota Prius = 3042 lb
Per the AASHO fourth-power law, the Ford Ranger racks up 38% more ESALs than the Prius.
* EPA highway MPG for 2011 Ford Ranger = 40 MPG
* EPA highway MPG for 2011 Toyota Prius = 48 MPG
So for one mile of operation, the Ford Ranger pays tax on 0.025 gallons of fuel, while the Toyota Prius pays tax on 0.0208 gallons of fuel; in other words, the Ford Ranger pays 20.19% more despite racking up 38% more ESALs. In other words, where damage to pavement caused by axle loading is the sole factor under consideration, the Toyota Prius is subsidizing the Ford Ranger. QED. Of course, the damage caused by both is far less than that caused by an eighteen-wheeler, where the permissible axle loads are several times the curb weights of a Ranger or Prius.
(This said, I don't actually agree that car drivers as a group are cross-subsidizing trucks on a large scale. It is certainly true that the fees truckers pay are nothing like the ESAL ratios between trucks and cars, but the added cost of designing and building pavements to accommodate trucks is far less than the ESAL ratios while cars tend to drive demand for capacity increases. FHWA actually commissioned a study into this issue several years ago, with the report still available somewhere on the FHWA website, and was not able to find any evidence of massive cross-subsidization in either direction.)
QuoteEven if the damage caused is negligible, the point still stands that one car is paying significantly more user fee than the other while causing just as much road wear. I chose vehicles with similar curb weights just so nobody would try to undercut the argument because of that difference. I'm not arguing that these vehicles cause anything like the damage trucks cause, just that one pays more than the other for what is supposed to be the same purpose.
Your argument definitely doesn't work in the limited case of the Ranger and Prius on the highway. It might work better in cities because the mileage disparity is more sharply in the Prius' favor (51 city MPG for a Prius versus 29 city MPG for a Ranger). But roads in cities tend to be specialized more for access and there are more sources of funding, e.g. property and sales taxes.
In any case, I think it is a mistake to focus on comparisons between one extremely fuel-efficient model and one gas hog, since that ignores what people actually own and drive. From the state DOT funding perspective, what really matters is what happens with the vehicle fleet in aggregate. Fleet fuel efficiency has stayed flat at around 20 MPG since 1980, as the graph here shows:
http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2009/12/us-new-car-fuel-economy-trends.html
For state DOTs the primary impacts are at the margin, i.e. in capital construction, since other costs like maintenance and administration are largely fixed and difficult to cut. I would say that the largest impacts on what state DOTs are able to do financially in terms of capital construction come from, in descending order, (1) price fluctuations in input materials like asphalt and concrete, (2) changes in VMT (the economic crisis, combined with high gas prices beginning in 2008, have led to noticeable drops in driving), and (3) changes in fleet fuel efficiency.
This is not to say that trends in fleet fuel efficiency should be ignored. Small changes in state DOT revenue can have large changes in the capital construction budget--if the entirety of a 10% revenue drop is applied to capital construction rather than state DOT activities across the board, that could mean a 30% cut in construction, equivalent to cancelling four monthly lettings. But it is emphatically not true that hybrids are a short- or even medium-term threat to the fuel tax funding model. That will come much later when fully electric vehicles become commercially viable. In the meantime, the policy option of increasing the gas tax remains open (if unpopular) as a way to accommodate changes at the margin, with little risk of stimulating a "flight away from gas." A 10c/gallon gas tax increase applied to (e.g.) an existing 20c/gallon take at the state level is still a 25% increase in revenue, which is far larger than any recorded post-2008 changes in VMT or post-1980 changes in fleet fuel efficiency.
Put simply, if people tell you that the Prius and its ilk are a threat to the gas tax because they are so popular and so fuel-efficient, you should be challenging them to supply arithmetic proof. They won't be able to do it.
QuoteQuote(In regard to the specific example of Washington potatoes eaten in Idaho, would you say that this is a nonsensical trade relationship, involving wasteful use of transport services, if Idaho potatoes were considered a premium product while Washington potatoes were intended for everyday eating? Remember Akerlof's rule--"Export the best because it is more likely to pay the freight.")
For the most part, yes. There are certainly premium potato products grown in Idaho and Washington, maybe more in Idaho than Washington, but the overall distribution of potato breed is very similar.
But this still isn't proof that it is wasteful to eat Washington potatoes in Idaho. The north-south corridor now known as US 95, which was built as a wagon road in the nineteenth century as a condition of unification between northern and southern Idaho, is still pretty rough and uneven. If you live in Moscow it may make more sense to eat Washington potatoes brought in from across the Snake River rather than Idaho potatoes trucked in over White Bird Hill (my Idaho geography is a bit rusty since I haven't visited since 2001, but you get the idea).
Quote
* EPA highway MPG for 2011 Ford Ranger = 40 MPG
Quote
29 city MPG for a Ranger
not bad at all. 29/40 for a light truck is pretty good.
Quote
gas hog
wow, that's about the last way I'd have described the Ranger.
try my shitty 2001 Taurus - 20/28 in my experience, curb weight of about 3346.
btw, for everyone's reference...
http://www.pavementinteractive.org/index.php?title=ESAL#Generalized_Fourth_Power_Law
I raised an eyebrow at the "fourth power" which JNW cited, so I looked it up. it's a pretty good estimate based on research as detailed in the link above.
QuoteActually, no. The Prius subsidizes the Ford Ranger, in fact.
* Curb weight of 2011 Ford Ranger = 3302 lb
* Curb weight of 2011 Toyota Prius = 3042 lb
Per the AASHO fourth-power law, the Ford Ranger racks up 38% more ESALs than the Prius.
* EPA highway MPG for 2011 Ford Ranger = 40 MPG
* EPA highway MPG for 2011 Toyota Prius = 48 MPG
So for one mile of operation, the Ford Ranger pays tax on 0.025 gallons of fuel, while the Toyota Prius pays tax on 0.0208 gallons of fuel; in other words, the Ford Ranger pays 20.19% more despite racking up 38% more ESALs. In other words, where damage to pavement caused by axle loading is the sole factor under consideration, the Toyota Prius is subsidizing the Ford Ranger. QED. Of course, the damage caused by both is far less than that caused by an eighteen-wheeler, where the permissible axle loads are several times the curb weights of a Ranger or Prius.
All right, you can argue pedantics but you get the point that I'm trying to make, right? I'm not interested in the aggregate- I'm interested in whether or not an individual driving a fuel-inefficient car is paying a larger user fee than an individual driving a fuel-efficient car relative to the damage they cause. I evidently gave a bad example based on two cars I thought of off the top of my head.
QuoteBut this still isn't proof that it is wasteful to eat Washington potatoes in Idaho. The north-south corridor now known as US 95, which was built as a wagon road in the nineteenth century as a condition of unification between northern and southern Idaho, is still pretty rough and uneven. If you live in Moscow it may make more sense to eat Washington potatoes brought in from across the Snake River rather than Idaho potatoes trucked in over White Bird Hill (my Idaho geography is a bit rusty since I haven't visited since 2001, but you get the idea).
Once again, you can argue pedantics but you get my general point, right? An Idaho Fallsian eating a Washington potato doesn't make very much sense, just as a Spokaneite eating an Idaho Falls potato doesn't make very much sense, both potatoes being equal. For simplicity's sake I used state lines, but obviously other factors are in play. You know I know what US-95 is and the geographic disparity within Idaho. Look at the big picture- not the pedantics.
Quote from: corco on January 19, 2012, 01:41:05 PMAll right, you can argue pedantics but you get the point that I'm trying to make, right? I'm not interested in the aggregate- I'm interested in whether or not an individual driving a fuel-inefficient car is paying a larger user fee than an individual driving a fuel-efficient car relative to the damage they cause.
I do get your point, but my point--which I hope you also get--is that policy needs to take into consideration what happens in aggregate. I can certainly see how a person driving a Prius (especially in the city) could be seen as free-riding off someone driving a Ford Ranger, but I question the value of looking for economic justice at such a low level, especially when considering gas tax alone. A Prius currently costs about twice as much as a Ranger, so the Prius driver is paying a heavy price to save at the pump. Assuming gas prices of around $3/gallon over the life cycles of both vehicles, the Prius driver saves only 12.6c/mile over the Ranger driver in fuel, and has to drive nearly 200,000 miles in order to offset the increased cost of the Prius. Is the Prius driver expected to accept additional punishment purely because he or she seems to pay an inequitably small share of the total fuel tax burden?
And because of the way the fourth-power law works and the way fuel consumption relates to curb weight, you almost have to scrape the barrel in terms of low-MPG vehicles in order to sustain an argument that drivers of high-efficiency vehicles get a free ride at the expense of pickup truck drivers and so on. The kinds of vehicles that you have to find to make that argument work raise questions of aggressivity in crashes, and allow the counterargument that the higher-paying drivers of low-MPG vehicles "buy" improved prospects of crash survival at the expense of other drivers. Can you imagine why it would be advantageous to steer clear of such comparisons when all you want to do is to figure out how to get enough funding to match needs?
QuoteOnce again, you can argue pedantics but you get my general point, right? An Idaho Fallsian eating a Washington potato doesn't make very much sense, just as a Spokaneite eating an Idaho Falls potato doesn't make very much sense, both potatoes being equal. For simplicity's sake I used state lines, but obviously other factors are in play. You know I know what US-95 is and the geographic disparity within Idaho. Look at the big picture- not the pedantics.
The big picture, as I see it, is that there is a tradeoff between localization of production and scale economies. It
may be advantageous for the economy as a whole for a person in Idaho to eat potatoes made in Idaho rather than shipped in from Washington by road. I don't know if it is or not; I am prepared to accept the specifics of that question as a useless exercise in pedantry, or rather, something for the producers and consumers of potatoes to work out among themselves through the price discovery mechanism. What I am trying to say, and what you cannot plausibly deny, is that the tradeoff exists.
