urbanSTL

^And it's foolish to buy a car that will haul a trailer, if you rarely haul. It's like having a truck, when you only shop at the hardware store a few times a year. But in this case, the MLK and Coupler can haul. 18-wheelers already take the MLK bridge and would take an MLK Coupler.



Maybe instead of a Caddy for the bigger bridge, I should have compared it to a Lincoln Navigator to emphasize a difference in size (number of lanes) between the MRB and MLK plans. But while the MRB would be 6-8 lanes (unsolicited toll proposals were as low as 6 lanes), the combined MLK and coupler would function as 7 lanes. So then, it's not even a difference in lanes between bridges as they would function in the same number of lanes to carry I-70. Instead, it's only a difference in how many new lanes total you add across the river. That is, the MLK plan only adds 4 new lanes to the collective river-crossing total, despite effectively creating a 7-lane bridge for I-70.



Considering today's traffic is only a problem on the PSB, reconfiguring traffic onto another existing, underutilized bridge is extremely practical. But most importantly, it saves more money to then actually put towards the bridge that needs it the most, the PSB.

^ nitpick... the MLK coupler would only add 3 lanes of traffic crossing the Mississippi: 4 lanes for the new coupler bridge and the old bridge gets restriped down to 3 lanes from the present day 4.

^Ah, but those 4 lanes on the present-day MLK are underutilized. Reconfigure them into 3 for EB I-70, plus add 4 more on the Coupler for WB I-70, and presto, you get a 7-lane I-70 that you don't have today.



Or spend three times as much to get just for one more lane on an 8-lane I-70. Sure, that's 8 completely new lanes across the river, but I-70 will function virtually the same whether it's 7 lanes or 8 lanes. And that is triple the cost of the MLK Coupler for MRB as total project cost. If it's a free bridge, the MRB is then eight times as much in cost for Missouri than their share of the Coupler.



In both scenarios of MRB or MLK-Coupler, you get a new I-70, just either 8 lanes (MRB) or 7 lanes (MLK). However, only within the MRB scenario do you get to keep a 4-lane MLK in addition to a new 8-lane I-70. Therefore, the real question is whether we can do without the MLK as it functions today, since its present-day 4 lanes will be serving higher duty as part of a new I-70. But given how 4-lane Eads is even more underutilized than 4-lane MLK, I think that's a safe bet.

Unfortunately the earmark is written in such a way that it can only be used for a bridge or structure across the Mississippi to connect the City of St. Louis and Illiniois. If anyone can figure out a way to get MetroLink on it to Madison County I'd be all for it, but that's highly unlikely.



In the short and long term the coupler bridge is a far cheaper and more logical choice than the six or eight lane designer bridge. Far more traffic exits onto 55/44 or stays on 64 than exits onto 70. The MLK acts as sort of a reliever now. As part of the coupler bridge project, however, the ramp to 55/44 should be widened to two lanes and access to 70 and Memorial Dr. should be removed from the PSB. If the 55/44 exit isn't fixed, then it won't matter which bridge is built, traffic will still be backed up on the bridge during the day. With the prospect of the earmarked funds being given to another state we'd be better off with something than nothing at all.



OTOH, would we be dealing with this if someone didn't build that clusterfork on the Illinois side in the 60s with all the lane splits and merges. I'm sure that would cost more than a billion to fix.

brickandmortar wrote:
OTOH, would we be dealing with this if someone didn't build that clusterfork on the Illinois side in the 60s with all the lane splits and merges. I'm sure that would cost more than a billion to fix.

Why can't the signs on the Illinois side of the bridge change? As you approach the Illinois 3 exit, the interstate splits into two separate parts and then rejoins at the foot of the bridge. All of the signs indicate prior to this split that ALL LANES can access ALL INTERSTATES. Why can't IDOT put on those signs that I-64 traffic use left 2 lanes, I70/IL-3 use right lane, I-55/44 use next to right lane? I realize this would do little to fix the problem of the exit itself being poorly designed, but it would at least ease up on many out of towners realizing that they need to be in the right lane to exit onto I-70 when they are at about the state line and in the left-most lane. I've noticed many times that thru traffic on I64 is held up a lot just because of people waiting to get over into the right two lanes.

