MoDot wants to pave Missouri
The Missouri Department is now arguing for additional funding to reconstruct some 200 miles of I-70. MoDot now wants to double the number of lanes between St Louis and Kansas City — four total for passenger vehicles and local trucks and four total lanes for long haul trucks. They argue, unconvincingly, that truck traffic is going to double by 2030 and that our quality of life is in danger without this new highway. Here is their propaganda video:
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=VTUf3qZQvf4[/youtube]
Rising fuel cost will shift the demand for these big trucks. Increasing transportation costs will alter the markets enough that we will hopefully see a return to local production, thereby reducing the need to truck stuff into the state. The billions of dollars proposed to be spent on this highway project would be better invested in re-establishing local manufacturing and food production within the state.
This highway, if built, would be like the new runway at the St Louis airport — an expensive project built on false assumptions about projected growth.
If they want to build such a highway then build toll booths as well. Make those that use it pay the cost. Sure for transportation that cost will end up in the price of goods but that is the reality of the situation — better to have the transportation cost in the price of the item rather than having it in a tax on something unrelated.
MoDot talks about the costs to maintain what we currently have and yet they want to add many more acres of paving in addition to more bridges and so on. This to me would be a major waste of tax dollars.
Here’s a thought.. how about replacing those hundreds (thousands?) of tractor-trailers with a couple of freight trains, like it aught to be anyway? Long-haul trucking should not even exist to begin with.
Actually there’s already serious talk of the State legislature putting in several million dollars to support the Union Pacific RR adding a second track to the mainline along the Missouri River between Hermann and Jefferson City (I think that’s the right section anyway).
Hopefully this would have a side benefit of improving Amtrak on-time performance, but the main reason is because there’s so many coal trains coming out of the Powder River Basin to places like AmerenUE Labadie plant and points east, that congestion on that route has gotten terribly out of hand. Yes, freight rail traffic has grown, even as the industry has consolidated into a handful of mega-railroads — UP, Kansas City Southern, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, BNSF, CSX, and Norfolk Southern.
The trouble with upgrading the railway infrastructure is that it may be construed as “corporate welfare” given that freight railroads are mostly private for-profit companies. Sure, we had a nationalized railroad in the East — Conrail — but that was a last-ditch effort to make sure service was provided after the collapse of Penn Central, a company that went bankrupt less than five years after the merger of the NY Central and the Pennsylvania railroads. And it has since been re-privatized.
Anyway, Interstate highways are public infrastructure. We can argue who benefits from them, and we can argue that tolls may or may not be a good idea. But putting public funds into railroad infrastructure is more difficult to sell politically, until it reaches a crisis like the one we currently see.
The truckers are saying they can’t afford the cost of diesel and will have to stop hauling if the price does not come down. Is anyone taking this seriously? If people really believed that the big rigs would stop hauling, there should be an immediate call to start building more rail.
I guess everyone thinks that the price of diesel will just start coming down. MODOT seems unaware that the amount of truck traffiic might not continue to increase.
Missouri is currently pitching itself to China as a gateway to the U.S. market. This highway proposal could be related to that effort.
MOdot is already destroying homes, neighborhoods and the ability to build a sustainable transportation system in the central corridor of St Louis. Even pedestrian routes are being eliminated and this less than accountable agency is not providing one mile of cycling-walking-jogging paths along the New 64. Room for Metro expansion…forgetaboutit.
– –
Just two weeks ago Rahn killed the Complete Streets legislative (HB 2206) initiatives even though the vote in the House was a favorable 139-9. Rahn says “trust us” and the public has as bridges are raised to serve truckers: http://mobikefed.org/2008/04/modot-halts-complete-streets-bill.php
– –
We need alternatives, especially rail, not 60s designs. Clearly MOdot and elected officials think gas prices are too low and burdening the state with outdated infrastructure.
Why is Missouri always behind? This would have been justified 30 years ago when cities in the sunbelt blew past us. Now it is evident that America is heading back to rail/urban growth patterns because the days of cheap gas are OVER! How about hi-speed rail and freight rail from KC to STL. I guess they’ll catch on to that in 50 years.
