To cut costs, the new bridge likely won't have any major connections west of I-70 on the near northside. Such revision would remove the massive touch-down ramps connecting to Tucker and 14th. Since the Missouri share of the $1.6 billion project is only $500 million, hopefully such revision will substantially reduce the cost on the Missouri side and nix MODOT's push for tolls.
- 2,005
Matt Drops The H wrote:I'm a bit behind on the bridge news--is it still cutting a swath of ONSL to pieces?
From what I understand, the offramp will end at Cass with an at-grade intersection. The location would be just north of the Greyhound station east of 13th St.
The next round of public meetings will be held in St. Louis Tues. Nov 8 at Webster Middle School in ONSL from 5-7. The address is 2127 N. 11th. I'll probably attend.
The following was on the invitation I received:
A new, more economical design concept for the New Mississippi River Bridge Project has been developed. The Missouri Dept. of Transportation invites you to learn more about the new concept and to comment.
Attend the public informational meeting(stop by anytime)
The following was on the invitation I received:
A new, more economical design concept for the New Mississippi River Bridge Project has been developed. The Missouri Dept. of Transportation invites you to learn more about the new concept and to comment.
Attend the public informational meeting(stop by anytime)
- 1,649
<A HREF="http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/neighb ... >Suspended bridge</A>
Scott Cousins & And Harry Weiner
Of the Suburban Journals
Collinsville Herald
11/02/2005
The cable-stayed design is probably history.
Some of its connector highways and ramps may be scaled back or eliminated.
And if Missouri highway officials have their way, it will become a toll bridge.
But all that may not be the worst news about your New Mississippi River Bridge: The really bad news is the increasing possibility that the bridge may never be built.
<A HREF="http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/neighb ... AC0063517D">>>> read more</A>
Scott Cousins & And Harry Weiner
Of the Suburban Journals
Collinsville Herald
11/02/2005
The cable-stayed design is probably history.
Some of its connector highways and ramps may be scaled back or eliminated.
And if Missouri highway officials have their way, it will become a toll bridge.
But all that may not be the worst news about your New Mississippi River Bridge: The really bad news is the increasing possibility that the bridge may never be built.
<A HREF="http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/neighb ... AC0063517D">>>> read more</A>
- 1,517
Well, if Illinois is so available to fund these transportation projects, I really wish they would lobby to build several Metrolink corridors and put the Missouri side to shame! That would relieve the congestion that this bridge was meant to, except in a more environmentally-sensitive manner--and it just might show Missourians that Metrolink is worthwhile.
- 1,054
A big problem with the MO is a lack of dare I say TAXES. We need more taxes and maybe the majority would be sales taxes. Wise spending would also help, sorry McCaskill you did not become governor to reduce frivilous spending.
- 1,610
Uh SMS, Matt Blunt is obviously guv, not Claire. Other less obvious clarifications though seem needed too.
The south alignment is really dead, and only ever was just a phantom threat. St. Clair exec Mark Kern has met with IDOT chief Tim Martin and they agreed not to eliminate the I-64 connector the bridge. Starting Kern's beef, the I-64 connector piece of the new bridge was originally up for consideration to be eliminated. Consultant URS is evaluating how to financially scale back the project, looking at everything.
Plus, the south alignment would not have only alienating Madison County, losing its political support. But since touching down on Nooter and Ice House areas close to Soulard, a southern bridge wouldn't have legs with the City, the strongest bridge proponent on the side of mostly anti-bridge Missouri.
MODOT does have money for the project, they just don't want to give more money to the St. Louis area, when the New I-64 will already be their single largest project in the state. The Missouri share of the new bridge never was half of the total project cost, and is now even less a share with the Tucker/14th ramps that have been eliminated.
But Missourah is a low tax, anti-urban state. It gives virtually nothing to transit and what it gives in highways is still focused mostly on capacity adding highways at the fringe or out-state areas.
