The post Improving Missouri’s Transportation System through Tolling appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Instead of raising the fuel tax by 2 cents per gallon each year for five years, the bill would raise the fuel tax 2.5 cents per gallon each year for five years. If it were to become law, Missouri’s fuel tax would be raised from 17 cents per gallon now to 29.5 cents per gallon in 2025. The bill’s sponsors estimate that, once the increases are fully phased in, these measures would raise an additional $462 million per year starting in 2026.

The tax increase would eventually cover a little more than half of the annual $745 million MoDOT claims it needs for high-priority road and bridge needs. Increased transportation funding is needed, Show-Me analysts and other organizations have pointed out.

There’s another new wrinkle added to the bill: residents can claim an exemption and refund for the additional tax amounts they paid as a result of the fuel tax increase. This exemption would only apply to vehicles that weigh less than 26,000 pounds, effectively ruling out commercial trucking companies from receiving the refund. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the exemption and refund are onerous particularly if you have more than one vehicle. Under the current draft of the legislation, the claim for a refund shall at a minimum include:  (1) Vehicle identification number of the motor vehicle into which the motor fuel was delivered; (2) Date of sale; (3) Name and address of purchaser; (4) Name and address of seller; (5) Number of gallons purchased; and (6) Number of gallons purchased and charged Missouri fuel tax, as a separate item.

It’s hard to know how many Missourians would take advantage of this refund mechanism, but available evidence suggests that most won’t. The fuel tax refund is modeled after South Carolina’s fuel tax rebate, and only $3.4 million in rebates were issued out of over $500 million raised.

Perhaps the most interesting change is that the bill would establish an Electric Vehicle Task Force to study how to ensure drivers of electric vehicles (EVs) adequately pay for the damage they cause to roads. As more people use EVs and don’t fuel their cars with gasoline, this will become a salient question for future legislation. The task force would also study how the charging of EVs will impact the state electric system, the role of utilities and the Public Service Commission in overseeing charging stations, and ensuring that electric customers without EVs don’t end up subsidizing those who do.

The bill still faces another vote in the Senate, so things could change once again. Hopefully, we see a final bill that addresses transportation funding issues in Missouri in a fair and equitable way.

The post Gas Tax Bill Undergoes Several Changes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Both bills would place the question of raising the gas tax before Missouri voters. One would require a statewide vote to change Missouri’s current law regarding fuel tax rates, and the other would require a statewide vote to enshrine the new fuel tax rates in Missouri’s constitution. Missouri’s fuel tax has remained at 17 cents per gallon since 1996, and a 10-cent increase today would roughly adjust it for inflation since then. However, the full 10-cent increase under these bills would not be in place until 2026, and we can expect further inflation during the extra five years. Still, if our gas tax is five years behind inflation in 2026, that would be an improvement over the current 25-year gap.

The extra funds would provide a boost for Missouri’s roads. The Missouri Department of Transportation estimates that roughly $745 million in high-priority road and bridge repair and maintenance go unfunded each year. The most recent proposal in 2018 to increase fuel taxes by 10 cents per gallon was estimated on the ballot to raise an additional $400 million each year for road and bridge maintenance. The current proposals would likely reach this mark after the full 10-cent per gallon increase is reached after five years.

While voters have rejected fuel tax and road-dedicated sales tax increases in the past decade, research suggests that voters may now be amenable to increasing fuel taxes. A recent report from the Missouri Chamber of Commerce found that 85 percent of Missourians believe more money should be directed to road maintenance.

Specifically, drivers were asked about their support for a 10-cent fuel tax increase to repair Missouri’s roads. The report found that 45 percent of drivers support such a fuel tax increase, but when respondents were informed that it would cost an average driver $5 extra per month, 51 percent supported raising the gas tax 10 cents and adjusting its 1996 levels to current costs.

Ultimately, both fuel tax bills would have to navigate the Missouri Legislature before reaching voters, but the recent support may be the extra boost they need.

The post New Gas Tax Bills Highlight Missouri’s Transportation Needs appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Over $700 billion of products travel over Missouri’s roads each year, and transportation and warehousing industries support over 83,000 Missouri jobs. These numbers are only expected to increase.

It is surprising, then, that the Greater St. Louis, Inc.’s report’s recommendations for improving our transportation infrastructure contain few details on funding mechanisms given that Missouri is currently coming up short on transportation funding.