Steve:
Is this really a surprise? This from the Department that pleaded with legislators that proposed “Complete Streets” legislation is not needed (they would mandate it by internal policy instead). Take a look at the article over at the KC Pitch, and the comment written by Missouri Bicycle Federation Director Brent Hugh:
http://www.pitch.com/2008-04-17/news/modot-tosses-cyclists-over-the-handlebars
Pete Rahn is interested in one thing, and one thing only: making sure that more cars and more trucks are accommodated in our state. He cares nothing about other modes of transportation. Complete streets would only cut into his Department’s budget, even if we are only talking about pennies on the dollar to spend on bike/ped.
MODOT has been, for too long, making policy and legislating change that feeds their hungry budget. If you take cars or trucks off the road by investing in other forms of transportation, this cash cow begins to starve. You know that’s not going to happen.
My guess is that he is gambling that the Department’s popularity is riding high, since the Highway 64 project appears to be not as bad as everyone had thought (to me that just means it wasn’t necessary to begin with!). This coupled with the public being critical of OTR truck traffic/safety, MODOT is betting it is a good time to sell the expanded I-70 to the public.
Exactly Boris, The new 64 is a total waste of money. All the millions they spent on that shit could have been used to build like 3 new lines of light rail. The incompetence of these guys is almost sickening , because St. Louis has virtually no traffic for a city it size and more light rail would have sparked a trillion times more economic growth than that useless highway. The region is growing at a snail’s pace (mainly due to this incompetent leadership), so what the hell do you need all those lanes for? Where is the vision?
Being a pragmatist, I’m going to disagree, somewhat. Yes, this is overkill. But making I-70 six lanes (a minimum of 3 lanes each way) between Lake St. Louis and Independence WOULD be a good idea (and half the cost of this “idea”).
According to one source:
.
Freight rail has a fuel consumption rate 11.5 times more energy efficient than trucks, and a single intermodal freight train can take up to 280 trucks or 1,100 cars off of the highway.
.
So train transportation is the equivalent of 35 cent a gallon diesel fuel. ($4.00/11.5) Sounds to me like we should be investing in freight rail system improvements, not highways.
http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/more/fact_sheet_energy_efficiency/
Holy f’ing sh!t! Wow – look, it’s the “highway of tomorrow” – lanes for everyone, safe as can be – look at it glitter and shine! And did Rahn really have a car on his tie? A$$hole. Anyway, we should expect to less from MODOT or the state of Missoura. As Rahn has said, “we’re a highway department, not a transportation department”. It really is incredible that ideas such as this still have legs, really incredible.
St. Louis chose boats over trains once. This was a total transportation gaffe the city has not recovered from.
Will Missouri choose trucks over trains this time and miss the boat on the future of transportation yet again?
Answer: YES. MO will literally miss the boat, or should I say the HSP (high speed train). Note that from MoDOT’s own stats, 75% of the demand growth will be from trucks. Rahn’s solution is to give truckers exclusive use of four lanes plus the ability to use of the other four lanes when needed. Another local clown found, send him on his way asap.
Currently, today, already,… there is a seamless connection between rail and truck transportation. Most truck and rail companies work hand-in-glove to promote the greatest efficiency possible now. Building more rails would be nice for the trains, but will not reduce truck traffic.
Jim Zavist is correct. The most cost effective improvement would be turning 4 lanes into 6, with the potential of adding 2 more lanes should the need arise. One 8 lane freeway can handle WAY more traffic than the two 4 laners planned.
Planning a doubling of truck traffic in a changing market is foolhardy. NOT planning for the possibility of doubling is also foolhardy.
“MoDot wants to PAVE Missouri� C’mon, spare us the drama. Missouri is a pretty big place. Those who say otherwise need to get out more.
Rail freight is much more efficient. But this is Missouri. We don’t innovate.
