There are three Interstates that cross the river on the PSB - 55, 70 and 64. I've read that it's one of only two places in the county were this happens - anyone know where the other is? (I don't)
Well what about increasing MetroBus service in Illinois and Downtown St. Louis?
I am sure that adding more routes to service these areas would be cheaper than adding another bridge.
I am sure that adding more routes to service these areas would be cheaper than adding another bridge.
I've been on a number of bridges that are just as wide as the one currently standing (or darn near close) that have 2 decks. 1 in each direction.
- 11K
Doug - don't you get it? A new bridge is big and pretty, a bus pass is not. 
IMO a new bridge is needed. Three Interstates on one bridge? I don't think a little traffic snarl should automatically trigger new road construction, but with one bridge any resurfacing/reconstruction does present a major problem. A new bridge will be built - the PSB won't stand forever and will need major rehab/retrofit that requires a complete shutdown for years. This even is hastened by the amount of traffic the bridge carries - much more than for what it was designed.
Also, if we want a vibrant, active CBD we must provide access. The county has exploded because of built access. Of course some may see this as an opportunity to build mass transit/promote buses/etc., this should go hand-in-hand with sensible infrastructure. For all our wishes, StL is not going to become a mass transit utopia.
IMO a new bridge is needed. Three Interstates on one bridge? I don't think a little traffic snarl should automatically trigger new road construction, but with one bridge any resurfacing/reconstruction does present a major problem. A new bridge will be built - the PSB won't stand forever and will need major rehab/retrofit that requires a complete shutdown for years. This even is hastened by the amount of traffic the bridge carries - much more than for what it was designed.
Also, if we want a vibrant, active CBD we must provide access. The county has exploded because of built access. Of course some may see this as an opportunity to build mass transit/promote buses/etc., this should go hand-in-hand with sensible infrastructure. For all our wishes, StL is not going to become a mass transit utopia.
Doug,
I agree that that should also be done to increase Metro ridership. However, the amout of cars on the road is not going to decrease anytime in the near future. Actually, despite rising fuel costs, the number of cars is increasing to almost exponential levels, even in Europe. Add to that the growing number of commercial trucking that is passing through the STL area and the need for another bridge will never go away.
[edit] Well said Ihnen. I am by no means an advocate for personalized transportation, in fact I've sold my car since moving to chicago. But the need for such infrastructure is undeniable
I agree that that should also be done to increase Metro ridership. However, the amout of cars on the road is not going to decrease anytime in the near future. Actually, despite rising fuel costs, the number of cars is increasing to almost exponential levels, even in Europe. Add to that the growing number of commercial trucking that is passing through the STL area and the need for another bridge will never go away.
[edit] Well said Ihnen. I am by no means an advocate for personalized transportation, in fact I've sold my car since moving to chicago. But the need for such infrastructure is undeniable
I don't know about the MLK bridge, but the Eads bridge is quite a hassle to get to from the highway on the Illinois side.
So build a damn road re-connecting it to the highway.
Come on people, there are two other bridges already.
Divert traffic to those other two bridges.
Come on people, there are two other bridges already.
Divert traffic to those other two bridges.
- 687
The bridge is not just for cars and commuters.
It's vital for the transportation industry. Diverting trucks to the other bridges isn't really an option and even if more cars took the other bridges it would not relieve congestion enough.
It's vital for the transportation industry. Diverting trucks to the other bridges isn't really an option and even if more cars took the other bridges it would not relieve congestion enough.
Are there any studies?
Has there been a comprehensive traffic study looking at all of the options?
Where is the data showing that diverting cars to other bridges will not relieve congestion?
If cars were diverted onto MLK and Eads, and an existing lane allocated for trucks only maybe that would work?
Combine that with expansion of bus routes and I don't see how that wouldn't work?
Has there been a comprehensive traffic study looking at all of the options?
Where is the data showing that diverting cars to other bridges will not relieve congestion?
If cars were diverted onto MLK and Eads, and an existing lane allocated for trucks only maybe that would work?
Combine that with expansion of bus routes and I don't see how that wouldn't work?
The problem is most of these people are not going into the city. Your asking them to get off the highway cross a bridge into the city and find their way back to the interstate. The only thing I see happening is congestion at the highway on ramps clogging the city streets
- 687
Doug wrote:Are there any studies?
Has there been a comprehensive traffic study looking at all of the options?
Where is the data showing that diverting cars to other bridges will not relieve congestion?
If cars were diverted onto MLK and Eads, and an existing lane allocated for trucks only maybe that would work?
