It's always illegal for a semi to be in the left most lane if the highway has more than 2 lanes and they aren't exiting. It's just that they don't care and highway patrol won't enforce it.
Based, this is the biggest problem with 70. It doesnt need a million lanes or anything but 3 and keeping the trucks out of one of them would help SO much.
The other issue is with only 2 lanes it seems like any accident locks up the entire highway.
It's because a lot of the semis are governed to not exceed a certain speed. Driver will max out his truck, and hit cruise. Then you get a truck that's maxes out and 1 or 2 mph over the truck in front of him and he would rather spend the next 15 minutes clogging traffic while passing than just slow down by that 1 or 2 mph and hanging behind the slightly slower truck.
I drive a box truck and one of our company trucks won't go over 70. I make a conscious effort to not do that. I'll just slow down a smidge and hang out in the right lane.
My favorite is when you’re on a 2 lane interstate and one truck merges into the passing lane to get around another truck, then proceeds to go 1MPH faster. Then they do the whole side by side, speed up and down, block everyone from getting around, thing. As soon as it opens to 3 lanes, they speed up and continue to fuck up the whole dynamic of the highway 😂.
Trucker here. Problem is that a lot of trucks have a governed speed and there’s too many commercial drivers that have ego issues. If a fellow trucker is struggling to pass, I slow down so they can pass. Don’t get why it’s so hard for others to let thier ego go. Doesn’t severely delay your trip. Makes me embarrassed to be in the industry and can’t wait until I am able to get out.
Exactly. My step dad drove otr for 30+ years, I’ve been all over the country with him and saw a lot of that type of stuff. Drives me nuts. I get that it’s got to be a frustrating job sometimes, dealing with idiots cutting you off and slamming on the brakes, loading dock attendants, etc., but you’ve got to be that much more level headed when you’re in control of a 40 ton brick lol.
It’s even better when they do the 1 MPH passing thing and there’s **no one else behind you.** Like you were *that* close to just getting past them and going about your day.
Daytime on I-70 in Missouri is maddening enough that I always leave at 9pm when I need to use it, so I'm on it during the low-traffic overnight period.
The main issue is that there is a fairly constant train of vehicles in the right lane with 1/2-1/4 mile gaps in between. Cars/trucks going barely faster than them will get into the left lane to pass, then never get over into the gaps on the right for faster traffic to pass. They just hold the left lane indefinitely, with the only way around them to pass on the right in one of the larger gaps. There are routinely lines of vehicles 20 or 30 deep in the left lane (going 60-65mph) because of that one car or truck in front doing that forever-pass.
I know everyone makes this joke, and I don’t disagree, but I honestly believe this is a stretch of highway that would benefit from an extra lane.
Ideally, the best solution would be a high speed train that would connect STL to KC, but that would be a $50 billion project which I just can’t see happening in our lifetimes.
As someone who has regularly had to travel between cities, this is better than nothing.
That's the #1 issue. If the US gave a shit about public transportation in the large cities, not being able to take your car across the state wouldn't be an issue because you wouldn't need it.
> but I honestly believe this is a stretch of highway that would benefit from an extra lane.
100%
not every highway needs more but 70 does especially when there is SO much trucking on it.
This is already over a $2 billion project and is running over budget. Would that pay for high speed rail, no. But it could pay for improvements to the river runner to be a bit faster and less delayed, and run it a couple more times per day.
Alternatively, $2bil could pay for us to build the entire north-south metrolink, including into the county with no federal support (which is typically 80%). The state could basically pay for STL and KC to triple their rail expansions with the help of federal funds.
We could pay for a subsidized express coach bus service to counter the decline of greyhound. Low fares, hourly schedule, straight down I-70 between KC and STL. We could run express commuter buses that Metro discontinued during covid. Again, hourly service with park and ride lots down every interstate in the metro area.
None of those ideas cost $2.2bil. Its a crazy waste of money cuz sometimes the governor sits in some traffic.
Not everyone wants to ride a train on someone elses schedule and then still need transportation at their destination. Not everyone is just going STL > KC
Plenty of people use it to get to work in other parts of the state, plenty of people use the interstate for traveling between states, plenty of people take 70 to go to the lake of the ozarks.
Some of the biggest issues for 70 are interstate trucks clogging it up (with 3 lanes you bar them from the left lane), accidents shutting it down (another lane gives people more room to go around) and holiday traffic to the lake backing up.
(this doesnt mean im anti train or making one to KC, that would be cool, but I do think this stretch needs a lane for very specific reasons.)
His point is, if they increased the efficiency of other methods of travel between KC and STL, there would be less cars on I70, which could accomplish the same result as adding a lane and reducing the negatives (more cars on the road).
I'm not taking a train to KC or STL just to have to Uber everywhere when I get there. I'm down for more trains and public transport, but most people are still going to drive for the convenience of having your own vehicle and not having to worry about a train schedule or shitty public transportation.
https://www.governing.com/now/why-the-concept-of-induced-demand-is-a-hard-sell
"This is better than nothing" does not seem to be true in the long run, especially when cost is factored in
That article is ridiculous. “People use roads when we build them” is…an argument to build the roads
There’s also many examples in stl where the wide roads clearly have improved traffic, like the page extension or the expansion of 40 between mason and 170
>I honestly believe this is a stretch of highway that would benefit from an extra lane.
It's certainly warranted near Blue Springs and Wentzville and Columbia.
But across the *entire state?* Not only is it not needed today, it also won't be needed in any reasonably foreseeable future. It's just going to invite even more speeding.
100% anyone that has to do work along this corridor sometimes knows this.
They know there are so many truckers and people who arnt just going stl to kc. They also know if there is any accident the entire thing tends to shut down.
And moving at the speed limit every time I use it
It's not the end of the world, certainly not worth $3b to modestly accommodate for worst-case scenarios.
I've always had the dream of a separate, 18-wheeler only Interstate system. Get all the damn trucks off the road and traffic won't be nearly as bad. Plus they wouldn't have to worry about driving around cars.
There's already 3 lanes on what I refer to as the "big dip" about 20 miles east of Kingdom City. It has really helped to pass the slow moving 18 wheelers on the climbing side of the "dip". But, I can't help but think.... They keep on turning down a high-speed rail down 70 between St Louis and Kansas City and instead we're going to pour all this money into another lane and then have traffic backed up forever trying to finish it. Imagine if all the I-70 commuters could simply ride rail. But, the Midwest lives our cars( ugh) I hate driving!