As I mentioned in the South Lawrence Trafficway thread - KDOT studied the possibility of putting tolls on the SLT. That study noted that there would be a enough of a shift in traffic that it would require the EIS process to be reopened. KDOT did not like the idea of doing that again (having been sent through the ringer three times already) so the toll idea was nixed.
The concept of tolling I-70 in Missouri was brought up on a local talk show here in Kansas City, which the host noted would result in a passenger car toll of ~ $24 for the entire length of the proposed toll. By contrast, the cash toll for the entire length of the Kansas Tunpike is $10.75 (with the length of the KTA and MO I-70 being comparatively similar)
With regards to VMT, why couldn't it be conducted by just having the state check your odometer when they issue you a plate renewal sticker? You go in to get your sticker, the guy behind the counter goes out, looks at your odometer, puts it in the computer, and it tells you how many miles you've driven over the past year and you pay the appropriate tax then. (Of course further readings would need to be taken when selling/buying a car.)
As to the gas tax, why is it a flat amount rather than a percentage like nearly every other tax? Perhaps if we just converted it to a percentage so that it would track inflation...
Part of the problem is the lack of political will to actually do anything to taxes. Over the past 10 years or so everyone's gotten so used to the cries of "let's cut taxes! let's cut taxes!" that it's almost political suicide to support any sort of increase in any tax, let alone one like the gas tax that will affect so many people. Lower taxes are a nice idea that most people like, but lawmakers have to have the ability to raise taxes when there's no other way to fund necessary programs. This notion of "Congressman X wants to RAISE YOUR TAXES HE IS THE DEVIL INCARNATE" is a bit silly.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 20, 2012, 10:31:53 PMWith regards to VMT, why couldn't it be conducted by just having the state check your odometer when they issue you a plate renewal sticker? You go in to get your sticker, the guy behind the counter goes out, looks at your odometer, puts it in the computer, and it tells you how many miles you've driven over the past year and you pay the appropriate tax then. (Of course further readings would need to be taken when selling/buying a car.)
That is a rough-and-ready way of doing it, but there are a few problems with it:
* It creates a massive incentive for odometer fraud.
* It does not allow the possibility of charging according to congestion level.
* It would make it politically difficult to resist mileage-based insurance, which has been suggested as a way of discouraging people from driving.
The system piloted in Oregon is, AIUI, based on transponders in vehicles communicating with roadside receivers. There is no need for a given transponder to be uniquely identified with a given vehicle and there is no continuous real-time tracking, as is called for in the satellite-based VMT charging systems being considered elsewhere. This limits the potential for abuse as a surveillance tool. Because the charges are associated with individual receivers, it is technically possible to impose higher charges in more congested areas (e.g., a vehicle mile travelled in Portland and the surrounding area would be more expensive than elsewhere in Oregon).
QuoteAs to the gas tax, why is it a flat amount rather than a percentage like nearly every other tax? Perhaps if we just converted it to a percentage so that it would track inflation...
Fuel taxes are excise rather than
ad valorem because their intent, in broad terms, is to charge for use. The resource commitment attaching to each increment of use (which is what the fuel tax pays for in fiscal systems where highway expenditures are supposed to be covered exactly by highway revenues so that the road system is "off budget") does not, by and large, vary with the price of fuel. (The cost of doing business does tend to increase for state DOTs when fuel prices are high, but the relationship between the two is not direct, and the fuel tax as traditionally conceived is not really designed to account for effects like this.)
There is no need to convert the fuel tax to an
ad valorem tax to take account of inflation. All that is needed is to index the excise tax to a suitable measure of inflation, ideally one using a "basket of goods" that corresponds reasonably closely to the goods and services that state DOTs typically buy. Wisconsin used to have such a system, but I understand it was abandoned a few years ago as part of a populist tax-cutting package, and I don't know if any other state has taken up the idea. Mary Peters' blue-ribbon commission on transportation funding (convened in the dying days of the Bush II administration) did recommend indexation in addition to a tripling of the fuel tax.
QuotePart of the problem is the lack of political will to actually do anything to taxes. Over the past 10 years or so everyone's gotten so used to the cries of "let's cut taxes! let's cut taxes!" that it's almost political suicide to support any sort of increase in any tax, let alone one like the gas tax that will affect so many people. Lower taxes are a nice idea that most people like, but lawmakers have to have the ability to raise taxes when there's no other way to fund necessary programs. This notion of "Congressman X wants to RAISE YOUR TAXES HE IS THE DEVIL INCARNATE" is a bit silly.
There is more localism to this issue than meets the eye. No-one wants to raise the fuel tax at the federal level, not least because this endless parade of shutdowns and budget face-offs keeps the issue from getting to the table in the first place, but increases in the state fuel tax have gone through in many states and continue to do so. The real problem is that the motivation behind such increases tends to be to postpone the date infrastructure dilapidation reaches crisis stage (ideally until after the next election), not to tackle it once and for all.
Quote from: corco on January 18, 2012, 09:07:52 PM
QuoteNo one has pointed out that Missouri Voters have voted down andy kind of tax for the roads and under Missouri law they can again so dont jump to a national conclusion ,there are local issues here.Please dont freak out America
It absolutely is a national issue- Missouri, for the reasons you stated, is probably a worst case example- but the highway trust fund is broke. General fund monies are paying for highway dollars. The state of highway funding is very much an under-talked about national crisis.
Missouri's biggest problem is that it has too many miles in the system. Every dollar that goes to patch a pothole on a lettered highway that gets 80 cars a day is a dollar less that a major highway gets.
Post Merge: January 21, 2012, 10:00:19 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 19, 2012, 12:48:10 PM
* EPA highway MPG for 2011 Ford Ranger = 40 MPG
* EPA highway MPG for 2011 Toyota Prius = 48 MPG
40 MPG in a Ranger? Maybe if it's rolling down a hill with a tailwind. The V6 Rangers get about 20 MPG on the highway, and the 4s don't get a lot better.
I'm not sure how you could have a transponder system without tracking. Also, the reading of the odometer at registration wouldn't work in all states; NY, for example, does renewals by mail. Inspection would be better.
There is one plus to a transponder system: toll roads would be a thing of the past. They would simply be roads that have a higher per-mile charge.
The problem with VMT or other nationwide electronic tolling systems is that the operational system costs are huge. So before there's any increase in revenue for highway projects, there has to be an increase of tolls to pay the higher system costs in the first place. For instance the German truck toll operational costs are 20% of the revenue. So, to get 20% more revenue the tolls must go up 40% or more. That's a significant additional burden to the tax payer and also one of the reasons why the Dutch VMT tax was canceled.
Odometer registration doesn't seem like a workable solution, unless you want to go to the DMV every month you will get a huge bill at the end of each year. It's like paying your mortgage all at once. Or your boss paying your salary once a year. Highly impractical and susceptible to fraud.
If you want to replace the gas tax, an annual vehicle ownership fee may be the most practical solution that doesn't come with a very high system cost or a bureaucratic mess. Most European countries have one of their mobility-related taxes like this.
MODOT could ignore voters voice in toll talks
ST. LOUIS (AP) - The head of the Missouri Department of Transportation says it wouldn't take a public vote to rebuild Interstate 70 using tolls.
Director Kevin Keith says private sector companies would fund the project and collect tolls to recoup their investment.
Keith has outlined a proposal to rebuild the rural stretch of I-70 between Highway 40-61 near Wentzville and Interstate 470 near Kansas City. The project could cost $2 billion to $4 billion.
Keith says that with highway funding in scarce supply, an I-70 toll road appears to be the most viable option.
But the Missouri Trucking Association says the I-70 toll question should go to voters. Previous efforts to pass constitutional amendments to permit state toll roads and bridges have failed.
http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=298875
Meanwhile, there's been talk about tolling I-80 through Pennsylvania.
Here in Connecticut, we haven't had a toll road since 1989. That's when the toll on the Charter Oak Bridge over the Connecticut River between Hartford and East Hartford (carries US Route 5 and CT Route 15) was removed.
The Connecticut Turnpike (I-95 from Greenwich to Waterford and I-395 from there north to Thompson) last had tolls around 1983. Governor Dannell P. Malloy (D), and M. Jodi Rell (R) before him, have brought up the idea of placing toll barriers at the state lines with I-95 at the NY and RI borders, possibly with I-395, I-84 and I-91 as well. That would really go over "well", considering we have the fourth highest gas tax in the nation. What makes the Connecticut Turnpike different from Missouri though? This road was previously tolled until 1983. Also, the nearby Merritt Parkway (Fairfield County) and Wilbur Cross Parkway (New Haven County) [both parts of CT Route 15] were tolled in the past.
As for an alternate route to I-95 if it were re-tolled? The Merritt and Wilbur Cross Parkways (CT Route 15) parallel I-95 to the immediate north. Obviously, trucks can not use that road. The only other major option is US Route 1, which is heavily congested at most times already.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 20, 2012, 11:36:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 20, 2012, 10:31:53 PMWith regards to VMT, why couldn't it be conducted by just having the state check your odometer when they issue you a plate renewal sticker? You go in to get your sticker, the guy behind the counter goes out, looks at your odometer, puts it in the computer, and it tells you how many miles you've driven over the past year and you pay the appropriate tax then. (Of course further readings would need to be taken when selling/buying a car.)
That is a rough-and-ready way of doing it, but there are a few problems with it:
* It creates a massive incentive for odometer fraud.
* It does not allow the possibility of charging according to congestion level.
* It would make it politically difficult to resist mileage-based insurance, which has been suggested as a way of discouraging people from driving.
Ummm, another big flaw that I see.... I drive my vehicle to México every year, which means my yearly odometer reading would include foreign highway miles, and I sure as heck wouldn't want to pay my fee based on those miles. Imagine if you actually lived in México on a visa but had a car plated in the U.S.!