Failed Prop B would have increased taxes for all transporation including transit. But instead Missouri passed Amendment 3, which redirects general revenue from fuel taxes into only roads and bridges, reducing funds available to other needs, and still not giving anything to transit.
As for tolling, no private entity is going to be attracted to a high risk product. The risk is high since past toll bridges (MLK, McKinley) have failed, and a free publicly provided alternatives (mainly PSB) will remain. Why MODOT has been slow to provide any financial feasibility documentation is likely because they know that the concept is not attractive to private sector partners, especially for building the bridge, not just contracting toll operations.
Lastly, everyone forgets the PSB itself. Removing I-70 from the PSB was only part of the congestion relief formula. Also doubling lane capacity to/from the PSB to I-44/55 was the other crucial and now often overlooked component. If IDOT builds the new bridge and related approaches for the mostly Illinois project, the PSB will still have congestion to/from I-44/55. Reconfiguring the PSB ramps on this side obviously remains MODOT's responsibility, and that they may never get built truly jeopardizes the whole purpose of the larger project.
The south alignment is really dead, and only ever was just a phantom threat. St. Clair exec Mark Kern has met with IDOT chief Tim Martin and they agreed not to eliminate the I-64 connector the bridge. Starting Kern's beef, the I-64 connector piece of the new bridge was originally up for consideration to be eliminated. Consultant URS is evaluating how to financially scale back the project, looking at everything.
Plus, the south alignment would not have only alienating Madison County, losing its political support. But since touching down on Nooter and Ice House areas close to Soulard, a southern bridge wouldn't have legs with the City, the strongest bridge proponent on the side of mostly anti-bridge Missouri.
MODOT does have money for the project, they just don't want to give more money to the St. Louis area, when the New I-64 will already be their single largest project in the state. The Missouri share of the new bridge never was half of the total project cost, and is now even less a share with the Tucker/14th ramps that have been eliminated.
But Missourah is a low tax, anti-urban state. It gives virtually nothing to transit and what it gives in highways is still focused mostly on capacity adding highways at the fringe or out-state areas.
Failed Prop B would have increased taxes for all transporation including transit. But instead Missouri passed Amendment 3, which redirects general revenue from fuel taxes into only roads and bridges, reducing funds available to other needs, and still not giving anything to transit.
As for tolling, no private entity is going to be attracted to a high risk product. The risk is high since past toll bridges (MLK, McKinley) have failed, and a free publicly provided alternatives (mainly PSB) will remain. Why MODOT has been slow to provide any financial feasibility documentation is likely because they know that the concept is not attractive to private sector partners, especially for building the bridge, not just contracting toll operations.
Lastly, everyone forgets the PSB itself. Removing I-70 from the PSB was only part of the congestion relief formula. Also doubling lane capacity to/from the PSB to I-44/55 was the other crucial and now often overlooked component. If IDOT builds the new bridge and related approaches for the mostly Illinois project, the PSB will still have congestion to/from I-44/55. Reconfiguring the PSB ramps on this side obviously remains MODOT's responsibility, and that they may never get built truly jeopardizes the whole purpose of the larger project.
a few important thoughts:
1st, Prop B failed because MODOT failed to live up to its promises the last time a tax increase was passed, so I am not open to listenting to any whining from MODOT about lack of funds when they did nothing in the past to ensure proper, efficent, and promised spending of trasportation funds. MODOT can improve there trackrecord a bit first before my vote for another tax increase.
2nd. since southsilder brings up a good point about congestion on 44/55, would the two states seriously consider building a second bridge close to the PSB, thereby allowing for more bridge capacity that would serve all 4 highways more evenly?
3. Yes i know I am not a big fan of MODOT or the NewI-64, but I would be willing to trade the 40 work for some new snazy bridges downtown.
