Share
687
Senior MemberSenior Member
687

PostFeb 23, 2007#501

The bridge isn't just for commuters. In fact it's an essential transportation route for the country. The federal gov't is willing to foot a large part of the bill because the transportation/shipping industry (trucking) can't afford to sit in a 2 hour bottleneck to cross the mississippi.



I also question your logic that a new bridge means people will move from Missouri to Illinois. That may happen, but I can think of many other reasons someone would choose to locate in the metro east instead of living in Missouri (for instance no personal property taxes) so I don't think you can just assume a new bridge will cause an exodus to Illinois.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostFeb 23, 2007#502

^ and a population increase on the east side would likely mean more people working downtown = more city income tax. For example, I think the 15k or so employees at BJC contribute $5M in earnings tax to the city.
2,687
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,687

PostFeb 24, 2007#503

Doug wrote:We don't need a new bridge. This is only going to increase sprawl out into Illinois. Why should we fund a bridge so IL people can get into the City, or bypass it for the County? How does this benefit the State? Maybe they should either use Metro or move to Missouri!


sarcasm, right?
247
Junior MemberJunior Member
247

PostFeb 24, 2007#504

We don't need a new bridge. This is only going to increase sprawl out into Illinois. Why should we fund a bridge so IL people can get into the City, or bypass it for the County? How does this benefit the State? Maybe they should either use Metro or move to Missouri


Remember politics is what moves projects. Illinois wants the new bridge. Missouri seeks other major federal projects. The Illinois delegations can help or hurt Missouri major projects (I-70 or I-44 expansion). When the delegations work together, projects can happen. (Metrolink and the Lambert Expansion).



Rahn's strategy may result in punishment of Missouri on some major projects in the future. With Costello, Durban and Obama's rising roles in Congress, Missouri out to negotiate the best deal it can to keep the Illinois delegation happy.
5,433
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
5,433

PostFeb 24, 2007#505

Doug wrote:This is only going to increase sprawl out into Illinois.


I understand your concern, but I have come to the conclusion that sprawl is inevitable until major market forces (for example, much higher gas prices than what we paid post-Katrina) come into play. Since sprawl will likely continue without any major changes to our market, frankly, I wish the bulk of it would go to Illinois. In many ways, it would make downtown the center of the region again.


Why should we fund a bridge so IL people can get into the City, or bypass it for the County? How does this benefit the State? Maybe they should either use Metro or move to Missouri!


There are a lot of Illinois license plates on vehicles in downtown- and not just from 9 to 5. St. Clair County pushed for Metrolink when NIMBYs on the Missouri side were squabbling over routes. Many STC County residents take advantage of it daily. Although they are typically suburban developments, new subdivisions have risen along the Belleville/Swansea border that take advantage of proximity to Metrolink. And Madison County, esp. Edwardsville, is chomping at the bit for a Metrolink route.



Missouri would benefit in many ways- easier flow of interstate commerce, easier access to downtown without the wholesale demolition of structures as we mistakenly did in the past, and the easier access would also make downtown a more attractive employment center. Unfortunately, Missouri would prefer to build bridges to St. Charles County, designed primarily with commuters and not interstate commerce in mind. They fail to realize that growth in Saint Clair and Madison counties can help the City of Saint Louis, especially since the mass exodus from 1950 through the 1990s has slowed to a trickle. A rising tide raises all ships, you know. We ignore the Metro East's potential at our own peril, and we wonder why the region has been relatively stagnant in the last 20-30 years.



I'd like to see Illinois develop smart(er) growth, because some areas like Shiloh, Edwardsville, and Glen Carbon are sprawling like crazy. OTOH, several communities have charming, walkable downtowns, like Edwardsville, Alton, Belleville, Collinsville, and O'Fallon. There's some potential to build on what's there in those communities (esp. Belleville since Metrolink is just blocks from the core of downtown).



I'm no fan of sprawl, but I don't see it coming to a halt regardless of how well the city is doing. I wish there was a way to convince our region's leaders that you can't fall off the edge of the world on the other side of the Mississippi River.
3,311
Life MemberLife Member
3,311

PostFeb 25, 2007#506

ThreeOneFour, well said! =D>


We don't need a new bridge. This is only going to increase sprawl out into Illinois. Why should we fund a bridge so IL people can get into the City, or bypass it for the County? How does this benefit the State? Maybe they should either use Metro or move to Missouri!


