urbanSTL

mcarril wrote:

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

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

Funny and wise at the same time

New Bridge Rendering

http://www.newriverbridge.org/images/4-proposed.jpg





November Public Meetings Presentation

http://www.newriverbridge.org/presentation.ppt

What does the traffic redirection look like? How will this affect the area of 70 in front of downtown?



I'd like to see the design of the new interchange on the west side of the bridge. Personally, I like the new design, considering they were talking of not doing the suspension bridge. At least they're doing something that looks nice.

trent wrote: Personally, I like the new design, considering they were talking of not doing the suspension bridge. At least they're doing something that looks nice.

It is and always has been a "cable-stayed" bridge. There is a distinction. The Clark Bridge in Alton is cable-stayed versus, say, the Golden Gate or Brooklyn bridge which are both suspension. The difference being on a cable-stayed bridge all of the cables run diagonally from the deck to the vertical support while the deck cables on a suspension bridge run vertically to a "super cable" that is "suspended" between the vertical supports. Suspension bridges are a dying breed since it was discovered that a cable-stayed bridge is far more economical to build. They can be as cool but the world would be at a loss without the two aforementioned suspension bridges -- in my opinion.



The only other kind of bridge that would work for this great of a span would have been a truss bridge (think MLK) which is very expensive to build. Trust me, they can be just as cool if designed right (unlike the MLK). A simple-span like the Poplar Street bridge is not and was not an option due to the Corps of Engineers mandate that the navigable channel in this area not be reduced by any piers in the river.



During the conceptual design there were a number of truss bridges proposed but none had the presence (read:height) of a cable-stayed or the economy. For this situation it was and is a no-brainer that this bridge be cable-stayed.



There are a lot of super cool bridges in the world. For example:

http://www.viaducdemillaueiffage.com/

http://www.calatrava.com/



And many, many more...

Xing, you are right, in that Patterson does ignor the value to both St. Louis city and the Metro east in having a second bridge downtown. If nothing else, it makes traffic flow easier from Illinois to all parts of the Missouri side, which can be a great tool in adding population growth to Illinois. If you add population growth, then downtown once again becomes the center of the regions population, rather than clayton. For that reason alone I truely belive the bridge will be worth it, but...



On the otherside, Patterson's concerns over the dumping onto Cass is very important. To my mind, MODOT and St. Louis have an opertunity with this bridge to really think creativly about how to route traffic into and out of downtown on the north side. From that end, why not use this project as an opertunity to work on 70 south of the bridge. In the design, the first function is to cary east-west traffic on 70 that is not going downtown. Those parts of the project seem fine. The second funciton of the bridge is to cary people into and out of downtown. This is where the St. Louis side aproaches could be reworked. Rather than simply dumping the traffic onto Cass, as has been proposed, why not dump it onto the 70 spur going into downtown? I mean this is an interstate, wide enough to handle the traffic volume. (You don't need to widen it like Cass.) Even better, if MODOT was on board with such a plan, the city could remove 70 say south of O'Fallon St and in its place create a wide Boulvard going into downtown, some how spliting the traffic between Broadway, 4th, and Memorial Drive. Even better, such a project might have alot more public support since it would include dealing with the depressed lanes.



All in all this is not a perfect world, and these ideas will not show up in any MODOT design, in the same way MODOT would never dare give up its bridge building responsiblity and create a regional river bridge system with the power to toll. How sad, it people demand more, this is a great project that could do so much downtown and the Metro east, but no one will hold MODOT's feet to the fire.

It goes well beyond even the obvious things. I mean how many man hours are lost or are going to be lost due to congestion on the poplar getting worse. It could also pick the north side up with office space etc. I mean we all see those things, but the average person just doesn't look at it that way. The old why do I need another bridge I don't go to Illinois attitude lol.

^good transportation is often a cause. I think development has always moved Missouri side because it had the best connection to downtown (and now other business areas). First with streetcars, and then with highways.



I am not worried about people in St. Louis city fleeing to Illinois just because there is a bridge. People looking to flee have already done it or will do it anyway. I don't think any city neighborhood should be sacrificed for a bridge, but I also think turning our back on Illinois benefits no one. There must be a way to benefit both sides. St. Louis is one metro area that straddles a state line. I think we should be more regional in our attitude and approach.

