^A regional bridge authority did briefly come up, with talk of tolling multiple bridges discussed even a little longer but quickly dismissed as highly unpopular. Besides, if the two states can't even reach consensus over one bridge, how would they ever tackle a simultaneous change in policy on multiple bridges? Cynically, the state DOTs may enjoy a new entity, to which they could politically pass the buck. However, MODOT doesn't want a public tolling authority, which a regional entity would need to be, they want only a private concession on this one new bridge.
^ It's good to hear that it at least came up, but frustrating to hear that the it was dismissed. As you said, I happen to think that the DOT's would both gladly agree to passing the litteral and figurative buck for building bridges in the metro area up, but neither, in particular MODOT would ever be willing to loose it's carrot (building bridges across the Missouri) for the region. Loosing that power would mean would have to work alot harder to get locals on board for transportation tax increases. How sad, as it looks like our leaders are only search for short-term soultions for the MRB funding squable rather than looking at the long term functional problems that will plauge the MRB and any subsequent Mississippi River bridge construction (i leave out problems getting bridges across the Missouri, because we all know MODOT will just ask for a tax increase).
- 1,610
And with all due respect to our Honorable Mayor, why do you so quickly dismiss the MLK Coupler? I do realize that Laclede chose this side of the river for its less flood-prone elevation, forever resulting in geopolitical consequences. But if MODOT can't even help close the $100 million gap on the cheapest of new bridge options, how will they find similar funding for the PSB-ramp improvements you support? And if nothing else, the report shows that even if a private partner is found for tolling, the remaining gap of half the project cost or more (where only a mere fifth as the gap for the coupler) will still need to be made up largely by the public sector. And if it ain't the states footing that huge gap remaining even after tolling, who do you think will be asked to pay the most in new taxes to make up the difference?
The dual-track option makes the most sense. Both a tolled bigger bridge and free smaller bridge are each two years away from starting construction. The former will take about two years to figure out financing, including the huge remaining gap and finding interested private parties. The latter simply needs to catch up in basic engineering and go through standard federal review. Thus, to not lose time on building any bridge in our future, the coupler must begin to be designed as the less risky Plan B. Of course, while simultaneously pursuing the dual-track option, MODOT could at least commit to needed improvements on the existing system. But sadly, if Missouri can't even commit funding to its existing needs fully within its borders, then how is Illinois to trust if a private partner can't be found or the huge gap even with tolls filled, that Missouri will actually honor a commitment to the coupler as Plan B? Granted, Illinois needs to stick their neck out on the possibility of tolling. But when the dollars don't add up for the best of plans, the next-best option often remains a better choice of action than inaction.
The dual-track option makes the most sense. Both a tolled bigger bridge and free smaller bridge are each two years away from starting construction. The former will take about two years to figure out financing, including the huge remaining gap and finding interested private parties. The latter simply needs to catch up in basic engineering and go through standard federal review. Thus, to not lose time on building any bridge in our future, the coupler must begin to be designed as the less risky Plan B. Of course, while simultaneously pursuing the dual-track option, MODOT could at least commit to needed improvements on the existing system. But sadly, if Missouri can't even commit funding to its existing needs fully within its borders, then how is Illinois to trust if a private partner can't be found or the huge gap even with tolls filled, that Missouri will actually honor a commitment to the coupler as Plan B? Granted, Illinois needs to stick their neck out on the possibility of tolling. But when the dollars don't add up for the best of plans, the next-best option often remains a better choice of action than inaction.
- 11K
And with all due respect to our Honorable Mayor, why do you so quickly dismiss the MLK Coupler?
I read the link and I don't think he is dismissing the couple plan. Actually, given what I've read previously, it sounded as though he's trying to find a way to support it. He said something to the effect of: if the new bridge plan is dead, then I will support the coupler. It sounds like the new bridge is dead.
So is it possible that Missouri just doesn't want this bridge to get built? Do they actually want it to be easier to travel from Illinois to Missouri? I keep feeling like there is a massive financial incentive for Missouri to make sure this bridge or even bridge expansion is never built because, as it stands, 80% of the state's largest metro area pays taxes to missouri. What if making it easier to cross the river allowed the region to recenter around downtown, and then half of the metro's population moved to Illinois. That would result in Missouri having payed for a massive reduction in its own tax revenues.
Conversely, Illinois has every incentive to get this bridge built, which is probably why they are offering to pay such a large fraction of the bill.
Conversely, Illinois has every incentive to get this bridge built, which is probably why they are offering to pay such a large fraction of the bill.
- 89
Just heard on the radio last night that the guvnr of missouri and the guvnr of illinois have scheduled a meeting to talk this particular issue over.