Doug, I really hope that's sarcasm. This bridge is detrimental to downtowns future. Don't people understand that this RECENTERS downtown in the region? as of now, people argue that it's 270 and 40! or worse!! people that are going to live in these "sprawl" areas will do so regardless of another option. Again, Poplar is only one of TWO bridges in the country with 3 Interstates. enough said. the coupler bridge is a JOKE! Who is telling Rahn to halt this bridge? Where is Rahn from? These people are complete idiots. NEver voting for another Republican statewide again! They are not concerned about the well being of St. Louis City/COunty. Only St. Charles and "yonder"..
50
New MemberNew Member
50

PostFeb 26, 2007#507

I still think that people over estimate the value of a recentered region. There are so many successful uncentered regions.



I'ld ask again, is KC really that much better run/ healthier than StL? They are very close to centered. Just from what I've heard annecdotally, their highway system seems to be much better at transporting people than ours is. Yet I get the impression that their sprawl problems are much worse than ours. I know the city itself is less densely populated that STL County. If you cut them down to 61 square miles, would you find that they were actually in much healthier shape than StL?



Personally, if I were going to spend a billion dollars on transportation infrastructure, I'ld build the North-South metroline instead of this bridge.

PostFeb 26, 2007#508

Okay, I'm so cool that I'm double posting. But I'm still contemplating my opinion.



So I don't know why I didn't immediately think of the city I'm in when looking for other precedents of centered cities. Pittsburgh: old industrial city that lost 2/3 of it's population to a bad economy and sprawl. Another land locked city with 330,000 city and 2.4 million metro. Much more similar to StL than KC. And better yet, it has more bridges than any american city.



Before I start, I'm going to throw out that a lot of this could be caused by the land tax (an issue for a different thread). This is the first city I've ever seen where grocery stores buid underground parking. And so there are alot fewer parking lots. anyway...



Downtown is definitely healthier than ours is. There is no Clayton and the downtown is basically both of our downtowns. Though it still goes to sleep at night from a lack of residential population. It's a city of neighborhoods, many of which are very healthy. The area between oakland and downtown gets kinda rough, and I've heard that the North Side is kinda rough. Don't really wander around much in these places so I don't know. The city does boast an extravagant number of museums and a wealth of universities in the city. The metrolink is much more useful than the T but Pittsburgh's bus system blows stl's out of the water (though their system is broke and their cutting 60% of the bus routes javascript:emoticon(':evil:').)



However, despite seeming healthier on the surface, the city still seems to be shrinking and the region as a whole is growing even more slowly than ours. Like our region, there seem to be a wealth of marketable ideas that don't make it into business form. The city still has about the same population density as our own. Perhaps a lot of the problems result from the state and high taxes in Pennsylvania.



For the sake of the core of St. Louis, the bridge would probably be helpful. However, I don't think it's a cure all and I still believe that there are better ways to spend a billion dollars. It is very likely that part of the core (ie the stl city like area) would move to illinois, and that StL city MO would then have to fight with StL city IL over the same people and resources. I fear that regional cooperation, while hard now, would become impossible if we had to deal significantly across state lines. Pittsburgh doesn't have a state line in its metro so this isn't a problem there.
147
Junior MemberJunior Member
147

PostFeb 26, 2007#509

It seems like a plan for the rebuilding of Poplar Street needs to be in place as well. I can see the need for this bridge. It separates I-70 into its own area. Tolls are take it or leave it. However, if they do toll this bridge they should toll all of the bridges in the area and across the Mississippi (westbound and eastbound).
3,311
Life MemberLife Member
3,311

PostFeb 27, 2007#510

I know the city itself is less densely populated that STL County.


Completely incorrect. The county has more people, but the city is far more densely populated.

Also, workers in Illinois keep businesses downtown. Why do you think Peabody stayed downtown? I only heard this from Irl Englehardt himself...
6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostFeb 27, 2007#511

I think he meant KC is less densely populated than St. Louis County. St. Louis City is more dense than both.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostFeb 27, 2007#512

I know the city itself is less densely populated that STL County.





Completely incorrect.


^WORD. I think it's important to correct these types of statements quickly. The city is more dense than the county. The city is gaining residents. The county is losing residents. The growth outside St. Louis City is in St. Charles County and across the river in Illinois. What happens to the communities in STL County will largely write the story of the St. Louis region. There isn't much outside growth for the metro area, but people are moving.
2,687
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,687

PostFeb 27, 2007#513

1/3 of downtown workers are from Illinois, while 1/4 of Illinoisans make up the St Louis Metro Area.