Has anyone considered that the lack of development on the East Side might be because it is mostly a friggin' flood plane? Have you ever seen a satellite photo of the region? It is obviously all silt from the changing course of the mighty Mississip. The City of St. Louis was founded where it was bacause it was the highest ground near the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi rivers -- on a bluff for God's sakes. The other bank of the river was unsuitable for development. This was a wise choice. One that we (as a society) in our hubris have ignored in places like Chesterfield Valley.



There are very nice towns in the Metro-east like Belleville and Edwardsville but much of what is between there and the Mississippi SHOULD NOT be developed.



I would build ten bridges if I could, but this one is ill-conceived because it is so big and is so detrimental to the urban fabric and in my opinion will be a detriment to the city if not the region.

I think I'm very much in JMedwicks boat on this one. This is an opportunity to redevelop what has been so mishandled since the interstate was built. Our downtown was effectively severed from the riverfront by an interstate, so why not use this as a chance to kill several birds with one stone. There are so many options that you could draw up that could create an open and inviting downtown by just ridding yourself of the interstate cutting across your nose.

Xing wrote:East St Louis built a massive levee during its golden era of growth. It has protected much of the east side through out many years. The flood danger is a problem, but less of a problem than certain areas being developed in West County's unprotected flood plain. You can see the levee yourself, upon any visit to the Casino Queen.



Is there some guy in Missouri, holding some of you up with a gun, forcing you to find reasons to go against the East Side? Some of you appear to be looking very hard, as if this were the case.

Xing--



I understand, to a degree, your frustration about resistance to the new bridge, especially coming from Missouri.



However, I fail to truly see how this is a massively different case than adding new lanes out to St. Charles County. Have we not subsidized sprawl enough? Do we really need or want another population shift to occur in the area by making the East Side more accessible?



I guess my resistance comes from the fact that I know this new bridge will fill to capacity very shortly after it's built. If it does indeed serve as a catalyst for growth on the East Side, it will only jam more quickly. Returning downtown to the center of the region by further fragmenting and decentralizing the region is perhaps just as detrimental as the continuing push west, north and south. After all, St. Louis has a flat growth rate. We're not adding new blood at an appreciable rate (at least not yet). Our intra-area migration has been astounding over the past 50 years.



Plus I think the whole "downtown will become the center of the area again" argument in favor of the bridge is erroneous. If there becomes a mirror of St. Charle County on the other side of the river, it only opens up new land for sprawl development even farther out on the East Side. That, in turn, only creates relatively self-sufficient nodes of suburbs. After all, many St. Charles Countians work within St. Charles County itself, or St. Louis County. Who is to say a Monroe Countian who lives in a newly constructed sprawl development will not find a job in the growing East Side rather than the still slow-moving Central core that his sprawl home helps to centralize?



I also would like to see some numbers regarding where this East Side growth is coming from. Are people from Wentzville, O'Fallon and Chesterfield really giving up their beautiful new homes for new East Side homes 50 miles away? Or is the growth due to Missourians who already live closer to the East Side to begin with?



Finally, I just see this as another failed opportunity for alternative transit options. Illinois seems so much more capable of getting Metrolink expanded. Yes, I know that not every Metro East resident needs to go to downtown, Clayton, or Lambert. But these are the major employment hubs. If even 30% of residents who worked in one of the areas Missouri's Metrolink serves used the Metro every day to get to work, that would take serious pressure off of the Poplar and would open it up to auto-owning Illinoisans who want to go elsewhere.



To be honest, Illinois would be better off diverting its funding to this multi-million dollar bridge and funneling it into its struggling riverside cities for major redevelopment plans. Making the "inner ring" of Illinois suburbs more attractive and more prepared for the growth a new bridge might bring would make me feel more comfortable than just adding new highway lanes in an area that already has enough.

Nice debate going on ;o). I think it goes beyond adding new lanes. Anyone that goes over the Poplar everyday will tell you how bad it is. You throw an accident or construction into the mix along with a baseball game etc you have a nasty snarl. Not to even mention that it's an Interstate moving people through our area that live elsewhere.



