urbanSTL

^....The big/main pocket of federal highway funds for bridges is in a program called Bridge Improvement Replacement (BIR). BIR funds can only be applied to the replacement of an existing bridge that has a Sufficiency Rating of 50 or less. BIR funds can only be applied to improve an existing bridge that has a sufficiency rating of 80 or less. Entirely new bridges on new alignments are a different animal. Large/expensive ones are usually leveraged by individual members of congress thru the earmarking process. (an extreme exampe is the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska which has been in the news as an example of "Pork" for a year or two) Often times the Congressional earmark only pays for a fraction of the total cost of the new bridge. The State DOT then has to come up with the rest of the funding for the bridge. This comes down to total State funds, or a DOT decision to spend federal funds from other more flexible federal highway programs....such as Interstate Maintenance (IM) or the Surface Transportation Program (STP). A big problem in making a decsion to use these other progam category funds arises in that the priority order for investments in most DOTs boils down to #1 Preserve What you Have...#2 Optimize the Performance of What You Already Have...#3 Build New Highways/Bridges. I certainly don't know all of the particulars, but it seems to me that the New Mississippi River Bridge being discussed in this thread is in this difficult position. It received an earmark that will pay for only a fraction of the cost (only a small fraction of the more ambitious/pretty designs). And, the Missouri DOT is having a hard time making a decision to shift resources from #1 and #2 priority types of investments to fund the remaining cost of the bridge (a #3 priority investment). If the bridge in Kansas City alluded to above has a Sufficiency Rating of 50 or less and is therefore rated as being structurally deficient, the state DOT probaly looks at it as falling within the #1 priority for its investments (Preserve What you Have). I don't know the particulars of the wording of the earmark for the new bridge, but there may be some issues with the application of the earmarked funds to the design concept that incorporates the MLK Bridge.

IDOT is offering to pay for most of the bridge itself as most of the connections are in Illinois. IIRC, MoDOT didn't have to pay much to build the MLK coupler. The earmark in the SAFTEA-LU bill is ambiguous enough so that the money could have been used to build the coupler. The one drawback was having to redo an environmental impact study(EIS). I don't think we are anywhere closer to getting a new bridge than we were a year ago.



Regarding the Paseo Brige, most of the funding is coming from bonds issued against future revenues from Amendment 3 ($195 million). Sort of buy now pay later, they are doing the same thing with the I-64 rebuild. Later is coming sooner than we think. Both MoDOT and the federal gov't are running low on cash reserves. If things don't change, I wouldn't be surprised if there are very few construction projects in the five years from now.

Why does anybody think Rahn is the final decision/policy maker when it comes to infrastructure, bridges, road, transit, etc. Really should be about beating up on Blunt and the state legislator when it comes to the politics of funding or prioritizing such projects. Like an earlier comment, MRB is really about infrastructure that supports interstate trade and traffic for which the state is missing out on (same argrument for improving I-70 & I-44 through the state). Illinois understands that getting at least few cars going downtown via coupler bridge opens up some space for the trucks on I-64/I-44/I-55/I-70 all crossing on the same bridge.

I'm sure IDOT would love to have the full-scale MRB developed in the 1990s. But basic budget-engineering tells you that the MLK-coupler plan is the only way you can get seven free-flow lanes for a new I-70 within ten years. That MODOT will settle for only four lanes for essentially the same price tag and timeframe shows how short-sighted and/or self-interested Missouri is.

southslider wrote:That MODOT will settle for only four lanes for essentially the same price tag and timeframe shows how short-sighted and/or self-interested Missouri is.

I agree, and I think the MLK coupler plan makes the most sense for both states. However, MoDOT is not interested in anything that makes sense, hence its skewed priorities. (There's money for the Page Avenue extension, the Highway 40 destruction, but not this? It's even more ridiculous when one considers Missouri would bear very little of the total cost of the MLK coupler plan.)

Dredger wrote:Why does anybody think Rahn is the final decision/policy maker when it comes to infrastructure, bridges, road, transit, etc. Really should be about beating up on Blunt and the state legislator when it comes to the politics of funding or prioritizing such projects. Like an earlier comment, MRB is really about infrastructure that supports interstate trade and traffic for which the state is missing out on (same argrument for improving I-70 & I-44 through the state). Illinois understands that getting at least few cars going downtown via coupler bridge opens up some space for the trucks on I-64/I-44/I-55/I-70 all crossing on the same bridge.

People beat up on Rahn because he is the final say in this. In Missouri, unlike most states, the head of the DOT is not a political appointment.

I'm not much on conspiracy theories, but you make an interesting point.

and of course the "conservative" politicians in St. Charles County (then County Executive Joe Ortwerth chief among them) acted like the Page Extension was their God-given right and that the whole area would somehow be paralyzed if we didn't get a 10 lane bridge to connect Maryland Heights to Harvester. All at the taxpayers expense of course

I just sent them an email. I was like where is the new bridge or how about at least some updates. I should have copied and pasted here what I wrote. I called them whiners and they needed to get together and get this done. Also isn't the cost of the project going to be higher and higher with all the delays that there has been? Such as higher cost of materials, cost of employee's of both DOTs working on this project, and other things. To be honest I think we have waited long enough.

Fox 2 News is reporting this morning that a deal has been struck:



- down to 4 lanes but original location (just north of the EJD)

- MO contributes eighty something million, IL kicks in 300 million

- no tolls

- 2015 target date

It will be a signature bridge, but a completely new design. About $626 Million when all the money is added together.



Interesting to see that Illinois basically defeated Rahn, except for location.

Just 4 lanes? I think with the growth of the Metro area IMO they are asking for trouble again. I would like to have seen the 8 lane bridge happen but I even would of settled for even a 6 lane bridge. However, I will say at least there is some progress. This has been a long time coming.

lets get this one up, and then start drafting plans for a new signature PSB.

Little Egyptian wrote:How can this be a "signature bridge" and only carry 4 lanes of traffic?

Here "signature" refers to the design and not the size.



Since the McKinley reopened, people don't have to wait 'til 2015 for easy access to the east side. Then again, the McKinley is a boon to the inner ring and unfortunately I don't think people mean Granite City, Venice or East St. Louis when they refer to new development in Illinois.

So a FOUR lane bridge will carry I-70 at St. Louis??? but Page, which isn't a major interstate, is TEN lanes??? WOW. Who is Rahn? Some outstate hick?

bpe235 wrote:lets get this one up, and then start drafting plans for a new signature PSB.

And include provisions for rail on the bridge for use by high speed trains to Chicago and Indy. Is it too soon to start dreaming?

I'm happy a deal is done and we're not getting a boring slab of concrete like the PSB, but couldn't the powers that be on both sides of the river find the funding to make the bridge at least six lanes?

Dreaming: maybe there is this 4 lane bridge now... and in 10 years they will add a sister bridge... making I-70 4 lanes in EACH DIRECTION?!? MoDOT should push for this before the upgrade the 1930s Daniel Boone Bridge in Chesterfield (planned for 2015 - 2020~ and if they do this MoDOT should use the existing bridge for Metrolink transit into St. Chuck); but you know as well as I do that wont happen.

I guess this bridge is better than no bridge.