Poll results on new Mississippi River bridge
The following are the results of the 200 votes in the weekly poll last week:
Q: The ground breaking for the new Mississippi River Bridge is this week. Which of the following best describes your thoughts on the $640 million dollar project?
- This makes removing the highway from the PSB to Cass possible 102 [48.57%]
- Another bridge is good for the region 35 [16.67%]
- Seriously, the Ronald Wilson Reagan Memorial Bridge? 28 [13.33%]
- It should be a toll bridge 14 [6.67%]
- More highway bridges encourages more driving 11 [5.24%]
- Wow! How much? 10 [4.76%]
- Other answer… 10 [4.76%]
The largest group obviously likes the City to River concept of removing a 1+ mile stretch of highway after the bridge opens.
The ten other answers were:
- Why is it only 4 lanes?
- Need new bridge or 100 more miles of Metro track and a tram system to feed it
- this bridge isn’t needed
- cant we spend on public transit options in stl
- Investing in infrastructure in the urban core is a good thing.
- disappointing design
- I’d prefer it had a more locally significant title
- good for development but they could’ve done things differently, expand mayb
- environmental and social impacts, including generating more driving
- If it includes bike lanes I’m happy. If not, I’m mad.
This bridge is an interstate bridge so no bikes or pedestrians. Other bridges such as the Eads can be used to cross the river on foot or bike. It is four lanes because of the budget.
– Steve Patterson
Actually there is no law preventing a bike or pedestrian facility as part of an interstate bridge project; however, in this particular case it isn't really needed as there are sufficient alternatives with the nearby Eads.
Statistically insignificant sample (200 votes out of a city of 350,000 and a region of 2.5 million), but reflective of this blog's readers. Also, another example of non-parallel options – it would have been more informative to have multiple votes, like this week's survey. If so, I would have voted for 1, 2 & 4, plus write-in answers 2, 4, 5 & 8.
I applaud St. Louis for preserving and continuing to use its historical bridges, such as the Eads Bridge and the Chain of Rocks. Here in the Kansas City area, we just tear 'em down as quickly as we can (we're about to lose the Paseo Bridge and, in recent years, lost the Chouteau Bridge, which I believe may have been the oldest existing bridge over the Missouri River at the time of its demolition).
One thought for another poll relating to the new biridge. What impacts if or any will the new bridge have on McKinnley? Second, would McKinnley Bridge be better served if we keep trucks/cars off it once we have the new Mississippi River Bridge? Essentially turn it over for purely transit and pedestrian uses. The thought comes from the fact that Portland is building a new transit/pedestrian only bridge. However, we can essentially get the same without even having to build a span.
Read a nice artlice on the stlbeacon.org about preferences associated with the Arch Design this week. Almost everybody had the same thought about the idea that I-70 should be removed from downtown in part to the fact that a new Mississippi Bridge is being built. I think this thought is starting to gain traction.
On another note, I believe the construction of the bridge deck width is actually six lanes. However, they are going to stripe to four lanes and full width shoulder in each direction. Second, the Illinois approach will essentially be a four lane highway. So the idea that that you are going to gain by having anymore then four lanes at the moment is pointless. In that regard, I think MoDOT did you a good job of not getting ahead of everything.