urbanSTL

Cost of downtown bridge could kill project

By Elisa Crouch

Of the Post-Dispatch

07/25/2005



Transportation officials in Missouri and Illinois are concerned that the $1.6 billion price tag on a new Mississippi River bridge could kill any chance of building it, or that construction would take so long that congestion relief between St. Louis and the Metro East could be at least 15 years away.



The Illinois Department of Transportation announced Monday that the two states have hired an engineering design firm to pare down the scope and cost of the 6,200-foot-long bridge, which they say would alleviate the tedious crawl across the Poplar Street Bridge during rush hour.



In the end, the number of lanes could be reduced from eight, with room for four more, and the bridge?s ?non-essential? aspects, such as rebuilding certain ramps, could be eliminated. The goal is to bring costs to below $1 billion, said Pete Rahn, director of the Missouri Department of Transportation.



As a result, any new span likely would be a run-of-the-mill river crossing, one that?s sensible, sturdy but boring ? not the landmark that leaders in the region initially envisioned.



?In light of the current financial situation, we just want to get it built,? said Illinois Rep. Jay Hoffman, D-Belleville, chairman of the House Transportation Committee. ?It would be nice if it were another Golden Gate bridge, but we can?t afford another Golden Gate bridge.?



The two states are paying URS Corporation, based in Virginia Beach, Va., an estimated $2.5 million to conduct the re-evaluation study and complete it by early 2006. Part of the process will involve input from citizens. In August, the transportation departments plan to hold public meetings in St. Louis, East St. Louis and Venice to hear anyone?s ideas on financing the bridge, paring it down or what it should look like. Later in the fall, the departments will hold another series of public information meetings to share the recommendations and get additional feedback.

This is a good thing IMO to step back and reevaluate what is necessary. Is the connector to 14th needed? Is an eight lane bridge needed? Is a world class design necessary? Don't forget the Golden Gate Bridge is a toll bridge at $5. I'm sure no one here wants to pay that, myself included.



Neither state has the money to go forward with the project as it stands now. That's why they are both looking at different options.

Just because there are budget constraints does not mean they can't be creative with design. The Missouri Highway Department sucks, just look at how Illinois embellishes their overpasses with the symbol of Cahokia. Why can't we do the same? It was only after a lawsuit that highway 70 was improved (if you can call those fake brick columns an improvement).

What prompted outcry on I-70 in North City was all the specialized urban design attention that the New I-64 project was receiving. If MODOT is asking for a scaled-down design, maybe some of the added flourishes of the highway-40 re-build should be questioned too.



My cynacism lingers, for if this bridge actually went from one Missouri county to another, as many in our region do, this bridge would already be built. And can you just imagine the outcry, if we said toll all river bridges in our region. It's time we stop treating our Metro East neighbors as second-class citizens of our bi-state region.



Sure, I too think the design could be scaled back. The 14th Street connector is a good starting point as mentioned by bricksandmortar. But let's not sell ourselves short on what a signature new bridge could potentially be for our City and our region.

I just want to echo previous comments. This is terrible, and I do blame Missouri for it. It seems that there is a serious effort on the part of Illinois to build up the Metro East, and it seems that the only people in support on the MO side are from STL City.



I think it's more than just the rural Missourans (left out the 'i' for their benefit), I think it also has a stronger meaning for our mega burbs like Clayton, Chesterfield, St. Charles and recently O'Fallon. If Metro East is built up the way STL County has been built up over the years, then that puts the onus back on downtown to be the business capital of the area due to it's centralized location. By making their access to Missouri easier, it changes the immediate demographic and geographic makeup of the metro area. There is so much more land that is developable in the Metro East, so that is the more natural place to expand the area, but they just keep trying to force the issue of building up western O'Fallon, Dardenne Prarie, Wentzville. Hell, I-55 is 4 lanes to Pevely. 44 is expanding all the way to Pacific. 64/40 is expanding to 3 lanes all the way to the 70 interchange. But a few miles outside of Cahokia 55/70 is down to 2 lanes.



This is why projects like the new 64 will get so much attention by Missourians, and get such high support. Because it's eases their travel from West County in. But to support construction that helps build up Metro East could displace many in the county as business centers. You'll see places like Chesterfield, O'Fallon, and St. Peters become pretty obsolete as business attractions for anything other than retail.



This is one reason that I didn't understand Mastercard moving to O'Fallon, it all but eliminates the Metro East from your hiring block. It's too long of a commute. You're basically hiring St. Louis County, and St. Charles County.



