What an embarrassment for Missouri. Our state is a complete joke. I didn't know that the ENITRE new bridge idea would be scrapped. A 4 land "deck bridge" extension to MLK? What? Meanwhile, Missouri is paying- sorry, St Louis and KC are paying- for all these new roads throughout our ass-backwards state. This is exactly the reason why I never tell people I'm from Missouri. I'm from St. Louis. It's time to cut St. Louis City and County out of Missouri and join Illinois. I'm embarrassed to admit I voted for Blunt. That guy is done. How in the hell was Page Avenue bridge built?
It's not just GUV Blunt it's the rest of the BaldKnobber legislators as well.
- 8,912
Personally i don't see this as much of a negative, but i didn't see making it a tollway a negative either... I have lived in cities with tolls before and always thought it made for nicer highways and less traffic. As much as I wanted that Magnificent bridge to be built, I understand that our tax dollars will only go so far. If this means more for tax breaks to spur development, or a few more dollars to help the city schools... lets try to be possitive about this... I mean who really cares that much about a bridge? well other than jcity. Although Jcity i will agree that i always tell people I'm from St. Louis not mo. But most of the time that is followed by "oh how do you like livinging in Minnesota?" or "is that in kansas?" or "that sucks." It's amazing how many people don't know where st. louis is. For most its just fly over country... I think they are missing out... I love this city!
I don't think he disagrees with you on the tax dollars only going so far, but more with the way they are appropriated.
How is this even going to work?
http://www.google.com/maphp?hl=en&tab=wl&q=
I was looking at the map above and I'm not sure.
The Pinnacle Casino development is in being built in the area adjacent north of the MLK Bridge. Then just south of it is Lacledes Landing.
I think they should do one of the following:
Come to some type of financial compromise on the original idea (unlikely),
Instead of coupling MLK bridge (possible crowding because of new casino construction and Laclede Landing next to bridge), how about 4 lane coupler with McKinley Bridge, reopen that bridge and do necessary renovations/expansions and build connections to I-70
Renovate the MacArthur Bridge and/or couple with a southern side bridge for possible handling of an interstate highway (I-55) to connect to I-64 in Illinois.
http://www.google.com/maphp?hl=en&tab=wl&q=
I was looking at the map above and I'm not sure.
The Pinnacle Casino development is in being built in the area adjacent north of the MLK Bridge. Then just south of it is Lacledes Landing.
I think they should do one of the following:
Come to some type of financial compromise on the original idea (unlikely),
Instead of coupling MLK bridge (possible crowding because of new casino construction and Laclede Landing next to bridge), how about 4 lane coupler with McKinley Bridge, reopen that bridge and do necessary renovations/expansions and build connections to I-70
Renovate the MacArthur Bridge and/or couple with a southern side bridge for possible handling of an interstate highway (I-55) to connect to I-64 in Illinois.
Toll 70. From the Missouri River to 470 in KC. There's your freaking solution.
Okay, I see why they chose this option, MLK Bridge pretty much has a connection to 1-55/70 in ESTL
http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?addr= ... name=&qty=
Thats the positive. The negative the close proximity of construction projects in and around Lacledes Landing.
http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?addr= ... name=&qty=
Thats the positive. The negative the close proximity of construction projects in and around Lacledes Landing.
Well, in transportation speak, a "couple" can refer to a pair of one-way roads that work together (i.e. Chestnut & Pine). I wonder then if by "coupler bridge" IDOT means build a new bridge a few blocks north (adjacent to Carrr St.?) serving westbound traffic that will work in concert with a reconfigured MLK bridge serving eastbound traffic. At least by building a few blocks north you can get out of the way of some major developments.
As it seems that not even MoDOT has thoroughly reviewed the plans yet, anything written here is just rampant speculation and opinions. At least $450m seems like a much more doable project than $1b+. So much for the years of haggling what kind of bridge we should build; everybody, it seems, forgot to check their pocketbooks before going out on a shopping spree.