First, my anti-spam word was “crowncandy,” so I’m hungry all of a sudden.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, the Feds are giving MODOT additional money to study truck-only lanes (TOLs) passing through Saint Louis and KC as part of an I-70 TOL corridor study from the PA/OH border to Kansas City.
As a more enlightened alternative, I hope the feds also fund a study of a Pittsburgh/Columbus/Dayton/Indianapolis/Saint Louis/Kansas City high speed rail line. Now that would be sustainable economic development that would truly benefit the Midwest.
Missouri is being paved!
.
Here are some rough figures for you.
.
Currently 0.0017% of the state is paved over by interstate highways.
.
The proposed I-70 expansion will raise that figure an additional 0.00029%
.
In round numbers, the proposal will raise the paved land mass in MO from 0% to 0%.
Think rail people!!!!!! There will come a time that none of us can afford fuel! Modot is a joke! There needs to be a new organization concentraiting on the needs of all forms of transportation not just Highways. Once again we are going to be left behind!
I don’t think anyone debates that adding the additional lanes amounts very little surface area, Urbania, the question is – do we really need to expand? Someone already mentioned that St. Louis is no LA or Houston when it comes to traffic. If there is a need to accomodate increased truck traffic, then why not get all of the one-occupant automobiles off the road/highway? That’s the whole point. If MODOT woulnd’t ignore programs that will actually remove auto (not truck) drivers, then it’s possible we wouldn’t have to expand the highways to begin with! Novel thought, isn’t it?
The expansion of the lanes leads to easier commutes which reduces drive time (temporarily), which of course increase suburban sprawl and a decay in the urban core. Yeah – it increases development along these behemoth highways, but at what cost?
Those who are so in love with MOdot should live next to one of their projects. Construction trucks and equipment will quickly break your streets while speeding even though MOdot has an agreement NOT to use these streets. In neighborhoods along 64, green space is destroyed, old growth trees cut down and not replaced, even jackhammering at 3 AM, trash left in residential streets, water and electricity disconnected without notice, dust and noise everyday, sidewalks closed, sewers eliminated and never replaced,…get the picture?
– –
The Tamm bridge was a PR campaign that got the local media all hot and bothered…even shown repeatedly on television. The New 64 is poorly designed and fails to address the infrastructure required to have an efficient and sustainable transportation system. It is designed for needs of yesterday and not of tomorrow which will burden the area for years to come as upkeep remains unfunded. Even the survey that got the publicity was poorly conducted and now they want to “trust them” with more expansion designed primarily for truckers?
– –
In round numbers the “0%” is only costing $55 million per mile (upfront)…how MO.ronic.
Urbanian,
Every time you pave another road, you also pave shoulders, entrance and exit ramps, and feeder roads. Not to mention by making space for more vehicles, you have to create more parking lots, gas stations, etc. I think I remember reading somewhere that an area the size of Georgia has been paved for transportation.
However, adding lanes on I-70 would create the most pavement in as far as it engenders more sprawl – with all the new homes and feeder roads, driveways, fast food drive-throughs, and so on.
Giving more lanes to trucks might not create as much sprawl as some highway projects. However, trucks create lots of air pollution and I wonder if MODOT has a plan to deal with the new air pollution that the expected truck traffic will generate.
Reality check people, Missouri continues to grow (http://www.censusscope.org/us/s29/chart_popl.html):
.
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Total 4,319,813 4,677,623 4,916,686 5,117,073 5,595,211
Change +357,810 +239,063 +200,387 +478,138
Percent Change 8.28% 5.11% 4.08% 9.34%
.
The corollary is that the demand for transportation expands exponentially, relative to population growth – most growth, by default, occurs on the finges, forcing nearly everyone to travel longer distances to reach the expanding range of housing, employment and services.
.
