This is not a settlement. Choosing the most logical option should always come first. There are so few benefits to getting rid of something that is underground.
So few eh?
Last time I checked getting more people living and working downtown was a big problem. Creating developments with clear potential (views of the arch) that can add people to downtown doesn't seem like such a minor benefit. It is a pretty major one.
Sure something underground, particuarly in an urban setting, is valuable. But you have to weigh that value against the benefits from ripping it out and the clear benefits would be
a. more people in downtown (office workers and residents)
b. positive press (and impressions) about downtown growth
Now, both of those benefits, though in smaller amounts, can be achived by leaving the current underground section intact. But as you said, I also think it is pretty unlikely that anything can ever be built on top of the "underground" section. The cost would be darn high and saftey is always a concern today. Really not much different than Union City, NJ, where people have been looking at building something over the depressed lanes to the Lincoln Tunnel for more than 25 years, but nothing has or will come of it because of the cost and the saftey concerns. Logic may dictate that you can't build on the underground section, but logic does not mean you should throw out a plan to take out the underground section.
In reality, we have to look to either cap that section or tear it out. One option that hasn't been discussed on here but might be worth some thought: "capping" the depressed section with the above-ground memorial drive. Then use part/ most of the existing land for development, low rise on the western side and mid to high rises on the eastern side.
Last time I checked getting more people living and working downtown was a big problem. Creating developments with clear potential (views of the arch) that can add people to downtown doesn't seem like such a minor benefit. It is a pretty major one.
Sure something underground, particuarly in an urban setting, is valuable. But you have to weigh that value against the benefits from ripping it out and the clear benefits would be
a. more people in downtown (office workers and residents)
b. positive press (and impressions) about downtown growth
Now, both of those benefits, though in smaller amounts, can be achived by leaving the current underground section intact. But as you said, I also think it is pretty unlikely that anything can ever be built on top of the "underground" section. The cost would be darn high and saftey is always a concern today. Really not much different than Union City, NJ, where people have been looking at building something over the depressed lanes to the Lincoln Tunnel for more than 25 years, but nothing has or will come of it because of the cost and the saftey concerns. Logic may dictate that you can't build on the underground section, but logic does not mean you should throw out a plan to take out the underground section.
In reality, we have to look to either cap that section or tear it out. One option that hasn't been discussed on here but might be worth some thought: "capping" the depressed section with the above-ground memorial drive. Then use part/ most of the existing land for development, low rise on the western side and mid to high rises on the eastern side.
- 153
JMedwick wrote:One option that hasn't been discussed on here but might be worth some thought: "capping" the depressed section with the above-ground memorial drive. Then use part/ most of the existing land for development, low rise on the western side and mid to high rises on the eastern side.
This was discussed in this same thread earlier. Memorial over the depressed, leaving old Memorial as a building site. Due to width available only one side could be developed (likely west side). Hopefully the existing walls on the depressed section could provide a foundation to carry the load for Memorial above. It seems to be carrying the weight of the three spans currently carrying traffic over the depressed...
I would also like the development to compliment the Arch. A modern design with glass and stainless would really stand out.
- 3,432
Here is a radical thought. Build both bridges. Let Missouri set up a public / private partnership with a private company to build the large toll bridge and get 1/2 the federal money. Make I-70 go across the toll bridge to allow cross-country out-of-towners pay the toll. Let Illinois build the smaller bridge they are seeking as a free bridge and they get the other 1/2 of the federal money.
- 1,610
Gary's idea wouldn't work though, since more Illinois approaches are required on the bigger, toll bridge. And Missouri's plan had the concessionaire's payment going towards only the funding gap on the river span and the Missouri approaches. Aside from the obvious political objection to having its residents pay the bulk of tolls, Illinois objects to having to pay even more money for the MRB's longer and more complex approaches, even on top of tolling. That is to say, Missouri wants tolling to cover their funding gap, but Missouri doesn't care if their bigger plans call for Illinois needing to contribute even more tax dollars to a toll bridge. In other words, the bigger bridge not only tolls Illinois residents, but also costs Illinois taxpayers more in project subsidy.
