urbanSTL

Do I think a new bridge will halt St. Charles development? No. Its population has grown by a third from 1990-2000 with no signs of slowing, as you note. However, I think that the bridge, providing better access to and from the East Side, coupled with several new developments in Illinois, including the East St. Louis riverfront, the city of East St. Louis itself, that new mega-industrial park, the new urbanism project, etc., we might have something of a competitor for St. Charles County. Hopefully, whatever growth occurs will be "smart".

Connecting the McKinley to I-70 would be incredibly easy. On the east side it pours into Route 3, which is heavily trafficked and serves as a primary artery.



Reopening the road deck on the MacArthur Bridge is another option that could help connect downtown, and should be done regardless of whether or not the I-70 bridge gets built.



I refuse to believe that the I-70 bridge is necessary -- and I do live in the real world, just to head off any accusations. There's no proof that it will do anything to aid Illinois development. MetroLink has had limited success in generating development in Illinois, but has done definite good. We should be trying to lure developers to building developments along MetroLink.



The biggest boon to eastside development would be to move flights out of Lambert and into MidAmerica airport. That's what is really needed to balance out the sprawl. Until that is done, the eastside won't grow (and Lambert will continue to be inefficient and landlocked, but that's another story).



...



I have not heard anyone living in Old North who supports the bridge. Not one person. That tells me a lot -- and it should tell the city a lot, too. People who have made longtime commitment to a neighborhood know what's best. The planners who designed the bridge do not live north of downtown, or in the city at all. They live in St. Louis county and Jefferson City.



...



There are other routes for builing the bridge that would not involve so much demolition.



Could this bridge involve some social engineering? There could be a misguided planner who thinks that by pruning away the "blighted" area around Cass Avenue s/he's helping Old North.



...



Recall that the first plans for the Truman Parkway boondoggle would have had it levelling 18th Street and much of eastern Lafayette Square. The planners in the late 1960's thought that the parkway was vital to feeding cars into downtown, but not vital enough to actually build for 40 years. Now that it's built, few people use it and it has done nothing but make it hard to walk from Lafayette Park to City Hospital.

ecoabsence wrote:Reopening the road deck on the MacArthur Bridge is another option that could help connect downtown, and should be done regardless of whether or not the I-70 bridge gets built.

That will never happen for two reasons. The Terminal Railroad association owns the brodge (TRRA is owned by the 5 class I railroads that serve STL). They have no interest in having people drive on it. The bridge deck is also much too small to have evn two lanes on it. Opening it up for biking and walking would be a good idea. but not vehicles.

I have not heard anyone living in Old North who supports the bridge. Not one person.

Here's one person that supports it



This bridge is necessary for national commerce as I've stated before, you need to be a bit less myopic when looking at the bridge. Although I don't support the 'connector' to 14th, these are still plans. Organized resistance could kill that part much like it killed I-755. Misconceptions of the North Side do far more damage than an interstate or onramp ever could.

Xing wrote:If the bridge is not built, development on the Illinois side will have to slow down, and the percentage of people living west of downtown will grow higher and higher until Ladue or Chesterfield is the population center.

That's funny...



But I agree that the bridge is only going to help the east side. My girlfriend is from Edwardsville, which is rapidly growing, and she and many other Evilles I have talked to think that this will really help tie madison county to the city better.

Could I please get a clarification on what makes Truman Parkway a boondoggle? I realize that it may be kind of tough to walk around the southern terminus, but that has to do with all the construction in the area. The ramps are being realligned so that they can go right into Truman Parkway, thus making it more usefull. The parkway was built with this in mind. There is lot's of other road construction in this area, making navigation sometimes difficult. I've personally never had a problem getting across it either. So what makes it a boondoggle?









Also, highways aren't just about commuting to work. It has been mentioned before, but if trucks can't get through St. Louis, that puts a bottleneck in the middle of the country on one of the most important shipping lanes. I think this is the most important aspect of the new bridge. This does not get enough focus. It is about the national economy too, Peak Oil theory, or not.