1st, Prop B failed because MODOT failed to live up to its promises the last time a tax increase was passed, so I am not open to listenting to any whining from MODOT about lack of funds when they did nothing in the past to ensure proper, efficent, and promised spending of trasportation funds. MODOT can improve there trackrecord a bit first before my vote for another tax increase.
2nd. since southsilder brings up a good point about congestion on 44/55, would the two states seriously consider building a second bridge close to the PSB, thereby allowing for more bridge capacity that would serve all 4 highways more evenly?
3. Yes i know I am not a big fan of MODOT or the NewI-64, but I would be willing to trade the 40 work for some new snazy bridges downtown.
How unfortunate and unprogressive. The borders of Illinois near St. Louis City should be stretched westward by an additional 62 square miles. Problem solved. 
The St. Louis region generates about 47% of the state's revenue, the least Missouri officials could do is recognize this and make sure this percentage is not threatened.
I agree. Outstaters and KC people would scream bloody murder with so many big ticket projects funded for St. Louis. KC was already talking about a new bridge just because St. Louis was getting one.MODOT does have money for the project, they just don't want to give more money to the St. Louis area, when the New I-64 will already be their single largest project in the state.
The St. Louis region generates about 47% of the state's revenue, the least Missouri officials could do is recognize this and make sure this percentage is not threatened.
- 1,610
The St. Louis region generates about 47% of the state's revenue
And our region only gets 32% of MODOT's project budget.
Not very fair indeed.
quick side note: has anyone ever met southslider? I'm just curious how similar his online persona is to his real life personality. I think it be cool to be sitting around when all of the sudden southslider jumps in with a 12 minute dissertation on the innerworkings of MODOT. 
I gotta agree with JMedwick. Given the choice between giving West County commuters better access to downtown, or helping to expand our reach into the Metro East, I would choose the latter. The Bridge would only promote more development on the East Side, which would, in turn, bring business back downtown.
Plus, it would look a whole lot cooler on TV.
I gotta agree with JMedwick. Given the choice between giving West County commuters better access to downtown, or helping to expand our reach into the Metro East, I would choose the latter. The Bridge would only promote more development on the East Side, which would, in turn, bring business back downtown.
Plus, it would look a whole lot cooler on TV.
southslider wrote:The St. Louis region generates about 47% of the state's revenue
And our region only gets 32% of MODOT's project budget.
Not very fair indeed.
That sums it up perfectly
Considering that MoDOT's proper moniker should be the Missouri Department of Building New Roads, I'm not sure I want any more of that budget in our region. Go pave KC over.southslider wrote:And our region only gets 32% of MODOT's project budget.
Your point is valid, of course... we should be allowed to divert that unreturned percentage toward urban-friendly projects.
- 1,610
Our 32% coming to the Missouri side of the St. Louis region is already going to anti-urban projects.
Near future MODOT projects in are region already include building the Page Avenue extension (MO 364) further west (eventually to US 40/61 and MO N?!) in St. Charles County, extending a new four-lane limited-access MO 21 further south in Jefferson County, and replacing MO 100 with a new four-lane highway off I-44 to Washington, Missouri, in Franklin County.
Now some would argue that St. Louis City and County are getting the largest project of the all, rebuilding 40 (New I-64). But I'd be more than willing to scale back that project (added lanes west of 170, replaced Bellevue exit) and have that money go towards more urban transportation projects, including transit.
But when MODOT attacks a road, it always builds a mega-highway. And it's not just the urban core suffering. Instead of more of 364, St. Charles could use Interstate standards sooner on US 40/61 (but of course, they went it all). Instead of MO 21, Jeff-Co desperately needs access management on MO 30 (and since less politically influential than St. Chuck, can't have both). Instead of MO 100, Franklin needs improved I-44 exits that are now very dangerous.
Overall, whether in the core or at the fringe, smaller improvements would pay for more improvements to more roads in all areas. But MODOT still overbuilds solutions to any problems.
