urbanSTL

Boo.



Toll the Page Extension. Toll the Blachette. Why not toll the Clark bridge? It doesn't make sense to build all of these bridges and not toll them, until IL needs some help with financing that will benefit our economy.

In all fairness to the whole region, either all the major bridges need to be tolled or none of them. It costs no less to expand west into St. Charles than into Illinois. 4 bridges west. 4 major bridges East - seems fair to me to treat sprawl the same in all directions.

Sorry. You're wrong. If people are going to sprawl- which many are- then let them sprawl into Illinois. Don't people on here understand that it RE-CENTERS downtown in the center of the region? Right now people argue that the center is 270 and 40. or worse, even farther west on 40. Let people move to Illinois. It's the MAIN reason more businesses haven't left the city for western suburbs.

JCity wrote:Sorry. You're wrong. If people are going to sprawl- which many are- then let them sprawl into Illinois. Don't people on here understand that it RE-CENTERS downtown in the center of the region? Right now people argue that the center is 270 and 40. or worse, even farther west on 40. Let people move to Illinois. It's the MAIN reason more businesses haven't left the city for western suburbs.

=D>

I wish that 40/270 wasn't the center of the STL region, but regaurdless of where you or anyone else wants the center to be - putting a toll on Illinois people and NOT TAXING the sprawlers in St. Charles doesn't help the situation. Give them a reason to go to Illinois - either NO TOLL or SAME TOLL. Frankly its giving them more incentive to go to St. Charles becuase gas is cheaper in MO and now they dont have to pay a toll everyday.

^I don't think you have many here who will disagree with you on that. If the bridge is to be built, lets toll all the bridges, instead of focusing on just one that will impact the citizens of Illinois instead of Missouri. Plus, I'd rather have people moving to the East Side and staying closer in than continuing to pump vinyl homes into the plains of St. Peters, O'Fallon and Wentzville.

As much as I dislike MoDOT's BS excuses that this particular bridge needs to be tolled but no other highway project in Missouri, it does seem like things are at a stand-still. And with the time value of money and dated federal earmarks wasting away, if MoDOT and IDOT can't come to an agreement soon, we may risk not seeing any added bridge to relieve Poplar. So then, maybe it's time to seriously think about a less expensive alternative without tolls.



My proposal is build a new westbound bridge north of MLK, but lined up with Carr/Cole (avoiding Pinnacle) and convert the existing MLK to an eastbound bridge. New ramps would connect the two bridges to I-70 to/from the west in Missouri as well as to/from Cole/Broadway/4th for downtown commuters. Access would not be provided to/from the south or I-44/55, since those motorists could still use the Poplar, but now with two-lanes instead of one going to/from I-44/55 to the Poplar.



The MLK plus new twin to its north would carry the relocated I-70, while the Eads could still carry more local traffic between East St. Louis and Downtown. Besides, current MLK already provides limited access from Downtown directly to/from Interstates on the eastside.



On the eastside, extra capacity with dual ramps would be needed between the tri-level interchange of I-64 with I-55/70 in East St. Louis and the MLK bridges, so as to avoid adding traffic onto existing I-55/64/70. In other words, those motorists coming from I-64 or I-55/70 would not have to merge onto the existing highway with Poplar-bound traffic, but have parallel outer ramps carring MLK-bound traffic. A new Route 3 could still be built as planned, except ramp connections to/from Missouri now at MLK and its twin instead of at the MRB.



Why I think a parallel MLK is better than reusing the MacArthur is two-fold. The MacArthur is privately owned by the railroads and it would require much more construction on its eastside approach (it doesn't feed well into I-55/70 and I-64 in the Metro East) and even slightly more construction on the Missouri side with new ramps required at I-44/55, plus downtown access via Chouteau.



And though I say "twin" to MLK, the design of this westbound bridge could still be as different as the MRB design, just narrower and shorter.

What about re-opening the McKinley Bridge?

^A reopened McKinley is already planned and provides little relief to the jams on downtown crossings. Reversible lanes on MLK might provide some temporary relief. Ultimately, I still think my previous post (previous page) on building a twin to MLK just a bit north would provide a more long-term solution, yet still cheaper than the slightly scaled-back MRB.

Doom and gloom in the Illinois edition of the PD today. In an article, Charles Dooley states the project isn't possible without tolls, Mark Kern says Illinois won't except tolls. Dooley takes a shot at Missouri - "Illinois is very progressive, Missouri is not". Looks like the line is the sand isn't going away anytime soon.

loftlover wrote:"Illinois is very progressive, Missouri is not"

As much as it disgusts me to admit it, that's true.

why would anybody drive across the new bridge if they put a toll on it when they can just drive across the Poplar or MLK for free, thats why a toll bridge makes no since, it wont work cause there are so many other bridges

Thats why if they do a toll - the should toll every bridge over the Mississippi and Missouri rivers in the region... which will never happen - but it will make things "fair" . All the tunnels and the Bridges into Manhattan are tolled similiarly....

You'll take the toll bridge to avoid traffic congestion. .. so in effect .. people would only use the bridge at rush hour.

Living in Houston I know what traffic is like. Every day I-10 and about every other highway is jam packed at 6 am and about 4 pm. There is a toll road entrance about a mile away from my neighborhood and my dad takes it down to work every moring. Toll roads work especially with tons of congested highways. Trust me a toll bridge would releave so much that people would be willing to pay about $1.50 to get to work earlier. If you dont belive me come down here and drive on 1-10 at rush hour.