- 3,432
Its hard to determine what is fair. Illinois is twice the population of Missouri with less land area and fewer major rivers to bridge. There is no question that the new bridges will be used primarily by people from Illinois. If you divide the task into two bridges -- each side can build what they want. Maybe Illinois could even make their bridge one way West in the Morning, and on one way East in the evening. Missouri could do the opposite to make Missourians pay a toll -- if the sides can't work together.
There are a hundred ways to show that any plan will never work. We need someone with a little creativity to come up with a plan that could work with if both sides want it to work.
Good thing today's leaders aren't trying to build the transcontinental railroad or even Eads Bridge. Speaking of Eads Bridge, who paid for that? The railroads, -- private enterprise?
There are a hundred ways to show that any plan will never work. We need someone with a little creativity to come up with a plan that could work with if both sides want it to work.
Good thing today's leaders aren't trying to build the transcontinental railroad or even Eads Bridge. Speaking of Eads Bridge, who paid for that? The railroads, -- private enterprise?
- 11K
^ I believe the Eads was built by the City of St. Louis for around $7M
FYI:
In 2005, $7,000,000.00 from 1874 is worth:
$123,831,521.74 using the Consumer Price Index
$116,055,882.35 using the GDP deflator
$840,000,000.00 using the unskilled wage
$1,538,833,258.94 using the nominal GDP per capita
$10,342,894,424.67 using the relative share of GDP
FYI:
In 2005, $7,000,000.00 from 1874 is worth:
$123,831,521.74 using the Consumer Price Index
$116,055,882.35 using the GDP deflator
$840,000,000.00 using the unskilled wage
$1,538,833,258.94 using the nominal GDP per capita
$10,342,894,424.67 using the relative share of GDP
southslider wrote:JMed, I agree that ripping out I-70 remains appealing. I was only offering a compromise that at a minimum, the three-block lid of all open space as currently proposed should at least change to allow private development on the northern and southern blocks.
Another compromise between ripping out I-70 and building the lid I always question is whether you could in effect do both. Leave the depressed section and build more than just open space on its "lid," but still rip out the elevated section of I-70 between just north of Pine and the MLK bridges. That way, you wouldn't need the I-70 ramps to/from Memorial, have room to build linear buildings along the Mansion House complex in the space of present-day SB Memorial, and still build your classic, giant traffic circle at Washington Avenue and the Eads Bridge. In effect, the depressed section would become an extended exit to the Washington Circle to/from I-55. That way, I-44/55 traffic wishing to head to Market or Pine would still exit to Memorial, but then a bi-directional Memorial (present-day NB piece) north of Walnut. But I-44/55 traffic wishing to head to I-70 would take the extended exit to Washington Circle (or likely more of a north-south elipse to squeeze into the space and handle the heavier north-south traffic), continuing onto a new multi-way boulevard north of the Circle to I-70 ramps at Cole and the MLK bridges.
Okay, I admit this is becoming a lot to visualize. I promise to play with an aerial of I-70 from Biddle (MLK Coupler) to the PSB and then post a picture on here soon to help show what I'm saying. In fact, I'll try doing one version with I-70 completely ripped out, and the other with a joint-development lid over the depressed section but elevated section still ripped out. But JMed, even before I play with aerials, I think the benefit of keeping the depressed section piece will be a narrower Memorial and thus new linear buildings are most feasible in keeping more traffic below-grade in such scenario. That's because completely ripping out I-70 would likely necessitate a wider boulevard akin to Lakeshore Drive, and hence less room to build along the blank street walls of present-day SB Memorial.
Yeah, I'm gonna need a diagram.
