- 2,929
^ Excellent news. Let's get that sucker built.
Q: Is there any chance of additional funding for the NMRB from the Federal Gov't as part of the economic stimulus acts? Or, if so many "shovel-ready" projects are getting funded / have recently been funded, could this project receive a similar dollar boost?
Q: Is there any chance of additional funding for the NMRB from the Federal Gov't as part of the economic stimulus acts? Or, if so many "shovel-ready" projects are getting funded / have recently been funded, could this project receive a similar dollar boost?
Gone Corporate, I don't believe their will be any stimulus funds associated with this project since this project has funding in place for the current scope of work agreed upon. The city tried to get additonal funds for a Truman Ave realignment and connector. MoDOT and East West Gateway passed on that request.
Agree with your sentiment. This is a significant piece of the infrastructure puzzle and will be advantageous for Downtown and North St. Louis in the long run.
I'm curious on how the next highway bill will play out and what will be requested by area Legislators. The current project downsized the number of lanes and doesn't include a new I-70 rebuild as originally desired. The existing five year bill expires in FY2009. However, it took Congress two years of extension before a new bill was passed last time. So don't hold your breath. Missouri side probably lossed out on any significant Federal Transit Funds associated with this bill by not passing Prop M. I believe the original MRB proposal included significant highway, interchange and rail realignments in Illinois.
Agree with your sentiment. This is a significant piece of the infrastructure puzzle and will be advantageous for Downtown and North St. Louis in the long run.
I'm curious on how the next highway bill will play out and what will be requested by area Legislators. The current project downsized the number of lanes and doesn't include a new I-70 rebuild as originally desired. The existing five year bill expires in FY2009. However, it took Congress two years of extension before a new bill was passed last time. So don't hold your breath. Missouri side probably lossed out on any significant Federal Transit Funds associated with this bill by not passing Prop M. I believe the original MRB proposal included significant highway, interchange and rail realignments in Illinois.
IDOT has long argued that Illinois needs this New Bridge to prevent massive congestion delays. However, I have reviewed the population growth and the job growth in both Missouri and Illinois. From what I see I really wonder what is the basis for the traffic projection supporting this argument. I guess its really just just a big WPA project for Contractors and constructioin workers.
Not too long ago, transportation planners argued that Lambert needed the new runways and the construction of Scott to handle the projected growth in airline travel. It didn't happe. Lambert is struggling for revenue to support all of its investments and Scott in particular is pretty empty.
While its not likely to happen, I really wonder if St.Louis City might be better off with a different use of the money.
Not too long ago, transportation planners argued that Lambert needed the new runways and the construction of Scott to handle the projected growth in airline travel. It didn't happe. Lambert is struggling for revenue to support all of its investments and Scott in particular is pretty empty.
While its not likely to happen, I really wonder if St.Louis City might be better off with a different use of the money.
- 362
I am sort of shocked at this from you Busdad - don't take it out on Illinois because Missouri and Saint Louis doesn't know how to tap into federal dollars.
You can study the population growth all you want, just drive in during rush hour across the bridges downtown. It is not so much the capacity as the ignorant construction with exits immediately off the bridge causing lane changes and congestion at the very point that they should have planned to move people quickly.
And, population growth is directly tied to transportation infrastructure. You of all people should be able to testify to that. You can't base projects on current growth, you need to base projections on growth when drive times are reduced because of alleviating the pressure on the PSB.
You can study the population growth all you want, just drive in during rush hour across the bridges downtown. It is not so much the capacity as the ignorant construction with exits immediately off the bridge causing lane changes and congestion at the very point that they should have planned to move people quickly.
And, population growth is directly tied to transportation infrastructure. You of all people should be able to testify to that. You can't base projects on current growth, you need to base projections on growth when drive times are reduced because of alleviating the pressure on the PSB.
I have lived in Metro East for the past decade. I understand fully what the traffic is and what it isn't. With the exception of construction and accidents, traffic flows pretty fast.