======
I'm not totally opposed to toll roads. Whether you want to drive on them or not is your decision. The Kansas Turnpike has already been mentioned; some days I pay the $8 or whatever it is from Wichita to K.C., and sometimes I don't; I've actually calculated that taking I-135 and US-50 from Wichita to Emporia costs more in gas than it saves in tolls. In México, between Nuevo Laredo and Monterrey, there is a choice between free and toll highways; the toll portion is only 75 miles long, only saves eight miles or maybe 30 minutes of driving, yet costs about US$14; it's worth it to me, just to save those 30 minutes of driving and not have to worry about passing trucks; to others it's not worth it, and to me it's not worth it on other toll road portions. $15 from K.C. to STL? I'd probably pay it. Especially if US-50 is just going to be more congested.
Quote from: kphoger on January 24, 2012, 04:49:16 PMUmmm, another big flaw [with odometer-based mileage charging] that I see.... I drive my vehicle to México every year, which means my yearly odometer reading would include foreign highway miles, and I sure as heck wouldn't want to pay my fee based on those miles. Imagine if you actually lived in México on a visa but had a car plated in the U.S.!
Yup, this is a problem. But it is also a problem with toll roads in the US--you are double-charged through the tolls and the tax paid on fuel you burn on the turnpike. In principle the double-charging can be eased somewhat by remitting the tax paid on fuel sold at turnpike service areas to the turnpike authority rather than the state DOT, but in Kansas KDOT gets it all.
QuoteI'm not totally opposed to toll roads. Whether you want to drive on them or not is your decision. The Kansas Turnpike has already been mentioned; some days I pay the $8 or whatever it is from Wichita to K.C., and sometimes I don't; I've actually calculated that taking I-135 and US-50 from Wichita to Emporia costs more in gas than it saves in tolls.
The mileage penalty is approximately 10 miles (88.2 miles via Turnpike, 98.7 miles via I-135/US 50). The time penalty is somewhat larger than 10 minutes since US 50 is a conventional highway with a lower speed limit. The Turnpike toll is $3.50 (Exit 50 to Exit 127), so ignoring the value of driving time and at gas prices around $3/gallon, MPG has to be fairly low (in the ~10 MPG range) in order to come out ahead financially on the Turnpike route. (This doesn't mean, of course, that I take US 50--I usually take the Turnpike anyway: convenience has value.)
Quote$15 from K.C. to STL? I'd probably pay it. Especially if US-50 is just going to be more congested.
The amount proposed is actually $24 for passenger cars on that itinerary. To be fair, that is probably what they have to charge in order to cover construction cost and financing. I would not object to tolls on this route if it were the only one needing major improvement in Missouri, but the transportation needs in that state permeate the entire system.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 24, 2012, 05:42:12 PM
QuoteI'm not totally opposed to toll roads. Whether you want to drive on them or not is your decision. The Kansas Turnpike has already been mentioned; some days I pay the $8 or whatever it is from Wichita to K.C., and sometimes I don't; I've actually calculated that taking I-135 and US-50 from Wichita to Emporia costs more in gas than it saves in tolls.
The mileage penalty is approximately 10 miles (88.2 miles via Turnpike, 98.7 miles via I-135/US 50). The time penalty is somewhat larger than 10 minutes since US 50 is a conventional highway with a lower speed limit. The Turnpike toll is $3.50 (Exit 50 to Exit 127), so ignoring the value of driving time and at gas prices around $3/gallon, MPG has to be fairly low (in the ~10 MPG range) in order to come out ahead financially on the Turnpike route. (This doesn't mean, of course, that I take US 50--I usually take the Turnpike anyway: convenience has value.)
From my house, it's a difference of 17.6 miles. All things being equal, I would come out slightly ahead on US-50. However, I typically drive faster than the flow of traffic. As you know, there is heavy truck traffic on US-50, which means I end up overtaking a
lot; this usually has me going from perhaps 60 mph to 78 mph in a very short stretch in order to complete the maneuver ahead of oncoming traffic. The way I figure it, that high revving costs more in gas than the difference, or at least makes them even. I could be wrong. We're also usually nearing the end or beginning of a 700-mile drive, so are looking for any excuse to save fifteen minutes of driving.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 24, 2012, 05:42:12 PM
Quote$15 from K.C. to STL? I'd probably pay it. Especially if US-50 is just going to be more congested.
The amount proposed is actually $24 for passenger cars on that itinerary. To be fair, that is probably what they have to charge in order to cover construction cost and financing. I would not object to tolls on this route if it were the only one needing major improvement in Missouri, but the transportation needs in that state permeate the entire system.
I've been pleased with recent development in Missouri. US-60 across the southern part of the state, especially, including the James River Freeway in Springfield. OTOH, I wish they would add lanes to I-35 north of K.C.
Quote from: kphoger on January 24, 2012, 06:10:59 PM
I've been pleased with recent development in Missouri. US-60 across the southern part of the state, especially, including the James River Freeway in Springfield. OTOH, I wish they would add lanes to I-35 north of K.C.
Are there any plans to do this in the near future? Coming fro OKC to Minneapolis, I've started taking 435 west to 152 so I don't have to deal with 35 north of KC.
rte66man
This is hardly a surprise to me. My only question is, will they stretch it border-to-border, a la the Pennsylvania/Ohio Turnpike/Indiana Toll Road, or end it somewhere within its boundaries? The way I see it, if Jefferson City gets its way, a St. Louis-to-Kansas City drive may soon resemble one from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, albeit without the mountains or tunnels to contend with.
Quote from: rte66man on January 31, 2012, 09:32:05 AM
Are there any plans to do this in the near future? Coming fro OKC to Minneapolis, I've started taking 435 west to 152 so I don't have to deal with 35 north of KC.
I often take 435 to 152 as well. But I was referring to I-35 specifically between, say, Liberty and Cameron.
Don't look now, but rumblings about this are starting up again, as heard on the news in KC tonight.
Apparently Governor Nixon is wanting a commission to study tolling I-70 from KC to STL to pay for improvements, since the tax to pay for road improvements failed. Both public and public/private plans are on the table, and if tolls end up being enacted, existing money earmarked for I-70 will be diverted to other road projects.
The locals are miffed about the possibility, to say the least.
The privatization of the Interstate Highway System is now underway, I guess.
I suppose the next move will be to privatize all the other freeways in MO in order to pay for completing, say, the Belle Vista Bypass segment of I-49? Or...the Bruce Watkins Drive segment of US 71 (pending resolution of that consent decree, that is)?? Or...completing the US 67 freeway to Popular Bluff/Festus? Or, freewayizing US 61 from STL northward as part of the Avenue of the Saints upgrade??
Given the new attitude against public spending for infrastructure, I can see no other feasible alternative, other than just letting things rot.
If MO does go through with this, would they be stupid enough to go to their own electronic system, or adopt some other states? I could see them going with PikePass/K-Tag compatible, but that would kind of screw IL drivers due to them using EzPass compatible.
Maybe it would be like NC and work with both the PikePass group and E-ZPass.
At this stage, I think choice of transponder platform is moot since there is absolutely no prospect of a tolled I-70 expansion being open before the national interoperability due date of 2016 or any later deadlines that may be set after recognition (long overdue, IMO) that 2016 is unrealistic.
In the short run I think even a tolling proposal will fail and the infrastructure will just be left to rot. From the standpoint of the Missouri electorate, which has consistently shot down funding proposals whenever they have been put to a vote in the last fifteen years, this may even be rational A very high proportion of Missouri's Interstate mileage is of very low quality in terms of geometric design--as an example, nearly all of I-70 has a forty-foot median while 80% of the untolled freeway mileage in Kansas has a median width of sixty feet or more--and an extended funding drought shifts the balance of advantage toward tearing down and starting over rather than putting a fresh coat of lipstick on the pig.
I have a strong feeling all those who are adamantly opposed to tolling roads are in for quite a nightmare in the next few years and following decade.
We're not only going to see toll tag scanners erected on a lot of previously "free" Interstate highways and other non-tolled super highways, we're going to eventually see them on regular surface streets too. It's only a matter of time.
Not only is the federal system for funding highways broken, it's also broken on the state and local level too. The local level is particularly bad. Many cities are near broke or over their heads in debt over a variety of factors. The burst housing bubble wiped out a lot of imaginary property tax revenue. Around here, small cities like Wichita Falls and Lawton weren't exposed to the housing bubble, but are now strapped because of drought and water use restrictions -they're suddenly getting far less revenue from water bills. Anyway, there's no money on the local level to fix streets, much less do badly needed upgrades on some roads. ODOT will only do certain work in the Lawton area if the local taxpayers kick in a certain percentage in order for ODOT & Federal to provide matching funds. For a lot of small towns getting streets fixed is a pipe dream.
There's no way just any one method of taxation is going to fly with voters. It's going to have the appearance of being too expensive. Too big of a shit sandwich to eat all by itself. Just letting infrastructure rot is not going to fly either. Politicians may think it's political suicide to raise gasoline taxes, but it's just as politically suicidal to sit back and wait for the next bridge collapse that kills several people. Infrastructure is not free. Politicians will have to educate voters on that fact.
The solution will likely be a mixture of fund-raising methods. Few new super highways will be free access. We need nationwide compatible transponder tags. Gasoline taxes will have to increase as well as be applied as a percentage of fuel prices rather than the obsolete fixed price that only worked when both gasoline and road building/maintenance costs were far less expensive. Ad valorem taxes on vehicles, tires and even vehicle related accessories may be applied or increased.
I don't think taxing miles from an odometer will work. There's no accounting for all miles driven in a particular state or country. I think we're just going to see a whole lot more tag readers installed all over the place. Not just on superhighways either. There's major privacy concerns about that. But I can see such technology pushed into neighborhood streets with the benefit of stopping crime. You wouldn't be able to get away with doing a drive by shooting if you had scanners hitting your car tag and/or transponder at either corner of the block.
