Latest Mississippi River Bridge Proposal Getting Warmer
In the past I’ve been a vocal critic of the mammoth Mississippi River Bridge proposal that originally was going to exceed a billion dollars. Recent revisions shaved that down to $900 million and some change. Besides the cost, I was not happy with the implications of the bridge ramps cutting into the near North side.
Thankfully Missouri has refused to fund their share of the project. Missouri has said the only way we can afford the project is if tolls are collected. Illinois complained it would then prove too costly for their residents as they would end up paying twice — once to fund Illinois’ portion and second as the main users paying tolls.
The stalemate has forced what may be a logical compromise. From yesterday’s Post-Dispatch:
Illinois is moving forward with an alternative to a new Mississippi River bridge – one that’s about half as big, about half as expensive, and would get around Missouri’s efforts to pay for the structure with tolls.A source familiar with the idea said the Illinois Department of Transportation has a conceptual plan in hand for a coupler bridge beside the existing Martin Luther King Bridge. The additional structure would carry four lanes of traffic, all of them westbound. Crews would renovate the existing King Bridge to carry three lanes, all eastbound. Currently, the bridge carries four narrow lanes.
I like the concept! It increases the lane capacity across the river yet without breaking the bank or decimating neighborhoods (well, hopefully not). This is, of course, the plan they should have come up with back in 2001. It might well be under construction at this point had they not gone off the deep end with such a wild scheme.
As with prior concepts, I-70 would be directed to this new bridge coupler. The idea being it would reduce traffic along the stretch of highway between downtown and the Arch as well as reduce traffic on the Poplar Street Bridge (I-64). I’m just not sure what this new concept will do to Laclede’s Landing.
With a new bridge built North of the existing King Bridge it opens a number of questions. How close to the current King bridge and what is in the way?
If immediately to the North of the existing King Bridge you’ll find an existing hotel as well as the horrible new casino project, under construction, in the path. Both are ugly so I suppose I wouldn’t mind. The dock for the President Casino is also a visual travesty so no loss there. However, I can’t see much savings by having to buy out these properties.
So will Illinois propose the new Westbound bridge land somewhat to the North such as inline with Carr or Biddle Streets? If so, this has some pros and cons. On the plus side it avoids having to buy out some expensive real estate. On the con side it further divides an area that has potential to become a real neighborhood. Keeping all the traffic confined near the existing King bridge would allow the area to the North to become more defined and a cohesive neighborhood with access to the North Riverfront Trail.
Here are some related prior posts:
Laclede’s Landing, December 2004 (includes rendering of casino and foul language) Mississippi River Bridge, January 2005 Riverfront makeover, July 2005 Riverfront, I-70 lid and Mississippi River Bridge; August 2005 Mayor Slay on Bridge, August 2005 Mississippi River Bridge, November 2005 Mississippi River Bridge, the numbers, November 2005
I’ve written a lot more on this subject than I realized! Nothing gets me going like a billion dollars being spent on bad auto-centric planning. I’m just really curious to see what the proposal looks like on both the Missouri and Illinois sides. What are your thoughts on this latest twist?
– Steve
It is apparent that the addition of westbound lanes is only to support sprawl. If Illinois residents, and St. Charles residents as well, do not like sitting in traffic, then they should reconsider their lifestyle. Public Tax dollars cannot be used to support an unhealthy, unsustainable, and anti-free market lifestyle.
Heavy government spending on this project, and Interstate 64, is only going to increase our dependency on fossil fuels, as well as increases the hedonistic ‘attractiveness’ of sprawl. As more people move further from the core, there will be similar projects proposed in the future. We need to end this now.
Mayor Slay is wrong if he thinks that Highways increase downtown population or commerce. If you look at the westbound Missouri traffic, and eastbound Illinois traffic, it becomes apparent that the majority of highway drivers are simply leeching onto the core area for jobs, and living their lives elsewhere. We cannot support this behavior. We must reinforce the street grid, while promoting mass transit, and conservation of fossil fuels.
NPR talked about this today. Apparently 50 million is required from Missouri. That 50 Million, and the 260 Federal, plus the 160 from Illinois, would be better spent on Metro, and Metrobus/Metrolink expansions. We cannot continue down this path, because there is no benefit for the urban core.
Metro needs planners from Europe, because they know how to plan transit and infrastructure.
^ Oh I don’t know. On some level, any transportation improvement leads to greater sprawl, as it allows people to live farther away from the core. This is the case for light rail, bus, and cars. Besides, this bridge in some form will be built, so lets try and come up with a plan that has the best possible outcome, rather than throwing up our hands and pouting. If we are gonna spend $50 million, why not make sure it does offer better access to the regions core (as opposed to say the 141 expansion project or MO 364).