I would never argue that this bridge would't cause more sprawl becasue it will. I see it more as fixing a problem in the original design of the city. The east side needs more people. People won't come unless they have an easy commute to work. The bridge will help as did metrolink. I like to think from a prospective of a business. If I ran a company with thousands of employees I would want a location for my HQ that is the most efficient for my workers. Start downtown and draw a huge circle and see how many workers live in that circle then do the same for Clayton and then 270 & 40. Right now I would put my money on Clayton having the most workers in that circle. All I'm saying is that growth on the east side is good for the business climate downtown which has been pretty stagnate in growing (not just retaining) office workers, despite the residential growth.

Tolls are possible, but it looks like the 14th street connector and other associated projects will not be built until well after the bridge is up, if at all.





plan could speed project

By Elisa Crouch

Of the Post-Dispatch

02/01/2005



Another year has passed and still no check from Uncle Sam for a new Mississippi River Bridge.



Eager to build a new eight-lane span north of the Edward Jones Dome, Illinois and Missouri transportation officials have met multiple times about collecting tolls on the future bridge to cover its construction costs, in case federal funds aren't enough. The bridge and its affiliated projects are expected to cost at least $1.6 billion.



Collecting tolls would allow construction to start before 2010, according to several people who have attended the meetings.



The toll plan requires forming a transportation development district - a political subdivision that can hold elections and levy taxes. That district would create a private corporation to collect tolls on the bridge. The price of the toll would depend on the level of borrowing needed to build the structure.



"With an innovative approach to how we pay for the bridge, we could have construction under way in three to five years," said Missouri Department of Transportation Director Pete Rahn.



Illinois law does not allow for this type of arrangement, so the toll booths would only be on the Missouri side. Missouri legislators and transportation officials are exploring whether such an arrangement would require a change in the law. Interstate 70 would cross the bridge, but the tolling corporation would own the span.



"Our law seems to allow it," Missouri Sen. Jon Dolan, R-Lake Saint Louis, said of the arrangement.



The idea, almost identical to one that financed the Community Bridge in Lake of the Ozarks, has mixed support in both states.



Toll crossings are nothing new to St. Louis motorists. After the free Poplar Street Bridge opened in the 1960s, revenue took a dive on other toll bridges linking St. Louis and Illinois, including the Eads, King and MacArthur bridges.



Toll booths began to disappear as bridges were closed to traffic, replaced or refurbished. The area's last toll bridge, the McKinley Bridge, closed in 2001.



"Tolls aren't really popular for a lot of people," said Bruce Holland, president of Holland Construction Services and chairman of the Mississippi River Bridge Committee, which is made up of business leaders from the region. "I'm in favor of getting a bridge built. If this is what it takes to make it happen, it's worth it."



Until now, transportation officials thought their only option was to wait for proceeds from federal transportation bills. But for the past two years, the Senate, House and White House have failed to adopt a new bill.



Their versions have been tens of billions of dollars apart, leaving billion-dollar projects like the bridge hanging in the balance.



U.S. Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., earmarked $50 million for the project in the last version of the bill. U.S. Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Belleville, said he is working to get between $6 billion and $8 billion set aside in the House version for so-called megaprojects.



Costello, who met with civic leaders and transportation officials about the toll idea Tuesday morning, said he only supports it as a last resort.



"Both states and local governments should explore every other option before they put a toll on this bridge," he said.



The project would redirect Interstate 70 onto a new bridge over the Mississippi River, as well as relocating Illinois Route 3 through the Metro East area. Illinois and Missouri have already paid some costs associated with design and land acquisition, among other things.



The project would run through East St. Louis, Venice and Brooklyn. In September, Illinois finalized a six-year, $3.2 million contract six-year contract with D&T Communications, a Chicago public relations firm, to reach out to neighborhoods affected by the bridge.



