New I-80 Mississippi River Bridge - Quad Cities

[edwaleni]

Starting thread that started in the "Illinois Notes".

IDOT has started Phase 1 Engineering for the I-80 Bridge Replacement.

Seeing that this part of the Mississippi is navigable, I checked the Army Corp of Engineers online clearance calculator

https://rivergages.mvr.usace.army.mil/bridge_clearance/bridge_clearance.cfm?sid=14685

The low water clearance is 60 feet for this bridge today.

ACoE also posts the current navigation charts for this area of the river. Any new bridge has to respect this requirement.

[edwaleni]

Another navigation issue is the LeClaire Canal on the Iowa side of the river. Not so much a clearance issue, it has been for years a no wake zone for recreational boaters not wanting to get rocked by barge wake. The canal wall has been submerged and will need to be avoided when construction commences.

The Quad Cities area was known to river boat pilots as 13 miles of dangerous rapids during high water, and 13 miles of impossible rapids during low water. The US Army Corps of Engineers worked to clear the snags and build wing dams, but that was more of a band aid than a solution to the rapids. The real solution would be a pair of enormous lock and dam structures.

We are all familiar with the 9-foot navigation channel, and the locks and dams that were built mainly in the 1930s to support the 9-foot river channel. But before the 9-foot channel was built, there was an earlier effort to build a 6-foot navigation channel. One of the few works that survive from the 6-foot channel project is the Le Claire canal and lock.

There is a particularly dangerous stretch of rapids running the location of the present day Lock & Dam #14 to a mile or so above the I-80 Schwengel Bridge just north of the Quad Cities. The design to fix this area started with building a wall down the river channel. The area between this wall and the Iowa bank would be excavated to create a canal. Near river mile 494, it was no longer possible to run the canal in the river channel. As a result, the canal was dug following a slough around the west side of Smith's Island. Since the river dropped approximately 8 feet in this three mile section, a lock would be needed at the south end of the canal.

The canal and lock were built between 1921 and 1924. The structure operated as built until the early 1930's. At that time, the large structure for Lock & Dam #14 was installed. Completed in 1938, it raised the river water a few feet. This had the effect of submerging much of the canal wall north of Smith's island.

Today, the main 9-foot lock is heavily used by river tows. As a result, pleasure craft use the canal. Lights have been installed where the canal wall sits just under the surface of the water. At 320 feet long and 78 feet wide, the old 6-foot lock is obsolete for handling river boat traffic, but it works great for pleasure craft.

[CtrlAltDel]

I would move the bridge around Le Claire to get rid of that speed camera. That might not be high on the list of concerns, though.

[edwaleni]

The picture below is from the Rock Island County ArcGIS system at the parcel level.

I outlined in black which parcels belong to IDOT. On the left there are 7 privately owned parcels along IL-84 hence the "box".

Oddly IDOT does not own the entire riverfront on both sides of the bridge, only what is underneath.

The large open space to the left is a scenic viewpoint only accessible by an exit ramp on the eastbound side.

IDOT also owns as very narrow parcel that fronts IL-84, I assume from when the road was built, it acted as a construction exit/entrance.

Today that lot has a locked gate and the road ends in the woods.

I will see if I can get the Iowa equivalent.

[edwaleni]

Attached below is the parcel map on the Scott County side in Iowa. You will notice that the ACoE map doesn't have exit ramps on the Iowa side, so it appears this was built later.

[edwaleni]

Now that I have seen both sides, I would surmise that they will build a new span on each side of the old one, tear down the middle one and then fill it in with a connected one.

This is under the presumption they don't want to purchase additional parcels.

If they decided to build a whole new span at once, it just couldn't be done here with out either a large riverfront parcel purchase or a massive shoofly to redirect traffic.

Since midwestern DOT's don't seem to be building dedicated spans for each direction (expensive) I don't expect to see two cable stayed bridges across the river.

Illinois has more room to work with than Iowa does as they own more riverfront land.

I can't think of a good reason why they would relocate it farther upstream. It would require a massive purchase of parcels, all for what? Connect it to I-88 better? Bah.

[Rick Powell]

Attached below is the parcel map on the Scott County side in Iowa. You will notice that the ACoE map doesn't have exit ramps on the Iowa side, so it appears this was built later.

Look very closely at the ACOE map, the ramps are there, but not highlighted for some reason like the IL side. A mapmaker's oversight?

