JCity wrote:fine, lets toll it. Let's ALSO toll Page extension and Blanchette
In my opinion, the Page Avenue and Discovery bridges should've been toll bridges from the beginning since they were built as alternate routes for motorists to avoid the Blanchette Bridge.
I know toll roads weren't legal in Missouri at the time, but those projects were built at the expense of maintaining older roads (including Highway 40, which could've used a major overhaul years ago). Translation, new roads were built in Sprawlsville while road conditions in the city and inner suburbs deteriorated. And it isn't like St. Charles County footed the bill for those improvements on its own- I'd have no problem with that.
The bridges to St. Charles County (Blanchette excluded) primarily benefit developers and others that benefit from sprawl. Meanwhile, the new Mississippi River bridge will have a direct impact on interstate commerce, and on the region as a whole instead of a specific county. Also, it would give us the opportunity to reconsider traffic flow in and around downtown to benefit all that use its roads.
Frankly, I think it's too bad that this bridge isn't on a fast track to completion, because we could (eventually, once the bridge and the Interstate 70 realignment north of downtown are complete) replace the elevated and depressed parts of Interstate 70 through downtown with an at-grade boulevard like The Embarcadero in San Francisco instead of fretting over a "lid" to connect downtown with the Gateway Arch.
Frankly, I think it's too bad that this bridge isn't on a fast track to completion, because we could (eventually, once the bridge and the Interstate 70 realignment north of downtown are complete) replace the elevated and depressed parts of Interstate 70 through downtown with an at-grade boulevard like The Embarcadero in San Francisco instead of fretting over a "lid" to connect downtown with the Gateway Arch.
It'd never happen. Since when does STL make a habit of destroying roads? I've never heard of anyone demolishing obsolete roads, except boston, and that's because they had to by law after the big dig.
Most Pork? from where? Bond got us nothing. The only reason I voted for him in the last election is cause I wanted the bridge and I knew he chaired the transportation committee!!! When (if) he runs again, I'm voting no with a vengance.
I still think it'd be better if missouri bought ESTL like I've been saying for years, then built the whole thing themselves and tolled it, cause then whiny Illinois residents wouldn't be able to say a damn thing.
^ I don't think you could be more wrong on Sen. Bong, but whatever.
Either way, I thought the article this morning in the post about the bridge was intersesting. The comments by other transportation experts arguing that projects of this side must recive some form of local funding, which the new MRB doesn't seem to have.
After reading the article my thought was: fine, so the local gov't needs to kick in some funding. That sounds good. But the compromise must be that the City (who logicaly should be poviding a big chunk of the funding) should have more control over the design of the bridge on the Missouri side. If MODOT and IDOT want local funding then they must be willing to ceed to local design concerns, such as how the bridge will meet the street grid and how we can use the bridge as an opertunity to rip out I-70.
On the upside, at least the article shows that maybe some of the grandstaning is being cut through and we can really see what people think of the project.
FILE PHOTO 2001: Artist's rendering of one of the Mississippi River Bridge Project designs connecting Missouri and Illinois near downtown St. Louis.
St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay told a panel of national transportation experts Monday that he doubts a new, signature Mississippi River Bridge "will be built any time soon."
Slay for the first time publicly expressed pessimism that Missouri and Illinois officials will reach a compromise on how to pay for an eight-lane link — estimated to cost nearly $1 billion — between St. Louis and the Metro East area.
Slay has tried for months to help broker a deal.
But rather than spend energy toward building a new crossing, too many key players have wasted time trying to prove one another wrong, the mayor told the panel in a downtown conference room.
"I don't feel there's been enough effort put together to get the bridge done," Slay said in an interview afterward. "There's been too much effort digging heels in and taking positions."
His comments reflect what many local leaders say is their growing frustration with the stalled effort to build a new bridge.
The East-West Gateway Council of Governments convened the 10-member panel to rekindle public dialogue and spur the states to consider solutions tried in other places.
Area leaders for more than 15 years have called a new bridge the solution for easing traffic flow across the river.
Congress set aside $239 million for construction in 2005. Since then, Missouri and Illinois officials have been stuck on the same subject: where the rest of the money would come from.