Combine that with expansion of bus routes and I don't see how that wouldn't work?
I'm sure there are traffic studies justifying the need for a new bridge. I'm not going to bother finding them or looking them up because I have lived on both sides of the river and just from my personal experience I have formed the opinion that a new bridge is needed and will be more so in the future.
Where is the data showing that diverting cars to other bridges WILL adequately relieve congestion?
Diverting ALL cars to MLK or Eads may relieve a lot of the congestion, but like crbswiss points out, you can't really expect the vehicles going down one of 3 interstates to exit, go through the city, and then back on to the interstate.
How much would building a connection from the other bridges reconnecting to the highway cost? How would MODOT pay for it? The Fed funding is for a new bridge and IL certainly wouldn't pay for a new MO only road. Would they toll it?
- 687
Doug wrote:Bah.
If only the highways were not built through the City.
I agree.
- 11K
I like the highways through the city. (sorry, that was contrarion self)
Of course. Maybe, maybe a new bridge could serve to kill 70 downtown and fill it in, not just cover it. I know it's unrealistic, but still probably the best chance of any roadway being removed anywhere in the bi-state.
Of course. Maybe, maybe a new bridge could serve to kill 70 downtown and fill it in, not just cover it. I know it's unrealistic, but still probably the best chance of any roadway being removed anywhere in the bi-state.
- 1,610
I believe MODOT when they say they're broke. For years, our eyes have been bigger than our wallets. However, I'm a little worried that MODOT doesn't understand the time value of money, or even simpler total cost.
Every month the bridge is delayed adds another $5 million to the project. Yet if MODOT would agree to the cheaper MLK-coupler concept, their annualized cost would be only $7 million a year. IOW, MODOT is holding out for a $900-million-plus MRB at a growing cost of $5 million extra a month, when all they could be paying is $7 million a year for the MLK-coupler?
Even if you look at total cost, the $450-million coupler is obviously less than the $900-million MRB. However, MODOT gets off easy, having to pay far less percentage on the coupler than the MRB, with a total Missouri share of only $50 million. That's right, not only is MODOT holding out on a larger project growing as almost quickly a month in cost than what they could be paying yearly, but MODOT is also not willing to pay what, in full sum, adds up to less than 1/10 the cost of rebuilding 40, or even 1/4 the cost of putting a lid on I-70 downtown.
Every month the bridge is delayed adds another $5 million to the project. Yet if MODOT would agree to the cheaper MLK-coupler concept, their annualized cost would be only $7 million a year. IOW, MODOT is holding out for a $900-million-plus MRB at a growing cost of $5 million extra a month, when all they could be paying is $7 million a year for the MLK-coupler?
Even if you look at total cost, the $450-million coupler is obviously less than the $900-million MRB. However, MODOT gets off easy, having to pay far less percentage on the coupler than the MRB, with a total Missouri share of only $50 million. That's right, not only is MODOT holding out on a larger project growing as almost quickly a month in cost than what they could be paying yearly, but MODOT is also not willing to pay what, in full sum, adds up to less than 1/10 the cost of rebuilding 40, or even 1/4 the cost of putting a lid on I-70 downtown.
Ok, so this is a ludicrous idea but... what about building the coupler bridge as only the first half of a new coupler bridge, the second half which wouldn't be built until roughly 30 years down the road. When the second half of the new coupler is constructed, the then 85 year old MLK bridge could then be taken down to remove the psycological barrier currently splitting Laclede's Landing. Have I fallen off my rocker?
- 11K
1. Transfer responsibility for county roads to the counties.
2. Increase fuel taxes by $0.10/gallon.
3. Charge tolls on the new bridge (all research indicates this will work)
4. Thank MODOT for not settling for a half-as*ed bridge and actually planning for the future.
2. Increase fuel taxes by $0.10/gallon.
3. Charge tolls on the new bridge (all research indicates this will work)
4. Thank MODOT for not settling for a half-as*ed bridge and actually planning for the future.
- 1,610
^All good points, Ihnen. But I'd only agree to your "charge tolls on the new bridge," if MODOT would seriously consider tolling on ALL future capacity-building projects, even when Missouri drivers will be paying the bulk. IOW, toll more, not just this single Illinois-slanted project.
- 2,005
Expert panel to take on river bridge issue
Will hold public meetings next week
BY MIKE FITZGERALD
News-Democrat
After being stuck in neutral for 2006, plans for a new Mississippi River bridge could start moving forward when a handpicked panel of transportation and finance experts meets this month in St. Louis.
Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Belleville, is warning that the $239 million earmarked by the federal government for the proposed span could be lost if Illinois and Missouri can't reach a deal by the end of 2007.
Although the federal allocation for the $1 billion bridge-and-highway project looks secure for the time being, that money isn't guaranteed if the two states fail to agree on how to pay for the bridge, Costello said.
"The money can be reprogrammed to other projects that are ready to go where the engineering is done and the local match is in place," he said.
The 10-member panel -- which includes academic experts and private consultants from Missouri, Illinois and as far afield as California -- will hold public meetings scheduled to start at noon, Jan. 8, and run through Jan. 9 at the council's office at 1 Memorial Drive, in downtown St. Louis.
The panel is scheduled to issue its final report Jan. 31.
Plans for the bridge, which is supposed to channel traffic from the aging and overcongested Poplar Street Bridge, have been in limbo since late 2005. That's when Missouri leaders announced they lacked money for their share of construction costs, demanding instead that the bridge pay for itself through a privately financed tollway.
Illinois leaders, led by Gov. Rod Blagojevich, have rejected the tollway proposal on the grounds it would be unfair to Illinois motorists, who comprise about 80 percent of commuter traffic.
To break the logjam, the East-West Gateway Council of Governments in September agreed to hire a consultant to recruit a panel of outside experts to determine how best to pay for the project -- whether through tolls or tax dollars.
The panelists also will review baseline data assembled by a second consultant, including traffic flow patterns across the Poplar Street Bridge and other spans, plus the likely revenue to flow from a tollway plan.
Link to rest of Article
Will hold public meetings next week
BY MIKE FITZGERALD
News-Democrat
After being stuck in neutral for 2006, plans for a new Mississippi River bridge could start moving forward when a handpicked panel of transportation and finance experts meets this month in St. Louis.
Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Belleville, is warning that the $239 million earmarked by the federal government for the proposed span could be lost if Illinois and Missouri can't reach a deal by the end of 2007.
Although the federal allocation for the $1 billion bridge-and-highway project looks secure for the time being, that money isn't guaranteed if the two states fail to agree on how to pay for the bridge, Costello said.
"The money can be reprogrammed to other projects that are ready to go where the engineering is done and the local match is in place," he said.
The 10-member panel -- which includes academic experts and private consultants from Missouri, Illinois and as far afield as California -- will hold public meetings scheduled to start at noon, Jan. 8, and run through Jan. 9 at the council's office at 1 Memorial Drive, in downtown St. Louis.
The panel is scheduled to issue its final report Jan. 31.
Plans for the bridge, which is supposed to channel traffic from the aging and overcongested Poplar Street Bridge, have been in limbo since late 2005. That's when Missouri leaders announced they lacked money for their share of construction costs, demanding instead that the bridge pay for itself through a privately financed tollway.
Illinois leaders, led by Gov. Rod Blagojevich, have rejected the tollway proposal on the grounds it would be unfair to Illinois motorists, who comprise about 80 percent of commuter traffic.
To break the logjam, the East-West Gateway Council of Governments in September agreed to hire a consultant to recruit a panel of outside experts to determine how best to pay for the project -- whether through tolls or tax dollars.
The panelists also will review baseline data assembled by a second consultant, including traffic flow patterns across the Poplar Street Bridge and other spans, plus the likely revenue to flow from a tollway plan.
Link to rest of Article
- 1,610
Toll or no toll, the PSB will still have congestion to/from I-44/55, unless MODOT coughs up at least some cash for expanding ramp capacity to/from the Poplar. The means of reducing traffic on the PSB was not just relocating I-70 traffic, but in how the loss of I-70/Memorial ramps could be reconfigured to two-lane ramps to/from I-44/55. But sadly, if MODOT can't even find $10 million for the cheaper MLK coupler concept, I fear the PSB mess will remain as is, no matter how elaborate an I-70 connection north of Downtown can be provided by private financing.
From MayorSlay.com, on the proposed new Mississippi River Bridge:
Read the whole thing here.
I have worked over the last year to bring Missouri and Illinois together to find common ground on the issues of finance and design. I have purposely not taken sides or tried to prove a point. Many people — including elected officials and leaders in the business community — have worked just as hard at getting consensus.
But, you’ll notice that there is no bridge building going on today. And, after a year of working on a compromise, I have to tell you that I don’t think it likely that a new bridge will be built anytime soon.
Read the whole thing here.
- 1,054
St. Louis NPR said that this was the largest single appropriations for a project out of the "pork" bill. It seems Missouri's low taxes, low quality services has plagued prosperity.