Share
53
New MemberNew Member
53

PostAug 21, 2006#51

Here's my take on the proposal:



http://trevoracorn.com/?p=121


More rails, not MoDot

Did we sell our souls to the highway department? We have war in Iraq, rising gas prices, and a threat of serious global warming and yet, like a slap in the face, a “group of Missouri legislators” have the audacity to advocate for policy that would worsen all three of our most pressing environmental, geopolitical, and economic problems (Sales Tax Hike - 8/16/06). Where are the visionaries that will push for more sustainable, green, and geopolitical safe transportation solutions instead of that old adage “more and bigger roads”?? Please. Cities across America from Portland to Denver to D.C. have “gotten it.” They are building light-rail and streetcar lines like they are going out of style. Why are we still so stuck in the 90’s? We need more rails, not MoDot if we want to compete in 21st century


You'll see a copy of it in Sunday's Post if you still have a copy.
1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostAug 31, 2006#52

Here linked is a strong editorial by the Post-Dispatch. In it, numerous reasons are shared as to why a state sales tax hike for only widening I-70 and I-44 is a bad idea.
752
Super MemberSuper Member
752

PostAug 31, 2006#53

For once the Post got it right...
2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostSep 11, 2006#54

Saw this interesting letter by Neil St. Onge to the Post.




Plan for I-44 and I-70 deserves consideration

By Neal C. St. Onge



09/07/2006



Just saying no may have been an acceptable approach to drug use in the 1980s, but with Missouri's current transportation problems we need more rational analysis. A recent Post-Dispatch editorial attacked as "a terrible idea" a proposal to levy a sales tax for transportation. I believe it deserves discussion.



Yes, sales taxes are regressive, but the alternative -- a 27-cent increase in the fuel tax -- also would hurt the poor more than the wealthy. The current high price of fuel, combined with vehicles that are more fuel-efficient, makes a fuel tax hike an unlikely solution to our problems.



As a state legislator representing the St. Louis area, I, too, am troubled by funding disparities between urban and rural areas. My rural colleagues, in turn, are equally troubled by line-item budget entries to repay debt on the Edward Jones Dome.



But this "us versus them" mentality must stop. The most expensive road project in Missouri history, one that will replace more than 20 structurally deficient bridges in the metropolitan area, is scheduled to start next year. Although many people worry about the impact on traffic of the $500 million improvement project for Interstate 64, most legislators would be ecstatic to get one-tenth of this amount spent in their area.

Advertisement





This year's transportation package was oriented toward safety. And booster seat legislation, work-zone safety legislation, tougher standards for teen drivers and other measures are all matters that resonate better in urban/suburban areas. St. Louis' needs, in other words, are not ignored.



Now an idea has surfaced suggesting the rebuilding of Interstates 70 and 44 statewide to include separate lanes for trucks. One message I consistently have received from voters since I entered the legislature is, "Do something about the trucks."



Although few motorists like trucks, they are a vital part of a vibrant economy as many businesses today are limiting inventory and relying on just-in-time delivery. As a result, we get better goods at cheaper prices. Segregating cars and trucks on these major highways would be popular -- and safer.



Missouri should try to be a leader in transportation ideas. Discussion about improving our two cross-state highways is in the beginning stages. Leaders who have the courage to state the obvious (our transportation system needs more money) should not be ridiculed. There is no doubt that trucks should pay more than cars, and they will in the final plan. The public transit issue also needs to be addressed, and not only for urban areas.



Missouri's reputation in transportation issues has been far from great in the past, but the last two years have shown a tremendous improvement. The Smooth Road Initiative is being finished ahead of time and within budget. We soon should see a major program to repair Missouri bridges.



Discussions about the next funding proposal should start now. Missouri's overall transportation construction budget is expected to dip dramatically for 2009-2010. If we procrastinate, legislators may avoid the slings and arrows of naysayers, but we then will get a rushed plan without a lot of thought put into it. Instead, let's start the discussion now and hear from all interested parties with reasonable ideas. And let's not start by just saying no.



State Rep. Neal St. Onge (R-Ballwin) chairs the transportation committee of the Missouri House of Representatives.
2,005
Life MemberLife Member
2,005

PostMar 06, 2007#55

What no tolls?


