Glad to know I have some people that agree with me.
- 282
http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/archives/000060.php
My prior opinion on my site links to the bridge site showing plans for the interchange.
I believe in the concept of "build it an they will come" with respect to transportation. Build light rail & street cars and they will come. Build highways and bridges and they will come. We've spent 60 years funding the latter and destroying our cities in the process - all after we dismantled our existing rail & street car lines.
Some great buildings will be lost for this bridge. But more importanly, the street grid will be destroyed in a very huge area. Assuming a bridge is needed - why does it need to be so intrusive into the city? Why can't it connect instead to a revised I-70?
To answer some questions - I seldom go to Illinois just like I seldom go to St. Charles County.
My prior opinion on my site links to the bridge site showing plans for the interchange.
I believe in the concept of "build it an they will come" with respect to transportation. Build light rail & street cars and they will come. Build highways and bridges and they will come. We've spent 60 years funding the latter and destroying our cities in the process - all after we dismantled our existing rail & street car lines.
Some great buildings will be lost for this bridge. But more importanly, the street grid will be destroyed in a very huge area. Assuming a bridge is needed - why does it need to be so intrusive into the city? Why can't it connect instead to a revised I-70?
To answer some questions - I seldom go to Illinois just like I seldom go to St. Charles County.
- 2,005
I believe in the concept of "build it an they will come" with respect to transportation. Build light rail & street cars and they will come. Build highways and bridges and they will come.
I really hope that some new MetroLink lines get built in the next 20 years especially the northside line, but building lightrail won't move goods from Georgia to Kansas City, highways do that. The Poplar is a mess and it will only get worse in the future. A new river bridge is vital for our nations commerce not commute time, that is why it is being planned. Illinois is very important for the future of St. Louis, deflecting growth from the West to Illinois is good for St. Louis.
I do agree with you that the bridge has an unnecesary connection to 14th St, if people find it necessary to visit the north downtown area from Illinois they can take St Louis Ave or cross the King bridge.
If they build a new bridge, would the stretch of I-70 from the 'depressed' section to the new bridge be needed. I think the elevated part should be torn down to connect the Landing with downtown and replaced with a parkway.
I agree with Urban review here. The Bridge isn't really the problem, it's the connector roads from the bridge to Tucker and 14th. Those roads are going to rip through a large part of North St Louis, and they will disconnect Old North St Louis from the area around Cochran Gardens and Columbus Square. Check out this link and notice the roads leading up to the bridge. http://www.newriverbridge.org/pdf/MissouriMap.pdf
There is no respect or acknowledgement of the existing street grid or buildings present. Given this, I do think a new bridge is needed. I just don't think we need seperate grade roads to carefully lead peoiple into and out of downtown. I would also love to see this bridge divert traffic from Memorial Drive enough to turn it into a real street, and not just a highway exchange. (I'm not real optimistic though) But imagine if we were not just puting a lid over the I-70, that we were filling it in with new buildings. Finally, the funding for the bridge could easily go to metrolink as Urban Review suggested. (At Least theoretically easy) Much of the money for Highways, Metrolink, Airports, Bridges, etc comes from Missouri's Transportation budget, which is mostly allocated By Modot. There is nothing stopping Modot from using those tax dollars to construct light rail, or commuter rail. Mndot and The State of Minnesota paid $120Mil of the $720Mil Minneapolis' Hiawatha line. I don't believe Modot chipped in at all for Metrolink. But there's nothing stopping them.
There is no respect or acknowledgement of the existing street grid or buildings present. Given this, I do think a new bridge is needed. I just don't think we need seperate grade roads to carefully lead peoiple into and out of downtown. I would also love to see this bridge divert traffic from Memorial Drive enough to turn it into a real street, and not just a highway exchange. (I'm not real optimistic though) But imagine if we were not just puting a lid over the I-70, that we were filling it in with new buildings. Finally, the funding for the bridge could easily go to metrolink as Urban Review suggested. (At Least theoretically easy) Much of the money for Highways, Metrolink, Airports, Bridges, etc comes from Missouri's Transportation budget, which is mostly allocated By Modot. There is nothing stopping Modot from using those tax dollars to construct light rail, or commuter rail. Mndot and The State of Minnesota paid $120Mil of the $720Mil Minneapolis' Hiawatha line. I don't believe Modot chipped in at all for Metrolink. But there's nothing stopping them.
