I-70 Corridor of the Future

[Revive 755]

http://www.in.gov/indot/files/I-70CorridorsOfTheFuture1of4.pdf
http://www.in.gov/indot/files/I-70CorridorsOfTheFuture2of4.pdf
http://www.in.gov/indot/files/I-70CorridorsOfTheFuture3of4.pdf
http://www.in.gov/indot/files/I-70CorridorsOfTheFuture4of4.pdf

This expands upon my rant for the truck lanes in Missouri.

* The project is too focused on one alternative and doesn't consider anything else.  I would really like to see comparison with a railroad-based alternative, much less extensions of I-72 and I-76.

* Document 2, Figure 1-3 on 10-52:  I-69 is absent.  Are they not including any effects its extension will have?

* (Document 2, page 16-42, first paragraph) I, as a regular driver, ain't good enough to also be safeguarded against delays?

* Attractiveness of I-70 as a trucking route?  Might also have something with it ending at I-15 instead of making it closer to I-5? I know I-40 also stops at I-15, but it has a decent looking road continuing to CA 99.

* Document 3, page 3-26:  "Adding general purpose travel lanes to this Corridor
is not, in the long run, viewed as the most efficient solution to the capacity issue."  So costing a lot more is now efficient?  And again, what about a parallel corridor?

* Same place:  "Might it require a corridor of this size, designed to accommodate higher
speeds and loads, to test the next stage of technologies needed to move the [trucking] industry forward?"  So this is somehow a better use of funds than fixing other highways or fixing problems for commuters in the urban areas on I-70?

[Revive 755]

There seems to be a more official website for the I-70 truck lane project now:
http://www.i70dtl.org/projectinfo.html

Comments so far from reviewing the various literature:

* Some reason the full documents can't be posted, only the summaries?

* The summary report recommends electronic tolling for all I-70 vehicles (http://www.i70dtl.org/images/Final_Summary_Report.pdf, Page 26/28).  That's certainly going to go over well, but maybe we'll see better use of I-72/US 36 as an alternate route.

* If Texas is such an important origin/destination for traffic outside the I-70 corridor, why is the I-69 extension seemingly ignored?  Even if the I-69 extension is only completed between I-64 and Bloomington, there's still enough existing roadways that could cause a shift in truck traffic. (http://www.i70dtl.org/images/MPO_I-70_presentation_7-16-10_3_.pdf Page 15/77)

[3467]

After Tuesdays election I sure dont see Illinois doing much south of I-74 so you wont be subsidizing the trucking industry in Illinois

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

After Tuesdays election I sure dont see Illinois doing much south of I-74 so you wont be subsidizing the trucking industry in Illinois

Ditto for Ohio.

[3467]

I should add I dont think anything promised downstate will be cancelled for political reasons. I just dont see much enthusiasm for anything new unless its a lot of federal money like Delta Development Highways or I-66.My understanding is this 70 project would be really expensive. The only way Illinois would do something is if tolls covered it all. At 20 million plus a mile I dont see it
I think we would gladly take your(Ohio) High Speed Rail money though......

[mgk920]

Wouldn't such a dedicated freight corridor more correctly be called a 'railroad'?

Mike

[codyg1985]

What upgrades would be needed for the other modes of transportation parallel to I-70 (rail, air) to releve congestsion off of it?

[Revive 755]

What upgrades would be needed for the other modes of transportation parallel to I-70 (rail, air) to releve congestsion off of it?

If one wanted to try an air approach, there's Mid America airport near St. Louis which is waiting for any business.

There's never been a complete rail alternative to I-70, as most of the somewhat parallel rail corridors eventually turn away from I-70, and some decent sized towns only seem to have ever been served by spur routes (such as Columbia, MO).

I still think the best options are to slowly expand I-70 to a minimum of six lanes as needed, starting with the I-470 to I-64 sections in Missouri and Terre Haute to Columbus, OH sections, and maybe bring some parallel routes up to at least expressway standards, such as US 50 across Missouri, and a somewhat parallel OH 16 - US 22/Columbus to Pittsburgh corridor.

[NE2]

There's never been a complete rail alternative to I-70, as most of the somewhat parallel rail corridors eventually turn away from I-70, and some decent sized towns only seem to have ever been served by spur routes (such as Columbia, MO).

CSX owns a main line from St. Louis to Indianapolis (with lines continuing to Cincinnati and Cleveland, and eventually to Baltimore, NYC, and other points). West of Indianapolis, Union Pacific and BNSF both have main lines into the Southwest. Piggyback trailer-on-flatcar service has the potential of removing many trucks from I-70; rail has significantly better economies of scale than road for long-distance freight transport. While it's true that not all of I-70 is directly paralleled by rail, it's the long haul that counts.

[mightyace]

Back when the Pennsylvania Railroad was still a going concern (before 1968), the rails extended also extended from Indy to Pittsburgh.  It roughly paralleled I-70 going through Dayton, Columbus then running a little farther north to hit Pittsburgh.

Today, that trackage is either abandoned or run by shortline operators and is not suitable for fast intermodal trains.

CSX also runs a main line (part of the old B&O) from Pittsburgh to Baltimore and Washington.  The line takes a straighter route than I-70 (missing Breezewood by many miles  ) but covers the same big city endpoints.

For CSX to get between Pittsburgh and Indy, it goes northwest to Akron, then westward and eventually southwestward to reach Indy.  But, most likely, such freight would probably go through Chicago first.

In other words, a major investment would be needed to repair and rebuild an Indy - Pittsburgh line for intermodal freight.

[NE2]

Ohio Central and Wheeling & Lake Erie are not exactly shortlines, and the latter does apparently carry some intermodal traffic. Intermodal doesn't need to be superfast; it depends what's being carried. But even sticking with CSX, Indy-Pittsburgh via Akron is not that far out of the way (and avoids the hills of eastern Ohio). They actually do have intermodal service from East St. Louis and Indy to New Jersey and to Worcester, MA: http://www.csxi.com/share/csxicustomer/main/docs/Extended_Truckload_Brochure-REF24491.pdf Chances are it's cheaper and slower than truck.

[mightyace]

^^^

You're right, I was thinking about saying regional railroads when I originally wrote it.

In any case, that still only gets you to Columbus along an I-70 parallel route.  Though it might not be too much of a detour to get to CSX's line to Indy according to brochure.

But, I have not seen any strong push for an expanded rail corridor along an approximate I-70 routing in any of my railroad periodicals.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Speaking of Ohio's $400 million for the 3-C passenger rail service.
In today's C-bus Dispatch, Gov-elect Kasich would like those funds transfered to road and rail freight service.
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/11/09/copy/kasich-wants-rail-funds-used-other-ways.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

[froggie]

Unless Congress intervenes, he's not going to get what he wants, as he already should have learned...

[kharvey10]

and note how the I-70 corridor noted avoids the Great Lemon Bridge being built.  epic fail by MoDOT and IDiOT