Just as I feared, Rep. St. Onge is pushing his I-70 tax increase plan as a means for Missouri to fund a toll-free MRB:

Belleville News article



Per his plans, Neal St. Onge would have St. Louisans raise over $1.5 billion dollars over six years ($4.2 billion statewide) in new taxes and fees, only to see $180 million, or less than five percent of new funding raised statewide, return to our region over six years.



Clearly, the best plan for St. Louisans' pocketbooks already exists. The MLK Coupler would only cost MODOT $25 million total without any increase in taxes or fees.

I also find it sadly ironic that now all we are essentially debating is the placement of the bridge. That's because MODOT's free bridge farther north would now be only four lanes total, two eastbound and two westbound. IDOT's MLK coupler itself would be four lanes westbound, but when combined with the existing MLK converted to three lanes eastbound, that functions as a seven-lane I-70, as opposed to MODOT's four-lane I-70 farther north.



So how did this mess happen?



First, planners wanted to think big back in the 1990s without thinking of cost. But once cost became a factor, MODOT said toll the big project (previously eight lanes), while IDOT, desperate for improved bridge capacity, ultimately advocated for a smaller project. Then, national experts pointed out that the bigger project, even if tolled, would still require more public funding and fail in alleviating congestion. MODOT even saw that an unsolicited proposal by a potential concessionaire called for only six lanes and still additional public money, but MODOT would have the tolls pay for their gap, leaving IDOT to kick in the extra public money, namely on the more extensive approaches needed on a more northern bridge. Finally, MODOT is giving up on tolls, but not the location of the bridge.



But with all things being equal now between a four-lane, free MRB north of Cass or a four-lane, free MLK Coupler north of Cole, the MLK Coupler sticks out as an even better solution. As mentioned before, the MLK plan would actually create a seven-lane I-70, whereas the latest MRB plan pushed in quiet Missouri circles provides for only a four-lane I-70, albeit without tolls. As added contrast, the MLK plan better utilizes existing Illinois approaches near the MLK and I-64 and I-55/70 interchanges in East St. Louis, thereby costing significantly less for IDOT. Granted, the Missouri connections are more comparable in cost between the plans. However, IDOT has been willing to essentially pay for more of the bridge to make up the difference. Thus, per the MLK plan, MODOT would need to only find $25 million, whereas Missouri's latest plan for a smaller bridge farther north would still cost Missouri $180 million.



So then, would you take four new lanes north of Cole for $25 million, or four new lanes north of Cass for $180 million? On cost alone, the MLK plan makes sense. But it's even more clear when you're talking either a seven-lane I-70 (combined MLK and coupler bridges) for only $25 million or a four-lane I-70 (new MRB) for $180 million.

whatever...



Text: New Mississippi River Bridge Proposal

Last Edited: Wednesday, 23 May 2007, 7:35 PM CDT

Created: Wednesday, 23 May 2007, 7:35 PM CDT

--

By Charles Jaco

(KTVI - myFOXstl.com) --



FOX 2 has learned that a compromise is in the works that could result in a much-delayed new bridge over the Mississippi River finally being built. Sources close to the talks between Missouri and Illinois say Missouri has dropped its insistence that a new bridge be a toll bridge. In return, Illinois has agreed that a new bridge will be built north of downtown St. Louis, about a mile north of the Edward Jones Dome and the King Bridge.



Both sides have agreed that the new bridge would be four lanes total--two in each direction--and would be scaled down significantly from the original proposal that called for a towering bridge with a price tag close to a billion dollars. Both sides have agreed the bridge will be free, and both sides have agreed on its location.



