New Mississippi River Bridge Musial

jmedwick · PostJan 02, 2008#8012008-01-02T01:34+00:00

ThreeOneFour wrote:I'm happy a deal is done and we're not getting a boring slab of concrete like the PSB, but couldn't the powers that be on both sides of the river find the funding to make the bridge at least six lanes?

Of course not threeonefour. Monies were needed for more important things like:

A new Highway 40 bridge over the Missouri

Extending Page Avenue further west

And the biggest waste of money: the half assed "art deco" design features on the new Highway 40 columns (those dumb groves). How much did it cost to put those on the columns? For a department short of money, that is a waste.

innov8ion · PostJan 02, 2008#8022008-01-02T06:15+00:00

Four lanes? Why? Does this replace other bridges? Or is it adding to what we have? Six to eight lanes seems more appropriate. Are they trying to save a few bucks and end up costing us a lot in the long run? This is curious.

tbspqr · PostJan 02, 2008#8032008-01-02T08:17+00:00

Maybe they will make the design flexible... in such a way that adding a 3rd lane in the future isn't that difficult... but again i doubt it.

jmedwick · PostJan 02, 2008#8042008-01-02T13:25+00:00

^While they could make it flexible to add a third lane in each direction, my guess is that both Missouri and Illinois are thinking:

1. Get the 4 lane bridge built now and then see what traffic is like afterward.

2. If more lane capacity is needed, come back and build another 4 lane bridge to couple with the MRB.

Not the best option, but not the worst either. Figure it this way, by keeping their options flexible:

1. The idea of removing I-70 south of the MRB can be revisited when expansion of the MRB is needed.

2. The staged couplet gives you 8 lanes.

3. Maybe by the time a second bridge is needed, Metrolink will be hurting for cross-river capacity and the second bridge can include lightrail (yes, I am crazy).

jlblues · PostJan 02, 2008#8052008-01-02T17:25+00:00

The problem with this is that building two 4 lane bridges over a span of 15 years will end up costing taxpayers nearly twice (if not more than twice) what it would cost to build an 8 lane bridge now. We already know we need the capacity of the 8 lane bridge now, so...

If they had any clue whatsoever, they could save a hell of a lot of money by at least acquiring necessary land and putting in all of the supports and infrastructure for the second bridge now.

4 lanes also does not give them the flexibility of making 2 reversible express lanes the way 6 or more lanes would...at least I don't see how you could do it on a 4 lane bridge.

Why didn't they ever seriously explore the option of making the MRB a one-way reversible express bridge?

Re: The PSB: How are we ever going to replace the PSB? We won't have the extra capacity to tear the bridge down and replace it, so the only option will be to build new somewhere else - and then how do you connect I-64 without having to acquire a ton of land?

Where's my flying car? I was promised a flying car by now...

rbb · PostJan 02, 2008#8062008-01-02T18:17+00:00

Keep in mind, though, that the majority of the money going into this project is to reroute Hwy 70, not to the bridge itself. If (when?) a second bridge is required later, it won't cost another $500M because at that point the Hwy will already be in place. Maybe $200M (in today's dollars), which is no pittance, but potentially doable.

-RBB

threeonefour · PostJan 02, 2008#8072008-01-02T20:09+00:00

JMedwick wrote:
ThreeOneFour wrote:I'm happy a deal is done and we're not getting a boring slab of concrete like the PSB, but couldn't the powers that be on both sides of the river find the funding to make the bridge at least six lanes?

Of course not threeonefour. Monies were needed for more important things like:

A new Highway 40 bridge over the Missouri

Extending Page Avenue further west

And the biggest waste of money: the half assed "art deco" design features on the new Highway 40 columns (those dumb groves). How much did it cost to put those on the columns? For a department short of money, that is a waste.

You're right about MoDOT's skewed priorities, but nothing says "skewed priorities" like miles upon miles of...da da da dum...sound walls!

Something tells me liberally planted trees in the same location of sound walls would probably have the same noise abatement effect, while being rather inexpensive, easier to maintain, and much more aesthetically pleasing than miles of concrete slabs. Clarkson Valley has been fighting the placement of sound walls along Clarkson Road (Missouri Highway 340) for years, and the last I heard, MoDOT's putting them there anyway!

