urbanSTL

If they were talking about building a new outer loop that circled the metro area ten miles further out than I-270, which would give us more river crossings just beyond the current metro area, then I would be screaming about sprawl. A bridge going into downtown doesn't alarm me in regards to sprawl.



But, since the bridge is coming no matter what we say, I agree with JMedwick that the issue is getting the best bridge possible to meet the needs of downtown and metro St. Louis. Are they asking for an up or down vote on the bridge? If so, then a discussion of building the bridge or not would be important. But, if it is coming regardless, the discussion is interesting, but doesn't get us anywhere.



Regarding people moving to Illinois. If I chose to move to Illinois, this or any other bridge would have nothing to do with it. My attraction to Illinois would be their embrace of light-rail and a willingness to expand it. Should we stop light-rail because it might cause people to move to Illinois?

Expat wrote:
Regarding people moving to Illinois. If I chose to move to Illinois, this or any other bridge would have nothing to do with it. My attraction to Illinois would be their embrace of light-rail and a willingness to expand it. Should we stop light-rail because it might cause people to move to Illinois?

No, Expat, because light rail is more environmentally friendly, tackles congestion, encourages pedestrian activity between stops, and is more friendly to the built environment than constructing new bridges or interstates to handle increasing volumes of traffic.



I think everyone is correct to say that sprawl is not entirely dependent upon more highway lanes, or, relating to this topic, the new bridge. However, by the account of local news media, sprawl is already beginning in the Metro East and I cannot imagine this bridge as anything other than a major selling point for those undertaking sprawl-style developments.



Plus, the new bridge will help sprawl in a state that can afford and that is more willing to embrace alternatives. I just see this as a mildly unfortunate vehicle of sprawl--not as bad as the Page Extension, IMO--but nevertheless could possibly be a look into a frighteningly decentralized future St. Louis Metro.



And might I add that many things we discuss on here are contrary to the purported reality of things. For example, we see areas in which St. Louis's urban development has sorely missed its potential. I'll throw out Southtown Centre as a case in point. It's of no use, I suppose, to complain about it now. It's there. It's built. However, if this is a step in the wrong direction, by putting up a fight or even merely calling it into question, you are doing a service to the community in that you are attempting to remind it of its past mistakes.



I don't think this bridge is the be-all and end-all that I'm probably seem like I'm making it out to be. I will state that I'm not convinced there aren't better alternatives. I will state that the widening of Cass alone is enough to make me wary of this bridge from a city resident's perspective. I will state that neither side of the river will "benefit" from allowing more cars to fill each bridge to capacity other than that they'll shave some minutes from individual commute times.



But so be it.

Marmar wrote:Reguardless of how many or where bridges and highways go, people are going to live where they choose. ... 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). .... 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.

Amen... People didn't start moving to St. Charles because of the Page Bridge Extension but instead the bridge was built because the current population already demanded another bridge. Granted the new bridge might have influenced some late comers, worried about their commutes, to move there afterward. But people will always tend to live in the type of environment that they already wish to live in.



That being said people can change their opinions about where they want to live. It the city continues to make itself a more desirous place to live in then people will continue to move back.



The bridge isn't likely to cause people, who desire an urban, to move out. The bridge is only going to ease the of commutes of people who already don't live in the City and likely arn't gonna to any time soon. But, on the other hand that might help the City remain the/a Metropolitan business center if employees from the East can more easily commute and therefore not demand that businesses move out of the city.



Question for any Chicago residents regarding downtown Chicago and it's suburbs. My impression is that downtown Chicago IS by far the business center of it's metropolitan area... is this true? My thought is that people have formed suburban rings surrounding a city because it's too expensive to live downtown or people wish for a suburban environment but don't want a long commute downtown to work. In addition if the DT is strong then naturally some/more people will desire to live closer work and hence live in a more urban environment forming the first rings around/in the business center. If the downtown is THE strong center of the region, although suburbs may spread around they might not sap the strength of the DT since they are built around because of it's strength. (I.e look at's Chicago's L-trains they all don't radiate out of DT for nothing).