[edwaleni]

Attached below is the parcel map on the Scott County side in Iowa. You will notice that the ACoE map doesn't have exit ramps on the Iowa side, so it appears this was built later.

Look very closely at the ACOE map, the ramps are there, but not highlighted for some reason like the IL side. A mapmaker's oversight?

You are correct! Hard to see even on the original ACoE website.

[triplemultiplex]

In terms of r/w impact, the new bridge likely needs more land if one keeps the existing interchange configurations.  Though there may be some options there to keep things compact or restrict the impacts to open land. It is worth noting that the sewage treatment plant for LeClaire is in this area (at the west end of Iowa Dr which is on top of the bluff, oddly enough) so there might be more complicated utility relocations if a new span goes upstream.

Iowa side, it looks like a horse apiece.  Illinois, maybe a slight advantage to downstream since the overlook means there's already r/w that won't need to be bought out.

[edwaleni]

In terms of r/w impact, the new bridge likely needs more land if one keeps the existing interchange configurations.  Though there may be some options there to keep things compact or restrict the impacts to open land. It is worth noting that the sewage treatment plant for LeClaire is in this area (at the west end of Iowa Dr which is on top of the bluff, oddly enough) so there might be more complicated utility relocations if a new span goes upstream.

Iowa side, it looks like a horse apiece.  Illinois, maybe a slight advantage to downstream since the overlook means there's already r/w that won't need to be bought out.

LeClaire has a sewage lift station on the riverfront, just north of the bridge. They have an easement through IowaDOT and under the exit ramps to get that sewage up to the plant.

[iowahighways]

Thread bump time: An online meeting was held last night by the Iowa and Illinois DOTs. Seven alternatives were discussed, including four that would allow for the Bison Bridge repurposing to go forward.

Story: https://www.kwqc.com/2022/05/12/illinois-iowa-dots-lay-out-7-options-new-i-80-bridge-bison-bridge-still-up-air/?fbclid=IwAR1Jb8cGy-gx2WkPXYeR4eeUSbnsrbLykZ5N9_oofSxWwLiQVT-_rmRPEF0

Materials from the meeting: https://www.i80mississippibridge.com/meeting-materials

[edwaleni]

Thread bump time: An online meeting was held last night by the Iowa and Illinois DOTs. Seven alternatives were discussed, including four that would allow for the Bison Bridge repurposing to go forward.

Story: https://www.kwqc.com/2022/05/12/illinois-iowa-dots-lay-out-7-options-new-i-80-bridge-bison-bridge-still-up-air/?fbclid=IwAR1Jb8cGy-gx2WkPXYeR4eeUSbnsrbLykZ5N9_oofSxWwLiQVT-_rmRPEF0

Materials from the meeting: https://www.i80mississippibridge.com/meeting-materials

I have nothing against improving our harmony with nature, but watching some bison run across a bridge is not one of them.  Bison need open space and lots of it.

As much as we want to compensate for the near elimination of the North American bison, we can't undo what has been done nor can we recreate what they were.

Like the wildebeest of Africa, they technically need to migrate.  Here, they will always be reliant on man to feed them, vaccinate them and look after them.  I am not exactly clear how building a bridge for them will somehow improve their standing other than being an expensive zoo. Humans and bison are incompatible when in close proximity in the wild. Simply scanning YouTube and all of the postings of totally insane people trying to warm up to them along the highway and getting their clothes ripped off as they get tossed in the air. Gorings, while rare, do occur.

So while I applaud the NEPA work, I think there are *way* better places to spend that kind of money to establish a bison sanctuary.

This national trend to retain obsolete bridges for alternate uses has been growing, some of them have merit, many of them don't. The NFP's typically can't raise enough money to pay for them and the states involved can't even afford to keep their own parks open, let alone get a ranger on the property.

Hey if they raise the dough and can manage it themselves, more power to them. But they shouldn't be holding up the replacement of a national artery just to tickle ones animal preservation fantasy.

[Revive 755]

The

Materials from the meeting: https://www.i80mississippibridge.com/meeting-materials

The range of alternates for the I-80/I-88 interchange seems odd:

A) Enlarged cloverleaf, minor adjustments to the EB I-88 exit to Old IL 2 and the WB I-88 ramp to the short CD roadway between the interchanges

B) Same as A but with an EB I-80 to EB I-88 turbine ramp

C) Enlarged cloverleaf with an EB I-80 to EB I-88 flyover, the Old IL 2 interchange is rebuilt into a configuration kind of resembling I-94 at WI 100 in the Milwaukee area with a U-shaped ramp to go WB on I-88.  The short C-D roadway between the interchanges is removed.