Quote from: nds76 on January 18, 2012, 05:54:18 PM
Americans should be border-line freaking out, and not just those living in Missouri. Right now, Missouri lawmakers are figuring out how much to fleece motorists that use I-70 in the years ahead. The United States Department of Transportation has given Missouri the authority to convert I-70, an existing road that was toll-free, to one that costs as much as 10-15 cents per mile. The U.S. DOT has also given such authority to two other states- indeed the trend continues to grow.
What's so alarming? Existing free-to-use interstates and roads are becoming toll-roads. The craziest thing is that in some cases (such as in North Carolina) the roads are being built or rebuilt using taxpayer money AND the conversion to toll road is happening, so not only are motorists paying to built it, but they're paying to use it. Not only that, but in North Carolina's case, gasoline taxes also just got jacked up to start the new year.
In Missouri's plan, the conversion could cost passenger vehicles $20-$30 for the entire stretch from just east of Kansas City to Wentzville. In the case of truckers, it could be $60-$90!
What's next, folks? Are we going to see my current city, Chicago start to toll the hundreds of miles of local toll-free roads? Where do we draw the line? Can you imagine driving to work and paying $7 in gas and $15 in tolls? This is getting ridiculous! How about politicians across the country stop putting off tough decisions and trim budgets so that instead of our taxpayer dollars funding pork and wasteful spending we spend our money on roads!
http://blog.gasbuddy.com/posts/Conversion-of-I-70-to-toll-road-should-freak-Americans-out/1715-480024-746.aspx
I actually like toll roads. If I don't feel like paying the toll I'll take the US or state highway paralleling it. Toll Roads seem to be maintained better. What I don't like are toll roads with no toll booths. I try to avoid those.
Quote from: US 41 on December 10, 2014, 03:26:58 PM
I actually like toll roads. If I don't feel like paying the toll I'll take the US or state highway paralleling it.
Good luck avoiding I-70 in Missouri by taking US 40.
Actually US 50 would be a very popular alternative to a tolled I-70.
Quote from: NE2 on December 10, 2014, 04:22:56 PM
Quote from: US 41 on December 10, 2014, 03:26:58 PM
I actually like toll roads. If I don't feel like paying the toll I'll take the US or state highway paralleling it.
Good luck avoiding I-70 in Missouri by taking US 40.
Actually US 50 would be a very popular alternative to a tolled I-70.
US-36 is better, IMHO (for where I go). All divided, some freeway, and a hell of a lot less traffic.
Quote from: Brandon on December 10, 2014, 05:00:29 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 10, 2014, 04:22:56 PM
Quote from: US 41 on December 10, 2014, 03:26:58 PM
I actually like toll roads. If I don't feel like paying the toll I'll take the US or state highway paralleling it.
Good luck avoiding I-70 in Missouri by taking US 40.
Actually US 50 would be a very popular alternative to a tolled I-70.
US-36 is better, IMHO (for where I go). All divided, some freeway, and a hell of a lot less traffic.
In my case, US 50 or US 24 would work.
I've only heard about I-70 being looked at for tolls so far, but who's to say more Interstates might not follow if it eventually becomes a thing on 70.
Anyways, I found a link to the story from last night. Fair warning, autoplaying video:
http://www.kmbc.com/news/drivers-balk-at-idea-of-turning-i70-into-toll-road/30147126
Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 10, 2014, 01:07:54 AM
I suppose the next move will be to privatize all the other freeways in MO in order to pay for completing, say, the Belle Vista Bypass segment of I-49? Or...the Bruce Watkins Drive segment of US 71 (pending resolution of that consent decree, that is)?? Or...completing the US 67 freeway to Popular Bluff/Festus? Or, freewayizing US 61 from STL northward as part of the Avenue of the Saints upgrade??
Assuming Missouri does get tolls on I-70, I would bet on I-44 being next. There seems to have been much more talk of rebuilding I-44 across Missouri in the media than I've seen for I-29, I-35, or I-55.
Its been a sore subject in the St. Louis Roads facebook group, but the matter of two things
1. If it is tolled, how fast would MoDOT upgrade 36?
2. How much the traffic would increase on 36 and 50, and to a lesser extent 54 and 65?
http://www.modot.org/i-70p3/
I found some Information. According to the thing it says there would be a electronic tolling system. It also says that its the same conversion linked to I-95 in virginia
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 10, 2014, 03:19:54 PM
I don't think taxing miles from an odometer will work. There's no accounting for all miles driven in a particular state or country. I think we're just going to see a whole lot more tag readers installed all over the place. Not just on superhighways either. There's major privacy concerns about that. But I can see such technology pushed into neighborhood streets with the benefit of stopping crime. You wouldn't be able to get away with doing a drive by shooting if you had scanners hitting your car tag and/or transponder at either corner of the block.
That's why mileage tax proposals often include a built-in GPS to track one's every move. In addition to allowing the state to tax your miles, the FBI/border patrol/etc. would LOVE it. Unfortunately the idea of privacy is pretty much dead.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 10, 2014, 03:19:54 PM
I have a strong feeling all those who are adamantly opposed to tolling roads are in for quite a nightmare in the next few years and following decade.
We're not only going to see toll tag scanners erected on a lot of previously "free" Interstate highways and other non-tolled super highways, we're going to eventually see them on regular surface streets too. It's only a matter of time.
Not only is the federal system for funding highways broken, it's also broken on the state and local level too. The local level is particularly bad. Many cities are near broke or over their heads in debt over a variety of factors. The burst housing bubble wiped out a lot of imaginary property tax revenue. Around here, small cities like Wichita Falls and Lawton weren't exposed to the housing bubble, but are now strapped because of drought and water use restrictions -they're suddenly getting far less revenue from water bills. Anyway, there's no money on the local level to fix streets, much less do badly needed upgrades on some roads. ODOT will only do certain work in the Lawton area if the local taxpayers kick in a certain percentage in order for ODOT & Federal to provide matching funds. For a lot of small towns getting streets fixed is a pipe dream.
There's no way just any one method of taxation is going to fly with voters. It's going to have the appearance of being too expensive. Too big of a shit sandwich to eat all by itself. Just letting infrastructure rot is not going to fly either. Politicians may think it's political suicide to raise gasoline taxes, but it's just as politically suicidal to sit back and wait for the next bridge collapse that kills several people. Infrastructure is not free. Politicians will have to educate voters on that fact.
The solution will likely be a mixture of fund-raising methods. Few new super highways will be free access. We need nationwide compatible transponder tags. Gasoline taxes will have to increase as well as be applied as a percentage of fuel prices rather than the obsolete fixed price that only worked when both gasoline and road building/maintenance costs were far less expensive. Ad valorem taxes on vehicles, tires and even vehicle related accessories may be applied or increased.
I don't think taxing miles from an odometer will work. There's no accounting for all miles driven in a particular state or country. I think we're just going to see a whole lot more tag readers installed all over the place. Not just on superhighways either. There's major privacy concerns about that. But I can see such technology pushed into neighborhood streets with the benefit of stopping crime. You wouldn't be able to get away with doing a drive by shooting if you had scanners hitting your car tag and/or transponder at either corner of the block.
I don't think we are going to hit that extreme. Raising the gas tax is not impossible, it's just not politically feasible in the current state of politics.
Failing to raise the gas tax is one of many symptoms of the trend of the last fifteen to twenty years or so to cut back on government spending. (When was the last time you saw a crisp $5 bill? The Federal Reserve has been leaving bills in circulation for much longer than it used to in order to save money.) Eventually it will come to a point where too much has been cut, things start breaking down, people get angry, and the pendulum swings back the other way. I think it would be more doable to raise the gas tax than seriously advocate for EZPass scanners on every corner.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2014, 08:55:23 PMI don't think we are going to hit that extreme. Raising the gas tax is not impossible, it's just not politically feasible in the current state of politics.
There are states where it is pretty painless to raise the gas tax even deep into the present rightward turn--Missouri just isn't one of them.
My sense is that if construction of new toll roads ever becomes widespread, the backlash will make it much easier to raise the gas tax. The public-authority turnpikes we had by 1960 were a small fraction of those proposed between 1945 and 1960, and a large part of the reason for that was gathering resistance to toll finance. Iowa, Michigan, Oklahoma, and several other states all had toll road proposals in that period that failed, and were ultimately built as free Interstates.
Those of us who dislike toll roads tend to look at what has happened in Texas over the last 10 years as a worrisome precedent. Even there, however, there have been signs of a developing backlash: the toll road moratorium, the collapse of the Trans-Texas Corridor proposals, the bankruptcy of the SH 130 concessionaire, the financial overextension of regional toll authorities like NTTA, etc. So far bonding has emerged as the only serious alternative to tolling, but I don't think it will be too much longer before an increased gas tax becomes politically palatable even there.
If every interstate became a toll road today and people can't afford it. I think the minimum wage should be risin
QuoteI don't think we are going to hit that extreme. Raising the gas tax is not impossible, it's just not politically feasible in the current state of politics.
Failing to raise the gas tax is one of many symptoms of the trend of the last fifteen to twenty years or so to cut back on government spending. (When was the last time you saw a crisp $5 bill? The Federal Reserve has been leaving bills in circulation for much longer than it used to in order to save money.) Eventually it will come to a point where too much has been cut, things start breaking down, people get angry, and the pendulum swings back the other way. I think it would be more doable to raise the gas tax than seriously advocate for EZPass scanners on every corner.
The problem is there's other interests or needs eating up ever more of federal and state budgets.
The health care industrial complex is on pace to eat up 20% of the United States' annual GDP before this decade is finished. And that's despite the Affordable Care Act or the so-called "free market" system that preceded it. Runaway cost inflation is the norm and neither political party is showing any serious legitimate interest in controlling it. Baby boomers are reaching retirement age, compounding Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security short falls. College tuition inflation and its looming student loan debt bubble is another serious concern. There's all sorts of other things eating up the budget. Infrastructure needs seem like an after thought.
