Truck Lanes on I-70 -- Tell MoDOT What You Think
By Ron McLinden
After studying how to rebuild 200 miles of I-70 across Missouri for a decade, MoDOT now wants to revise its Environmental Impact Statement to allow construction of separate lanes for trucks. MoDOT is currently conducting an online "public meeting" through September 26, and invites public input via their website.Missouri chapter leaders met with representatives of MoDOT and its consultant about the study at our bi-monthly conservation committee meeting in Parkville on July 12. That meeting was cordial, and I think they left with a very different perspective on the concept.
You may be aware that MoDOT completed environmental work on reconstruction of I-70 a couple of years ago. A "first tier environmental statement" (FTEIS) concluded that rebuilding I-70 as a six-lane highway was the best solution. (Note: We submitted comments opposing that strategy. Those comments are available on MoDOT's website:
http://www.improvei70.org/downloads/ROD%20Appendix%20ltr7.pdf
Subsequently, MoDOT sought and received $2 million from the Federal Highway Administration to study the feasibility of building separate truck lanes -- four lanes for cars and other mixed traffic, and four lanes reserved for trucks -- and switch to that chosen alternative via a "supplemental environmental impact statement," SEIS. (See the article that I wrote for the chapter newsletter just over a year ago: http://missouri.sierraclub.org/SierranOnline/2007/07/I70.html )
The truck-lane concept is seductively attractive. Nobody likes to share the highway with big 18-wheelers, so just build them a separate four-lane highway in the median of a widened I-70.
But there are any number of questions.
Cost. Building the truck-only lanes is estimated to cost 12-14 percent more than the six-lane concept originally adopted. That means an extra $400 million or so over and above the estimated six-lane cost of $3 billion for the 200 miles.
Who will pay? Nobody knows. Even the six-lane reconstruction isn't funded. Some legislators have proposed a statewide one penny increase in the sales tax to pay for rebuilding I-70 and I-44. Others favor tolls for all or part of the cost. But who would pay for the truck lanes? The truckers don't want to pay, and taxpayers in Maryville or Sikeston certainly don't want to pay for them either.
[Note: Paying for highways and other infrastructure is a serious national issue -- one that all state and national candidates should be talking about -- but they are not. State DOTs like MoDOT have neglecting maintenance and reconstruction of highways for decades, preferring to build new highways instead. The result is a funding crisis of unparalleled proportions. We can all expect to pay more for highways in the near future -- whether through tolls or fuel taxes or mileage fees or sales taxes, or all of the above.]
Freight movement. In the FTEIS, MoDOT very quickly eliminated rail as an alternative, basing that decision mostly on the conclusion that it wouldn't be possible to move enough people by train to avoid having to build highway lanes. There was virtually no consideration of rail freight as an alternative to trucks. But in now considering truck lanes, the SEIS is, in effect, all about freight movement, and that means freight rail as an alternative needs to get a thorough look. Yes, the railroads are privately owned, but that's increasingly irrelevant since Congress will rewrite federal transportation policy next year, and is likely to redefine the federal role in freight rail. Nevertheless, MoDOT continues to dismiss freight rail, and "change the subject" by saying that MoDOT appropriates money (a relative pittance) to support passenger rail service across the state.
What level of environmental study is needed? MoDOT likes to believe that its earlier environmental studies have "cleared" a several-hundred foot wide corridor across the state, and whatever they now choose to do within that corridor is OK. We respectfully disagree. What they propose to do will have significantly greater impacts on the environment. For starters, the truck lane concept, including extra shoulders, will have over 50 percent more pavement, and that means 50 percent more runoff of storm water and de-icing substances and vehicle-related fluids. And if the intended result of attracting more truck traffic to Missouri is achieved, that means more air pollution, noise, and other detrimental impacts.
How would truck lanes work? The idea of separate lanes sounds good, but how do trucks get onto those special lanes? There would probably be separate access ramps for trucks at major interchanges, but at minor interchanges there would be "slip ramps" to let trucks cross the car lanes to get to and from their special lanes and the on/off ramps. That creates hazards for trucks and cars alike. Put the truck lanes on the outside? Same kind of problem, only with cars having to thread their way across two truck lanes.
Opportunity costs. Among the most serious concerns about the truck lane concept are opportunity costs. Two major kinds of costs, actually.
Opportunity costs - the median as a resource.
If truck lanes are built in the extra wide median of a reconstructed I-70, that median would no longer be available for passenger or freight rail, or for any another mode of transportation. (MoDOT's Chief Highway Engineer told me with pride about ten years ago that the wide median would be available for some yet-to-be identified mode of transportation.) Sorry, truck lanes don't measure up. High-speed passenger rail? Maybe, maybe not, but it shouldn't be ruled out. Added capacity for freight rail? Not as far-fetched as you might think. The need for more rail capacity across Missouri is certainly evident, and even if you don't build it in all 200 miles of the median, there's potential for using stretches of the median along with existing rail lines to create a new high-capacity cross-state rail corridor. That needs to be explored in detail.
Opportunity costs - the money.
Perhaps more important is the matter of the cost of building those extra lanes. What will Missouri not be able to afford if it spends an extra $400 million on truck lanes? That's an especially relevant question if a sales tax is used for the truck lanes, as has been proposed by some legislators. A sales tax dollar spent on truck lanes is a sales tax dollar no longer available for schools or social services or corrections or transit -- or for making improvements to other state roads.
Expectations about the future. One of the greatest flaws in the SEIS is its seemingly blind acceptance of past projections of the future growth of truck traffic. Trends established when diesel fuel was well under $2.00 per gallon are largely irrelevant when diesel costs $4.50. That shift in cost -- which means that the fuel cost of moving an 18-wheeler one mile is now about 75 cents, easily twice what the driver earns -- changes the economics of mode choice. More freight will move more miles via the significantly more energy-efficient mode: rail. Moreover, products are likely to be produced closer to markets in the future. In short, the future for trucking is not what it used to be. Rather than building tuck lanes to make trucking a little less inefficient, state resources should be invested in expanding the rail system to make rail freight faster and more reliable -- and to ease the wear-and-tear of trucks on our highways.
Climate change. Climate change is the elephant in the living room. Regardless of who is elected President, there are going to be significant energy and transportation policy and regulatory changes next year, and that's going to change profoundly how shippers and travelers make decisions. Even without the rising cost of diesel fuel, the greater energy efficiency of rail makes it part of the solution to climate change.
So check out MoDOT's website -- http://www.improvei70.org -- and give them your feedback. And try to see through the propaganda along the way.