It’s easy to say “no more highways”, under the mutual delusions that congestion is good and that if we make the highways bad enough, more people will turn to rail or other forms of public transit. Our reality, our fundamental problem is that more people simply requires more transportation, whether it’s on highways or railways. Both offer advantages and disadvantages, and we need more of both. If you accept that conclusion, the next question becomes one of where? Does it make more sense to add capacity to existing corridors (as MoDOT proposes) or does it make more sense to create new corridors (which I would argue does a whole lot more to create sprawl).
.
I was driving I-70 in 1973 and it was four lanes. 35 years later, the same four lanes are carrying a LOT more traffic, and not doing it well. I’m not a fan of unchecked growth nor am I a fan of suburban sprawl, but it’s our reality. Part of improving our quality of life is not getting stuck in traffic. More-frequent public transit of all types (bus, rail, air) would likely draw more people out of their private vehicles. But that still doesn’t explain the demise of the intercity bus lines (Greyhound and Continental Trailways), nor the inability of Amtrak to attract more local riders, despite huge subsidies. To get people out of their cars, we need to give them a reason they understand – less stress, more amenities, less cost, no parking hassles are all “good” reasons. But those are many of the same reasons why our private vehicles are so attractive – they’re private, they go directly where we want to go when we want to go, and we can afford that choice, so we make it.
.
The same applies to the trucking industry – the flexibility of not being tied to a rail siding or the schedule of one or two railroads is a huge reason why trucks are the de facto choice, especially for local and regional distribution. So unless we want to kill our local economy, we’re going to have to both accept and accomodate growth. We can make it better, including focusing on brownfields, but it’s not going to go away. Which is why what’s happening on the north side of town is so intriguing – the transportation infrastructure is already in place, the land’s being assmbled, and plans are being made. The potential is there, for change, good or bad, or for continued stagnation. As a city, we can contribute to reducing suburban sprawl. The question is how can we overcome the hurdles, both real and perceived, and convince more businesses and residents that St. Louis is a better place to be (and invest in) than its surronding counties?!
Reality check:
1. Many other states and countries have grown much more than MO but see no need to build more and larger highways,
2. The costs to use private vehicles has increased dramatically, more than population growth by a factor of more than 3 to 1,
3. Since 1970, the average miles driven per car per year has climbed 26%, the number of cars per family has more than doubled, and now half of these are larger and less fuel efficient trucks and SUVs,. In fact even light trucks accounted for more than 80% of the growth in the number of vehicles on the road since 1985.
4. Since 1993 the number of cars has risen twice the fast as the growth in households,
5. In 1970s when OPEC was formed, we imported one-third of our oil from those countries and we now import two-thirds of our total consumption from OPEC.
6. Just a five years ago, as a country we spent under $100 million a day for oil just from OPEC…we now spend over $900 MILLION per day for their oil. As oil investor and advisor Boone Pickens has stated “we cannot afford this if we want to make economic progress and remain a growing nation”.
– –
As a nation, we have become increasingly dependent on foreign oil (via more motorized vehicles and trucks) and we are designing our roads, highways and transportation choices to increase this dependence. So if we want to strangle our local economy with more pollution, more noise, more traffic jams, higher insurance rates, more trucks, louder jake brakes, more accidents, and a lower quality of life, then you’ll love MOdot as presently managed.
John, I agree with everything you say, except for “Many other states . . . have grown much more than MO but see no need to build more and larger highways.” Given all your others stats, if that were truly the case, those states would be in urban gridlock – what evidence do you have to support your first statement? Yes, there are urban areas in a few cities that have resisted new highways, but go twenty miles in any direction (except, obviously, over water) from these few success stories and you’re going to find the same old suburban sprawl that we have here. So, at the state level, building highways is happening everywhere.
.
My experience, especially in high-growth, sunbelt areas, is that government is facing a never-ending battle of playing catch-up with demand. If you’re growing, especially in the good old USA, 90%+ is occuring in suburbia, which, by definition, involves putting in streets and sewers (and schools and shopping malls) and paving paradise. I don’t like it, but I don’t see a major groundswell to change anything, either. Sure, we who “know better” are pushing for change (in our own little ways), but given all the crap that keeps getting built, the majority of our neighbors sure aren’t buying what we have to preach . . .
