New Mississippi River Bridge Musial

Guest · PostJan 13, 2005#12005-01-13T02:15+00:00

Administrator wrote:

This thread was split from another discussion-

<A HREF="http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t=212">Tax credits fund 300 new housing units in north St. Louis</A>

The new Missippi River bridge is thankfully a remote prospect. Luckily, it is not fully funded. The scar that it will leave on Old North St. Louis will be irreperable. It will not only serve to disconnect that blosssoming area from downtown. It will remove urban fabric only to be replaced by a tangle of suburban off ramps. I am all for a new brige. the design itself is spectacular but not worth the negative impact on our city. Meanwhile, as the big boys try to pay for the behemoth the whole area is held hostage and nobody will risk developing there.

MattnSTL · PostJan 13, 2005#22005-01-13T02:37+00:00

^This is not an attack on you, just a general airing out.

I truly don't understand how the bridge is going to disconnect Old North St. Louis. OK, I understand what some people have been recently saying, but I don't think it is going to have the affect that is believed by some. I heard this from a graduate student in urban planning at SLU today in the GIS lab, to 2 others that all agreed, and I agree with it- (Not an exact quote but close) "I like how all these internet people complain about everything, but never write about the positives." He was obviously refering to the urbanreviewstl blog, which they had discovered today. Some points I agree with on these type of things, and I appreciate the passion for the city and urbanity, but I think the blogs and people can go overboard. You also have to live in the real world.

matt drops the h · PostJan 13, 2005#32005-01-13T05:05+00:00

One question I have is...what's wrong with the McKinley (sp?) bridge?

MattnSTL · PostJan 13, 2005#42005-01-13T05:13+00:00

It is going to be renovated, starting later this year.

urbanstlouis · PostJan 13, 2005#52005-01-13T05:26+00:00

MattnSTL wrote:It is going to be renovated, starting later this year.

Here is the link to another thread discussing the McKinley

<A HREF="http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t=47">$40 million renovation of the McKinley Bridge</A>

Guest · PostJan 13, 2005#62005-01-13T05:35+00:00

urbanstlouis wrote:
MattnSTL wrote:It is going to be renovated, starting later this year.

Here is the link to another thread discussing the McKinley

<A HREF="http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t=47">$40 million renovation of the McKinley Bridge</A>

So it's reopening to traffic...will it still be toll? Why does there need to be a new bridge? Wouldn't every Illinoisan that works downtown use this bridge instead, thereby relieving traffic?

xing · PostJan 13, 2005#72005-01-13T06:27+00:00

It's very annoying that we have to wait for the new bridge because of the lack of knowledge Missourians possess about Illinois. There are constant traffic jams on the Poplar Street bridge, which holds the traffic for 3 interstates. The worst are at important times of the day, morning and evening rush hour. The jams are expected to get much worse, especially since the metro east population is beginning to grow again. 1/3 of metro easters work in St. Louis.

What's wrong with the McKinley Bridge? The McKinley bridge is not connected to the interstate!! You can't easily go from the freeway around Madison IL, and through Venice's small roads to get to the McKinley bridge. The McKinley bridge is meant for people who live in Granite City, Madison, and Venice IL, not for through traffic. It makes no sense to send freeway traffic onto that bridge. Face it. The new bridge is needed.

The Illinois portion of this bridge has been paid for, for some time now. We've been waiting quite a bit of time for Missouri's portion, and we now are expecting to receive federal money because Missouri has put little money up front. The biggest myth is that Missouri will not benefit from this. This is absolutely untrue. The bridge means greater access to St. Louis for Illinois residents. Great access will make the metro east more attractive for home builders and business. More home builders and businesses=growing population. More people in Illinois will make downtown St. Louis the center of the region again. If downtown is a central location, it will be more attractive for businesses. More business downtown is good for everyone in the entire metropolitan area. Why do you think Clayton has been such a success lately? Because it's more centrally located than Downtown STL.

matt drops the h · PostJan 13, 2005#82005-01-13T06:37+00:00

Well it seems that perhaps the McKinley bridge could be connected to the interstates at less cost than building a whole new bridge, doesn't it?