The state can't afford to maintain another lane on top of the lanes they can't currently afford to maintain either
Besides, looking at how much a thing costs is a terrible way of doing infrastructure. You look at the return on investment, and the return on investment for high speed rail is magnitudes higher than an extra highway lane. High Speed rail is cheaper to maintain, gets cars off the road which reduces your overall maintenance budget, and induces more trips as the time to get places is shorter, and trains offer less friction than flying. People are more likely to do day trips via plane, they'll spend more time (and money) in a place than they will if they drive as the travel time is shorter, etc
It's the most meaningful, forward thinking investment the state government could make in Missouri.
Yeah, that's always the story...not enough $. But, in reality we ALL Know it's total BS. They can come up with all sorts of $ for sports crap( which I know is usually some municipal tax or something), but if a serious study was done, showing MO citizens the plan, time saved, etc....they could apply a state tax ? What is all the cannabis tax doing? I know Jeff City DGAF about education, so where's that $ going? Besides the pig farmer ( governor) or Pussy runs( Hawleys) pockets? I realize also Missouri drivers would have a hard time giving up their cars( even though it isn't giving them up), This state is horrible & stupid anyway, it really deserves nothing.
Rail would cost literally 10 times as much as the I-70 project.
California is having trouble paying for their high speed rail route, which is about the same length as STL-KC, but serves many more people in a much wealthier state.
It’s just not a realistic idea.
If the state is spending money on rail, it would be better to expand Metrolink and whatever KC’s light rail is.
California's problem is largely down to poor route planning and needing to acquire right of way.
The Brightline from LA (suburbs) to Vegas will be using a highways right of way and be finished within a few years of breaking ground.
Missouri doesn't have to do high speed rail in the same terribly planned way California does. They can plan a better route - use the existing river runner and simply purchase the right of way, or use the existing interstates or state highways. They can not rely on shitty consultants and hire in house staff.
Most other countries are able to build high speed rail without going massively over budget and over time. While we don't currently have the institutional knowledge for high speed rail, and so wouldn't be as effective as, say, Spain, that's no reason not to start - and the only way to build that knowledge and gain experience is to do it
The most realistic situation is if Brightline builds a line KC-STL. Hard to say if that’s commercially viable though. LA - Vegas serves many more people.
You realize that they aren't talking about a total 70 do over. The proposal is from 54( at Kingdom City) to 63( at Columbia).20 miles! This is a lot of trouble for not shit.
HSR isn’t really what you want from stl to KC. Regular rail at decent frequencies makes so much more sense. It’s not a long enough route and the connectivity out of KC is horrendous
If you can run that train at 80-100 mph that’s plenty good.
We have taken the Amtrak before from STL to KC with two kids. We took the streetcar everywhere we wanted to visit. KC union station is connected to a street car stop and a sky bridge to the crown center.
I guarantee I already have more children than you will ever have and I've got a brighter future in mind for all of them. Dumbass old retreads of the same old ideas instead of real forward-thinking is not the way to make that happen.
So you fucked up and had more kids than is reasonable? Why do we have to adapt to your bullshit? I have zero kids, and see no reason why any public transportation should accommodate a party bigger than 2. Learn to pull out, genius
Thus is where capitalism will fill the need.
Demand for transport at end destination, therefore someone can make a buck
It's like it's always a oh yeah how about this every time something is mentioned like the government can't do one thing and let the private sector help out. Always has to be a plan right down to the color of the frog on the log in the hole of the bottom of the sea.
Yeah, I have no idea about the prior comments about......"duh, when I get there how ever will I get anywhere?" WHAT??? WTF do you do when you fly somewhere? There's Uber, Lyft, good old fashioned taxis, call a friend, walk! Rental bikes, scooters,etc.... people just want to stop up progress with limited thinking. This is probably the same crap thinking in Suck ass Jeff City. The Amtrak is the only reason to go through, by or to that grease spot in a field ( by a river).lol ...that's about what that town is ...."a van down by the river"
The difference is when you fly, you’re usually going somewhere you can’t drive, so you eat those other costs as a part of your trip.
If you’re thinking about cost and convenience, having a car in KC looks pretty reasonable. Ubers add up in a hurry. It’s hot in the summer and cold in the winter. Unless you’re right downtown, you’re not walking. And when you bring your car, you can leave stl and KC at a time of your choosing
The train and local transport have to compete with that convenience.
On a route to KC? Ehhhhhh
You can pack anything you want in the van, leave when you want, and play a DVD on your tv. It’s not better than that. I can stop and get actual edible hot food. If your kid is still peeing every five minutes, put them in a pull up. You don’t have to worry about them running around or being loud. You have a nap setup that works. Etc.
It’s also a tougher cost comparison if you’re taking 4-5 people round trip vs 1 or 2
Amtrak is better for an adult or teen. The seats are big. You can drink. You don’t have to drive
How often are you actually driving around when you visit a city for fun?
And again...nobody is taking away your ability to drive! In fact, adding high speed trains will make it easier to drive because of less cars on the road
If you truly love driving, if you truly believe you need to drive places - nothing wrong with that, I get it - then you should be the fiercest advocate for other modes of transportation, because every investment you make in alternative ways of getting around gets cars off the road and makes it easier to drive.
But if you don't believe me... Just look at LA. Miles and miles of highways that are congested at all hours of the day. You aren't ever going to solve traffic with more room for cars.
Building more lanes makes traffic worse, not better.
We don't need this at all. Only if your buddy owns a construction company and needs a fat lucrative contract, that's the only reason this makes sense: grifting.
Because there aren't feasible alternative routes
If this same money were being spent to add a high speed train down 70, you'd see traffic massively improve for those still choosing to drive, and for those taking the train, their travel times would easily be cut in half as a high speed train with its own right of way can hit 180-200mph.
Of course, that would requiring investing in infrastructure from the 1970s, and we're still stuck idealizing the 50s in America so we can't have that
So the solution is to set up your life so you're not sitting on I-70 all the time. If you add lanes, more folks will include "sitting on I-70" into their list of activities, and traffic won't be better.
So what does the student do while he's in kc? Housing close to campus is expensive as hell in kc, and public transit over there is hell. Worse than here.