Case in point is MO 21. Though commonly called "Blood Alley," safety improvements like shoulders, turn lanes and straightening of bad curves to the EXISTING old 21 would have been better. But instead the politicians want "economic development" (read induced sprawl). But with such development induced, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the older rural roads you never improved due to blowing your budget on a mega new highway are now going to have new drivers, and thus increasing accidents all over again.
Near future MODOT projects in are region already include building the Page Avenue extension (MO 364) further west (eventually to US 40/61 and MO N?!) in St. Charles County, extending a new four-lane limited-access MO 21 further south in Jefferson County, and replacing MO 100 with a new four-lane highway off I-44 to Washington, Missouri, in Franklin County.
Now some would argue that St. Louis City and County are getting the largest project of the all, rebuilding 40 (New I-64). But I'd be more than willing to scale back that project (added lanes west of 170, replaced Bellevue exit) and have that money go towards more urban transportation projects, including transit.
But when MODOT attacks a road, it always builds a mega-highway. And it's not just the urban core suffering. Instead of more of 364, St. Charles could use Interstate standards sooner on US 40/61 (but of course, they went it all). Instead of MO 21, Jeff-Co desperately needs access management on MO 30 (and since less politically influential than St. Chuck, can't have both). Instead of MO 100, Franklin needs improved I-44 exits that are now very dangerous.
Overall, whether in the core or at the fringe, smaller improvements would pay for more improvements to more roads in all areas. But MODOT still overbuilds solutions to any problems.
Case in point is MO 21. Though commonly called "Blood Alley," safety improvements like shoulders, turn lanes and straightening of bad curves to the EXISTING old 21 would have been better. But instead the politicians want "economic development" (read induced sprawl). But with such development induced, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the older rural roads you never improved due to blowing your budget on a mega new highway are now going to have new drivers, and thus increasing accidents all over again.
southslider wrote: replacing MO 100 with a new four-lane highway off I-44 to Washington, Missouri, in Franklin County.
I believe that within the last year, the voters in Washington approved an increase in their local sales tax to fund this project. It makes sense to me that a city of approximately 15,000 needs access to some sort of 4 lane highway, and that's why they approved the new tax.
^
What I meant to say is that the voters in Washington passed a half cent sales tax increase to speed up the Hwy. 100 widening project. Otherwise, it would have been many years until it could become reality.
What I meant to say is that the voters in Washington passed a half cent sales tax increase to speed up the Hwy. 100 widening project. Otherwise, it would have been many years until it could become reality.
- 2,005
I agree with S.Sider concerning MoDOT's tendency to overbuild projects. One needs to look no further than I-55 from I-270 to MO M in JeffCo. Driving down that road looks like an asphalt prairie. Regarding MO 100, the project has certainly been given the fast track due to local support, but more than half of the funding still comes from federal and state funds($22.1m) compared to $20.6m local.
Back to the bridge, I feel the original design was over engineered as well. The 14th St connector was wholly unnecessary as well as the proposed eight lanes for the bridge. Commuters coming downtown will likely use the MLK or Eads bridge while those going farther west will remain on the PSB. I feel the new bridge will certainly help the Illinois side more than Missouri and that's why MoDOT has been dragging their feet on the issue. This bridge is more of a national issue regarding freight movements through the St. Louis area. The obsolete design of the PSB complex(who thought of splitting the roads in two in ESL?) is a hindrance for goods movement and the commuters that share the road with the big rigs. Commuters will certainly use the new bridge, but IMO it is needed for improving truck traffic which is more than a Monday to Friday ordeal. Truck traffic will only increase in the future which will create even more of a hindrance. I certainly can say I don't enjoy sharing roads with truckers especially during rush hour, but we have to accept it. I'll be happy to see the costs reduced to make this bridge a reality, yet functional for the area it serves.