I am Libertarian at heart.
How dare Y’alls say urban sprawl is wrong!!! What right do you have to limit the free choice of others!!! Such arrogance!!! Such self-righteousness!!! You’s should be ashamed! I’m laughing while I type this, but I am serious. The moniker “Urbanian†fits me well, but that doesn’t give me license to criticize others for making life choices that differ from mine.
—
Consider:
If the majority saw sprawl as evil, outward growth would stall. Better yet, if there were clear advantages for urban living, there would be a rush to downtown.
Telling people they can’t drive their single-occupant car on the open road grates on every Libertarian nerve in my body. Don’t even talk about “controlled growth†or this Portland, Oregon hometown boy will blow every fuse!
If Interstates created sprawl, there would only be sprawl where there are Interstates. Tain’t so. If Interstates were responsible for that “sucking sound†the current redevelopment of the city could only be due to the shutting down of the freeways. Which one did they close?
The acreage I cited as being paved by I-70 actually includes the unpaved part of the shoulders.
New car EPA figures cite MPG differently for city and highway. That’s because freeways reduce fuel consumption (and pollution).
One of the main reasons travel growth exceeds population growth exponentially is because we are far wealthier than we used to be, and we like to get around. This is most clearly seen in airline usage.
The average family car in the early 70’s got 10-12 MPG. Are there any SUVs that bad today? Many get double that.
Most of our oil comes from the western hemisphere; not Saudi Arabia. The fastest way to reduce oil imports and illegal immigration would be to annex Canada and Mexico (sorry, wrong joke, wrong day)
There is less pollution in St. Louis today than there has been since the 1820’s. It’s been decreasing since the 1920’s.
—
Just because I like to walk to work gives me no righteous license to censor the activities of others.
I agree with urbanian. The percentage of the state that will be literally paved over by providing the trucking industry with corporate welfare is quite small when compared to the entire acreage of the state. Also, there is less pollution today than before. Plus, cars get better gas mileage today.
.
Therefore, expanding the highway is the right to do.
As a society we make choices. Sprawl and big highways are choices just like a grid downtown and the arch were choices.
Government policy is bought and sold by large capitalists as if on they are on the trading floor.
The result is the total picture: high crime, more prisoners than anywhere in the world, a one dimensional transportation system, a failed health system that harms people and unborn children, in short policies that serve no one but insider interests.
Large scale capitalism is a failed system. Education, health, prisons and on and on are the absolute proof of the total mismanagement of America. America is barely ahead of the worse countries in the world and far below the best.
The building of a massive highway system for trucks is a continuation of failed policies. It does not even begin to include in the discussion alternatives or the serious choices this culture must begin making.
And while I agree in general with JZ about reality. Business as usual is no longer an option.
No need for long essays…you can find all you want by a click of the key. Highways are important, especially in linking cities and means of production. MOdot’s video is more like propaganda (I thought it was suppose to be a transportation dept?) than an objective review of alternatives and the costs of each. Making the urban core highway friendly is the opposite of making it people friendly. In moving heavy freight long distances, trains rule. Of course there are numerous other reasons not to go the highway route concerning such matters as health and national security. For good laughs watch this video made in the 50s by Disney on how cars and highways will be our future and salvation:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S18LCISRm4
– –
Driving is like an addiction and even W has admitted that “we’re addicted” and most physicians agree that addictions are similar to diseases. Even professionals who believe in mass transit and live close to metro stations still use their cars in StL.
http://www.transalt.org/files/newsroom/magazine/961JanFeb/02provocateur.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thX3dA1-H2Q
– –
Government workers (especially elected officials!) will always try to expand rather than maintain existing routes as the favored approach to solving our problems since it “creates jobs” (and raises campaign contributions too!). Quality of life issues? Forgetaboutit…not part of the formula.