- 1,610
I posted my "diagram" in the I-70 lid discussion under Downtown topics, so that this topic might go back to the Mississippi River Bridge:
Link to revised I-70 "Active Lid" and "Memorial Boulevard" aerial
Link to revised I-70 "Active Lid" and "Memorial Boulevard" aerial
From today's P-D:
States ramp up attempt to agree
By Philip Dine and Elisa Crouch
OF THE POST-DISPATCH
04/11/2007
WASHINGTON — Efforts between Missouri and Illinois officials to resolve their differences over a new Mississippi River bridge have intensified, with sources saying progress has been made in resolving differences between the two states.
At the urging of Gov. Matt Blunt, leaders from Missouri met Thursday in St. Louis. Among them were Blunt, St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay, Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., St. Louis County Executive Charlie A. Dooley and St. Charles County Executive Steve Ehlmann. Staff members for Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., attended, as did local business and political leaders.
On Monday, representatives from Blunt's office and that of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich met. No one at either meeting would discuss what occurred, but a source close to the matter said significant progress was made Monday toward a deal and that further meetings were planned.
Sources said the subject of the talks is a $1 billion, eight-lane bridge of the sort that Missouri has backed, rather than a smaller-scale companion to the Martin Luther King Bridge. The recent spate of activity suggests that Missouri leaders could be looking beyond tolls — which Illinois opposes — as a funding solution for a new bridge...
Full Story
States ramp up attempt to agree
By Philip Dine and Elisa Crouch
OF THE POST-DISPATCH
04/11/2007
WASHINGTON — Efforts between Missouri and Illinois officials to resolve their differences over a new Mississippi River bridge have intensified, with sources saying progress has been made in resolving differences between the two states.
At the urging of Gov. Matt Blunt, leaders from Missouri met Thursday in St. Louis. Among them were Blunt, St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay, Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., St. Louis County Executive Charlie A. Dooley and St. Charles County Executive Steve Ehlmann. Staff members for Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., attended, as did local business and political leaders.
On Monday, representatives from Blunt's office and that of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich met. No one at either meeting would discuss what occurred, but a source close to the matter said significant progress was made Monday toward a deal and that further meetings were planned.
Sources said the subject of the talks is a $1 billion, eight-lane bridge of the sort that Missouri has backed, rather than a smaller-scale companion to the Martin Luther King Bridge. The recent spate of activity suggests that Missouri leaders could be looking beyond tolls — which Illinois opposes — as a funding solution for a new bridge...
Full Story
- 11K
(Grover's civic-boosterism, archeticture landmark loving ego)
=D>
=D>
I pray to God that our "outstaters" don't kill this bridge. This is VITAL to st. louis.
- 476
Sounds great. I understand how broad "could be looking past tolls" is. But its encouraging nonetheless.
I think Blunt may see some political opportunities here too. Team up with Dems Dooley and Slay and possibly gain some ground in the city. A huge project like this and he could take credit for it in the next election... Ive always thought it made political sense for him to support the bridge because he should be trying to get votes in places where he doesnt have them, not in places where he already has them.
I think Blunt may see some political opportunities here too. Team up with Dems Dooley and Slay and possibly gain some ground in the city. A huge project like this and he could take credit for it in the next election... Ive always thought it made political sense for him to support the bridge because he should be trying to get votes in places where he doesnt have them, not in places where he already has them.
- 11K
He can't buy ME with a bridge (maybe a bridge, two Metro lines, Chouteau Lake and the forced unification of the City/County). Then again I'd probably just send him a nice 'thank you' E-mail and vote for someone else.
so, what's the deal here? Are outstates against this? Do they think it's a "st. louis issue"? I don't understand. This is VITAL to commerce, trucking, business, etc. St. Louis, the region, the STATE, need this bridge. Are we really going to lose 1/4 billion dollars because of state bickering?
Let me tell you how I LOVED the 10 LANE Page extension going into St. Charles the other day. What a COMPLETE F ING JOKE!! who paid for that?? It's not even a highway!
