New I-70 Mississippi River Bridge

[Revive 755]

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/along-for-the-ride/bridges/2009/02/nitty-gritty-details-on-new-mississippi-river-bridge/

[rant]
One of those projects MoDOT should do a better job of funding rather than waste enough half billion on the I-70 truck lanes.  The current proposal is fairly lousy since I-55 does not have easy access to it for a PSB alternative.[/rant]

[Sykotyk]

They should resign I-270 as I-70 through the northern part of the city. Resign the old I-70 from downtown to St. Charles as a spur.

Resign southwest I-270 as I-255 as well.

Problem solved.

For trying to alleviate traffic across that bridge, the do a horrible job showing that I-270 is the most direct route west/east of the St. Louis area.

Sykotyk

[Revive 755]

The problem with rerouting I-70 over I-270 is that the Chain of Rocks Main Channel and Canal Bridges are kind of over capacity - or at least seem like it.  The bridge over the main channel needs a twin so the existing bridge can be three lanes with marginal shoulders, and the canal bridges just need to be replaced.  There may be other capacity problems on I-270 through North County as well.  Otherwise I agree that I-70 should be rerouted and the existing route into downtown signed as something else - maybe I-264 since I-70 is running low on available 3di's and I-64 is unlikely to go beyond Wentzville.

The whole new bridge project is just one major screw up anyway; I-55 needs a new bridge.  I-70 traffic has easy access to the MLK Bridge if the PSB backs up.  The PSB is also the only bridge readily available for IL 3 traffic to cross the Mississippi since there are no ramps to/from the south for the MLK - but unlike I-55, IL 3 has somewhat easier access to the Eads Bridge.

[Voyager]

I've always wanted why they were moving the new alignment so far to the north.

[rmsandw]

The way the plans looked to me was it was sending I-70 traffic across the new bridge and making a better path of traffic into downtown from I-64 in Illinois.  Otherwise why would they bein building a connector from the I-55/64/70 IL 3 interchange in E StL to the New Bridge...

[Revive 755]

Contracted awarded for work on I-70 as part of the new bridge:
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/along-for-the-ride/bridges/2009/06/first-construction-contract-awarded-for-new-missississippi-river-bridge/

[J N Winkler]

I got hold of a copy of the conceptual signing plan and it looks like the bit of what is now I-70 between the new bridge and the Poplar Street Bridge will become a new three-digit Interstate--Missouri I-264.

Moreover, although it looks like the western end of the bridge will have connectivity just to Cass Avenue and to I-70 north of the bridge, the signing plan still includes an "ultimate configuration" diagram showing a full wye interchange with connections to the south (future I-264).

[Revive 755]

I got hold of a copy of the conceptual signing plan and it looks like the bit of what is now I-70 between the new bridge and the Poplar Street Bridge will become a new three-digit Interstate--Missouri I-264.

Moreover, although it looks like the western end of the bridge will have connectivity just to Cass Avenue and to I-70 north of the bridge, the signing plan still includes an "ultimate configuration" diagram showing a full wye interchange with connections to the south (future I-264).

Very intriguing, as it seemed pretty certain that the section of I-70 between the PSB and the new bridge was going to become an extension of I-44, and ultimately there were going to be no ramps between I-64 and this new I-264.  The current PSB ramps to/from I-70 were to be removed to allow two lanes, larger radii ramps between I-55 and the PSB.  Granted the ultimate concept has changed from the version on the official website, since the new EB US 40 entrance just west of the PSB shown has been replaced with a new entrance from the south.

I don't suppose the signing plan shows what the ultimate I-64 connector to the new bridge on the Illinois side will be numbered?

[Chris]

Good excuse to bulldoze that horrible industrial area between I-70 and the Mississippi river. It looks more like a warzone than the rich United States...

[J N Winkler]

The I-64 connector on the Illinois side is numbered . . . I-70.  What will actually happen is that I-70 will enter, from a different angle, the interchange where I-64 now splits off from I-55 and I-70.  I-70 will come from NW instead of SW.  In other words, I-70 and I-64 will "bump" or "cannon" at this interchange instead of being concurrent with one another (and I-55) coming off the Poplar Street Bridge.

AFAICT, I-44 will continue to end at I-55 south of the Poplar Street Bridge.  In principle I-44 could be extended northward toward the west end of the new I-70 bridge, but I suspect MoDOT opted not to put another concurrency on a length of road which has two already (especially since these two would have to "turn right" at the Poplar Street Bridge while I-44 continued straight ahead on its own).