Hopefully they come to an agreement.
Hopefully they come to an agreement.
- 5,433
I'm too young to remember much about the plan to build a primary (international) airport in the Columbia-Waterloo area, but I know that the resistance that eventually killed the plan can be attributed to Missouri leaders.
I'd like to think our region has come to the point where we can overcome our myopia, i.e., our dearth of meaningful bistate cooperation. However, the debate over funding for this bridge proves we still have a long way to go. Sometimes I find it hard to believe that our leaders came together long enough to ensure that the Illinois Metrolink line became reality.
Once again, Missourah leaders will shoot themselves in the foot, and the citizens will take the bullet ultimately.
I'd like to think our region has come to the point where we can overcome our myopia, i.e., our dearth of meaningful bistate cooperation. However, the debate over funding for this bridge proves we still have a long way to go. Sometimes I find it hard to believe that our leaders came together long enough to ensure that the Illinois Metrolink line became reality.
Once again, Missourah leaders will shoot themselves in the foot, and the citizens will take the bullet ultimately.
I think it's true that these outstate missouri hicks in office want to prevent the bridge from being built. I even voted for him! ARGH!! why in the hell did we build the Page Extension? How much did that cost? This new bridge is VITAL to our region. Imagine us building what was proposed in the rendering. It would be incredible. The true Gateway Bridge... wow.. have we really sunk so low as a region? Can we just cut stl out of missouri?
- 69
ThreeOneFour wrote:I'm too young to remember much about the plan to build a primary (international) airport in the Columbia-Waterloo area, but I know that the resistance that eventually killed the plan can be attributed to Missouri leaders.
That's fortunate seeing how MidAmerica is doing...
- 3,434
Matthew/E36 wrote:ThreeOneFour wrote:I'm too young to remember much about the plan to build a primary (international) airport in the Columbia-Waterloo area, but I know that the resistance that eventually killed the plan can be attributed to Missouri leaders.
That's fortunate seeing how MidAmerica is doing...
No it is not. This new big airport was going to replace Lambert, just as Denver replaced the old Stapleton airport. It was approved by President Ford, but then killed by Missouri Senator Eagleton and Congressman Young who wanted to keep the airport in Missouri. So they had Carter kill it when he was elected.
If the new airport had been built in Illinois, it would have spurred a huge amount of development there instead of St. Charles, and would have re-centered the metro area around downtown. The new airport probably would have been an attractive hub, as Denver is now.
This was the single biggest development mistake in the history of St. Louis, rivaling the inability to build a railroad bridge across the Mississippi in a timely manner in the 1800's and ceding the rail hub to Chicago.
Boy, am I glad they didnt build that airport. The East St. Louis area would never have been the wonderful place that it is today...
Oh wait a minute...
Oh wait a minute...
Honestly - I don’t think the choice to build (or not build) a new state of the art airport can begin to compare to the lack of bridges for railroads in the 1800s. If we would have been progressive... we could (may have) have been what Chicago has become - the major "world class" mid-western city (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_class_city and how STL isn't on the list and KC is - I have no idea)... getting a new airport in the 70s would have helped -- but no where near as much or as dramatically.
That being said -- for what they spent on the waste of Mid-America plus the amount they spent on the new runway at Lambert -- they could have built a nice state of the art facility... not to mention the fact that you could get pretty decent $$ for the land that the airport sits on(back in the 70s especially). We could have had one much nicer than Denver... bigger than Chicago, and more used than Atlanta. Oh well, dreams.
That being said -- for what they spent on the waste of Mid-America plus the amount they spent on the new runway at Lambert -- they could have built a nice state of the art facility... not to mention the fact that you could get pretty decent $$ for the land that the airport sits on(back in the 70s especially). We could have had one much nicer than Denver... bigger than Chicago, and more used than Atlanta. Oh well, dreams.
- 11K
FWIW, the Cincinnati airport shows what happens when a metro area hub is built in an adjoining state. Kentucky already had small communities on the south bank of the Ohio. They're now being revitalized. I don't know that I can draw any conclusions about the impact of the airport. The airport itself is surrounded by small hotels, chain restaurants, etc. What it does do is make downtown Cincinnati the center of the region and prevents a huge space from "hollowing-out" due to proximity to the noise/traffic of a major airport.
- 359
tbspqr wrote:Honestly - I don’t think the choice to build (or not build) a new state of the art airport can begin to compare to the lack of bridges for railroads in the 1800s. If we would have been progressive... we could (may have) have been what Chicago has become - the major "world class" mid-western city (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_class_city and how STL isn't on the list and KC is - I have no idea)... getting a new airport in the 70s would have helped -- but no where near as much or as dramatically.