MODOT Explores Tax Options for Interstate Project

Monday, March 5, 2007, 10:00 PM

By Laura McNamara



The state Transportation Department wants lawmakers to explore various tax options to fund what it calls a dire need for the renovation of interstates 70 and 44. Senate committee members aren't quite sold on those ideas. But, Chief Engineer Kevin Keith says a one cent sales tax would generate enough money to cover expenses for a complete renovation that he estimates would cost 7 billion dollars over 10 years. He says a half cent sales tax could work. But he says that tax would mean the state would have to mortgage that revenue stream for 40 years. He also suggests a 27 cent fuel tax over 10 years.



Senator Matt Bartle of Lee's Summit says none of those ideas are likely to win over the public. He says taxes fail abysmally at the polls. Bartle says before the state decides how to fund the 7 billion dollar project, he wants MODOT to explore less expensive ways to renovate I-70 and I-44.


Link to Article
3,429
Life MemberLife Member
3,429

PostMar 19, 2007#56

How about a new paradigm for cross-country truck travel. What if the US Dept of Transportation desginated a few rail routes across the country exclusively for specially modified trucks. These trucks would be modified to have retractable rail wheels that would allow a truck to drive on and off the rails at almost any point and use the rails to get across country -- rather than interstate highways. No trains allowed on these few routes desingated for these trucks.



It seems as if this would make better use of the rail system. The current rail system is under utilized because of the labor required to take stuff off of railcars and put them onto trucks to get to their final destinations. Trucks could go faster on the rails and it would get a lot of them off the freeways.



I'd like to hear other things that would maket this concept work -- rather than the usual replies that carefully explain why it would never work. What would we call this -- Railtrucks?
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostMar 19, 2007#57

^ I'd be willing to put money and time towards just about any idea instead of simply adding Interstate lanes across the state. Did anyone read the recent article (NY Times, I think) about the reboring or rail tunnels to allow double stacking of freight bins? I believe that this was being done on a single route from coast to coast.
6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostMar 19, 2007#58

There are some trailers that have rail wheels built in. They are coupled together and pulled like a regular train. The name slips my mind, but Norfolk Southern Railway has a lot of them in their Triple Crown service. And rails already carry an incredible amount of trailers and containers. Double Stack container trains are very efficient. Containers come in off the ships and they are then loaded on Double stack well cars to travel across the country to wherever they are bound. The only problem is that like Grover said, some tunnels can only handle single stack, and some routes have bridges that are too low as well. Trains are already far more efficient movers of freight than trucks. Just get all the trailers onto the existing technology for long distance travel. I like the thinking out of the box idea, but if we already have an efficient way to do, no sense in reinventing the rail.
3,429
Life MemberLife Member
3,429

PostMar 19, 2007#59

MattnSTL wrote:There are some trailers that have rail wheels built in. They are coupled together and pulled like a regular train. The name slips my mind, but Norfolk Southern Railway has a lot of them in their Triple Crown service. And rails already carry an incredible amount of trailers and containers. Double Stack container trains are very efficient. Containers come in off the ships and they are then loaded on Double stack well cars to travel across the country to wherever they are bound. The only problem is that like Grover said, some tunnels can only handle single stack, and some routes have bridges that are too low as well. Trains are already far more efficient movers of freight than trucks. Just get all the trailers onto the existing technology for long distance travel. I like the thinking out of the box idea, but if we already have an efficient way to do, no sense in reinventing the rail.


So why are there so many big trucks going cross country if "trains are already far more efficient movers of freight than trucks."
6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostMar 19, 2007#60

I just said trains were more efficient, not that people or business necessarily choose that mode. The trucking lobby is incredibly powerful. Thats how highways keep getting built and highly subsidized.
3,429
Life MemberLife Member
3,429

PostMar 19, 2007#61

MattnSTL wrote:I just said trains were more efficient, not that people or business necessarily choose that mode. The trucking lobby is incredibly powerful. Thats how highways keep getting built and highly subsidized.


I disagree. I do not think businesses are choosing trucks over trains even though trains are more efficient. I think trains are efficient for coal and many bulk items, but are not the most efficient way to move goods from a factory to a Best Buy store across the country, for instance. Probably because of the labor and time and lack of flexibility required to transfer goods from a truck to a train and back to a truck on the other end to get it to the store.



My proposal would target that inefficiency.



