urbanSTL

I posed new questions to her to look

Well, actually, you posed one question and series of statements.

Texas company offers to build, operate new Mississippi River bridge

By Jim Salter

ASSOCIATED PRESS

02/20/2007



ST. LOUIS (AP) -- A Texas company would construct and operate a privately run toll bridge at St. Louis under a proposal that Gov. Matt Blunt today called "a new starting point" in the effort to build the long-proposed Mississippi River crossing......



http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument



Comments on bridge:



http://www.stltoday.com/blogs/news-talk ... agreement/



One of my favorite quotes:

The only people who will use this bridge are people living in Illinois driving over to the Missouri side to steal our jobs. Why should Missouri build a bridge to make it easier for these people to take our jobs and take that income back to Illinois and spend it there? We don’t have any reason to drive over to Illinois so why does Missouri need this bridge? If Illinois wants this bridge, let them build it and pay for it.

I'll take ANYTHING to get this bridge built. Why aren't our politicians doing more? Is Blunt, McCaskil, and Bond really doing all they can? Is this a little outstate, anti-st. louis deal, so as not to "lose" poplulation into Illinois? How do these people NOT understand that this is DETRIMENTAL to our region? How much did Page Avenue Bridge cost? Now THAT was a joke! This brige is imperative for Downtown and St. Louis overall. This is one of TWO bridges in the country where 3 interstates cross over the same bridge. If a city like Charleston with 500,000 people can build this (below), you'd think a city of close to 3 million people could AT LEAST do the same.

Quote:

The only people who will use this bridge are people living in Illinois driving over to the Missouri side to steal our jobs. Why should Missouri build a bridge to make it easier for these people to take our jobs and take that income back to Illinois and spend it there? We don’t have any reason to drive over to Illinois so why does Missouri need this bridge? If Illinois wants this bridge, let them build it and pay for it.



why are so many people so stupid? the residents of illinois who work in missouri are eating in our restaurants, buying gas in our gas stations, withdrawing from our banks and atms, etc... basically THEY ARE A MAJOR PART OF OUR ECONOMY! anyone who apposes building a bridge is a fool.



ps. i dont really understand why the people who post on the PD blog are so overly negative. this is trend that i have noticed and it doesnt make sense to me. i think overall most people believe that there should be one built, but the ones voicing their opinions are mostly negative.

By its words and actions, Missouri seems to state that Illinois has more to benefit than Missouri in building this bridge. People that live in Illinois and work in Missouri pay Missouri income tax. They buy gas, frequent restaurants and buy various other things in Missouri as well.



A study to show the breakdown in benefits of a bridge could be beneficial. Perhaps it could indicate a better breakdown of how it should be paid.



The private company Missouri has latched on to will be making money from tolls? Are they seeking a profit in addition to the profit from construction? Something's fishy.



Bottom line is that a toll bridge would be bad for the Metro area, which will be bad for both Missouri and Illinois. Perhaps our local officials, Slay and this East-West Gateway, can help the childish and isolationist Missouri government see this.

Too true. Missouri has so much more to gain from this bridge!! Pretty much all that Illinois residents will gain is a less stressful commute. Missouri has so much to gain financially from this I boggles my mind that they wont pony up some more dough for this thing.

gerwitz wrote:
I refer you to September, 1993, when netiquette died and we were left only with GIFT.

I loved this post. Thanks for giving me something to enjoy, and something that will be passed along to all my other net buddies.

jcity wrote:Why aren't our politicians doing more? (Are) Blunt, McCaskill, and Bond really doing all they can? Is this a little outstate, anti-st. louis deal, so as not to "lose" poplulation into Illinois?

That's my guess. It's what killed the aforementioned airport that would've been built in the Columbia-Waterloo area. And while Mid-America Airport looks like a costly mistake, it wouldn't have had to be that way if both states put their energy into making it the region's primary airport instead of landlocked Lambert and the $1 billion expansion plan that hasn't done much to improve the airport's standing.



I cannot say with certainty that this is an "outstate, anti-Saint Louis deal", but it seems to me that the decades-long resistance to cooperate with nearby Illinois governments isn't going anywhere anytime soon. And that's unfortunate, because IMHO it's part of the reason our region hasn't realized its full potential.