"For all intents and purposes, we see no movement on this project," said Les Sterman, executive director of East-West Gateway, which plans transportation projects for the St. Louis region. RELATED LINK
When do you think plans for a new Mississippi River bridge will be final?
Illinois wants to use state money to plug the funding gap, and has committed $210 million. Missouri officials say they don't have the cash and want to pay for the rest through tolls.
Illinois officials say charging a toll on Metro East commuters is out of the question.
The panel, made up of traffic consultants with experience at all levels of government, will reconvene today in the East-West Gateway boardroom to hear from more political and transportation officials, including one from the Missouri Department of Transportation.
On Monday, the members listened to and questioned Mary Lamie, an engineer with the Illinois Department of Transportation, and Richard Fleming, head of the St. Louis Regional Chamber & Growth Association.
Panelist Charles Nemmers, director of the University of Missouri at Columbia's Transportation Infrastructure Center, asked Fleming why the business community isn't helping pay for the bridge.
"Markets like ours do not lend themselves to that," Fleming said.
Fleming said St. Louis isn't a hot market like Austin, Texas, Denver and northern Virginia, where private investments in public projects is common. In St. Louis, private development has required public investment, not vice versa, he added.
John Barna, of the California Transportation Commission, prodded Fleming about asking voters to approve a taxing district.
"I don't know anywhere in the country that relies (solely) on federal and state dollars to build this kind of project," Barna said.
JCity wrote:fine, lets toll it. Let's ALSO toll Page extension and Blanchette
In my opinion, the Page Avenue and Discovery bridges should've been toll bridges from the beginning since they were built as alternate routes for motorists to avoid the Blanchette Bridge.
I know toll roads weren't legal in Missouri at the time, but those projects were built at the expense of maintaining older roads (including Highway 40, which could've used a major overhaul years ago). Translation, new roads were built in Sprawlsville while road conditions in the city and inner suburbs deteriorated. And it isn't like St. Charles County footed the bill for those improvements on its own- I'd have no problem with that.
The bridges to St. Charles County (Blanchette excluded) primarily benefit developers and others that benefit from sprawl. Meanwhile, the new Mississippi River bridge will have a direct impact on interstate commerce, and on the region as a whole instead of a specific county. Also, it would give us the opportunity to reconsider traffic flow in and around downtown to benefit all that use its roads.
Frankly, I think it's too bad that this bridge isn't on a fast track to completion, because we could (eventually, once the bridge and the Interstate 70 realignment north of downtown are complete) replace the elevated and depressed parts of Interstate 70 through downtown with an at-grade boulevard like The Embarcadero in San Francisco instead of fretting over a "lid" to connect downtown with the Gateway Arch.
You make the point of interstate commerce and I agree completely, however I would rather see MLK and the Eads utilized better rather than building a new bridge. If voters would support a bridge through a park then I am sure we can get a redesign which would allow MLK and Eads to be better used.
Same "study" also questions the necessity of the bridge:
But InfraConsult's traffic studies raised questions about its necessity. The firm found that 17 percent of Illinois motorists who drive across the Poplar Street Bridge during the morning rush hour actually headed toward I-70.
Sterman acknowledged both the strong push for a new span and the lack of critical analysis of its merits.
"Since 1994, there really hasn't been much discussion about the why," he said. "It's been about the what."
The expert panel was assembled last fall by the council to revive momentum on the bridge project, which has stalled because of the dispute between Missouri and Illinois officials over how to pay for the bridge
.
Sounds like EWGCC might now be going a little more south, instead of east and west.
Aging Poplar Street Bridge will need more frequent repairs
By Elisa Crouch
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
01/16/2007
quotes:
our lovable Mr. Rahn said
"Yes, we have a problem for the future maintenance of the Poplar Street Bridge. No, we don't have a solution for it yet," said Missouri Transportation Director Pete Rahn, at a panel created to find funding solutions for a new bridge.
but the biggest reason to get this new MRB going sooner rather than later is that
With construction inflation at 21 percent in Illinois last year and about 2 percent in Missouri, the costs of keeping the aging bridge — not to mention its approaches — in youthful shape will only snowball.
I still think it'd be better if missouri bought ESTL like I've been saying for years, then built the whole thing themselves and tolled it, cause then whiny Illinois residents wouldn't be able to say a damn thing.