The thing I am having a hard time understanding is that I-70 is meant to have (reversible?  How does that work?) express lanes in the median north of the Mississippi River Bridge.  I am not sure how the transition to I-264 will be handled and it looks like the express lanes will also have no direct connection to the bridge.  I need to study the plan more carefully.

[agentsteel53]

rich United States...

you sure about that?

that ghetto does not have any old signs in it that I've ever discovered, just weird, weird people.  I was there once at 2am and I saw one person who was sitting in the middle of the street, in a lawn chair, obviously dealing drugs... and another who ran through at least five or six consecutive four-way stop signs, never once slowing down from 80-90mph. 

the rule of four-way stop signs in St. Louis at 2am:

stop.  wait for all other traffic to scream through doing at least 80, because they need their lawn chair fix, and they need it now.  when no one else is coming, proceed. 

yeah, that place can go.  screw 'em.

[J N Winkler]

Now checked:

*  It looks like the reversible express lanes will be left alone.  There is however not enough detail in the conceptual plan to say whether express lane users will be able to access the bridge.

*  The old signing left it ambiguous as to whether I-44 started at the west end of the Poplar Street Bridge, though the Wikipedia article on I-44 puts its end at its interchange with I-55 just past SR 30 (south of the Poplar Street Bridge).  The new signing will use "TO" expressions to make it clear that I-44 does not start immediately at the Poplar Street Bridge.

[Revive 755]

*  It looks like the reversible express lanes will be left alone.  There is however not enough detail in the conceptual plan to say whether express lane users will be able to access the bridge.

I spoke with an extremely high ranking MoDOT official at a public meeting not too long ago, and the initial phase will not touch the reversible lanes.  The ultimate build out was only supposed to change the end of the reversible lanes somehow, and I can't remember whether it was that much more than possible just changing the exit/entrance ramps.  IMHO it was an extreme mistake not to dump the reversible lanes back when MoDOT replaced several of the bridges.  They don't benefit commuter traffic to/from the McKinely Bridge - the approach to which on the Missouri side was another large mistake not remedied when I-70 was partially redone - and if MO 755 had been built, there would have been no access from that freeway to the reversible lanes.

The I-64 connector on the Illinois side is numbered . . . I-70.  What will actually happen is that I-70 will enter, from a different angle, the interchange where I-64 now splits off from I-55 and I-70.  I-70 will come from NW instead of SW.  In other words, I-70 and I-64 will "bump" or "cannon" at this interchange instead of being concurrent with one another (and I-55) coming off the Poplar Street Bridge.

So the ultimate build I-70 connector from the bridge to I-55 east of IL 203 has been dropped?  See http://www.newriverbridge.org/PDF/UltimateConcept.pdf for a reference.  Though that drawing is dated by the west end of the PSB, and I've seen strong indications of a tie-in to at least Tucker Blvd from the west end of the new bridge, even in the new initial phase.

[J N Winkler]

On the west end it looks like the tie-in to Tucker Blvd. will be indirect (i.e., you will still have to exit via Cass Avenue and work your way west to reach it).  On the east end, the conceptual plan's single "ultimate configuration" sheet still shows the I-70 connector you mention, but does not give a route number for it.  The sheet is centered on the bridge and is too small-scale to have much detail on this connector beyond its west end.  Signing is shown on this sheet in the westbound direction only.

There is one aspect of the ultimate configuration I find odd.  The initial phase calls for the ramps to and from the bridge to overlap 11th St., which produces a smooth curve coming off of/going onto the bridge.  But the ultimate phase calls for the ramp termini to be relocated to a point midway between 10th and 11th Sts., which leads to a broken-back curve between the bridge and street level.  Would they wreck good work going from the current phase to the ultimate configuration?  My guess is that the ultimate phase may or may not happen, but if it does happen, it will likely provide the projected connectivity but with significant changes in design detail.

[Revive 755]

St. Louis City sells land needed for the bridge for $2; MoDOT to pay $2,300,000 to get it back:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/F0D3CAF52BAC761886257652001B7E8A?OpenDocument

[mightyace]

St. Louis City sells land needed for the bridge for $2; MoDOT to pay $2,300,000 to get it back:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/F0D3CAF52BAC761886257652001B7E8A?OpenDocument

St. Louis screws up MoDOT (and the Federal Govt.?) pay.

Your tax dollars at work! 

Shouldn't St. Louis pay to rectify this mistake?

[Scott5114]

Wow. That's really...inept. And the business there is milking it for all it's worth, sounds like.

