urbanSTL

The Clark Bridge in Alton Illinois







Often called the "Super Bridge," the Clark Bridge links Highways 367 and 67 in Missouri to Alton, Illinois. It replaced the old Clark Bridge that served the area from 1928 to 1994. Design work on the new cable-stayed bridge was started in 1985, and construction began in 1990. The bridge, which has four traffic lanes and two bike lanes, spans 4,260 feet across the Mississippi River. It is made of 8,100 tons of structural steel, 44,100 cubic yards of concrete and more than 160 miles of cable wrapped with four acres of yellow plastic piping. Pilings that support the bridge were driven more than 140 feet below bedrock. Design criteria based on wind testing and geological studies make the bridge earthquake resistant. Total cost of the bridge was 118 million dollars, including the demolition of the old bridge.

^ So why would a similar bridge be 10x more expensive?

^Partly because its connections to I-70 in Missouri and I-55/70 in Illinois are more complex and located in a more challenging environment.



A large part of the savings with the MLK plan came from how it would mostly reuse existing I-55/64/70 connections in East St. Louis.

So, tell me again, why exactly has Missouri overlooked the coupler idea?



It seems like a no-brainer to me, and the best way for both states to get the most bang for the buck. Instead, now we're going to have a four-lane span that will probably have as much if not more gridlock than the existing river crossings, along with an underutilized MLK Bridge? Ridiculous.

Alright - I'll go with the MLK coupler as long as we put up something of a marque tower on each end - obelisks - gates - something. I just don't want a bland 40 or 270 bridge. Even a couple with the same steel frame would be just find with me.

So, we built an EIGHT LANE bridge to St. Charles (Page Extension) that IS NOT an interstate, but a new INTERSTATE bridge that crosses the Mississippi River at St. Louis, carrying one of the nations largest interstates (70) will be a FOUR LANE bridge? Is this a joke? Will Poplar still carry 70?



W.T.F, MISSSORAH!?

^ ::ahem:: the page bridge is ten lanes ::runs and hides::

W.T.F.M



Welcome to F*&^ing Missourah

Sometimes, things are so ridiculous that I can do nothing but laugh.

so, will this new FOUR lane bridge carry I-70? Honestly, is this a joke?

The joke is that Rahn and Company's chief complaint against the MLK-Coupler Plan was that it would have inadequate lane capacity from day-one, yet Missouri now backs a "solution" with even less capacity.



I think stubborn boys grow into stubborn men. If Missouri has to give in on tolls in this p*ssing match, then they have to win on something, and that's location of the bridge.



But with the added approaches already increasing the cost of Missouri's preferred location, the concept started off flawed. Now that the new bridge itself will only be four lanes, it really makes no sense to build entirely new approaches to a little bridge, when you could instead modify existing approaches to an existing bridge for added efficiency and lower cost.



Compared to the original eight-lane MRB, the MLK Coupler was 60% of the benefit for only 30% of the cost. Now, it seems Missouri's four-lane I-70 is 130% of the MLK's cost for only 60% of its seven-lane benefit. That is a joke!

Maybe MoDOT is thinking that this four-lane bridge will be simply the first half of the new crossing, with the second half to be completed at a much later date? Maybe MoDOT is thinking that one way or another, they'll get what they want?

Mill204 wrote:Maybe MoDOT is thinking

Nah, I doubt it.

I find myself more and more in favor of an eight-lane coupler, but why, WHY, does this now seem to be a pie-in-the-sky idea? This should have been simple - reach for a signature bridge, if you can't agree on tolls and there's not federal windfall to pay for it (nor the political will to do so within the state), go to the next best solution . . .

Mill2004 is thinking when he says that the four lane bridge is only half of the bridge. There will be other Federal Highway Bills (2009 or 2011) and there will be more funding for the second bridge. Remember the Jefferson Barracks Bridge was not built all at once. It took most of the 1980's for both bridges to be built. I think the first was finished in 1985 and the second near 1990.



The main reason the coupler cannot be built until 2011 is that an engineering/environmental study and work needs to be done and that will take a lot of time and money. (till 2011) It has already been done for the Northern Bridge site and construction can start much sooner like next year.