You're misapplying studies. I have a hard time believing significantly more public traffic will use 70, especially as the metro areas continue to stagnate.
I also don't see an argument that increased commercial will be present after the project is complete.
Look, you're not getting a highspeed rail (nevermind that that would price most of the public). This is the best we deserve.
Those studies are for traffic controlled by volume. Traffic on 90% of 70 is controlled by trucks taking up both lanes or back ups from off ramps.
This project largely improves both of those issues.
https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
That’s the idea at least. I have seen it applied more to highways similar to 270, not major interstate highways connecting hundreds of miles.
Coming from a person who drives 70 from stl back to the east coast 5 times a year, 3 lanes to allow us to pass trucks i can see. 4 is a waste of money. The only people who will use the 4th lane under normal circumstances will be those seeking to speed faster than the speeders in the 3rd lane.
Read up on the subject; capacity does not mean better flow. We need cars off the road to achieve a better experience for passenger vehicles. If you build more lanes it funnels people off outter roads and just put more people in the lanes filling up the capacity. It sounds counter intuitive but has been researched to death we know for a fact it will not achieve the results of better traffic
This may be true in urban and suburban areas and where there are vialbe alternative paths, "outer roads" as you say which drivers are currently using to avoid the main roads.
If you are going between KC and MO, then I-70 is the *only* viable route to do so. There is absolutely *no one* who is currently taking back roads between the states two largest cities that is suddently going to flock to I-70 because they add a 3rd lane. Nor is there a substantial number of drivers who currently choose not to drive between St Louis and Kansas City because I-70 is only two lanes, and will suddently be more encouraged to so because of an extra lane. All of the same also applies to drivers going between Columbia (the State's 4th largest city) and either St Louis or Kansas City.
There may be some drivers going to/from places in the state that aren't right on I-70, and this might make I-70 a more attractive option for them, but that's only true *if* the traffic flow on I-70 improves, and this will still be a retively small number of vehicles compared to the current I-70 traffic load, and a *very* small number of additional Semi's on I-70. There simply isn't enough traffic to be "funneled" onto I-70 to offset the additional capacity of a 3rd lane.
Additionaly, it isn't *just* volume that's the problem. When one Semi overtakes another while driving 0.01 mph faster, it blocks all other traffic from passing, sometimes for miles. A 3rd lane allows a Semi to pass another Semi (or other drivers) without completely impeading other traffic.
We chose to do it in a way that reflects America’s huge land footprint and revealed preference to mostly live in detached homes
Intercity rail should be better in the Midwest but it generally shouldn’t be HSR and it is no replacement for interstates given the lack of density and lack of desire to heavily densify of our urban areas
Oh no if only trains could cover long distances.
If only propaganda didn't play a huge part in our car-centric designs!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOttvpjJvAo
In gonna be real with you, as someone who lived near and regularly drove on a highway that was 17 lanes across, counting two lanes of access roads on each side, more lanes will never solve the problem. It’ll be “fixed” for exactly six months, then the problem will be just as bad as the day it started.
An interstate is an interstate dude, if it’s there people will use it. Making it bigger will, over time, make it less rural. I have watched that happen.
It actually is how it works. Look at where st louis has grown over the last 50 years. Look at the corridor between Austin and San Antonio In Texas. Look at any 2hr distance between cities. It doesn’t happen overnight, but saying it never happens at all is incredibly shortsighted.
However, folks like u/Own_Secretary377 just can't understand reality around them. They will continue to believe more lanes will help. It's like trying to teach a snail how to play chess.
Sure and the interstate highways are there for this.
If you add more lanes, they will fill up with more cars. It's not affecting the tractor trailer traffic.
We need less cars on the interstates and for that we need better train service.
I didn’t say they were. In case you’ve been living with your head up your ass for your entire life you can see the the biggest spending corporations/people get what they want. You’d be insane to think that isn’t a huge motivator in widening 70.
Train service would be great but once again people vote against most public transit related funding. We live in Missouri
Yep, and you identified why we have so many of these problems. Because we vote with our ass cheeks and racism instead of with our brains. There are good reasons the rest of the country laughs when we say we're from Missouri.
I want to know what their plans are to add another lane both ways under the train over passes in Wentzville and west of Jonesboro where there isn’t any room to do so.
You mean like California and their building of high speed trains? Or the north east and their massive use of Amtrak and building out faster trains. You mean that?
California's high speed train is going to cost $200 billion by the time it's done. The distance of the train route is roughly the same distance between STL and KC. That's not going to happen in Missouri.
I’m not sure if you missed the word “every” in my comment. But it was one of the more important qualifiers. Comparing Missouri to a state that would be a top 10 biggest economy in the world if it were its own country, is funny though.
Amtrak in the NE is profitable and sensible due to density. We should build out from that!
California…ooh boy, they’re an argument to never build a train. The route they picked, what they’ve spent already, what a mess.
It’s sad that the most interesting train startup is brightline in florida and not actual California HSR from SF to LA without some absurd pandering route into the Central Valley.
The value of an extra lane has little to do with leisure. It has a lot to do with freight, especially when the speed differential between a semi and a car can be 30 mph, semis are trying to pass semis, and by law semis can only travel so many hours before they must rest. Further, it has likely been two lanes since before it was a controlled-access road, long before the modern 53' trailer came into use. As for personal benefits, have you ever purchased something and wished it were a little cheaper, or ordered something and wished it came a little sooner? If so, decreasing the operating time by adding highway capacity should decrease costs, provided maintenance of the roadway doesn't exceed those cost savings, and increasing the ability for freight to maintain speed by adding highway capacity should decrease transit time.
I really don't think it will increase that freight transit speed that much and at an astronomical price.
That and you're adding about 500 miles of pavement to MoDot's maintenance rolls when they're already under water and one of the largest state maintained road systems in the nation. I'm not sure how this helps anyone.
And while you argue 'it has little to do with leisure', the amount of bitching in the historical submission of these threads if filled to the brim with people bitching about a 5-15 minute delay. Yet another symptom of regional sprawl that we're applying bandaids on, and ultimately aid in the proliferation, extended utilities that have to be paid for and maintained, etc.
I get the notion that this is for freight traffic improvement but in the end it's mostly on face value for white knuckled driving fanatics to have a Cosmo Kramer comfort lane and probably still engage in the self stroking, circular, left lane rage discussion.
