urbanSTL

Guv Blunt lol thanks for the laugh south and so true.

Couldn't we use one of the many unused bridges we have now, reclad it, and redirect one of the interstates (cough, 70, cough) onto it, and call it a day?



Yeah...I know this would need significant planning and funding from both states, but it seems like we should use the infrastructure that's already built.

None of the current bridges are large enough for an interstate, and they are all used currently except the Macarthur, and that is too small anyway, being only one lane in each direction. Plus, the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis won't even allow a bike path on the auto deck. The only other unused bridge curently is the Merchant's Exchange in North City, and that is rail only.

First of all I'm not a fan of tolls. As I understand it there are three problems:



1) Toll booths => slower traffic => less traffic throughput.



2) If more Illinoisians will use the bridge and the Illinois pays more money to build the bridge. Illinoisians would be paying twice for the bridge... once in the taxes and once in tolls.



3) People will naturally have a disensentive to use toll bridges over free bridges. I.e. the whole history of the Eads Bridge and McKinnely Bridge and the introduction of free bridges.



In order to address issue #2. Is it feasable, with some sort of Speedpass or RFID technology attached to a credit card account, that commuters (Illinoisians) that crossing West over the bridge are redeemed their toll, in full, when crossing back East the same day? And oppositely Missourians crossing East and back West in a day are not. Additionally, Illinois businesses could be issued these toll free passes since such businesses already paid for the bridge in taxes.



Illinois gets a new bridge and doesn't have to pay twice for it.



Of course this does nothing to address issue #3 and traffic will likely bypass the new bridge.



Not a perfect idea.... but at midnight it's at least food for thought

I just got back from the meeting. The new bridge is indeed cable stayed. The suspended deck is 1500', about 500' shorter than originally planned due to the piers in the river. The entire bridge will be roughly 2800' long which would be 400' shorter than originally designed.



The 14th connector is gone, rather an add grade intersection on Cass will connect to the bridge. This will be just west of 10th in an area of vacant lots(if you have google map). The downside is the Cass will be widened to accomodate the new traffic load. The building on the northeast corner of Cass and 13th is gone, but the Greyhound station will stay.



Another good thing is the bridge no longer takes out the Refrigeration building, rather going just to the south. However, every property along 10th street to St. Louis avenue will be taken.



The plans shown were just for the I-70 relocation, no Rt 3 or I-64 connector. The costs are down to around $910 million because of the smaller scope.



Missouri had an area about tolls which was lightly visited. I still don't understand why they can build bridges to St. Chuck for free. How about the proposed westbound I-64 Daniel Boone bridge be built as a toll?



Steve Patterson was there and hopefully others on the board. I'm just going off of memory, but I'm sure we'll be hearing more about it. I just wanted to beat everyone to the punch.



EDIT: forgot to mention the bridge will be 331' tall and will carry four 12' lanes and two 12' shoulders each direction.

I wasn't able to get up to the meeting at any point tonight. Thanks for the info.

Urban Review St. Louis wrote:

brickandmortar wrote:Steve Patterson was there and hopefully others on the board. I'm just going off of memory, but I'm sure we'll be hearing more about it. I just wanted to beat everyone to the punch.

It is weird that people know who I am but don't say hi. If you see me out and about come up and say hello.

You looked pretty busy talking to the URS folks there and I wasn't there long(had to let my dog outside). Next time I'll say hi. I'm sure they'll have more meetings on the next bridge redesign. You have an interesting blog and I enjoy reading it. By the way nice scooter. How was the ride on our crummy northside streets?

I meant access to Cass from eastbound I-70 into downtown. Currently there is a ramp at 10th Street.

Thanks

It seems good that the city will now have better access between downtown and Illinois, but it is sad that with the widening of Cass and the seemingly easy flow of traffic that the city can't move ahead and redo 70 from the new bridge into downtown. If that were part of the project, it would get alot more public support.