In St. Louis' case one might say that most of St. Louis County is a such a ring formed around St Louis DT. But as DT Saint Louis weakened as a business center further loosely connected outlying suburbs (i.e. St. Charles) began to form their own business "centers". If DT had remained a stronger business center the desire to not have long commutes would have remained a limiting factor curbing the ever expanding radius of suburbs that would less and less be connected to DT. To some degree this is partially the affect of a separated St Louis and St Louis County unnaturally feeding off each other when if we had a united County/City we might have expected more cooperation.



My thought is that suburbs don't necessarily have to sap urban environment if the DT is the strong business (hence employement) center of a region.



So back to the bridge. I don't believe the bridge need necessarily hurts the city if DT remains or improves as an business/employment center and the employees of these businesses need a better bridge to get to work. Especially now that they might see the city is becoming more and more livable.

Matt drops the H - points taken. Especially about the need or desire to discuss.

Expat wrote:Matt drops the H - points taken. Especially about the need or desire to discuss.

Thank you. This has been a very interesting conversation. I think it does need to be discussed.

You also have to think that it makes downtown more attractive for the office environment. Granted in a perfect world everyone would live and work downtown, but that just isn't the way it is.



I think it could also help the outer north sides old industrial areas maybe for shipping companies etc. I don't know, I just don't see a bridge being any reason for someone to move away from the city.



Urban people love living in the city, suburban people like it in the burbs, and it won't change because of a bridge IMO. I think both sides make valid points, but eventually it will be done from nothing more then necessity.



If anything a new bridge adds to the vision of the future as we grow as a metro area we're going to have to build up infrastructure. I'm picturing those modern BD towers coming over a modern bridge mixed with all the old charm. Ahhh what a site

I would happily knock down all the Missouri River bridges to build this bridge up right. Why? Because it's not focused on making sprawlers commutes easier to get across the river, rather, it's making access to downtown easier. The new bridge has a downtown focus. The Page Avenue Extension is enormously far away from downtown, and has no downtown focus. The same can be said for the Blanchette Bridge, and the 370 bridge. Those bridges were built for St. Charles sprawlers (maybe not Blanchette, but it was expanded for sprawlers).



A new Mississippi Bridge will do a lot more for downtown, and it's reclaiming of the Central Business Core of the area. I think the days of the big bad CBD might be behind us. But that doesn't mean that you can't refocus the attention of the business center in your metro area. Attracting businesses that want to reach the entire metro pop, instead of MasterCard who looks to be reaching the residents of West County. Downtown businesses can reach out to hire people from Edwardsville, Alton, Columbia (IL), Troy (both), Arnold, O'Fallon (both) and more. For major corporations (the kind that might want to build nice new shiny towers), having so many different housing options available for their employees can only be a positive.



Some people might like a quiet river town (Alton), some might prefer a more hip, vibrant downtown area with the quaintness of a suburb (Belleville), some might want the historic brick buildings of St. Louis City, or the old farm houses that litter our area. Plus, having all the amenities of downtown makes the corporation more attractive.



As it stands, this is still very much a car town, and I'm not saying I don't hope that changes, cuz I hate my car, and want to get rid of it...but that's a fact. People want to drive their cars. If we build this bridge, it makes downtown more accessible and more attractive.



But we still need to focus doing it the right way. Forgoing the usual St. Louis mistakes of destroying historic places and neighborhoods in the name of 'progress'.

good points, trent.



the new bridge itself doesn't worry me - as designed, it could become a "signature" bridge for STL, like the eads bridge is. the PS bridge is U-G-L-Y.



the problem is the way the ramps would tear up the street grid on the north side, just when that area is making a comeback. if public input focuses on this aspect of the project, rather than on the evils of sprawl, we probably have a better chance of changing MODOT's thinking.

I do not fear that a new bridge would be an escape route to those who want the burb life. If anything I welcome the prosperity of the east side. I am sick of people moving further and further west. I think growth of burbs on the east side will go a long way in making the city and inparticular downtown more centralized in the metro area.



Rich by lindenwood park.

If you look at what our region's major transportation agencies are seeking to build over the next 20 years, the picture does look very bleak for the St. Louis region.



IDOT is targeting its major new projects into its older core of the region (within the 255 loop): a new interchange at 64-55/70, a relocated IL 3, and of course the new Mississippi River Bridge (MRB).