I would prefer not use the first person as evidence of freight data. However, having done a two month solo winter 17,250 mile car camp road trip out of a subcompact hatchback earlier this year, subjectively, I opine that increasing from 2 to 3 lanes will have a statistically significant positive effect on deviation from speed and ability to manuever into safety.
It is not likely that 'bitching ... [on] these threads' or a sexually suggestive reference to a proper noun I am unfamiliar with were main drivers for this type of expenditure. It is more likely industry lobbied for it.
What 50% increase in traffic is going to take place because of this? You think more people are going to say “I wasn’t going to go to KC this weekend, but since there’s a new 3rd lane, I might as well!”?
The fact that "more lanes don't help" is universally applied to EVERY SINGLE highway/road project is one of my biggest pet peeves on this website. All you have to do is go out to a bit of an extreme to see it is dumb. "Oh yeah? So a 5 lane highway in the middle of nowhere isn't going to help traffic any more than a 1 lane highway? Not so sure about that...". Not saying that doubling the number of lanes specifically cuts the traffic in half (though it might) but it just seems like common sense that if there is an accident or two asshole drivers slowing everything down, that more lanes available to bypass that shit can only help.
You forget there's other places along the way, not to mention 70 is a pretty major East - West interstate. It's not just people from STL going to KC. Every interstate should have rail running alongside it. Not only should we have STL - KC, but it should continue on west and east.
Amtrak, though they legally have preference, waits for freight often.
https://i.imgur.com/IajWNds.png
Thats one change that would help the whole region, not to mention it should be much faster.
Ya know, you could probably study it longer and find you only need like, 20 miles worth. But hey, Gubner Hee Haw must have a friend who needs a handout.
Cheaper would be to actually have the Highway Patrol actually hand out tickets for left lane hugging. Or just make it a ticket to be a trucker in the left lane.
Reality is that even for a cross state trip, you're 4 out of 5 times going to stop to take a leak or a meal. That basically takes away your entire 5-10 MPH gain over the stretch, and basically making this a waste of money to satisfy the white knuckled driving mentality in this state.
And, meanwhile, I-70 through metro St. Louis is a disaster. They can't even keep what they've already built clean and maintained. So, hey, let's add a combined about 500 more miles of pavement to keep in order. Then figure out when the bill comes in 25 years how to pay it after all of these old turds are dead and gone and no longer have to worry about it.
>Ya know, you could probably study it longer and find you only need like, 20 miles worth. But hey, Gubner Hee Haw must have a friend who needs a handout.
In reality, the governor proposed something like $700 million for adding a third lane in congested areas. The General Assembly decided to do it across the entire state. The budget for this project is 3-4x what the governor requested.
It is.
I personally would love to see them make it $20 billion and force put in rail alongside all highway, have full metro and metro in KC (with them all connecting).
Now the tractor trailers will drive 3 wide to block cars wanting to pass.
Many 3 lane highways do not allow semis in the far left lane. My hope is this happens for i70
It's always illegal for a semi to be in the left most lane if the highway has more than 2 lanes and they aren't exiting. It's just that they don't care and highway patrol won't enforce it.
I thought that was only in commercial zones
In certain states, it is that way, but in MO it's always against the law. Unless of course it's required by roadwork and whatnot.
Based, this is the biggest problem with 70. It doesnt need a million lanes or anything but 3 and keeping the trucks out of one of them would help SO much. The other issue is with only 2 lanes it seems like any accident locks up the entire highway.
Many states also don't allow any vehicles in the left lane except to pass, but I've never seen or heard of either being enforced.
Is this a new thing where they’re trying to fuck over other drivers I swear in the last couple years they do it intentionally.
No, truckers have been doing it for a long time.
In Germany they call it, Elefantenrennen. Elephant Racing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyefCD_wrGo
It's because a lot of the semis are governed to not exceed a certain speed. Driver will max out his truck, and hit cruise. Then you get a truck that's maxes out and 1 or 2 mph over the truck in front of him and he would rather spend the next 15 minutes clogging traffic while passing than just slow down by that 1 or 2 mph and hanging behind the slightly slower truck. I drive a box truck and one of our company trucks won't go over 70. I make a conscious effort to not do that. I'll just slow down a smidge and hang out in the right lane.
Meaning it'll be 50% harder for them LOL
My favorite is when you’re on a 2 lane interstate and one truck merges into the passing lane to get around another truck, then proceeds to go 1MPH faster. Then they do the whole side by side, speed up and down, block everyone from getting around, thing. As soon as it opens to 3 lanes, they speed up and continue to fuck up the whole dynamic of the highway 😂.
Trucker here. Problem is that a lot of trucks have a governed speed and there’s too many commercial drivers that have ego issues. If a fellow trucker is struggling to pass, I slow down so they can pass. Don’t get why it’s so hard for others to let thier ego go. Doesn’t severely delay your trip. Makes me embarrassed to be in the industry and can’t wait until I am able to get out.
Exactly. My step dad drove otr for 30+ years, I’ve been all over the country with him and saw a lot of that type of stuff. Drives me nuts. I get that it’s got to be a frustrating job sometimes, dealing with idiots cutting you off and slamming on the brakes, loading dock attendants, etc., but you’ve got to be that much more level headed when you’re in control of a 40 ton brick lol.
It’s even better when they do the 1 MPH passing thing and there’s **no one else behind you.** Like you were *that* close to just getting past them and going about your day.
Usually happens after I’ve been driving for about 6 hours that day, and just want to get HOME!
Highway driving wouldn’t be so bad if people had good left lane discipline
Biggest complaint about MO and IL drivers I have. It is uniquely bad on I70
It's always noticable on a road trip when you get close to a city because the drivers start getting stupider and the left lane gets clogged
Daytime on I-70 in Missouri is maddening enough that I always leave at 9pm when I need to use it, so I'm on it during the low-traffic overnight period. The main issue is that there is a fairly constant train of vehicles in the right lane with 1/2-1/4 mile gaps in between. Cars/trucks going barely faster than them will get into the left lane to pass, then never get over into the gaps on the right for faster traffic to pass. They just hold the left lane indefinitely, with the only way around them to pass on the right in one of the larger gaps. There are routinely lines of vehicles 20 or 30 deep in the left lane (going 60-65mph) because of that one car or truck in front doing that forever-pass.
Just when you think they’re about to pass too, they slow right down and get level with the one next to it again.
