Wasn't there an article within the last cpl weeks about Missouri having a projected maybe 300 million surplus for F07? Why isn't Illinois shoving it down MODOT's throat since Missouri's been crying no money? Agreed about MO republicans, this is disgusting. And I dread to ask, but in the proposed location, how much historic demolition are we looking at?
- 1,610
JCity wrote: I know I will not ever again. A FOUR lane bridge carrying the nations major east west interstate at St. Louis?!
I'm gonna have to say I-80 is the nations major E-W interstate based on total vehicles per day. It only has a 4 lane crossing over the Mississippi.
- 362
Expat wrote:^Yes, but it doesn't cross the Mississippi through a major city.
Right, look at the trouble there is with I-80 at the Illinois/Indiana border just outside Chicago. That is a horrific nightmare. You can sit there literally, literally for hours. This has to be 6 lanes at minimum - anything less than that is a waste of money. I would actually prefer them not to build any 4 lane bridges because the Feds will not give us any more money and then we are stuck with that.
Xing wrote:"America's Freedom Family Bridge,"
I like it. It's got a nice ring.
- 1,768
trent wrote:Xing wrote:"America's Freedom Family Bridge,"
I like it. It's got a nice ring.
Since the Missouri republicans are the driving force behind getting this done
I move we call it the John Ashcroft GitMo Detention Center Justice League Memorial Fresh Water Span.It just rolls off the tongue.
Just ignore this or reference me to an earlier post but what is the story of the historic bridge across the Mississippi near Chouteau? Meaning, is there any possible option to restore vehicular traffic to it?
- 2,005
^Not a chance. The railroad owns it and will never allow cars on it again. Besides they tore down part of the road deck just to make sure.
It's much too skinny for modern auto traffic as well. One full lane in each direction wouldn't even fit safely.
^ Since when has St. Louis cared about lane widths and safety? We have 4 lanes on MLK bridge and 3 on the westbound Daniel Boone which at one time used to have 2-way traffic. Or let me tell you the fun it is be aboard a chartered bus driving US 65 across the Missouri river where the driver uses his right-hand mirror to drive within inches of steel truss members seeing as how he is already driving atop the double yellow line.
Wikipedia has a nice tidbit on the recent history of the St. Louis Municipal Bridge and it's indirect connection with the beginnings of MetroLink. But like brickandmortar says, the railroad owns it, so not a chance.
Matt wrote:Just ignore this or reference me to an earlier post but what is the story of the historic bridge across the Mississippi near Chouteau? Meaning, is there any possible option to restore vehicular traffic to it?
Wikipedia has a nice tidbit on the recent history of the St. Louis Municipal Bridge and it's indirect connection with the beginnings of MetroLink. But like brickandmortar says, the railroad owns it, so not a chance.
In 1989, the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis acquired the MacArthur Bridge from the City of St. Louis in exchange for the title to the Eads Bridge. The Eads bridge, one of the primary reasons for the TRRA’s original formation, had become obsolete for modern-day rail traffic due to the height restrictions it placed on rail cars.
^ We're talking about the MacArthur Bridge, correct? Like most of the dual-purpose bridges from that era, the auto deck is too narrow and the approaches aren't straight enough for fast travel. Check out the two jogs in the car deck:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&g ... &z=17&om=1
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&g ... &z=17&om=1
- 362
I like that bridge, but I am all in favor of condemning it. If the railroads major crossing into downtown Saint Louis was taken away from them, maybe we could limit some of the heavy rail traffic that is going through the city. It would force them to move the major rail traffic to the Merchants Bridge in North Saint Louis, which is fine, or they could build another bridge near the JB or Chain of Rocks, which could handle more traffic and bigger cars as both rail crossings in Saint Louis are 100 years old, that can't be good. Or, heck, trade them the McKinley like we did with the Eads.
If we could limit the major rail activity in downtown, we could make some progress on other projects. Highway 40 is not nearly the barrier between downtown and the south side that the railroads are.
If we could limit the major rail activity in downtown, we could make some progress on other projects. Highway 40 is not nearly the barrier between downtown and the south side that the railroads are.
^Not a chance. The railroad owns it and will never allow cars on it again. Besides they tore down part of the road deck just to make sure.
that was pretty "crafty" on their part to do that. Now, that top level can NEVER be used as a pedestrian/bike bridge. pretty clever! the little f's.
Little Egyptian wrote:...Highway 40 is not nearly the barrier between downtown and the south side that the railroads are.
Agreed. But how bout this for a if money were no object idea: Leave the railroads where they are in the Chouteau valley, and build level 'ground' on top of them! I recall seeing some show on the History Channel about Istanbul and how much of the city was originally hilly. At some point in the past they just built level across all of the valleys, and the city grew up on top of this artificial ground.