I hope this project doesn't tear apart the natives of the bi-state region. I enjoy the new design.



Is their any new updates about this project?

I think this is a much more viable option IMO. Sure, it won't be as flashy, but I'd rather not take the focus off the Arch anyway.



One question I have, with this design and the others, are the depressed lanes necessary by Memorial Drive anymore? Couldn't we put the interchanges on the Illinois side? This would open up quite a few blocks downtown for development, and would allow green space to go in between the Arch grounds and plaza without putting lids. Just a thought.



link

A new bridge idea

By Elisa Crouch

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

05/30/2006



Illinois is moving forward with an alternative to a new Mississippi River bridge - one that's about half as big, about half as expensive, and would get around Missouri's efforts to pay for the structure with tolls.



A source familiar with the idea said the Illinois Department of Transportation has a conceptual plan in hand for a coupler bridge beside the existing Martin Luther King Bridge. The additional structure would carry four lanes of traffic, all of them westbound. Crews would renovate the existing King Bridge to carry three lanes, all eastbound. Currently, the bridge carries four narrow lanes.



Earlier this year, Gov. Rod Blagojevich directed the transportation department to explore less expensive alternatives to the proposed $910 million Mississippi River bridge, the source said. The hope was to find a realistic way to add more traffic lanes between the Metro East and downtown St. Louis, but avoid paying for them with tolls, as Missouri Transportation Director Pete Rahn has advocated.



Like the proposed river bridge, the King Bridge coupler would reroute Interstate 70 from the congested Poplar Street Bridge and carry the traffic north of downtown St. Louis. It would require a new I-70 interchange on the St. Louis side and a connection from I-55/64/70 on the Illinois side. There would be less reason for truck traffic to commingle with commuters and tourists on Memorial Drive near the Arch. The estimated cost: $410 million to $450 million.



A series of meetings about the concept took place on Tuesday. In one, representatives from Blagojevich's office, the Illinois transportation department, U.S. Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Belleville, and state Rep. Jay Hoffman, D-Collinsville, briefed labor and regional business leaders about the concept.



Last week, Costello urged the Missouri Department of Transportation to produce a detailed financing plan for the bridge by June 1 or else Illinois would start acting on other alternatives.



"I've felt for sometime it's been time to think about alternatives," said Les Sterman, executive director of East-West Gateway Council of Governments, the organization that oversees how federal transportation dollars in the St. Louis region are spent. "Alternatives we can afford, given the current fiscal constraints and political constraints."



Illinois transportation officials have not discussed the plan with their Missouri counterparts.



They've been at odds over the financing for at least 10 months. Last summer, Congress earmarked $239 million for the project. Ever since, Missouri and Illinois have been gridlocked over how raise the remaining $671 million needed to break ground.



Illinois officials advocate spending state transportation dollars on the project. Missouri's Rahn has said his state can't afford to do that. He's advocating a nontraditional approach approved this month by the Legislature: forming a partnership with a private company, which would finance the bridge's construction and then charge tolls to pay off the debt.



Ed Hassinger, a district engineer for Missouri's transportation department, said it's premature to comment on the King Bridge coupler idea. Missouri officials have not yet reviewed it, he said.



"We're definitely interested in options," he said.



Based on the conceptual plan, Illinois would shoulder up to $161 million of the construction costs, the state source said. Illinois would ask Missouri to pay about $50 million.



The alternative would require land acquisition, more engineering and utility relocation. It would also require less work for area construction companies.



Len Toenjes, president of the Associated General Contractors of St. Louis, was briefed at the transportation department's district office in Collinsville. "The community leaders need to make their decisions based on what's best for the traveling public," he said.



The next step involves discussing the concept in detail with Missouri, the source familiar with the plan said. Then would come environmental studies and survey work. The transportation department would push to get the coupler built by 2013, the same year both states had hoped to cut the ribbon on a new Mississippi River bridge.



"This is not a unilateral decision on Illinois' part," said an official with the Illinois transportation department. "This is only an option that should be considered."



ecrouch@post-dispatch.com 314-340-8119

IMHO, this is the best option, and most realistic for anything to be built in the next ten years. Ironically, it will save Illinois more money than Missouri in the long-run, because the approaches on the eastside will be less (like the already cut I-64 connector), while an added Missouri cost never discussed as part of the MRB is the subsequent reconfiguration of the PSB, or changing the I-44/55 ramps from one-lane to two lanes with the lost access to/from I-70 and Memorial Drive.



Given the Pinnacle Casino development, however, I imagine the new span parallel to the MLK would have to be built to the north of the casino, or lined up with Carr/Cole. Since the City has put so many superblocks within the vicinity of North Broadway and Cole (convention center, dome, casino, bottle district), I can't imagine what traffic will look like trying to exit Downtown at evening rush hour. But then again, the scaled back MRB seemed futile in attracting Downtown commuters via 9th and 10th streets all the way upto Cass Avenue.



If MODOT's immediate share for the twin MLK span would truly only be $50 million, then Missouri can definitely afford such bridge option sans-toll. Afterall, even the Danforth Foundation is seeking only $50 million in state infrastructure tax credits for a $200 million lid over existing I-70. Seems like a no-brainer then, that if the state can afford a quarter of the cost for a superficial lid, then the state can surely afford their share of a cheaper plan for added bridge capacity linking our region's core of economic activity to an eastside full of commuters willing to be taxed for working in another state.

On the surface, this sounds like a pretty good idea. Would the proposed interchanges be much less damaging to the surrounding area than they would with the bridge that was originally planned?