It's a mess really coming over that bridge jockeying for position between two 18 wheelers as you try to do a three lane shuffle to pick your lane. I've traveled to a lot of places, but that is one of the most confusing interchanges you will find anywhere which adds more problems itself.



I'm not worried about people fleeing to the Suburbs myself, as those people will live where they want to live regardless of a bridge. I want our city to be a mecca, and that involves doing away with the isolationist attitude we have here. We actually have the benefit of having another state, with more resources I might add as part of our metro area. If we joined hands and did some work together we would have an advantage that not many cities have. I'm not throwing Ill a free pass either as it's hard to squeeze things from them that doesn't have Chicago behind it, but I think it's partly has to do with this regions my side or your side attitude.



If we worked together on things like this we would make our whole region more attractive, and everyone wouldn't have to worry about losing tax revenues to one side or the other because both sides would be benefitting from it. Between "Guv Blunt", and the House of Baldknobbers we're fighiting an uphill battle for the money. I also think more people on the IL side will draw the center of the region back where it belongs.



If it only means I don't have to drive 45 minutes to a hour out to St Chuck, St Pete, or Wentzville to visit one of my newly moved relatives it's all worth the while lol. People are going to live in the Suburbs regardless, but I think Illinois offers quicker commutes, and cheaper housing prices, which makes it attractive to many. My two cents is build the bridge for what little worth that carries ha ha

Fighting a bridge over sprawl is foolish. If you were gonna fight such a bridge, do it over the Page Ave. Extension. Do it over trying to get taxing on all the regions bridges. Don't stop this bridge, one that is needed and one that will do nothing to change the living paterns in the region. I for one would rather have people living 20 miles aways in Illinois than 40 miles in St. Charles.



The bridge is gonna happen. Illinois won't let it drop and Missouri will ablidge. The best people can do it make sure it has the maximum possible postive effect. FOcus on how the bridge can make downtown better. Focus on how the bridge could make living on the east riverfront easier. Any of these things are more important than defiently holding on to your principles, while a bridge that brings no positives is built. take a stand and do something to make the project better, because like it or not, its gonna get built.

^That sums it up.

JMedwick wrote:Fighting a bridge over sprawl is foolish. If you were gonna fight such a bridge, do it over the Page Ave. Extension. Do it over trying to get taxing on all the regions bridges. Don't stop this bridge, one that is needed and one that will do nothing to change the living paterns in the region. I for one would rather have people living 20 miles aways in Illinois than 40 miles in St. Charles.



The bridge is gonna happen. Illinois won't let it drop and Missouri will ablidge. The best people can do it make sure it has the maximum possible postive effect. FOcus on how the bridge can make downtown better. Focus on how the bridge could make living on the east riverfront easier. Any of these things are more important than defiently holding on to your principles, while a bridge that brings no positives is built. take a stand and do something to make the project better, because like it or not, its gonna get built.

I don't agree with your contention that this bridge will do nothing to change living patterns in the region. Highway lanes are fairly highly (positively) correlated with sprawl growth--and the precedents are clear and pronounced in the St. Louis Metro Area. Granted, this bridge will add highway lanes that will connect in some form to already existing interstates--but this bridge will serve as an incentive to further sprawl and decentralization in this area.



Who here that is against this bridge was not against the Page extension also? This is not a group of Missourians unfairly bullying Illinois. This is a group of urbanists recognizing that no one really stands to benefit by redirecting sprawl--to anywhere, west or east.



St. Charles County (and other outlying counties) enjoy public subsidies--new roads, new schools, new police and fire protection, all provided by virtue of the fact that the development is there and the services are needed--while similar infrastructure in inner ring suburbs and the central city are decaying. How can I criticize the inequities of incentivizing sprawl on one side of the river, but not the other? I have to be consistent. Let's face it. The East Side will not turn into an urban-suburban mecca with this new bridge. East St. Louis, Brooklyn and Venice will not suddenly develop lofts and condos and enjoy in whatever urban renaissance might be unfolding. We are going to get more sprawl. And though you say in your above post that you'd rather have your relatives live 20 miles away in Illinois sprawl than 40 in Missouri, what's to stop the Illinois side from developing sprawl 40 miles out?