Here are a few recommendations for the policymakers reading the report to consider.

People who use the roads in Missouri should, as much as possible, be the ones responsible for paying for the roads. This could mean policies such as adequate fuel taxes or location-specific tolling. If new lanes on interstates are planned—and the plan mentions rebuilding some sections of I-64 and I-70—tolling on new lanes would not require federal approval. Many states operate lane-based tolling, also known as high-occupancy toll lanes.

There are other funding mechanisms for transportation that ought to be avoided. For instance, a new sales tax or earnings tax in the region receiving the transportation upgrades could raise a large amount of money. But these taxes are not connected to how much the roads are being used. Non-users end up subsidizing users.

The consequences of such a funding disconnect would mean that those using the roads are shielded from the true cost of doing so. Not being exposed to driving’s true cost leads to inefficient road usage. This, in turn, leads to higher maintenance costs as well as other hidden costs such as wasted fuel and time, air pollution, and congestion.

While the creators of this plan seem to understand that transportation is critical for Missouri, they don’t articulate how to fix what’s wrong with Missouri’s infrastructure.  What Missouri needs is a plan to address our infrastructure funding issues with real reforms, not just platitudes.

The post Greater St. Louis 2030 Plan Scant on Transportation Funding Mechanisms appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri’s road maintenance funding is on a road to nowhere.

Interstate 70, Missouri’s economic and transportation lifeline, is falling apart. Many other roads Missourians travel on each day also need to be fixed, and they too will continue to deteriorate because the Missouri Department of Transportation is running out of money.

While travel on Missouri’s roads continues to increase (up 12 percent since 2008), MoDOT’s budget has been headed in the opposite direction (down 15 percent in the same period), and that has resulted in a whopping $745 million in unfunded road transportation needs.

MoDOT remains heavily dependent on the state fuel tax (17.4 cents per gallon) for road maintenance, and that’s part of the problem. Because of the improved fuel economy of today’s gas and diesel-powered cars and trucks, fuel tax receipts have declined even though people drive more and put more wear and tear on the roads. Furthermore, drivers of electric vehicles are paying significantly less for road maintenance because they aren’t paying fuel tax.

It’s time to rethink transportation funding. The damage inflicted upon roads is determined by how much drivers drive on them and how much their vehicles weigh, not by how much fuel they consume. A better way to match the damage drivers do to the road with what they pay for its upkeep is to charge by the mile, instead of by the gallon.

Several states experimenting with road-usage charge programs demonstrate how such programs could be implemented. One method to record mileage is by a simple odometer reading. Drivers could self-report their odometer readings as part of the annual vehicle registration process or by plugging a recording device into the vehicle’s diagnostics port. While this method would pose no threat to driver privacy, it would be impractical for those who frequently drive out of state.

A more controversial method is to record precise in-state miles driven by using GPS technology. Current programs in Oregon and Utah use third-party providers to record in-state mileage either through a GPS-equipped plug-in device or a smartphone app. In both cases, the state receives the total miles driven for billing purposes with no location data.

While this poses more concerns for driver privacy, it should be noted that GPS satellites do not track locations. GPS responders, whether in plug-in devices or cell phones, track their location in relation to satellites, but do not necessarily share their location with those satellites. Protecting driver privacy is a serious concern, and the reporting of personal or location-specific data should only be allowed when explicitly agreed to by drivers.

With these first two methods, as drivers pay for their miles driven, they are reimbursed for the gas taxes they paid to travel those miles.

A third method is to use electronic tolling to raise maintenance funds specifically for heavily traveled highways, as many states already do. Drivers can use transponders that send a signal that is picked up at certain points along the road, and payments can automatically be deducted from that driver’s account. Those with concerns about the privacy implications wouldn’t have to opt for a transponder. Instead, cameras on the highway could record their license-plate number and a bill could be mailed based on their driver registration information.

No system is perfect, but in each of the examples listed above, drivers can choose their method of payment and are presented with several options depending on their privacy concerns.

In any case, our current system of taxing fuel usage is becoming less viable. Missouri policymakers should consider solutions already in use in other states to move Missouri’s transportation funding methods in the right direction.

The post Commentary: Funding Roads by the Mile, Not the Gallon appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Recording mileage via GPS tracking has some advantages over the odometer-reading method I described in yesterday’s post. For one thing, the GPS method would allow out-of-state miles to be excluded. Additionally, as some roads—such as urban freeways and interstates—are more expensive to build and maintain than typical roads, drivers could pay different rates for using different roads.