That being said -- for what they spent on the waste of Mid-America plus the amount they spent on the new runway at Lambert -- they could have built a nice state of the art facility... not to mention the fact that you could get pretty decent $$ for the land that the airport sits on(back in the 70s especially). We could have had one much nicer than Denver... bigger than Chicago, and more used than Atlanta. Oh well, dreams.
Ironically, St. Louis just beat Kansas City out for World Class City but that Wikipedia wasn't yet updated. Problem fixed
Well, considering how much time and effort it takes to plan and build an airport (and deal with all of the resulting litigation), there's no reason why we can't start planning an Illinois location now. Of course, now that we have our new runway, we might as well make use of it for, say, the next 30 years.
Here's to the new STL 2037 in Illinois.
Here's to the new STL 2037 in Illinois.
Their perception appears to be based on a simple conclusion, that any business lost to Illinois, is business lost from Missouri. Perhaps having two major cities on the borders of other states, has lead the simple minded government leaders to take self-reflecting jabs at their own state. They are hurting their two major cities, with this ridiculous competitive attitude toward other states , which could be helping Missouri.
- 1,610
According to collective IRS returns by county, the City is the only county within our region now enjoying a positive gain in inter-regional migration, while still losing in terms of intra-regional migration. IOW, the City is the only place that attracts people new to our region and state, but other counties enjoy stealing from neighboring counties, such as the County from the City, or St. Charles from the County.
Sure, MODOT maybe wants to keep Missourians in Missouri. But shifting Missourians within the state doesn't exactly expand a population base to pay for all the expanding roads. I guess MODOT doesn't realize that a stronger downtown and central city makes for a stronger region, if not keeping the flow of future migrants to those well-bridged western suburbs, when the increasing yuppie transplants finally have kids.
Sure, MODOT maybe wants to keep Missourians in Missouri. But shifting Missourians within the state doesn't exactly expand a population base to pay for all the expanding roads. I guess MODOT doesn't realize that a stronger downtown and central city makes for a stronger region, if not keeping the flow of future migrants to those well-bridged western suburbs, when the increasing yuppie transplants finally have kids.
This was the single biggest development mistake in the history of St. Louis, rivaling the inability to build a railroad bridge across the Mississippi in a timely manner in the 1800's and ceding the rail hub to Chicago.
I think this has to be THE biggest myth of our region. We built the most cutting edge bridge in the WORLD in the 1860's (Eads Bridge) to carry TWO decks of traffic, one for railroads and one for streetcars, pedestrians, and carts. Think about that, the 1860's and we can't even build one today with ONE deck..
St. Louis didn't try to stifle the development of the Railroad. Read Lion in the Valley. The author mentions this as being completely wrong. Chicago was geographically closer to the east coast cities due to the construction of the Erie Canal via Great Lakes. It became a natural connection to the resoures of the midwest. St. Louis built the worlds largest passenger terminal (Union Station) in St. Louis in the 1890's. More railroads passed through st. louis than any other city at that time. So, this whole, "we've always been so coservative and slow to adapt to new technology/business" is a bunch of BS.
- 11K
^ WORD!
Another factor was St. Louis' proximity to the south and the volatility surrounding the build-up to the Civil War. The northern industrialists wanted a very "northern" location. Even after all that, St. Louis was the second busiest rail hub in the nation for many years.
Another factor was St. Louis' proximity to the south and the volatility surrounding the build-up to the Civil War. The northern industrialists wanted a very "northern" location. Even after all that, St. Louis was the second busiest rail hub in the nation for many years.
- 476
New article in the PD. Basically sums up the whole complicated situation, but all in all doesnt really say much. Nothing new except this:
"On Wednesday, East-West Gateway Council of Governments, the area's planning organization, plans to vote on which direction the two states should take.
Any decision would send a strong message because East-West Gateway determines how federal transportation dollars are spent in the St. Louis region.
Still, any decision won't be binding on either state. And the factors that have caused the project to stall so far are not likely to fade."
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument
"On Wednesday, East-West Gateway Council of Governments, the area's planning organization, plans to vote on which direction the two states should take.
Any decision would send a strong message because East-West Gateway determines how federal transportation dollars are spent in the St. Louis region.
Still, any decision won't be binding on either state. And the factors that have caused the project to stall so far are not likely to fade."
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument
What has not been said is that in 2009 is that there is another Federal Transportation funding bill and that this Bridge project is likely to get at least 200-300 million dollars from the feds leaving only $400 Million to be funded by the states over the 6 years the bridge is to be built. It seems that Missouri could easily come up with $200 to $300 million over that period of time. Illinois could probably come up with more than the $261 million they are pledging and the signature bridge could possibly be built.
