urbanSTL

jlblues wrote:^I'm pretty sure they mean the bridge will have wide shoulders for breakdowns and emergency vehicle access. I think all they mean by "expanded to 6 lanes" is that the bridge lanes could be restriped and the shoulders could be used as a 5th and 6th lane if the traffic needs outweigh safety issues, or something like that.



None of the other major bridges in the area have emergency lanes that I can recall, though, so I don't know why this one needs them.

The Alton bridge has emergency lanes I think ... but, that's my point from earlier. If the capacity for 6 is there, why not just do it now? Save the paint, the hassle, the confusion, and make everyone feel a little better about this bridge.

COST: About $640 million. Illinois would pay about $313 million and Missouri about $88 million, with the federal government pitching in $239 million.



http://www.bnd.com/336/story/268233.html

Yeah, there will be a new tri-level interchange in East St. Louis, a new exit ramp just west of Gateway International Raceway, and the relocating of route 3.

bonwich wrote:We're still talking $85M vs $300+M without the ramps. The numbers are odd. Even if this thing doesn't get done until about 2016, that's pushing a 300 percent differential in just 22 years. I doubt anyone's 401(k) is showing that kind of return.

Dollar just doesn't buy as much anymore...

Moorlander wrote:

Little Egyptian wrote:
why not just do it now? Save the paint, the hassle, the confusion, and make everyone feel a little better about this bridge.

ummmm, are you gonna pay for it? This isn't sim city LE.

If the actual Bridge cost is a little over 300 million, I can't imagine it being but a few million more to make it 6. If you are building in hazard lanes anyway, why not just stripe them for traffic? I just don't see a lot of additional cost on the bridge structure itself.



Of course, the additional cost of making it 6 will come in the additional construction on the ramps and interchanges. But, let's examine that.



First, I assume (and this is just an assumption) the most costly interchange components (the interchange bridge spans) will be built with the capacity to go to 3 lanes (or 2 or whatever). Why build an elevated interchange if it is only capable of 2 lanes when you are openly considering 3 in your public narrative? I assume (perhaps wrongly) that because they had the foresight to build in the additional capacity to 6 on the main bridge span, they will have the foresight to build the capacity for 6 (or whatever additional is needed) into all elevated interchange bridge spans (in yellow on the maps) and that that additional capacity has already been factored into the cost. So, again, there should not be that much additional cost in the interchange bridge spans. Maybe a few million.



So, that leaves us with the non-elevated approaches, and this is where there will be substantial additional costs. The actual roadway on land is what we are talking about here. This roadway, for the most part, will probably have to have emergency lanes on both sides no matter what. So, the additional capacity that is currently factored into the plan cannot just be sacrificed to go to 6. There will have to be additional cost and the width of the roadways will have to be increased on top of the current plan. How much will that cost? Who knows, but in any case I can't see it being any more than 100 million more. Let's examine it.



Look closely at this map. Everything in yellow should already have the additional capacity for 6 built into it as discussed above. Everything in red would probably require additional capacity, right? But, hold on a minute, consider the red portions and their functions.



First, Missouri. Now, certainly the ramp to Cass will probably have to be increased if going to 3 instead of 2 lanes dumping into the city. Perhaps that means that a 1 lane ramp going to Cass will now have to be 2. So, there is a small extra cost. But, 70 already has the capacity to dump 3 lanes of traffic instead of 2, so the improvements that are being made to 70 itself in Missouri will not change. Also, much of the necessary ramps to 70 are elevated, so working on my initial postulate that additional capacity should already be there (just eliminating the emergency lane), that won't cost much more either. So, my guess on what it would cost on the Missouri side to go from 4 to 6 lanes is probably in the neighborhood of 20 million. Just a guess, but there really shouldn't be that much to do because most of the red in Missouri is 70 related which will already have the capacity.