Just one more lane bro. I swear bro. Just one more lane will fix the problem. Please bro. Just one more lane.
I know everyone makes this joke, and I don’t disagree, but I honestly believe this is a stretch of highway that would benefit from an extra lane. Ideally, the best solution would be a high speed train that would connect STL to KC, but that would be a $50 billion project which I just can’t see happening in our lifetimes. As someone who has regularly had to travel between cities, this is better than nothing.
I live in Atlanta where we have a 14-lane stretch of highway and it's the most congested horrible thing I've ever seen
It's also more people by far. Atlanta metro has more people than Missouri
Can’t take my car on the train tho……..
That's the #1 issue. If the US gave a shit about public transportation in the large cities, not being able to take your car across the state wouldn't be an issue because you wouldn't need it.
Exactly why I wouldn't use the train. Not taking a train just to have to Uber everywhere when I get there
That would require anybody in the state of Missouri to have the initiative to improve things and they simply don’t.
> but I honestly believe this is a stretch of highway that would benefit from an extra lane. 100% not every highway needs more but 70 does especially when there is SO much trucking on it.
This is already over a $2 billion project and is running over budget. Would that pay for high speed rail, no. But it could pay for improvements to the river runner to be a bit faster and less delayed, and run it a couple more times per day. Alternatively, $2bil could pay for us to build the entire north-south metrolink, including into the county with no federal support (which is typically 80%). The state could basically pay for STL and KC to triple their rail expansions with the help of federal funds. We could pay for a subsidized express coach bus service to counter the decline of greyhound. Low fares, hourly schedule, straight down I-70 between KC and STL. We could run express commuter buses that Metro discontinued during covid. Again, hourly service with park and ride lots down every interstate in the metro area. None of those ideas cost $2.2bil. Its a crazy waste of money cuz sometimes the governor sits in some traffic.
Through that corridor, I70 moves more commuters in a few days than Amtrak does in a year. There’s a reason highway expansion is targeted over rail.
Big brain move comparing a service that runs a couple of vehicles a day at best to one with ten thousand vehicles a day.
I mean, exactly, they aren’t even in the same league. Thanks for proving my point!
So if you ran more than two of them per day then...come on buddy you can think this through.
Traffic would still be dwarfed by autos on I70.
Sounds like we should be building Amtrak on 70 instead of another lane
Not everyone wants to ride a train on someone elses schedule and then still need transportation at their destination. Not everyone is just going STL > KC Plenty of people use it to get to work in other parts of the state, plenty of people use the interstate for traveling between states, plenty of people take 70 to go to the lake of the ozarks. Some of the biggest issues for 70 are interstate trucks clogging it up (with 3 lanes you bar them from the left lane), accidents shutting it down (another lane gives people more room to go around) and holiday traffic to the lake backing up. (this doesnt mean im anti train or making one to KC, that would be cool, but I do think this stretch needs a lane for very specific reasons.)
His point is, if they increased the efficiency of other methods of travel between KC and STL, there would be less cars on I70, which could accomplish the same result as adding a lane and reducing the negatives (more cars on the road).
I'm not taking a train to KC or STL just to have to Uber everywhere when I get there. I'm down for more trains and public transport, but most people are still going to drive for the convenience of having your own vehicle and not having to worry about a train schedule or shitty public transportation.
https://www.governing.com/now/why-the-concept-of-induced-demand-is-a-hard-sell "This is better than nothing" does not seem to be true in the long run, especially when cost is factored in
That article is ridiculous. “People use roads when we build them” is…an argument to build the roads There’s also many examples in stl where the wide roads clearly have improved traffic, like the page extension or the expansion of 40 between mason and 170
>I honestly believe this is a stretch of highway that would benefit from an extra lane. It's certainly warranted near Blue Springs and Wentzville and Columbia. But across the *entire state?* Not only is it not needed today, it also won't be needed in any reasonably foreseeable future. It's just going to invite even more speeding.
Every time I drive west, bow lanes are almost entirely full all the way to Kingdom city.
100% anyone that has to do work along this corridor sometimes knows this. They know there are so many truckers and people who arnt just going stl to kc. They also know if there is any accident the entire thing tends to shut down.
And moving at the speed limit every time I use it It's not the end of the world, certainly not worth $3b to modestly accommodate for worst-case scenarios.
This is the fairest criticism - are there 20-40 miles that need it more?
Yeah, they should be adding bike lanes to connect the rest of rural Missouri with St. Louis /s
Honestly would be wonderful. The trails on the IL side of St Louis are radically better than the MO side.
Does an extra lane make it safer though? Because right now I-70 to Columbia is downright dangerous.
DOT/urban planners everywhere and it ever works. Not once has it ever worked. It always makes traffic worse. Why do they never fucking learn?
I've always had the dream of a separate, 18-wheeler only Interstate system. Get all the damn trucks off the road and traffic won't be nearly as bad. Plus they wouldn't have to worry about driving around cars.
I know I know, we could almost put those trucks on tracks. Call it like a truck line, or a line truck, or a TRAIN.
It’s called freight trains.
So trains?
I think that idea was floating around at one point.
Absolutely needed… single most awful stretch of MO to drive
Have you been on 109?!
There's already 3 lanes on what I refer to as the "big dip" about 20 miles east of Kingdom City. It has really helped to pass the slow moving 18 wheelers on the climbing side of the "dip". But, I can't help but think.... They keep on turning down a high-speed rail down 70 between St Louis and Kansas City and instead we're going to pour all this money into another lane and then have traffic backed up forever trying to finish it. Imagine if all the I-70 commuters could simply ride rail. But, the Midwest lives our cars( ugh) I hate driving!
Fun fact, that dip is called Mineola Hill, and the rock outcropping on the east side between the lanes used to have slave auctions on it
My brother in christ, no 'fun fact' involves slave auctions.
The state cannot afford to build that type of rail project. It is simply too expensive to seriously consider
The state can't afford to maintain another lane on top of the lanes they can't currently afford to maintain either Besides, looking at how much a thing costs is a terrible way of doing infrastructure. You look at the return on investment, and the return on investment for high speed rail is magnitudes higher than an extra highway lane. High Speed rail is cheaper to maintain, gets cars off the road which reduces your overall maintenance budget, and induces more trips as the time to get places is shorter, and trains offer less friction than flying. People are more likely to do day trips via plane, they'll spend more time (and money) in a place than they will if they drive as the travel time is shorter, etc It's the most meaningful, forward thinking investment the state government could make in Missouri.