When St Louis was at its most grand moments, at the turn of the century, it was quite obvious, that the majority of those who did not live in St Louis City, lived in Illinois.



When St Louis was at its weakest moments (including now) , Illinois was falling apart.



As St Louis is growing again, so is Illinois, and the perception that growth will return there. Are people not picking up on the pattern yet?
50
New MemberNew Member
50

PostFeb 27, 2007#514

Mattn is correct. I was refering to the fact that KC is less densely populated than StL county.



KC 1,408.2 people/sq mi

StL County 2002.6 people/ sq mi

StL City 5,695.8 people/squ mi



I was under the impression that sprawl was much worse in KC than in StL and thus that having a centered region is not some cure all. But I was asking cause I figured somebody on this board would actually know for sure. It's possible that if you cut their city limits way back they would actually have a dense core but I really don't know cause I've never been there.
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostFeb 27, 2007#515

How is this going to recenter the region? By building the bridge it will only make it easier for Illinois Residents to travel back and forth into Downtown or St. Louis County. This means they can still live in Illinois while not living in the City or Missouri. They get their better suburban services, while an easier commute, then why live in the City? If anything highways have shown it is that they enable people to leave the City, not come back into the City.



This will not center the City and it is simply a rehash of old ideas. Congestion is why some affluent live in Cities as opposed to the suburbs. They want urban life, and put up with the higher taxes and poorer services, since living in the suburbs would entail a long travel time to work. By decreasing congestion and travel time, what incentive is there to live in the City, when one can enjoy better services elsewhere?



Take it from a cost benefit analysis. With the new bridge, they get the benefits of the City with a lower cost, as travel time is reduced. People may leave, as they have in the past, since its cheaper to live elsewhere, and they reap the City benefits. This is basically how the suburbs were marketed to the masses. Nothing has changed!

PostFeb 27, 2007#516

Grover wrote:
I know the city itself is less densely populated that STL County.





Completely incorrect.


^WORD. I think it's important to correct these types of statements quickly. The city is more dense than the county. The city is gaining residents. The county is losing residents. The growth outside St. Louis City is in St. Charles County and across the river in Illinois. What happens to the communities in STL County will largely write the story of the St. Louis region. There isn't much outside growth for the metro area, but people are moving.


Given the MSA of the Region is further expanding West, as most of the business growth/relocation is outside of the Core, and since St. Charles County will eclipse St. Louis in population probably in 10 years or sooner, I do not consider any of what you describe, even for the City, as positive. We need a greenbelt or some regional policy if the City is really going to make huge gains.
1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostFeb 27, 2007#517

Those who desire an urban lifestyle will continue to seek living in the core, with or without a new bridge. But those who already desire a suburban lifestyle will likely see the Metro East as a more practical option in light of a new bridge.



Illinois has already invested in MetroLink. Illinois has already endured fewer lanes across the Mississippi River than when the Poplar Street Bridge opened. Meanwhile, Missouri has neglected transit. St. Charles County in particular has voted down transit and now enjoys many more lanes across the Missouri River seeing its bridge capacity more than double in half the time as when the PSB opened. And now, Illinois is even willing to settle for a smaller bridge, for which they will foot the bill. The Discovery (370)and Page Avenue Extension (364) bridges were much more about expanding capacity to feed the western sprawl. The MLK Coupler that Illinois has been forced to devise in light of Missouri's leaner pockets and overbuilt network will be lucky enough to just keep a critical national crossroad already impacting our commerce from reaching gridlock.
2,687
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,687

PostFeb 27, 2007#518

People are assuming that any growth in Illinois is suburban. People are forgetting the possibility of renewing the many urban areas of Illinois. Imagine if Illinois had that major airport built, which Missouri succeeded in blocking. Imagine how different East St Louis, Madison/Venice, or Granite City could have been. The infrastructure there is urban, although the culture, and traffic may not be. Those places have potential to improve, and may include growth in urban culture, and activity.



It's annoying, in some sense, to see Missourians bring up suburban sprawl in Illinois. I don't get the impression that they are as hard on Missouri sprawl, although I know I'm wrong. My point is, Missouri sprawl is more harmful, at this point, than Illinois sprawl. 1/3 of Illinoisans work in Downtown St Louis. The traffic in Illinois grows as you get closer to Downtown. In Missouri, it's all over the place, and traffic is probably most heavy on the belt, and in the burbs, from my experience. This is probably because a good number of people work in various other areas of the metro, other than Downtown. There is a completely different aura from Missourians, about Downtown. Of course, we have nothing like Clayton between us, and downtown. In a sense, Clayton is like that electronics store, a distraction I may pass, as I head to Sears to buy a new lawn mower.



