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

[Scott5114]

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.

[Revive 755]

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.

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).

(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.

[codyg1985]

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.

[3467]

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

[dfwmapper]

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.

[ajlynch91]

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.

[codyg1985]

Or when half the gas taxes go to fund non transportation branches of government, like in Alabama.

[3467]

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 

[J N Winkler]

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.

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.

[US 41]

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.

[NE2]

The government should only spend money on things that I like.

Fixed for you.

[Scott5114]

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.

[skluth]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[DJStephens]

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??

[skluth]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[NE2]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[NE2]

No, it isn't. First, you have to deal with St Louis traffic.

Too fucking bad.

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 41]

Okay let's build an interstate from Terre Haute to Lousiville too, because Indy traffic is so bad  . 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.

[codyg1985]

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.

[NE2]

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.

[bugo]

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.

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?

[NE2]

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.