If the city wants to put tolls on the bridge fine, but then put tolls on all the river bridges in St. Louis. Create something akin to the Delaware River Joint Tol Bridge Commission, allowing the setup to toll all bridges, JB, New Chain of Rocks, PSB. These tolls can then be used to fund new bridge crossing in the region as is needed. Then IDOT or MODOT would only be responsible for intergrating new brigdges into the existing sites. The really expensive part of building the span would be the commissions responsiblity.



Even better would be a Missouri/ Mississippi River Valley Transportation Authority. SUch an authority would be given control of all bridge crossings including the Daniel Boon, Page Ave, and Blanchett. In additon, the agency could also fold in airport control, port control, and perhaps metro.

Xing wrote:
If they want to make everything a contest, fine. May the best state win.

In terms of political and economic clout, the state of Illinois has already "won". However, I don't think this attitude will help the Metro East. Residents of the Illinois Side of the St. Louis Metro Area aren't going to suddenly quit their jobs downtown or elsewhere because of congestion. Cities everywhere suffer from congestion, often relative to their amount of sprawl. If Illinois wants to build sprawl, it too must face congestion.



The answer is not providing better automobile access between the two sides of the river. I guarantee you that once this bridge is built, it will make Illinois a more attractive place to live because it will seem more accessible and more connected to the rest of the area. The possible and perhaps probable result of the growth a new bridge might inspire is a recentralization towards the core, but at the price of "shifting," albeit minimally, the congestion eastward. The new bridge will eventually be as clogged as the Poplar--just as the New I-64, with its aggressive marketing campaign and its goals of beautification and increased lanes, will eventually reach its capacity at a certain point.



In fact, that's the whole point of undertaking these transportation projects. We want increased accessibility to catalyze growth, which, in turn, causes congestion. Since many people on here are city residents, or at least are those who believe our area's health depends on the city's health, we might support this new bridge because it seems to create an eastern node of competition for westward sprawl, thus positioning downtown as the center of the region again. We have to ask ourselves--is this goal realistic? Does it come at the expense of creating a sprawl-conducive environment in Southern Illinois? Is is truly better for the region to spend all this money on aiding a spatial population shuffle in a stagnant Metro Area?



Now, you might argue, one bridge is simply not enough and it is making the Missouri side look all the more unattractive to Illinois residents, who are growing in numbers. Certainly we don't want a further divided Metro Area. But again, I offer that Illinois, with its superior resources and more urban mindset (is that fair to say), should perhaps look to transit alternatives such as Metrolink or bussing (Madison County Transit) that doesn't give this backward state as much control over transportation issues.

In my opinion, Illinois has already won. They have shown a willingness to support rail transit - more than can be said for some suburbs on the Missouri side and showcases the difference between Jefferson City and Springfield. And they are more progressive in other important issues, as well. Missouri needs to get its act together or it is going to be left behind because of its stubborness. St. Louis needs to consider its national position as well as global position. Our economic future depends on it. Turning a cold shoulder to Illinois is old fashioned Missouri stubborness that has not served the state or city well.



Having said all that, I don't think any new bridges should be allowed to damage the fabric of any city neigbhorhood.

A 1 buck toll is 2 bucks a day (for commuters), 10 bucks a week, 40 bucks a month! If I save 15 minutes each way, that's 10 hours less in the car each month. Doesn't seem too unreasonable to me considering my time is worth something as is the fuel and wear and tear on the car. I've got friends in Toronto who chose to commute via highway 407 (toll highway) and its costs them in excess of $150/month for similar time savings.

^The tolls would only be charged one-way so it would be only $1 a day. Hopefully semis are charged more than that.

^good point Loftlover. Same thing here in Maryland. If they have some kind of Easypass system, that would help, too.

Unfortunately with old "Guv Blunt" in office I don't see this attitude changing. Let's make sure we get someone with a more urban mindset in office. I'm sick of the Baldknobbers making our policies.

jfknet wrote: I'm sick of the Baldknobbers making our policies.

I laughed out loud when I read this. Very true.

Aren't the Baldknobbers an act in Branson? I think I recall seeing that Billboard last time I was heading down south of Springfield on one of my many job related travels to Arkansas.