We could easily build a level surface between Chouteau and Spruce -- all the way from Spring east to Broadway. Then all of the N-S streets could go through and the street grid be reconnected. There might be a few engineering challenges and parts of eastbound 64/40 would become a tunnel -- but that would show the railroads they can't hold St. Louis hostage anymore!
- 69
There's plenty, but here is an "in progress" if money were no object scenario. Stuttgart 21 is a project to put the central train station tracks underground...and convert it from an end station to a through station. They are creating quite a bit of buildable space doing this.
http://www.stuttgart21.de/site/stuttgar ... start.html
A little video here:
http://www.stuttgart21.de/site/stuttgar ... erial.html
(As an aside, Stuttgart is one of our sister cities.)
http://www.stuttgart21.de/site/stuttgar ... start.html
A little video here:
http://www.stuttgart21.de/site/stuttgar ... erial.html
(As an aside, Stuttgart is one of our sister cities.)
new article today on bridge...
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument
...
An April letter from Missouri Transportation Director Pete Rahn to the Illinois transportation secretary suggested that tolls could be eliminated if bridge plans were scaled down to four lanes, from eight, with the possibility of future expansion. That would cut construction costs to about $569 million, from about $1 billion, according to the letter.
I guess building the bridge large enough to accomodate future expansion is better than nothing, but damn that's going to look lame when they leave off the additional lanes...
![]()
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument
...
An April letter from Missouri Transportation Director Pete Rahn to the Illinois transportation secretary suggested that tolls could be eliminated if bridge plans were scaled down to four lanes, from eight, with the possibility of future expansion. That would cut construction costs to about $569 million, from about $1 billion, according to the letter.
I guess building the bridge large enough to accomodate future expansion is better than nothing, but damn that's going to look lame when they leave off the additional lanes...
- 362
I loved how the Post-Dispatch article blamed the slow progress on Illinois. What a joke. If it were up to Illinois, we would actually be getting what is seen in the above picture and construction would already be underway on the 8 lane bridge. Instead, BECAUSE OF MISSOURI, we are going to get some crappy 4 lane bridge that by the time they build it is already going to be insufficient. I am not too worried about the competence of those in Springfield (although I do worry about the corruption), but in Jefferson City it is a different story. For all their conservative talk about competition being healthy, they are sure scared to compete with Illinois for residents. I guess competition is great, as long as you are not talking about tax dollars, which they don't have enough of in the first place.
As an aside, if anyone watched Sunday Night Football last night, the shots of Boston's beautiful bridges were plentiful, especially their newest the Bunker Hill Bridge, and they couldn't heap enough praise on Boston with Madden saying "you know, you know, its one of the truly great downtowns."
As an aside, if anyone watched Sunday Night Football last night, the shots of Boston's beautiful bridges were plentiful, especially their newest the Bunker Hill Bridge, and they couldn't heap enough praise on Boston with Madden saying "you know, you know, its one of the truly great downtowns."
- 2,093
I say we trick the MO Leg. into somehow thinking the money earmarked for this is actually going to a new exit for Bass Pro Shops or another Missouri River bridge into St. Charles County so these anti-urban rubes would pass it.
How about a super 10 lane road that takes you directly from 44 right to the Bass Pro parking lot in Springfield. We can call it 444.
Little Egyptian wrote:I loved how the Post-Dispatch article blamed the slow progress on Illinois.
Please cite the passage(s) that imply this.
- 362
bonwich wrote:Little Egyptian wrote:I loved how the Post-Dispatch article blamed the slow progress on Illinois.
Please cite the passage(s) that imply this.
No problem. If you would have read it, you would have saw it:
Those involved say progress slowed this summer because legislators and gubernatorial staffs were distracted with legislative sessions. In Illinois, legislators were bickering for months over a budget and are trying to get a capital bill approved. The proposed bill sets aside $177 million for a new bridge.
"The poison that's in the air, it's not a good environment in Springfield at all for legislative action," said Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson, R-Greenville.But he expressed confidence that the two states would have an agreement soon.
Little Egyptian wrote:No problem. If you would have read it, you would have saw it:
Wow. I would have saw it, huh? I'm seeing why your interpretation might have been different than others'.
Those involved say progress slowed this summer because legislators and gubernatorial staffs were distracted with legislative sessions.
I'd suggest that the use of the word "staffs" indicates that the writer attributed the delay to both states. Or maybe Illinois has more than one governor. Perhaps I would have saw it differently in that light.
- 120
Maybe I am mistaken, but I was under the impression that Missouri had a LOT more money earmarked for this project than the Illinois side did. Considering this is more likely to benefit Illinois since people will now be able to live across the river and work in Missouri more easily, I don't see why Missouri should foot more of the bill. If Illinois doesn't want toll bridges but wants the eight lanes, then how about they fund it.