Should states lose Interstate Mileage for functionally obsolete Interstates

[ShawnP]

I say this as I drove Interstate 70 thru Missouri again. It was just as stressful with traffic in area's between KC and STL as it is in the big cities. I-70 is the same from KC to STL as the day it was completed thru the state (64-66?). It amazes me that the cartoid artery of Missouri roads has never had a PENNY put into it in 40 plus years to increase it's capacity. Maybe by forcing states to loss Interstate mileage it will force them to invest in their Interstates. Georgia for instance has six laned I-75 for it's entire length. So Missouri can't complain about low gas tax as Georgia's is just as low.

[roadfro]

If we were to force states to lose Interstate mileage, then why would they turn around and invest in them?

I think I get the point you're making, that states should continually re-invest in the Interstates for the good of the system. However, it's not always just on the state to make this investment--even though the states own their respective interstate highways, much of the funding also came/comes from the feds. The two have to work together to get improvements funded. Threatening the loss of Interstate mileage isn't the answer to that.

[kharvey10]

I-270 around the northern part of St. Louis County and Madison County is also functionally obsolete as well, with a section between Lilac to 255 looking like the exact same thing as it was built in the mid 1960s.  It has a very high percentage of truck traffic as well.  While MoDOT is looking into fixing that section, IDiOT has done next to nothing for as long as anyone can remember (only such work ever done was rebuilding the bridges east of the canal about 15 years ago).

[vdeane]

Torn on this.  On the one hand, if we're going to force standards to the letter on new interstates, we should force the older ones to be upgraded to the new standards.  On the other, this would be a good way to get rid of a huge part of the interstate system.  I'd much rather we relax standards for new interstates if on an existing alignment and the alignments are off by mere technicalities (such as narrow shoulder on a bridge, etc.).

[flowmotion]

What difference would it make? It wouldn't affect how the roads are funded. And "Missouri 70" would still be obsolete and congested with all the same traffic.

[ShawnP]

Something has to be done to kick these states into gear. I know it would take years but a 15-20 year plan would upgrade I-70 thru Missouri. I don't buy that truck lane nonsense at all. Build it to six lanes with growth room in the middle. Yes it would expensive but if it continues to detoriate and become useless business's will go elsewhere. I hear ya on I-270 as it takes more time to go on instead of going straight thru downtown STL. I also see Missouri was very short sighted in the 60's as it tried to save money with narrow medians and no extra growth room. Maybe Pete Rahn's father was a MODOT enigneer?

[Scott5114]

Have you tried contacting your legislators? Citizens have to demand better roads from the government to give them a mandate to get it done.

[J N Winkler]

Something has to be done to kick these states into gear. I know it would take years but a 15-20 year plan would upgrade I-70 thru Missouri. I don't buy that truck lane nonsense at all. Build it to six lanes with growth room in the middle.

MoDOT was working on the Tier I EIS for the I-70 widening about 10 years ago, when I first started following highway planning closely and was downloading online EIS documentation.  From the DEIS, which specified widening of the existing I-70 as the preferred alternative:

*  6 lanes minimum throughout, including in rural areas (80% of corridor)

*  8-10 lanes in urban areas (20% of corridor)

*  Local relocations where warranted

*  400'-500' ROW in rural areas

*  Continuous frontage roads on both sides

*  124' (!) median in rural areas and on local relocations; 26' median (with Jersey barrier) on the existing alignment in urban areas only

*  Provision of a 40' "Transportation Improvement Corridor" in the median in rural areas, with adequate room for two parallel railroad tracks

I didn't follow the planning process closely enough to get a feel for whether this was considered excessive or overambitious.  Based on my own experiences with I-70, it was more or less what it would have taken to get the job done properly.  The median width may seem excessive and it would have added considerably to land costs even in rural areas, but it would have simplified traffic management by allowing the new I-70 carriageways to be built on either side of the existing ones, without any lane shifts or closures on the latter.

MoDOT now futzes around inconclusively with a truck-lanes idea that is all but unbuildable and won't work because, in the intervening decade, it has become clear the original vision for I-70 is completely unfundable for the foreseeable future.

Maybe Pete Rahn's father was a MODOT engineer?

I know of no ties Pete Rahn may have had to Missouri before he was appointed MoDOT secretary.  Before he became MoDOT secretary, he was secretary of NMSHTD (as it then was--it became NMDOT under his successor).  He was appointed to that position by Gary Johnson as a quid pro quo for managing the latter's successful campaign for governor of New Mexico.  Prior to that he was an insurance agent in Farmington.

