If they are only going to build two lanes in each direction I suggest we name it the Matt Blunt Bridge. After all, he was the one who said no one wanted to live in the city anymore. So obviously building a bridge this small in the heart of the metro area is working at achieving that goal!
If this means we can start planning the removal of I-70 from the Dome to Poplar St., then I'll all for it.
This is almost as bad as how they are rebuilding the two lane Highway 40 into the two lane Interstate 64 in St. Charles County... Can Missouri ever think ahead?
I LOVE the Matt Blunt Bridge idea. A small bridge for a small man! 
Again, a TEN lane bridge from STL County to STC County!? thanks for exacerbating suburban sprawl! Oh wait, no one really uses it! I'm glad that wasn't a waste!
Again, a TEN lane bridge from STL County to STC County!? thanks for exacerbating suburban sprawl! Oh wait, no one really uses it! I'm glad that wasn't a waste!
- 1,768
306 mil? So its the coupler bridge Illinois proposed, but bi-directional and in the original alignment?
Another Poplar St. bridge heading our way.
Who do I get to backhand? Or maybe I'll just use a newspaper and rub their nose in it...
Does anyone else see Pete Rahn standing in his office in front of a mirror with a hairbrush in his hand doing a Ron Burgandy impersonation?
"Go ***** yourself St. Louis."
306 mil? That has to be a typo...right?
Another Poplar St. bridge heading our way.
Who do I get to backhand? Or maybe I'll just use a newspaper and rub their nose in it...
Does anyone else see Pete Rahn standing in his office in front of a mirror with a hairbrush in his hand doing a Ron Burgandy impersonation?
"Go ***** yourself St. Louis."
306 mil? That has to be a typo...right?
OK, OK...I had heard a little on the radio this evening and went and checked at KMOX.com.
No need to panic:
Agreement reached for new bridge over Mississippi
Bill Reker Reporting
bereker@cbs.com
ST. LOUIS (KMOX News) -- Sources have confirmed to KMOX News that an agreement has been reached for the construction of a new Mississippi River Bridge at St. Louis.
A press conference is planned for Thursday morning at 10:30 at the Pipe Fitters Hall to make the announcement. Both Governors Matt Blunt and Rod Blagojevich, along with representatives from MoDOT and I-DOT will also be there, along with state representatives and city leaders.
The bridge would connect I-70 in St. Louis and the Metro East. The bridge that Missouri and Illinois agreed to is a $620 million four-lane suspension bridge.
Original plans were for an eight lane bridge, but KMOX News is told that the bridge that would be built could be expanded if more funds become available.
Congress authorized nearly $300 million for the project. It is will be contingent upon Illinois approving a capitol spending bill and East West Gateway approving spending in Missouri. Missouri will oversee construction of the bridge.
How the hell did MO get control of building the dang thing? Really?!
They must have flipped a coin.
No need to panic:
Agreement reached for new bridge over Mississippi
Bill Reker Reporting
bereker@cbs.com
ST. LOUIS (KMOX News) -- Sources have confirmed to KMOX News that an agreement has been reached for the construction of a new Mississippi River Bridge at St. Louis.
A press conference is planned for Thursday morning at 10:30 at the Pipe Fitters Hall to make the announcement. Both Governors Matt Blunt and Rod Blagojevich, along with representatives from MoDOT and I-DOT will also be there, along with state representatives and city leaders.
The bridge would connect I-70 in St. Louis and the Metro East. The bridge that Missouri and Illinois agreed to is a $620 million four-lane suspension bridge.
Original plans were for an eight lane bridge, but KMOX News is told that the bridge that would be built could be expanded if more funds become available.
Congress authorized nearly $300 million for the project. It is will be contingent upon Illinois approving a capitol spending bill and East West Gateway approving spending in Missouri. Missouri will oversee construction of the bridge.
How the hell did MO get control of building the dang thing? Really?!
They must have flipped a coin.
- 923
Kalu kalay! What a wonerful day! Finally, we can get rid of the depressed sections of 70! A new beautiful bridge and all the benefits that it brings!