Let me tell you how I LOVED the 10 LANE Page extension going into St. Charles the other day. What a COMPLETE F ING JOKE!! who paid for that?? It's not even a highway!
Hopefully Missouri will come up with some 11th hour deal. This is too important to pass up.
Yes, most people using the bridge probably come from Illinois. But an additional span opens up an opportunity for an area with nearly 500,000 to cross the river more quickly. Quicker access to their jobs of which taxes are paid to MO, quicker access to spending more money in MO stores not available in the metro east, etc.
And trucks from outstate and elsewhere make up a large part of the crawling vehicles trying to cross the river. Anytime I head up 55, as soon as 44 merges, theres always a line of trucks waiting.
Hope our "leaders" in Jeff City can pull their heads out from their behinds before its too late. The clock is ticking.
Yes, most people using the bridge probably come from Illinois. But an additional span opens up an opportunity for an area with nearly 500,000 to cross the river more quickly. Quicker access to their jobs of which taxes are paid to MO, quicker access to spending more money in MO stores not available in the metro east, etc.
And trucks from outstate and elsewhere make up a large part of the crawling vehicles trying to cross the river. Anytime I head up 55, as soon as 44 merges, theres always a line of trucks waiting.
Hope our "leaders" in Jeff City can pull their heads out from their behinds before its too late. The clock is ticking.
JCity wrote:so, what's the deal here? Are outstates against this? Do they think it's a "st. louis issue"?
Funny, the Federal Government sees it as a national issue.
- 1,610
I fear Missouri's "11th hour" solution will be tied to Rep. St. Onge's tax increase. Under such scenario, St. Louisans will be asked for a statewide tax and fee package (totaling $4.3 billion over six years) that will mostly go to overbuilding I-70 from Wentzville to Blue Springs ($3.6 billion), with a small chunck of change ($200 million over six years) coming back to St. Louis going mostly towards a free, larger Mississippi River Bridge.
The cost-effective MLK Coupler (only $25 million cost to Missouri) has been criticized as failing to alleviate PSB congestion from the day it opens, even though national experts agree it would provide 60% of a larger, FREE bridge's benefits for only 30% of its cost. At least now, it seems more officials in Missouri are realizing that the diversion of traffic due to tolls also means any new toll bridge would also fail in alleviating PSB congestion. However, even a larger, new free MRB will partially fail day-one, when a significant share of congestion is directly caused by inadequate PSB ramps to/from I-44/55. Considering Missouri can't even spare $25 million for a free bridge we can afford without a tax increase or tolls, I'm very concerned if MODOT will ever make the necessary changes to the PSB that work as a combined solution to traffic with any new MRB or MLK coupler.
So again, two fears:
1.) St. Louis will sell its soul to a statewide campaign just to get far less than its raised taxes back towards a bridge and even a smaller drop for transit ($3 million a year); 83% of the newly raised taxes and fees going to the outstate I-70 project; and
2.) MODOT still won't leave any money to expand PSB ramp capacity to/from I-44/55, which is a crucial component to any MRB strategy, if you want to alleviate PSB congestion.
The cost-effective MLK Coupler (only $25 million cost to Missouri) has been criticized as failing to alleviate PSB congestion from the day it opens, even though national experts agree it would provide 60% of a larger, FREE bridge's benefits for only 30% of its cost. At least now, it seems more officials in Missouri are realizing that the diversion of traffic due to tolls also means any new toll bridge would also fail in alleviating PSB congestion. However, even a larger, new free MRB will partially fail day-one, when a significant share of congestion is directly caused by inadequate PSB ramps to/from I-44/55. Considering Missouri can't even spare $25 million for a free bridge we can afford without a tax increase or tolls, I'm very concerned if MODOT will ever make the necessary changes to the PSB that work as a combined solution to traffic with any new MRB or MLK coupler.