MODOT on the other hand, is doing business as usual, spreading out its major projects all over the region, spending more per capita in Franklin and Jefferson Counties, and still a hefty sum on St. Charles County. St. Louis City and County will see the single largest project in the enitre state, New I-64 (rebuilding 40), but it's coming at the cost of other City and County projects like MRB, 141 north, 44/River Des Peres.



And Metro (yikes) won't even be able to sustain bus operations, thus Shrewsbury looks to be the end of the line for MetroLink expansion in Missouri, unless voters return favorably to the polls.



In the end, it's the State of Missouri that is doing business as usual, hindering both MODOT and Metro. Missouri will politically spread its investments across the region to appease parochial leaders and self-interested voters, rather than reinvest in the urban core, either in sustained transit operations or more equal per capita investment in roads and bridges. And thinking of per capita, that's resident population, while St. Louis City and County have significantly higher daytime populations, due to largely serving our region's employment needs. But businesses don't vote, residents do. Thus, with Missouri's business-as-usual plan, MODOT is prepared to continue appeasing the localized interests of parochial voters, instead of actually sustaining or reviving our region's struggling economy.



Amendment 3 has given Missouri a temporary pass on reality, such that capacity building projects (added lanes, new roads) will continue, if not actually increase, in the short-term. But the dwindling, increasingly spread-out tax base of a no-growth region with aging infrastructure and increasing maintenance costs will ultimately kill Missouri's economy in the long-term.

Great rant, and I agree wholeheartedly.



What do we do about it?

The US DOT (FHWA & FTA) requires state DOTs like MODOT to have a long-range plan that looks years to the future and is financially constrained. From such a mandated process, it is already projected that MODOT will soon not be able to even come up with its local share of funding to receive federal funding for future major transportation projects.



Amendment 3 already provides a temporary boost, but MODOT has already bonded the future added revenues against major overbuilds everywhere, including New I-64.



So then, in answer to Phobia's question of "What do we about it?," at the very least, we can wait to see MODOT learn the hard way, scraping bottom.



Of course, Prop B was seen as an act of desperation, and following its loss, the highway construction lobby drafted Amendment 3. But having now diverted all existing fuel taxes now to transportation, I doubt voters would buy into another highway-lobby campaign to then raise taxes. Unless Missourians are willing to raise their taxes, MODOT will have to actually learn to say NO to politicians and their pet projects. And learn they will, even if it's the hard way by scraping bottom in the very near-future.

If I were MODOT i would hope that the new bridge and new I-64 projects are resounding sucesses. IF they are they at least have a shot at people thinking better of them to get a tax increase. Otherwise, they are really sunk.

What, then, can we do to accelerate the inevitable starving of the beast?



I'm of the firm belief that MoDOT has been and will continue to be the strongest sprawl-inducing force in our state. In considering the MRB, I've come to the conclusion that I support it only to the extent that it drains funds from MoDOT; which is to say not enough.

Urban Review St. Louis wrote:
As I've stated on my site before, I'd love to see I-70 removed between the new bridge and the PSB. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening but that might be a nice trade off.

I haven't had a chance to attend any of these meetings, but has Modot explained what the purpose of this remaining section I-70 will be? I think it should be totally torn down as well. With all the plans that have come and gone for riverfront redevelopment, I think this would be the thing that would help reconnect Downtown with the Riverfront. Just turn that whole stretch into 3rd street and call it a day.

On the topic of the lid, you still build that. You just adapt the highway around it later in the event of the bridge being built.



But I don't see why there isn't somebody stepping up to talk about the overall compromise of getting the bridge built, AND making it more urban friendly towards the city of St. Louis. It is possible. Have the bridge connect directly with 70, with a good sized dual exit ramp that empties out onto the memorial causeway (what is now memorial drive and 70; that area).



Frankly I don't get people that complain about sitting in traffic. Traffic is always bad at rush hour, and always will be.



EDIT: Oh, and I agree with the fixing of current highway issues first. Like all of the horrific exit and entrance ramps. Our highway system (both sides) is a cluster *ahem*.

There are just too many issues to keep up with the MRB.



Financial:

The National Highway Trust Fund is nearing depletion, which impacts all states, not just rural road-building Missouri. Fuel taxes just cannot keep up with American demand for new and well-maintained roads. Amendment 3 had given MODOT a temporary reprieve to keep building major highway projects, but I say "had" since much of Amendment 3 revenue, especially in the St. Louis region, has already been committed to projects, including New I-64. Users fees and congestion pricing are ultimately in every long-distance commuter's future, but starting with a bridge serving employment within our urban core does seem inequitable, when many other projects in recent past or in even the near future are not considering tolling.



