urbanSTL

I hope we can catch up sooner than later. I'll need a new car in a few years and I'm hoping to never purchase an ICE again. Also is there any plans to request charging stations for on street parking? That's probably my biggest barrier to getting an EV right now.

I would expect that to be a no go in a city such as St Louis that has so many more pressing priorities in terms of public infrastructure and social spending.

You can always rent an ICE vehicle for long road-trips, assuming you don't regularly commute to Indy or KC.

GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑

Nov 10, 2021

I hope we can catch up sooner than later. I'll need a new car in a few years and I'm hoping to never purchase an ICE again. Also is there any plans to request charging stations for on street parking? That's probably my biggest barrier to getting an EV right now.

Same here.  I'd really like to see national infrastructure get rolling on EV support.  As a renter I basically have no option for charging at home which seems to make owning an EV instead of an ICE not an option.

The Build Back Better plan makes a huge investment for EVs.  Even if they roll back it some more to get it passed your still talking a huge investment into EV which is going to happen as automakers are going all in.   As OnTheEdge noted, pretty big push to get everyone covered but none the less getting commuters and or second car owners like me plugging in will be the norm in not too distance.  I still got a few good miles to go with my Ford Fusion Hybrid but so give a year or two.   

Wall Street has definitely bought into EV if anyone is following Rivian's IPO today.  $100 billion dollar evaluation on an electric truck maker that has only produced 1200 with 200 on the road is mind boggling to me.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/electric-v ... _lead_pos5

With the infrastructure bill passing, it's a good time for a refresh on our long-term transportation plan, Connected2045

https://nextstl.com/2015/03/connected20 ... -planning/

^Really wish we could use a chunk of that $ to get the Brickline Greenway done sooner. It’s probably our most “shovel ready” infrastructure initiative and I’d love to not have to wait a decade for it.

SouthCityJR wrote: ↑

Nov 15, 2021

^Really wish we could use a chunk of that $ to get the Brickline Greenway done sooner.  It’s probably our most “shovel ready” infrastructure initiative and I’d love to not have to wait a decade for it.

I'm assuming Brickline is going to be a pretty good candidate for grant money.  I think a lot of the Infrastructure funds out there is not all formula as you see with roads and bridges.  In addition, I also think it helps in the fact that you got a strong regional body in GRG behind the project moving design & engineering along helps immensely.   Also, I can see even more opportunity at funds, accelerating the project if Build Back Better gets passed at near the dollar amount for climate change as advertised.   The question is how quickly can the current admin acts and how good the city can advocate for itself.

Will keep my comments about N-S/metrolink expansion to the appropriate thread but a lot of good projects can be had as noted by a lot of different people on the various threads that would have an impact for the city at a fraction of the cost.   So not sure if swinging for fences is what is needed when you can get a lot of solid back to back to back hits..     I just wonder if some of these projects beyond Brickline from removing some unnecessary interchanges or improving Grand/I64 corridor, taking the freeway mentality out of Market & FPP, to even a BRT upgrade on one or two of the busier north south bus routes is on the radar?   

https://www.kcur.org/podcast/up-to-date ... cture-bill

MoDOT has already spent all of the $5b for roads and bridges that will get from the infrastructure bill. I alluded to this on Twitter last week that all you had to do is look at EWG long range plan to see what they’ll do with it

No I-70 rebuild out of this. Wow. How else can they get that done?

quincunx wrote: ↑

Nov 19, 2021

No I-70 rebuild out of this. Wow. How else can they get that done?

They’ll bond it out in late 2020s, their bonding capacity opens up after 2025

Just what the east side needs

BND - Two massive highway projects in southwest Illinois are still in the works, IDOT says

https://www.bnd.com/news/local/article255969272.html

Probably a waste of money, possibly unneeded, I'm not sure.

But it's not like that area is going to be redeveloped into something urban or even nice in the lifetime of anybody currently alive.

It's farmland, junkyards and industrial interspersed with a few houses that look like they belong in a third-world country.

^I don't disagree with you that improvement is unlikely during the lifetime of our great grand sprogs, but every mile of new highway that gets built is one more mile that will eventually need to be torn out. More wasted concrete, wasted steel, more garbage walling people off from one another. There's no possible or remotely foreseeable need for additional lanes to funnel people to the bridges. There's already more than enough and adding more fast ones just means that traffic will back up in new places instead of old ones. If you wanted to talk abut adding lanes across the river there would be a better argument, but honestly, I think we're good even on that for now.

quincunx wrote: ↑

Nov 27, 2021

Let MoDOT know what you think of its High Priority Unfunded Needs

https://www.modot.org/high-priority-unf ... c-meetings

Public meeting today 4-6 at Forest Park visitor's center. You can submit comments online as well.

quincunx wrote: ↑

Nov 27, 2021

Let MoDOT know what you think of its High Priority Unfunded Needs

https://www.modot.org/high-priority-unf ... c-meetings

Thanks for posting the link.

Looks like very distinct buckets of funds w a significant uptick in funds.   I can see legit argument on upgrades, removals and realignment of on/off ramps within the city that would be a plus and still fit within buckets to improve bridges and freeways in the region.   Different thread believe but a pretty good discussion on what interchange changes that would improved safety as well as meet city desires for more emphasis on neighborhood & surrounding areas.   At same time,  I'm sure would fit MoDOT overall desires for safety, better flow and less maintenance in long run.   

A project here and a project there will make a difference.    Heck, I can see where you could use MoDOT/state formula funds to rebuild  Grand Ave/I64 interchange for the better, City restore funds for Grand Ave/FPP at grade intersection, and a Fed grant to rebuild FPP & Market into continuous blvd w brickline/ped/bicycle improvements.   

What are you supposed to write in that? Fund multimodal transportation? 

MoDOT’s 10 year priority lists. These are in 3 tiers + multimodal.

^ Wow! Many thanks for posting this, Denis!

Some interesting items:

• $178 million + across Tier 1 & 2 for I-70 improvements from 141 to 170 which includes Reconfigure STL Airport access.
• $43 million for Light Rail Vehicle replacement for Metro
• $12 million for Electric Bus Acquisition for Metro
• $1.8 million to add third River Runner Amtrak train StL to KC
• $31.9 million to extend runway at Lambert (?)
• $16.5 million to demolish building at Lambert (Terminal 1 departures) (?)
Under Tier 3
• $313 million to replace I-44, I-64 & I-55 bridge viaducts & interchanges in Downtown St Louis
• $231 million to add companion bridge to I-70 Mississippi River Bridge and add southern connection ramps to existing I-70 bridge from I-44.

There's plenty more, but those jumped out to me. Fascinating list. Many thanks again for posting!

kota wrote: ↑

Jan 26, 2022

Some interesting items:

• $16.5 million to demolish building at Lambert (Terminal 1 departures) (?)
Under Tier 3

Maybe the garage? They are talking about replacing that, and maybe it'd be the first piece to go. I can't imagine they'd start knocking things down until they have the replacement plan finalized. Especially critical things. And they specifically said the best option involved keeping the dome over the departures hall, though there'd be plenty of other demo in, around, and under it. Alternately, maybe they're just identifying future needs, (I guess that's what this doc really is) but that does seem odd.