As NMSHTD secretary he had a bit of a reputation as a huckster.  He did, however, succeed in getting NMSHTD to abandon its incremental approach toward interurban expressway construction by widening then NM 44 (now part of US 550) all the way from Albuquerque north to Bloomfield by building the new four-lane road right on top of the existing two-lane, using an undivided rural arterial cross-section.  People didn't necessarily believe his claim to have saved money by doing the work all at once rather than doing it in chunks over 27 years and allowing nominal prices to inflate, but he was still able to charm the NM legislature into going along with a plan to build a four-lane state highway connection to every town in NM with a population greater than 5,000.  New Mexico now has hundreds of miles of brand-new rural expressway which was built under Rahn and his immediate successors, often with unusual combinations of federal grant (part of US 285 southwest of Carlsbad, for example, was widened using WIPP money from the Department of Defense because it serves a DOD nuclear waste dump).

He tried to bring the same approach to Missouri.  "Smoother Roads" was right out of his NMSHTD playbook, as was ". . . delights its customers" in the current MoDOT mission statement (still a part of MoDOT's letterhead even though Rahn is now long gone).  His version of value engineering (what was the marketing slogan?  "Smarter Design" or something like that?) was driven by the same logic as widening NM 44 all in one go:  if we (meaning MoDOT) show the public that we can use its tax money in an efficient and innovative way, maybe we can coax it to give us more funding so we can do more in absolute terms (and with less of what looks like blatant corner-cutting).

But, for whatever reason, that strategy just didn't work in Missouri.  I don't know if the 2008 real-estate bust bit before he could close the deal, but I suspect the culture of underfunding transportation is just too entrenched in Missouri and he bit off far more than he could chew.  Also, just in engineering terms, what needs to be done in Missouri is much more complex than in New Mexico.  There is a lot more to widening 250 miles of I-70 across rolling terrain and several major river crossings than there is to building hundreds of miles of rural expressway in the Chihuahuan desert and Llano Estacado tableland.

[Revive 755]

What difference would it make? It wouldn't affect how the roads are funded. And "Missouri 70" would still be obsolete and congested with all the same traffic.

It would force MoDOT to use more state tax dollars for work on I-70 - although we could go a one step further and prevent any federal funding being used on Missouri 70 unless said funding is being used to end the obsolescence.

I have doubts about the idea; it seems there is a great chance of it backfiring.  I also wonder about going with removing the mileage in the case of a parallel relief route being provided for functionally obsolete corridors.  For instance, say only the sections of I-70 in Columbia and around Wentzville were bad, and MoDOT built convenient bypasses for these two areas; should the bypassed sections of highway be demoted if they recongest?

[Brandon]

I-270 around the northern part of St. Louis County and Madison County is also functionally obsolete as well, with a section between Lilac to 255 looking like the exact same thing as it was built in the mid 1960s.  It has a very high percentage of truck traffic as well.  While MoDOT is looking into fixing that section, IDiOT has done next to nothing for as long as anyone can remember (only such work ever done was rebuilding the bridges east of the canal about 15 years ago).

If it's not near Springfield or in Cook and DuPage Counties, IDiOT could care less from our experience. 

[froggie]

It would force MoDOT to use more state tax dollars for work on I-70

(also to ShawnP) So, given that transportation dollars are scarce to begin with, what other roads would you allow to go to crap so that MoDOT can spend the money on I-70?

Replace "MoDOT" and "I-70" with your local DOT and road as appropriate...the fact remains that transportation dollars are scarce (to be even more scarce if Mica's plan goes through) and can't all be concentrated on one road without the other roads going completely to crap.

[J N Winkler]

Replace "MoDOT" and "I-70" with your local DOT and road as appropriate...the fact remains that transportation dollars are scarce (to be even more scarce if Mica's plan goes through) and can't all be concentrated on one road without the other roads going completely to crap.

At this stage I think roads going to crap is inevitable absent initiatives, which in the short term will have to come almost entirely from the state level, to expand revenue.  Whether or not Mica's plan goes through, I see nothing on the table in Washington that will stop the rot in the highway infrastructure.

[vdeane]

What difference would it make? It wouldn't affect how the roads are funded. And "Missouri 70" would still be obsolete and congested with all the same traffic.