I'll tell you--quit building more highway lanes in this Metro Area. Quit making sprawl such an easy alternative to using existing infrastructure.



Now, do I think that this bridge will suddenly turn the East Side into circa-1990 exploding St. Charles County? No. Do I think, whether it's built or not, that it will signify the end of the St. Louis Metro Area? God no. I just fear a St. Louis that is 100 miles from its westernmost extent to its easternmost extent. If anything, I am not drawing upon parochialism at all. I'm trying to argue that further sprawl is not good for anyone or anywhere in this region--including Lincoln County, Jefferson County and Franklin County in Missouri.



And if I were from a rural town in Illinois just within what is currently considered the St. Louis Metro--I would be alarmed by a sprawl pushing eastward. Will it not alter the character of this unique rural environment just minutes from a large metropolitan area? I thought that many on this forum did not want to settle for sprawl. How can we all mock St. Charles County's "sea of vinyl" and say "build the bridge!" in the same breath? Surely this statement is overblown now, in 2005. But talk to me in 2015.



I remember my parents and so many others talking about how Chesterfield used to be a rural retreat along what is now Highway 40. Who here likes what Chesterfield has become, from an urbanist's perspective? How did it become that way? Is this really what Illinois wants? How is this better for the area?



As facilitating sprawl has become the status quo in St. Louis, I am not really actively against this bridge because I know that, as you point out, it "will happen." Thus, I am not deadset against it because I feel a little hopeless and outnumbered--and I hope I'm wrong about the sprawl argument that you deem foolish. So I will keep my objections to this new bridge to this forum only.

Who said that Steve Patterson and I weren't fighting the Page Avenue extension? I published an anti-Page Avenue extension article back in the day myself (not online).

My point abou the Page Ave. extension was simply to say that if people were concnered about drawing a line in the sand, that line should have been drawn awhile ago. And if people really want to currently use bridges as the method of fighting sprawl, then the choice should be to toll the bridges, all of them, not just for the folks living in Illinois.



However you slice it, I feel the people living on the east side are but small pawns in this game, and that is sad. THey file back and forth across the PSB to work in downtown, while people in St. Charles get new bridges to facilitate people driving from O'Fallon to Westport or Maryville. The least people can do it recognise that PSB people are involved in the regions core.



An no, this bridge will not signifigantly change living patters in the region. Building NO BRIDGE will affect them alot more. Why? Build no bridge, it simply makes it harder for people to get across the river. Instead, why bother crossing the river. Places like Edwardsville will grow, which is good for edwardsville, but bad for the region and only contributes to sprawl. Businesses don't put offices in in-acessable locations. You don't stop sprawl by making it harder to access the regions core. If you want to fight sprawl, stop things like the 141 expansion and the highway 94 work. Make your stand 40 miles out or 20 miles out or even 10 miles out, but not some project in the shadow of the Arch.



My final point is that while it is nice to moan and groan about how this bridge is so awful, its gonna be built. The least people can do is see that it has the maximum possible positive effect for all parties involved, something the "No Bridge, I hate sprawl" arguments never touch on. As the bridge is currently designed there are few positives. But heck, make it work folks. Allow the design to help fix the 70/ riverfront problem. Help it make some semblence of a street grid on the east riverfront possibel. Just do something other than whine about NO bridge and I hate sprawl.

JMedwick wrote:
An no, this bridge will not signifigantly change living patters in the region. Building NO BRIDGE will affect them alot more. Why? Build no bridge, it simply makes it harder for people to get across the river. Instead, why bother crossing the river. Places like Edwardsville will grow, which is good for edwardsville, but bad for the region and only contributes to sprawl. Businesses don't put offices in in-acessable locations. You don't stop sprawl by making it harder to access the regions core. If you want to fight sprawl, stop things like the 141 expansion and the highway 94 work. Make your stand 40 miles out or 20 miles out or even 10 miles out, but not some project in the shadow of the Arch.