[Revive 755]

Bids for the main span come in too high:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/commutingtraffic/story/A6AE294E715CFCC68625768E006A9AC7?OpenDocument

Considering how much of the project has already been cut back, I'm not sure it's possible to really cut any more.  Cancel or delay construction of any more approach ramps and the whole project might as well be canceled IMHO.

[Scott5114]

Yeah, they need to just man up and spend the money. You've already cut from an 8 lane to a 4 lane span on a transcontinental interstate's crossing of the most significant river on the continent (which is just stupid, doesn't matter how much money it saves), and you want to cut *more*?

Speaking of which, cost factors should be the last thing on an agency's mind on projects like this. The public has put forth a mandate that You Must Build This Bridge, because they're sick of sitting in traffic on the PSB, and you're quibbling over the cost? Roads cost money! That's why the private sector doesn't build them, the government does! Have a bake sale under the arch or something. Reconstruct some interchanges into SPUIs in ritzy parts of town and sell the excess land off. Bam, there's some money you can use. Or set up a shop where the public can buy old signs that have been replaced. I'm sure you could rake in several million from the residents of one particular house in Union County, NM alone. Get creative when we want this done!

Interestingly, should this go through, the section of old I-70 through downtown that will be bypassed will become part of an I-44 extension.

[Revive 755]

Missouri is looking to back out of the deal to pay for cost overruns:
http://www.fox2now.com/news/ktvi-jaco-mississippi-bridge-121709,0,1512053.story

At this point I think it would be best to cancel the project and use the money to build a better replacement for I-270's Chain of Rock Canal spans - at least one with full width shoulders.  If there are issues with I-70 through traffic using the PSB, install new signs that indicate the eight miles that can be saved by taking I-270.

Some DOT official once said the Eads Bridge in downtown St. Louis was underutilized, so maybe they should also look at given it better access on the east side - either tie it into the MLK approach, or a new half diamond with I-55-64-70.

Is there any other state proving as difficult to work with as Missouri?  I haven't heard of similar problems occurring for the new bridge proposed for I-74 at Quad Cities, either of the new ones at Louisville, or elsewhere.

[J N Winkler]

They haven't even said they aren't going to award the contract, so it would be premature to talk about cancelling the project.  In any case, must-build projects do get pushed forward even when the centerpiece contract comes in 100% or even more over estimate (the self-anchored suspension span of the Bay Bridge comes to mind).

My guess is that if they decide to reject the current bids--which I think is in itself rather unlikely--they will readvertise at a later date.  But there is bound to be pain elsewhere.

[Revive 755]

The Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission is meeting today to decide how to proceed:
http://www.modot.org/stlouis/news_and_information/District6News.shtml?action=displaySSI&newsId=45380

EDIT:  MHTC approves bid:
http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=192683&catid=40

EDIT2::  Pdf of presentation given to the MHTC:
http://www.newriverbridge.org/documents/meeting%20materials/Revised%20MRB%20Commission%20Mtg-slides.pdf?documentType=post_info&key=2878

Slide 10/18 needs more details regarding the "train trestle savings" (I thought the nearby viaduct was becoming a bike trail anyway) and the reduced footprint (further ramp cancellations/delays?)

[J N Winkler]

It is playing out much as I expected, though I'm a little surprised they pushed hard on value-engineering savings instead of trying to pitch a "it costs what it costs" argument à la Caltrans.  My interpretation is that the "train trestle savings" amount to doing less--leaving the train trestle in place instead of going through with the conversion--while "project footprint" means that they will be putting in more retaining walls so they can avoid ROW purchases.  I'm not sure whether the tradeoff will work out.  ROW is expensive, but so is retaining-wall construction.

[Mergingtraffic]

Yeah, they need to just man up and spend the money. You've already cut from an 8 lane to a 4 lane span on a transcontinental interstate's crossing of the most significant river on the continent (which is just stupid, doesn't matter how much money it saves), and you want to cut *more*?

How has the project been scaled down?  Any other specifics of what has been cut?

Also, You mean the 8-lane bridge is not just a four lane bridge, with two lanes each way? Yikes!

[Hellfighter]

Yeah, they need to just man up and spend the money. You've already cut from an 8 lane to a 4 lane span on a transcontinental interstate's crossing of the most significant river on the continent (which is just stupid, doesn't matter how much money it saves), and you want to cut *more*?

How has the project been scaled down?  Any other specifics of what has been cut?

Also, You mean the 8-lane bridge is not just a four lane bridge, with two lanes each way? Yikes!

2 lanes each way!? That seems to be a little small, especially for a main connector over the Mississippi.