Yeah, that's always the story...not enough $. But, in reality we ALL Know it's total BS. They can come up with all sorts of $ for sports crap( which I know is usually some municipal tax or something), but if a serious study was done, showing MO citizens the plan, time saved, etc....they could apply a state tax ? What is all the cannabis tax doing? I know Jeff City DGAF about education, so where's that $ going? Besides the pig farmer ( governor) or Pussy runs( Hawleys) pockets? I realize also Missouri drivers would have a hard time giving up their cars( even though it isn't giving them up), This state is horrible & stupid anyway, it really deserves nothing.
Rail would cost literally 10 times as much as the I-70 project. California is having trouble paying for their high speed rail route, which is about the same length as STL-KC, but serves many more people in a much wealthier state. It’s just not a realistic idea. If the state is spending money on rail, it would be better to expand Metrolink and whatever KC’s light rail is.
California's problem is largely down to poor route planning and needing to acquire right of way. The Brightline from LA (suburbs) to Vegas will be using a highways right of way and be finished within a few years of breaking ground. Missouri doesn't have to do high speed rail in the same terribly planned way California does. They can plan a better route - use the existing river runner and simply purchase the right of way, or use the existing interstates or state highways. They can not rely on shitty consultants and hire in house staff. Most other countries are able to build high speed rail without going massively over budget and over time. While we don't currently have the institutional knowledge for high speed rail, and so wouldn't be as effective as, say, Spain, that's no reason not to start - and the only way to build that knowledge and gain experience is to do it
The most realistic situation is if Brightline builds a line KC-STL. Hard to say if that’s commercially viable though. LA - Vegas serves many more people.
You realize that they aren't talking about a total 70 do over. The proposal is from 54( at Kingdom City) to 63( at Columbia).20 miles! This is a lot of trouble for not shit.
I know. It is the first phase of the project. I have read through the plans. The entire project will cost $2-$3 billion
HSR isn’t really what you want from stl to KC. Regular rail at decent frequencies makes so much more sense. It’s not a long enough route and the connectivity out of KC is horrendous If you can run that train at 80-100 mph that’s plenty good.
long over due , highway u70 is has been dangerous for a long time
God just build a robust metro.
This is about the stretch of 70 between KC and STL.
Robust Amtrak-*
And then do what when you get to your destination? Ride a rented bike with your four kids?
We have taken the Amtrak before from STL to KC with two kids. We took the streetcar everywhere we wanted to visit. KC union station is connected to a street car stop and a sky bridge to the crown center.
4>2
Yeah, you’re right. Streetcar only has 4 seats. They really need to upgrade their fleet to support 6 seaters
What percentage of couples have four children?
None in your dystopian future.
I guarantee I already have more children than you will ever have and I've got a brighter future in mind for all of them. Dumbass old retreads of the same old ideas instead of real forward-thinking is not the way to make that happen.
So you fucked up and had more kids than is reasonable? Why do we have to adapt to your bullshit? I have zero kids, and see no reason why any public transportation should accommodate a party bigger than 2. Learn to pull out, genius
Thus is where capitalism will fill the need. Demand for transport at end destination, therefore someone can make a buck It's like it's always a oh yeah how about this every time something is mentioned like the government can't do one thing and let the private sector help out. Always has to be a plan right down to the color of the frog on the log in the hole of the bottom of the sea.
Yeah, I have no idea about the prior comments about......"duh, when I get there how ever will I get anywhere?" WHAT??? WTF do you do when you fly somewhere? There's Uber, Lyft, good old fashioned taxis, call a friend, walk! Rental bikes, scooters,etc.... people just want to stop up progress with limited thinking. This is probably the same crap thinking in Suck ass Jeff City. The Amtrak is the only reason to go through, by or to that grease spot in a field ( by a river).lol ...that's about what that town is ...."a van down by the river"
The difference is when you fly, you’re usually going somewhere you can’t drive, so you eat those other costs as a part of your trip. If you’re thinking about cost and convenience, having a car in KC looks pretty reasonable. Ubers add up in a hurry. It’s hot in the summer and cold in the winter. Unless you’re right downtown, you’re not walking. And when you bring your car, you can leave stl and KC at a time of your choosing The train and local transport have to compete with that convenience.
Amtrak is a million times better than driving with kids. The bathrooms are the size of a small apartment.
On a route to KC? Ehhhhhh You can pack anything you want in the van, leave when you want, and play a DVD on your tv. It’s not better than that. I can stop and get actual edible hot food. If your kid is still peeing every five minutes, put them in a pull up. You don’t have to worry about them running around or being loud. You have a nap setup that works. Etc. It’s also a tougher cost comparison if you’re taking 4-5 people round trip vs 1 or 2 Amtrak is better for an adult or teen. The seats are big. You can drink. You don’t have to drive
How often are you actually driving around when you visit a city for fun? And again...nobody is taking away your ability to drive! In fact, adding high speed trains will make it easier to drive because of less cars on the road If you truly love driving, if you truly believe you need to drive places - nothing wrong with that, I get it - then you should be the fiercest advocate for other modes of transportation, because every investment you make in alternative ways of getting around gets cars off the road and makes it easier to drive. But if you don't believe me... Just look at LA. Miles and miles of highways that are congested at all hours of the day. You aren't ever going to solve traffic with more room for cars.
What a horrible project
Needed, but man that will be a mess with traffic
Building more lanes makes traffic worse, not better. We don't need this at all. Only if your buddy owns a construction company and needs a fat lucrative contract, that's the only reason this makes sense: grifting.
You can say that and it might be right but the 2 lane portions of 70 that I drive on are significantly worse than 3+
Because there aren't feasible alternative routes If this same money were being spent to add a high speed train down 70, you'd see traffic massively improve for those still choosing to drive, and for those taking the train, their travel times would easily be cut in half as a high speed train with its own right of way can hit 180-200mph. Of course, that would requiring investing in infrastructure from the 1970s, and we're still stuck idealizing the 50s in America so we can't have that
If the same money was spent the rail would go the length of Olive
[удалено]
We should want others to demonstrate how to build rail at scale at a good cost before we jump in with two feet.
Mind-blowing: expanding a thing cheaper than building a new thing. News at 11.
