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

[Guysdrive780]

Ok how do you avoid the H. E. Bailey Turnpike?

[J N Winkler]

Ok 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.

[bugo]

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.

[J N Winkler]

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

[cpzilliacus]

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. 

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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?

[skluth]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

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?

[mvak36]

MoDOT's report to the governor about tolls on I-70:

http://modot.org/i70tollinganalysis/index.htm

[Guysdrive780]

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

MoDOT 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.

[J N Winkler]

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.

[3467]

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

[cpzilliacus]

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."

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?

[US 41]

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?

[mvak36]

US-36 would get a lot more traffic too. $20 to $30 is way too much

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[dfwmapper]

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.

[Chris]

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?

[mvak36]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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).

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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. 

[ChiMilNet]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

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.

[bugo]

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.