Actually, if we were one city, or "owned" east st. louis, it would still be in Illinois. So those whiny residents would still have say. The country really frowns upon attempts to annex portions of other states. I know government is complicated in its onion like layers, but really...And I don't know why you're blaming Illinois anyway, they have their money.
I still think it'd be better if missouri bought ESTL like I've been saying for years, then built the whole thing themselves and tolled it, cause then whiny Illinois residents wouldn't be able to say a damn thing.
i think it should be the other way around, st louis should becmoe of east st louis, then part of illinois. if that were the case, we would have a much better transportation department that will be willing to fund the projects neccessary, and maybe, just maybe, metro will not be having the budget crisis that it having now.
17 percent of Illinois motorists who drive across the Poplar Street Bridge during the morning rush hour actually headed toward I-70.
All the more reason to build a smaller connection to I-70 like the MLK coupler concept. But overbuilding is only one risk. Underfunding is the other.
Even if there are risktakers out there willing to operate the only toll bridge in town, a private entity definitely won't help fund its competition, or fund improvements and maintenance on existing bridges. If MODOT can't even afford a small new bridge, how will expanding needs on our existing bridges be met in the future?
Rahn's love of a big toll bridge is more like winning a car than the lottery. With a huge cash win, you gain great financial freedom to pay off debts and change your lifestyle. But with a paid-for new car, your other bills and debts, even existing car loans, hardly disappear.
It's like Dad and Mom, or MODOT and IDOT, are going to use a promised gift from Uncle Sam to add a new car to their garage. Dad wants to lease a new full-size car, while Mom would rather buy a slightly used compact, if she can't actually own a new full-size. As she already makes more trips currently, Mom will be the primary user of the car. However, Dad feels the importance of a bigger car outweighs its price tag and ownership. While the merits of each plan can easily be argued -- leasing-vs-buying, new-vs-used, luxury-vs-economy -- neither Mom nor Dad seems to be considering what existing cars are already in the garage and how they will continue to be paid off, maintained, and used by members of the family.
^ All the more reason in the long term for all of the regions Missouri and Mississippi River bridges to be totaly owned by a St. Louis Port Authority, with the power to toll local bridges, such as the current Discovery Bridge, the Page Ave. Bridge, the McKinley Bridge, the King Bridge, and when the time comes, the new I-70 Bridge and the new Highway 40 Bridge (over the Missouri). At least then, the tolls on local bridges could be enough to perhaps create a self supported maintance and construction fund. Why Missouri, with its many other finanical obligations, would not jump on this plan I am not sure. MODOT could spend alot of money elsewhere in the state to appease rural voters by ridding themselves of the need to fund, build, and maintain Missouri and Mississippi River bridges.
^I agree with that notion, but would like to take it further. Toll these river crossings I-270, MLK, McKinley, PSB, and the JB bridge. The money from tolls could be used to maintain the existing bridges and be used as leverage should bonds need to be issued to build new toll bridges like the proposed I-70 bridge. Eventually the PSB will need to be replaced or totally rehabbed(see the article posted earlier today) and the I-270 bridge will need to be replaced or widened to 3 lanes. If MoDOT doesn't have money to build a new I-64 bridge(somehow I think they'll 'find' money), the new bridge could be built as a toll and be maintained by the Authority.
^ I agree with tolling all Missouri and Mississippi River bridge crossings in the St. Louis Metro, but I left off the Chain of Rocks, JB, Blanchett, and existing Highway 40 Chesterfield Bridge because I was/am under the impression that we can't toll existing interstates. If we can, then I completely agree with your idea, but just remember if we are doing this comprehensivly and fairly to Illinois commuters then we should toll travel from St. Charles to St. Louis County. But as you said will this happen... of course not. MODOT, no matter how much it would save, how much it could work well to improve the quality of regional transportation infastruture, and how much support MODOT would revice from rural areas and KC (salavating at the prospect of state funding used for St. Louis bridges going to their areas), MODOT will neve do it. Why? Because
1. St. Louis Metro residents will hate it
2. If St. Louis Metro residents hate it, they won't vote for state tax transportation tax increases
3. MODOT will no longer be able to use the "carrot" of "We will build a new bridge" to get people to vote for MODOT tax increases.