Political:

Let's face it, Illinois will largely benefit from the new bridge, and within Missouri, it's mostly the City, a constituency that hardly constitutes Missouri's current administration's core supporter. When choosing between New I-64 or the MRB, MODOT clearly chose to accelerate the project that benefits more of its constituents.



Community:

Ironically, the MRB has seen more mitigation benefitting near northside concerns than for the American Bottoms communities of Illinois. A new Route 3 and context-sensitive urban design were elements that may now be lost due to the budget ax. While the cutting of Tucker/14th ramps on the Missouri side was more in line with community concerns, Illinois communities, like Brooklyn, Venice and ESL, actually wanted a new Route 3 from Venice to Cahokia, promising light industrial employment for these largely disinvested minority communities. So far, only St. Clair commuter outrage has gotten an IDOT promise that the I-64 would be eventually built if not initially part of the new bridge.



Transportation:

Use of the MRB depends upon how the PSB is reconfigured and this has been lost in the discussions. Most through traffic, especially freight traffic, and even commuter traffic destined for locations beyond Downtown will still use the PSB. PSB congestion will only significantly be relieved then if 44/55 access to the PSB is improved and downtown access removed. 44/55 capacity to/from the PSB can be doubled once I-70 and Memorial Drive access to/from the PSB is removed. This is possible since the new MRB will serve as access to downtown and I-70. But it would appear, especially since it's MODOT's responsibility, that the crucial reconfiguration of the PSB has been lost in the concern for lowering the MRB's costs. Without this crucial combination, however, the new MRB really will only be a wider, newer MLK, failing to provide the relief previously evaluated.



Riverfront:

The lid will happen irregardless of whether the MRB is built. The cost is estimated at 30-some million by Great Rivers Greenway. The elevated section of I-70 between the depressed section and the new MRB has just seen new maintenance improving the condition of the structure. Since 170 does not connect to 44 or 55, and 270 is fairly congested at peak times, many commuters actually travel from 44/55 through downtown on to 70, or vice-versa. If removing 70, which would be renumbered 44, after the MRB is completed, that traffic would obviously have to go elsewhere, only some of it then going into ESL to make the connection, but could easily then ironically put more traffic on the PSB, which is completely opposite the goal of the MRB project.



Economy:

I think the MRB will help centralize our CBD as the region's center, while providing improved access and stimulus to light industrial employment about the new highway infrastructure. Such economic development is needed in a region losing quality blue-collar jobs. Sure, some strip malls might come to Old North or the Eastside, but more of the growth will be in light industrial (trucking distribution centers), which our region needs to offset the currently low-wage services/retail sector and provide employment to working class households.



City Impact:

I'm an urbanist too. I wish we hadn't built so many bridges to St. Charles, while not seeing any increase to Illinois. Admittedly, sprawl will increase in Illinois as a result of the MRB, especially in Madison County. Besides, growing cities have both sprawling edges and revitalizing cores. Plus, City flight today is more so folks of limited means escaping our still poor public school system. Thus, I don't think the MRB will increase flight among more affluent or childless households.

As much as I like the idea of removing the depressed section of interstate highway from downtown, I must agree with southslider that there are, possibly, too many vehicles that must be diverted to downtown streets. According to MoDOT's 2002 traffic counts, 70,000+ vehicles/day use travel through the depressed section. Even if you elimate all the traffic that would remain on I-70 after building the MRB, you're still left with 50,000 vechiles, equivalent to a very busy 4-lane road.

^That is the kind of crap I hate the P-D for. It's fine and dandy to say what a dump the area is and how people want to sell, however, you never tell the other side. I was at the meeting and there were people who had businesses and homes in the way of the new bridge and its ramps and they were pretty pissed off. One I can think of was a guy who just spent $5 million fixing up his outside wall on his business on 10th street only to find out it was put in the path of a new ramp on I-70 at the last meeting.

Yeah, I am not crazy about this story. However, I have known cases before of people caught in limbo. Unable to sell their house or business because of pending plans. That is horrible and should be avoided. Sometimes people can have their lives on hold for years.