MattnSTL · PostJan 13, 2005#92005-01-13T19:39+00:00

It will only have one traffic lane in each direction, nowhere near what is needed. Plus, trucks won't want to use it, because it invloves exiting the interstate, even if it is connected in Illinois.

brickandmortar · PostJan 13, 2005#102005-01-13T21:16+00:00

Seems kind of funny this turned into a transporation thread, but I'm going to continue it. I think a new bridge is needed, but I don't think it needs a downtown connection. If I remember correctly the plan is to connect it to Tucker and 14th street on top of the old Schnucks. Old North St Louis is still a quarter mile north of the landing. The bridge itself will be huge, almost as tall as the arch. I'm not too worried since it is not at all funded. Funding hinges on the new transportation bill passing Congress. As of now neither Missouri or Illinois have the money to fund the rest of the project as cost remains high.

True a large proportion of downtown workers live in Metro East(a third sounds right) so adding another connection would help relieve the Poplar. If there was more room a lane could be added to the I-55 ramps North and South on the Poplar. That IMO would fix a lot of the congestion.

Fixing the McKinley is important especially when they start the major construction on Rt 367 in North County, but it won't take more than a trickle off the Poplar. The major problem on the Poplar is the semis taking the tight ramps slowly.

This is my first thread so don't judge me too harshly I may not return!

MattnSTL · PostJan 13, 2005#112005-01-13T21:24+00:00

We'd like to have you around. Even if someone is harsh on you (I don't know why they would be, we all try to be nice) stick around. The more the merrier.

Back to the thread. I think it would be hard to make the current ramps wider. The space constraints at the bottom of the ramps is the problem. But I guess it could be possible. Still, I am for the new bridge, assumming the federal transportation bill ever makes it out of congress. It is only 2 years late at this point.

arch city · PostJan 13, 2005#122005-01-13T21:37+00:00

MattnSTL wrote:Some points I agree with on these type of things, and I appreciate the passion for the city and urbanity, but I think the blogs and people can go overboard. You also have to live in the real world.

I agree. I appreciate different opinions about certain projects, but sometimes the dissention does seem a bit fanatical at times.

As the Metro East grows, because it is, St. Louis will need the new bridge. The growth isn't just the typical shifting we usually see in the region either.

After the accident on the MLK Bridge that killed those Grumman workers, it became more evident how much another bridge is needed over the Mississippi.

MattnSTL · PostJan 13, 2005#132005-01-13T21:42+00:00

^ya, with another bridge, something could be done about MLK bridge too. Just another reson we need the new bridge.

Just look at any other city this size on a river like the Mississippi. They have lot's more bridges. Is it a problem when it is easier to go between St. Louis and St. Charles Counties, than between St. Louis City and St. Clair County? I think it is.

brickandmortar · PostJan 17, 2005#142005-01-17T03:07+00:00

I'm sure it's a lot easier to convince MoDOT to pay for a bridge between counties in Missouri. Seriously why would they want to pay for a bridge to Illinois since the economic benefits would not be as great for Missouri(and vice versa). That is why I think it is important this bridge gets as much money as it can in the next Federal Transportation bill. It clearly benefits the region and the entire transporation system in the midwest/south.

I can't speak about other towns on the Mississippi, but Peoria, IL has almost the same number of lanes crossing the river downtown(6) as does St. Louis(7)

xing · PostJan 18, 2005#152005-01-18T03:02+00:00

brickandmortar wrote:I'm sure it's a lot easier to convince MoDOT to pay for a bridge between counties in Missouri. Seriously why would they want to pay for a bridge to Illinois since the economic benefits would not be as great for Missouri(and vice versa).

If the issue is convincing MoDOT to help build a bridge where the economics do not benefit Missouri nearly as much, then the real issue is MoDOT's inability to think outside the box. I'm sorry, but any Missourian (not directing this to any specific forumer) that thinks this will not greatly benefit Missouri, has serious issues with critical thinking. The obvious says that since most jobs are already in St. Louis, then Illinois will benefit more. However, the not so obvious (yes, this takes a little bit more thinking) says that creating greater access to Illinois also creates greater access for goods to come into Missouri from other states, allows for the development of jobs in Illinois that can provide Missourians with employment, provides a base for growth in Illinois which will then translate to tourists, visitors, business associates, workers, artists, and downtown employees for Missouri.

When Illinois residents go to the zoo, museums, clubs and bars, theaters, or music shows, where do you think we go? Do we go to these things here? I'm sure we would if we had all those places. The truth is, we are essentially helping the economy of the same state that has some ridiculous issues with letting us have even a dash of the wealth. Enough of this ! Let the region move on, both Missouri and Illinois together!