I don't know, I'm getting off the subject a bit. The Bridge should be rebuilt, and the McKinley Bridge should be refurbished and reopened. Make Metro East a serious part of the Metro Area. It's vital for the growth of the whole area. And it starts with the damn bridge.

The more I read posts from this site and others the more I realize that St Louis' problems are rooted in local politics.

^Loftlover, you are correct. See below:

TheWayoftheArch wrote:Missouri officials don't care because rural missouri hates St. Louis for some reason...

That is not true at all. Having grown up in Central Missouri, I know that "rural" Missourians don't hate St. Louis. I'm sure a handful of people may, but for the most part, people outside of the St. Louis metro take many trips into St. Louis, not because they have to, but because they actually want to visit. I, for one, moved here, and constantly have visitors from "outstate" Missouri coming to St. Louis because there's so much to do here. Many of them are big fans of the Metrolink, as well, and want it to be expanded just like us.

A lot of people I know (most of them not from St. Louis) are very proud to have such a great city within a relatively short drive. What I have experienced, however, is that many people have a love for Kansas City over St. Louis, or the other way around. I also do my part in promoting St. Louis as much as I can to keep any negative thoughts out of their minds.

As the highways getting into St. Louis are improved, more "outstate" people will venture into St. Louis. Many of those people are scared of the heavy traffic more than anything else. I have overcome that fear, myself, and now find myself going all over the place in the metro.

Visiting the city is one thing, insisting local politicians do what is morally right and for the good of the community at large is another issue altogether. Missouri's politicians are being very short sighted and territorial if they do not support this project, as the the greater St Louis area will benefit, not just those living east of the river. I'd wager that most people who live inside the 270 perimeter consider themselves St Louisans first rather than derive their identity from the State in which they reside. I know it comes down to dollars and CENTS, but this makes no SENSE at all!

I agree this goes far beyond local needs. The interestates are much more then local paths to get us to and from work. When someone drives through St. Louis over the poplar street bridge they have to be thinking what a cluster "f***". A world class bridge would make many a great first impression, and having it in the backgrounds for sporting events etc. People often fall short on the total benefits of such projects. It does boil down to money though, but I don't think they should compromise with some pos like the poplar street bridge.

I think this bridge is needed eventually and it goes beyond the whole Metro East vs ST. Chuck argument. Besides this region is so imbalanced as far as "growth" goes. Look back at St. Louis's comprehensive plan of 1947. It was the City that wanted to build highways and widen roads to quickly move people out of downtown to their homes, boy did that backfire.



Go east on I-64 to O'Fallon Green Mount Road from Downtown and compare it to going west on I-64 to Mason Rd. The distance is the nearly the same, but there is far less development going on in Metro East. The worse this bridge could do is balance things out before Troy and Warrenton become the next hot spots. Sprawl may happen because of the new bridge in Metro East, but IMO it's happening now to some extent. Sprawl can't be stopped, but it can be slowed down locally. MetroLink can be a huge factor in limiting sprawl there.



I've said it before that St. Louis has little congestion. I bet if someone from DC, Atlanta or Chicago saw what we call congestion they'd laugh. A 20 minute backup on the Blanchette or Hwy 40 at I-170 is hardly cause for alarm. Xing brings up a good point about the PSB carrying three major (2 digit) interstates. I can't think of another river crossing on the Mississippi with that many(Memphis has I-55/40)



On the PSB the truck traffic is the cause of slowdowns since the ramps there are so tight. A new bridge would get them off the MLK bridge and onto the highway where they belong thus freeing up the MLK bridge for local commuters.



For the sake of this argument about Missouri vs Illinois, I'll buy into it partially. When the Chain of Rocks(new) bridge was built it was Missouri who refused to add a third lane to it. Missouri needs to pony up for its share of this bridge for the sake of eliminating a future bottle neck. However as a St. Louisan I think much of the work connecting it to downtown is unnecessary and can be done in a more urban friendly way. Especially considering other bridges can handle local traffic.



Most of the work for the bridge involves IDOT. These are relocating Illinois 3, connecting the bridge to the I-55/70 & I-64 Interchange in ESL as well as tying the new bridge into I-55/70 in Illinois. The costs can be lowered, however, we don't need another PSB contraption. World class may be a stretch, let's build something that fits St. Louis. Oh and we don't need a toll bridge either, that would be self-defeating.

Xing wrote:The Poplar Street bridge carries the traffic of 3 interstates, 3! There are 3 interstate-like bridges in St Charles County supporting 1 interstate, interstate 70. Does this make sense to you? This is not necessarily for the suburban automobiles of the metro east, this is also for the commercial and industrial traffic of the country.