In that case, why have interstates at all?  Just get rid of the shields and keep the funding (the federal government already funds many non-interstates already).

[ShawnP]

My thought process is that I-70 is the absolute economic artery of Missouri roads thus it should get the lions share of funding. It not only hasn't this year I didn't see one project outside of the KC area.

[InterstateNG]

I-70 is very similar to I-94 in Michigan between Marshall and Dexter, except that 94 actually carries more traffic.  Yes, having to pass trucks all the time and not being able to use the cruise control isn't ideal, but it doesn't mean the road is obsolete.

Given the era of austerity the nation is most likely headed towards, withholding funds will probably backfire.

[flowmotion]

I can sorta see the argument. The DOT could go to the legislature and say "If you don't find some money, the feds are going to take our Interstate away, and that will cause economic catastrophe etc etc."

However you would only need a few congressmen to sneak an exemption into some random bill before the whole scheme became meaningless. And Washington doesn't really have any interest in forcing Missouri do anything - the condition of I-70 primarily hurts their own economy.

In that case, why have interstates at all?  Just get rid of the shields and keep the funding (the federal government already funds many non-interstates already).

The I-shield is mostly just branding at this point.

[vdeane]

I-70 is very similar to I-94 in Michigan between Marshall and Dexter, except that 94 actually carries more traffic.  Yes, having to pass trucks all the time and not being able to use the cruise control isn't ideal, but it doesn't mean the road is obsolete.

Given the era of austerity the nation is most likely headed towards, withholding funds will probably backfire.

I was thinking of "obsolete" as in "doesn't meet interstate standards anymore" (which most interstates probably don't, at least out east, as the standards have been increased since the system was built).

The I-shield is mostly just branding at this point.

I still think of the interstate system as a system and not as a brand.  At least it's not a collection of random roads like the US Route "system" is today.

[roadfro]

The I-shield is mostly just branding at this point.

It's not just branding. It is still very much a system of freeways. The shield (or "brand" as you might refer to it) is supposed to be an assurance of the type and quality of said freeway, i.e. it has a minimum number of lanes and is otherwise designed to certain standards.

[flowmotion]

It's not just branding. It is still very much a system of freeways. The shield (or "brand" as you might refer to it) is supposed to be an assurance of the type and quality of said freeway, i.e. it has a minimum number of lanes and is otherwise designed to certain standards.

Well that is true. However, my understanding is that isn't a dedicated funding source for Interstates anymore, they are just members of the NHS. Therefore "interstate mileage" doesn't matter a whole lot.

[NE2]

There is still 90-10 funding for Interstates (or was until 2009?): http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/im.htm

[J N Winkler]

There is still 90-10 funding for Interstates (or was until 2009?): http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/im.htm

For Interstate Maintenance, yes.  Normally only 4R work and a few other narrowly defined things (such as rest area renovation) are eligible for IM.  I believe the 90-10 funding ratio also obtains for the very few miles of Interstate that are authorized but have not been built yet and so are payable with Interstate Construction funds.  But as a general rule, any Interstate widening will have to be paid for with NH funds or a combination of NH and IM funds depending on how the widening is structured.  NH funds are paid out in an 80-20 ratio.  Generally, new-location freeway construction these days (whether Interstate or not) attracts NH funding and this is what states typically use if they use federal funding at all.

There is now a gotcha related to IM.  A road is now eligible for IM only if it were classified as an Interstate before 2003.  So you can now no longer just put up Interstate shields and stick FHWA for the cost of 4R.

[Revive 755]

I-70 is very similar to I-94 in Michigan between Marshall and Dexter, except that 94 actually carries more traffic.  Yes, having to pass trucks all the time and not being able to use the cruise control isn't ideal, but it doesn't mean the road is obsolete.

I can vouch from experience that I-70 is obsolete from operational, safety, and design standpoints.  The eastbound climb out of the Loutre River valley is darn near to stop and go levels some days.  The section through Columbia needs more merging room, as do some of the other entrance ramps.

[J N Winkler]

I can vouch from experience that I-70 is obsolete from operational, safety, and design standpoints.  The eastbound climb out of the Loutre River valley is darn near to stop and go levels some days.

This is Mineola Hill--which MoDOT described in the Tier I EIS (2002) as probably the most difficult rural portion of I-70 to widen because it is considered an environmentally and culturally sensitive area.

I-70 was built in nine years, from 1956 to 1965, using what were already coming to be regarded as minimum standards.  It has not aged well.