It would keep trains for coal, and streets for cars and local truck transport, but would provide a new cross-country option for trucks that could start getting them off the highways.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostMar 20, 2007#62

^ I think utilizing our rail system and getting some trucks off the highway would be a great idea, but I think it would take a real shift in politics and transportation planning. The highways (Interstates especially) were built for trucks. They were built to aid commerce. Sometimes this was an explicit statement (the mayor of Indianapolis is trying to put another half ring of toll roads to the east and south of the city, calling is the "Commerce Corridor"), other times it was simply pushed by business and the automobile lobby. Our goal should be to best utilize our resources and double-decker trains as well as other options are fantastic. I think that we probably have enough road capacity if other transportation is utilized.
12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostMar 20, 2007#63

I thought the railroads were already bursting at the seams, despirately trying to increase capacity and hire more workers to meet the booming demand for freight business.
1,099
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,099

PostMar 20, 2007#64

^ They are, though like the airlines, fixing a few problem spots could solve a lot of the congestion. :cough: Chicago :cough:



By weight, railroads haul about 38% of all freight in the nation totalling 1.5 trillion ton-miles.
3,429
Life MemberLife Member
3,429

PostMar 20, 2007#65

So why are rail lines being abandoned -- (Rails to Trails)? We need to separate people transport from cargo transport. The trucks keep getting bigger and bigger on the roads, for efficiency, while the cars are getting smaller and lighter -- also for efficiency. It is setting up a very dangerous future with train-like trucks on the road mxing with mini-coopers.



So how do we separate cargo from passengers safely? An all-trucks road I-70? That would be very expensive -- much more expensive than a 2 railtruck rail system trucks could utilize to get across the state in my opinion.



Another option -- use the Disney scenario -- People in the daytime, resupply at night. In other words, tax trucks that use the highways in the daytime more than trucks that use the highways at night to make better use of highways at night, and deconflict cars and truck travel.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostMar 20, 2007#66

An all-trucks road I-70?


That's the proposal as I understand it. I-70 would be 8 lanes across the entire state with 2 lanes each way exclusively for heavy trucks.
sc4mayor
sc4mayor

PostAug 12, 2020#67

Still a bit shy of a rebuild...but one of the more congested parts of I-70 outstate will finally see some relief. East and west climbing lanes at Mineola Hill in Montgomery County. Should help out all those Lake travelers a bit.

https://www.modot.org/mineola-hill-clim ... sign-build

Now if they could just fix that s-curve in Wentzville...
2,631
Life MemberLife Member
2,631

PostAug 12, 2020#68

As someone who went to Mizzou, this is a godsend to those travelling that road often
sc4mayor
sc4mayor

PostJul 01, 2021#69

This snuck up on Facebook today…I didn’t realize a replacement was coming for the I-70 bridge at Rocheport. Starts late this year and will be a 6 lane crossing. Boring design…which seems to be all the rage at MoDot as of late. The Buck O’Neil replacement in KC looks like trash too.

https://www.modot.org/RocheportBridge
13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostJul 01, 2021#70

When you have too much to take care of
5,705
Life MemberLife Member
5,705

PostJul 01, 2021#71

^ Yep, drove back and forth across the state on I70 last week.   Need to repave a few miles before they get too crazy with a signature bridge crossings.    
6,120
Life MemberLife Member
6,120

PostJul 02, 2021#72

^I don't know the particulars, but bridges do have a limited life expectancy and the consequences for exceeding it too dramatically are a bit worse t than a bent rim. All that said . . . I'd think that'd be a high enough profile crossing to merit something better than another UCB*, but that is all the MODoT builds anymore. 

*Ugly Concrete Bridge.
7,807
Life MemberLife Member
7,807

PostJul 02, 2021#73

dredger wrote: ↑
Jul 01, 2021
^ Yep, drove back and forth across the state on I70 last week.   Need to repave a few miles before they get too crazy with a signature bridge crossings.    
I don't think we're asking for sexy bridges, just ones that last and don't need constant maintenance like the cheap flat top Poplar Street Bridge. Yes I know things have changed greatly since the PSB was originally built. But it's a damn Ship of Theseus and still needs constant babying, attention and projects.
5,261
Life MemberLife Member
5,261

PostJul 02, 2021#74

I-70 is really getting some upgrades between KC and STL. New creek and river bridges, a climbing lane, some repaving, and now the Rocheport Bridge Replacement. And it seems that with some of the new bridges being built, they're being built wide enough to include a third driving lane, so MODOT seems to be planning ahead for a third lane on I-70.
sc4mayor
sc4mayor

PostJul 02, 2021#75

^ They’ve been planning for a third lane on I-70 since the 70s.
Read more posts (107 remaining)
Share