Many, many people will be affected by this and there will be many complaints, but I'm excited to see the design/build process over the course of this project. IF this can be completed in three years and within 10% of the budget it will be revolutionary for this region. To be sure, three years is a long inconvenience, but compared to seven or more with the traditional arrangement it's fantastic.
ThreeOneFour wrote:Jax wrote:I'd like them to skip that extra lane and just redo the unsafe on/offramps (Lindbergh, Kingshighway, etc.), extremely inefficient interchanges (I-170), and repair bridges.
Me too. And I can just see that picturesque stretch of the road through Ladue and Frontenac (one of the few stretches of highway in the area without endless sprawl development and billboards) lined with massive concrete sound walls.
Any time MoDOT increases road capacity by adding lanes, then hideous sound walls are sure to follow. I pray that they'll find a better way to do it than Interstates 55 and 270 in South County. Those highways look terrible, in large part due to the aforementioned sound walls.
Yeah I know, I know. I spent pages earlier in this thread ripping MODOT and their sound walls. Sigh, there is nothing that can be done to improve the situation, because MODOT is run by enginers with no vision.
- 11K
^ I thought sound walls were being demanded by residents. Any time a major rebuild of a highway or Interstate is done, there are regulations regarding sound polution. 64/40 doesn't have them because it was built as a four-lane 40mph parkway.
Sorry, but that doesn't make the proposed design attractive. Remeber that when you drive down 40 in 4 years.
- 86
I think soundwalls can be done in an acceptable way. I currently live in the Washington DC area and drive on the beltway a lot. There are many sound walls all along the beltway, but they don't seem to bother me. We should use that design as a benchmark for our new highway...I mean interstate.
- 11K
Sorry, but that doesn't make the proposed design attractive. Remeber that when you drive down 40 in 4 years.
Who said any proposed design for any sound wall was attractive?
On to something else . . .
With the plan now public, the biggest changes from what has been known seems to be:
1) large sections will be completely closed, first-west of 170, second-east of 170.
2) bridges east of Kingshighway (Taylor, Tower Grove, Boyle, Newstead, Sarah) are not part of the plan.
My take-if closing sections gets it done more quickly I'm all for it. At first I was disappointed that the bridges from FPSE to the CWE won't be part of this, but thinking about it a bit more I think that with the growth in this area (CORTEX, FPSE, BJC, WASH U, CWE, METRO, ETC) that the bridges will find funding relatively soon AND that they require some special planning to best serve growth and are therefore better off not being part of a large, non-descript, one size fits all project.
There was news about city of STL bringing a suit against MODOT if they found this not in their best interest. Any news of that? How has this plan been received by the city as such?
- 11K
Charlie Dooley (StL County) whole-heartedly endorsed the plan. Mayor Slay pledged to make it work, but had not read/reviewed the entire plan as of this evening's newcast. I can't imagine that the city would bring suit.
- 1,026
Could someone explain this to me: why do we need to do this? Am I correct that the are not adding ANY additional capacity (IE extra lanes).
I admit I don;t know much about this - so really - please let me know. If what Ive heard is true (the not adding any lanes part) - i'm a bot perplexed as to the why of it all ....
I admit I don;t know much about this - so really - please let me know. If what Ive heard is true (the not adding any lanes part) - i'm a bot perplexed as to the why of it all ....
- 6,775
markofucity wrote:Could someone explain this to me: why do we need to do this? Am I correct that the are not adding ANY additional capacity (IE extra lanes).
I admit I don;t know much about this - so really - please let me know. If what Ive heard is true (the not adding any lanes part) - i'm a bot perplexed as to the why of it all ....
Bottom line? So people can get their giant SUVs home to their Chesterfield starter castles 10 minutes faster.
- 1,026
wouldn't funding the bridge make more sense .... and am i right that there are no new lanes
4 lanes each way between Spoede and I-170
3+1 lanes each way between I-170 and Skinker/Clayton
The +1 lane is a continuous entrance/exit lane like those found all along I-270.
I-170's influence actually causes I-64 to be 8 lanes wide (and briefly 10) all the way to Bellevue.
I-64, per original plans, will be 15 lanes wide at widest point betwen Hanley and I-170: 8 lanes for EB/WB I-64, 4 lanes for EB exit to Hanley, 2 lanes for WB entrance from Hanley, 1 lane for WB exit to Brentwood.
And MoDOT would have initiated construction along I-64 one way or another. All those bridges are crumbling and desperately need replacing (there's a reason McKnight is only 3 lanes instead of 4). Same goes for the pavement: the 3-1/2" overlay done by MoDOT many years ago was just a temporary measure built to extend the highway's life roughly 7 years, which is now.