So again, two fears:
1.) St. Louis will sell its soul to a statewide campaign just to get far less than its raised taxes back towards a bridge and even a smaller drop for transit ($3 million a year); 83% of the newly raised taxes and fees going to the outstate I-70 project; and
2.) MODOT still won't leave any money to expand PSB ramp capacity to/from I-44/55, which is a crucial component to any MRB strategy, if you want to alleviate PSB congestion.
- 11K
^ I'd agree with your fears.
But maybe not this:
It doesn't matter what something costs if it doesn't provide the service that is needed/intended.
But maybe not this:
The cost-effective MLK Coupler (only $25 million cost to Missouri) has been criticized as failing to alleviate PSB congestion from the day it opens, even though national experts agree it would provide 60% of a larger, FREE bridge's benefits for only 30% of its cost
It doesn't matter what something costs if it doesn't provide the service that is needed/intended.
- 1,610
^Many would like to drive a Caddy instead of a Chevy. But the Chevy works just as well. 60% of the benefit for 30% of the cost is very cost-effective. But especially when the full benefit requires added millions to upgrade the PSB as well for full congestion relief. IOW, buy a new Caddy (MRB), and the existing family car (PSB) will still need an overhaul. So why not buy a Chevy (MLK) and have money left to maintain both cars?
But if we really want to be cynical, it seems neither bridge will be built. Illinois will back off the MLK-Coupler in light of Missouri promising a free bridge. But that promise will be contigent upon a statewide tax and fee increase going to Missouri voters, so we'll be back at square-one when such vote fails. It will fail even worse than Prop B years ago. For starters, St. Onge's proposal will be going to voters at the same time Highway 40 will be shutdown; not exactly good PR for MODOT. Plus, many will lobby against it, from fiscal conservatives (anti-tax) to social liberals (pro-transit) to the regional business community (pro-St. Louis).
As proposed by St. Onge, his tax/fee package proposes to return only FIVE PERCENT (of which would likely virtually all go to a free MRB) of its generated revenue back to the entire St. Louis region, when our cash-cow region will contribute over a THIRD of the revenue to the state. That's because over 80% of the new revenue will be used solely to rebuild I-70 between Wentzville and Blue Springs into an overbuilt megahighway. Not surprisingly, future maintenance costs for the proposed overbuilt I-70 are left up in the air, as St. Onge's package put before voters would sunset after six years.
But if we really want to be cynical, it seems neither bridge will be built. Illinois will back off the MLK-Coupler in light of Missouri promising a free bridge. But that promise will be contigent upon a statewide tax and fee increase going to Missouri voters, so we'll be back at square-one when such vote fails. It will fail even worse than Prop B years ago. For starters, St. Onge's proposal will be going to voters at the same time Highway 40 will be shutdown; not exactly good PR for MODOT. Plus, many will lobby against it, from fiscal conservatives (anti-tax) to social liberals (pro-transit) to the regional business community (pro-St. Louis).
As proposed by St. Onge, his tax/fee package proposes to return only FIVE PERCENT (of which would likely virtually all go to a free MRB) of its generated revenue back to the entire St. Louis region, when our cash-cow region will contribute over a THIRD of the revenue to the state. That's because over 80% of the new revenue will be used solely to rebuild I-70 between Wentzville and Blue Springs into an overbuilt megahighway. Not surprisingly, future maintenance costs for the proposed overbuilt I-70 are left up in the air, as St. Onge's package put before voters would sunset after six years.
- 11K
60% of the benefit for 30% of the cost is very cost-effective.
I guess I think that the more apt analogy would be buying Honda Civic when you need to pull a 10,000lb trailer. Your example gives two options that only vary in asthetics.
60% of the benefit for 30% of the cost is very cost-effective.
I guess I think that the more apt analogy would be buying Honda Civic when you need to pull a 10,000lb trailer. Your example gives two options that only vary in asthetics. Would you buy a refridgerator that keeps your food cold 60% of the time or maybe 60% as cold as you would like? A door that's 60% of the need height?