other solution is make 50 a 2 lane as a relief route...i took 50 from jeff city to stl once and never again....it was a scenic ride but it look 3.5 hours
How's that working out for their development patterns?dweebe wrote:-I-95 from Jacksonville north through Georgia and the Carolinas is 3 lanes each way.
-I-75 from north of Atlanta all the way through Florida is 3 lanes each way
-I-4 from Tampa to Orlando is 3 lanes each way
- 9,529
Not sure but their city limit population keeps growing..
ATL population is up about 6.7% since 2010
4 Corridor
Orlando is up 7.2% since 2010 (2000-2010 it was up 28%)
Tampa is up 3.6% since 2010 (2000-2010 it was up 10%)
95 Corridor
Raleigh is up 6.9% since 2010 (2000-2010 it was up 46%)
Savannah is up 5%
Charleston is up 6%
Jacksonville is up 2.5% (10% from 2000-2010
so three lane highway doesn't seem to be that much of a sprawl problem there.
ATL population is up about 6.7% since 2010
4 Corridor
Orlando is up 7.2% since 2010 (2000-2010 it was up 28%)
Tampa is up 3.6% since 2010 (2000-2010 it was up 10%)
95 Corridor
Raleigh is up 6.9% since 2010 (2000-2010 it was up 46%)
Savannah is up 5%
Charleston is up 6%
Jacksonville is up 2.5% (10% from 2000-2010
so three lane highway doesn't seem to be that much of a sprawl problem there.
These are for the exurban areas all the through traffic.wabash wrote:How's that working out for their development patterns?dweebe wrote:-I-95 from Jacksonville north through Georgia and the Carolinas is 3 lanes each way.
-I-75 from north of Atlanta all the way through Florida is 3 lanes each way
-I-4 from Tampa to Orlando is 3 lanes each way
- 985
well it might help as well upgrading us 36 and 60 in the north and south portions of the state respectively.dweebe wrote:I don't know other stretches of I-70. But I do know that:moorlander wrote:Are there other rural stretches of 70 that are 6 lane divided? What about other midwestern interstates?
-I-95 from Jacksonville north through Georgia and the Carolinas is 3 lanes each way.
-I-75 from north of Atlanta all the way through Florida is 3 lanes each way
-I-4 from Tampa to Orlando is 3 lanes each way
Part of the issue is 64, 55 and 70 converging at St. Louis as well as 29, 35, 49 and 70 at Kansas City.
I would be curious as to how busy 70 is in the rural areas compared to other rural stretches of interstate, in both total traffic and number of trucks. as to 6 lane rural Midwestern interstates. Interstate 57 is going to be 6 lanes between 64 and 24 due to the amount of traffic using that stretch between St. Louis and Nashville. (the alternate would be to extend interstate 24 to St. Louis)
Speaking of trucks, isn't one big factor to rush hour traffic in St. Louis area is that non-local truck traffic is often on the roads during rush hour and due to their starting and stopping requirements along with hills in some areas starts traffic jams.
- 9,529
I use to have a map but cant find it now, ill see if i can dig it up somwhere but im thinking its probably 75-150K all the way thruimperialmog wrote:
I would be curious as to how busy 70 is in the rural areas compared to other rural stretches of interstate, in both total traffic and number of trucks.
Summed up in a Show-Me Institute blog post. MoDOT's projections for I-70 traffic volume:
![]()
And then reality:
![]()
And then reality:
- 9,529
^ looks like they underestimated urban areas and overestimated rural by a bit.. their 2030 projected traffic for stl was reached in 2000
^ Careful. The extents of both charts are different. E.g. MoDOT's chart goes only as far east as Wright City 10 miles west of I-64/40 whereas Show-Me's chart goes as far east as the St. Louis city limits. Regardless, MoDOT's chart comes from a whitepaper published in 2007 and the Improve I-70 studies were produced post 2000 so the year 2000 ADTs should be accurate.
So does that mean so long as there is growth within the city limits there can't be "much of a sprawl problem"?dbInSouthCity wrote:ATL population is up about 6.7% since 2010
4 Corridor
Orlando is up 7.2% since 2010 (2000-2010 it was up 28%)
Tampa is up 3.6% since 2010 (2000-2010 it was up 10%)
95 Corridor
Raleigh is up 6.9% since 2010 (2000-2010 it was up 46%)
Savannah is up 5%
Charleston is up 6%
Jacksonville is up 2.5% (10% from 2000-2010
so three lane highway doesn't seem to be that much of a sprawl problem there.
How about for Jacksonville, where the city limits comprise 875 square miles?
- 1,792
^Good point without static boundaries comprising the densest portion of those cities the stat is meaningless. Even though the core of each probably has seen a growth in density the figures presented don't really prove or disprove anything.