The delay now is over financing. The new, scaled-down project will cost around $569 million. The federal government has pledged $239 million, and the state of Illinois has agreed to pay another $261 million. The real surprise in a new deal, though, is that the state of Missouri has agreed to come up with $69 million for its share, after maintaining for years that Missouri could not afford to pay anything toward a new bridge.



Sources say that hurdle was cleared when Missouri agreed to re-finance the bonds that have already been issued for the Highway 40 re-building project. Such re-financing could generate the extra $69 million. But, sources say, Illinois suspects that Missouri has under-estimated the bridge's total cost. That means Illinois officials could demand more money from Missouri.



But assuming those financing problems can be ironed out, sources close to the talks say a public announcement of a new bridge agreement could be made by the end of June.



Link to Story

I'm still not sure what a bridge with 2 lanes each way will accomplish, when the coupler would be a better alternative. At least Missouri has gotten over itself somewhat.

^ And I'm in favor of world peace and an end to hunger.

Doug wrote:I think its ridiculous that we are even still using highways for transportation.

LOL! Doug I think you've finally smoked yourself retarded. I blame the dugout....or was it the chillum, bubbler, vaporizor, hooka, gravity bong, or the old fashion fatty bo batty BLUNT?

The automotive revolution was one of the most powerful in the history of the world. Fast, personal transport. I understand why cars will always be a part of our society. Sure, we'll develop technology that will make the car more efficient, run on different fuels, etc...but they'll always be there.



We can however work to lessen our dependency on the car.



While the new bridge is a step in the right direction, I just wish that we wouldn't have to scale it down. I loathe the idea of building a twin for the Poplar Street Bridge.



I just look at other similar river cities and they all seem to have, at the very least, one cool bridge spanning the river. Granted, Eads is a pretty damn cool bridge, but I'd like to see something other than Poplar Street II.





Pittsburgh





Cincinnati





Philly





Memphis

How do Cincinnati and Memphis do it? I mean, all those lights surely cause barges to hit the bridges on a weekly basis . . .



Light up the Eads baby! It's a bitchin bridge and should get much, much more attention than it does.

I don't have exact data, but I would be fairly confident that Cincinnati, Philadlephia and Memphis have a wider area to cover than the Mississippi near downtown St. Louis.



The Ohio tends to be a very wide river, and the Mississippi is wider near Memphis than here. The Ben Franklin and Walt Whitman bridges in Philly are also spanning a wide river.



It's not impossible to build a bridge that is pleasing to the eye without spending a billion dollars (it's so weird that I mean that literally; man that's a lotta dough).

^ For a second I thought you might be on to something, but:



Roebling Bridge - Cincinnati: 1,057 feet





Eads Bridge - St. Louis: 6,442 feet





Memphis: 5,222 feet





Of course there is some wiggle room as bridges aren't necessarily the same length as the river is wide, the following in Memphis is loooong, but much of it is over land:



Memphis: 19,535 feet

The proposed suspension bridge (NMRB) that isn't getting built, was supposed to be 2800 feet (roughly).



The span of the bridge is measured from where the bridge starts to where it ends. Eads starts right at 70, and it seems obvious that less than half of the bridge actually crosses the water, since the new bridge is only 2800 feet.

^ Word - the numbers are very misleading.

^ Using Google Earth, I took some rough measurements of river widths at various locales...



1,600 ft - Missouri at Rte 115 in St. Charles

3,300 ft - Mississippi at I-270 in St. Louis (width due to downstream dam?)

1,600 ft - Mississippi at Eads in St. Louis

2,700 ft - Mississippi at I-255 in St. Louis

3,600 ft - Mississippi at I-40 in Memphis

2,100 ft - Mississippi at I-55 in Memphis

1,600 ft - Ohio at I-64 in Louisville

2,200 ft - Ohio at I-65 in Louisville (width due to downstream dam)

1,300 ft - Ohio at I-71/75 in Cincinnatti

1,000 ft - Ohio at Rte 19 in Pittsburgh

900 ft - Monongahela at I-279 in Pittsburgh

800 ft - Allegheny at I-279 in Pittsburgh