My final point is that while it is nice to moan and groan about how this bridge is so awful, its gonna be built. The least people can do is see that it has the maximum possible positive effect for all parties involved, something the "No Bridge, I hate sprawl" arguments never touch on. As the bridge is currently designed there are few positives. But heck, make it work folks. Allow the design to help fix the 70/ riverfront problem. Help it make some semblence of a street grid on the east riverfront possibel. Just do something other than whine about NO bridge and I hate sprawl.

First of all, I would like to tell you once more that I prefer to be consistent. You've made several mentions of bridges and transportation projects that were developed on the Missouri side successfully. What makes you think that I support these any more than this new bridge to Illinois?



This project is not about enhancing anything within the shadow of the Arch. As I have also stated previously, I would like to see the benefits of this bridge reach East St. Louis, or even downtown. This bridge benefits commuters who use the jammed Poplar. My passive opposition to this bridge is that, like every other sprawl-inducing transportation project in this area, no one really benefits.



Your bolded statement is not entirely accurate. First, no one is trying to make it harder to access the core. Opponents of the new bridge are merely not standing for the facilitating access to the core, which, when flipped around, means higher capacity travel into Illinois, which in turn most likely means 40 miles of sprawl into Illinois.



Have we learned nothing from the past? I can't imagine anything worse for the St. Louis area than having "balanced" sprawl, because it means having an unimaginably decentralized metro area at the same time. I have to question the efficacy of wanting sprawl to shift east so as to position downtown at the "center of the region" once more. After all, if you're widening the circle, it doesn't matter where the midpoint is if the circle becomes too large. Extreme decentralization has several implications to the older parts of the St. Louis MSA. For one, it hinders mass transit development as density is further thinned out. If Illinois does indeed develop into St. Charles County's successor, then we have aided the growth of something we all see as negative growth.



And if you believe that increased accessibility does not help sprawl (I wish there were another word for it--I've used "sprawl" more times than I would ever like to), I would point you to the still-undeveloped areas of St. Charles County. You'll notice a key feature of these areas. They're generally north and east of St. Charles City, where there in no interstate.



Finally, I don't believe this bridge is the end of the world. I see the arguments that the Poplar is intolerably clogged. I will reiterate though. I'd expect a better solution from Illinois than more lanes. And I'd especially expect better from a forum full of urbanists.

OK here I go



Is this bridge needed? Yes Why? Because of increasing truck traffic not because of commuters. One of the major causes of congestion on the bridge are slow truck drivers and too many of them. However, I still think the bridge is over-engineered. I don't think 4 lanes each direction are necessary, I think 3 lanes would be fine. Think of the money that could be saved by reducing the width of the bridge 24'. Better yet instead of reducing the width think of running MetroLink along it.



I still think the Missouri interchange needs to be fixed, although it is better than before. IMO there are still too many takings of property especially along 10th St. The good folks in Illinois can use the King or Eads bridge to access downtown, I don't see the need for an additional access to the new bridge from northern downtown. If outbound commuters need to access the new bridge from downtown they can do so from Broadway, likewise inbound commuters could use the current MLK bridge exit(which could be fixed to tie into the street grid). Better yet build the parkway and get rid of the elevated part altogether.

Reguardless of how many or where bridges and highways go, people are going to live where they choose. For decades, downtown declined and Missouri didn't do one iota to make improvements with our expressways into DTSTL. They served poorly, to begin with...you can't come up 55 or east on 70 and then go west on 40/65 for instance. Lately people have been moving back into the city and downtown at an impressive pace without any changes in our expressways...why? Development and availability to a lifestyle they want (urban, in this case). I wonder how many of those living downtown in lofts would be living in lofts in other cities if downtown was like it was 10, 15 years ago? This phenomena is not due to any highway construction. And sprawl, our mega urban neighbor to the north, Chicago, continues to have suburban sprawl at its outer fringes even though downtown is booming like crazy. What I'm saying is that highways and bridges will continue to do as they first were meant to do....get you from here to there, and they won't dictate where you live, meerly accomodate those who are there already, or most likely will be there in the somewhat near future.

That said, have you forgotten about McKinley Bridge, now under reconstruction?