urbanSTL

Everytime in read updates on this project, I automatically think of the new Page Ave bridge. Why didn't they charge tolls to Chucky residents? Missouri is totally screwing Illinois.

^and I think this is why Illinois is standing its ground. If past behaviour is any indication of future performance, Rahn is absolutely wrong here. I am one of those who would benefit from a new bridge, and I wasn't all that upset at the idea of paying a toll, but MDOT's argument has absolutely no credibility. I know we're a republic, but I would love there to be a higher authority to step in a inject some common sense!!

Any news on this? Is the bridge dead for another decade?



How about a toll on East bound travelers in the morning, and West bound travellers in the afternoon and evening? No toll 11 PM to 4 AM to encourage truckers to use off-peak times.



Then Illinois would pledge similar amounts for the bridge, but a portion of Missouri's pledge would be made up of toll collecions. This should satisfy the East siders.

http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... ily81.html



I don't think that this bodes well for a landmark bridge. everytime the work "affordable" is used I absolutely cringe.



By the way, dang them for not building THIS:

Maybe 4 or 5 years ago a new bridge design was submitted by a swiss bridge designer after initial cost projections deemed the new mississippi bridge unbuildable. It consisted of a spire support column at eiter end of the bridge with a round porthole where the roaddeck would pass through. He intended it as an echo of the "gateway" to the west. I remember reading in the Post Dispatch that the powers that be dismissed the design for reasons that a bridge had already been selected and that it was too late in the process to accept new submittals. I remember it being an attractive design that supposedly shed millions off the construction costs. Does anyone have any recolection of or information on this? Or perhaps any idea as to why it hasn't resurfaced?

I understand why people in Illinois would be strongly opposed to a toll bridge, but you know what, I think the toll is extremely justified. I just don't think the people promoting this bridge are selling it properly.



The new bridge's goal is to reduce conjestion and increase travel times through effectively pricing the roads. If you want to get somewhere quickly, you have to pay for that privilege. If you don't want to pay, you don'thave to, you can use the Poplar, Eads or MLK (or soon to be reopened McArthur) bridges to get across, and then get on 70.



Frankly, they shouldn't leave it up to government to pay for, they should let the job be bid for by a private sector company like they did for the CityLink system here. I'll explain -



Melbourne needed a new highway section connecting parts of the Monash Highway and Hume highway to the downtown areas. The problem was, government had no money at the time to build the thing, and they weren't going to be able to pas a tax hike to pay for it. So they let the road be built by a private consortium. They CityLink included 2 new stretches of highway along with a tunnel into another section of the city. I don't know what it cost to build, but it's a $7 US toll EVERY TIME a car drives on it.



People were outraged, saying they can't afford to drive blah blah blah. The citylink is still packed with cars every day, and now people pay a closer price to what it cost to provide the road. They're doing the same thing with the new EastLink project (kinda like our I-170).



Generally people are miffed because the eastern suburbs get hit with the tolls while the people in the west get to drive on highways for free, which is a valid complaint. However, there are far more people in the east, so congestion is much higher, and as a result, they're the ones who will pay to use the roads. It's justified.



For the new Mississippi bridge, the most traffic going across the mississippi comes from Illinois. This is simple fact. As such they should have to pay the burden to use the roads. It's even more fair than the system here, since it'll toll people going both ways. I know politicians have to grandstand, but someone should really explain these principles to the hysterical masses.

I say toll all the bridges going across the Mississippi River-- toll I-270, I-255, Poplar St., MLK, Jr., McKinley, and Eads. If your going to do one, you should do all. The major bridges-- I-270, I-255, Poplar St, and new the MR bridge--- $2 (each way); $4 for big trucks and 18-wheelers. Cash or the electronic toll cards.

The other bridges-- $0.50 or $1 (each way); Big trucks and 18-wheelers are not allowed on these bridges.





If they want this bridge done, this is what they should consider. If not, they should start using the gas tax money more wisely.

I'd support a toll bridge IF they use it to build the original design ... THAT would be worthy of a toll....

and remeber - a toll need not be permanent. A bridge (hopefully) would

A toll would be permanent. Even if the system uses only electronic toll systems (no staffed booths), no one, neither governemnt nor private sectors, would willingly give up revenue.



You can't toll all the bridges because aside from the decades long legal battles you'd fight, it defeats the purpose of a bridge toll. If you toll the poplar and new I-70 the same, there's NO incentive for me to take one bridge over the other, and thus congestion would continue to remain at current levels.



However, if you have one fast bridge free tolled and a slow bridge free, then people will make a conscious choice to choose speed or money. Speed wins far more often than you'd think.

I take it that you're not actually Miguel Tejada...... just curious

Of course not, I just love how the name rolls off the tongue -



Mee Gehlllllll.......Tay Hah da.........



If I was the real miguel, I would threaten to crush you with my steroid enhanced muscles. Bit I don't. Cause I'm not

I support tolling all the bridges - and I mean all of them -- toll the lewis/clark complex as well as 370, 40, 70 and page into St. Chuck. 364(page) cost the state far more than what this is proposed to cost... why should that one not be tolled.... and keep the tolls forever, what ever - but make them reasonable. Buy a yearly pass for $100 or something for a car and $300 for a comercial 18 wheeler (or something) $100 isn't THAT much a year...

Maybe Missouri's opposition is based on pure economics.

St. Louis City peaked in rapid development in 1930.

Shift to St. Louis County



St. Louis County peaked in rapid development in 1970 (coasting ever since) Shift to St. Charles County



St. Charles has or will begin to peak in rapid development. Shift to?

Warren & Lincoln counties > urban sprawl + more highways in Missouri



verse



Shift to Illinois for rapid development and urban sprawl = draws residents from populated Missouri & tax dollars & economic jaugernaut



Thus, economically Missouri loses out on our suburbanized economy.