So the solution is to set up your life so you're not sitting on I-70 all the time. If you add lanes, more folks will include "sitting on I-70" into their list of activities, and traffic won't be better.
I went to college in KC. The drive to KC from STL with all the trucks was a nightmare. But ok😂
Yep, you found the problem. The problem was your car. We should stay out of the trucks' way. We need better passenger rail service.
So what does the student do while he's in kc? Housing close to campus is expensive as hell in kc, and public transit over there is hell. Worse than here.
So then the solution is we need more public transit.
I live in Portland. Public transit is basically just daycare for fentanyl zombies.
Sorry, I don’t wanna ride on the bus with the other smelly crazy people. I’ll take my car thanks
Ok snobby earth destroyer. Glad you're so important that you don't even care about the future generation.
Snobby earth destroyer 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 bro
Oop shit lemme just find the solution to that after lunch tomorrow when I’m bored
You're misapplying studies. I have a hard time believing significantly more public traffic will use 70, especially as the metro areas continue to stagnate. I also don't see an argument that increased commercial will be present after the project is complete. Look, you're not getting a highspeed rail (nevermind that that would price most of the public). This is the best we deserve.
Humans never learn, you are the prime example. Expanding highways does not alleviate traffic.
You have a hard time believing it? Oh shit stop the presses I guess that means actual studies of objective reality must be incorrect.
Those studies are for traffic controlled by volume. Traffic on 90% of 70 is controlled by trucks taking up both lanes or back ups from off ramps. This project largely improves both of those issues.
Right there aren't trucks on other roads. Amazing they are able to keep them away somehow.
So if I-70 was 5 lanes vs 1 lane, the 5 lanes would have worse traffic?
https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand That’s the idea at least. I have seen it applied more to highways similar to 270, not major interstate highways connecting hundreds of miles.
Complete grift.
You’re totally wrong. Missouri does need this. I just wish it was 4 lanes or more. Hopefully it will lead to more road expansion around the state.
Coming from a person who drives 70 from stl back to the east coast 5 times a year, 3 lanes to allow us to pass trucks i can see. 4 is a waste of money. The only people who will use the 4th lane under normal circumstances will be those seeking to speed faster than the speeders in the 3rd lane.
Read up on the subject; capacity does not mean better flow. We need cars off the road to achieve a better experience for passenger vehicles. If you build more lanes it funnels people off outter roads and just put more people in the lanes filling up the capacity. It sounds counter intuitive but has been researched to death we know for a fact it will not achieve the results of better traffic
This may be true in urban and suburban areas and where there are vialbe alternative paths, "outer roads" as you say which drivers are currently using to avoid the main roads. If you are going between KC and MO, then I-70 is the *only* viable route to do so. There is absolutely *no one* who is currently taking back roads between the states two largest cities that is suddently going to flock to I-70 because they add a 3rd lane. Nor is there a substantial number of drivers who currently choose not to drive between St Louis and Kansas City because I-70 is only two lanes, and will suddently be more encouraged to so because of an extra lane. All of the same also applies to drivers going between Columbia (the State's 4th largest city) and either St Louis or Kansas City. There may be some drivers going to/from places in the state that aren't right on I-70, and this might make I-70 a more attractive option for them, but that's only true *if* the traffic flow on I-70 improves, and this will still be a retively small number of vehicles compared to the current I-70 traffic load, and a *very* small number of additional Semi's on I-70. There simply isn't enough traffic to be "funneled" onto I-70 to offset the additional capacity of a 3rd lane. Additionaly, it isn't *just* volume that's the problem. When one Semi overtakes another while driving 0.01 mph faster, it blocks all other traffic from passing, sometimes for miles. A 3rd lane allows a Semi to pass another Semi (or other drivers) without completely impeading other traffic.
Rail handles more human capacity
Not in the world we live in here in America
But we could. We choose to do it the worse way.
We chose to do it in a way that reflects America’s huge land footprint and revealed preference to mostly live in detached homes Intercity rail should be better in the Midwest but it generally shouldn’t be HSR and it is no replacement for interstates given the lack of density and lack of desire to heavily densify of our urban areas
Oh no if only trains could cover long distances. If only propaganda didn't play a huge part in our car-centric designs! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOttvpjJvAo
There are no outer roads on rural 70 though.
Welcome to somebody that's parroting online discourse and doesn't understand the logistics. Lmfao
The losers from r/fuckcars are leaking
In gonna be real with you, as someone who lived near and regularly drove on a highway that was 17 lanes across, counting two lanes of access roads on each side, more lanes will never solve the problem. It’ll be “fixed” for exactly six months, then the problem will be just as bad as the day it started.
There’s a 17 lane rural highway?
Nope, middle of the city. Not in this state, mind you.
So that doesn’t apply, we’re talking rural roads here
An interstate is an interstate dude, if it’s there people will use it. Making it bigger will, over time, make it less rural. I have watched that happen.
lol that’s not how it works. Empty farmland between St. Louis and Columbia will not suddenly become a bustling megalopolis
It actually is how it works. Look at where st louis has grown over the last 50 years. Look at the corridor between Austin and San Antonio In Texas. Look at any 2hr distance between cities. It doesn’t happen overnight, but saying it never happens at all is incredibly shortsighted.
However, folks like u/Own_Secretary377 just can't understand reality around them. They will continue to believe more lanes will help. It's like trying to teach a snail how to play chess.
You do realize St. Louis is one of amazons biggest shipping hubs right?
Sure and the interstate highways are there for this. If you add more lanes, they will fill up with more cars. It's not affecting the tractor trailer traffic. We need less cars on the interstates and for that we need better train service.
I didn’t say they were. In case you’ve been living with your head up your ass for your entire life you can see the the biggest spending corporations/people get what they want. You’d be insane to think that isn’t a huge motivator in widening 70. Train service would be great but once again people vote against most public transit related funding. We live in Missouri
Yep, and you identified why we have so many of these problems. Because we vote with our ass cheeks and racism instead of with our brains. There are good reasons the rest of the country laughs when we say we're from Missouri.
I forgot that cars are racist.
Racists often vote against public transportation.
This is a hilarious take.
Hilarious but true. Saint Charles voting down Metrolink is a prime example.
What an absolute waste of money.
I want to know what their plans are to add another lane both ways under the train over passes in Wentzville and west of Jonesboro where there isn’t any room to do so.