In that vain, from the map above, the best placement for the new bridge are two places : Landing Blvd or Carr. The upside with Landing Blvd is that it would take up some parking lots north of the landing and would allow the interchange to come to a point directly across from that useless park infront of the Dome, meaning that the park can be taken out to build the ramps and do so in a compact fashion. The downside with this plan is that is may further cut off the existing section of the Landing from the city and call for the destruction of those buildings between landing Bldv and Morgan St. Don’t fool yourself, the city will not sacrafice its new casino to build the bridge north of the King Bridge, if it happens here is happens south. Of course this downside could be mitigated if the city coupled the new bridge in this location with the removal of 70 south of this point, but alas I doubt those in power will put MODOT’s balls to the wall.
The upside with Carr is that it would keep the new bridge further from the landings core and even better, buffer what could be a new residential neighborhood north of Carr from the Casino. The downside of this location is that is spreads out the ramps and bridge approached even farther, likely meaning MODOT will consume more land to get the bridge done. Also, this location would mean bridge approaches that will fruther cut off the new casino and any residential north of Carr rom the Bottle District project on the west side of 70.
Frankly, the Dome and Convention Center already act like superblocks. Add some more superblocks with the Casino and Bottle District, and the Near-North Riverfront was already going to be cut off from Downtown and the Landing, whether or not you add another bridge. But what I like then about this cheaper option is that it places the barrier of another bridge in a location, where there already are barriers, instead of adding new barriers to the southern edge of Old North St. Louis.
Since a “coupler” bridge to the existing MLK, the new span would not have to be immediately adjacent to the existing MLK. Given the Casino and Embassy Suites, I’m thinking the location is likely Carr. And if at Carr, about the only building most definitely threatened is the cheap motel building along I-70. I think we could spare the Econo Lodge for improved access to our region’s economic core. And Cole likely has the capacity to feed Downtown traffic into this bridge alternative, similar to the role of Cass with the scaled-back MRB.
Finally, it’s way cheaper. If the cost is only $50 million for Missouri, that’s one-fourth the Danforth Foundation’s estimate $200 million cost of building a lid over I-70. And Danforth is ironically requesting $50 million alone in state infrastructure tax credits for a lid that doesn’t exactly help sustain the numbers of Metro East commuters willing to work and be taxed in our City.
This seems like a good plan – although I’d still like to see it be a toll bridge; as well as the existing MLK, Eads, and McKinley.
The public right-of-way around the existing MLK is pretty wide, including both the pavement called MLK Drive to the north, and the pavement called Laclede’s Landing Blvd. to the south. An elevated structure could be placed over either one without additional property acquisition costs.
In Illinois, they might have to get some additional railroad air rights though.
But to really make this work, something needs to be done in order to simplify the approaches to the MLK under I-70. That’s still quite a mess.
Another complicating factor is the mess of approach ramps on the East St. Louis side.
Are the slip ramps that connect with MLK Drive in downtown ESL really necessary anymore? Back when ESL itself owned and collected tolls from the bridge, those made sense.
But now, how much traffic comes through that way? The Eads is a much more direct connection between downtown StL and downtown ESL via River Park Drive.
If those tight little ramps can be eliminated, or replaced with a more conventional interchange further west, that could improve traffic flows.
Also challenging is the fact that even with those ramps, the current through lanes onto 55/70 split, with some traffic entering the interstate in the middle (fast lane) and other traffic entering on the more conventional outer lanes.
I’ve always thought that was a very dangerous situation, such a short distance southwest of where I-64 merges into 55/70.
First of all, FINALLY someone in Missouri government remembered to take their genius pills! I’m so glad they’ve refused to fund this ridiculous project. And hey, if Illinois wants to try to expand MLK, then go right ahead. But I’m not going to pay a dime to watch more St. Louisans get sucked into the wasteland of suburbia.
And I agree with Doug that Highway/Bridge building only encourages sprawl on a massive level. This is proven in almost every major city across the country. Also, studies show that adding lanes and road-building does not reduce or improve traffic but infact increases it dramatically over a four year period.
Jon notes, ” On some level, any transportation improvement leads to greater sprawl, as it allows people to live farther away from the core”… ‘On some level…’ What is that level? For every 100 people that sprawl in road-building, 1 person sprawls with transit building?! I’d be willing to wager that the ‘level’ of sprawl with increased transit is significantly lower than with highway/bridge building and that if money was allocated from highway/bridge building to transit that sprawl in general would decrease significantly. And seriously, “greater sprawl”? I seriously doubt that. “Sprawl on some level”… I’ll give you that, but “greater sprawl”… there’s no way.