NOW DON'T FCUK IT UP MODOT!
NOW DON'T FCUK IT UP MODOT!
^Hu?
Sadly, removing the depressed section has never been part of this project and with Missouri in charge, I have a feeling that it will never be.
My guess is Rahn finally agreed to the deal only if Missouri was in charge so he can pass out the construction contracts. Nothing like a bit of graft for your for Rahn to pass around to make an unpalatable proposal acceptable.
As a side note, if the bridge really does get built, I wonder what impact this will have on metrolink ridership.
Sadly, removing the depressed section has never been part of this project and with Missouri in charge, I have a feeling that it will never be.
My guess is Rahn finally agreed to the deal only if Missouri was in charge so he can pass out the construction contracts. Nothing like a bit of graft for your for Rahn to pass around to make an unpalatable proposal acceptable.
As a side note, if the bridge really does get built, I wonder what impact this will have on metrolink ridership.
Probably - why else would they finally agree to go ahead w/ the damn thing?JMedwick wrote:My guess is Rahn finally agreed to the deal only if Missouri was in charge
This is not a good thing - not at all.
If y'all really want to see the end of the aptly named depressed lanes, I'd suggest you contact your congressperson now. Perhaps it will then happen by 2050.
- 2,005
Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 11:42 AM CST
Mississippi River Bridge to be built for $640M
St. Louis Business Journal
Missouri and Illinois officials have reached an agreement to build a bridge spanning the Mississippi River at a cost of $640 million, according to sources close to the project.
Plans call for a toll-free, four-lane bridge, two lanes in each direction, that would connect Illinois and Missouri just north of the Edward Jones Dome. Original plans called for an eight-lane bridge.
Missouri will take the lead on construction of the bridge with the St. Louis region responsible for $75 million of the costs. That cash portion would come out of a state transportation allotment to the area. It must be approved by the East-West Gateway Council of Governments.
Link to Rest of Article
Mississippi River Bridge to be built for $640M
St. Louis Business Journal
Missouri and Illinois officials have reached an agreement to build a bridge spanning the Mississippi River at a cost of $640 million, according to sources close to the project.
Plans call for a toll-free, four-lane bridge, two lanes in each direction, that would connect Illinois and Missouri just north of the Edward Jones Dome. Original plans called for an eight-lane bridge.
Missouri will take the lead on construction of the bridge with the St. Louis region responsible for $75 million of the costs. That cash portion would come out of a state transportation allotment to the area. It must be approved by the East-West Gateway Council of Governments.
Link to Rest of Article
Missouri will take the lead on construction of the bridge with the St. Louis region responsible for $75 million of the costs.
A large chunk of the financing, $239 million, will be federal money that has already been approved.
Missouri has guaranteed Illinois officials the cost of the bridge with a promise to cover any cost overruns. Illinois would be responsible for the interchanges and connections. It is not known how much each state will pay as part of the project.
What am I missing here?
This sounds good, but what does that mean exactly?TheWayoftheArch wrote:Original plans were for an eight lane bridge, but KMOX News is told that the bridge that would be built could be expanded if more funds become available.
- 8,912
won't 2 lanes be a traffic nightmare? I mean 70 will be narrowing down to 2 lanes?!?! Or will some still divert down to PSB?
Yes, yes, and yes.Moorlander wrote:won't 2 lanes be a traffic nightmare? I mean 70 will be narrowing down to 2 lanes?!?! Or will some still divert down to PSB?
Getting this thing jump started is huge for this region anyway you look at it. The devil will be in the details, more specifically the design. Can they come up with an elegant bridge that easily expands into more lanes or fits well with a companion bridge is my question
On the political end, why are Blunt and Slay showing up other then a photo op. It looks like the respective Senators, ILDOT, and MoDOT to a lesser extent are making this happen. Blunt could have found a way to get some more funds to get this to six lanes? Slay should propose a real change to downtown by eliminating the trench with a new I-70 finally in the works. Both have a chance to put forth something more then their smile.