I'm fairly angry about the situation with sequestration. I attended a public listening session aboard Fort Sill this week where a committee from the Pentagon was hearing input from people in the region about the effect some possible, very drastic cuts would have on the region. Fort Sill has around 9000 permanent party military personnel stationed there and just under 2000 civilian employees. Sequestration has them talking cuts of as much as 6000 military and 800 civilian personnel there, going into effect in 2016. Fort Sill has already been losing troops from the draw down already taking place. But these cuts from sequestration would have the post lose over 66% of the military force and nearly 50% of the civilian work force. Lawton's economy is going to get devastated if those cuts come to pass. If they cut that deep they might as well close down the place. So many people in Lawton will lose their jobs and be forced to move anyway. It's a pretty ridiculous situation, especially with the progress Lawton has been making in recent years.
Anyway, with all that being said, nothing out of the ordinary will surprise me when it comes to finding new methods of funding roads.
Oh, definitely, infrastructure funding is just one piece of the funding puzzle. But whether that is what sounds the alarm or something else, eventually the current austerity fad will go too far and voters will reject it in favor of more generous funding. We've seen this happen in many European countries that tightened things even more than the US did, we will see it here too. (And then that cycle will probably last for 20 or 30 years and we'll go back to cutting.)
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 11, 2014, 09:23:05 PM
There are states where it is pretty painless to raise the gas tax even deep into the present rightward turn--Missouri just isn't one of them.
My sense is that if construction of new toll roads ever becomes widespread, the backlash will make it much easier to raise the gas tax. The public-authority turnpikes we had by 1960 were a small fraction of those proposed between 1945 and 1960, and a large part of the reason for that was gathering resistance to toll finance. Iowa, Michigan, Oklahoma, and several other states all had toll road proposals in that period that failed, and were ultimately built as free Interstates.
Those of us who dislike toll roads tend to look at what has happened in Texas over the last 10 years as a worrisome precedent. Even there, however, there have been signs of a developing backlash: the toll road moratorium, the collapse of the Trans-Texas Corridor proposals, the bankruptcy of the SH 130 concessionaire, the financial overextension of regional toll authorities like NTTA, etc. So far bonding has emerged as the only serious alternative to tolling, but I don't think it will be too much longer before an increased gas tax becomes politically palatable even there.
Thanks for this analysis. I think it well sums up the issue and the political circumstances.
Quote from: Guysdrive780 on December 11, 2014, 10:00:30 PM
If every interstate became a toll road today and people can't afford it. I think the minimum wage should be risin
Denmark and Australia both have minimum wages that are twice as high as ours. People can't live off a little over $6 an hour after taxes. Plus most minimum wage jobs don't have benefits for their employees. I personally think a $10 minimum wage isn't a terrible idea.
Is there a good way to toll I-70 or has the state even said how it would be done? Would toll booths be built on all ramps from (potential end points) Oak Grove to Foristell? Would any be manned? Or would just a few hard-to-avoid sections like the Missouri River crossing and just east of Kingdom City have big tolls?
Personally, I'd prefer the latter so the few times per decade I cross the state I'd be able to use manned booths. I would prefer not to buy a transponder for the little I would use it. I'd be tempted just to take US 50 instead which is only slightly slower and more scenic.
Meanwhile in neighboring Kansas, gov Brownback wants to raid KDOT highway funding and divert it into the general fund. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a proposal to convert I-70 and other currently free-interstates into toll-roads in Kansas at some point too.
http://www.leaderandtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19229:brownback-announces-raid-on-kdotfunds-to-close-budget-gap&catid=12:local-news&Itemid=40 (http://www.leaderandtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19229:brownback-announces-raid-on-kdotfunds-to-close-budget-gap&catid=12:local-news&Itemid=40)
Quote from: Lyon Wonder on December 14, 2014, 07:57:21 PM
Meanwhile in neighboring Kansas, gov Brownback wants to raid KDOT highway funding and divert it into the general fund. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a proposal to convert I-70 and other currently free-interstates into toll-roads in Kansas at some point too.
http://www.leaderandtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19229:brownback-announces-raid-on-kdotfunds-to-close-budget-gap&catid=12:local-news&Itemid=40 (http://www.leaderandtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19229:brownback-announces-raid-on-kdotfunds-to-close-budget-gap&catid=12:local-news&Itemid=40)
There's mention in that article of diverting pension funds. Isn't this the road Illinois has fallen down?
Yes it is but if you count all our roads as assets it comes out even .......But our real problem has been a really bad Medicaid reimbursement rate -Medicaid is 20 billion of the 60 billion budget . It blows away schools roads and the underfunded pensions . ....If we had MOs rates and benefits we might be building the rest of the supplemental freeway system
Quote from: Lyon Wonder on December 14, 2014, 07:57:21 PMMeanwhile in neighboring Kansas, gov Brownback wants to raid KDOT highway funding and divert it into the general fund. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a proposal to convert I-70 and other currently free-interstates into toll-roads in Kansas at some point too.
This is a Kansas-specific problem. The perception is that Brownback created his own mess by insisting on steep income tax cuts. It is T-Works, which represents a level of investment above and beyond what is required to maintain the current infrastructure, that was fully funded before the tax cuts took effect and which will be at risk in 2017 and beyond.
I think Brownback and the conservative Republicans in the Legislature who backed the tax-cut plan will do anything but admit they were wrong. However, if they raid KDOT now and then find they need more money down the road, it is much more likely that they will postpone or cancel the capacity expansions programmed in T-Works (like later phases of the I-235/US 54 cloverleaf-to-stack/turban-hybrid conversion) than propose tolls on I-70, which does not need any work done on it other than bridge and pavement replacement.
Quote from: skluth on December 14, 2014, 06:46:29 PM
Is there a good way to toll I-70 or has the state even said how it would be done? Would toll booths be built on all ramps from (potential end points) Oak Grove to Foristell? Would any be manned? Or would just a few hard-to-avoid sections like the Missouri River crossing and just east of Kingdom City have big tolls?
They'd probably just be gantries reading transponders and plate numbers. Where, I have no idea.
Quote from: NE2 on December 10, 2014, 04:22:56 PM
Quote from: US 41 on December 10, 2014, 03:26:58 PM
I actually like toll roads. If I don't feel like paying the toll I'll take the US or state highway paralleling it.
Good luck avoiding I-70 in Missouri by taking US 40.
Actually US 50 would be a very popular alternative to a tolled I-70.
Good luck avoiding the Indian Nation Turnpike.
Quote from: bugo on December 17, 2014, 05:42:21 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 10, 2014, 04:22:56 PM
Quote from: US 41 on December 10, 2014, 03:26:58 PM
I actually like toll roads. If I don't feel like paying the toll I'll take the US or state highway paralleling it.
Good luck avoiding I-70 in Missouri by taking US 40.
Actually US 50 would be a very popular alternative to a tolled I-70.
Good luck avoiding the Indian Nation Turnpike.
US 271 / OK 3 / US 75 is how I would avoid it.
Ok how do you avoid the H. E. Bailey Turnpike?
Quote from: Guysdrive780 on December 17, 2014, 08:19:36 AMOk how do you avoid the H. E. Bailey Turnpike?
It's actually pretty easy--you can just follow US 277 instead of I-44 between Oklahoma City and Wichita Falls. The distance disadvantage is about 20 miles and the time disadvantage (assuming no traffic) is about 55 minutes. About half of the time disadvantage is attributable to lower speed limit (65 MPH maximum on two-lanes in Oklahoma versus 75 MPH maximum on turnpikes), while the rest comes from city street routings.
Quote from: US 41 on December 17, 2014, 07:17:28 AM
Quote from: bugo on December 17, 2014, 05:42:21 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 10, 2014, 04:22:56 PM
Quote from: US 41 on December 10, 2014, 03:26:58 PM
I actually like toll roads. If I don't feel like paying the toll I'll take the US or state highway paralleling it.
Good luck avoiding I-70 in Missouri by taking US 40.
Actually US 50 would be a very popular alternative to a tolled I-70.
Good luck avoiding the Indian Nation Turnpike.
US 271 / OK 3 / US 75 is how I would avoid it.
109 mi vs 149 miles, 75 MPH speed limit vs 65 MPH, no speed zones vs going through several towns...I'll take the turnpike every time.
This Washington Post article (part of a weekly "Five myths" series) identifies some states not previously mentioned that have been able to raise their fuel taxes (apparently Wyoming has almost doubled them):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-gas-taxes/2014/12/19/cca3bc00-808a-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2014, 01:20:55 PM
Maybe it would be like NC and work with both the PikePass group and E-ZPass.
The readers could be equipped to handle both types of transponder technologies.
Quote from: Guysdrive780 on December 11, 2014, 06:51:13 AM
http://www.modot.org/i-70p3/
I found some Information. According to the thing it says there would be a electronic tolling system. It also says that its the same conversion linked to I-95 in virginia
Most of I-95 in Virginia is
not a toll road - indeed,
it is possible to drive from North Carolina to Maryland across Virginia on I-95 or reverse and never pay a toll.
What has happened is that a deal was made with a private company under Virginia's Public-Private Partnership Act (PPTA) to extend the reversible barrier-separated HOV lanes south from Va. 234 at Dumfries to Va. 610 at Garrisonville, and widen a section of those lanes in exchange for that private concessionaire having the right to toll those lanes for 75 years, but vehicles with three or more persons in the vehicle (and the correct type of E-ZPass transponder) can use the lanes for free at all times.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 10, 2014, 01:38:46 PM
In the short run I think even a tolling proposal will fail and the infrastructure will just be left to rot. From the standpoint of the Missouri electorate, which has consistently shot down funding proposals whenever they have been put to a vote in the last fifteen years, this may even be rational A very high proportion of Missouri's Interstate mileage is of very low quality in terms of geometric design--as an example, nearly all of I-70 has a forty-foot median while 80% of the untolled freeway mileage in Kansas has a median width of sixty feet or more--and an extended funding drought shifts the balance of advantage toward tearing down and starting over rather than putting a fresh coat of lipstick on the pig.
