i70 needs to be rebuilt. Whether it's also widened or not, drivers should pay for it.
- 1,614
I agree. 70 should be a tollway, definitely outside of KC/STL metros and perhaps inside as well.
Our state legislature will never approve that, is my guess.
Our state legislature will never approve that, is my guess.
- 2,419
I thought that the state had been openly considering it about five years ago.
- 991
It was an idea, but the legislature's pretty much shot down the toll road route.
Yeah, the sticker shock of drivers paying for it was probably too much. The gas tax increase they passed two years ago isn't enough either, so here they are considering general revenue subsidies.
https://spexternal.modot.mo.gov/sites/c ... ePaper.pdfBased on the current traffic, it is likely that a trip across the state on I-70 would cost $20-$30 per car ($40-$90 for trucks) to generate enough funds to pay for the $2 billion project.
$20-$30 for cars on I-70 would still be less than people navigating state routes and side roads than just staying on I-70. The Kansas Turnpike (tolls shown below) get pricy, but the Turnpike's condition is pretty good.
However, I'm curious how they wanted to make I-70 a toll road back in the day. Kansas Turnpike doesn't have many entrances and exits and have "islands" for people to stop off in for restrooms, gas and food. I don't know how this would work here.
You'd probably win over Missouri residents if you offered them a discount for tolls if they had an express pass. Let outside residents pay to use our highways, especially I-70.
![]()
However, I'm curious how they wanted to make I-70 a toll road back in the day. Kansas Turnpike doesn't have many entrances and exits and have "islands" for people to stop off in for restrooms, gas and food. I don't know how this would work here.
You'd probably win over Missouri residents if you offered them a discount for tolls if they had an express pass. Let outside residents pay to use our highways, especially I-70.
A reminder that I-70 is used for a lot more than trips between STL and KC. Growing up in Fulton, MO, I was on it on a weekly basis. I'm not sure why greater STL residents should get to use the 12 lane wide I-270 for free but my parents have to pay to use a 6 lane I-70 to get dinner in Columbia. Raise the gas tax or better yet, start a VMT tax.
Maybe we need to toll all highways. That way we recoup money from out of state drivers that might not fill up in MO. Of course that would require enforcing license plate laws.aprice wrote: ↑Mar 15, 2023A reminder that I-70 is used for a lot more than trips between STL and KC. Growing up in Fulton, MO, I was on it on a weekly basis. I'm not sure why greater STL residents should get to use the 12 lane wide I-270 for free but my parents have to pay to use a 6 lane I-70 to get dinner in Columbia. Raise the gas tax or better yet, start a VMT tax.
There's always a two-lane option. From the center of Fulton to downtown Columbia it's one minute faster to take the non-interstate route, according to Google. Plus it's 8 miles shorter, so you save on gas.
Toll roads make cross-country driving so much better. The frequent exits and constant entering/exiting local traffic on free interstates is pretty unpleasant. Interstates should've never evolved to become local transportation.
Toll roads make cross-country driving so much better. The frequent exits and constant entering/exiting local traffic on free interstates is pretty unpleasant. Interstates should've never evolved to become local transportation.
I think a toll would be easier to sell than increasing the gas tax again or introducing a mileage tax. Anything with the word "tax" is looked down upon and would never advance. Selling a toll road as a way to ensure highway maintenance, a widening of I-70 (if people insist) and a way to bill outside residents for using our highways might be the way to win over support for it.
- 1,792
it should but it won't.chriss752 wrote: ↑Mar 15, 2023I think a toll would be easier to sell than increasing the gas tax again or introducing a mileage tax. Anything with the word "tax" is looked down upon and would never advance. Selling a toll road as a way to ensure highway maintenance, a widening of I-70 (if people insist) and a way to bill outside residents for using our highways might be the way to win over support for it.
No, they don't. I grew up in Western NY where they had a toll road partly through the metro area on I90, they kept a toll between 2 main exits which was incredibly inconvenient. Additionally, some exits are 20-30 miles apart which is annoying if you need to go to a town in between which could involve a lot of back tracking or unnecessary miles on side roads. I've never been inconvenienced by regular interstates but am annoyed every time I go back to visit.eee123 wrote: ↑Mar 15, 2023There's always a two-lane option. From the center of Fulton to downtown Columbia it's one minute faster to take the non-interstate route, according to Google. Plus it's 8 miles shorter, so you save on gas.