I live in Missouri and go to SIUE. I live on campus here in Illinois but I travel to STL at least 5 times a week. My bridge of choice is the Eads. At any given moment there may be ONE other car, usually travelling in the opposite direction. Illinoisans coming from 55 or 64 can easily take the Eads, but they don't. It is very simple to get to, and it connects to the grid on the missouri side. Sometimes, it is much easier than the MLK. If this new bridge is going to be of ease to the daily commuter, shouldn't it be on the South side of downtown? If Illinois has the funds, the ramps to Rte 3 South in Illiniois could provide access to an extension, if you will, of the 55/64 combo, and it could cross and connect with Broadway...no mess. I know that Nooter "Construction" would gladly sell! Just my two cents...I like to dream
Urban Review St. Louis wrote:http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/archives/000060.php
My prior opinion on my site links to the bridge site showing plans for the interchange.
I believe in the concept of "build it an they will come" with respect to transportation. Build light rail & street cars and they will come. Build highways and bridges and they will come. We've spent 60 years funding the latter and destroying our cities in the process - all after we dismantled our existing rail & street car lines.
Some great buildings will be lost for this bridge. But more importanly, the street grid will be destroyed in a very huge area. Assuming a bridge is needed - why does it need to be so intrusive into the city? Why can't it connect instead to a revised I-70?
To answer some questions - I seldom go to Illinois just like I seldom go to St. Charles County.
So then you seldom experience the traffic jams on the Poplar Street bridge? And specifically what important buildings will be lost for the bridge? I, like you, am concerned about losing valuable buildings, but like all decisions that must be made, we need to weigh and see what is more important. To do this, we need to understand, and see the value of these buildings you say are in danger. Is the worth of the buildings more valuable than the need for a new bridge?
- 282
brickandmortar wrote:A new river bridge is vital for our nations commerce not commute time, that is why it is being planned. Illinois is very important for the future of St. Louis, deflecting growth from the West to Illinois is good for St. Louis.
I think the elevated part should be torn down to connect the Landing with downtown and replaced with a parkway.
If you check out www.endofsuburbia.com you may not be convinced about the future of commerce based on trucking. I don't think we can continue our society based on cheap transportation - be it driving from suburbia to work or the cheap goods from China or halfway across the US. We will need to return to more locally supplied goods in our future economy.
I agree - the elevated part of I-70 needs to be torn down. The plan doesn't call for that - I-70 is not going anywhere. The plan is to add more capacity to the overall area.
urbz wrote:I live in Missouri and go to SIUE. I live on campus here in Illinois but I travel to STL at least 5 times a week. My bridge of choice is the Eads. At any given moment there may be ONE other car, usually travelling in the opposite direction. Illinoisans coming from 55 or 64 can easily take the Eads, but they don't. It is very simple to get to, and it connects to the grid on the missouri side. Sometimes, it is much easier than the MLK. If this new bridge is going to be of ease to the daily commuter, shouldn't it be on the South side of downtown? If Illinois has the funds, the ramps to Rte 3 South in Illiniois could provide access to an extension, if you will, of the 55/64 combo, and it could cross and connect with Broadway...no mess. I know that Nooter "Construction" would gladly sell! Just my two cents...I like to dream
Try telling a visitor, or truck driver, to get off in East St. Louis , take the Eads, and then get back on the interstate. They won't do it. Regardless, once more people discover the Eads, the 2 additional lanes will not help, when more lanes are needed.
Also, St. Charles County has 3 interstate bridges into St. Louis. Illinois has 3, but also 400,000 more people in population, and 3 interstate throughways; I-70, I-55, and I-64. St. Charles only has one through way, I-70. I-64 ends in St. Charles, and the other bridge is merely a beltway.
- 282
Xing wrote: So then you seldom experience the traffic jams on the Poplar Street bridge? And specifically what important buildings will be lost for the bridge? I, like you, am concerned about losing valuable buildings, but like all decisions that must be made, we need to weigh and see what is more important. To do this, we need to understand, and see the value of these buildings you say are in danger. Is the worth of the buildings more valuable than the need for a new bridge?
I'm concerned primarily about the connection between Old North & downtown. As I indicated, the grid is more important than the buildings. A new bridge could be built and connected with I-70.
No bridge, amount of congestion or the need to get an item from Florida to Kansas City is worth cutting off Old North from downtown.