We'll see what's proposed for sure next Tuesday, hopefully it is a less obtrusive design. After I-70 sliced north St. Louis to threads, what is needed is more sensitive design in MoDOT projects in that area. In the future I hope they look towards making their own existing roads more friendly for all its users rather than extending an underfunded system. It wouldn't hurt if the state gave transit more money as well.
Back to the bridge, I feel the original design was over engineered as well. The 14th St connector was wholly unnecessary as well as the proposed eight lanes for the bridge. Commuters coming downtown will likely use the MLK or Eads bridge while those going farther west will remain on the PSB. I feel the new bridge will certainly help the Illinois side more than Missouri and that's why MoDOT has been dragging their feet on the issue. This bridge is more of a national issue regarding freight movements through the St. Louis area. The obsolete design of the PSB complex(who thought of splitting the roads in two in ESL?) is a hindrance for goods movement and the commuters that share the road with the big rigs. Commuters will certainly use the new bridge, but IMO it is needed for improving truck traffic which is more than a Monday to Friday ordeal. Truck traffic will only increase in the future which will create even more of a hindrance. I certainly can say I don't enjoy sharing roads with truckers especially during rush hour, but we have to accept it. I'll be happy to see the costs reduced to make this bridge a reality, yet functional for the area it serves.
We'll see what's proposed for sure next Tuesday, hopefully it is a less obtrusive design. After I-70 sliced north St. Louis to threads, what is needed is more sensitive design in MoDOT projects in that area. In the future I hope they look towards making their own existing roads more friendly for all its users rather than extending an underfunded system. It wouldn't hurt if the state gave transit more money as well.
- 1,610
A recent quote in the Post-Dispatch shows why Missouri won't cough up any dough for the new bridge:
In other words, downtown is no longer important to the "rest of the state." Guv Blunt already told us we live "where nobody wants to live anymore." Now, apparently, our region's and greater state's economic health no longer depend upon having a thriving central business district.
Sure, Illinois will have increased accessibility with the new bridge. But are we that parochial, self-interested and petty that we don't help build infrastructure that benefits anyone other than our own constituency?
"The rest of the state could care less about this bridge," said Missouri state Sen. Jon Dolan, R-Lake Saint Louis, the Senate Transportation Committee chairman. "In fact, aside from downtown, I bet most in St. Louis County and beyond could care less."
In other words, downtown is no longer important to the "rest of the state." Guv Blunt already told us we live "where nobody wants to live anymore." Now, apparently, our region's and greater state's economic health no longer depend upon having a thriving central business district.
Sure, Illinois will have increased accessibility with the new bridge. But are we that parochial, self-interested and petty that we don't help build infrastructure that benefits anyone other than our own constituency?
- 1,517
southslider--
Don't you think that an extensive Illinois Metrolink network might a) be effective in reducing the congestion that is spawning the supposed need for this bridge, b) environmentally and urbanistically speaking, be more friendly to the urban fabric, and c) be almost farther along in planning/funding or, at least, easier to fund?
That comment you posted is scary. While I'm not sure if Senator Dolan shares the attitude that he is relating in the quote, he nevertheless paints a clear portrait of the dwindling influence St. Louis (City) has over the state--and even the region.
Don't you think that an extensive Illinois Metrolink network might a) be effective in reducing the congestion that is spawning the supposed need for this bridge, b) environmentally and urbanistically speaking, be more friendly to the urban fabric, and c) be almost farther along in planning/funding or, at least, easier to fund?
That comment you posted is scary. While I'm not sure if Senator Dolan shares the attitude that he is relating in the quote, he nevertheless paints a clear portrait of the dwindling influence St. Louis (City) has over the state--and even the region.
- 1,610
At this point due to Metro's bleak financial picture, an additional quarter-cent in the St. Louis City and County would only sustain operations and replace some lost bus service, while a new half-cent in Madison County would only pay for MetroLink to Granite City.