– –
Cities, communities, that have addressed this issue? Start with Copenhagen (use to be as car oriented as us just 30 years ago) adopted public policies which places priorities on people over cars, the opposite of our strategy. Other cities like Paris have adopted policies that make life for residents more enjoyable while being environmentally friendly and definitely prosperous…and do you want to compare the value of real estate there to StL?
http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/04/22/paris-is-the-new-london-will-new-york-be-the-new-paris/
– –
It’s all about choices and mine favor people over cars, neighborhoods over highways, clean air over pollution, low maintenance costs to high, and intelligent logistical infrastructure is not oversimplified road designs. Congratulations to Portland, Davis CA, and other cities like Seattle, Chicago, etc that are doing the same…and prospering for these reasons. The debate starts with this kind of insight:
http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/interview-with-enrique-penalosa-long/
I nearly completely disagree with urbanian. Market reflection of consumer activity is as much carrot chasing as it is a matter of thoughtful and reasoned choice. People will usually make the wrong choices, knowingly, if those wrong choices are easily made simply out of convenience. People will allow themselves to be convinced that they need something because some other person is selling that thing, and not make reasoned choices based upon what is known to be right. Intervention on behalf of those capable, yet not reliable enough to make the right choices, is very often prescribable. This is of course why civil societies make laws and institutions, and have become civil. Most high school kids for instance, when given the opportunity at school lunch to make their own dietary choices, will almost invariably make the wrong choice, even when they are perfectly aware that the choice made is wrong. Those high school kids are exercising their libertarian wills and predictably making bad choices. When the state of Montana repealed its speed limit on state highways in the 1990s, it took less than one week to read stories of motorists stopped by patrolmen after driving recklessly at autobahn speeds. Those drivers were exercising their libertarian wills and predictably making bad choices. Allowing sprawl pattern development and autocentrism to perpetuate, based upon the arguments that would have also been made by the high school lunch choosers and Montana highway motorists, is simply irresponsible and shows a lack of willingness to recognize unsustainability in modes of behavior and equally unwilling to make the necessary changes to improve.
PS A minority superimposing their ideals, based on an alternate moral code, upon the majority, is tyranny.
– – –
PPS I favor Jim Zavist’s opinion that adding two lanes makes more sense than making a new freeway for trucks.
…unless that majority clearly recognizes that what the ‘minority’ is imposing is what’s truly best, but still chooses out of laziness and self-service to ignore that ‘alternate’ moral code. Tyranny is the oppression of an inescapable situation, and not a description of a situation in which we all, through democratic process, decide what’s best, and therefore what’s best can hardly be an ‘alternate’ morality. I thoroughly reject your implication.
Urbanian, I agree completely about the minority superimposing their ideals and that tyranny is orchestrated by MoDot and Pete Rahn.
If it was really a Department of Transportation, there would be a thorough study of how rail may serve as an alternate to trucks, a study of new rail lines along I 70 or other areas to displace truck traffic, it would study the energy comparison, especially in light of the ever increasing gasoline/diesel prices. It would study environmental impact, and how it could work in a larger integrated rail system state and nation wide. This information should have been presented along with the film above to the public for debate and discussion.
Instead it is the same one dimensional thinking that has gotten this nation into a fix in the first place.
Imagine if there was real leadership. So that after the first serious energy crisis in the seventies real change and preparation was made for the day that was sure to come–today.
Yes there is a tyranny and it is propagated by people like Rahn who hold power, but abuse it, misuse and act in ways that are detrimental to democracy and to the long term interests of the people of Missouri and of America.
Why is there a fear of having an in depth look at rail as an alternative? Simply because it will not serve the narrow corporate interests Rahn and MoDot represent. They surely don’t represent the people of Missouri. They are tyrannical in the dealings with the public. The only moral code is greed.
john w,
elegantly stated ^
urbanian,
“PS A minority superimposing their ideals, based on an alternate moral code, upon the majority, is tyranny.”
.
oh, i thought that was the definition for “marketing”. just out of curiosity, is it tyranny when the majority imposes its own moral code on the minority? happens all the time.
