frenchmills's Blog

Our illustrious Republican senator, The Honorable Christopher S. "Kit" Bond, has been pushing for the total reconstruction of I-70 between St. Louis and Kansas City. He wants 4 lanes in each direction. He says the present I-70n is in shambles -- a total poor highway.

Well, we just made our annual trip to Denver along I-70, and I can say that the Missouri portion is just fine -- the surface is excellent. In fact, there was a time when the Missouri section of I-70 was many times better than in Illinois, Kansas and Colorado. I know -- I've traveled it many times to Denver. At one time, Kansas I-70 was so rough and narrow and full of potholes that it was downright dangerous. The Colorado section was not much better.

Then the highway was totally remade in these states, with 2 lane, 2 way stretches at about 45 miles per hour for miles while they worked on the highway. This went on for years.

And now . . .

The highly improved highway is 4 lanes in Kansas in Colorado. It seems, though, that stretches of the Kansas highway were not done right, because it is being torn up again and there are the stretches of 2 way 2 lane highway at 45 miles per hour again.

So here's the thing about Missouri. Why put in an 8-lane highway when Illinois, Kansas and Colorado have 4 lanes. The traffic flows quite well along the 4-lane in the western states. The only problem seems to be between St. Louis and Kansas City, where traffic seems to be heavier. But the rate of speed is still maximum along that highway.

There is quite a problem with building a new, wider highway. The eastern part would be not much of a problem. The landscape is totally flat farmland where expansion would be quite easy. However, a little east of Columbia is where the problems begin. Several miles of commercial property sort of get in the way until you get west of Columbia. Then we have limestone hills that would have to be dealt with -- a little more difficult and expensive than the flat farmland. Then there's the Missouri River Bridge. A massive operation. Cutting into limestone hills and building a totally new bridge. Imagine the expense.

Then the landscape becomes more hilly with more limestone to cut into.

I wonder what it would cost. I think Senator Bond gave a figure of about 6 billion. And usually these preliminary figures are a lot less than the final.

A lot of expense and a lot of inconvenience for drivers. For what? For what really does seem to be an unnecessary project..

My thought is that at most what would be needed is 6 lanes -- and maybe letting the highway return to 4 from Columbia to the bridge. The narrowness and curviness of the highway there (has 55 speed limit tho) slows traffic down, but there is where the most expense per mile is in rebuilding the highway.

But Kit Bond's 8? -- only thing I can think of -- most projects are usually already set in stone years before they come to light. All the deals have been made and people in place. I think he might be embarrassed if his 8-lane highway didn't go through.