Maybe not building the bridge is a good thing because it builds up demand in Illinois (urban sprawl slows in Missouri) for development, creates immense congestion, & long waits that development concentrates along Metrolink lines in Illinois.



Silver lining, eh? Less urban sprawl & more TOD from not building the bridge. Missouri & Illinois both benefit.

If there are four bridges into downtown that don't charge tolls, why will any large number of people pay a toll for the one new bridge? We have done that before with the MLKing, Eads, and McKinley and notice all the tolls are gone.



Wouldn't you have to toll all the bridges to generate sufficient revenue? I would never that the toll road when I have a choice of four others unless the others were impassable or the new toll bridge offered amazing time savings.



I wonder if MDOT's strategy isn't a crafty approach to avoid having to commit any significant money to help what most feel is an Illinois project?



If MDOT was serious about using tolls to fund road projects, they would certainly look at I-44 and I-70 to fund their dream project. But notice that they don't propose that because it would be politically unpopular. Tolling the Mississippi bridge would affect relatively few Missouri taxpayers. Tolling I-44 and I-70 would affect those Missouri voters so making that proposal isn't on their current agenda.

An entertaining post on Mayor Slay's blog today regarding the progress that has been made on the bridge.

Mississippi River Bridge



I’ve already written about the things I believe regarding the new Mississippi River Bridge, for which planning began in 1992 and on which tens of millions of dollars have already been spent.



Here is an update:



•Illinois is adamantly against tolls

•Missouri is adamantly against a smaller "coupler" bridge



Where, then, does that leave reasonable people? At the drawing board looking for new common ground. That’s where I am now.

Missouri is adamantly against tolls as well, just on roadways fully in Missouri used by more Missouri drivers. You'll never see MODOT suggest tolling for the new I-70 between Wentzville and Independence or even the planned new Daniel Boone bridge between Chesterfield and St. Charles County. Sure, there are regulatory limits to tolling existing Interstate highways, but the most recent reauthorization (SAFETEA-LU) has opened the door to more pilot projects, as the national trust fund goes dry. But even when creating its own new bridges independent of the Interstate system, MODOT still didn't opt for tolls, as evident on the fairly new Discovery (370) and Page (364) bridges. In the end, if the Mississippi River wasn't a state line, I think it's widely known that hypocritical Missouri wouldn't be pushing for tolls.



As for the coupler, it's not only less than half the cost of the reduced-price MRB (URS-studied revision), it's way less for Missouri taxpayers. The total payment needed from Missouri ends up being even less than what Missouri plans on granting in tax credits to build a lid over three blocks of I-70 west of the Arch, and a drop in the bucket in comparison to what MODOT will spend to rebuild 40.



If the Mayor wants to be a leader, he needs to say why the coupler is a bad idea, other than just saying Missouri is "adamantly against" it. I suspect Pinnacle is not to fond of ending up between two bridges, but the coupler's location basically along Carr wouldn't change their project already under construction. Either bridge span, whether the MRB closer to Cass or the MLK-Coupler closer to Carr, will require takings and demolition, but with the latter, I think we can spare the Econo Lodge. Plus, adding more highway infrastructure between Old North St. Louis and Downtown, the Coupler concept would instead feed into excess-capacity Cole and provide direct access to the planned Bottle District.

For a state that is always complaining about never having the money it needs to do everything it wants, Missouri sure is afraid of taxes.



I'd fully support a toll on all major interstates through the state.

trent wrote:I'd fully support a toll on all major interstates through the state.

AMEN (though i would add "on all major rural" interstates but thats me being selfish)!! Also I would change it to be on major bridges that aren't tagged as interstates (364, 370, 63/54 in Jeff city to name a few)

Of course it would be more practical to either raise the gas tax and/or the vehicle registration tax. I understand that a toll system may be the most equitable choice, but the needed infrastructure/bureaucracy to toll all interstates would be huge. Just increase the gas tax - drive more, pay more.

Okay, here's an idea, and just an idea. I will be nice and simply say that since MODOT in behaving like a brat child and they have the federal highway dollars for new lanes, would it be possible to take that money and perhaps add lanes on I-270 across the Canal and River or reconfigure the ramps on the Missouri side of the PSB to greatly increase traffic flow?



I would think additional I-270 lanes would help more than people realize. I travel that every day. There are 3 lanes already in IL from 157 to 111 and in MO beginning / ending at Lilac. What is the gap, 3 miles. When the PSB was down, that stretch became jammed every day with people traveling North 255 then heading West 270.

There are plenty of Illinois residents that work in areas not connected by Metrolink, and asking them to transfere once or twice does not reduce their commute. This is an assumption but I would think that most of those who are convienently served by Metrolink already use it.



I wholeheartedly agree that more & larger highways are bad. They lead to more congestion by funneling more people onto the same roads. However, it is my belief that bridges are of the opposite formula. Doesn't fewer bridges cause the same problem by funneling people into one passageway? the more bridges there are the more options commuters have in crossing the river, just as city streets allow someone to drive to the next block if there is rush hour, construction, an accident or any other reason for congestion. You must also realize that currently 3 major highways all lead to the same bridge that strangely enough has the same # of lanes as one highway.

Central St Louis is long overdue for a bridge. It seemed like a pattern for much of the 20th century that a new bridge was built about every 20 years. With the last one built in the 60's, in theory, a new bridge should have been built in the late 80's. Or at the very least the early 90's.



And funneling 3 highways onto one bridge was either a cost cutting measure or someone never thought road travel would be what it is today. If you would say at least 2 lanes for each interstate and one for US 40, the bridge would be at least 7 lanes each direction. Thats one fat bridge.