And Mayor Slays suggestion that building a bridge is needed and will lead to greater growth… let’s examine that seriously for a second… The only logic for justifying a bridge into downtown is so that people can use that bridge to more easily get into and out of downtown. If it were to encourage population “growth”, the need for the bridge would cancel itself out. People who live in St. Louis don’t need a bridge to or from Illinois. So the notion is preposterous that it will increase growth in the city. It will only encourage growth East of the Mississippi and encourage people to continue to leech off our resources.
What are the stats, Steve, aren’t around 30-40% of our residential units in the city of St. Louis vacant? I’d like to see the original millions spent on planning a better transit infrastructure for the core or more aggresive efforts to encourage new residents. Why don’t our leaders get it?! I’m so tired of this backwards thinking that somehow building and expanding roads is going to do the city of St. Louis any good at all.
[REPLY – I feel your pain Josh!!!! – SLP]
First, by greater i simply ment more sprawl, as in an increase over the existing condition. Poor word choice on my part. But that does not mean transit cannot spread people out far an wide.
I can give you a great example Josh. NJ Transit provides commuter rail service to Trenton NJ from NYC. This commuter rail line promotes people living in western NJ and eastern Pennsylvania and then commuting in for work in NYC or Hoboken or Newark. In fact, with the traffic on the Turnpike, trying to travel from Trenton to NYC is easier on the train, thereby promoting sprawl in a widder geographic area than would have been the case with roads alone.
And you can apply that situation to alot of other cases. Just remember transit is not a monolithic thing. A streetcar running from downtown STl to Soulard promotes sprawl, in that it makes it easier to not live downtown while still being able to quickly get downtown. Highway 40 promotes sprawl in that allows people to more alot further away than Soulard. Now a commuter train line (hummor me for a moment, I know STL traffic is not bad enough to warent this nor is downtown enough of a job center to make this feasible)between Washington MO and Clayton and Downtown would make it possible to move even farther out. I think you get the idea.
IMHO, I don’t buy the sprawl argument. Those who wanted to leave the City for suburbia did so years ago. Now, it’s older suburbs experiencing flight to newer suburbs, not the central city.
Those desiring an urban environment will still move to the core. However, those wanting a suburban residence with quick automobile access to multiple jobs may in the future have more choices between St. Charles and the Metro East. So it’s more of an inner-ring suburbs concern these days. Maybe then, just as St. Ann has lost out to O’Fallon, MO, Granite City may lose more to O’Fallon, IL (it’s already happening bridge or not). But ultimately, St. Louis City can continue to revitalize its core despite nearby older suburbs now experiencing the same pains the city did in the mid- to late-20th century.
And let’s say an added bridge would encourage sprawl… Well then, more development east can help offset our region’s westward path. Even under such scenario, it’s more likely that the City could be again at the population center of our region instead of Clayton or even the emerging Chesterfield. In general, healthier metros are those both growing at the edges and at the core, it doesn’t have to be an “us-vs-them” battle.
If Illinois wants/needs a new bridge for their residential sprawl, make it a toll bridge and let the commuters feel the pain on a daily basis . . . odds are good that it’ll be built eventually, so let’s make lemonade out of the lemons we’re being dealt (tortured analogy, I know).
Unfortunately, until we all sign onto the concept of Zero Population Growth and we actually eliminate illegal immigration, the country’s population will continue to grow, as will (hopefully) the population of the metro St. Louis region. The only ways the region won’t grow is if our economy goes back into the toilet and we kill whatever economic growth may be happening or if we define and enforce urban growth boundaries and live with increasingly unaffordable housing costs due to skewed supply and demand dynamics.
I don’t like suburban sprawl and I’d like to see more redevelopment of the urban core. I walk the walk (I bought a house in the city last year), but I respect the right for others to choose to (be stupid and) live in St. Charles County or Madison County. We live in a free country, and I ‘d rather see incentives than restrictions any day. Just check out the article in the Riverfront Times this week about New Town St. Charles. It’s an interesting vision, but definitely not mine. Bottom line, as we all try to make urban living more attractive, we’ll hopefully see more folks like us making the “right” choices!
I respect all of the arguments for and against the bridge.
My main objection is Mayor Slay’s argument that this bridge will somehow benefit the City of St. Louis. He, and other St. Louis State Officials, need to pressure the Show Me State, to “Show St. Louis the Money.”