I'm amazed that Pete Rahn has so much power and that MoDOT in general has limited checks and balances (see also the Interstate 64/U.S. Highway 40 rebuilding project). Adding two lanes to a bridge that is vital to interstate commerce seems like a no-brainer, but it's clear that MoDOT and Missouri leaders in general prefer the antiquated mentality of being locked in competition with Metro East suburbs, when the states and municipalities on both sides of the river should shift their focus toward competing with other metropolitan regions in the Midwest and beyond.

nora · PostJan 02, 2008#8082008-01-02T21:10+00:00

Let's not forget the original big picture. The new bridge was intended to be part of a package of improvments that included a reconstruction of the PSB approaches in MO, the Tri-Level interchange, and IL Route 3. Check out this project map:

http://www.newriverbridge.org/study_map_index.asp

The original purpose and need was to decrease congestion on the PSB and it's approaches. With the removal of I-70 traffic from Poplar, the widening of Poplar's I-44/55 ramps to two lanes is just as important to reducing PSB congestion as the added lane capacity of the new bridge. A 4 lane bridge will be sufficient with the other project elements.

The idea of a signature bridge is secondary to the purpose and need for the bridge. Also please take notice that St. Louis City and the greater St. Louis business community who want 8 lanes and the signature look of the bridge to cause 'economic stimulus' have offered ZERO dollars toward the project in 10+ years of planning!

jlblues · PostJan 02, 2008#8092008-01-02T21:32+00:00

Nora wrote:Also please take notice that St. Louis City and the greater St. Louis business community who want 8 lanes and the signature look of the bridge to cause 'economic stimulus' have offered ZERO dollars toward the project in 10+ years of planning!

No, just billions of dollars of tax revenue, of which nothing even close to a proportional share is being spent in the community from which it came...

southslider · PostJan 02, 2008#8102008-01-02T21:58+00:00

A 4 lane bridge will be sufficient with the other project elements.

That is assuming MODOT will even improve the PSB. If Missouri has stalled a new MRB this long, how much longer do you think we'll have to wait until PSB has added capacity to I-44/55?!

dredger · PostJan 02, 2008#8112008-01-02T23:15+00:00

I would give Pete a little more credit if he pulls off this deal, with a new Mississippi River bridge started soon he could have a billion dollars of infrastructure being built for the area with part of the tab being paid by the federal government and Illinois as well as finally getting I-70 rerouted!!

Second, I'm sure the City of St. Louis and Pinnacle wanted one thing. Location, Location, and Location. Keeping the MRB north of downtown keeps developable riverfront intact for Pinnacle. Between a 500 million casino and the possiblity of another $500 million adds another $1 billion as well the real possibility of getting rid of the I-70 trench one day. It also provides a clear break from downtown/office/residential and the industrial area along Broadway and Hall street. Pete makes this possible with this deal!!

Finally, Illinois offered to build a companion bridge early last year. 4 lanes can easily turn into more on this project without the hefty initial price of real estate acquision and freeway approaches.

Once again, I'm willing to give Pete Rahn a little credit.

newstl2020 · PostJan 02, 2008#8122008-01-02T23:18+00:00

Dredger wrote:

Second, I'm sure the City of St. Louis and Pinnacle wanted one thing. Location, Location, and Location. Keeping the MRB north of downtown keeps developable riverfront intact for Pinnacle. Between a 500 million casino and the possiblity of another $500 million adds another $1 billion as well the real possibility of getting rid of the I-70 trench one day. It also provides a clear break from downtown/office/residential and the industrial area along Broadway and Hall street. Pete makes this possible with this deal!!

I-70 is evelated in front on the casino, not in a trench.

PostJan 02, 2008#8132008-01-02T23:21+00:00

Dredger wrote:

Second, I'm sure the City of St. Louis and Pinnacle wanted one thing. Location, Location, and Location. Keeping the MRB north of downtown keeps developable riverfront intact for Pinnacle. Between a 500 million casino and the possiblity of another $500 million adds another $1 billion as well the real possibility of getting rid of the I-70 trench one day. It also provides a clear break from downtown/office/residential and the industrial area along Broadway and Hall street. Pete makes this possible with this deal!!