Now, Illinois. For Illinois, I am only considering the initial phase. The 70 relocation to north of the racetrack is not in the initial phase and not in the initial figures as I understand them. However, knowing that such a relocation is in the works is important, because it allows us to save money in the near term. Look at the map again. The largest red section in Illinois is between where 55/64 currently sit and the turn for the new bridge approach. There is no reason that this section of roadway needs to be built to 3 lane capacity in the initial phase. Obviously, it would be better if it was, but you could leave that section at 4 lanes and then just expand to 6 (or contract to 4) slightly before (or after) the turn for the approach. Now, would that constriction to 4 cause problems leaving the city in the afternoons? Sure, and it may even back up traffic onto the bridge in the initial years, but backing up traffic on the Illinois side leaving the bridge is better than backing up traffic on the Missouri side entering the bridge. Let's get the people across and then worry about how to disperse them (and remember, we are working on the postulate here that the parties don't think there will be the traffic necessary to justify 6 anyway - of course, we all know that is BS). Also, if future expansion to 6 is deemed necessary, Illinois can just do it without consulting Missouri (and Rahn). So, if that section of roadway was not expanded to 6, you would again only be looking at a minor increase, say something in the neighborhood of 30 million more. If you went to 6 lanes with that stretch, it may cost you 70 million or so more.



So, at least on my close examination, you are probably looking at the neighborhood of 50-60 million more to go to 6 initially. Certainly that is a lot of money, but in comparison to what it would cost to retrofit this and the cost of the overall project, 50 million for 2 additional lanes ... seems like a pretty damn good deal to me. Even if you go 6 with everything in Illinois, you are only looking at something around 100 million more. (And I consider those numbers to be extremely high - I think it will be half that, but being conservative I doubled everything - you are certainly free to disagree with my thinking on these).



It all seems like it wouldn't cost that much more to just do 6 now to me. Certainly it would cost more. But, I don't think there is anyway to go from 4 to 6 later without it costing much, much more and being much, much more of a hassle because the bridge will already be in use and traffic would have to adjust to lane closures and whatnot. Doing it up front will save all those economic costs to the Saint Louis area.



Certainly this is not SimCity and 50 million is a lot of extra money, but this is a big investment and we should be making the best investment possible for the smallest amount of money. For a relatively small amount of additional money, we can increase the impact of the investment by 1/2. The most closely and important aspect of this whole project is the bridge span itself; we should be maximizing the effect of the bridge span, and the way to do that is to use all of its capacity. That is just smart business (of course, this whole thing assumes your goal is to build the best bridge possible - which, clearly does not seem to be the goal in Jefferson City).

I recommend that everyone go to the New Bridge website and compare the current plan to the old one to see the problems.



The majority of costs to the original plans for development, aside from the new bridge itself, were the secondary developments necessary for the project, especially rerouting of I-70 around the Gateway International Speedway. Current plans are to focus upon the redevelopment of Route 3 north of the current highway system, part of the original plan’s intent, as the primary rerouting of I-70. Gutting Route 3 was always part of the plans, but now it’s going to be the hub of the roadways’ redevelopment. In comparison, MO’s obligations are for the redevelopment of I-70 along the north side, which shall continue on as originally planned.



As Route 3 is not intended to be the most permanent rerouting of I-70, with the hopes still existent of recasting the highway permanently above the Speedway, we aren’t going to see eight lanes across. I don’t even know how well the Route 3 expansion will work for four lanes of full I-70 traffic, both interstate commerce and standard travelers, noting the 90 degree turns that will be cast at both the initial turn of westbound traffic north and then again going west to the bridge itself.



Even building a full bridge of eight lanes right now is feasibly impossible and impractical, as we’d be throwing money at making an eight lane bridge for four lanes of IL infrastructure. We could even build the new bridge for six lanes initially, but they'd still only go into four lanes immediately along the recast Route 3, as IL won't invest in six lanes on Route 3 when they still see the route above the Speedway as the future I-70 site.