Another point is, if Illinois had a large population, and anyone here had to work at the airport, in Clayton, in the West County burbs, or almost anywhere on the Missouri side, they normally have to go through Downtown. Each time you drive by downtown, it advertises itself. Each time you see the arch, and activity, and people there, you may think, "that's interesting, maybe I can stop by on my way back."
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostFeb 27, 2007#519

I am hard on Missouri sprawl to the point of being called fascist. I would not want to see this occur in Illinois.



Ok. I understand what you mean Xing. Think about this though. Did highways do anything for our urban areas? No. Highways facilitated the rapid depopulation of our urban areas. Why would this recenter St. Louis City and suddenly bring residents back in? There is no precedent for this as it never occurred!
687
Senior MemberSenior Member
687

PostFeb 27, 2007#520

Doug wrote:I am hard on Missouri sprawl to the point of being called fascist. I would not want to see this occur in Illinois.



Ok. I understand what you mean Xing. Think about this though. Did highways do anything for our urban areas? No. Highways facilitated the rapid depopulation of our urban areas. Why would this recenter St. Louis City and suddenly bring residents back in? There is no precedent for this as it never occurred!


I agree... Doug is just as hard on the MO suburbs.



However, I don't think easy access to the highways is what caused a decrease in the city population. I seriously doubt if someone wanted to leave the city they wouldn't have if there wasn't easy highway access.



Those same highways go both ways. It could have made it easier for people to get to the city. If a new bridge is all it's going to take to cause a mass exodus to IL then the city has some serious issues - like I said I don't think there are many people sitting around thinking, "Gosh, I'd like to move out of the city if only there was a better bridge..."



I have friends and family in the metro east. They've always lived on that side of the river and probably always will (at least for the forseeable future). They actually come downtown less now than a few years ago because the traffic on the bridges has gotten so bad. Less trips to the city means they are also spending less money in the city.
2,687
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
2,687

PostFeb 27, 2007#521

Diversity of transit does a lot for the area. I think it would be different if Illinois rejected rapid transit, but it hasn't entirely. Illinois has, and continues to be a growing force in St Louis' Metrolink Transit. I don't think the metro east has been one to prioritize road and freeway improvements and construction over expansion of bus service and metrolink. In fact, you can see on Metro's maps, and I have seen myself , all those services being utilized well in our area.
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostFeb 27, 2007#522

buckethead wrote:
However, I don't think easy access to the highways is what caused a decrease in the city population. I seriously doubt if someone wanted to leave the city they wouldn't have if there wasn't easy highway access.


As you follow the horse drawn carriage, the omnibus, the streetcar, then bus, then highway, one will see concentric rings which explode outward upon the destruction of the streetcar and the introduction of the highway. The highway, along with subsidized loans which discriminated against urban rehabs and new urban construction, effectively worked hand-in-hand with developers to create suburbia. Without the destruction of the streetcar and introduction of the highways, the process would have been much slower and not nearly as dramatic. Cities would be much better off without the highway.



We should be funding transit. Gasoline Tax. That's all I have to say.
476
Full MemberFull Member
476

PostFeb 27, 2007#523

Doug wrote:We should be funding transit. Gasoline Tax. That's all I have to say.


Good luck getting any american to agree to that. :wink:
1,448
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
1,448

PostFeb 27, 2007#524

I'd just like to say, I am completely in favor of this new bridge.



Hats off to Illinois, they are really showing Missouri up (again).



That is all.
419
Full MemberFull Member
419

PostFeb 27, 2007#525

This was actually the "sujet du jour" at work today. Some really good (and bad) opinions were expressed. In previous posts I've stated I'd be happy to pay a toll to eliminate the congestion, which for me amounts to about 2 1/2 hours a week. If that time in traffic costs me 20 or 30 bucks, well so be it, my time is worth more than that. But a guy at work suggested that we give everyone in Illinois (and Missouri if they pay up) a transponder (a device that performs the tracking/payment function) that allows free passage. If Illinios pays its share of the project, its residents shouldn't have to pay for its use. Seems to me this idea has merit and should be pursued as it answers concerns on both sides.
Read more posts (761 remaining)
Share