|
differently than the Illinois Department of Transportation. MoDOT is governed by the Missouri Highways and Transportation
Commission, a six-member board whose members are appointed by the governor. The commission appoints the department director
and controls the state's transportation budget. This made opening a dialogue with someone on the commission key to reaching
a deal, according to Hoffman.
McKenna, who lives in Crystal City, Mo., was the sole St. Louis-area member of the commission. He was chairman of the
commission when the bridge project received the $239 million federal earmark. McKenna said that while the federal earmark
was the largest in the nation, it was obvious to everyone at MoDOT that there was nowhere nearly enough money to build the
new bridge as proposed. The only way to do it that the commission could see, according to McKenna, was through tolls. The
toll idea was proposed through MoDOT director Pete Rahn and it was poorly received by the Illinois side.
McKenna said he realized the importance of the bridge and was focused on getting it done one way or another, but that
Missouri's problem was a lack of money - hence, its insistence on tolls.
But Hoffman was adamantly against tolls. According to Hoffman, it was necessary to convince the Missouri delegation that
Illinois would never go along with tolls before progress could be made.
"I think Missouri finally came to the realization that we were serious and that we weren't going to agree to a bridge
that would have unduly burdened Illinois drivers and Illinois commuters by tolling them," said Hoffman. "They also came to
realize that we were willing to put our money where our mouth was when we proposed the Martin Luther King Coupler, which
would not have been tolled and essentially would have been completely funded by Illinois. I think once they realized that we
were serious; that we were not going to agree to tolls; that tolls had no future in any bridge that we were going to agree
to; and that we were willing to pay our fair share of the money; then, I believe, they began to take a second look at it."
McKenna said that his years as a Missouri legislator helped him understand Hoffman's point of view, yet Missouri had very
limited funds and the coupler idea just didn't get him where he wanted to be. McKenna said he was interested in more than
just getting people from one side of the river to the other. He wanted to build a bridge that would be a driver of economic
development and an asset to the interstate system. McKenna said he just didn't see how the coupler was going to do that.
Months of bickering over tolls and coupler plans culminated in a meeting at the Pipefitters Local 562 recreation complex
in north St. Louis County.
"We both brought our plans," McKenna said. "We had a plan for a real small toll and they came over with a plan on how the
coupler was going to connect into I-70. We kind of both threw our plans away and just started talking."
|
McKenna said that he and Hoffman got along immediately.
"I really did enjoy working with Jay," McKenna said. "I've worked with a lot of legislators over the years. He really
didn't have any airs about him, and that made it easy for me. He never got threatening and said, 'If you don't do this…'"
"We just persevered," McKenna said. "I think that the staff in Illinois and the staff in Missouri - the folks underneath
Jay and the commission - all got along very well. They could see where it was possible to work if we could get the numbers
down low enough, but we had to get through the politics part. I guess that was Jay's job and my job. He and I got along very
well, almost right from the first day that I met him. I think that made things easier for both of us. Because otherwise,
when things drag on, you usually just get upset and say, 'Phfft, I've had enough. I'm not doing this anymore.'"
While IDOT's coupler idea was unacceptable to MoDOT, it did achieve two important things: It convinced McKenna that
Illinois was adamantly against tolls and it showed how much money Illinois was willing to come up with to build a bridge.
With that as a framework, the two sides began working on what they could afford to build with the money available.
The final agreement calls for a total project cost of $640 million: $239 million from the federal government; $313
million from Illinois and $88 million from Missouri. A total of $70 million of Missouri's funds will go to build the
approaches and connections on its side of the river and $18 million will be spent on the bridge itself. Illinois will spend
$264 million on its approaches and connections due to the length and complexity of tying in Interstates 55, 64 and 70.
Illinois will also pay $49 million toward the cost of the bridge itself, with the remainder of the bridge structure being
funded with the federal earmark. Missouri will oversee construction of the bridge and will be responsible for any overages.
Despite the fact that Illinois is paying about two and a half times as much of the bridge cost as Missouri, Hoffman says
that he thinks it's a fair deal.
"We are paying more, but we have many more times the commuters than Missouri does," Hoffman said. "I think it's a fair
agreement for both states as well as the federal government."
At this point, however, Illinois does not have all of its funds appropriated. Hoffman says Illinois has been able to
squirrel away $264 million for the project over the years but that another $49 million needs to come from the proposed $25
billion capital development bill that has stalled in the Illinois House.
"Over 190 days ago, a bill that was passed in a bi-partisan fashion, that was supported by the governor and that I helped
negotiate passed the Senate," said Hoffman. "We need to get this through the House. It shouldn't be taking this long. To me,
it would be unconscionable for us not to pass a capital bill that's the size and the scope that passed the Senate. I think
it's time to put this partisanship - as well as the inner-party squabbling - aside, pass the bill and create 35,000 jobs."
|