3+1 lanes each way between I-170 and Skinker/Clayton
The +1 lane is a continuous entrance/exit lane like those found all along I-270.
I-170's influence actually causes I-64 to be 8 lanes wide (and briefly 10) all the way to Bellevue.
I-64, per original plans, will be 15 lanes wide at widest point betwen Hanley and I-170: 8 lanes for EB/WB I-64, 4 lanes for EB exit to Hanley, 2 lanes for WB entrance from Hanley, 1 lane for WB exit to Brentwood.
And MoDOT would have initiated construction along I-64 one way or another. All those bridges are crumbling and desperately need replacing (there's a reason McKnight is only 3 lanes instead of 4). Same goes for the pavement: the 3-1/2" overlay done by MoDOT many years ago was just a temporary measure built to extend the highway's life roughly 7 years, which is now.
- 11K
I haven't really said this before - but just read some of the previous posts. The debate about whether this should be build or not shouldn't be rehashed every five pages.
FWIW - capacity will be enhanced with new interchanges that will help prevent traffic from backing up on 40 - effectively reducing the number of lanes - and allow merging traffic to do so at Interstate speeds instead of 20mph. The roadbed is crumbling (underneath the pavement) and, as noted, the bridges are falling down.
FWIW - capacity will be enhanced with new interchanges that will help prevent traffic from backing up on 40 - effectively reducing the number of lanes - and allow merging traffic to do so at Interstate speeds instead of 20mph. The roadbed is crumbling (underneath the pavement) and, as noted, the bridges are falling down.
- 1,610
Not to mention the fact that all of the new bridges will more than likely be updated to withstand some sort of earthquake, which is a very important issue in this area of the country. I'm sure the bridges built in the 30's (Spoede, McKnight) weren't designed to withstand a quake.
- 1,026
sorry i wasn't up to speed on the project .. i really haven't been paying attention to this at all.
I have a question. What is the track record in MO of getting major projects like these completed in time? I know Metro Link was WAY over, but I also know of Page Avenue which was on time. I was wondering if someone had a better dataset regarding major revamp like this.
there's no doubt in my mind that this project is needed. i drive back and forth from DT to Olivette everyday and the 170/64 interchange is stupid. i also used to drive down 64E to Lindburgh and the lane drop on 64E past 270 was a pain in the ass. the sight lines all along the 64 corridor between DT and 270 are bad as well. temporary stop gap measures are not going to help long term.
- 23
I think it is somewhat unfair to lump the delay in the metrolink extension in with any shortcomings of MoDoT.
There were significant delays caused by contractor discrepancies and crumby craftsmanship that were the main cause of delay....but back on topic, I think that MoDoT is just as capable as any other state DoT in getting things done on time. Certain projects fall behind, other finish early. The work they have done on the River Des Peres overpass has progessed very smoothly, albeit slowed by a wet fall and their repaving due to the tax increase has largely been completed, with its main goal being to be done before any work has been started on highway 40/64.
On a side note, I would much rather see an iconic bridge being built, but with all the talk of the desire to prove to skeptical suburbanites that the city is back, and the desperate need for safer overpasses and interchanges (the original bridges were designed for vehicular traffic that moved at a speed of 40mph), I am happy to see that St. Louis' main business artery is being brought up to 21st century standards
There were significant delays caused by contractor discrepancies and crumby craftsmanship that were the main cause of delay....but back on topic, I think that MoDoT is just as capable as any other state DoT in getting things done on time. Certain projects fall behind, other finish early. The work they have done on the River Des Peres overpass has progessed very smoothly, albeit slowed by a wet fall and their repaving due to the tax increase has largely been completed, with its main goal being to be done before any work has been started on highway 40/64.
On a side note, I would much rather see an iconic bridge being built, but with all the talk of the desire to prove to skeptical suburbanites that the city is back, and the desperate need for safer overpasses and interchanges (the original bridges were designed for vehicular traffic that moved at a speed of 40mph), I am happy to see that St. Louis' main business artery is being brought up to 21st century standards
- 5,433
Urban Elitist wrote:You read my mind. I'm just going to take Metrolink.ThreeOneFour wrote:I'm dreading my evening commute to WashU next semester.
I know it's quite selfish, but I'm glad I will have graduated by the time the improvements to the stretch of 64/40 between the Inner Belt and Kingshighway begin. There may still be more congestion, but it still won't be as bad as what we can expect in that particular area during 2009.
I'm all for replacing the roadbed, bridges, and interchanges, but I cannot see the point in adding lanes (JMHO, of course).
