urbanSTL

chaifetz10 wrote:Ahh. That's right. They replaced the interstate bridge over the canal, not the river itself.

I don't see this happening until later in this decade tho...the study is probably a 2 year thing + finding the money to replace it + construction, best case is early 2020's open for traffic.

A love letter to the bridge and related highway projects from the Stl BJ

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... t&page=all

^ Thanks for posting.   A nice recognition

Rest of her comments were tough to read, Its just simple obtainable measureable fact that urban area gets the larger share of the transportation funding because that is where the people are located and therefore where the gdp exists to generate the tax revenues needed to support transportation.    I grew up in a very small farm town and the whole notion that rural areas are short changed when it comes to transportation and state/federal funding is mind boggling wrong.  Its the other way around based on simple measure of where taxes are collected.. 

From the MoDOT wishlist. Tier 3

$231 million to add companion bridge to I-70 Mississippi River Bridge and add southern connection ramps to existing I-70 bridge from I-44.

How are traffic counts on the Musial?
Adding ramps for I44 sounds like doubling down instead of removing I44 elevated section.

More, more, more! Dig the hole deeper.

quincunx wrote: ↑

Jan 26, 2022

From the MoDOT wishlist. Tier 3

$231 million to add companion bridge to I-70 Mississippi River Bridge and add southern connection ramps to existing I-70 bridge from I-44.

How are traffic counts on the Musial?
Adding ramps for I44 sounds like doubling down instead of removing I44 elevated section.

More, more, more! Dig the hole deeper.

My commute is on 70 and it seems like the bridge get's backed up during the evening. To me it seems like more traffic takes that exit than keeps going towards the arch on 70. The left lane out of the three on 70 stays mostly open though so I don't know that there is a need for another bridge in this location. Maybe they're talking about a new one south of the arch? 

pattimagee wrote: ↑

Jan 26, 2022

Is there any chance (and doubt it) that adding I44 ramps and an added I70 bridge could just mean they are beefing up those in prep for removing the Downtown portion of I44 and forcing people across the river if they want to make that exchange?

Interesting thought as I would doubt as well as but you never know.   My initial thought is along the lines of  quincunx but a dual span Musial with focus on Poplar & Musial brides does give an opportunity to simply route I-44/I-55 traffic access to I70 via Poplar bridge without too much loss in travel time as well the fact that it also gives the opportunity to remove MLK bridge in long term and focus Eads being a mulitmodal crossing.     Any I55 northbound traffic wanting to go west and or Lambert can easily jump on I64 as they probably do already and if they are going to Lambert simply catch I170.    Essentially build a bridge to remove a bridge while at same time get rid of a short stretch of raised freeway (removing a long term earthquake liablity for MoDOT to boot) & turn property back to city.   

Maybe their is some hope for MoDOT seeing a plus side on continued incremental removal of freeway in the city, rethinking interchanges and turnover of property whether it be the raised section next to Dome coming down and some  changes to the Market St/FPP alignment to remove an interchange after seeing the short section of old 22nd street parkway go away.   The reality is MoDOT has the opportunity to do some incremental changes and reduce its footprint without reducing capacity or impact travel times.   

My hope is that building the 2nd Musial bridge and adding the I-44 ramp will then allow MODOT / IDOT sufficient cross river capacity to temporarily shut down and replace the Poplar St Bridge. The Poplar St Bridge has to be one of the biggest eyesores in the entire region. That location really demands a more architecturally significant bridge.