Missouri Wins Federal Approval of $4,000,000,000 Interstate 70 Project, May Seek Sales Tax Funding
“The public has repeatedly told us about their concerns with safety issues regarding truck traffic. This enhances safety.” So says Bob Brendel, project manager for I-70 environmental studies.
The remedy for those "concerns"? A $4,000,000,000 project to divide semi-truck traffic from auto traffic on I-70 across the state of Missouri. The idea, if not funding itself, has been approved by the Federal Highway Administration. I wonder what would happen if the public repeatedly told someone about their concerns with transportation issues regarding light rail and mass transit. I say that in the fashion of the twice-failed Metro sales tax ballot initiatives we put the $4,000,000,000 I-70 project to a statewide popular vote.
How is it that virtually all Americans came to think of themselves as "middle class" in the twentieth century? In this cultural history of real estate brokerage, Jeffrey M. Hornstein argues that the rise of the Realtors as dealers in both domestic space and the ideology of home ownership provides tremendous insight into this critical question.
Let's start listing the ways Missouri could spend $4,000,000,000...
1. Comprehensive streetcar and bus transit for Kansas City and St. Louis
Any chance it will be tolled to cover the cost?
Trucks, pollution, noise and desperation RULE MO, you didn't know that? Anyway this is an important part of McKee's plan for N StL.
I-278 in New York City carries more than double the traffic (including as much, if not more, truck traffic) on a road that doesn't even come close to I-70 safety standards, but New York getting even $1B to fix this is a fantasy. And I-278 doesn't run through the middle of nowhere; it runs through one of the most densely populated areas of the country. Nobody cares.
Of course, for New York the better solution is a freight train tunnel that would cost more than $4B, but per unit of freight delivered it would be vastly cheaper. But again, New York is a blue state with little political leverage, and its teeming masses have no say in national transportation policy.
Yes, every development in the state is part of the McKee North St. Louis conspiracy!
Does anyone know an easy way to find the number of deaths on I-70 in MO from accidents with semi-trucks?
Although traffic spending should not be relative, "traffic" and congestion are (unfortunately).
Nearly every article I've read about highway safety regarding truck/auto collisions indicates that the automobile driver is at fault for the accident. Most people, seemingly, can't figure out that a 60,000-80,000 lb. vehicle cannot stop on a dime. This is purely a political "solution" to a problem of poorly educated or ignorant automobile drivers. the concrete and construction contractors are looking at decreasing business due the fact that our nations infrastructure is largely built out. Repairs to existing roads and bridges don't bring in as much profits, I suppose. Missouri should do the same thing Kansas and Colorado have done: Replace sections of I-70 roadway a section at a time. Divert traffic from a 15-20 mile stretch to the opposite lanes and rip out the old section and completely rebuild from the base up. And so on. Take a while, but might be more cost-effective to do it that way. 4BUSD is an insane sum to ask for from the feds. As anon 9:22 said, ain't gonna happen. Plus, the notion of this amount of money going to this single road project at a time of Peak Oil is sheer stupidity.
Mandating truck traffic remain in the right lane on I-70, and perhaps adding a few third lanes in a few long uphill sections to assuage the incredibly impatient (80+ mph) drivers would go a long way towards alleviating the truck "problem" on I-70, and wouldn't cost nearly $4bn. Now let's take the leftovers and allocate it to mass transit in the urban centers that actually bring in all of the state's money!
The reality of it all is we have a government which doens't want to use rail. they would rather have tax money rolling in. when do you stop the pain and just install rail? It could be like the Erie canal Move frieght until it needs to be offloaded.
If High Speed rail transit were somehow incorporated into the new roadbed construction, it would be more appealing. At this juncture, I'm not sure investment on this scale for autocentric transit with fast-approaching peak oil is even worth considering. The video had described anticipated highway truck volume to be significantly higher by 2030, and I would say that if the current transit mode is still as one-dimensional in 20 years, we're in serious trouble.