robo bump?

anyway- this bridge is a pain to deal with because of the steel plates under the driving surface...its been studied by universities all over the world since the 80s, i think they finally found the right concrete mix that will stick. summer 2016 will be a busy one on PSB, between last summer and 2016 summer about $75M worth of work (half paid by IDOT) should give the bridge another 50 years of life vs a $300-400M new bridge.... also the westbound is getting picked up a slide over 10 feet to the north and a new lane built in-between the west and east bounds.

dbInSouthCity wrote:robo bump?

anyway- this bridge is a pain to deal with because of the steel plates under the driving surface...its been studied by universities all over the world since the 80s, i think they finally found the right concrete mix that will stick. summer 2016 will be a busy one on PSB, between last summer and 2016 summer about $75M worth of work (half paid by IDOT) should give the bridge another 50 years of life vs a $300-400M new bridge.... also the westbound is getting picked up a slide over 10 feet to the north and a new lane built in-between the west and east bounds.

I've wondered why concrete is the only solution being considered for the driving surface. What about a steel road deck? Either a textured steel plate like this:



or even an open-grid deck like this:



Something like that would certainly be noisier and probably more expensive to install, but wouldn't something like that welded or bolted to the steel sub-decking be a durable and permanent solution to the concrete problem?

-RBB

I wish they would get rid of the bridge and re-rout it in a tunnel from Il to Forest park way and re-rout 55 with a new bridge from right by it run by the river in south city over to IL

Mention of Poplar Bridge rebuild in 2030s. What style of river bridge do we think would look good on St. Louis?






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No oversized arches, please.  One is plenty. 

Would be cool to see it replaced with something that looks like the Brooklyn Bridge or the old Grand Viaduct - raw, historic, and industrial looking. Alternatively, I think the Clark Bridge is beautiful in its simplicity.

dweebe wrote: ↑

Jul 12, 2025

addxb2 wrote: ↑

Jul 11, 2025

Mention of Poplar Bridge rebuild in 2030s. What style of river bridge do we think would look good on St. Louis?

Where's that information coming from?

Freightway 2025 Priority Projects pages 80 to 81. That said, I brought it up because Ryan McClure from Arch Park Foundation also brought it up recently when discussing the reconnection efforts. It would be a 2030-2040 project if I had to guess.

I do hope we get a more iconic bridge, that still offers a great view of the city.

Any ideas of what the lifespan of the double decker Poplar St viaduct going west to 20th St. is? If a new Mississippi River bridge is on the horizon would it be smart to rethink this entire corridor? I quickly mocked up what a realigned I 64 route through downtown could look like that pushes it further south above the freight railyard and consolidates exits to major N/S corridors. This would reconnect the lost street grid and open up large areas adjacent to Busch Stadium and downtown to redevelopment (shown in light green).

Including space on the bridge for future high speed rail that could drop down to a redesigned Gateway Transit Center could also be smart. Other things I considered include realigning and tunneling part of MetroLink between Civic Center and Stadium stations to make more usable development space and I also imagined I44 ending at the new river bridge and continuing north as a boulevard, while still depressing under the Arch entry plaza. 

kg2024 wrote: ↑

Aug 14, 2025

Any ideas of what the lifespan of the double decker Poplar St viaduct going west to 20th St. is? If a new Mississippi River bridge is on the horizon would it be smart to rethink this entire corridor? I quickly mocked up what a realigned I 64 route through downtown could look like that pushes it further south above the freight railyard and consolidates exits to major N/S corridors. This would reconnect the lost street grid and open up large areas adjacent to Busch Stadium and downtown to redevelopment (shown in light green).

Including space on the bridge for future high speed rail that could drop down to a redesigned Gateway Transit Center could also be smart. Other things I considered include realigning and tunneling part of MetroLink between Civic Center and Stadium stations to make more usable development space and I also imagined I44 ending at the new river bridge and continuing north as a boulevard, while still depressing under the Arch entry plaza. 

Seems like there's plenty of underutilized land already available in DT.  Probably better uses of $$ elsewhere. 

Bart Harley Jarvis wrote: ↑

Aug 14, 2025

kg2024 wrote: ↑

Aug 14, 2025

Any ideas of what the lifespan of the double decker Poplar St viaduct going west to 20th St. is? If a new Mississippi River bridge is on the horizon would it be smart to rethink this entire corridor? I quickly mocked up what a realigned I 64 route through downtown could look like that pushes it further south above the freight railyard and consolidates exits to major N/S corridors. This would reconnect the lost street grid and open up large areas adjacent to Busch Stadium and downtown to redevelopment (shown in light green).

Including space on the bridge for future high speed rail that could drop down to a redesigned Gateway Transit Center could also be smart. Other things I considered include realigning and tunneling part of MetroLink between Civic Center and Stadium stations to make more usable development space and I also imagined I44 ending at the new river bridge and continuing north as a boulevard, while still depressing under the Arch entry plaza. 

Seems like there's plenty of underutilized land already available in DT.  Probably better uses of $$ elsewhere. 

Yes there's definitely plenty of space available, but if this whole stretch needs to be rebuilt anyway in the next 20+ years would the extra planning and benefits outweigh the restrictions and cost of trying to rebuild the structure in the same place and the extended timeline that would bring? If hundreds of millions are going to be spent, wouldn''t reconstructing it all at once in a more consolidated footprint be more logical?

Fantastic idea, probably very difficult to pull off, but I've always wondered why the railyard and highway had to be side-by-side. It puts downtown on such an island. To me this is less about creating more development opportunities and more about creating a better downtown.

I could see the Cardinals lobbying for something like this to happen. Would give the opportunity for BPV to truly surround the stadium. Not that I would have confidence that they would actually build it out in the next 50 years