(time to rethink: bridge design, missouri 70 interchange, mlk bridge ramps in illinois, 64/55/70 interchange, rt 3, elimination of depressed and elevated I-70)
As it seems that not even MoDOT has thoroughly reviewed the plans yet, anything written here is just rampant speculation and opinions. At least $450m seems like a much more doable project than $1b+. So much for the years of haggling what kind of bridge we should build; everybody, it seems, forgot to check their pocketbooks before going out on a shopping spree.
(time to rethink: bridge design, missouri 70 interchange, mlk bridge ramps in illinois, 64/55/70 interchange, rt 3, elimination of depressed and elevated I-70)
- 156
I couldn't believe it when I read the article this morning! Illinois' plan is the dumbest thing I've heard recently, and I can only hope it will spur Missouri to cough-up more money. More viable: Build the new bridge and toll it!
Why do we have to settle for a hodge-podge "solution" when there is a viable alternative to get the job done right for the long-term? STL and the whole metro area deserve better than this shi**y compromise.
The whole situation is a prime example of adjoining jurisdictions being unable to work together for the betterment of its common interests and citizenry. Can't we get it together long enough to plan for a viable future that will see tremendous growth in Metro East? Besides, what company wants to locate in an area whose governments can't even agree on fundamental transportation issues? What message does this send?
If the proposal comes to fruition, we will probably look back and realize it was a big mistake. Then what? Back to the drawing board?
STL is a first-class city. Instead of adding another chapter to a history of apathy and lackluster developments, it's time we demand a first-class solution.
Why do we have to settle for a hodge-podge "solution" when there is a viable alternative to get the job done right for the long-term? STL and the whole metro area deserve better than this shi**y compromise.
The whole situation is a prime example of adjoining jurisdictions being unable to work together for the betterment of its common interests and citizenry. Can't we get it together long enough to plan for a viable future that will see tremendous growth in Metro East? Besides, what company wants to locate in an area whose governments can't even agree on fundamental transportation issues? What message does this send?
If the proposal comes to fruition, we will probably look back and realize it was a big mistake. Then what? Back to the drawing board?
STL is a first-class city. Instead of adding another chapter to a history of apathy and lackluster developments, it's time we demand a first-class solution.
STLbiggestfan wrote:I couldn't believe it when I read the article this morning! Illinois' plan is the dumbest thing I've heard recently, and I can only hope it will spur Missouri to cough-up more money.
This could all be a ploy by IL and Mayor Slay to get MODOT to give more money. 122,000 cross PSB every day another 40,000 cross the king bridge - that (IMO) makes this project way more important than fixing I 70 in boonesville - way more important for comerce and the health of the states economy. Hopefully this scare tactic will promt MODOT to fork over the needed cash and delay the crappy worthless programs its going after.
That being said - we do need SOMETHING and if this is the "only option" then it needs to be done.
Did anyone see the news piece? They interviewed Slay and he stated his discourse. Then he and IDOT both stated the obvious that "Mizzoura" is ran by the rural populus. This is ridiculous not just on this issue, but the whole situation. Not that Illinois doesn't have problems of their own, but I think I'm heated about it more because of the truth involved with the statement.
My feeling is that the new bridge needs to either achieve its bare, functional purpose, leaving funds available for other revitilization efforts - or, if the idea is to create a visual landmark, don't then settle for a watered down compromise - create something that will increase the cities visibility.... and work with some of the funding options proposed such as private funding with repayment through tolls.
- 479
^
When I first saw renderings, I assumed that the thought behind the bridge design was to rip off the Lewis and Clark Bridge design.
No matter what gets built downtown, the massive and majestic bridge at Alton will be our region's most stunning modern bridge.
When I first saw renderings, I assumed that the thought behind the bridge design was to rip off the Lewis and Clark Bridge design.
No matter what gets built downtown, the massive and majestic bridge at Alton will be our region's most stunning modern bridge.
- 2,005
I like the idea of the coupler as long as it doesn't disrupt the northside fabric too much. This whole stalemate with Missouri over how to pay for the bridge IMO was too much to overcome without another proposal. The question now is where to put the new bridge now that Pinnacle is being built just north of the existing bridge.