Sad. When Harry Truman was a county judge, he prided himself on building good roads in his jurisdiction.
Wonder if a bridge failure or two (or maybe a total shut-down of a section of I-70 because a fracture-critical bridge was on the verge of failure) might convince Missouri voters of the need for more highway funding?
I don't drive between STL and KCMO very often. Last weekend was the first time in over 15 years. But I think the decrepit state of I-70 between the two cities is greatly exaggerated. Could it be better? Yes. But I didn't find it in the horrible state that has been recently reported.
I admit I tend to drive pretty close to the 70 mph speed limit. I drive a Scion XD. It's not like I'm going to be tempted to drive 90 mph. But I was able to stick to the speed limit pretty much all the way across Missouri. I agree it should be widened to six lanes. But the surface, except for a short stretch about an hour east of KC, wasn't bad. I-55 in Illinois, for one example, is far worse.
The real trick will be the places with narrow rights-of-way like Columbia and Wentzville. But the expansion can take place without a toll. Just rebuild the highway with six total lanes when they update each old section, especially the areas nearest KC, Columbia, and western St Charles County.
I also must say I-35 in KC is worse as is much of what I saw of the KC area interstates. Short on/off ramps with sharp curves. Numerous left lane entrances/ exits. Closely spaced interchanges. I think it's a bigger issue than I-70 given the daily traffic counts. I'm surprised there aren't more fatalities.
Quote from: skluth on December 31, 2014, 12:32:50 AM
I don't drive between STL and KCMO very often. Last weekend was the first time in over 15 years. But I think the decrepit state of I-70 between the two cities is greatly exaggerated. Could it be better? Yes. But I didn't find it in the horrible state that has been recently reported.
Until last September, I had never driven it.
IMO, it is in bad shape (though the pavement is not terrible). A few comments:
(1) Many of the interchanges are "classic" late-1950's or early 1960's design, and need to be redesigned and reconstructed (reminded me a lot of I-95 in North Carolina, a road I know well).
(2) Four lanes most of the way makes for a
very busy freeway between Kansas City and St. Louis. I drove it west in the morning hours and east in the mid-morning to early afternoon, and the traffic was unrelenting, unlike in Kansas west of Topeka, where traffic was pretty light.
(3) I am not a bridge engineer, and I do not play one on the Internet, but I wonder if some of the bridges are fracture-critical (including especially the two Missouri River crossings). We had a scare in my state of Maryland earlier this year near the far east end of I-70 (over the Patapsco River) when a crack in flange was discovered, and the westbound lanes had to be closed until a repair could be made.
(4) I was impressed (and not in a good way) between the modern section of I-70 around St. Louis and the somewhat abrupt transition to a much older design around Wentzville.
(5) Compared to Missouri's two neighboring states (Kansas and Illinois), I-70 is not in good condition (Illinois has some problems, but there was also a lot of work being done through Effingham and at several other locations; and Kansas was re-decking a long viaduct through Topeka and had a few other "Super-2-type" work zones, but for the most part, the freeway was in good condition across the entire state). Did not seem to be much going on (in terms of construction or repair) in Missouri.
Quote from: skluth on December 31, 2014, 12:32:50 AM
I admit I tend to drive pretty close to the 70 mph speed limit. I drive a Scion XD. It's not like I'm going to be tempted to drive 90 mph. But I was able to stick to the speed limit pretty much all the way across Missouri. I agree it should be widened to six lanes. But the surface, except for a short stretch about an hour east of KC, wasn't bad. I-55 in Illinois, for one example, is far worse.
The real trick will be the places with narrow rights-of-way like Columbia and Wentzville. But the expansion can take place without a toll. Just rebuild the highway with six total lanes when they update each old section, especially the areas nearest KC, Columbia, and western St Charles County.
I also must say I-35 in KC is worse as is much of what I saw of the KC area interstates. Short on/off ramps with sharp curves. Numerous left lane entrances/ exits. Closely spaced interchanges. I think it's a bigger issue than I-70 given the daily traffic counts. I'm surprised there aren't more fatalities.
Maybe because a lot of traffic can bypass I-70 and I-35 through Kansas City?
MoDOT's report to the governor about tolls on I-70:
http://modot.org/i70tollinganalysis/index.htm
Quote from: mvak36 on December 31, 2014, 02:07:35 PM
MoDOT's report to the governor about tolls on I-70:
http://modot.org/i70tollinganalysis/index.htm
Here is something that caught my eye and that form
QuoteMoDOT conducted a two-phase tolling feasibility study in 2002 and 2005 that identified a
handful of projects that would be possible in a tolled environment including I-70, I-44 and U.S.
Route 71 (now I-49)
Ok, they where looking into not just I-70 but I-44 and something that blew my mind I-49. If they blew there money on I-49 and they had a chance to make it a toll road before they started building and and a couple years after construction on the new highway is 90% complete, they want to make it a toll road. You dug your own grave, that should have been done when you guys where building it. Its like giving away an IPhone 6 for free on the first day it came out and then next day you charge for it. How much money did you lose just for making it free for one day.I bet a lot. They had there chance to make it a toll road but they blew it.
I've looked at the executive summary and I fail to see how tolling is a solution. They don't account for diverted traffic and suppressed demand, both of which affect toll viability. If they go ahead and toll I-70, they will also have to place tolls on US 36 and US 50 to limit diversion, and once that is done they may as well raise the gas tax, save themselves toll collection costs, financing charges, and lost consumer's surplus, and be done with it.
The Missouri legislature is a box of hammers and I suspect blood will have to spill (in the course of, e.g., a complete collapse of that awful through truss over the Missouri River) before they come to their senses and raise the gas tax, which is the first best option.
Is that Truss still there? It was scary back in the 90s The MO legislature CANT raise the gas tax without a ref . They did use some innovative financing -I think it was local sales tax to finish parts of 61 and 36
They could do something like Illinois. Our last Capital Bill was financed through video Poker instead of the gas tax.
From KC to Indy it looks like 35/72/74 is about 25 miles longer so there might be shunpiking there BUT without approval Illinois could toll it . It was not an original interstate
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 31, 2014, 06:49:47 PM
I've looked at the executive summary and I fail to see how tolling is a solution. They don't account for diverted traffic and suppressed demand, both of which affect toll viability. If they go ahead and toll I-70, they will also have to place tolls on US 36 and US 50 to limit diversion, and once that is done they may as well raise the gas tax, save themselves toll collection costs, financing charges, and lost consumer's surplus, and be done with it.
I am disappointed that these documents did not look at the two new state-of-the-art toll roads in the East, N.C. 540 (Triangle Expressway) and Md. 200 (InterCounty Connector) with all-electronic toll collection (though they did mention Highway 407 in Ontario).
As for shunpiking, it
does happen, but an analysis of same needs to take in to account the value of time of the users of I-70, and perhaps more importantly (because they nearly always must pay more), the ability of trucks to legally shunpike.
As for tolls vs. motor fuel taxes, it seems that the majority party in Washington wants nothing to do with raising the federal motor fuel tax (a frequently used excuse is "it will all go to mass transit," never mind that the diversion of federal motor fuel taxes to transit started (as a formula) under
Ronald Reagan with his approval (it was called the "transit nickle" back in 1982)).
Maybe some bridges will have to fail (or be posted with really low weight limits) to get that crowd to do something?
"No such thing as a free lunch."
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 31, 2014, 06:49:47 PM
The Missouri legislature is a box of hammers and I suspect blood will have to spill (in the course of, e.g., a complete collapse of that awful through truss over the Missouri River) before they come to their senses and raise the gas tax, which is the first best option.
I really hope that does not happen, though it has taken that before (Mianus River Bridge on I-95 (Connecticut Turnpike) and Schoharie Creek Bridge on I-90 (N.Y. State Thruway) to get elected officials to pay attention (at the time, both were toll roads - such failures are not limited to "free" roads - the I-35W failure in Minnesota did not motivate a majority of Congress to do anything).
I know the western crossing of the Missouri River (between Kansas City and Columbia) is a truss - I thought the eastern one near St. Louis was also a through truss, maybe it's a pair of cantilever spans?
I originally stated that I was okay with tolling I-70, but I have recently changed my mind. Charging $20-$30 to drive across the state is just ridiculous, especially on something that is currently free. Heck you can't even take the "old" highway (US 40) since it runs concurrent with I-70 most of the way across the state. If they toll I-70 across Missouri, I along with many others, will be taking US 50 across the state of Missouri. $20-$30 usually will fill my gas tank. I'm sure most of the truckers will take 50 too. What is Missouri going to do when US 50 has increased traffic and they have to make upgrades to it, toll it too?
US-36 would get a lot more traffic too. $20 to $30 is way too much
Quote from: US 41 on January 01, 2015, 10:18:57 PM
I originally stated that I was okay with tolling I-70, but I have recently changed my mind. Charging $20-$30 to drive across the state is just ridiculous, especially on something that is currently free. Heck you can't even take the "old" highway (US 40) since it runs concurrent with I-70 most of the way across the state. If they toll I-70 across Missouri, I along with many others, will be taking US 50 across the state of Missouri. $20-$30 usually will fill my gas tank. I'm sure most of the truckers will take 50 too. What is Missouri going to do when US 50 has increased traffic and they have to make upgrades to it, toll it too?
I do not know what you (or anyone else) is willing to pay. For comparison, if you are driving an automobile under 7,000 pounds, the toll to cross Pennsylvania on the E-W Mainline of the Pennsylvania Turnpike is about $30 for 359 miles from Ohio to New Jersey (the westbound direction is about $4 less).