Well said. I think I remember reading that it is only 1 of 2 bridges in the whole country where 3 interstates cross.

When it comes to sprawl, I'd rather have people populating the immediately close Metro East (basically the already established communities inwards) than continue to build in O'Fallon, MO and St. Peters etc. We have ample amounts of land in Illinois that is completely undeveloped, but it's 15 minutes to downtown w/o traffic. It takes about 45 to get from O'Fallon MO. So I think you build up your core around downtown, and another accessible bridge crossing the Mississippi makes total sense. Right now, there's no easy access to downtown from Wood River, Alton or other northern communities...Heck, it'd even be easier for Granite City.



There's just too many good communities on the East Side that could be developed, and redeveloped over continued expansion in the West. We've run out of room in the west, but they just keep moving out and it's taking away a lot of land. I remember going to the wineries w/ my parents, and it seemed like we drove through the country for 45 minutes, maybe more. Now it's about 10 minutes away from development.



Let's turn around the idea of sprawl, by not sprawling outwards, rather readdressing the sprawl to undeveloped land within (inside) the 270/255 loop.

There's an upcoming public meeting on the bridge on Aug 2 in St. Louis two others are to be held in Illinois the 9th and 10th.





(St. Louis, MO) ? The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) and the Illinois Department of Transportation will hold a public informational meeting about the New Mississippi River Bridget Project Re-evaluation Study on Tuesday, August 2 from 5:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in an open house format at Webster Middle School, 2127 N. 11th Avenue in St. Louis, Missouri. The public is welcome to stop by any time to view exhibits and maps and to talk to study team members one-on-one.

The purpose of the re-evaluation study is to identify and develop cost-reductions, including redesign recommendations, which will result in a more economical project that can be funded and constructed in stages. Because federal funding for highways and bridges is being decided every six years, building the project?s current design could take more than 18 years.

At the August 2 informational meeting, attendees will learn more about the reasons for the re-evaluation study, its objectives, process and schedule. Similar meetings will be held in Illinois from 4:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. on August 9 at the Clyde C. Jordan Senior Center, 6755 State Street in East St. Louis, Illinois and August 10 at Venice Recreation Center, 305 Broadway in Venice, Illinois.

For more information, visit the project?s web site at www.newriverbridge.org

or contact Debbie Allen, at 314-340-4163.

This is promising:



Transportation bill will cover some cost of new area bridge

By Deirdre Shesgreen

Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau

07/27/2005



WASHINGTON - A long-stalled multibillion-dollar transportation bill will include at least $75 million - and possibly much more - for one of the St. Louis region's top infrastructure priorities: a new Mississippi River bridge.



House and Senate negotiators neared final agreement Wednesday on the six-year, $286.4 billion bill. Lawmakers hope to finish it today or Friday before they leave for an August recess.



At the behest of local lawmakers, the negotiators agreed to significantly increase the amount of money tagged for the new bridge. An earlier version of the bill had set the amount at $44.6 million.



"This should put it on the path to completion," said Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., who as a chief architect of the legislation worked to secure the $75 million along with other bistate-area lawmakers. Sens. Dick Durbin and Barack Obama, both Illinois Democrats, got $20 million into the bill for the bridge, but it was unclear Wednesday night whether that was in addition to or part of the $75 million. Advertisement





Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Belleville, said he expected the final bill to include even more money for the bridge.



Costello was trying to extract additional funds - as much as $350 million - for the bridge from a $3 billion pool included in the bill for "mega-projects" of national significance. "The only way the new bridge will happen is with mega-project funding," Costello said.



Missouri and Illinois transportation officials believe the much-anticipated bridge would ease congestion on the Poplar Street Bridge and is crucial to curbing rush-hour delays for interstate commuters. But there are concerns about the bridge's $1.6 billion price tag, and Illinois officials announced Monday that the two states had hired an engineering firm to slash the cost of the new structure. They are also considering putting tolls on the bridge - a move Costello and others oppose.



The $75 million in federal funds will ease, but not erase, the financial considerations.



Overall, Bond said Missouri will get over $200 million a year under the new bill for highways and other transportation needs. Costello said a similar figure for Illinois was not available yet because congressional aides were still tinkering with the compromise and running the figures.

i just hope tp God that they keep the origuinal design ... That bridge looks beutifll.... it would be very short sighted of St. Louis to replace it with an ordinanry bridge

Just visiting that site makes me upset that they are talking about forgoing the Cable Bridge. That would have been so cool to put on the North side of STL.



Yet another opportunity for greatness thwarted by the morons in office.