That said, the new MLK coupler should have a different design than any of the existing bridges downtown. A world class design would be nice, but if the money ain't there then we need to rethink it. It's not like this is the first bridge across the Mississippi.
I still think MoDOT cares more about their rural interests than the people who actually pay their salaries in Springfield, KC, and STL. When the new I-64 bridge gets built over the Missouri river it better be a toll bridge.
That said, the new MLK coupler should have a different design than any of the existing bridges downtown. A world class design would be nice, but if the money ain't there then we need to rethink it. It's not like this is the first bridge across the Mississippi.
I still think MoDOT cares more about their rural interests than the people who actually pay their salaries in Springfield, KC, and STL. When the new I-64 bridge gets built over the Missouri river it better be a toll bridge.
bpe235 wrote:...Although Jcity i will agree that i always tell people I'm from St. Louis not mo. But most of the time that is followed by "oh how do you like livinging in Minnesota?" or "is that in kansas?" or "that sucks." It's amazing how many people don't know where st. louis is. For most its just fly over country... I think they are missing out... I love this city!
OT: I don't get this too much, but here's an example of what you're talking about, bpe. This happened in Atlanta (the City of Evil), with a rather annoying non-native Atlantean:
Where are you from?
--Saint Louis
Where's that?
--(slightly annoyed) Missouri
Okay, where's that? (Another person goes to his car and gets a map. Points out Missouri and St. Louis. Atlanta guy points to the Mississippi.) Is this some sort of river?
--(very annoyed) Um, yeah. It's the Mississippi. You may have heard of it? You know, the most important river for commerce in the United States, and the locus of much of our literary and musical culture?
Sigh. Some people are just stupid.
I think more fittingly your reply should have been "Where did you go to highschool"? LOL hey it's a St. Louis thing. I mean really is there even a question about our educational system ha ha ha.
- 6,775
Tysalpha wrote:bpe235 wrote:...Although Jcity i will agree that i always tell people I'm from St. Louis not mo. But most of the time that is followed by "oh how do you like livinging in Minnesota?" or "is that in kansas?" or "that sucks." It's amazing how many people don't know where st. louis is. For most its just fly over country... I think they are missing out... I love this city!
OT: I don't get this too much, but here's an example of what you're talking about, bpe. This happened in Atlanta (the City of Evil), with a rather annoying non-native Atlantean:
Where are you from?
--Saint Louis
Where's that?
--(slightly annoyed) Missouri
Okay, where's that? (Another person goes to his car and gets a map. Points out Missouri and St. Louis. Atlanta guy points to the Mississippi.) Is this some sort of river?
--(very annoyed) Um, yeah. It's the Mississippi. You may have heard of it? You know, the most important river for commerce in the United States, and the locus of much of our literary and musical culture?
Sigh. Some people are just stupid.
You have a lot more patience than I do:
Them: Where are you from?
Me: Saint Louis
Them: Where's that?
Me: Are you serious?
Them: Yes
Me: Wow (walks away)
Back on topic, the best placement for the new bridge are two places : Landing Blvd or Carr. The upside with Landing Blvd is that it would take up some parking lots north of the landing and would allow the interchange to come to a point directly across from that useless park infront of the Dome, meaning that the park can be taken out to build the ramps and do so in a compact fashion. The downside with this plan is that is may further cut off the existing section of the Landing from the city and call for the destruction of those buildings between landing Bldv and Morgan St. Don't fool yourself, the city will not sacrafice its new casino to build the bridge north of the King Bridge, if it happens here is happens south. Of course this downside could be mitigated if the city coupled the new bridge in this location with the removal of 70 south of this point, but alas I doubt those in power will put MODOT's balls to the wall.
The upside with Carr is that it would keep the new bridge further from the landings core and even better, buffer what could be a new residential neighborhood north of Carr from the Casino. The downside of this location is that is spreads out the ramps and bridge approached even farther, likely meaning MODOT will consume more land to get the bridge done. Also, this location would mean bridge approaches that will fruther cut off the new casino and any residential north of Carr rom the Bottle District project on the west side of 70.
