urbanSTL

The solution is always more, right?

Stltoday.com - Consultant suggests adding eastbound lane to Poplar Street Bridge

The consultant for HDR Engineering Inc. suggested that the region add a fifth eastbound lane to the PSB and a connection from the Martin Luther King Bridge to southound Illinois Route 3 as a way to resolve the ramp dispute.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 0f31a.html

Alex Ihnen wrote:Just nuts. $111M.

Look on the bright side, Alex -- maybe MODoT will pull their funds for the silly I-70 (err...soon-to-be I-44) depressed lane ramp adjustment plan in order to fund their portion of the PSB ramp expansion...

gone corporate wrote:^ $111M for one lane of eastbound traffic?!?!?!?!

Tell me why, again, we are building a new bridge across the Mississippi River, decreasing its total lanes from its original size to save money, then want to spend a ridiculous sum to add a lane onto another, already complete bridge...

Is it insanity, or stupidity?

Should we just start thinking about building a coupler to the New Mississippi River Bridge?

With a little more money thrown in, they could fund the new bookend I-44/55 bridge just south of Anheuser Busch, and restore the street grid between Soulard and Lafayette Square.

^Which would be awesome, which is precisely why no one in a position to get it done will ever pursue it.

gary kreie wrote:

gone corporate wrote:^ $111M for one lane of eastbound traffic?!?!?!?!

Tell me why, again, we are building a new bridge across the Mississippi River, decreasing its total lanes from its original size to save money, then want to spend a ridiculous sum to add a lane onto another, already complete bridge...

Is it insanity, or stupidity?

Should we just start thinking about building a coupler to the New Mississippi River Bridge?

With a little more money thrown in, they could fund the new bookend I-44/55 bridge just south of Anheuser Busch, and restore the street grid between Soulard and Lafayette Square.

Is there an actual plan/proposal for this?

ImprovSTL wrote:

gary kreie wrote:

gone corporate wrote:^ $111M for one lane of eastbound traffic?!?!?!?!

Tell me why, again, we are building a new bridge across the Mississippi River, decreasing its total lanes from its original size to save money, then want to spend a ridiculous sum to add a lane onto another, already complete bridge...

Is it insanity, or stupidity?

Should we just start thinking about building a coupler to the New Mississippi River Bridge?

With a little more money thrown in, they could fund the new bookend I-44/55 bridge just south of Anheuser Busch, and restore the street grid between Soulard and Lafayette Square.

Is there an actual plan/proposal for this?

The new MRB north of downtown has fewer lanes than originally planned (& needed) in order to save cost. Some politicians hinted that someday the additional lane projection could be satisfied with a second identical bridge right next to the new MRB. A while back I suggested here that instead of building the additional bridge & lanes there, build it just South of AB for I44/55.

That would eliminate the elevated dam between Soulard & downtown and allow street grid or an extended grade level boulevard in its place. So I think there are distant plans for more lanes someday on another new bridge. But not necessarily South of the PSB.

I got a letter from MoDOT in response to my comments about the Park over Highway project. They expect 60,000 vehicles a day to use the I-44 (formerly known as I-70) lanes downtown after the new bridge opens. The I-44 elevated section is in very good condition and expect to replace the driving surface in about a decade costing $10-20M and that the structure won't need replacement in the near future.

In regards to the boulevard:

Because of the impact on regional roadways, MoDOT has no plans to build, or even study, replacing the lanes of I-70 downtown with a boulevard. If in the future, regional leaders believe replacing I-70 is the right decision, the work we are currently doing will not preclude that from happening.

So movement on this requires persuading our leaders or, given how the new lane for the PSB played out, get new ones.

stlhistory wrote:That response isn't surprising except for the abrupt honesty of the refusal to even consider the idea of a boulevard. I'm waiting for Slay or Reed to make it a campaign issue.

That certainly seems like the best way to get the public educated and engaged on this issue!

Maybe we need a boulevard Missouri initiative petition so we can vote on it. We vote on everything else. Then I think the media would be forced to present the pros (and cons) to the public of a Boulevard, including lower cost, more development space, better access to stadiums, and awareness that after the MRB opens through-traffic volume past the Arch will drop considerably, leaving only tourist and downtown patrons using the Boulevard, just like the other streets downtown.

^ Very impressed by CTR's persistence. Excited to hear about the upcoming announcement.

A tractor trailer crashed near the I-70 trench today. Looks to me like a perfect reason to explore building the boulevard.



http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 0583d.html

Would much prefer our park over the highway maintained a street grid like this did in Dallas.

http://www.klydewarrenpark.org/

From my understanding they couldn't do the original proposal with a three block lid because it would be deemed a tunnel and requiring extra ventilation and security. It would have but the price tag out of reach.

Maybe someone could provide additional information.

Seems like the Dallas example that is already built would also fall into the 'tunnel' category.