And the picture is bleak at Metro, not due to Cross County, but due to cut operational subsidies for all transit services. Cross County cost-overruns only threaten to tie up the local match for future Missouri extensions for more years than expected (due to debt servicing), but the quarter-cent revenue used to finance Cross County never went to operations.
So, given dwindling state subsidies, it's the operations budget, not capital (construction, fleet maintenance) budget, that's the problem. But you still don't build any more MetroLink extensions if you can't even afford to operate your existing services.
For the first time ever, this Friday, a normal workday for most, Metro will be running its lowest number buses to-date for a weekday. This is because Metro will now be using weekend schedules on minor holidays like Veteran's Day. Illinois buses will be uneffected. But since MetroLink operates in both states, its service will be reduced to weekend schedule as well. As long as the State of Missouri doesn't provide comparable share for transit to Illinois, Metro will be struggling to provide transit in our bi-state region.
And the picture is bleak at Metro, not due to Cross County, but due to cut operational subsidies for all transit services. Cross County cost-overruns only threaten to tie up the local match for future Missouri extensions for more years than expected (due to debt servicing), but the quarter-cent revenue used to finance Cross County never went to operations.
So, given dwindling state subsidies, it's the operations budget, not capital (construction, fleet maintenance) budget, that's the problem. But you still don't build any more MetroLink extensions if you can't even afford to operate your existing services.
For the first time ever, this Friday, a normal workday for most, Metro will be running its lowest number buses to-date for a weekday. This is because Metro will now be using weekend schedules on minor holidays like Veteran's Day. Illinois buses will be uneffected. But since MetroLink operates in both states, its service will be reduced to weekend schedule as well. As long as the State of Missouri doesn't provide comparable share for transit to Illinois, Metro will be struggling to provide transit in our bi-state region.
- 2,005
...or it could be that Joe Dolan has his own agenda. I'm sure "Missouri" would much rather see a Page Avenue phase 2 and 3 built. Also, besides calling Shandi Finnessey hot(which she is, but a politician should refrain) he has inserted his foot-in-mouth on other occasions.
On another note, I read in the article that Missouri wants to charge $1 tolls. How idiotic is that? It would cause more congestion just to line people up to pay the toll as well as take forever for Mizery to pay its 'share' of the road. I'm sure the plan is that the tolls would cause so much headache that no one would want the bridge built. The plazas alone would take up a lot of space.
I didn't know Metro was going to holiday schedules on Veterans day. How sad that they can't get proper funding from their own state government.
On another note, I read in the article that Missouri wants to charge $1 tolls. How idiotic is that? It would cause more congestion just to line people up to pay the toll as well as take forever for Mizery to pay its 'share' of the road. I'm sure the plan is that the tolls would cause so much headache that no one would want the bridge built. The plazas alone would take up a lot of space.
I didn't know Metro was going to holiday schedules on Veterans day. How sad that they can't get proper funding from their own state government.
Matt Drops The H wrote:southslider--
Don't you think that an extensive Illinois Metrolink network might a) be effective in reducing the congestion that is spawning the supposed need for this bridge, b) environmentally and urbanistically speaking, be more friendly to the urban fabric, and c) be almost farther along in planning/funding or, at least, easier to fund?
That comment you posted is scary. While I'm not sure if Senator Dolan shares the attitude that he is relating in the quote, he nevertheless paints a clear portrait of the dwindling influence St. Louis (City) has over the state--and even the region.
The metrolink will not provide a solution for those traveling from outside the metro. Metrolink will also need to expand into Madison County in order to help relieve congestion. It will also have to expand to many areas of St Louis. Not everyone in Illinois is coming from central St Clair County, and headed to the city. Some are headed to north stl, south stl, west county, and so forth, places not accessed by metrolink, and places that may not be accessed for some time. Also, remember how many bridges we lost. We lost, bridges that should be connected to the freeway system, to rid the main traffic population. That alone, will only bring us to the number of lanes we once had. We have less lanes of bridge now, than we did years ago.