I-70 is evelated in front on the casino, not in a trench.

dredger · PostJan 02, 2008#8142008-01-02T23:41+00:00

My point is that a new MRB on the northside of downtown re-routes I-70. You can thus rebuild the highway between PSB and new MRB into a boulevard that eliminates the trench as well as the elevated section in front of the Casino. More importanty, you now eliminate a major blockage between downtown, the arch grounds, Lacledes Landing and developable riverfront property as well as the mess of a street grid in that area. I'm trying to dream big, hopefully with some vision thrown in. Pardon my specifics while mixing everything together.

newstl2020 · PostJan 03, 2008#8152008-01-03T03:27+00:00

So 44 would no longer connect with 70 through downtown? I'm deffinitely in favor, just a little hazy on what you are talking about here. Keep the two highways connected, but with a street instead of the current section of highway?

dredger · PostJan 03, 2008#8162008-01-03T03:50+00:00

Correct, connect I-44 and I-70 with a street grade boulevard instead of a highway once a new MRB is built. I have no idea what impact this would have on current traffic patterns nor a any idea if this would truly spur more development. Fortunately for St. Louis, this is a lot more feasible then what Boston went through (the Big Dig) and what Seattle is comtemplating with its elevated highway that seperates downtown from Pudget Sound.

little egyptian · PostJan 03, 2008#8172008-01-03T05:22+00:00

Dredger wrote:Correct, connect I-44 and I-70 with a street grade boulevard instead of a highway once a new MRB is built. I have no idea what impact this would have on current traffic patterns nor a any idea if this would truly spur more development. Fortunately for St. Louis, this is a lot more feasible then what Boston went through (the Big Dig) and what Seattle is comtemplating with its elevated highway that seperates downtown from Pudget Sound.

I don't understand this speculation that I-70 between the Arch and downtown will somehow disappear. It is not going anywhere anytime soon. The interstate (pick any which one) is never going to route on a street level boulevard with stoplights and crosswalks. Never. So forget that. The only alternative would be to route I-55's and I-44's connection to I-70 across the PSB and into Illinois where it would immediately turn a 180 and go back across the MRB into Missouri ... adding confusion and additional traffic to the bridges. I-70 is not going anyway. Why it cannot be capped is beyond me (who cares what the NPS says, there is a conservative president and Missouri is a conservative state - seems like we could work through those things).

And I must take a little issue with you giving credit to Rahn. First, if it was solely up to Rahn, there would be no new bridge. Period. He is clearly more concerned about connecting the exurbs in Missouri than he is about connecting the Metro area. Second, what good does it do Missouri that I-70 is being rerouted in Illinois to the north of the Racetrack? Also, you are giving Rahn credit for Pinnacle's 500 million dollar investment? Why? The Pinnacle deal was largely in place before Rahn even took the job.

Last, there will be no additional lanes. Clearly, part of the deal is the limitation of 4 lanes to keep Illinois' growth in check. Also, I highly doubt the 44-55 interchange on the PSB is going to be fixed, leaving the central issue (congestion on the PSB) in place. This is going to help the problem, but it is not going to fix the problem.

I just don't get how Rahn should get any credit on this deal. I know the price is coming pretty cheap for Missouri, but Missouri could have spent a little more now and saved a lot more later. Even if it was the Billion dollar project, Missouri was probably only looking at a 200 million dollar price tag or so with Illinois chipping in around $500 million. I get others claiming that an additional bridge may be possible in the near future at a lower price since the approaches are built, but why not do it now and do it right instead of tacking on some convoluted extension and additional interchanges in the future? And, of course, there is no guarantee we are planning for that kind of additional expansion. I have not heard anything about plans for an additional 4 lane bridge so why do we assume they are thinking about that?

This whole thing leaves a horrible taste in my mouth. The working relationship that was in place between Missouri and Illinois is basically demolished. Because of Missouri's fear of Illinois growth they are messing up what otherwise would have been a transformative project for the Metro area. Illinois and Missouri are going to have to live together because whether Missouri likes it or not, Illinois is part of the Metro area and increasingly it is representing a larger share of the population. Rahn is probably in this job for at most 10 years, so what does he care? He plays hardball and ticks everyone off, but now he gets to tout a $60 million dollar price tag for a new "signature" bridge (one that he will not even be around to see finished). Then, he moves on just like he did from from New Mexico but meanwhile all of us that live here are going to have to wait another 30 years for us to try to solve the problems. I hate to rag on a guy so much, but the guy is out for himself and no one else. He is like the proverbial Bull in the China Shop and we are going to have to pick up the pieces after he is gone.

mill204 · PostJan 03, 2008#8182008-01-03T06:28+00:00

Little Egyptian wrote:I don't understand this speculation that I-70 between the Arch and downtown will somehow disappear. It is not going anywhere anytime soon.