MattnSTL · PostJan 18, 2005#162005-01-18T05:34+00:00

I agree with you, but it is still very hard to convince some Missourians, especially the older ones, that Illinios even exists. Kind of sad, really.

steve · PostJan 18, 2005#172005-01-18T05:41+00:00

Another problem is that St. Louis, both the city and county, is hated by people outstate. They--that is, their legislators--simply refuse to acknowledge that this region is the single greatest economic engine in the state, and consequently take more than they put back in. My dad's a state representative, and he's commented that most of the rural reps can't stand the urban ones. I can't explain it, I just know it is a reality.

This is probably why so little funding for the bridge has come out of Jeff city.

urban review st. louis · PostJan 18, 2005#182005-01-18T23:13+00:00

MattnSTL wrote:I truly don't understand how the bridge is going to disconnect Old North St. Louis. OK, I understand what some people have been recently saying, but I don't think it is going to have the affect that is believed by some. I heard this from a graduate student in urban planning at SLU today in the GIS lab, to 2 others that all agreed, and I agree with it- (Not an exact quote but close) "I like how all these internet people complain about everything, but never write about the positives." He was obviously refering to the urbanreviewstl blog, which they had discovered today. Some points I agree with on these type of things, and I appreciate the passion for the city and urbanity, but I think the blogs and people can go overboard. You also have to live in the real world.

The new bridge will disconnect Old North - without question. A giant noisy hole between point A and point B creates a disconnect. I-70 disconnected Old North from the jobs/industry to the East. I-44 disconnected McRee town from the rest of its neigborhood. These have very lasting effects - ones that are not often realized for 20 years and by then the actual cause is long forgotten.

I personally write about the negatives because, until now, nobody has bothered standing up to the city offiicials, the professional planners and the professional architects. The media gushes over any new development - good or bad. Any development is good development.

I was once a young optomistic guy fresh out of architecture school. But, I've seen 14 years of really bad planning & design. Hopefully those guys over at SLU's GIS lab will get out from behind the computers & statistical models and walk & bike the neighborhoods. You know, the real world...

MattnSTL · PostJan 18, 2005#192005-01-18T23:33+00:00

I still don't agree, but you can write and believe whatever you want. Just one question, if this bridge does not go here, where do you propose to put it. Or do you think it is completely not needed.

I actually do support you in your aldermanic race, you certainly better represent my views than Kirner does. Still, I think you are not always living in the real world. Nice post about MLK though.

urban review st. louis · PostJan 18, 2005#202005-01-18T23:51+00:00

MattnSTL wrote:I still don't agree, but you can write and believe whatever you want. Just one question, if this bridge does not go here, where do you propose to put it. Or do you think it is completely not needed.

I actually do support you in your aldermanic race, you certainly better represent my views than Kirner does. Still, I think you are not always living in the real world. Nice post about MLK though.

Thanks for supporting my aldermanic race.

I guess I'm not sure what it is about my takes that make you think I don't always live in the "real world." I have high expectations which are seldom met. Perhaps I expect too much of society? I'm not being realistic in my expectations? College was certainly not the real world. The real world is a series of compromises. I just think the decision makers have the wrong set of values - their compromises are based on false ideas of city life.

The bridge is needed about as much as the Century parking garage. Of course, those planners in the GIS lab can pump out models showing an increase in cars and an increase in congestion. The very same thinking that says we need more parking garages downtown is the same thinking that says we need more highways & bridges.

If the massive scale of this bridge (and the Page Ave. Ext) bridge are the real world I want nothing to do with it. These things get bigger and bigger each time a new one is planned. It will likely come down to funding this or MetroLink. I'll take more MetroLink over a new bridge any day.

matt drops the h · PostJan 18, 2005#212005-01-18T23:53+00:00

steve wrote:Another problem is that St. Louis, both the city and county, is hated by people outstate. They--that is, their legislators--simply refuse to acknowledge that this region is the single greatest economic engine in the state, and consequently take more than they put back in. My dad's a state representative, and he's commented that most of the rural reps can't stand the urban ones. I can't explain it, I just know it is a reality.

This is probably why so little funding for the bridge has come out of Jeff city.

It's not so hard to understand when St. Louis City voted 80% in Kerry's favor, and Kerry failed to win any rural county in Missouri, save for one, I believe. There's a definite political divide, and not just between St. Louis City and the rural counties of Missouri. St. Louis County is increasingly democratic as well.

