urbanSTL

TIABstl wrote:Even three lanes each way sounds a bit much state wide. Now maybe widening it further out from KC and STL and near Columbia wouldn't be bad, but from end to end seems pretty ridiculous.



But then again, this is Missouri...

This part confused me... I70 is a major thoroughfare. Other states have 6 lane major highways across state...Why can't we?

Well, if the state can find a way to maintain the road, then by all means. It would be such a waste to have them spend so much on a project, then let it rot away like so many other roads in this state.



Missouri, you need to start thinking about raising the fuel tax! Roads do not pay for themselves.



But then again, I'm not big on highways but I do know it's an important route for travel and shipping. Oh well...

Understanding the importance of 70, 3 lanes just aren't needed.



Here's a nice example of MoDOT crapping on highways not in Missouri. Springfield to Branson is one of the easiest drives in the state. 65 is smooth sailing from 44 all the way into Branson. Then, the road inexplicably narrows from 4 lanes to 2. The second you hit the Arkansas border, the road goes back to 4 lanes. Interesting.

44 doesn't go to branson... but US 65 does. It goes from Springfield to Branson as a 4 lane limited access or semi-limited access highway... right after branson it goes to a normal highway. he was saying on US from I-44 south to branson, its "smooth sailing" then afterward its down to 2 lanes -- not that I-44 goes to either Arkansas or Branson.

Does anybody know where former President Eisenhower's grave is?



I say that because he might be the one to blame if you hate interstates and freeways. It was his idea to build the 46,000 miles of the love it or hate it roadways from coast to coast. It was supposed to be modeled after the German autobahn. Ike said it was a way of modernizing the U.S. He signed a bill inacting the construction of them on June 29, 1956-- 50 years ago last Thursday. He also helped inact gas taxes to keep up with the road repairs and maintenance. As many of you know, one of the first sections that was constructed was in St. Charles.



I don't mind them. Most other countries have the same exact thing (only smaller and they don't enter the downtowns of main cities in Europe and I think other countries as well). Only thing I don't like is how they built them in the U.S. They would go through neighborhoods destroying them and forcing people out using eminent domain. Also, going through the middle of downtowns. That is one of things that I hate about how they were built.



If they had built them like they did in Europe or Japan, it probably would not have been a problem.

village idiot,



You need to read my post more carefully. Why would an interstate go down to 2 lanes?



bry,



I don't blame the entire interstate system, because early on they were going to be built, but avoid the center city area. Basically stopping at 270. I would have been fine with that. But this country needed an interstate road system, Ike just happened to be president when it happened. It would have happened eventually.

And, it was at the insistance of central city governments that the system was revised to enter the central cities. People had a very different view of what impacts the interstate system would have back then.

bry456 wrote:Does anybody know where former President Eisenhower's grave is?

Dwight D. Eisenhower Library and Museum

Abilene, KS



Seeing he was the last "General President" (military leader -> president) the hugely expensive interstate (largest and most expensive public works project since the Romans) was funded under the guise that it was a defense project with civilian benefits.



Nearly every major missile silo, army base, naval station, air force base etc is on/very near an interstate. Also the major cities are all on interstates with outer belts around them. If the Russians were to nuke STL and/or Para drop their troops there, our troops could take the interstates from the bases to the outer belt and be able to surround the incoming commie threat. Also the original design had no overhead signs and a flat portion every few miles so that if we were fighting over American soil, our fighters and bombers would be able to emergency land on the interstates, and the pilots survive. Also the bridges, intersections and roads were designed so that military vehicles of the time could pass over them and trucks carrying missiles and what not could get under the bridges.

Of coarse since there isn't a red threat much anymore (besides North Korea now) its is nearly all civilian.



The economy of the America wouldn’t be the same if it weren’t for interstates. Towns that were important (I live in Rolla now and this is a good example) are now just bypasses. Rolla use to be a major stop on route 66 several hours outside STL. Now its 90 minutes and the major stop is Springfield at 3 hours out. Cities that are connected benefit, cities that were left out didn’t. Continued economic prosperity requires excellent transportation.



Not to contradict my ideas up above completely, but if Missouri doesn’t improve their highways we could be left out. It is nearly as easy for people to use I-40 in Memphis or I-80 in Davenport rather than I-70 in STL.