Not speculation, a vision promoted by many of us with the goal of improving the connection between downtown St. Louis and the Mississippi riverfront by removing the obstacles—the depressed and elevated sections of I-70—that lie between them.

jlblues · PostJan 03, 2008#8192008-01-03T07:35+00:00

Dredger wrote:It also provides a clear break from downtown/office/residential and the industrial area along Broadway and Hall street. Pete makes this possible with this deal!!

Huh? Why would you ever consider that a positive??? That industrial area is the next up and coming warehouse district, ok, well, after Chouteau's Landing that is...

bonwich · PostJan 03, 2008#8202008-01-03T14:37+00:00

Mill204 wrote:
Little Egyptian wrote:I don't understand this speculation that I-70 between the Arch and downtown will somehow disappear. It is not going anywhere anytime soon.
Not speculation, a vision promoted by many of us with the goal of improving the connection between downtown St. Louis and the Mississippi riverfront by removing the obstacles—the depressed and elevated sections of I-70—that lie between them.

It's actually pretty simple: The original plan for the new bridge called for redesignating the aptly named depressed lanes as "I-44." Except that's clearly ludicrous, because it would be done to connect I-44 eastbound to I-70 westbound and vice versa.

After ther bridge is built, if you blow away the depressed section and Laclede's Landing amputator, you lose precisely nothing in terms of Interstate connectivity. If you're traveling I-70 eastbound, you go across the new bridge and you're still on I-70 eastbound (and much closer than when you did it via the PSB. If you're traveling I-44 eastbound and you want to hook up to I-70 eastbound, you simply cross the PSB and catch it on the other side.

You do lose downtown connectivity from I-55 northbound to I-70 westbound -- but only for local traffic. Long-distance traffic -- interstate traffic -- will, and should, make the connection via 270.

Great cities across the country have realized the gross negative effects of having interstates and other restricted-access highways severing key areas from each other. It ain't real hard to see how to correct this folly in St. Louis.

jmedwick · PostJan 03, 2008#8212008-01-03T14:56+00:00

It ain't real hard to see how to correct this folly in St. Louis.

Except for the region's leaders.

jcity · PostJan 04, 2008#8222008-01-04T05:55+00:00

St. Louis Accomplishments:

1874: 4 lane Eads Bridge

2010?: 4 lane New River Bridge

WOW>. W.TF?!?!!

And the one that will be 136 years old at the time the new one is complete, will still be a double decker bridge, that's STILL far more architecturally impressive. Maybe we really do move backwards sometimes...

what's REALLY depressing to me is the thought that the majority of people in this region might want a "signature bridge" to be built between St. Charles and Chesterfield versus downtown St. Louis!!! YIKES!!! surely the outstate modot retards would advocate a 12 lane bridge there!

southslider · PostJan 04, 2008#8232008-01-04T13:55+00:00

Since there are no connections between I-64 to/from the west to other Interstates at the PSB junction, who can say that I-44/55 must maintain a connection with I-70 to/from the west?

Instead of resigning I-70 to I-44 in the reverse direction, the section between the PSB and new MRB could easily go away. There are about 70,000 vehicles that travel this piece, but at-grade, signalized Lakeshore Drive in the heart of Chicago handles nearly twice as many vehicles. And I-55 ends on Lakeshore Drive, not at an Interstate.

publiceye · PostJan 04, 2008#8242008-01-04T14:17+00:00

St. Louis Accomplishments:

1874: 4 lane Eads Bridge

2010?: 4 lane New River Bridge

It took decades to find the resolve, technology, and finances to build the first Mississippi River bridge at St. Louis. And, despite its architectural triumph, it hasn't ever really worked out well as a bridge.

wikipedia wrote:Although recognized as an innovative and exciting achievement, the Eads Bridge was overcapitalized during construction and burdened with debt. With its focus on the river, St. Louis had a lack of adequate rail terminal facilities, and the bridge was poorly planned to coordinate rail access. An engineering and aesthetic success, the bridge was bankrupt within a year of opening.

For some (probably false) reason, the current designers of the bridge seem to think that eye-popping aesthetics are expensive.

bonwich · PostJan 04, 2008#8252008-01-04T14:54+00:00

^ Maybe the current hotshot designers from the largest city in the metro area should paddle a canoe upriver and figure out how the little town of Alton managed to do both.

New Mississippi River Bridge Musial

Choose Display Mode