MattnSTL · PostJan 19, 2005#222005-01-19T00:13+00:00

Urban Review St. Louis wrote:
Thanks for supporting my aldermanic race.

You're welcome. Too bad I can't vote for you. I will put in a good word with my grandparents though.

I guess I'm not sure what it is about my takes that make you think I don't always live in the "real world." I have high expectations which are seldom met. Perhaps I expect too much of society? I'm not being realistic in my expectations? College was certainly not the real world. The real world is a series of compromises. I just think the decision makers have the wrong set of values - their compromises are based on false ideas of city life.

We are in agreement that the decision makers are often wrong, probably just through sheer ignorance. While I like to push for these expectations, I have to be realistic in realizing what is going to happen. I guess we are really not too far apart. Sometimes I do think you expect too much of society. We are still rather suburban in nature. Your statement about compromises confirms my point, but they are often wrong compromises, like you state.

The bridge is needed about as much as the Century parking garage. Of course, those planners in the GIS lab can pump out models showing an increase in cars and an increase in congestion. The very same thinking that says we need more parking garages downtown is the same thinking that says we need more highways & bridges.

New River bridge needed. Page Ave and new parking garage not needed. End of story as far as I am concerned. Neither of us is going to change viewpoints, so this is just kind of stupid.

If the massive scale of this bridge (and the Page Ave. Ext) bridge are the real world I want nothing to do with it. These things get bigger and bigger each time a new one is planned. It will likely come down to funding this or MetroLink. I'll take more MetroLink over a new bridge any day.

Metrolink is funded with different money, so this is really not an issue. I am all for Metrolink extensions though.

urban review st. louis · PostJan 19, 2005#232005-01-19T00:36+00:00

MattnSTL wrote:Metrolink is funded with different money, so this is really not an issue. I am all for Metrolink extensions though.

Only so much money exists to fund infrastructure in our society. Sure it comes through different funding mechanisms but the reality is we have limited resources. Road/bridge money is separate from mass transit for a reason - the road lobby wants to protect their money.

xing · PostJan 19, 2005#242005-01-19T00:42+00:00

Urban Review St. Louis wrote:
MattnSTL wrote:I still don't agree, but you can write and believe whatever you want. Just one question, if this bridge does not go here, where do you propose to put it. Or do you think it is completely not needed.

I actually do support you in your aldermanic race, you certainly better represent my views than Kirner does. Still, I think you are not always living in the real world. Nice post about MLK though.

Thanks for supporting my aldermanic race.

I guess I'm not sure what it is about my takes that make you think I don't always live in the "real world." I have high expectations which are seldom met. Perhaps I expect too much of society? I'm not being realistic in my expectations? College was certainly not the real world. The real world is a series of compromises. I just think the decision makers have the wrong set of values - their compromises are based on false ideas of city life.

The bridge is needed about as much as the Century parking garage. Of course, those planners in the GIS lab can pump out models showing an increase in cars and an increase in congestion. The very same thinking that says we need more parking garages downtown is the same thinking that says we need more highways & bridges.

If the massive scale of this bridge (and the Page Ave. Ext) bridge are the real world I want nothing to do with it. These things get bigger and bigger each time a new one is planned. It will likely come down to funding this or MetroLink. I'll take more MetroLink over a new bridge any day.

I think there are several bits of information needed for me to better understand your perspective.

- How often do you cross over to Illinois, and when you do, what bridge do you most often use? Also, what times of the day do you cross into Illinois, if you ever do?

- Exactly why do you think a bridge is not needed?

- What do you propose instead of a bridge, more metrolink lines, or nothing at all?

- What businesses and homes will be lost in the construction of highway through North St. Louis, and how much of a negative impact will this have on the part of St. Louis in your opinion?

steve · PostJan 19, 2005#252005-01-19T00:49+00:00

I have to agree with Xing. The Poplar Street Bridge is a mess. I've seen traffic backed up on eastbound 40 from downtown all the way to Kingshighway. Bumper to bumper. A parking lot. And this was not the result of an accident, but the fact that so many communters are trying to cross the Poplar.

Now, I'm totally in agreement that major bridges/highway projects really f with the urban fabric. Further, I too would prefer Metrolink expansion to any other road expansion. But as you said, the real world is about compromise. We--Illinois and Missouri--could really use a new bridge.