D) Four level stack for I-80 at I-88, same improvements as C for the Old IL 2 interchange.

Seems like there should be something between just one flyover/turbine ramp and a full stack.

[ilpt4u]

The

Materials from the meeting: https://www.i80mississippibridge.com/meeting-materials

The range of alternates for the I-80/I-88 interchange seems odd:

A) Enlarged cloverleaf, minor adjustments to the EB I-88 exit to Old IL 2 and the WB I-88 ramp to the short CD roadway between the interchanges

B) Same as A but with an EB I-80 to EB I-88 turbine ramp

C) Enlarged cloverleaf with an EB I-80 to EB I-88 flyover, the Old IL 2 interchange is rebuilt into a configuration kind of resembling I-94 at WI 100 in the Milwaukee area with a U-shaped ramp to go WB on I-88.  The short C-D roadway between the interchanges is removed.

D) Four level stack for I-80 at I-88, same improvements as C for the Old IL 2 interchange.

Seems like there should be something between just one flyover/turbine ramp and a full stack.

Hey, IDOT has gotta start somewhere to get into a Full Four Level Stack. Might as well be here!

[Plutonic Panda]

Hopefully they go with a full stack. The less cloverleafs the better.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

The only movement that justifies a flyover is EB 80-EB 88. Building a four-level stack would be a waste of money, and IDOT couldn't afford one anyway because IDOT.

[Plutonic Panda]

The only movement that justifies a flyover is EB 80-EB 88. Building a four-level stack would be a waste of money, and IDOT couldn't afford one anyway because IDOT.

Meh, they're also better to maintain higher speeds for more efficient flow of traffic and are safer.

[JREwing78]

The only movement that justifies a flyover is EB 80-EB 88. Building a four-level stack would be a waste of money, and IDOT couldn't afford one anyway because IDOT.

Meh, they're also better to maintain higher speeds for more efficient flow of traffic and are safer.

Obviously. But the game is to spend the money where it makes sense (IDOT, if you haven't noticed, isn't flush with cash). You spend all your money making an elaborate interchange where one isn't justified, and you have nothing left for when the I-80 bridge over the Des Plaines River in Joliet finally collapses and falls into the river. https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/des-plaines-river-bridge-structurally-intolerable/

The only movement at I-80/I-88 that justifies the expense of construction of a flyover is EBD I-80 to EBD I-88. The rest of the movements would be fine with the incorporation of C/D lanes separating through traffic from the traffic using the cloverleaf. An example is I-69 @ I-94 in Marshall, MI: https://goo.gl/maps/3WgWUxdfiiZZYUcC9

[edwaleni]

The only movement that justifies a flyover is EB 80-EB 88. Building a four-level stack would be a waste of money, and IDOT couldn't afford one anyway because IDOT.

Meh, they're also better to maintain higher speeds for more efficient flow of traffic and are safer.

Obviously. But the game is to spend the money where it makes sense (IDOT, if you haven't noticed, isn't flush with cash). You spend all your money making an elaborate interchange where one isn't justified, and you have nothing left for when the I-80 bridge over the Des Plaines River in Joliet finally collapses and falls into the river. https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/des-plaines-river-bridge-structurally-intolerable/

The only movement at I-80/I-88 that justifies the expense of construction of a flyover is EBD I-80 to EBD I-88. The rest of the movements would be fine with the incorporation of C/D lanes separating through traffic from the traffic using the cloverleaf. An example is I-69 @ I-94 in Marshall, MI: https://goo.gl/maps/3WgWUxdfiiZZYUcC9

https://www.kwqc.com/2023/11/16/idot-plans-dual-i-80-bridges-place-old-span/

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (KWQC) - The Illinois Department of Transportation's latest plan to replace the I-80 bridge would disrupt traffic longer but have a more compact footprint.

According to the plan, the first of the dual bridges would be constructed immediately west of the existing Interstate 80 bridge. When finished, all traffic would move temporarily to the new bridge while the old bridge is removed. The second bridge would be constructed in its place.

Other alternatives had the dual bridges constructed next to the old bridge, which would then be demolished. In the plan picked, one of the dual bridges will be built in place of the old bridge — which has a smaller footprint.