.
like john w. said, a lot of people will buy whatever you tell them they want. after all that’s what drives the US economy. how much “free choice” is exploitative marketing? how many dollars are spent on marketing research to persuade people that they NEED superfluous crap? but of course we never hold the EXPLOITERS accountable for their part in the deception. instead we worship them. it always amazes me that “business” ethics are so different from the morals that most people claim to espouse.
Roadways are public investments in right of way infrastructure that connect a mind boggling number of homes, businesses, institutions, etc. Cars and trucks give our society a mind boggling number of ways for individuals, groups, and goods to move between all these points. Railroads simply have limits even with their fuel efficiency just as boats are limited to water. To suggest that society is not benefitting from all this movement of people and goods with roads is niave beyond believe. The problem for the immediate future is the fact that we will need to replace oil as the energy source that drive our cars and trucks.
With that in mind. Agree with Jim Zavist that I-70, would throw in I-44 also, should go from four to six lanes. Second, making them tollways is the only realistic chance at gaining the funding needed to replace a deteriorating infrastructure that also puts the burden directly on the user who benefits the most (trucks). Build out of railways and grade seperation is pratical and beneficial. Thinking that we don’t need to do something I-70 is idiotic.
No Tim E. what is idiotic is MoDot not coing up with a comprehensive strategy that includes rail and other alternative forms of transit.
Building out more highways is a mindless act without competing and comprehensive strategies.
Yes, no doubt there is a lot of traffic on 44 or 70 at various times. Without a comprehensive transportation strategy it is hard to determine what is really the best solution to the problem.
The solution over and over is build more roads, expand highways. We haven’t solved the problem yet by that method and are not likely to do so.
A strategy that has overlapping and alternative means of shipping and transport and other new, creative strategies need to be developed for Missouri.
Various strategies can accommodate the movement of people and goods in an efficient, economic manner, but those alternatives are never looked at, that is the issue.
Unfortunately MoDot and Pete Rahn do not represent the people of Missouri, but rather the vested interests who profit handsomely with the way things are done now.
What is idiotic is the vast suburban sprawl which is has driven up infrastructure maintenance costs to unsustainable levels.
What is idiotic to propose paving even more earth without developing sustainable transportation policies. What is idiotic is the state of the political/corporate system of governance that is so corrupt and incompetent that this discussion occurs on a blog and not in the “establishment” news media and in the halls of legislature.
^ well said.
.
Also, the fact that the more expensive forms of transportation (trucking) are actually being subsidized, means the the less economically advantageous choices are made. Nobody is saying there isn’t a place for trucks. Nobody is saying that when we spend property taxes and sales taxes on roads, that we aren’t getting some benefit in return. The problem is that the outlay by taxpayers is disproportionate to the benefit received, and we have no control then on how much we want to put into the equation.
.
When some suggest (rightly, IMO) that gas taxes should pay for all roads, or that trucks should pay proportionally far more — after all, each doubling of weight of a vehicle produces SIXTEEN TIMES the damage to a roadway — the counter-argument is usually something like: “If you did that, then goods at the store would cost more.” GOOD! And at the same time, my property tax is less, my sales tax is less…AND most importantly, I have the choice to purchase less, my choice to not drive results in truly proportional benefits (I am not subsidizing trucks anymore), AND the transportation industry makes the *overall* most efficient choices to transport their goods, resulting in lower prices for everyone. Rather than choose trucks because it’s cheaper to their bottom line — at our expense — they may choose more rail or boat or whatever.
.
We’d see a major change in our transportation infrastructure if the public weren’t strong-armed into subsidizing concrete and asphalt for those who make their living from it.
How much demand will there be for more highways when diesel is selling for over $8/gallon? The national average price for diesel reached a record high of $4.25 a gallon on May 1 and according to Goldman Sachs, a super spike scenario is developing that could double that price in six to 24 months according to a report issued yesterday.