So the original question was is there a legitimate need for a 3rd lane on 70. I'm not sure if there is a way to prove it one way or another. Maybe, as someone else seemed to allude to, the better way to think of it is with the current traffic load what is IF it is assumed I-70s current road surface needs redone what is the marginal cost to adding a third lane across the state above just redoing two lanes. I assume as part of any road construction, temporary road surfaces would be installed for bypassing traffic while the construction takes place, so what is the additional cost to making those road surfaces permanent...? What is the economic benefit...?
The cost seems marginal, but the benefit does as well. Since I don't see it a harming St. Louis from a sprawl perspective, as long as it is paid for with gas taxes and or tolls, I think I can live with paying for the extra lane... though i think someone should give a fair account of the comparison before i am sure.
So the original question was is there a legitimate need for a 3rd lane on 70. I'm not sure if there is a way to prove it one way or another. Maybe, as someone else seemed to allude to, the better way to think of it is with the current traffic load what is IF it is assumed I-70s current road surface needs redone what is the marginal cost to adding a third lane across the state above just redoing two lanes. I assume as part of any road construction, temporary road surfaces would be installed for bypassing traffic while the construction takes place, so what is the additional cost to making those road surfaces permanent...? What is the economic benefit...?
The cost seems marginal, but the benefit does as well. Since I don't see it a harming St. Louis from a sprawl perspective, as long as it is paid for with gas taxes and or tolls, I think I can live with paying for the extra lane... though i think someone should give a fair account of the comparison before i am sure.
Wider highways contribute to sprawl. That's a given.STLEnginerd wrote:Since I don't see it a harming St. Louis from a sprawl perspective, as long as it is paid for with gas taxes and or tolls, I think I can live with paying for the extra lane...
I agree (if I understand what you're saying) that paying for a third lane with heightened gas taxes and/or tolls is the best means of creating a counterbalance to its sprawl inducing effect.
- 1,792
Wider highway induce sprawl, but HOW MUCH sprawl does an extra lane in Jonesburg induce. Its not an easy thing to measure but my gut tells me there is some distance from an urban employment center at which point the widening has little to no effect on sprawl. That distance is probably based on mean travel time and probably varies with fashion but is currently probably somewhere between 30-45 minutes. I guess what I'm saying is how much further could it possibly go...?
Now if travel speeds vastly increase and costs hold steady or decrease as they did with the invention of the car i would be forced to eat my words.
Or maybe I am naive and our sprawl's sprawl is about to get sprawl.
Now if travel speeds vastly increase and costs hold steady or decrease as they did with the invention of the car i would be forced to eat my words.
Or maybe I am naive and our sprawl's sprawl is about to get sprawl.
- 9,529
Here is what the Missouri Legislature will kick around in the next session in January;
(all these are independent of each other)
- Increasing both the current 17-cent gas and diesel tax by 1 cent per month, not to exceed a total tax that reaches the new revenue Amendment 7 would have generated. It would sunset in 10 years and require a vote by the people again. This time its all going to the MoDOT road system.
- Take $150 million from general revenue a year and bond the rebuilding on I-70
-Replace the per gallon tax on motor fuels and replace it with a percentage-based tax for diesel fuel- tied to inflation, and an increase in general sales tax.
-Index all current fees/charges/revenue sources for transportation
- Impose a three-pronged approach: 1) Increase gas and diesel tax 2-cents; 2) establish 2/10th cent sales tax on gas at the pump; and 3) establish a 2/10 general sales tax.
Again in any of these options, other modes will not be able to get any funds.
Some people think that the legislature will address the state’s transportation funding issue within its constitutional authority. Otherwise, any funding mechanism that will require a vote by the people cannot occur for another two years- 2016 Presidential Election cycle.
(all these are independent of each other)
- Increasing both the current 17-cent gas and diesel tax by 1 cent per month, not to exceed a total tax that reaches the new revenue Amendment 7 would have generated. It would sunset in 10 years and require a vote by the people again. This time its all going to the MoDOT road system.
- Take $150 million from general revenue a year and bond the rebuilding on I-70
-Replace the per gallon tax on motor fuels and replace it with a percentage-based tax for diesel fuel- tied to inflation, and an increase in general sales tax.
-Index all current fees/charges/revenue sources for transportation
- Impose a three-pronged approach: 1) Increase gas and diesel tax 2-cents; 2) establish 2/10th cent sales tax on gas at the pump; and 3) establish a 2/10 general sales tax.
Again in any of these options, other modes will not be able to get any funds.
Some people think that the legislature will address the state’s transportation funding issue within its constitutional authority. Otherwise, any funding mechanism that will require a vote by the people cannot occur for another two years- 2016 Presidential Election cycle.
^ Why would anybody from St. Louis or Kansas City support a tax that couldn't even be used on all modes. Again, it looks like this thing will go down in flames if proposed like this. Regional and state leaders seem to have their heads in the sand and are ignoring the fact that many people want more options.
