urbanSTL

How can any bridge be easily expanded from 4 lanes to eight? Twice the size?

^build one next to it...kinda like the Blanchette and Daniel Boone

I can kinda see how they would do it now that I look at the rendering again. How will that save anyone money in the long run. After they discover they need more lanes It will be like constructing another $600 million bridge.

Maybe by the time another bridge is sought, MODOT will finally give into converting MLK as a 3-lane coupler to this 4-lane bridge. Of course, two such bridges would then be farther apart then the MLK-coupler plan IDOT backed as Plan B yet MODOT killed, but it would still be feasible.



However, I do wonder if it would be cheaper and more aesthetically pleasing ramp-connection-wise to then make the MLK counterintuitively (since we Yanks drive on the right) the westbound I-70 bridge. That's because the Missouri side is so physically constrained by the Casino that, as it is today, you have a sharp right turn from MLK to I-70. It would be a slow-down turn (then again, so is the PSB ramp), but it would be an easy retrofit. The geometrics of a new flyover to an eastbound MLK to more intuitively pair the bridges is better for speed, but it also means an unsightly structure up in the air right by the dome and casino.

Is this still slated to be a "signature" bridge?



The implication that I have gotten from the local news is that IL does not have its funding in place. Thus, is this announcement a little premature?

^Unless Rahn plans to budget-engineer for the earmarks, Illinois definitely needs to be in agreement. Then again, if you only used Blunt's earmarks, maybe you'd get a "signature" pontoon bridge.

is this announcement a little premature

They announced an agreement. That seems timely. Had they announced the start of construction, that would have been a little premature.

What is the risk if this bridge is not built? What benefits will it provide the St. Louis area? I only ask because I am really unaware of the issues.



Basically, this sounds like good news. Four lanes seems low, but at least there is no toll and the option for expansion is left open.

Is that enough lanes to handle I-70? Aren't there 6 lanes leading up to the bridge? I guess it can work if only 2/3rds of the traffic intends to cross.

Gary Kreie wrote:Is that enough lanes to handle I-70? Aren't there 6 lanes leading up to the bridge? I guess it can work if only 2/3rds of the traffic intends to cross.

It currently goes from 3 lanes to 2 eastbound at broadway, picks up the express lane, then down to 2 lanes again at Memorial, and then only 1 lane eastbound to get on the Poplar. Presumably a fair chunk of the traffic, especially at morning rush, would still exit downtown at Broadway or Memorial.

February 28, 2008

Missouri and Illinois Agreement on New Mississippi River Bridge



ST LOUIS - Missouri Governor Matt Blunt and Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, along with the Missouri Department of Transportation, Illinois Department of Transportation and dignitaries and officials from both states, announce that an agreement has been reached on the New I-70 Mississippi River Bridge. The bridge will have a significant impact on transportation in the St. Louis region connecting Missouri and Illinois, as well as enhance travel and economic opportunities for the metropolitan area.



The agreement will build the New Mississippi River Bridge in the location originally approved by Federal Highway Administration in 2001, which is one mile north of the Martin Luther King Bridge in north St. Louis. The new bridge will have four lanes, two lanes in each direction, with room to expand to six lanes. The New Mississippi River Bridge will carry Interstate 70 traffic from Illinois to Missouri connecting I-70 at the I-55/I-64/I-70 interchange on the Illinois side to I-70 near Cass Avenue on the Missouri side. The new bridge will not be a toll bridge. Design for the project will begin immediately. Construction could begin as early as 2010 and last four to six years.



The New Mississippi River Bridge is expected to reduce severe traffic congestion and vehicle crashes on the Poplar Street Bridge (PSB). Currently, PSB carries combined traffic for Interstates 55, 64 and 70. In 2004, traffic counts on the PSB average between 115,000 and 125,000 vehicles daily. By 2030, projections are that the PSB would carry more than 150,000 vehicles daily if no additional major river bridge crossing is constructed.



The reduction of vehicles from the Poplar Street Bridge to the new I-70 Mississippi River Bridge is also expected to reduce travel delays, enhance safety and sustain economic growth and development in St. Louis and Illinois.



The total project cost for the New Mississippi River Bridge is $640 million:



* Bridge is $306 million (MO=$93 million and IL = $213 million)

* Missouri roadway connection = $70 million

* Illinois roadway connection = $264 million



Public meetings will be held this year in Illinois and Missouri to provide details on the New Mississippi River Bridge. A new Internet site, www.newriverbridge.org , has also been launched to keep the bi-state region informed and updated about the status of the new I-70 Mississippi River Bridge.



Link

maybe they could skimp a bit and use the extra money to light up eads. That bridge remaining dark is a travesty.

What? There was an agreement? Does that picture imply that we will get that design? Or just indicates location?

I think that is the proposed design and I know that is the location.

Those images were linked to the MoDOT press release so it would be pretty safe to assume that this is the design. If you look at old pictures of the first redesign this is only one-half of it. If any expansion is planned they would build the mirror image of what you see above.

Thanks for the clarification. Good news!

Just for reference this is the prior design:

What does this mean for the "depressed lanes" of I-70? Do they go away? I would much rather they make the connection between 55/40/64 and 70 as a parkway that runs through downtown STL. I live in Baltimore, and if you are trying to go from I95 to I83, you have to drive through downtown on surface streets. The process works fine and you get to see more of the city than if you were on a highway the whole time.

So, just doing a little comparative measuring, it looks like the bridge supports will be around 350' to 400' tall. Should be a nice addition to the skyline. I assume they will be lit up like the Alton bridge.



Edit: Uh yeah, nevermind, I see the website has the height of the towers - 335' above the highway deck.



Brick and mortar, your link is broken... http://www.newriverbridge.org

is anyone else out there curious how one could build a bridge like that with "the capacity to add one more lane n either direction?" --- are they going to widen the cable spread?

markofucity wrote:is anyone else out there curious how one could build a bridge like that with "the capacity to add one more lane n either direction?" --- are they going to widen the cable spread?

My guess is that the bridge is being built with full 12' left and right shoulders for each direction of travel. If traffic demands an additional lane, they will probably restripe the left shoulder as a third lane.

^I'm pretty sure they mean the bridge will have wide shoulders for breakdowns and emergency vehicle access. I think all they mean by "expanded to 6 lanes" is that the bridge lanes could be restriped and the shoulders could be used as a 5th and 6th lane if the traffic needs outweigh safety issues, or something like that.



None of the other major bridges in the area have emergency lanes that I can recall, though, so I don't know why this one needs them.