Urban Review St. Louis wrote:If you check out www.endofsuburbia.com you may not be convinced about the future of commerce based on trucking. I don't think we can continue our society based on cheap transportation - be it driving from suburbia to work or the cheap goods from China or halfway across the US. We will need to return to more locally supplied goods in our future economy.
While I enjoy hearing this, I doubt that it will happen to this magnitude in my lifetime. BTW, I really want to see this documentary.
- 1,517
Maybe they should have a ferry over the river! That would resolve ALL of the traffic problems for Illinois drivers! 
No...but seriously...maybe we should stage a screening of that End of Suburbia documentary for St. Louis...I'd want to see it.
No...but seriously...maybe we should stage a screening of that End of Suburbia documentary for St. Louis...I'd want to see it.
- 282
Matt Drops The H wrote:No...but seriously...maybe we should stage a screening of that End of Suburbia documentary for St. Louis...I'd want to see it.
I'm planning to organize a screening as a fundraiser for projects at ReVitalize St. Louis/The Rehabber's Club. If anyone wishes to help me organize the screening email me privately:
steve@stevenlpatterson.com
It is a really great documentary!
- 2,005
mcarril wrote: Much of the money for Highways, Metrolink, Airports, Bridges, etc comes from Missouri's Transportation budget, which is mostly allocated By Modot. There is nothing stopping Modot from using those tax dollars to construct light rail, or commuter rail. Mndot and The State of Minnesota paid $120Mil of the $720Mil Minneapolis' Hiawatha line. I don't believe Modot chipped in at all for Metrolink. But there's nothing stopping them.
This is from the Missouri Public transit association, I don't know how old it is, but Missouri appears a lot stingier than Minnesota. Also, I think only a small amount of the fuel tax is dedicated for transit, so much of the transit funding comes from the feds.
-http://www.mptaonline.com/needs.shtml
The State of Missouri provides $6.6 million annually for public transit. This state funding partially addresses critical short-term needs throughout the state. Many rural communities would not have transit service were it not for the state's transit program.
If you check out www.endofsuburbia.com you may not be convinced about the future of commerce based on trucking. I don't think we can continue our society based on cheap transportation
The idea of Hubberts Peak of oil has been around for a while, however humans are notoriously adaptable. I don't see an end to trucking because of the eventually end of oil production. Hydrogen fuel or fuel cells will replace gas sooner or later. Goods movement has been around since ancient times and it's not going away. I will have to check out the movie though.
- 1,517
Urban Review St. Louis wrote:Matt Drops The H wrote:No...but seriously...maybe we should stage a screening of that End of Suburbia documentary for St. Louis...I'd want to see it.
I'm planning to organize a screening as a fundraiser for projects at ReVitalize St. Louis/The Rehabber's Club. If anyone wishes to help me organize the screening email me privately:
steve@stevenlpatterson.com
It is a really great documentary!
I would like to help stage the screening, but I'm a student with little time and even less money. I guess I could hand out fliers to my Urban Crisis class...it would be very on topic and my instructor encourages people to bring in class-related news items and events. I'm also taking the Metropolitan Environment class, which would relate to this topic as well.
- 282
brickandmortar wrote:The idea of Hubberts Peak of oil has been around for a while. Hydrogen fuel or fuel cells will replace gas sooner or later. Goods movement has been around since ancient times and it's not going away. I will have to check out the movie though.
The documentary and related websites (www.endofsuburbia.com) talk about the peak oil theory. It has been around a while as a theory - it was supposed to happen sooner. It didn't largely because we adapted a bit and enforced fuel standards starting in the 70s.
Sure, goods movement is not going to cease. It is just goign to become much more costly. The item which is cheaper to produce in Georgia may no longer be worth the cost of transportation.
The documentary which is decidedly very liberal & green says hydorgen & fuel cells won't work - they cost more energy than they create.
I'd come view it, don't have time to help out though, because I am literally in the same situation as MattdropstheH. Would be something interesting for our class to see. I don't think what the documentary portrays will fully happen, but it would be interesting to see at least.
- 282
MattnSTL wrote:I'd come view it. I don't think what the documentary portrays will fully happen, but it would be interesting to see at least.
Well, before concluding what will or will not happen it is probably wise to first see what information is presented...
^You're right, I don't know exactly what will be presented in the documentary, but I can get an idea from the website, can't I? It is the end of suburbia, and how oil shortages will cause this, duh. Americans will have to change their life, according to the documentary. All I was saying is we will see in the future how this actually pans out, because nothing ever seems to work out exactly right.