Every time highway projects are built, I can only imagine how much better these funds could be allocated:
1. More Mass transit funding for Bi-State
2. SLPS
3. State Tax Credits for Rehabbers
4. Tax Credits for Owners of Scooters, or Hybrid/Diesel Cars
5. Increased funding for the Metro Police, and Fire Department.
All of these could come from that 50 million state dollars. Number 3 and 4 could be a joint tax credit available for St. Louis and KC. 2, 5, would be for St. Louis City, while 1 would benefit Bi-State Development Agency.
“And you can apply that situation to alot of other cases”
The NJ/NYC example can be applied to areas which have:
1. More developed light rail than in St. Louis, and
2. More state funding than in St. Louis, both of which are due to
3. Higher populations, which physically require alternatives to driving
http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-99ua-sqmi.htm
As you can see, the population of NJ/NYC area is much higher than in St. Louis. While we have a great amount of cars per square mile, NJ/NYC has a much higher population. The concept is that NJ/NYC has more cars on the road than us, yet far fewer than expected. Why? With their high population, one would expect many cars on the road, but NJ/NYC has a far more developed mass transit system.
Without this transit system the area would be a parking lot. The NJ/NYC transit system does not promote sprawl. The NJ/NYC area simply has so many people that they require mass transit. If St. Louis doubled in population, we would also need such a system, and it would extended to St. Charles, no doubt.
DD, I have to correct you an a few things.
1. New Jersey does have light rail, however it is not what the NJ Transit commuter rail lines are. Those are big heavy rail operations, that the state runs since it took over from the private rail companies in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Light rail in the state is very limited. The three most notable are the Newark System, the River Line running between Trenten and Camden, and the Hudson-Bergen line, running in the dense areas across the Hudson River from NYC. The result is that the rail lines used by most residents are the heavy rail commuter lines that run from Newark/ Hoboken/ NYC Penn Station out to the more far flung areas of the state. Heavy rail, not light rail is the backbone of rail transport in NJ.
2. One of the biggest misconceptions about New Jersey is that simply because the NJ/NYC metro has alot of people all areas are dense. There is no doubt that as you move closer in, Newark, Elizabeth, Linden, Hoboken, the density is quite high. But as you move farther out to the north, west, and south, the density is really no different than what you find in St. Louis County or in St. Charles. In fact, there are some areas that are still quite rural (largely because of open space and farm land preservation activities by the state of NJ to ensure that the US state with the highest density doesn’t just sprawl itself to death).
What does this mean?
It means that while a dense state, anyone who takes a drive through it quickly learns that high population and density does not mean everything is buildings and people. If you go down near the Princeton Junction station along the Northeast Corridor line, it is a pretty standard park and ride and one of the best used stations on the line. While it would be difficult to take the Tunrpike into NYC from there, the train does offer you the ablity to live in a suburban enviroment and commute in. Without this option, the situation would be untentable. ceratianly untentable because of the greater densities as you move north, but also because the location is so far out from the city. (its even worse for thos who take I-78 or I-80 and drive in from eastern Pennsylvania to work in northern NJ or in NYC because people are fleeing high home prices, a huge factor in sprawl). The end result is that while cars and the highway ad to sprawl, there are times and palces where the train can do just as much to make sprawl possible as the car.
I don’t get the argument that says I’m stupid for wanting to live in the Metro East community where I grew up and commute to work in St. Louis City where I do my banking, some of my grocery shopping and a lot of my eating at independent restaurants. Living in a home built in the early 1900s in downtown Collinsville isn’t the same as buying a new sprawl house in New Town St. Charles.
BTW, didn’t Steve put forward a concept a while back about building bridges of fewer lanes that would connect the Metro East to the city at a few different points. I don’t get how just diverting I-70 Poplar Street Bridge traffic to MLK will help when the real jam on the bridge is caused by there only being one ramp on the Missouri side to take traffic to both I-55 and I-44.
The need for a new bridge is driven by accelerating growth and suburban sprawl in Illinois combined with a lack in growth in employment on the east side. The congestion is caused by rush-hour commuter traffic, not by cross-country truckers and tourists or by eastside residents accessing Missouri at off-peak times. Ideally, we all should live within a few miles of where we work, to minimize all the negatives associated with commuting. The reality is we live where we choose and work where we can find work. I repect (and work with) people who choose a small-town lifestyle and choose to (or have to) commute to the “big city” to find things not available “at home” (like jobs). Still, this is a choice and there are costs associated with any choice.
