How about we get more mass transit. I do not want toll roads like NY state, they are horrible.





Get off the road and ride... get some trollycars, more busses, more light rail. Stop building roads.

Yeah mista I realize that some people need highways. If they are going to use highways, and they need repairs a lot, then while making these repairs, embrace mass transit. I really think with 40 being partially shut down, people will see how great cross county is, and therefore, embrace metrolink.



If they need repairs then they should raise some tax for county residents. City residents should not have to pay for most of the cost unless the repairs are located in the city limits.



Putting tolls on the highways, how could that be done? Pay when you get on, or get off, wouldn't the roads need extensive modification to add this system?

3.5 billion? How bought we just build high speed rail instead...that 2 million a year stipend to amtrak looks like a pittance.



Personally, ad this is pure speculatio, but I think this is a positioning stunt by Rahn to make his push for tolls on the MRB. "Look we really do need to toll on our mega projects...we have no way to pay...so poor, so poor."

For purely economic reasons, I would argue that the expansion of I-70 should be a state priority. Having high quality interstates and bridges, and even better more lanes, helps the state take better advantage of its centeral location for great distribution services. In a related note, I have always wondered why the underused Mid America has not be marketed to a company like DHL for an addtional shipping point.



Anyways back to the subject at hand. I don't mind tolling on the outer levels of the interstate for its upkeep and the added bennefit of maybe slowing somewhat the endless expansion of the metro area, but tolling anywhere inside the 270 ring is a bad idea. While folks might not want to admit it, but the folks in the county do alot to partronize city resutrants and downtown. Not as much as they could, but doing anything to antagonize them (like tolling a major artery like 40) is a bad idea. The same argument can honestly be made for the new MRB and should be taken as true, since Illinois does alot to make downtown go around.



I do support tolling, tolling in outlying areas to pay for interstates or for bridges in general, but you have to be smart about how it is done. That means apply it evenly (of which I am as skeptical as southslider given MODOT's history) or don't apply it.

Here is an intersting article from the Post about new lanes on I-70.



MoDOT chief backs separate car, truck lanes on I-70

By Tim Bryant

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

06/28/2006



ST. CHARLES



As Interstate 70 traffic streamed behind him, the head of Missouri's transportation system said Wednesday that he favors separating large trucks from cars and other light vehicles on I-70 between St. Louis and Kansas City.



Director Pete Rahn of the Missouri Department of Transportation said heavy trucks make up more than 40 percent of the traffic, four times the rate for which the highway was designed in the 1950s. He said many overcrowded interstates are having "a midlife crisis" and need rebuilding.



He spoke at a ceremony near the highway to mark the 50th anniversary of the interstate highway system. MoDOT workers put up new signs proclaiming that construction of the nationwide system began in St. Charles in August 1956.



Advertisement





In a brief interview after the ceremony, Rahn said the plan to separate truck and car traffic would require a third I-70 lane in each direction of the busy cross-state highway. He said the project could cost $3.5 billion. Cars and other light vehicles would get two lanes while heavy trucks would be restricted to one lane, Rahn said.



The requirement of separate lanes for specific vehicles could require complex entrance and exit ramps at many interchanges, he added. Funding for such an enormous project is nowhere in sight.



Rahn told the small crowd attending the ceremony that automobile drivers in the mixed crowd of vehicles now using I-70 too often fear they will become part of "a chrome sandwich" if their cars are crushed between two trucks. He said trucks are vital to the nation's financial health but should be separated from other vehicles on interstates as crowded as I-70.



An overriding issue is whether citizens are willing to foot the bill for rebuilding the interstate system, said Rahn, adding that fuel taxes are inadequate to raise all the money needed.



"Unfortunately, whatever we do is going to be expensive," he added.

Read More



Just a few quick thoughts:

1. Only 1 truck lane? If we want to be a distribution state and capitolize on our location, we will need 2 truck lanes not 1.



2. Where was our toll champion today? Why were the first words out of Rahn's mouth not: we can built it with tolls...

Well on large highways, like the NJ Turnpike there area some sections with 6 lanes going in one direction, the inner 3 lanes are for cars and the outer 3 lanes are for cars and trucks.

I don't think most people (except for the anti-car types) with rebuilding I-70. St. Louis has seen large growth in the warehousing sector and I think that better highway infastructure could improve this growth.



However, to rebuilt 70 or 44, or built an I-50 (that would be the proposed southern missouri interstate mentioned a few posts before) without tolls makes no sense too me. For a state that complains it can't fund the 40 rebuild or the new MRB, how can it manage to scrape together enough money to get these projects done? Tolls should be the answer, and anything less from Rhan is disengeious. Infact, if I were Illinois and I eventauly agreed to tolls on the MRB, a condition would be the tolls are removed if Missouri does not incorperate more toll projects in the state. Make Rhan live up to all of his rehtoric.



Besides, the placement of the tolls could act as a form of urban growth barrier. I would love to see them placed on the Missouri River, but even at the I-70, US -40 interchange in St. Charles would be ok.