However, this type of mileage recording raises privacy concerns. How do these programs work in states that have tried it?

The longest-running and best-established program to date is in Oregon. Drivers who voluntarily participate in the OReGO program can pay a per-mile fee for driving and have any fuel taxes reimbursed. Drivers have several options of how to track those miles, such as paying for a block of miles in advance, odometer readings, or using GPS technology to record miles driven. If drivers choose the latter option, a third-party provider places a GPS-equipped plug-in device in their car, and the device uses vehicle data to determine in-state miles driven and fuel consumption. In order to protect drivers’ privacy, Oregon state law mandates that only the total weekly miles driven may be reported to the Department of Transportation. Personal data not delivered to the Department of Transportation is encrypted and destroyed on a set schedule, in accordance with Department of Transportation policy and OReGO program requirements laid down legislatively. This information cannot be sold or traded without the driver’s express consent.

Utah’s Road Usage Charge program operates similarly, although it is only for electric vehicle drivers. The program’s voluntary participants can pre-select their privacy settings, and a transponder run by a third-party service provider is installed in the vehicle. The third-party system sends monthly total miles driven to the Department of Transportation without disclosing additional data unless tied to a criminal investigation.

Several other states are exploring variants of these programs. Delaware and other east coast states are exploring mileage-based user fees in a series of pilots. California also conducted a road-usage charge pilot program, but legislators have not decided whether to continue the program.

It is also important to note what GPS technology does and does not do. GPS satellites do not necessarily track cars (or phones, etc.) that have receivers. It is the GPS receiver itself, whether in a cell phone or transponder, that tracks its own position in relation to a satellite. But unless the receiver is equipped with reporting capability, the device’s location is not shared with the satellite.

Protecting drivers’ privacy is a serious concern, and reporting of personal or location-specific data should only be allowed when explicitly agreed to by drivers. Further, while it offers the potential for the most accurate measuring of a driver’s miles logged, a GPS-based option must continue to be one of several options for reporting miles. In the next post, I’ll talk about a third method of pairing funding for road maintenance with miles driven.

The post Funding Roads by Miles Traveled—There’s an App for That appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For a thorough analysis of the current state of Missouri's highway system and the challenges it faces in the near future, check out Joseph Miller's new Policy Study, Funding the Missouri Department of Transportation and the State Highway System.

The post Bridge Tolls Ready for a Comeback? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Funding the Missouri Department of Transportation and the State Highway System appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Hopes are high that this year the legislature will take concrete action on MoDOT funding. Speakers talked about how SB 623, which would increase the state’s fuel tax (1.5 cents regular and 3.5 cents diesel) had already been voted unanimously out of committee. The dire predictions of the last two years, namely that MoDOT would fail to maintain the highway system in its present condition, took a back seat to new discussion on how MoDOT might rebuild I-70 and whether MoDOT might bring back its cost-share program to help local transportation initiatives.

With I-70, most speakers emphasized the fact that Missouri has one of a few slots in a federal pilot program that allows tolling on existing interstate highways. But with passage of the FAST Act, Missouri now has a limited time (22 months) to “use it [the slot] or lose it,” meaning the slot could be taken away and given to another state. A representative of Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation, an international infrastructure investment group, discussed how public-private partnerships could be an option for major infrastructure financing and operation. Macquarie’s most famous (or infamous) acquisition is the Indiana Toll Road, which, following its privatization promptly went bankrupt. The Macquarie representative pointed out how the transfer of toll road traffic risk to private investors greatly benefited Indiana residents, which we’ve written about before.

The general focus on the fuel tax and tolling, both user fees, as solutions for MoDOT’s funding problems, is a welcome change from a just two years ago. At that time both options were barely mentioned as officials drove for a transportation sales tax. But there were exceptions to this salutary trend. A representative of the state’s gas station lobbying group discussed a plan to fund highways with increased cigarette taxes. There seems to be no logical connection between smoking and highway maintenance expenses. When questioned why smokers should be targeted for road funding, the representative responded that the tax was likely to go up anyway and that roads were a good place to spend money. We would point out that there is no reason why cigarette taxes must increase. In addition, one could imagine fairer ways to spend any such money (like, say, health care or addiction treatment).

