urbanSTL

dbInSouthCity wrote:On the point of what if there isn't any additional funding- if that's the case by 2017, i think they will start closing low traffic count routes and bridges and ones in need of repair like the Compton Ave bridge over 44 where the sidewalk is about to fall off....(next time you drive over it, notice the median blocks on the sidewalk, they are there to balance the sidewalk so it doesn't fall off on 44.

The Compton Ave bridge and many others along I-44 are scheduled for repair in 2016.

hopefully that sidewalks hangs on for another 16-20 months edit- looks like the new stip has the project to be awarded in summer of 2014...so as soon as the commission approves the new stip



almost every bridge over I-44 from Murdoch to I-55 interchange is getting replaced/repaired starting this year to 2016, at about a cost of $45million, 12 bridges and some pavement work from Murdoch to Kingshighway

dweebe wrote:I just want to clarify when talking about I-70 I was talking about across the state as it badly needs to be 3 lanes each direction.

That seems like a lot of pavement for little or no benefit.

I heard that polling indicated that A7's funding strategy was the most likely to succeed but I don't buy it. A better model can be found. The problem is in convincing the truck and road construction lobbies to back it.

Mark... Federal Highway Admin has identified I-70 as a national freight corridor and they would have picked up 80% of the cost of the planned $1.5billion project...lane additional, new pavement on all 6 lanes and replacement of about 100 60 year old bridges.

As ive said in another thread for a stretch of I-70 between St.Charles and the new river bridge in the city...modot, metro and ewg along with grg and all kinds of economic agencies are teaming up on a study for improvements...so while it is a highway project, it will be a multimodal solution...i think it goes public sometimes in September.

20% of $1,5B is $300M. Why did they take $500M for I70 off the top in A7?

dbInSouthCity wrote:Mark... Federal Highway Admin has identified I-70 as a national freight corridor and they would have picked up 80% of the cost of the planned $1.5billion project...lane additional, new pavement on all 6 lanes and replacement of about 100 60 year old bridges.

As ive said in another thread for a stretch of I-70 between St.Charles and the new river bridge in the city...modot, metro and ewg along with grg and all kinds of economic agencies are teaming up on a study for improvements...so while it is a highway project, it will be a multimodal solution...i think it goes public sometimes in September.

I remember hearing a rumor awhile about metro and modot wanting to put a commuter line or dedicated bus lanes on I-70 from St. Charles to Downtown. Any word on that?

roger wyoming II wrote:^ Can't wait for the Tower Grove/Boyle work to be done... should be any day now.

Yeah, and apparently Kingshighway bridge/roadwork is coming up soon. I heard that the Royale was concerned about how it could affect business.

quincunx wrote:20% of $1,5B is $300M. Why did they take $500M for I70 off the top in A7?

Cash flow,
Missouri is generally allocated $1billion a year from Feds, it won't/can't spend it all on 1 project, so for projects where it uses more then 20% state it gets a bankable credit for future fed funds. So that $500m would have banked $2b worth of fed funds in the future. Basically all that bonding MoDOT did from 2001-2010 is the only reason they can still match federal funds in the next 5 years since state rev is eaten up by expenses

It's called advanced construction. This explains it http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/finance/too ... d/ac_pcac/

I've thought the exact same thing. The reversibles from downtown to Union could be put to so much better use!

A dedicated carpool/shuttle/BRT lane would be the most obvious use, but I've never been able to shake the idea of heavy rail commuter from Horseshoe Lake, Granite City, Edwardsville or Alton crossing at the Merchants Bridge and channeling through the reversible lanes. From there, maybe a new Near North transit connection center 'round about Tucker & Cass (or Union Station, I guess, if old tunnels still led there...)

Here's an ad from Texas trying to convince people that spending more on highways saves them money. How would an ad like this play in Missouri? Would this have been more effective than the safety-focused ones we saw here?

Does Metro and its bus fleet benefit from better roads?

dbInSouthCity wrote:Does Metro and its bus fleet benefit from better roads?

Not so much since they often (mostly?) travel on non-state-funded streets.

They have to go further because the highway spending has spread out the region so much. So we sacrifice convenience of higher frequencies for extent, so we get less out of them per mile. The roads and streets would be better for Metro's bus and all of us if there were less to take care of.

quincunx wrote:

dbInSouthCity wrote:Does Metro and its bus fleet benefit from better roads?

They have to go further because the highway spending has spread out the region so much. .

Its not like Metro goes to St.Charles.... Which would be Clayton if the city limits were the size of KC or Indianapolis
Metro runs on plenty of state funded roads--Chippewa, Gravois, Kingshighway, Olive, Manchester, Page, Natural Bridge, ect almost all the big east to west roads in the City/County are MoDOT roads.

dweebe wrote:

MarkHaversham wrote:

dweebe wrote:I just want to clarify when talking about I-70 I was talking about across the state as it badly needs to be 3 lanes each direction.

That seems like a lot of pavement for little or no benefit.

How often do you drive I-70?

I drive to Kansas City a couple times a year.

Keep in mind that adding lanes probably won't reduce congestion much, since roads are highly subject to induced demand. You might briefly avoid getting stuck in traffic after you add the new lanes, but more people will start driving that route and you'll end up with the same issue you had before (except more expensive).

MarkHaversham wrote: I drive to Kansas City a couple times a year.

Keep in mind that adding lanes probably won't reduce congestion much, since roads are highly subject to induced demand. You might briefly avoid getting stuck in traffic after you add the new lanes, but more people will start driving that route and you'll end up with the same issue you had before (except more expensive).

induced demand is not an exact science and it doesn't apply to all roads...it mostly applies to urban highways and not a 250 mile rural highway where there isn't a similar road anywhere close to it that would pull drivers from to the new 3 lane 70...

dbInSouthCity wrote:

quincunx wrote:

dbInSouthCity wrote:Does Metro and its bus fleet benefit from better roads?

They have to go further because the highway spending has spread out the region so much. .

Its not like Metro goes to St.Charles.... Which would be Clayton if the city limits were the size of KC or Indianapolis
Metro runs on plenty of state funded roads--Chippewa, Gravois, Kingshighway, Olive, Manchester, Page, Natural Bridge, ect almost all the big east to west roads in the City/County are MoDOT roads.

For those wondering the inside of 270 and the river is about 225 sq mi. Anyone know how many live in that area?

Kingshighway is?

That all of those are state roads is a symptom of the problem.