Now I agree about some of the merges and weaves. They have to deal with the well points along I-55-70 and I-64. One of the worst problems is the connection between 55-70 and I64 on the Missouri side. The Eastbound lane backs up traffic onto I-55 northbound. However, some of those problems are not part of the new bridge.
Quite frankly, I would have preferred to have congestion tolls on all of the bridges entering St.Louis from Alton to the JB Bridge and across every bridge into the St. Charles. I would argue for smaller tolls on off peak hours and very heavy tolls in the peak hour. This would encourage more transit usage and generate sufficient funds to support maintenance on all of the bridges.
The Illinois folks would oppose it since Illinois residents would end up paying for this cost. However, Illinois (and you and I know this) is broke and needs new revenue. Congestion tolling will help the transit system and will push traffic that can avoid the rush hour into the off peak.
In St. Charles, it will may provide more of an incentive for people to live inside St.Louis County. I would use excess revenue to support building a commmuter rail line (or two) from St.Charles to Clayton where the system would connect with Metrolink.
Well its just an unrealistic dream, but nice to think about.
Now I agree about some of the merges and weaves. They have to deal with the well points along I-55-70 and I-64. One of the worst problems is the connection between 55-70 and I64 on the Missouri side. The Eastbound lane backs up traffic onto I-55 northbound. However, some of those problems are not part of the new bridge.
Quite frankly, I would have preferred to have congestion tolls on all of the bridges entering St.Louis from Alton to the JB Bridge and across every bridge into the St. Charles. I would argue for smaller tolls on off peak hours and very heavy tolls in the peak hour. This would encourage more transit usage and generate sufficient funds to support maintenance on all of the bridges.
The Illinois folks would oppose it since Illinois residents would end up paying for this cost. However, Illinois (and you and I know this) is broke and needs new revenue. Congestion tolling will help the transit system and will push traffic that can avoid the rush hour into the off peak.
In St. Charles, it will may provide more of an incentive for people to live inside St.Louis County. I would use excess revenue to support building a commmuter rail line (or two) from St.Charles to Clayton where the system would connect with Metrolink.
Well its just an unrealistic dream, but nice to think about.
While most of us agree on this post prefer more transit options as far as commuting. I think MRB is just as much or more about trucks as well as seperating I-70, I-64 and I-44 as anything else.
The region isn't going to be as competitive with rail in moving freight as most of us would hope. I lot container trains get to KC (Southern California, Texas & Mexican ports), Chicago (Pacific Northwest/Canada), Memphis (Southeast Ports) and Columbus (Norfolk) before they get to St. Louis. However, we have an ideal situation in selling the area as a air cargo hub, central location and a strong network of going in and out of roads to move things quickly (with no tolls to boot). The MRB will finish that connection.
The region isn't going to be as competitive with rail in moving freight as most of us would hope. I lot container trains get to KC (Southern California, Texas & Mexican ports), Chicago (Pacific Northwest/Canada), Memphis (Southeast Ports) and Columbus (Norfolk) before they get to St. Louis. However, we have an ideal situation in selling the area as a air cargo hub, central location and a strong network of going in and out of roads to move things quickly (with no tolls to boot). The MRB will finish that connection.
- 2,929
Another point of need for the NMRB is contingency of facilities.
Whether it be a major truck crash, a barge collision, an earthquake, a bomb, plague of locusts, whatever: it is in the best interests of the United States to maintain multiple links across the two halves of the country at its geographic center, preferably in the center of the concentrated population, and on a modern facility designed to better resist catastrophies. That the traffic jams are horrible now and only to get worse with continued minimal growth (of both commuters and interstate commerce agents) is still secondary to how a redundant crossing remains very necessary; federal trumps bi-state trumps local.
Either way, I just want to see the thing built ASAP. And once it's done, we're probably going to be ten years away from needing a whole other bridge built as it is. And God willing, may this bridge serve as an impetus for sustainable & transformative economic redevelopment for the North Side and the Near East.