Funding talk was only part of the conference, and we will discuss some of the other topics, such as ridesharing, port development, and highway safety, in future writing.

The post What I Saw at the 2016 Missouri Transportation Conference appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With the 2016 legislative session approaching, there is more hope than ever that Missouri policymakers will focus on stabilizing MoDOT funding. The new Speaker of the House previously indicated that transportation will be a major focus in the next session. This is promising, especially recalling that it was the Missouri House, and not the Senate, that fatally delayed previous bills designed to increase revenue for the State Highway System.

Recently, Missouri legislators began to pre-file bills, and we are already seeing action on transportation funding. Three bills propose to increase fuel taxes. SB 638 would increase regular fuel taxes by 1.5 cents per gallon and diesel fuel taxes by 3.5 cents per gallon. HB 1381 would increase all fuel taxes by 2 cents per gallon. Finally, HB 1581 would increase regular fuel taxes by 7 seven cents and diesel fuel taxes by eight cents.  

We’ve argued many times that if Missouri needs more money to maintain highways, these funds should come from user fees like fuel taxes. Missouri’s fuel taxes, which are the main source of state revenue for highways, are the 5^th lowest in country. As a general rule, keeping taxes low is excellent for Missouri, but when those taxes are so low that they cannot maintain the highways they were meant to fund, an increase is reasonable.

We’ll continue to keep an eye on these bills, and any others that are introduced, as the legislative session unfolds. 

The post Fuel Taxes Back on the Table in 2016 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That data indicate that driving is still king, and unlikely to be dethroned any time soon. In 2014, 79% of commuters in Saint Louis City either drove alone or carpooled to get to work. In Saint Louis County, that number was more than 90%. In the Kansas City area, almost 90% of commuters drove alone or carpooled. As for public transportation use, the numbers remain quite modest. Saint Louis City had 10% of its commuters use transit, but in Saint Louis County and Jackson County that number was less than 3%.

If we consider what the numbers in terms of long-term trends, our writing from last year on this subject remain relevant:

Transit’s share of commutes in Missouri and its major cities has slowly decreased over the last few decades; a lower percentage use transit now than in 1990. Taking 2000 as our baseline year, the nadir of public transportation use in the United States as a whole, 1.49 percent of Missourians used transit for their commutes. After 13 years and well over a billion dollars of investments, transit’s share of commuters has remained essentially flat.

Nothing has happened to refute those observations. In fact, from 2013 to 2014 transit commuters as a percentage of all commuters decreased in Saint Louis City, Saint Louis County, Jackson County, and Clay County, as the chart below demonstrates:

All of the recent changes have been small and may be within the margin of error. This means we cannot say that transit is definitely drawing a lower percentage of riders than they did last year. But we can say that the Census Bureau’s 2014 data, much like data from previous years, show no evidence of either a rapid rise in the preference for transit or a rapid decrease in preference for driving in Missouri’s largest cities. 

The post Driving Still Dominant in Saint Louis, Kansas City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Transportation Funding: I-44, Tolling and the Road to Tomorrow appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“Moore [the representative] cited figures showing that Missouri spends the vast majority of its transportation funding in the rural areas of the state, even though more than 80 percent of the state's transportation dollars from gas and auto sales taxes come from the urban regions in and around St. Louis and Kansas City.”

Although Missouri does spend a significant amount on rural highways for structural reasons, MoDOT does not spend most of its money in rural areas, nor does it systematically underfund urban highways.

To show this, first we will look at total MoDOT capital and maintenance spending. As shown in the chart above, in 2013, 61% of total MoDOT outlays went to urban highways and 39% went to rural highways.

It’s clear that most spending happens in urban areas of the state, not rural ones. One might still think this is lopsided in favor of rural areas, as the vast majority of highway user fees come from urban areas. However, 86% of highway lane miles are in rural areas, and almost half of daily traffic in Missouri takes place in rural areas. Missouri’s rural highway system, mostly due to the Missouri State Routes (the letter routes), is the fourth largest rural highway system in the nation. While traffic per mile in rural areas is low outside of the interstates, roads need to be maintained and bridges need to be replaced.

Even though Missouri spends a significant amount of money on its rural highways, urban areas have not been starved. In fact, the latest Federal Highway Administration data shows that, whether one looks at how much money MoDOT spends per lane mile or vehicle, the state’s urban highway spending is at about at the national average.