I hope that link and flythrough is not indicative of the design of the new highway. When other states, such as New Jersey, are building modern highways with more decrorative features and asthetics in mind, only MODOT and its fleet of enginers would be able to overlook such details and design a highway devoid of any asthetic value...Congradulations Missouri, a state who belives that your enginers should be designing the future vision of Missour... 
Thought this was an interesting article today:
Read More
My comment is two fold. I will belive that MODOT thinks transit is part of the soulution when they actualy make METRO part of the soultion, which is not the case. Second, If they are looking for ideas, couldn't we have done a system where 1 lane in each direction is kept open during the constuction on the closed portions for Bus and ambulance trafffic. That would present Metro with an opertunitiy to do some great express bus service. But alas, that opertunity will be lost.
Highway 40 construction could cost Metro millions
By Elisa Crouch
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
11/21/2006
The Highway 40 rebuild is sure to send thousands of motorists to buses and MetroLink. It also could financially damage the agency that provides those rides.
Metro officials are figuring out what to do with 17 bus routes that run along or cross Highway 40 between St. Louis and Frontenac, Metro chief executive Larry Salci said Monday.
To keep service at the same level during construction, Metro will need to put 32 more of its buses into use, stretching its fleet to its maximum. Salci put the cost of running them at $6 million to $7 million.
"The question becomes, where do we get that money?" Salci said.
Advertisement
Plans for rebuilding 10.5 miles of Highway 40 (Interstate 64) will involve closing entire sections in 2008 and 2009. Lanes between Ballas Road and Interstate 170 close first. Once that section is rebuilt, the section between I-170 and Kingshighway closes. Bridges throughout the corridor also will close at times for demolition and rebuilding.
Between 25,000 and 30,000 motorists must change their commuting habits, or alternate routes will become clogged, the Missouri Department of Transportation says. Officials suggest commuting during nonrush times, working from home, carpooling or using public transportation.
"Transit has to be part of the solution here," Missouri Transportation Director Pete Rahn said Monday.
Yet there's no provision in the department's agreement with Gateway Constructors, the contracting team selected to do the $535 million rebuild, to pay for additional buses and trains to alleviate the resulting traffic congestion.
The Transportation Department is constitutionally restricted from spending highway dollars on mass transit, Rahn said. He added that MoDOT will work with Metro to help keep current bus and light rail service.
"We're going to continue a conversation with them," he said, emphasizing the importance of mass transit. "It needs to be a viable option."
Read More
My comment is two fold. I will belive that MODOT thinks transit is part of the soulution when they actualy make METRO part of the soultion, which is not the case. Second, If they are looking for ideas, couldn't we have done a system where 1 lane in each direction is kept open during the constuction on the closed portions for Bus and ambulance trafffic. That would present Metro with an opertunitiy to do some great express bus service. But alas, that opertunity will be lost.
- 2,005
For the money that was available to rebuild I-64, I was surprised that Gateway Constructors can build what they say. I still can't find any information about the controversial Bellevue interchange or if they plan on flattening the hills on the highway that make seeing ahead so difficult.
Hopefully Metro can get some funds to keep the busses running during this project. It wouldn't make much sense to pull the plug on mass transit when its needed the most.
This may irk you JMed, but I heard the other design-build team did have plans to keep half the lanes open on I-64 during the rebuild.
Hopefully Metro can get some funds to keep the busses running during this project. It wouldn't make much sense to pull the plug on mass transit when its needed the most.
This may irk you JMed, but I heard the other design-build team did have plans to keep half the lanes open on I-64 during the rebuild.
You know, while I'm keenly aware of the need for a new bridge and a wider I-64 (it's still Hwy 40 
), It's a shame that that the McKnight overpass needs to be demolished. IMO that bridge, albeit a lowly overpass, is an underappreciated work of art. I love the art deco design, especially the center columns that taper down to a U-shaped metal "foot" that rests on a pedestal, meaning the bridge columns contact with the ground totals just a couple of square feet.
Here's a picture of the overpass from 1940, taken from one of the www.thenewI64.org PDF presentations, and a crude rendering of a cross-section of the center support columns' base:
-RBB
), It's a shame that that the McKnight overpass needs to be demolished. IMO that bridge, albeit a lowly overpass, is an underappreciated work of art. I love the art deco design, especially the center columns that taper down to a U-shaped metal "foot" that rests on a pedestal, meaning the bridge columns contact with the ground totals just a couple of square feet.Here's a picture of the overpass from 1940, taken from one of the www.thenewI64.org PDF presentations, and a crude rendering of a cross-section of the center support columns' base:
-RBB