As far as "free," or "toll," more than a few toll road advocates say "there is no such thing as a free road," and this is a statement I agree with. All roads (and
especially freeways like I-70 need maintenance, operations support and law enforcement).
People in Missouri have a choice to make (ideally before something bad happens that inflicts economic damage on the state or its neighbors with bridge postings or total shut-downs) - tolls on I-70 drivers, or increased state motor fuel taxes. Doing nothing should not be an option.
I have never driven U.S. 50 in Missouri, but from looking at Google, it appears that much of it is two lane undivided rural arterial highway. That means capacity in those sections is rather badly constrained.
Probably used to the 5 cents per mile toll on the Kansas Turnpike, which isn't really a fair comparison since the original construction is long paid off and the current tolls only cover maintenance and upgrades.
If it does get tolled at that rate and people do start shunpiking on US 50, then I think they'll have to drop the speed limit and load it up with cops writing massive numbers of tickets just to keep it from becoming a death trap. Maybe adjust state law to allow for 75-80mph limits on toll roads as an incentive for people to use the new road.
http://www.modot.org/safety/trafficvolumemaps.htm
If you look at the traffic volume maps, you can see traffic volumes on I-70 are quite low outside the Kansas City and St. Louis urban areas. Apart from a peak of 73,000 vehicles in Columbia, traffic volumes are widely in the 20,000 - 35,000 range in rural Missouri. Very few freeways with such volumes have been widened to six lanes.
Is a full widening across Missouri really necessary? Isn't it a lot cheaper to just extend the six-lane segments a little further out of Kansas City and St. Louis and through Columbia?
Quote from: Chris on January 02, 2015, 08:32:14 AM
http://www.modot.org/safety/trafficvolumemaps.htm
If you look at the traffic volume maps, you can see traffic volumes on I-70 are quite low outside the Kansas City and St. Louis urban areas. Apart from a peak of 73,000 vehicles in Columbia, traffic volumes are widely in the 20,000 - 35,000 range in rural Missouri. Very few freeways with such volumes have been widened to six lanes.
Is a full widening across Missouri really necessary? Isn't it a lot cheaper to just extend the six-lane segments a little further out of Kansas City and St. Louis and through Columbia?
This is just my opinion based on the times I've driven it, but there is a lot of truck traffic on I-70 so when they are trying to overtake other trucks, sometimes traffic would be stuck behind them for 2 miles sometimes (even in the rural areas). I think they need to expand all of it to 3 lanes.
Quote from: dfwmapper on January 02, 2015, 12:34:59 AM
Probably used to the 5 cents per mile toll on the Kansas Turnpike, which isn't really a fair comparison since the original construction is long paid off and the current tolls only cover maintenance and upgrades.
Only section I have driven is the I-70/I-470 section from Topeka to the east. But the Kansas Pike reminded me of the southern section of the New Jersey Turnpike - well-maintained and four or six lanes (though the New Jersey Turnpike almost always has a full-width left shoulder, which much of the Kansas Turnpike appears to lack).
Quote from: dfwmapper on January 02, 2015, 12:34:59 AM
If it does get tolled at that rate and people do start shunpiking on US 50, then I think they'll have to drop the speed limit and load it up with cops writing massive numbers of tickets just to keep it from becoming a death trap. Maybe adjust state law to allow for 75-80mph limits on toll roads as an incentive for people to use the new road.
Raising the speed limit on an improved I-70 sounds like a good idea. IMO 75 (which is what Kansas posts along most of its section of I-70) seems reasonable, except at the metropolitan ends, and through Columbia.
IMO, U.S. 50 (in its current state) just
cannot handle that volume of traffic (and truck traffic), but those of you that live out that way know the possible shunpiker routes a whole lot better than I do.
Quote from: mvak36 on January 02, 2015, 09:11:57 AM
Quote from: Chris on January 02, 2015, 08:32:14 AM
http://www.modot.org/safety/trafficvolumemaps.htm
If you look at the traffic volume maps, you can see traffic volumes on I-70 are quite low outside the Kansas City and St. Louis urban areas. Apart from a peak of 73,000 vehicles in Columbia, traffic volumes are widely in the 20,000 - 35,000 range in rural Missouri. Very few freeways with such volumes have been widened to six lanes.
Is a full widening across Missouri really necessary? Isn't it a lot cheaper to just extend the six-lane segments a little further out of Kansas City and St. Louis and through Columbia?
This is just my opinion based on the times I've driven it, but there is a lot of truck traffic on I-70 so when they are trying to overtake other trucks, sometimes traffic would be stuck behind them for 2 miles sometimes (even in the rural areas). I think they need to expand all of it to 3 lanes.
The truck traffic on I-70 in Missouri reminded me a lot of I-81 across much of Virginia, which is a nice and scenic freeway, but overrun with truck traffic. I-81 from Tennessee to New York (state) needs to be six lanes most of the way.
Having used I-70 across Missouri back in my college days, I firmly believe that it is desperately in need of a third lane in each direction (especially around Columbia). It isn't so much the quantity of passenger vehicles as it is the trucks, particularly on the hillier segments.
In Northern Illinois/Chicago Area, if you want to get anything built or any significant capacity upgrade, tolls basically ARE the option (see Elgin-O'Hare Expressway/Tollway widening and extension). Then there's also the numerous turnpikes and tolled lanes on the East Coast. States like Missouri are basically being faced with this reality as well for the first time. In my opinion, if/when I-70 is tolled, MoDOT, or whichever authority would end up administering tolling on I-70, would be wise to implement pricing based on axles (much like what the Illinois Tollway has done). Yes, it would be more of a burden to trucking companies, but it should be noted that these trucks by far cause the most wear and tear on a highway, as well as traffic backups.
Quote from: ChiMilNet on January 02, 2015, 12:22:43 PM
Having used I-70 across Missouri back in my college days, I firmly believe that it is desperately in need of a third lane in each direction (especially around Columbia). It isn't so much the quantity of passenger vehicles as it is the trucks, particularly on the hillier segments.
Agreed. Very much like I-81 in Virginia.
Quote from: ChiMilNet on January 02, 2015, 12:22:43 PM
In Northern Illinois/Chicago Area, if you want to get anything built or any significant capacity upgrade, tolls basically ARE the option (see Elgin-O'Hare Expressway/Tollway widening and extension). Then there's also the numerous turnpikes and tolled lanes on the East Coast. States like Missouri are basically being faced with this reality as well for the first time. In my opinion, if/when I-70 is tolled, MoDOT, or whichever authority would end up administering tolling on I-70, would be wise to implement pricing based on axles (much like what the Illinois Tollway has done). Yes, it would be more of a burden to trucking companies, but it should be noted that these trucks by far cause the most wear and tear on a highway, as well as traffic backups.
Nearly every toll road operator in the U.S. charges higher tolls depending on the number of axles in a combination - or in the case of the East-West Mainline of the Pennsylvania Turnpike and its Northeast Extension - weighs entering vehicles with a weigh-in-motion (WIM) system and charges tolls on that basis. Only exceptions I am aware of are toll roads were all or most trucks are forbidden, like the Henry Hudson Bridge in New York and the HOV/Toll lanes on I-495 in Fairfax County, Virginia.
Strangely, although Oklahomans have accepted the reality of toll roads (even though there are some who avoid the turnpikes like the plague) I can't recall anybody in Oklahoma proposing to toll I-35 or I-40.
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.
Quote from: Guysdrive780 on December 31, 2014, 03:52:32 PM
Ok, they where looking into not just I-70 but I-44 and something that blew my mind I-49. If they blew there money on I-49 and they had a chance to make it a toll road before they started building and and a couple years after construction on the new highway is 90% complete, they want to make it a toll road. You dug your own grave, that should have been done when you guys where building it. Its like giving away an IPhone 6 for free on the first day it came out and then next day you charge for it. How much money did you lose just for making it free for one day.I bet a lot. They had there chance to make it a toll road but they blew it.
Quote from: From recent I-70 documentMoDOT conducted a two-phase tolling feasibility study in 2002 and 2005 that identified a handful of projects that would be possible in a tolled environment including I-70, I-44 and U.S. Route 71 (now I-49).
(emphasis added)
I'm pretty sure I-49 in Missouri was that close to completion back in 2005. Secondly, at least one of those was a general study looking at all major rural corridors in Missouri, with consideration of tolls for future upkeep. I seem to recall that study finding tolls would work well on I-55 in Missouri as well.
The tolls seems somewhat steep, but would it really be too far out of line for tolls charged on other long-distance toll roads, such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike, Ohio Turnpike, or the Indiana Toll Road?
It sickens me that we have got to the point to where tolls seem to be the only option to finance any new construction projects, and even major rebuild projects such as this one to keep things at the status-quo instead of letting things get worse. Then again, I suppose tolls make the cost of infrastructure more immediately obvious to the travelling public than raising gas taxes or sales taxes would. Raising taxes isn't popular, but this stuff doesn't pay for itself magically.
I have been reading the documents and they are having a hard time getting around their laws( They could act like their neighbor and just blatantly violate them but I hurt my case) They seem to need an outside agency that can incur low cost debt .....Well MO there is one pretty well run agency next door that does know how to run and rebuild toll roads and could always use some more money. I can assure you they will be a better deal than some outfit like Indiana used .
I would suggest Missouri DOT contact the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority I think Mo would get a better deal in a Public-Public option instead of a Public -Private
The way I read it, they would need to create a separate authority to handle the financing, rather than MoDOT. No reason it couldn't be a separate state agency though, just like KTA, OTA, ISTHA, or NTTA. The issue with a public agency is that the public is having sufficient credit to get the money to begin with, and taxpayers being on the hook for paying off that debt if toll revenues don't cover it. With a fully private option, someone else is responsible for all of that. Given its importance for both interstate and intrastate commerce, it's probably better for all involved if it's publicly financed and owned.