- 1,649
Matt Drops The H wrote:Maybe they should have a ferry over the river! That would resolve ALL of the traffic problems for Illinois drivers!
Hey, I think you found a reuse for the Admiral. After all, it began life as a railroad car ferry in 1907.
Now we just need to find some engines for it, and we are in business.
Urban Review St. Louis wrote:Xing wrote: So then you seldom experience the traffic jams on the Poplar Street bridge? And specifically what important buildings will be lost for the bridge? I, like you, am concerned about losing valuable buildings, but like all decisions that must be made, we need to weigh and see what is more important. To do this, we need to understand, and see the value of these buildings you say are in danger. Is the worth of the buildings more valuable than the need for a new bridge?
I'm concerned primarily about the connection between Old North & downtown. As I indicated, the grid is more important than the buildings. A new bridge could be built and connected with I-70.
No bridge, amount of congestion or the need to get an item from Florida to Kansas City is worth cutting off Old North from downtown.
http://www.newriverbridge.org/pdf/MissouriMap.pdf
Take a look at this again and tell me how exactly this is going to separate North St. Louis from Downtown? I see overpasses connecting North St. Louis to Downtown, and I also see a really short section of highway. Is it really going to be that bad? Do you even know what's coming down? Wouldn't you think an exit, for those going downtown from the new bridge, would actually boost that area's economy?
- 282
Xing wrote:http://www.newriverbridge.org/pdf/MissouriMap.pdf
Take a look at this again and tell me how exactly this is going to separate North St. Louis from Downtown? I see overpasses connecting North St. Louis to Downtown, and I also see a really short section of highway. Is it really going to be that bad? Do you even know what's coming down? Wouldn't you think an exit, for those going downtown from the new bridge, would actually boost that area's economy?
A few overpasses/underpasses between points A & B are no substitute for a street grid. It draws a heavy line which separates. Look all over this city - any city - and the highway draws a separating line.
I know exactly what is coming down - I've seen the building for years. I've walked past them, biked past them and drove past them. I've lived in Old North - I know how important connecting to downtown will be to their future.
An exit ramp good for their economy? You are joking right? This is not O'Fallon - we don't need an exit economy of gas stations and fast food restaurants. Exit ramps & on ramps serve one purpose only - get cars in and out quickly. It does not invite pedestrian or residential uses - things that would have a long-term benefit to the economy.
- 1,768
First and foremost, everyone is talking to much about the here and now with this project, when it is meant to look to the future. This project is here to alleviate and prevent total traffic failure, which studies indicate will happen in less than twenty years. THere is so much congestion on poplar and other arterials that they feel that if a new bridge is not built traffic will take hours to get acrosss the river, in either direction. THis will mean people will stop coming across for recreation, not desire to work here, and the trucking industry will leave. These are all serious implications from not having an adequate bridge system. Look at the bridges website for more info on these and other studies...
Yes the Mckinley bridge is being rebuilt, but lets not forget why it failed in the first place...no interstate connectivity. It failed as a private toll and will see only a small amount of traffic as a public entity. This bridge is a necessity for the future of this great city and region.
Yes the Mckinley bridge is being rebuilt, but lets not forget why it failed in the first place...no interstate connectivity. It failed as a private toll and will see only a small amount of traffic as a public entity. This bridge is a necessity for the future of this great city and region.
- 182
The main reason I support this bridge is because it will make commutes from the east side quicker. If this happens then the demand for housing will increase and this will help balance the metro population from west to east. This is one of the reasons dt failed in the first place was because its location is not very centralized. Everybody doesn't want to live in the city (unlike us city freaks), so if we need to build new communities we might at well build them in Illinois where they are close to dt and not Jeffco or the Chuckster where they are closer to the hwy. 40 office cluster.
- 1,517
ArchMadness wrote:The main reason I support this bridge is because it will make commutes from the east side quicker. If this happens then the demand for housing will increase and this will help balance the metro population from west to east. This is one of the reasons dt failed in the first place was because its location is not very centralized. Everybody doesn't want to live in the city (unlike us city freaks), so if we need to build new communities we might at well build them in Illinois where they are close to dt and not Jeffco or the Chuckster where they are closer to the hwy. 40 office cluster.
Ever since Xing noted that Illinois development could counterbalance rapid West (Chesterfield, St. Charles County) development, I am starting to see why this transportation issue is so vital to the area. Bring on the bridge, I say.