Either way, I don't see this project as being a bad thing and if done well (which i doubt because I hate MODOT) it could be a positive. I agree with others that a coupler bridge should also be considered south of downtown near the current MacArthur Bridge. A seperae crossing for 44 and 55 could be a nice way to cut some of the PSB traffic and make it possible to remove 44/55 between the new bridge and the PSB, thereby linking Chouteau's landing with the rail yards west of it.
The upside with Carr is that it would keep the new bridge further from the landings core and even better, buffer what could be a new residential neighborhood north of Carr from the Casino. The downside of this location is that is spreads out the ramps and bridge approached even farther, likely meaning MODOT will consume more land to get the bridge done. Also, this location would mean bridge approaches that will fruther cut off the new casino and any residential north of Carr rom the Bottle District project on the west side of 70.
Either way, I don't see this project as being a bad thing and if done well (which i doubt because I hate MODOT) it could be a positive. I agree with others that a coupler bridge should also be considered south of downtown near the current MacArthur Bridge. A seperae crossing for 44 and 55 could be a nice way to cut some of the PSB traffic and make it possible to remove 44/55 between the new bridge and the PSB, thereby linking Chouteau's landing with the rail yards west of it.
- 8,912
jfknet wrote:Did anyone see the news piece? They interviewed Slay and he stated his discourse. Then he and IDOT both stated the obvious that "Mizzoura" is ran by the rural populus. This is ridiculous not just on this issue, but the whole situation. Not that Illinois doesn't have problems of their own, but I think I'm heated about it more because of the truth involved with the statement.
Vomit... Can we please stop being hill billies and illiterates and start refering to our state as Missouri... IMHO it's mis-or-eee not miz-our-ahhh!!! I can't emphasize this enough. Finally, can we stop staying that... I mean do those same people refer to Mississippi as Missassippa...Gimmie a break here... I won't even get into "warshing clothes" and "farty far."
Ok back to topic. As I tried to quote STLbiggest fan below. Does anyone think this is a prime example of how STL city and STL county and ST chuck county need to combing our efforts by becoming one muni. We are all "st. Louisons"sp so lets combine our efforts! but thats a whole other topic.
Stl biggest fan wrote: "I couldn't believe it when I read the article this morning! Illinois' plan is the dumbest thing I've heard recently, and I can only hope it will spur Missouri to cough-up more money. More viable: Build the new bridge and toll it!"
"The whole situation is a prime example of adjoining jurisdictions being unable to work together for the betterment of its common interests and citizenry. Can't we get it together long enough to plan for a viable future that will see tremendous growth in Metro East? Besides, what company wants to locate in an area whose governments can't even agree on fundamental transportation issues? What message does this send?"
Looks like the Missouri Government gets its way again. I seriously dislike the leadership in that state.
Coupler would use MLK Bridge
New, old spans would channel I-70 traffic off Poplar
BY MIKE FITZGERALD
News-Democrat
Steve Nagy/News-Democrat
![]()
Hoping to break a 10-month deadlock over how to pay for a new Mississippi River bridge, Illinois lawmakers unveiled a new plan that calls for a four-lane bridge to be built north of the Martin Luther King Bridge leading from East St. Louis.
Under the Martin Luther King Coupler plan, the new bridge would channel traffic westbound across the river onto Interstate 70, while traffic would be funneled eastbound along three lanes on the 55-year-old Martin Luther King span.
U.S. Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Belleville, and state Rep. Jay Hoffman, D-Collinsville, touted the coupler plan as an alternative to the $910 million eight-lane bridge and road project that's been in the planning stage for a decade.
Costello and Hoffman want to scrap the original bridge proposal because Missouri keeps on insisting it be a tollway.
So far Illinois taxpayers have spent $80 million preparing for the original bridge plan, which calls for major re-alignments of interstates 64 and 70 and has a projected completion date of 2013.
During a news conference at the Illinois Department of Transportation district headquarters in Collinsville, Costello called the coupler "an acceptable alternative" because "It increases capacity. It relieves congestion."