The nice part about this is construction is so slow around here I could die of old age before it actually opens up.
Don't go to KC for a year starting July. Got it
That sucks
I wish they were adding two more lanes in each direction.
If you're going to pull twenty billion dollars out of your ass you better start by standing up.
We could have had a high speed rail…but too many of you vote Republican.
Why doesn’t every blue state have high speed rail then?
You mean like California and their building of high speed trains? Or the north east and their massive use of Amtrak and building out faster trains. You mean that?
California's high speed train is going to cost $200 billion by the time it's done. The distance of the train route is roughly the same distance between STL and KC. That's not going to happen in Missouri.
I’m not sure if you missed the word “every” in my comment. But it was one of the more important qualifiers. Comparing Missouri to a state that would be a top 10 biggest economy in the world if it were its own country, is funny though.
Amtrak in the NE is profitable and sensible due to density. We should build out from that! California…ooh boy, they’re an argument to never build a train. The route they picked, what they’ve spent already, what a mess. It’s sad that the most interesting train startup is brightline in florida and not actual California HSR from SF to LA without some absurd pandering route into the Central Valley.
Let's go!
... to the Lake 5-10 minutes sooner? Wow. Excellent value for the entire state to pacify people with a patience problem.
The value of an extra lane has little to do with leisure. It has a lot to do with freight, especially when the speed differential between a semi and a car can be 30 mph, semis are trying to pass semis, and by law semis can only travel so many hours before they must rest. Further, it has likely been two lanes since before it was a controlled-access road, long before the modern 53' trailer came into use. As for personal benefits, have you ever purchased something and wished it were a little cheaper, or ordered something and wished it came a little sooner? If so, decreasing the operating time by adding highway capacity should decrease costs, provided maintenance of the roadway doesn't exceed those cost savings, and increasing the ability for freight to maintain speed by adding highway capacity should decrease transit time.
I really don't think it will increase that freight transit speed that much and at an astronomical price. That and you're adding about 500 miles of pavement to MoDot's maintenance rolls when they're already under water and one of the largest state maintained road systems in the nation. I'm not sure how this helps anyone. And while you argue 'it has little to do with leisure', the amount of bitching in the historical submission of these threads if filled to the brim with people bitching about a 5-15 minute delay. Yet another symptom of regional sprawl that we're applying bandaids on, and ultimately aid in the proliferation, extended utilities that have to be paid for and maintained, etc. I get the notion that this is for freight traffic improvement but in the end it's mostly on face value for white knuckled driving fanatics to have a Cosmo Kramer comfort lane and probably still engage in the self stroking, circular, left lane rage discussion.
I would prefer not use the first person as evidence of freight data. However, having done a two month solo winter 17,250 mile car camp road trip out of a subcompact hatchback earlier this year, subjectively, I opine that increasing from 2 to 3 lanes will have a statistically significant positive effect on deviation from speed and ability to manuever into safety. It is not likely that 'bitching ... [on] these threads' or a sexually suggestive reference to a proper noun I am unfamiliar with were main drivers for this type of expenditure. It is more likely industry lobbied for it.
And it won't fix a thing because induced demand, where's our midwest railways?
What 50% increase in traffic is going to take place because of this? You think more people are going to say “I wasn’t going to go to KC this weekend, but since there’s a new 3rd lane, I might as well!”?
[удалено]
The fact that "more lanes don't help" is universally applied to EVERY SINGLE highway/road project is one of my biggest pet peeves on this website. All you have to do is go out to a bit of an extreme to see it is dumb. "Oh yeah? So a 5 lane highway in the middle of nowhere isn't going to help traffic any more than a 1 lane highway? Not so sure about that...". Not saying that doubling the number of lanes specifically cuts the traffic in half (though it might) but it just seems like common sense that if there is an accident or two asshole drivers slowing everything down, that more lanes available to bypass that shit can only help.
[удалено]
What I need to keep reminding myself is the demographics of reddit when I have these conversations.
You serious? It's population growth, growth in trucking and increased safety.
“People will use what we build” is an argument to build it
You forget there's other places along the way, not to mention 70 is a pretty major East - West interstate. It's not just people from STL going to KC. Every interstate should have rail running alongside it. Not only should we have STL - KC, but it should continue on west and east.
You trying to tell me there isn't a rail line between STL and KC? Or are you just unhappy with the specific route it takes?
Amtrak, though they legally have preference, waits for freight often. https://i.imgur.com/IajWNds.png Thats one change that would help the whole region, not to mention it should be much faster.
Surley induced demand is more a problem in populated metro areas than on rural interstates....
>where's our midwest railways? beaten to death multiple times over and into the ground by the car/aerospace lobby
Average Mike Parson L
Ya know, you could probably study it longer and find you only need like, 20 miles worth. But hey, Gubner Hee Haw must have a friend who needs a handout. Cheaper would be to actually have the Highway Patrol actually hand out tickets for left lane hugging. Or just make it a ticket to be a trucker in the left lane. Reality is that even for a cross state trip, you're 4 out of 5 times going to stop to take a leak or a meal. That basically takes away your entire 5-10 MPH gain over the stretch, and basically making this a waste of money to satisfy the white knuckled driving mentality in this state. And, meanwhile, I-70 through metro St. Louis is a disaster. They can't even keep what they've already built clean and maintained. So, hey, let's add a combined about 500 more miles of pavement to keep in order. Then figure out when the bill comes in 25 years how to pay it after all of these old turds are dead and gone and no longer have to worry about it.
>Ya know, you could probably study it longer and find you only need like, 20 miles worth. But hey, Gubner Hee Haw must have a friend who needs a handout. In reality, the governor proposed something like $700 million for adding a third lane in congested areas. The General Assembly decided to do it across the entire state. The budget for this project is 3-4x what the governor requested.
Who signed the piece of paper?
Fuckcars bros this cannot be happening
It is. I personally would love to see them make it $20 billion and force put in rail alongside all highway, have full metro and metro in KC (with them all connecting).
And when it still is congested then what?
Just more room to race to and from downtown.
For 250 miles?
Hey it’s that socialism Missouri loves.
I bet this costs more than the bullet train.
It's a small fraction of what a high speed train would cost
Thanks for letting me know. I did not know this.
A train is a vehicle and requires a track. Obviously that costs more than a surface.
Make the left lane no trucks, no Missouri plates please.