Something is wrong here when these facts are being left out. Am I missing something?
Something is wrong here when these facts are being left out. Am I missing something?
wheelscomp wrote:New article in the PD. Basically sums up the whole complicated situation, but all in all doesnt really say much. Nothing new except this:
"On Wednesday, East-West Gateway Council of Governments, the area's planning organization, plans to vote on which direction the two states should take.
Any decision would send a strong message because East-West Gateway determines how federal transportation dollars are spent in the St. Louis region.
Still, any decision won't be binding on either state. And the factors that have caused the project to stall so far are not likely to fade."
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument
Is there any way the East-West Gateway Council of Governments could form a St. Louis Metro Area Port Authority?
Then, that could be a "go to hell" to both states.
The bridge is clearly vital. But, there needs to be some concensus on this thing.
- 11K
What has not been said is that in 2009 is that there is another Federal Transportation funding bill and that this Bridge project is likely to get at least 200-300 million dollars from the feds leaving only $400 Million to be funded by the states over the 6 years the bridge is to be built. It seems that Missouri could easily come up with $200 to $300 million over that period of time. Illinois could probably come up with more than the $261 million they are pledging and the signature bridge could possibly be built.
Something is wrong here when these facts are being left out. Am I missing something?
This is a good point. I think it's also possible that the millions pledged by the federal government could disappear, leaving us much, much further from building anything. Depending on priorities money could be pulled or added. Maybe this is the gamble both sides are taking. After all - the cost overrun alone for the Big Dig in Boston could build the bridge of our dreams!
Folks:
I sent an e-mail to the writer of the article on the Mississippi Bridge today in the Post. It had little new news. I posed new questions to her to look. This bridge can be built without tolls as it was originally intended. I think Missouri wants to do what many states want to do and that is sell off its roads to private companies and make big money and let the private company deal with maintenance and charge tolls. Here is my E-mail:
"Elisa:
I have questions that never seem to be discussed in the arguments between Missouri and Illinois over the new bridge.
1. There will be a new federal transportation funding bills in 2009 and in 2013 in which there will be more money earmarked for this bridge perhaps up to $500 million. At least $200-300 million in 2009 based upon the 2005 funding bill.
2. At least $100 million has been spent on various aspect of the present bridge, ie engineering work, environmental studies, argument over St. Louis City connections, etc. Is this included in the $900 million for the lesser bridge or 1.3 billion for the bigger bridge?
3, The parties are too savvy not to have been thinking about funding when they were cooperating about planning this bridge as the this is how you fund it.
4. The Illinois plan only one addition lane going east and two going west and must work around the new Lumiere place hemming it in and throwing away $100 million in work done for the new bridge. What a waste!!!
5. Missouri would only have to come up with $50-60 a year to build this bridge over the 6-7 years it will take to build. Tell me that is not doable. Even Illinois can do better than $261 million over 6-7 years.
6. Something is fishy that both parties are not being straight, or are both sides just stupid. Let me know what you find. If you want to talk more please give me a call.
MikeL"
I sent an e-mail to the writer of the article on the Mississippi Bridge today in the Post. It had little new news. I posed new questions to her to look. This bridge can be built without tolls as it was originally intended. I think Missouri wants to do what many states want to do and that is sell off its roads to private companies and make big money and let the private company deal with maintenance and charge tolls. Here is my E-mail:
"Elisa:
I have questions that never seem to be discussed in the arguments between Missouri and Illinois over the new bridge.
1. There will be a new federal transportation funding bills in 2009 and in 2013 in which there will be more money earmarked for this bridge perhaps up to $500 million. At least $200-300 million in 2009 based upon the 2005 funding bill.
2. At least $100 million has been spent on various aspect of the present bridge, ie engineering work, environmental studies, argument over St. Louis City connections, etc. Is this included in the $900 million for the lesser bridge or 1.3 billion for the bigger bridge?
3, The parties are too savvy not to have been thinking about funding when they were cooperating about planning this bridge as the this is how you fund it.
4. The Illinois plan only one addition lane going east and two going west and must work around the new Lumiere place hemming it in and throwing away $100 million in work done for the new bridge. What a waste!!!
5. Missouri would only have to come up with $50-60 a year to build this bridge over the 6-7 years it will take to build. Tell me that is not doable. Even Illinois can do better than $261 million over 6-7 years.
6. Something is fishy that both parties are not being straight, or are both sides just stupid. Let me know what you find. If you want to talk more please give me a call.
MikeL"