Furthermore, MoDOT’s spending in Missouri’s largest urban areas has achieved enviable results. Both Saint Louis and Kansas City have significant highway capacity and low congestion. In Kansas City and Saint Louis, 80% or more of major highways are in good condition. That's excellent for a large metropolitan area and far better than cities like Indianapolis (62%), Milwaukee (38%), or Los Angeles (16%).

MoDOT’s continuing funding problems should prompt Missouri policy makers to consider the extent of the state highway system. Many lesser-used routes might be better handled at the local level, as they are in other states. Such a reform would allow to MoDOT to fund improvements and maintenance on both critical rural and urban thoroughfares. However, there is little evidence that MoDOT is starving its urban system as measured either by spending or current highway conditions.

The post The Urban-Rural Divide in MoDOT Spending appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The idea that a Missouri city would vote on a tax increase to fund transportation is not news in and of itself. After all, virtually all cities and counties already use property and sales tax levies to fund various types of transportation. But Foristell did not vote on a property or sales tax, it voted on a fuel tax.

As we’ve written before, Missouri cities and counties can impose local fuel taxes, as long as tax proceeds are spent exclusively on roads, which is what Foristell’s 1 cent diesel fuel tax would have done. Fuel taxes can be a fair and economically sound way of raising funds for local road spending.  Those who benefit most from the roads pay more for them, and driving is not subsidized by shoppers or homeowners. Moreover, legal protections in Missouri guarantee that money raised via fuel taxes must be spent on roads, which reduces the likelihood that money is wasted on pet projects.

In Foristell, 65% voted for the fuel tax, but that was not enough because (unlike other forms of transportation funding) local fuel taxes require a 2/3^rd majority to pass. The need to obtain a 2/3^rd majority for a local fuel tax levy, but only a simple majority for property or sales tax increases, is likely a large reason why no local fuel taxes exist in Missouri.

Foristell’s fuel tax proposal failed. And that may be a good thing, as this specific proposal appears to have been targeted at unsuspecting truckers making a quick stop in Foristell. However, local fuel taxes are in general an option worth considering. If other localities are truly in need of more money for roads, they could try local fuel taxes before attempting to push for sales or property tax increases.

The post Local Fuel Tax in Foristell Fails by a Nose appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

These booklets are packed with information, but if you want to know more about any of the topics they cover, please visit our main website, showmeinstitute.org.

The post Updated Reports: Missouri Fast Facts 2015 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Towards Market Orientation: Funding Transportation Infrastructure in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Whatever the reasons Amendment 7 failed, it was good for Missouri that it did, because it was not wise policy. Using a general sales tax to pay for highways is both unfair and economically unsound. Instead, the state should modernize the user-tax base that currently funds MoDOT. That could mean increasing the fuel tax, raising the motor vehicle sales tax, indexing licensing fees to inflation, implementing tolling, or some combination of those methods. That way, those who use the roads would pay for them, and in proportion to their use. Using general sales tax to fund roads subsidizes driving and interstate trucking that passes right through Missouri. As we wrote before:

… the fact is the vast majority of trucking freight in Missouri is not bound for Missouri. For example, of the 500 million tons of freight traffic in 2011, only 39 percent of that freight is either inbound or intrastate trucking. Forty-six percent of traffic by weight simply passes through Missouri. In terms of value of the goods transported, only 26 percent has a destination within Missouri while 61 percent of goods by value transit the state.

Unfortunately, a new bill in the Missouri House (HJR 33) would simply revive Amendment 7, albeit in a different form. Instead of raising the state sales tax by 0.75 percent, the bill would divert 0.10 percent of the state sales tax into the road fund for five consecutive years until the amount diverted reached 0.50 percent (two-thirds of Amendment 7). If that came to pass, it would mean that 12 percent, or $233 million in 2014 numbers, of state sales tax revenue would be diverted to the state road fund. That is likely to lead to budget cuts in other state programs or higher taxes for Missourians.

As we have written before, the defeat of Amendment 7 opened the door for sound, user-based policy solutions to MoDOT’s funding problems. HJR 33 is not one of these.