Perhaps if Missouri and St. Louis area leaders were more proactive about seeking economic development instead of merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic (as some have said about our near-zero population growth), they wouldn't have to worry about losing residents to the Illinois side of the river. In other words, we could see consistent growth across the region. I suppose that's about as much of a pipe dream as the new I-70 bridge itself, though...

The East-West Gateway Board endorsed the Coupler plan in a close vote today. I think this is the best way to go and MoDOT won't have to pay anything either.







Board endorses plan for coupler bridge

By Elisa Crouch

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

02/21/2007





UPDATE at 11:45 a.m.:



Board members of the East-West Gateway Council of Governments voted today to endorse a plan for a companion bridge to the Martin Luther King Bridge to provide more lanes for traffic crossing the Mississippi River.



The vote was along state lines, with 12 members from Illinois voting for the companion bridge idea and 10 from Missouri voting against it. Two Missouri members of the council were absent from the meeting.



The vote is a strong message but carries no official weight. The next step would be for transportation officials from both states to meet and discuss the King bridge option as well as another plan that emerged Tuesday for a privately built toll bridge that would stand apart from any current span.



There is no timetable for when that meeting may occur and no deadline for when any final decision on the project must be made.



Link to Story

The vote is a strong message but carries no official weight. The next step would be for transportation officials from both states to meet and discuss the King bridge option

A "strong message"? This seems to imply that the coupler idea has gained some authority, but the vote was simply split by state. Assuming the absent members from MO would have voted with their compatriots - the story is: oh wait, there isn't a story, but there's a deadline and a sensational-headline-to-write-and-column-inches-to-fill (gasp for air) . . .



And WHAT is the next step and WHY? Bad reporting. The vote was hardly an endorsement for anything but continued gridlock (on on the PSB, and with this new project)

I thought the East-West Gateway Council was to be more unified yet they're simply split, just like the states are. This negotiation is pitiful.

It's crap like this that makes me wish Illinois would just annex the city/county and maybe parts of St Charles/Jeff counties.



Maybe create a new "County of Missouri" in state of Illinois.

I still haven't really bought into the fact that this bridge is as beneficial as everybody seems to say it would be. Is the only benefit of this bridge to recenter the region around the city. If that's the case, I feel as though there are also several problems that could be caused by the bridge.



While I would have no problem if the bridge simply diverted growth from St. Charles, I would be terrified that this bridge would also drain StL county. That would be catastrophic because the county still provides money for regional attractions. And as much as everybody seems to hate the suburbs, I really don't see any advantage to killing Clayton or U City or any other part of the county.



Next Concern. We already have enough trouble getting counties in Missouri to cooperate. Getting counties in opposing states to cooperate may be near impossible.



There could also be horrific political implications. For example, the stem cell ban failed by a very tiny margin, and only after the StL region voted. If half of the StL region were in Illinois, Missouri would have banned stem cell research and our bio tech endeavours would hit a huge stumbling block. There are benefits to possessing a large fraction of the state's population in this metro area.



It should be possible to thrive even with an uncentered metro. There are a huge number of them already. Take for example every city in the country that is by a coast or a lake (Chicago, LA, San Fran, Boston, etc.)



I feel like an easy way to assess the impact of such a redistribution would be to look at Kansas City. It is much more equitably divided across the river. Does its government and region actually function much more smoothly than ours does. That's an actual question cause I really just don't know. However, if you drop by KC's forum, they seem to complain constantly about the Kansas side mooching off the Missouri side. I'm not really convinced that the same thing wouldn't happen to StL if it were evenly distributed.

It should be possible to thrive even with an uncentered metro. There are a huge number of them already. Take for example every city in the country that is by a coast or a lake (Chicago, LA, San Fran, Boston, etc.)

Except for the fact that the "coastal property" is actually worth something in those cities.. in ours it's avoided like the plague. A strong downtown core should be the TOP goal for the entire region. If St. Louis turns into East St. Louis in 30 years, Clayton will be next. Obviously, I don't think this will happen, but man, can St. Louis get it together? The bridge.. The lack of new job growth in the city... Man, I hate being a pessimist, but it's really beginning to worry me. How in the hell is there just "no money" for this bridge that's so important to ST. Louis? Doesn't St. Louis pay for 45% of the states budget? Are we paying for hoosier highways in Rod Jetton's backyard in Marble Hill-billy?

TIABstl wrote:It's crap like this that makes me wish Illinois would just annex the city/county and maybe parts of St Charles/Jeff counties.