On the political end, why are Blunt and Slay showing up other then a photo op. It looks like the respective Senators, ILDOT, and MoDOT to a lesser extent are making this happen. Blunt could have found a way to get some more funds to get this to six lanes? Slay should propose a real change to downtown by eliminating the trench with a new I-70 finally in the works. Both have a chance to put forth something more then their smile.
Moorlander wrote:won't 2 lanes be a traffic nightmare? I mean 70 will be narrowing down to 2 lanes?!?! Or will some still divert down to PSB?
70 is already two lanes from Howard St. to the PSB exit, where it turns into one lane (the exit ramp to the bridge).
This bridge is more than adequate, and I'm glad MoDot fought this one and saved $400MM.
- 362
B.A. wrote:Probably - why else would they finally agree to go ahead w/ the damn thing?JMedwick wrote:My guess is Rahn finally agreed to the deal only if Missouri was in charge
This is not a good thing - not at all.
Exactly. Now Missouri can delay construction another decade. If this thing is open to traffic by 2015 I will be shocked. Something tells me that this will be 2018-2020 when it finally opens. The only thing that makes me feel a little better about it is that Missouri is responsible for cost-overruns, which should suggest they want to complete it quickly. Of course, we don't really know how the money is divided, so the cost overruns may be limited only to the bridge structure itself, which while it may be millions, that might not be enough to make Missouri move on this project.
This whole bridge project has me so frustrated that I was actually hoping the negotiations fell through and we could start it again in a few years with different administrations in both states. This 4 lane bridge thing is not sufficient, period. Even if it is somehow miraculously expanded to 6, that is insufficient. But, more importantly, this will prohibit any further discussions on new bridges for probably 30-40 years, minimum. So, this is all we have for the next 30-40 years. We can reasonably expect a new bridge to open again in like 2050. I very well may be dead by then. I can't believe after years and years of negotiations and millions of dollars in planning, this is what they came up with. What a joke.
- 1,610
BSH wrote:
^Perhaps it is adequate. But in comparison, bridges to St. Chuck would then easily be overkill, and to build such few lanes at our economic core then is greatly inequitable. But alas, the fight appears to be ending and Rahn bullied a "win." If truly looking out for taxpayers, let's see if MODOT will fight to save millions when both sides of the next span fall within Missouri.
This bridge is more than adequate, and I'm glad MoDot fought this one and saved $400MM.
^Perhaps it is adequate. But in comparison, bridges to St. Chuck would then easily be overkill, and to build such few lanes at our economic core then is greatly inequitable. But alas, the fight appears to be ending and Rahn bullied a "win." If truly looking out for taxpayers, let's see if MODOT will fight to save millions when both sides of the next span fall within Missouri.
- 2,093
Exactly. Now Missouri can delay construction another decade. If this thing is open to traffic by 2015 I will be shocked. Something tells me that this will be 2018-2020 when it finally opens
how many other bridges to St. Chuck will be opened by then? The 470 and 570 bridges connecting Florissant to New Town? What about the Olive St. Rd. Extension?
southslider wrote:BSH wrote:
This bridge is more than adequate, and I'm glad MoDot fought this one and saved $400MM.
^Perhaps it is adequate. But in comparison, bridges to St. Chuck would then easily be overkill, and to build such few lanes at our economic core then is greatly inequitable. But alas, the fight appears to be ending and Rahn bullied a "win." If truly looking out for taxpayers, let's see if MODOT will fight to save millions when both sides of the next span fall within Missouri.
What the heck is his problem? seriously... I've lost interest in following the news on this bridge, because the news gets worse and worse.
Worse and Worse? The two states have gone from "we can't agree on anything" to "lets build something with the possibility of expansion later." I am just glad something is getting done.
^^^
I completely agree. I thought this thing was dead, and I was pleasantly suprised to see that an agreement had been reached.
I completely agree. I thought this thing was dead, and I was pleasantly suprised to see that an agreement had been reached.