One other fact should be noted and that is that Illinois has more money coming to it for the approach work than just the money it has already talked about (for the bridge) as there is much more of that work to be done in Illinois than in Missouri.

well said Xing. So sad, a bunch of idiots that I sadly voted for.. It's a real cute little way of screwing the city of ST. Louis over. WHo's in charge here? I honestly don't understand why Missouri thinks it's so clever to try to abandon this bridge.

An environmental study could be rushed within 18 months. All it takes is political will, but that's clearly lacking on this bridge. No one doubts that if this river were just another county line, as opposed to a state line, a bridge would have already been built by now.



The main complaint on the MLK-Coupler location from the Missouri side is coming from the new casino. The MLK Coupler would be built immediately north of the new casino in alignment with Biddle Street, not impacting any of its buildings, even adding to its highway visibility, similar to Ameristar along the Blanchette Bridge. But evidently, the Mayor's Office will not fight the newest major employer in the City. Either that or casinos are now cherished cultural assets slowing down environmental impact statements.

Yes, MODOT's 4-lane MRB is technically one more lane than IDOT's MLK Plan in total lanes crossing the river. But don't forget that Interstate-quality lanes carry more traffic. Thus, a 4-lane I-70 plus 4-lane MLK is indeed 8 total lanes, but a 7-lane I-70 could carry much more traffic. That's why it's an important distinction to note how MODOT's plan still provides only a 4-lane I-70, when IDOT's plan would provide us with a 7-lane I-70, a major difference.



But another distinction between the plans is the difference in connections to Interstates in Illinois. Due to the more lengthy approaches needed from Illinois for a more northern bridge, MODOT's plan not only fails in number of INTERSTATE lanes (and those are the lanes that make some difference in PSB congestion, for all lanes are not equal), but also in having connections to both I-55/70 and I-64 from Illinois. That is to say, only the MLK plan will provide connections to I-64 as well as I-55/70. Meanwhile, the MODOT plan only provides a lengthy connection to I-55/70 near the landfill in Madison. In other words, MODOT's 4-lane I-70 would only be fed by traffic from Madison County, whereas IDOT's 7-lane I-70 would be fed by traffic from both Madison County and St. Clair County. This failure in Illinois connections also points to why a seemingly rational compromise for a westbound coupler built in the environmentally studied location pushed by MODOT wouldn't work.



Granted, if the new MRB is only going to be serving commuters from Madison County, then maybe four lanes will suffice. But if the bulk of the traffic on the Poplar is coming from St. Clair County, then you can see why PSB congestion won't change much with a 4-lane bridge connected only to I-55/70.



Besides, I could see pushing a 4-lane solution if it were cheaper than the 7-lane solution, but since the 7-lane solution is cheaper (mostly due to more easily converted connections to existing Interstates), why would you still go with the 4-lane solution? It's absolutely disgusting to think MODOT didn't blink an eye building a 10-lane non-Interstate bridge (albeit to the quality of a limited-access facility) to St. Charles, but will refuse to build a bridge for less than one-tenth the cost of Page Avenue that would result in a 7-lane Interstate crossing.



Then again, the bulk of Poplar bridge traffic also continues onto I-64 and I-44/55, not I-70 or Memorial Drive. So in either plan-- a 7-lane I-70 or a 4-lane I-70, Poplar ramps to/from I-44/55 will still need added capacity, which MODOT not surprisingly also continues to overlook as their responsibility. In other words, saving money on a solution for taking I-70 traffic off the PSB would not only result in more lanes for I-70, but also save money for improving PSB connections to I-44/55. While overlooked in westward-thinking Missouri, this added improvement remains dire to the Poplar even functioning, no matter what happens to I-70 traffic to the Poplar's north.

^Southslider, I think you should turn this post into a letter, and send it to Jefferson City, Springfield, and Washington.



If we're not going to do the signature bridge, I think we might as well pursue the coupler option.

I agree with Southslider, but wouldn't the coupler option take away easier access to downtown? I'd bet if the MLK were changed around a bit and connected directly to I-70, people would be confused as to how to get downtown the way they are used to getting there. Would this deter some people from coming into the city? I don't agree with this idea myself, but it's something to think about when looking at both bridge options, no?

^The MLK bridge converted to EB I-70 would have connections from Downtown streets similar to today's connections. The new MLK Coupler built as WB I-70 would have an exit for Broadway/Cole to serve Downtown-bound traffic.