Sad I know, but I can still dream that one day the region's bridges, highways, airports, transit, and transportation planning will be united in one common organization with a mandate to build the finest transportation network in the US. Such a bridge authority would be a fine first step.
Have you ever gone to the circus and seen the act where a guy is shot out of a cannon into a big net? I hear MODOT is going to propose something like that instead of a new toll bridge across the Mississippi.
I guess for the volume they need, it would have to be dual gattling gun cannons to shoot people both ways in a near-continuous steam. If we could put LEDs on the helmets, it would be a sight to behold at night.
Its cheap and it could be up and running next week.
^ I'm not sure that's going to work. According to this website, the record distance for a human cannonball is only 175 ft, whereas the Mississippi is about 1800 ft wide. Now, if you could guarentee the the landing point of the cannon and set up a series of well placed floating trampolines across the Mississippi, then you might have something. Of course, human cannonballing might not be the safest form of travel.
While I'm reading this they're talking about in on Channel 4 news. It makes me wonder how the city was able to get the Poplar Street Bridge and the new Chain of Rocks/270 bridge built back in the 60's. Was funding that much easier back then?
Obviously, the bigger the bridge and the more connections made to existing highways, the more congestion will be reduced. However, any toll on a new bridge and the higher it is, the less congestion will be reduced on free bridges. Today's meeting shared such obvious points (bridge need, state impasse, dire timing), but there were some interesting, new insights as well.
A toll of 50-cents would raise more than a dollar toll and divert more cars off the Poplar. However, even a toll of $2, and this is an important insight, would still only cover a quarter of the project's cost, still leaving a funding gap near a half billion or more. And even if our region is willing to hand over a new bridge to a private entity in exchange for only a quarter of its total cost (public entities still paying three times as much as their private partner), there remains a huge risk that a private concessionaire can even be found. It hardly seems like an attractive investment to own and toll a bridge, when our market is unproven (or poorly performed in the past on existing bridges previously tolled) and free alternatives will remain as strong competition. During the meeting, a visiting expert jokingly referred to this private party as an "irrational investor," hardly a good sign.
On the other hand, the funding gap for the MLK Coupler, even with inflation and a later starting date, is less than 20-percent of its total cost, or an approximate $100 million gap. In other words, 80-percent of the coupler's cost would already be paid for from the federal earmark and IDOT's commitments. And not only is the MLK Coupler cheaper but still effective, for this alternative could still be as 60-percent as effective in reducing bridge congestion, while for only 35-percent of the cost of the larger bridge.
But most importantly, no matter what new bridge is built, our existing network of highways already used for interstate travel near Downtown needs improvements costing themselves over $450 million. In other words, while IDOT and MODOT fight over whether to build a new bridge between a $.5 billion and $1.5 billion (MLK coupler vs. full-MRB of I-70/64/IL 3), another $.5 billion will still be needed for Poplar's ramps in Missouri and the I-64 tri-level interchange in Illinois.
So then what to do to resolve this impasse? The best suggestion I heard was a two-part solution. At least initially, pursue both a large toll bridge and a small free bridge. The former was called a "high risk, high return investment," while the latter a "low risk, low return investment." Hence, we need to quickly assess the risk and find out if the private sector would even be willing to be a partner to a new bridge, but at the same time, especially since time is the enemy (both in inflation and earmark uncertainty), we need to be working on the Coupler as a definite Plan B. Then, if there are truly investors out there, we can build a major new bridge. But if there aren't, as many of us doubt, then we will not have lost time on still addressing the problem with the next best, and frankly a cost-effective, solution.
^ No, the best solution is the one that many on this board, including myself, champion: The cretion of a Metro Bridge Commission that would be responsible for all Missouri and Mississippi River Bridges in the reigon, with the power to toll them as nessisary (at least the non-interstate bridges) and the funding to build whatever bridges the region needs. Then IDOT can focus on their half (a tri-level I-64 interchange) and MODOT can focus on their half (new Poplar Ramps and of course, removing I-70 along Memorial Drive). Seems much better to me, but alas, I am sure that option never came up.
^Wasn't Bi-State originally set up to be an agency that would be similar to what you described? Kind of like the Port Authority in metro New York, though on a smaller scale.
