urbanSTL

Off-topic--



Why is the capital in Jefferson City?







Why is it not in one of the two main metro centers in the state-- Kansas City or STL



I'm serious, this might have something to do with it. If it was in one of these two places, specifically STL, they (the legislators and MODOT) would understand urban issues and economical progress and ways of reaching this.



On the other hand, then the rural areas might feel as though they were being left out of the process and unrepresented and blame the cities for forcing the rural areas to pay for things that don't concern them.

bry456 wrote:Off-topic--



Why is the capital in Jefferson City?







Why is it not in one of the two main metro centers in the state-- Kansas City or STL



I'm serious, this might have something to do with it. If it was in one of these two places, specifically STL, they (the legislators and MODOT) would understand urban issues and economical progress and ways of reaching this.



On the other hand, then the rural areas might feel as though they were being left out of the process and unrepresented and blame the cities for forcing the rural areas to pay for things that don't concern them.

Look at the Washington DC idea -away but between the major centers of the day <Philly> Jeff city is on a river between the two major cities, showing impartiality to both... If you look at the current state constitution <approved> you get a distinct impression of an "us am them" idea - cities <KC and STL vs. rural "backwater" everything else. the state is divided up and at least 3 of the regions have to approve anything major - meaning if KC and STL both approve something an no one else does - it doesn't pass - even thought that?s the MAJORITY of people in the state. It is definitely not ideal - but it serves the largest portion of the state -- rural areas. STL - I guess they figure - can fend for themselves - which is completely wrong.

In reading the paper today, there was a great letter to the editor from a man in Alton. He complained that Blunt said the bridge doesn't benefit the tax payers of Missouri.



But this man, who works downtown, pays taxes in Missouri. He was asking where his representation was. I find that quite sad, the fact that the people that are travelling from Illinois everyday, have their payrolls taxed by Missouri, yet they are being ignored by the Missouri government because they don't live/vote in Missouri.

The MRB project certainly benefits people on both sides of the river. My prior post may have been a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, but I'm glad that others agree this project is essential. Now with the Poplar St. Bridge being partially closed for the summer, I wonder if it might drum-up more support from people in both states for the MRB. It's only a hint of things to come if the project isn't done right.

Conspiracy theory:



MO politicians not interested in Mississippi Bridge because they view suburban growth of St. Louis good for surrounding MO counties and want growth and tax dollars for MO and not interested in the future health and regional dynamics of the STL region which say that growth needs to be balanced out on the IL side. MO protecting their interests, shortsighted



IL politicians interested in Mississippi Brige because they view suburban growth shifting from MO side to IL side and want the growth and tax dollars and not interested in the future health and regional dynamics of the STL region since STL City and inner STL County burbs may loose out to IL. IL protecting their interests, shortsighted



This is a theory and does not represent my opinion nor that of anyone else. This is just a idea/theory being thrown out into the forum for ample discussion to consider what has not been considered: both states are autocratic and only interested in their well being and not in shared, compromised, or mutual ideals. In other words less state's rights or <democracy> outlook and more socialist or benefit of the whole <republic> outlook.



Start

Makes sense to me. Being politicians, their #1 interest is doing what will get them re-elected, not in doing what is right.

SMSPlanstu wrote:
IL politicians interested in Mississippi Brige because they view suburban growth shifting from MO side to IL side and want the growth and tax dollars and not interested in the future health and regional dynamics of the STL region since STL City and inner STL County burbs may loose out to IL.

I forget where - but on an official Illinois State Sponsored webpage they mentioned one of their proposed road projects (255? new outer belt? Hwy 50?) as wanting to duplicate the "outstanding success" that 270 found in west St. Louis county. Also mentioned was the fact that they had more tax subsidies available for development than does Missouri....

The issue should be, only TWO bridges in the COUNTRY carry three interstates . The Poplar is just as large as the sh*tty Blanchette bridge, actually SMALLER than the one going into St. Charles. I'm trying not to vomit as I type here. A new LARGE bridge is needed. I swear to god, I'm never voting for another Republican in Statewide politics again. How could any person in ST. Louis City or County vote for republicans? As a website we should make an issue out of this. Talent, against stem cell, which is basically a vote AGAINST our excellent hospital sytems in St. Louis BJC/Wash U.. Blunt (aka, no one wants to live in st louis anymore) and others against the MRB is a vote against the St. Louis region growing stronger. These backwater-bible-beaters make me sick.