During this time, IL can expect to recognize newfound revenues as new companies, especially those involved in transportation logistics, establish bases of operation along the all but completely undeveloped Route 3 along the construction site. Should a firm establish a series of warehouses along this route, MO will see an increase in the number of large trucks along I-70 while IL recognizes increased taxation revenues from these companies and the ancillary businesses necessary to support them.



When there is the funding available to redirect I-70 north of the Speedway, as per the original intent of the plans, will we see the opportunity for a second bridge being built as a coupler. At this time, both bridges will probably be recast themselves as dedicated one-way bridges to ferry all traffic across the Mississippi. During this time, IL will see further developments around the recast highway around the Speedway contingent to those to be built along Route 3, which will still have the infrastructure necessary to recognize sustainability of businesses along a dedicated route. And, more businesses mean more taxation revenues.



Until this money can be sourced, however, we only can get one bridge with four lanes, with contingent emergency lanes being redeveloped into traffic lanes as needs require. I see these lanes being turned into six if and only if long-term sourcing of the funds necessary for the now de facto second phase of development takes too long to catch up to transportation logistics needs.



With this in mind, one can see that the majority of the necessary construction costs are based upon the needs for the related critical IL highway development. While MO will be the recipient of benefits from this, predominantly in the establishment of contingent businesses in MO to support the new developments in IL, it is absolutely not in the best interests of MO to fund another state’s infrastructure redevelopment projects.



Take politics into consideration for this as well: if we thought it was tough getting elected officials outside of StL to support the funding of projects like the New Busch Stadium, it would be completely impossible to see a representative for Joplin to support the development of infrastructure in Brooklyn, IL.



Springfield, IL has the responsibility to fill in these funding gaps and invest in Southern IL. While MO can be an advocate for funds to this project from federal funding sources, MO has no business building highways in IL. Until the IL governorship and legislature recognize their duty to invest in the infrastructure redevelopment of East StL and the surrounding area, a full bridge will not be built.





But look at the bright side: the creation of any new bridge means that the feasibility of the underlying business plans for The Bottle District and the second phases of development to the Lumiere Casino may lure actual development. This, however, is the best probability of StL receiving an ancillary, short term, non-traffic related return on investment in the bridge.

southslider wrote:^Aside from confusing what was the "I-64 connector" in old plans with "Route 3," Gone Corporate has a point about whether IDOT still plans I-70 north of the speedway. If so, four lanes on this "connector" will work well with yet another relocation of I-70 in the future. But obviously, that seems wasteful. And if IDOT was even willing to scrap the connector with its now-dead MLK-coupler plan, surely, Illinois would be willing to scrap previous plans for I-70. And if this is I-70's new routing for the forseeable future, then it would be a missed opportunity not to build for six lanes now.

Does it matter? GoneCorporate's vision of this is that it will be no trouble to build another bridge when Illinois re-routes 70. That is just flat not going to happen. Look at the trouble it was to build this one. This is the bridge we have, like it or not, for the foreseeable future. It will be 30 years, minimum, for another bridge to be built and probably more along the lines of 40-50 years.



How can we legitimately go to the feds in a couple years from now and ask for anther 2-300 million for another bridge? Their response is going to be, "what did you do with the first 250 million?" We are going to have to look them in the eye with a straight face and say "well, you know that 8 lane plan we had and used to sell you on this project ... well, we only built a 4 lane bridge instead - and it turns out, we really needed 8." You think Lautenberg, Ted Stevens, and the Senate Subcommittee are just going to say .. oh, no problem, here is another 250 million.



I understand Illinois needing to pay their share, because this helps Illinois mostly (although there is some benefit to Missouri in alleviating congestion downtown and helping to develop the north part of the city). And the finances reflect that fact with Missouri taking 14% of the cost and Illinois taking 49% of the cost. I am even willing to say that if there is an additional cost overrun in building 6 initially, Illinois should pick up all that additional cost. But, I don't think cost is the problem here. I think the driving limitation here is Missouri and its desire to intentionally cause congestion to lengthen the drive times for folks that live on the Illinois side who could otherwise be home in 10 minutes.