Highway planners say the bridge is needed to relieve traffic congestion on the Poplar Street Bridge - one of two bridges in the country to carry three interstates. By 2020, rush-hour congestion on the bridge is projected to double from 1.5 hours to 3 hours, and the average delay to motorists will increase to 55 minutes, from 10 minutes, according to the St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association.



"Every little bit we can take off the interstate system relieves that pressure," said Les Sterman, of East-West Gateway Council of Governments.



But skeptics of the tolling idea question how much relief a toll bridge would provide if motorists have free bridges to choose from. Placing toll booths on all bridges has come up at meetings, but hasn't received much support.



"I don't believe we want to turn our highway system here into a toll system," said Illinois state Rep. Jay Hoffman, D-Collinsville.



Now estimated to run between $1.6 billion and $2 billion, the cost of the Mississippi River Bridge and its surrounding projects increases by about $50 million annually, according to Rahn - another reason officials want to get work started.



The project needs be scaled back by at least $500 million, Rahn said, and for the time being should include the bridge only. Otherwise, "It's going to collapse under its own weight," he said.



Other components include highway connectors and interchange upgrades, aspects transportation officials in both states say are necessary, but possibly in later phases.



"Our hope right now is to build the bridge as it's currently designed," said Matt Vanover, spokesman for the Illinois Department of Transportation.



The bridge is one of at least 20 megaprojects in the United States that needs funding to get started. The Federal Highway Administration defines megaprojects as projects that cost more than $1 billion, or projects in the hundreds of millions of dollars that attract a high level of interest because of their impact on an area.



By late spring, transportation officials hope to know whether the bridge will have enough federal dollars to move forward, or whether they should opt for tolling.



"Our preference is still to finance it through the federal transportation bill since it is a project of national importance," Vanover said.



Mississippi River crossings in the St. Louis area. Where available, the list includes the final dates in which tolls were collected.



Poplar Street Bridge: Opened in 1967. Tolls: no.



Eads Bridge: Built in 1874. Tolls: yes, under the Terminal Railroad Association, which traded the bridge to St. Louis in 1989.



Martin Luther King Bridge: Built in 1951. Tolls: yes, until 1987.



MacArthur Bridge: Built in 1917. Tolls: yes. Road deck closed in 1981.



McKinley Bridge: Built in 1910; closed in 2001. Tolls: yes, until 2001.



New Jefferson Barracks Bridge: Second span on Interstate 255 opened in 1990. Tolls: no.



Old Jefferson Barracks Bridge: Built in 1944; closed in 1984. Tolls: yes, until 1959.



New Chain of Rocks Bridge: Opened in 1967 on Interstate 270. Tolls: no.



Old Chain of Rocks Bridge: Built in 1929; closed in 1968. Tolls: yes.



New Clark Bridge: Built in 1994. Tolls: no.







Shane Graber of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.





Reporter Elisa Crouch

E-mail: ecrouch@post-dispatch.com

Phone: 314-340-8119



link

I wonder if the new Mississippi River Bridge would help the Bottle District development...?



And, to comment on the actual topic, I would never go across a bridge that had a toll. That would reduce my one trip to Illinois and my one trip to St. Charles County a year down to zero.

I'd rather see them name it after Lincoln. I wonder who really has the right to name the bridge.

About damn time something happens with this bill at least. Only about 2 years late right now.

Is an extension for Metrolink included? I hope the Cross-County line is profitable to keep Metro alive.

I have a feeling it will be.

Illinois Business Journal

Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005



<A HREF="http://www.ibjonline.com/print_new_miss ... sportation leaders contemplate alternatives for new bridge</A>

By KERRY L. SMITH



Although in discussion phase only at this point, congressional leaders and state transportation officials are pondering alternative scenarios of approaching the New Mississippi River Bridge project, should the federal transportation reauthorization bill known as TEA-21 result in fewer dollars than Illinois and Missouri have been hoping for.



<A HREF="http://www.ibjonline.com/print_new_miss ... ridge.html">>>> read more</A>