Pete Rahn, the director of the Missouri Department of Transportation, issued a written statement in which he stated he had not seen the Illinois proposal, so he could not comment on it.
"We do have concerns, though, about the proposal's impact on the Pinnacle Casino and the historic buildings in the area," Rahn stated.
Estimated cost of Costello and Hoffman's coupler proposal: up to $450 million -- or less than half the price for the eight-lane bridge originally envisioned for a mile further north, and meant to move Interstate 70 away from the overburdened Poplar Street Bridge.
Missouri's share of costs for the coupler project would be $50 million over seven years, or 11 percent of projected costs.
This compares to the $239 million that the federal government has so far committed, and the $161 million that Illinois would put up.
The catch for Missouri: scrapping its plans for making the bridge a tollway -- an idea Illinois lawmakers oppose on the grounds it would be unfair to Illinois motorists, who'd comprise the great majority of commuter traffic.
http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/14713704.htm[/img]
Coupler would use MLK Bridge
New, old spans would channel I-70 traffic off Poplar
BY MIKE FITZGERALD
News-Democrat
Steve Nagy/News-Democrat
Hoping to break a 10-month deadlock over how to pay for a new Mississippi River bridge, Illinois lawmakers unveiled a new plan that calls for a four-lane bridge to be built north of the Martin Luther King Bridge leading from East St. Louis.
Under the Martin Luther King Coupler plan, the new bridge would channel traffic westbound across the river onto Interstate 70, while traffic would be funneled eastbound along three lanes on the 55-year-old Martin Luther King span.
U.S. Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Belleville, and state Rep. Jay Hoffman, D-Collinsville, touted the coupler plan as an alternative to the $910 million eight-lane bridge and road project that's been in the planning stage for a decade.
Costello and Hoffman want to scrap the original bridge proposal because Missouri keeps on insisting it be a tollway.
So far Illinois taxpayers have spent $80 million preparing for the original bridge plan, which calls for major re-alignments of interstates 64 and 70 and has a projected completion date of 2013.
During a news conference at the Illinois Department of Transportation district headquarters in Collinsville, Costello called the coupler "an acceptable alternative" because "It increases capacity. It relieves congestion."
Pete Rahn, the director of the Missouri Department of Transportation, issued a written statement in which he stated he had not seen the Illinois proposal, so he could not comment on it.
"We do have concerns, though, about the proposal's impact on the Pinnacle Casino and the historic buildings in the area," Rahn stated.
Estimated cost of Costello and Hoffman's coupler proposal: up to $450 million -- or less than half the price for the eight-lane bridge originally envisioned for a mile further north, and meant to move Interstate 70 away from the overburdened Poplar Street Bridge.
Missouri's share of costs for the coupler project would be $50 million over seven years, or 11 percent of projected costs.
This compares to the $239 million that the federal government has so far committed, and the $161 million that Illinois would put up.
The catch for Missouri: scrapping its plans for making the bridge a tollway -- an idea Illinois lawmakers oppose on the grounds it would be unfair to Illinois motorists, who'd comprise the great majority of commuter traffic.
http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/14713704.htm[/img]
- 1,054
It is not always leadership but tradition and fact. It is a tradition for Missouri to be a low tax/low services state and to remain on the slimmer end. It is a fact that we do not tax ourselves enough. Then their is the pressure for state leadership to not want to raise taxes so as to keep their seats and keep their people happy. Maybe we should give greater powers to the state auditor to really look at government money and then push for more taxes for real change.
or we create a city-state like taxing district for the St. Louis Missouri Metropolis.
or we create a city-state like taxing district for the St. Louis Missouri Metropolis.
trent wrote:I say we just annex ourselves to Illinois.
I find it hilarious how often people say that. And sad.
- 6,775
shannon wrote:trent wrote:I say we just annex ourselves to Illinois.
I find it hilarious how often people say that. And sad.
Yeah, sad that our state (MO) is so backwards compared to Illinois. I don't think they would want us!