Maybe create a new "County of Missouri" in state of Illinois.

No problem. Just dig a canal from the Missouri River to the Meramac near Six Flags, and dam up the Mississippi at Chain-of-Rocks to divert the Mississippi up the Missouri to flow backwards past St. Charles and into the Meramac. Then the county and city would be in Illinois, and you could fill in the Mississippi riverbed in front of the Arch and build all the highways you want to East St. Louis.

MayorSlay.com

. . . it would have been more accurate to report the vote as another setback for the residents of the St. Louis region on both sides of the river. The decisions on the bridge’s financing and design will be made – or not made – by the states of Missouri and Illinois. The votes of the members of EWGCG really don’t matter, except to confirm an impasse.



I strongly support construction of a bridge across the Mississippi River; I’m much less enthusiastic about meaningless headcounts. The bridge, if built, will either be a coupler or a signature bridge. The same effort spent on today’s “vote” would be better applied to starting studies on BOTH these options.

http://www.mayorslay.com/desk/display.asp?deskID=646

publiceye wrote:MayorSlay.com

. . . it would have been more accurate to report the vote as another setback for the residents of the St. Louis region on both sides of the river. The decisions on the bridge’s financing and design will be made – or not made – by the states of Missouri and Illinois. The votes of the members of EWGCG really don’t matter, except to confirm an impasse.



I strongly support construction of a bridge across the Mississippi River; I’m much less enthusiastic about meaningless headcounts. The bridge, if built, will either be a coupler or a signature bridge. The same effort spent on today’s “vote” would be better applied to starting studies on BOTH these options.

http://www.mayorslay.com/desk/display.asp?deskID=646

That is very astute. And to head off an impasse, how about a study to determine the breakdown that each state benefits? IE, Missouri/Illinois benefit = 40/60 so Missouri pays for 40% and Illinois 60% of the coupler or signature bridge. This way each state could pay its fair share and limit whining in the process...



And on another note, call me ignorant but why we do need a new bridge? To alleviate traffic across the river?

publiceye wrote:MayorSlay.com

. . . it would have been more accurate to report the vote as another setback for the residents of the St. Louis region on both sides of the river. The decisions on the bridge’s financing and design will be made – or not made – by the states of Missouri and Illinois. The votes of the members of EWGCG really don’t matter, except to confirm an impasse.



I strongly support construction of a bridge across the Mississippi River; I’m much less enthusiastic about meaningless headcounts. The bridge, if built, will either be a coupler or a signature bridge. The same effort spent on today’s “vote” would be better applied to starting studies on BOTH these options.

http://www.mayorslay.com/desk/display.asp?deskID=646

The proposal that was presented didn't have MoDOT paying anything. They can keep studying the toll bridge all they want, but when the experts say there is no chance a toll bridge would break even, I think people should listen, not get into a political dogfight over bruised egos.

innov8ion wrote:

publiceye wrote:MayorSlay.com

. . . it would have been more accurate to report the vote as another setback for the residents of the St. Louis region on both sides of the river. The decisions on the bridge’s financing and design will be made – or not made – by the states of Missouri and Illinois. The votes of the members of EWGCG really don’t matter, except to confirm an impasse.



I strongly support construction of a bridge across the Mississippi River; I’m much less enthusiastic about meaningless headcounts. The bridge, if built, will either be a coupler or a signature bridge. The same effort spent on today’s “vote” would be better applied to starting studies on BOTH these options.

http://www.mayorslay.com/desk/display.asp?deskID=646

That is very astute. And to head off an impasse, how about a study to determine the breakdown that each state benefits? IE, Missouri/Illinois benefit = 40/60 so Missouri pays for 40% and Illinois 60% of the coupler or signature bridge. This way each state could pay its fair share and limit whining in the process...



And on another note, call me ignorant but why we do need a new bridge? To alleviate traffic across the river?

YES. I think that "alleviating traffic" across the river is definitely a good reason alone to build a bridge. The Poplar street bridge caries 3 interstate highways over an 8 lane bridge!! AND its falling apart. Thats insane. I cant believe its taken this long to have one even proposed

right but they sure do take a long time. meanwhile the bridge falls apart and the cars continue to bottleneck. I thnk I worded that wrong. Im just suprised people have put up with this for so long. And things really started to pick up when that rendering of the cable stayed bridge was released.

Want it built - call it the "Pete Rahn Bridge"!



http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/c ... enDocument