Given that gas is about $1.50 cheaper here (as in Chicago's burbs) than it was only a few months ago, and will remain cheap for at least the next year or so, wouldn't now be a smart time to enact an increase in gas taxes? Were I a Missourian, paying another .10-.15 cents a gallon now with gas as cheap as it is wouldn't bother me nearly as much as it would having a free route turned into a toll road. That's the argument that has to be made to the people. The same holds true for me here, now's the time to raise a little revenue for infrastructure in my opinion. I-55 between Bolingbrook and Cook County is in horrible shape in both directions. The problems come when taxes are raised and no improvements are made.
Or when half the gas taxes go to fund non transportation branches of government, like in Alabama.
The gas tax makes sense the problem is it lost big in the primary last fall . I cant see another try until the 2016 general .
KTA might be a better partner MoDOT may try something . They are more innovative than the DOT to their east .
They have to be with that ref problem. MO voters just wont raise taxes
Quote from: 3467 on January 03, 2015, 07:58:55 PMThe gas tax makes sense the problem is it lost big in the primary last fall. I cant see another try until the 2016 general.
As I understand it, it was actually a sales tax increment for transportation, not an increase in the gas tax, that failed in the 2014 primary. It might have passed if it were scheduled for the 2014 general election, but the governor sent it to die in the primary because he embraces the orthodox Democratic position that sales tax increments are regressive. This is not unreasonable in and of itself, but I think he should have taken account of the fact that the gas tax is grossly inadequate for the identified needs and has been for a long time. Moreover, in a state like Missouri where nearly everyone drives, there isn't much difference between the gas tax and a sales tax increment in regressive impact.
I suspect a hidden purpose behind having this public conversation about tolling I-70 is to prime the voters to agree to a gas tax increase, which is indeed the first-best solution because Missouri has quite heavy needs statewide, not just in the I-70 corridor.
There simply isn't enough money ONLY because the government isn't spending it wisely. Taxpayers don't want their taxes raised so that the government can continue to spend more of it unwisely.
Quote from: US 41 on January 04, 2015, 09:12:48 AM
The government should only spend money on things that I like.
Fixed for you.
Gas taxes are a flat rate, not a percentage, and at the federal level haven't been raised since the 1990s. Even a theoretical government that spends with 100% efficiency would have to raise gas taxes periodically to keep up with inflation.
That being said theoretical government waste outside the DOT is not within the remit of this forum.
Quote from: dfwmapper on January 03, 2015, 01:25:49 AM
The way I read it, they would need to create a separate authority to handle the financing, rather than MoDOT.
A separate authority also makes sense given how much MoDOT is hated/despised/loathed by the typical Missourian. I've lived here for most of the last 28 years and have seen MoDOT misstep politically on several occasions. Even changing directors seems to have no effect on their ineptness. A Missouri Toll Authority would probably be more acceptable than MoDOT running state toll roads.
Quote from: dfwmapper on January 03, 2015, 01:25:49 AM
The way I read it, they would need to create a separate authority to handle the financing, rather than MoDOT. No reason it couldn't be a separate state agency though, just like KTA, OTA, ISTHA, or NTTA. The issue with a public agency is that the public is having sufficient credit to get the money to begin with, and taxpayers being on the hook for paying off that debt if toll revenues don't cover it. With a fully private option, someone else is responsible for all of that. Given its importance for both interstate and intrastate commerce, it's probably better for all involved if it's publicly financed and owned.
Usually, toll road bonds (including those issued by public-sector toll road agencies like KTA) are
non-
recourse revenue bonds. That means that repayment comes only from toll road revenues, and not from taxes - state taxpayers are not on the hook if toll-paying traffic is less than forecast, even if the bonds go in to default.
Quote from: skluth on January 04, 2015, 08:29:07 PM
Quote from: dfwmapper on January 03, 2015, 01:25:49 AM
The way I read it, they would need to create a separate authority to handle the financing, rather than MoDOT.
A separate authority also makes sense given how much MoDOT is hated/despised/loathed by the typical Missourian. I've lived here for most of the last 28 years and have seen MoDOT misstep politically on several occasions. Even changing directors seems to have no effect on their ineptness. A Missouri Toll Authority would probably be more acceptable than MoDOT running state toll roads.
Pete Rahn strike a raw chord??
Quote from: DJStephens on January 20, 2015, 01:28:52 PM
Pete Rahn strike a raw chord??
Personally, I think MoDOT isn't that bad. But regardless of director, they're pompous, politically inept, and elitist. They'd be thought of much higher if they just treated the Missouri people as people instead of talking down to us. They also only speak in extremes - either the sky's the limit or it's the end of civilization - so nobody tries to find a reasonable middle ground.
A better future plan would be to work with the legislature (admittedly a bunch of obstinate buttholes themselves) to decide on priorities and come up with a funding mechanism. Saying we either need a tax hike for our chosen massive projects or we're only going to do minimal maintenance on the highways is no way to win friend or influence people.
If the politicians can't come up with a plan then they're the ones who have to answer to the voters. It takes money to build anything. If I were head of MoDOT, I'd make a list of projects and ask if there is anything to add. I'd then say they'd get built as funded. The list should be something like this.
1. I 70 Upgrades and enhancements with three lanes built in each direction when updated.
2. Complete I 49 corridor
3. Four lane US 67 to Arkansas border
4. Four lane US 63 from Kirksville to Arkansas border.
5. Columbia bypass (really part of #1 but deserves its own priority)
6. Four lane US 50 across state
7. Hannibal bypass for US 61
8. Smaller improvements as decided by legislators
These could be shuffled, augmented, or deleted. Treat them all as agile developments where you design/build as you get funding. But make the politicians decide and stick to construction and maintenance. Everyone would be happier.
Quote from: skluth on January 20, 2015, 11:19:58 PM
1. I 70 Upgrades and enhancements with three lanes built in each direction when updated.
2. Complete I 49 corridor
3. Four lane US 67 to Arkansas border
4. Four lane US 63 from Kirksville to Arkansas border.
5. Columbia bypass (really part of #1 but deserves its own priority)
6. Four lane US 50 across state
7. Hannibal bypass for US 61
8. Smaller improvements as decided by legislators
A proper NW to SE corridor is also a priority, such as a Kansas City to Cape Girardeau freeway/expressway.
Quote from: bugo on January 21, 2015, 01:48:49 AM
A proper NW to SE corridor is also a priority, such as a Kansas City to Cape Girardeau freeway/expressway.
No it's not. I-70 to I-55 is good enough.
No, it isn't. First, you have to deal with St Louis traffic. Second, the towns between KC and SEMO are hard to access as it is. Try going from KC to Waynesville sometime: there is no direct route.
Quote from: bugo on January 21, 2015, 02:07:21 AM
No, it isn't. First, you have to deal with St Louis traffic.
Too fucking bad.
Quote from: bugo on January 21, 2015, 02:07:21 AM
Second, the towns between KC and SEMO are hard to access as it is. Try going from KC to Waynesville sometime: there is no direct route.
Route 7.
Okay let's build an interstate from Terre Haute to Lousiville too, because Indy traffic is so bad :-D. Cape Girardeau is barely big enough to be considered a city and secondly I-70/I-64/I-270/I-55 is good enough. They don't build interstates across states to connect to a city of 38K, escpecially in Missouri. There's a reason we will probably never see I-66 go there. Also I'm sure they aren't going to multilane US 50 if they plan on tolling I-70.
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.
Quote from: codyg1985 on January 21, 2015, 07:22:39 AM
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.
KC to Springfield was recently improved (it had been a "Missouri expressway" with one half on much older geometry). I doubt there's any need for a full freeway.
Quote from: NE2 on January 21, 2015, 02:09:29 AM
Quote from: bugo on January 21, 2015, 02:07:21 AM
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.
Quote from: bugo on January 21, 2015, 02:07:21 AM
Quote
Second, the towns between KC and SEMO are hard to access as it is. Try going from KC to Waynesville sometime: there is no direct route.
Route 7.
US 50 to MO 5 to MO 52 to MO 17 is actually the better route. MO 7 east of Clinton is a sad excuse for a state highway. I've done both routes. Have you?
Quote from: bugo on January 21, 2015, 10:53:22 AM
Quote from: NE2 on January 21, 2015, 02:09:29 AM
Quote from: bugo on January 21, 2015, 02:07:21 AM
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.
It won't be complete until an expressway is built. Let me guess: You believe the I-49 corridor is "complete".
I-70 and I-55 are built.
Quote from: codyg1985 on January 21, 2015, 07:22:39 AM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: US 41 on February 09, 2015, 08:44:31 PM
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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13904)).
Quote from: US 41 on February 09, 2015, 08:44:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 02, 2015, 05:55:46 PM
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.
Quote from: bugo on February 10, 2015, 08:39:25 AMAre 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.
Quote from: bugo on February 10, 2015, 08:36:04 AM
Quote from: US 41 on February 09, 2015, 08:44:31 PM
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.
I'll pay the toll almost any time
Quote from: NE2 on January 21, 2015, 11:14:24 AM
Quote from: bugo on January 21, 2015, 10:53:22 AM
Quote from: NE2 on January 21, 2015, 02:09:29 AM
Quote from: bugo on January 21, 2015, 02:07:21 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Sykotyk on February 10, 2015, 04:38:44 PM
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. :poke:
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 10, 2015, 11:12:52 AM
Quote from: bugo on February 10, 2015, 08:39:25 AMAre 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.
Quote from: kphoger on February 10, 2015, 03:56:52 PM
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 (http://www.modot.org/northeast/major_projects/Route54Corridor.htm)
Quote from: Link aboveHowever, 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.
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.
Quote from: bugo on February 10, 2015, 01:44:39 PM
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.
Quote from: kphoger on February 10, 2015, 05:33:20 PM
Quote from: Sykotyk on February 10, 2015, 04:38:44 PM
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. :poke:
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.