Well Pete Rahn was spotted in the Drury Hotel downtown today and rumor has it there was a meeting between both states today.
- 11K
^ This is the best thing about this forum - we have eyes everywhere!
- 1,768
brickandmortar wrote:Well Pete Rahn was spotted in the Drury Hotel downtown today and rumor has it there was a meeting between both states today.
Isn't East-West...Council housed in this same complex? (THe Drury/KMOX building comlex?)
That would make sense that he was 1)there and 2)working on the bridge agreement.
So... The Page Extension is a TEN lane bridge... and the Mississippi Bridge will be a FOUR lane bridge...? 
- 163
Ah I don't keep up with this thread as much as I'd like to. Question: I thought I saw a plan that pushed Missouri bound traffic onto Tucker. Now I see it will spill out in front of the old Schnucks site. Was it ever proposed to carry traffic to Tucker?
Ah I see it was listed under the prior plan.
- 1,610
I wonder if IDOT could pull a bait-and-switch on MODOT. Agree to a four-lane bridge for now in the planned, more northern location, but then someday still convert the new four-lane bridge to WB I-70. Combined with an MLK conversion to a three-lane EB I-70, you'd still get seven lanes to carry Interstate traffic over the Mississippi. Of course, EB traffic would then have to go back to merging southwest of the I-55/64/70 tri-level interchange in East St. Louis.
In other words, still do the MLK-coupler plan, but fulfill such hybrid plan years after this currently planned, deficient four-lane MRB opens, and we suddenly realize all over again that neither state has the money to build a parallel four-lane span next to the new bridge. Or do the states actually have the foresight to build piers that can someday support a wider bridge deck?
In other words, still do the MLK-coupler plan, but fulfill such hybrid plan years after this currently planned, deficient four-lane MRB opens, and we suddenly realize all over again that neither state has the money to build a parallel four-lane span next to the new bridge. Or do the states actually have the foresight to build piers that can someday support a wider bridge deck?
- 145
Well the way this is going what will happen first? Gay Marriage in Missouri or The New Mississippi River Bridge??
(btw its a joke)
(btw its a joke)
- 3,433
Afftonguy78 wrote:Well the way this is going what will happen first? Gay Marriage in Missouri or The New Mississippi River Bridge??
Putting those two issues together in your post just caused me to create a really bizarre picture in my head involving two states linked, each supplying half of the linkage. Thanks a lot - not.
Wow! Look! A cool-looking bridge! And it'll be done by 2011.
![]()
With luck, we'll have a plan for ours by then.
Full story
With luck, we'll have a plan for ours by then.
Full story
- 2,093
^nah, they'll want to build the Olive Extension into St. Charles County and another Missouri bridge to be named later before we even THINK of a new bridge connecting MO and IL. 
- 1,610
So how does KC get a 6-lane bridge for an arterial street, when STL can't even get six lanes for a cross-country interstate highway? Then again, The Paseo bridge doesn't cross state lines.
bonwich wrote:Wow! Look! A cool-looking bridge! And it'll be done by 2011.
With luck, we'll have a plan for ours by then.
Full story
From one* part of Missouri to another? hmm... What a surprise.
Does anybody else see a remarkable similarity between the new KC bridge and one-half of the our fabled Mississippi River bridge?
- 3,433
So Rahn's argument that there's no money is blowin' smoke. Hopefully this will improve our position in future negociations ...
Xing wrote:bonwich wrote:Wow! Look! A cool-looking bridge! And it'll be done by 2011.
With luck, we'll have a plan for ours by then.
Full story
From one* part of Missouri to another? hmm... What a surprise.
Missouri favors Kansas City over St. Louis anyway!
St. Louis is larger and has a larger portion of it's population in Missouri. I don't think its about that. It's about Rahn being an idiot. He's got no problem throwing dollars at useless projects that take missourians to other parts of missouri. But doing something that would benefit Missouri, but actually helps Illinois at the same time? Forget that!
- 5,433
trent wrote:St. Louis is larger and has a larger portion of it's population in Missouri. I don't think its about that. It's about Rahn being an idiot. He's got no problem throwing dollars at useless projects that take missourians to other parts of missouri. But doing something that would benefit Missouri, but actually helps Illinois at the same time? Forget that!
That's it. I don't think Kansas City is necessarily favored over St. Louis, although you'll hear a lot of grumbling in KC from those that think the opposite is true.
If anything, you can call it an insular or isolationist transportation policy. MoDOT found $1 billion for the first phase of the Page Avenue extension, another billion for the destruction of Interstate 64/Highway 40, but they're reluctant to throw much more than crumbs toward the construction of the MRB, which might actually improve interstate commerce in the region.
This is a replacement of an existing bridge....Not a new bridge...I wonder what kind of shape the existing bridge is in? Anyway, this may have played a part in the earlier schedule for this bridge project.....Then again, maybe not.
- 1,610
^MODOT wansn't too thrilled about IDOT's cheaper plan to incorporate the MLK Bridge, an existing bridge. It's pretty clear that KC gets this bridge simply because it sits fully within Missourah.