Toll roads make cross-country driving so much better. The frequent exits and constant entering/exiting local traffic on free interstates is pretty unpleasant. Interstates should've never evolved to become local transportation.
^ I feel like Kansas’ experiment with tolling is probably a better example than NY State tolls.
Tolls in the Warrenton to Grain Valley corridor would be fine in my opinion.
Tolls in the Warrenton to Grain Valley corridor would be fine in my opinion.
- 985
If I recall adding new tolls on existing interstate highways are prohibited. Kansas (among others) are grandfathered in since it predates the interstate system. There are exceptions though relating to reconstructions or elements like new bridges or tunnels.
Did this expire?imperialmog wrote: ↑Mar 29, 2023If I recall adding new tolls on existing interstate highways are prohibited. Kansas (among others) are grandfathered in since it predates the interstate system. There are exceptions though relating to reconstructions or elements like new bridges or tunnels.
https://spexternal.modot.mo.gov/sites/c ... ePaper.pdfThe United States Code (Title 23, Section 301) prohibits tolling of interstate highways; however, the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) received conditional provisional approval to impose and collect tolls on I-70 from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on July 26, 2005. The conditional provisional approval is contingent upon environmental clearance of the I-70 corridor and approval of Missouri’s tolling authority by FHWA. MoDOT received FHWA approval of a tiered Environmental Impact Statement in 2006 and a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in 2009 for the segment of I-70 from I-470 to I-64 near Wentzville.
^^^ Worth mentioning that KS is only able to build toll lanes on existing interstates provided the toll lanes are new, additional lanes. You are not able to add toll lanes to existing lanes. See the 69 HWY project in Johnson County between like 103rd and 175th. They have to do it there since that stretch is the only place to fit additional lanes.
StlToday - Missouri House budget backs push to widen Interstate 70, renovate Powell Symphony Hall
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 4b65d.html
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 4b65d.html
MO Independent - Missouri Senate committee triples funding for widening I-70 across the state
https://missouriindependent.com/2023/04 ... the-state/
https://missouriindependent.com/2023/04 ... the-state/
I stress again that they need to upgrade I-70 in St. Louis City and County. This a rural welfare project.
sc4mayor wrote:Probably because MoDot already has long range plans for I-70 in St. Louis. Including reconstruction in some sections.goat314 wrote:My biggest issue with the I-70 plan is that it did nothing to rehabilitate I-70 through St. Louis. That is where the biggest issues on I-70 is in my opinion. It really looks tired and antiquated in my opinion.
Well I still think the same way.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Apr 19, 2023sc4mayor wrote:Probably because MoDot already has long range plans for I-70 in St. Louis. Including reconstruction in some sections.goat314 wrote:My biggest issue with the I-70 plan is that it did nothing to rehabilitate I-70 through St. Louis. That is where the biggest issues on I-70 is in my opinion. It really looks tired and antiquated in my opinion.
- 1,792
Not even. Its a jobs program and a give away to trucking companies. It will do little to improve rural welfare.goat314 wrote: ↑Apr 19, 2023I stress again that they need to upgrade I-70 in St. Louis City and County. This a rural welfare project.
All interstate projects are rural and trucking welfaregoat314 wrote: ↑Apr 19, 2023I stress again that they need to upgrade I-70 in St. Louis City and County. This a rural welfare project.
A reminder your commute is a concern for the state only if it's by car.
"After the House defeated an amendment by Rep. Peter Merideth, D-St. Louis, to use $60 million to fund free use of local transit systems, he asked for about $9 million to fully fund MoDOT’s budget request for transit.
It represented just 1% of the money set aside for I-70 and the costs of that highway are unknown until bids come in, he said.
“Where have we ever had a project that large that came within 1% of its cost?” Meredith asked as he pleaded for support.
That amendment was defeated on a voice vote."
"After the House defeated an amendment by Rep. Peter Merideth, D-St. Louis, to use $60 million to fund free use of local transit systems, he asked for about $9 million to fully fund MoDOT’s budget request for transit.
It represented just 1% of the money set aside for I-70 and the costs of that highway are unknown until bids come in, he said.
“Where have we ever had a project that large that came within 1% of its cost?” Meredith asked as he pleaded for support.
That amendment was defeated on a voice vote."