Bigger picture, I’m a big believer in having growth pay its way. Illinois has embraced growth (as has St. Charles County in Missouri). This growth does not offer a lot of benefits for existing City residents, so why should we pay to encourage it? Sure, I use the existing bridges to cross the Mississippi a couple of times a month. Do I like the congestion? No, but it’s a minor inconvenience compared to the option of a tax increase (or other “funding options” being proposed) to fix it. And while I’d gripe about a toll, I’d probably pay it if it offered a significant saving in time. The same goes for using Metro. For now, the MLK bridge serves that purpose just fine (and it’s “free”!). Plus, I rarely have to deal with the rush-hour congestion.
Bottom line, I’m not creating the need for more rush-hour lanes, so I’m not willing to pay for more. If you choose to live in Illinois and to work in Missouri at an 8-5 job, that burden should be yours. Tolls are the most direct way of allocating this cost. And tolls based on time of day (“congestion pricing”) is an even more-precise way of tieing capacity to demand. We all pay federal gas taxes that will be funding, what, at least 25% of the cost. The rest of the funding needs to come from the ones who benefit the most, either through tolls or from higher taxes on the Illinois side.
Metro East commuters working in the City pay earnings taxes. Since roughly one third of Downtown workers are Illinois residents, and roughly one third of the City’s budget comes from earnings taxes, perhaps more Missourians would realize, especially City residents, how much St. Louis depends upon Metro East commuters. Yet despite this crucial relationship St. Louis City has with Illinois, bridge lane connections between the City and Illinois have actually decreased in the last 20 years, while over the same time frame, similar connections between St. Louis and St. Charles counties have doubled.
And while thinking about tolls would normally be innovative, Missouri certainly didn’t consider this approach for the recently built Discovery (370) or Page Avenue (364) bridges. Indeed, a future project, the rebuilding of I-70 across Missouri looks to be the single largest and most costly project ever in Missouri, yet MODOT is not so surprisingly quiet about tolls on this billion-plus project. Reeking of hypocrisy, Missouri’s recent interest in tolls is really only motivated by their geopolitical concerns. To a highway agency run by outstate interests, why help build anything that largely benefits a place “where no one wants to live anymore” in addition to another state?
So now, by offering a cheaper alternative, Illinois has called Missouri’s bluff of saying it can’t afford to help sustain the Eastside’s increasingly strained economic link to St. Louis. Surely, MODOT can afford a new bridge that will now only cost less than one-tenth of that in Missouri funding as the New I-64 project.
I’m uncertain how this is related to this topic, Jim:
“Unfortunately, until we all sign onto the concept of Zero Population Growth and we actually eliminate illegal immigration, the country’s population will continue to grow, as will (hopefully) the population of the metro St. Louis region.”
The metro St. Louis population is pretty much stagnant. That has very little to do with illegal immigration. I suspect most illegal immigrants who do live here (or elsewhere in the Midwest) are not counted by Census takers, anyway.
No growth = no need for another bridge.
No growth = stagnating economy.
Legal immigration provides growth at one rate, illegal immigration increases that rate.
Bottom line, growth is truly a mixed blessing. It’s good for my career (in architecture), but it consumes resources of all types (land, energy, materials, etc.) and it impacts existing areas, by imposing additional loads on existing infrastructure and by either reducing demand for existing building stock (north St. Louis) or by decreasing affordability through gentrification.
And while the city may or may not be stagnant in its growth, the metropolitan area IS growing, and Illinois is being presented as the next St. Charles County. Its growth is what’s driving the need for more lanes over the Mississippi and/or increased use of Metrolink to get commuters gfrom their homes on the eastside to their jobs on the westside . . .
We'r ed hardy outlet one of the most profession
of the coolest and latest ed hardy apparel, such as
ed hardy tee ,ed hardy bags,
ed hardy bathing suits, ed hardy shoes,
ed hardy board shorts ， don ed hardyt,ed hardy tank tops, ed hardy for women,
ed hardy swimwearand more,
ed hardy clothing. We offers a wide selection of fashion
cheap ed hardyproducts. Welcome to our shop or just enjoy browsing through our stunning collection available wholesale ed hardy in our shop.
our goal is to delight you with our distinctive collection of mindful ed hardy products while providing value and excellent service. Our goal is 100% customer satisfaction and we offer only 100% satisfacted service and ed hardy products. Please feel free to contact us at any time; we are committed to your 100% customer satisfaction. If you're looking for the best service and best selection, stay right where you are and continue shopping at here is your best online choice for the reasonable prices. So why not buy your ed hardy now, I am sure they we won’t let you down.