IDOT picked a plan for the I-88/I-80 interchange that would expand three of the four loop ramps. It would also provide a one-direction ramp for eastbound traffic.

The study area reaches from Rock Island County, Illinois, to Scott County, Iowa, covering approximately 6 miles from the I-88/I-80 interchange in Illinois to 35th Street SW in LeClaire, Iowa, including the bridge over the Mississippi River.

The planned teardown does present a setback for a local effort to create a "Bison Bridge."

https://www.i80mississippibridge.com/meeting-materials

[SEWIGuy]

I am relocating to the Quad Cities next month. I am really looking forward to seeing this project develop.

As it stands, I'm going to be crossing the new I-74 bridge every day for my commute.

[3467]

It's an easy trip now. The radio stations give travel times 11minutes 80 to 280.
We take it when passing though instead of the 80s.
You can wonder down to Warren County and join the super 2 debate on 67.

[froggie]

Since midwestern DOT's don't seem to be building dedicated spans for each direction (expensive) I don't expect to see two cable stayed bridges across the river.

I realize I'm responding to a comment that's almost 2 years old, but this one struck a chord with me.  And from what I've seen, there are many counter-examples across the Upper Mississippi and tributaries.  Several built within the past 20 years have dedicated spans in each direction.  Heck, the new I-74 bridge downstream of the OP bridge has separate spans.  Others I can think of offhand:

• I-90 Dresbach Bridge
• I-494 Wakota Bridge
• US 52 Lafayette Bridge
• I-35E Lexington Bridge
• I-35W St. Anthony Bridge (replacing the one that collapsed in 2007)
• I-35W Minnesota River Bridge

[edwaleni]

Since midwestern DOT's don't seem to be building dedicated spans for each direction (expensive) I don't expect to see two cable stayed bridges across the river.

I realize I'm responding to a comment that's almost 2 years old, but this one struck a chord with me.  And from what I've seen, there are many counter-examples across the Upper Mississippi and tributaries.  Several built within the past 20 years have dedicated spans in each direction.  Heck, the new I-74 bridge downstream of the OP bridge has separate spans.  Others I can think of offhand:

• I-90 Dresbach Bridge
• I-494 Wakota Bridge
• US 52 Lafayette Bridge
• I-35E Lexington Bridge
• I-35W St. Anthony Bridge (replacing the one that collapsed in 2007)
• I-35W Minnesota River Bridge

Sorry it struck a bad note for you as I am the one you are quoting.

It's a fact that for every 10 bridges that look great, (like the ones you mentioned) there are probably 50 spans of similar dimensions that use boiler plate/stock design templates.

Many of the dual-cable stayed bridges as of late were designed as such because they had to meet a certain kind of requirement. And aesthetics is a design requirement just like load bearing is.

There are just many, many bridges that don't require an exceptional aesthetic.

Case in point, the new Chain of Rocks Bridge over the Missisippi River. No navigation requirement, its not downtown of anything, so no one will be looking at it from the exterior very often. So its getting a boiler plate design.  The same with the Beardstown Bridge in Beardstown, Illinois.  It does have a navigation requirement as well as a load bearing one, but not for aesthetics. Beardstown is rural, the AADT over the bridge is not exceptional. So they will use a standard stock design. The Rocheport Bridge in Missouri. Very high AADT, but very rural with a navigation requirement. So it gets a stock design.

The new Shands Bridge in Florida (IMHO) was a huge missed opportunity. While not in a city center, it has a very broad span requirement due to the width of the St John's River. The river here is navigable, but when I asked why they were using a stock design (Similar to the Buckman Bridge downstream) the answer was "hurricane & evacuation" requirements.

The new bridge on the Mississippi in the Quad Cites is downtown. It will be seen by everyone for the next 100 years. It has to span a navigable river and carry a large AADT. So it got 2 spans held up with reinforced concrete arches. Pleasing to most eyes and will be durable to hold up during the rough midwest winters.

That is a perfect example where the aesthetic played a larger role in the span design.  But in general, its about cost. Building 50 spans cheaply allows a DOT to build 10 beautiful ones.

[pianocello]

Whodathought that the first of the Quad City-area cloverleaves getting a direct turbine ramp was at I-88, not I-80/74/280?

I am relocating to the Quad Cities next month. I am really looking forward to seeing this project develop.

As a former resident, welcome to the area! If you have any questions about it feel free to reach out to me via PM.

[Plutonic Panda]

Should have been a four level. Stupid decision I hate cloverleafs.