– –
At a time of high anxiety over soaring fuel prices and scarce supplies, oil analysts are resorting to satellite imagery to crack one of the industry’s biggest unknowns — whether Saudi Arabia’s massive Ghawar field is slipping into depleted old age. The largest oil fields in Russia and Mexico are failing to meet previous years output levels. Many analyst forecasts that Mexico will go from being an exporter to an oil importer in less than eight years.
– –
MOdot says “trust us we know what we’re doing” NOT…who else is falling for this clown act? The transition will create battles few can even imagine.
Gmichaud. Okay, All our state legislators, elected by the people by the way, believe that Rahn doesn’t represent the people of Missouri. If that was the case, our state representatives wouldn’t have tried to strip the Amtrak of a measly state subsidy and ignore Rahn’s plea to even invest another measly $10 million of state money for rail infrastructure to improve such service.
I believe your mistaken in the understanding of the majorities view. The majority want cheap energy for their cars and trucks because it gets them and their products places at their convenience and their schedule. WHY DO YOU THINK PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES WANT TO GIVE A TAX HOLIDAY? BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE MAJORITY WANTS!!! CHEAP GAS SO THEY CAN KEEP DOING WHAT THEY WANT. WHY DO YOU THINK COUNTY POLITICIANS ARE HESTITANT TO PUT METRO SALES TAX BACK ON THE BALLOT? BECAUSE AN EFFECTIVE COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY POLICY WILL REQUIRE THE MAJORITY TO SUPPORT MORE TAXES FOR SUCH INFRASTRUCTURE OR DICTATE TO A DEGREE WHAT VEHICLES WE WILL NEED TO DRIVE.
At least this blog can be realistic in what comprehensive energy policy means to most people. Also be realistic that we will not replace oil as the main energy source for transportation in the immediate future nor is the spicket about to go dry tomorrow. I wasn’t advocating a massive build out of highways since it is already there. I’m advocating a realistic approach to replacing an aging right of way infrastructure in such a manner, tolls for instance, that adequately funds such endeavor by pricing the intended user more appropriately.
In the meantime, I will glady vote for a metro salex tax increase that supports a modest transit expansion if they put it back on the ballot. My family has found great benefit in a new cross county metrolink station near our home and I’m glad to quit paying insurance on a car that is no longer in our position because of that fact.
MODOT has bonded the state of missouri into debt. PERIOD!! as taxpayers we have no way out of this debt other than pay it off!
Most will agree that a tax increase used to fund the expansion of Metro transit is tolerable, as long as we can ensure that this revenue coffer is not somehow raided as has been the history of the MO state assembly on matters of infrastructure, and that’s from BOTH political parties. Bad legislative body behavior of one cycle tends to beget the same irresponsible fiscal behavior in subsequent cycles. I am one to believe that government programs can provide the framework for economic opportunity for the average, working American, but in a tip of the hat to the libertarians reading this thread, the concerns of incompetence, waste and corruption MUST be met with hawk-eyed audit so that the majority of Americans can be confident that their government can deliver what its constituency demands of it. While I recognize the criticism from the political right regarding bureaucracy and inefficiency, I’d still MUCH rather take my chances with a body elected of the people to act on its behalf, rather than a profit-earning entity trying to shirk regulation at the peril of the citizenry to squeeze out more profit and gain market leverage. I’ll take Boss Tweed’s Tamany Hall over Enron and WorldCom any day of the week.
i think that when dealing with MODOT we should remember the past performance of the engineers that have run the company.
MOdot tells Obama/Congress, “ready to GO”! Rahn outlines plan to spend over $500 million, 94% on roadways, 3% for transit, 3% other and ZERO for healthy, active, pollution free infratructure like cycling paths, all can be rewarded in 180 days. “We stand ready to quickly deliver 34 transportation improvements that would mean jobs, increased safety and a better quality of life for Missourians” Rahan claims. I hope Obama & Congress don’t swallow this garbage. Check out MOdot’s priorities and “Ready-to-Go” logo, no joke. Largest project, expand 141. http://www.modot.org/newsandinfo/District0News.shtml?action=displaySSI&newsId=24135