Is it vitally important for the LONG term of the St. Louis and Missouri Economy to redo i-70 and i-44 to three or four lanes all the way across the state – YES. The conflict comes that it is much more vital in the short term to deal with the crumbling infrastructure of the urbanized areas. In any case the Mississippi can be utilized as a resource or it can hurt the region. In the 1800s STL didn’t get the first Mississippi river crossing and so a lot of the benefits that were eventually to be realized went to Chicago instead. If STL had 7 major bridges crossing the Mississippi river, including 4 interstate bridges, it would only solidify us as the dominate city on the river, surpassing every city in crossing possibilities across the Mississippi. MODOT needs to have its priorities, of which the most important needs to be meeting the needs of today before planning for the dreams tomorrow.

But that sort of thinking is to forward for MoDOT. They prefer to be reactive instead of proactive.

If thats thier thinking - we need MRB NOW, we dont need 4 lanes in each direction to Springfield for some time (years)

3 lanes on I-70 from KC to STL would be a welcome addition. Traffic does get congested quite a bit during the afternoon/evening, with cars traveling at high speeds leaving little distance in between. Couple in the trucks and you have some serious congestion at times. I would only expect this problem to get worse over the next decade.



At the very least, three lanes is needed in Columbia, MO. Lots of traffic (including local) have made 2 lanes in each direction terribly inadequate for far too long.

I'd vote hell no, unless there was a 1/4 cent tax for transit.

Even Prop B (the last transportation tax increase proposal that failed) had a transit piece. Still, even if the vote was only on a roads tax, I still can't believe that outstaters would want to alienate the one area of the state that not only constitutes a third of the state's sales tax base, but generally supports tax increases. In an odd coalition, statewide fiscal conservatives, rural interests living largely not along I-70, St. Louisans for an MRB, and statewide transit advocates would all work together to defeat any tax increase seen as mostly going to one project. In politics, you have to spread the benefits, or your opponents will make for strange but effective bedfellows.

^^ I agree... the only way this will work (and any way I would vote for it) would be to have the new $7.3 billion over 10 years go to all transit needs including MRB, mass trasit for STL, KC and any other city that wants it - AS WELL AS I-70 and then I-44.... you can't make everyone happy, but when over 1/2 the state lives in KC and STL and not one penny of this new proposal will be spent inside those regions (directly).... it has NO chance.... nor should it even be worth writing about.

Mayor Slay on his site repeated everything we've been saying. If this thing is to go, it's got to include something for mass transit. (and he threw something in there for the bridge as well).

It's been a few years since I left Mizzou, so I'm not sure of the state of 70 between here and COlumbia and KC and maybe it does need funding, but like someone mentioned below, it will never pass here without some of the profits going back into our region.

Regarding these "nice new" truck only lanes. Who's gonna pay for their upkeep when they begin to succumb to the daily beating of trucks a decade or so after the're built. Will we be asked to raise taxes again?



Without tolling the truck lanes what's the long term plan for their upkeep?

thought - we charge the 18 wheelers more money for each tag that they get, charge more for people to get CDLs, deisel tax increase, and ticket heavily trucks that break the rules (basicly putting a new toll on all trucks/truckers in the state).... and then we have truckers that may avoid missouri, and we have 2 beautiful lanes for trucks that aren't used. Then all that money that could have been used for mass transit was wasted on highways.... i wouldn't put it past Missouri/MODOT.



If this is to be built... trucks can ONLY use the new 2 lanes, but cars should be able to use at least 3 of those lanes (one lane be dedicated to trucks etc)..... and also if this is passed -- lets do what Texas and Montana have done - raise the speed limit to encourage trucks to come there.....

Trucks and Semis speeds should be dropped on our highway system, to start. I think that there are too many rogue truck drivers that don't mind going 80 mph, which is dangerous when you're a vehicle that large.

^^ but if the trucks are on their own lanes - then 80 doesn't hurt you or me in our cars (non-commercial vehicals).... I like the NJ idea - but modified to be two Car only lanes, one lane with both and one lane (maybe built with a little bit more width) for trucks only. With the exception of Nuclear material - to encourage "wide load" trucks to come through missouri becuase we accomidate them, more width, more clearence, higher speeds etc... can only help the missouri economy. key to remember on this whole issue is that it will only work if this expansion in spending goes hand-in-hand with an expansion of mass transit funding in urban centers and to connect the state better.