Whether it be a major truck crash, a barge collision, an earthquake, a bomb, plague of locusts, whatever: it is in the best interests of the United States to maintain multiple links across the two halves of the country at its geographic center, preferably in the center of the concentrated population, and on a modern facility designed to better resist catastrophies. That the traffic jams are horrible now and only to get worse with continued minimal growth (of both commuters and interstate commerce agents) is still secondary to how a redundant crossing remains very necessary; federal trumps bi-state trumps local.
Either way, I just want to see the thing built ASAP. And once it's done, we're probably going to be ten years away from needing a whole other bridge built as it is. And God willing, may this bridge serve as an impetus for sustainable & transformative economic redevelopment for the North Side and the Near East.
lighting if we can afford it 
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/along- ... er-bridge/
St. Louis is one of the darkest cities I have ever witnessed coming into downtown. all of our bridges should be lit.
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/along- ... er-bridge/
St. Louis is one of the darkest cities I have ever witnessed coming into downtown. all of our bridges should be lit.
Pardon my relative ignorance on this subject, but what will the highway distribution be after the new bridge is open? I know 70 will take the path of the new bridge, but what about 64, 55 and any other of the US highways(40)?
Not sure what you mean by "highway distrbution". Can you elaborate?
In case it hasn't been mentioned before: After the bridge constuction is complete, the current section of I-70 in Missouri between the new bridge and Poplar Street Bridge must be renamed, as not to have two I-70's in the downtown area. That particular stretch of highway (that runs by the arch) will be renamed I-44.
In case it hasn't been mentioned before: After the bridge constuction is complete, the current section of I-70 in Missouri between the new bridge and Poplar Street Bridge must be renamed, as not to have two I-70's in the downtown area. That particular stretch of highway (that runs by the arch) will be renamed I-44.
By that I mean, where will the highways that cross the river at the PSB currently be coming across once the new bridge is complete? Will 55 still come over the PSB or will it come over on the new bridge and travel south? That's what I mean. Hope that makes sense...
I-70 is the only highway that will cross the new bridge. I-64 and I-55 will still cross the PSB (BFD).
For the record, Matt is referring to the proper name of the bridge, which no one uses, the Bernard F. Dickmann bridge -- he's not saying that it's a big effing deal that 55 and 64 will still cross it. 
bonwich wrote:For the record, Matt is referring to the proper name of the bridge, which no one uses, the Bernard F. Dickmann bridge -- he's not saying that it's a big effing deal that 55 and 64 will still cross it.
Masked profanity -- does that mean the mods call your employer??
After 30 years of debate, the new Mississippi River Bridge breaks ground
BY MIKE FITZGERALD - News-Democrat
EAST ST. LOUIS -- After 30 years' worth of debate and delays, the new Mississippi River bridge officially becomes a reality with a groundbreaking ceremony set for 12:30 p.m. today on the Eads Bridge. Many dignitaries are scheduled to be on hand, including U.S. Tranportation Secretary Ray LaHood.
The Eads Bridge will be closed from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. today for the ceremony.
http://www.bnd.com/2010/02/26/1150311/g ... ridge.html
- 2,005
The groundbreaking today has been cancelled. Too much snow in DC...
Groundbreaking has been rescheduled for April 19th, according to the News Democrat.
- 2,005
The construction cameras are online now. There's one looking east and one looking west. I'm not savvy enough to post the live images, but the link is here:
http://oxblue.com/pro/open/modot/mrbp
http://oxblue.com/pro/open/modot/mrbp
So did anything happen or is anything going to happen today as today is the rescheduled groundbreaking?
And I love how the webcams are on MODOTs website, considering the great support that Missouri put into this project.
And I love how the webcams are on MODOTs website, considering the great support that Missouri put into this project.
- 11K
eh...nothing happens at groundbreaking ceremonies.
But let's hope that Ray LaHood and others got a good look at the obsolete I-70 that cuts off downtown from the Arch grounds and river!
But let's hope that Ray LaHood and others got a good look at the obsolete I-70 that cuts off downtown from the Arch grounds and river!
- 3,428
They have basically said if someone can come up with some money to do it, they will.