Road plan price tag: $10 billion

By Tim O'Neil

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

06/08/2006



Missouri should spend $10 billion on its interstate highway system over the next decade if the state wants to keep up with traffic, an industry group says.



The Road Information Program, known as TRIP, has been reviewing highway needs in about 20 states for this year's 50th anniversary of the interstate system. The first section to be opened anywhere in the country was a stretch of Interstate 70 in St. Charles, opened Nov. 9, 1956.



Carolyn Bonifas, of TRIP's Washington headquarters, said her organization worked with Missouri Department of Transportation statistics to arrive at the estimates. She will join Missouri Transportation Director Pete Rahn and Len Toenges, president of the Associated General Contractors of St. Louis, in discussing the report this morning in west St. Louis County.



TRIP is financed by construction companies, engineering firms, equipment manufacturers, labor unions and other industry groups. Its recent reports on Missouri roads have outlined what it sees as deficiencies in highways.







But Bonifas said TRIP is not a lobbying organization. "Our role is to provide legislators and residents with information to understand how critical the system is and how much in benefit is derived from it," she said.



A big chunk of TRIP's $10 billion would be $3.5 billion to rebuild I-70 as a six-lane highway across the state. Missouri has not formally endorsed the idea, but transportation officials consider it "critical," said state spokesman Tom Miller.



The wish list does not include money for a proposed new bridge over the Mississippi River at St. Louis, a source of contention between Missouri and Illinois. TRIP endorses spending $3.6 billion on an eventual reconstruction of Interstate 44, much of which is affected by repair projects this summer.



The report rates 19 percent of Missouri's interstate pavement in poor or mediocre condition, and 22 percent of all interstate bridges to be significantly deteriorating or obsolete for current traffic. It lists 61 percent of pavement and most interstate bridges in good condition.



But it also notes that traffic on Missouri's seven interstates jumped 29 percent from 1990 to 2004 and is expected to climb another 40 percent over the next 20 years. Missouri's 1,181 miles of interstates make up only 2 percent of all state-highway miles but carry 26 percent of the system's traffic.



Miller, of the state transportation agency, said the state is spending about $780 million on current projects to improve all highways, including interstates. Big projects include portions of the $170 million effort to upgrade Highway 40 in St. Charles County.



The TRIP report says most of the most-congested sections of the Missouri interstate system are in Kansas City, seven of the 10 "structurally deficient" bridges it lists are in the St. Louis area. Most of them are to be replaced in the planned $535 million reconstruction of Highway 40, to begin in January.



TRIP says the most congested stretch in Missouri is I-70 westbound from Noland Road in Independence to Interstate 35 in downtown Kansas City.



toneil@post-dispatch.com 314-340-8132





Good job

TRIP is financed by construction companies, engineering firms, equipment manufacturers, labor unions and other industry groups.

Really? This group thinks Missouri should spend $10 billion on its' roads? What a surprise!



Never ask the barber if you need a haircut.

$3.5 billion to rebuild I-70. Do you suppose MODOT is pushing for tolls on this project?



It's only 3.5 times as much as the scaled-back MRB, or 70 times as much as the really scaled-back MLK coupler. But if a project is fully in Missouri, then what's another billion here or billion there...

bry456 wrote:Missouri's 1,181 miles of interstates make up only 2 percent of all state-highway miles but carry 26 percent of the system's traffic.

I read this as "too many highways in southern missouri are being underutilized." THis sucks the life out of urban highways that are used and interestates that are used a lot. Sell some of them to land developers, or just let the parks reclaim them. Upkeep is so high and most are so redudant.

The Wrath of Rahn. Can we fire this guy?

Let's divert money from the Page Extension highway through St. Charles County to pay for this bridge. The right-of-ways are already payed for in ST. Chuck and they can wait. Halt other road changes in outer suburban STL like in Jeff Co. Why should we foot the bill for road construction since it just brings more sprawl and more road construction when we have a serious debacle with a bridge over the Mississippi?

^The Page Avenue right-of-way hasn't been entirely purchased yet for the last two phases.



I don't think that Rahn understands that the bridge won't be built unless MoDOT compromises on something. Up to this point they have been pretty much telling Illinois they want nothing to do with a new river crossing. I had hoped the whole mess going on with the Poplar bridge project right now would convince some of the Missouri lawmakers that a new bridge would be important. There is still time left to strike a deal, but that window is closing quickly and may not open again for a long time.