The post The Return of the Transportation Sales Tax appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There were some appealing aspects to his speech, like his thoughts on how to address our transportation infrastructure. Gov. Nixon stated:

One option is a toll road on Interstate 70. The Highway Commission’s recent report showed that this approach could make I-70 better and safer … and free up tens of millions of dollars for other roads around the state. Trucks and out-of-state vehicles that do the most damage to I-70 would have to pay their fair share. That deserves serious consideration. Here’s another option: the gas tax. Missouri’s gas tax hasn’t gone up a penny in nearly 20 years. It’s the fifth-lowest in the nation.  With gas prices as low as they are now, this is worth a very close look.

Kudos to Gov. Nixon for at least considering user fees as a way to finance transportation in the state. My colleague Joe Miller has written extensively about the benefits of tolling and how gas taxes are a better way to fund roads than the sales tax. Tolling is a fair way of financing improvements to Interstate 70 because it can be done in such a way as to get much, or even most, of its revenues from commercial vehicles, which cause the most damage to our roads and highways.

However, not everything in Gov. Nixon’s address was good policy. The governor still insists on expanding Medicaid.

Now I’d like to talk about another challenge … but an even greater opportunity: Strengthening and reforming Medicaid. Let me remind you, a lot has changed since last year. Since I stood here last year, Missouri taxpayers have sent $2 billion to Washington. Those dollars are being used right now, in other states, to reform and improve their Medicaid systems. That’s 2 billion Missouri taxpayer dollars.  And this year, there’s another $2 billion at stake. If we keep standing still, that’s $4 billion Missourians will have lost to other states by the end of this year. Across the country, people are moving past the politics.

To help you decipher politico speak, when the governor talks about reforming Medicaid, he really means expanding Medicaid. Show-Me Institute Senior Analyst Patrick Ishmael has done a tremendous job explaining why expanding Medicaid is a bad idea. Not only would it strain future Missouri budgets by adding billions in new spending (Medicaid already takes up 22 percent of Missouri General Revenue expenditures, up from 17.5 percent just 10 years ago), but the program doesn’t work. The poor should get decent health care; Medicaid fails on that front.

Gov. Nixon raises the point about Missouri taxpayers sending money to Washington, and by failing to expand Medicaid, other states get to spend our money. This is also false. Patrick lays out why this claim is wrong in his most recent Forbes piece. First, Missouri is a net recipient of federal tax dollars. This means that Missouri gets more in federal aid than it sends out in tax dollars. Also, the money for Medicaid expansion is not like some large pie that gets distributed to the states that participate in the expansion. Each state has its own allotment of money to help pay for expansion. If the state doesn’t expand Medicaid, the money isn’t reallocated. That’s why you are seeing the overall cost of Medicaid dropping. Fewer states are signing up for expansion, and thus the actual cost growth of Medicaid is falling below what was projected. If the money was being redistributed, actual cost growth would be closer to projections.

Gov. Nixon’s speech was a mixed bag. The legislature should feel free to ignore the bad ideas. I hope, though, that the good parts mentioned above do more than just receive serious attention. There are serious issues in this state that need addressing, and we need pro-market solutions.

The post Thoughts on Gov. Nixon’s State of the State Address appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Policy Breakfast: Missouri Transportation Funding: Where Do We Go From Here? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

MoDOT collects data on how many total vehicles pass over certain sections of the state highway system on an average day, including the interstates. In some areas they also publish the number of trucks that pass over the same section of road. Here is a chart showing truck traffic on I-70:

Total truck traffic on I-70 ranges between 7,600 and 24,000 vehicles per day on the observed segments, which on some parts of I-70 accounts for over 40 percent of total daily traffic, dipping to around 10 percent in the Saint Louis metropolitan area. Combining this data allows us to estimate that truck traffic averages 22 percent of all traffic on I-70.

The story is much the same for the other interstates in Missouri. Truck traffic can range above 40 percent of total traffic in rural areas, usually dipping to between 10-20 percent of total traffic in urban areas. The estimated percentage of total traffic from trucks across major interstates in Missouri is as follows:

For most interstates in Missouri, truck traffic averages more than 20 percent of total traffic along the length of the highway. The exception here is I-64/40, likely because it runs almost entirely through urbanized areas in Saint Louis City, Saint Louis County, and Saint Charles County.

However the numbers are sliced, trucks make up a significant portion of interstate highway traffic in Missouri. And with the average truck doing hundreds, if not thousands, of times the damage the average car does to highways, it may be reasonable to consider funding mechanisms through which shipping companies and residents can jointly invest in highway improvements.

The post Trucks on Missouri’s Highways appeared first on Show-Me Institute.