- 9,529
who knows maybe someone will propose changes in current laws that would allow gas tax to be used for other modes...we will find out more in December once they start filling bills for the session, if they do it within their authority(meaning it wont go up for a vote of the people) the outer state reps will leave other modes in the dust
- 1,792
As long as its a gas tax I fail to see the issue. Gas users use roads. Not sidewalks, trail, public transit etc. Plus buses continue to get a free ride using the roads paid for by the gas tax when they pay none. So transit gets a small subsidy there.^ Why would anybody from St. Louis or Kansas City support a tax that couldn't even be used on all modes. Again, it looks like this thing will go down in flames if proposed like this. Regional and state leaders seem to have their heads in the sand and are ignoring the fact that many people want more options.
I would support other taxes to support other modes but gas tax for roads seems fair to me. Other appropriate taxes for roads are VMT and tolling. These types of taxes are user taxes and it seems dicey if they were diverted to fund other forms of transportation infrastructure.
My only contention is more of it should be available to be spent on maintaining local roads than expanding state highways. I also think MoDOT should do a better job coordinating with local jurisdictions so for instance if they are improving a road, then the local jurisdiction could coordinate sidewalk improvement to reduce the shared costs, things like that.
^ I disagree, we should be able to use gas funds or toll money on transit. Most other states allow gas/toll/registration funds to be used for transit, even liberal bastions like Utah, North Carolina, and Tennessee get better state funding for transit.
I'm actually sick and tired of rural legislatures dictating what our transportation should look like in St. Louis. I have no doubt in my mind that St. Louis would have a much more robust transit system if MoDOT was actually allowed to be a complete transportation agency and not just the department of highway and sprawl that it currently is. I don't see how an advocate for transit in St. Louis would not push for the lift of this archaic ban.
I'm actually sick and tired of rural legislatures dictating what our transportation should look like in St. Louis. I have no doubt in my mind that St. Louis would have a much more robust transit system if MoDOT was actually allowed to be a complete transportation agency and not just the department of highway and sprawl that it currently is. I don't see how an advocate for transit in St. Louis would not push for the lift of this archaic ban.
- 985
^I just don't see it happening and said rural legislature will only gain more power overall due to state population trends and have their views reflected in state laws and policy. To be honest said legislature is quickly becoming the biggest hindrance to regional growth since they could scare away people who want to move to the state.
Me too.I'm actually sick and tired of rural legislatures dictating what our transportation should look like in St. Louis. I have no doubt in my mind that St. Louis would have a much more robust transit system if MoDOT was actually allowed to be a complete transportation agency and not just the department of highway and sprawl that it currently is. I don't see how an advocate for transit in St. Louis would not push for the lift of this archaic ban.
You know what a great way to fix that is? Take matters into our own hands. Pass our own taxes specifically for transit. Create our own urban-oriented transit system.
- 985
^ I can see that as a way to go, but the issue is you either run into the regressive tax issue or some methods won't be allowed by state law. If I'm not mistaken, local gas taxes are not allowed by state law so that option is off the table. One possibility could be property taxes
- 3,762
^ yep. property taxes on undeveloped land in particular (including parking lots) should be increased and that revenue put toward transit.
- 985
This would make sense. it would encourage infill development and raise revenue without being regressive in nature. In terms of undeveloped land it might make sense to not count greenspace areas or other areas not developed for environmental of flood control reasons. This could also incentivize development on parking lots since most of the time those lots aren't full anyway so it would allow for more efficient use of space. (also with self driving vehicles coming up soon, there may be a lot less need for parking making for development opportunities.urban_dilettante wrote:^ yep. property taxes on undeveloped land in particular (including parking lots) should be increased and that revenue put toward transit.
- 1,792
I guess a gas tax for transit could be viewed as a disincentive to bad behavior much like the cigarette tax which I condone. And applying it toward transit is a public need that gives an alternative to said behavior. So I'm not sure why it seems morally objectionable to me. I think its just because I was so vociferous in my argument against a sales tax for roads and that it gave the heavy users a free pass to continue using without carrying their fair share of the burden. Alternatively IF I am to stay morally consistent (something which I value personally) I have to look at it from the same perspective. How can it be fair to tax users of roads to pay for transit and allow the actual transit users to bypass responsibility for paying for it.I'm actually sick and tired of rural legislatures dictating what our transportation should look like in St. Louis. I have no doubt in my mind that St. Louis would have a much more robust transit system if MoDOT was actually allowed to be a complete transportation agency and not just the department of highway and sprawl that it currently is. I don't see how an advocate for transit in St. Louis would not push for the lift of this archaic ban.
This tax seems potentially fair to me as one earmarked to transit. It disincentives bad behavior (low density development) and applies it toward an alternative to bad behavior. But I can only see it for properties with a mile of a metro-link transit station. Also I would stick to surface parking lots only. Otherwise you will create a lot of, what I assume would be, unintended, consequences. Of course with my restrictions it is much more about being a disincentive to bad behavior than it is about funding transit. I'd also give a new property owner a 1 year exemption to give them time to break ground on a development.^ yep. property taxes on undeveloped land in particular (including parking lots) should be increased and that revenue put toward transit.