On Monday officials will “break ground” for the new $640 million dollar bridge across the Mississippi River. The ceremony will take place on the historic Eads Bridge.
ABOVE: Section drawing of new bridge. Click image to view official website.
Sadly I will not be able to attend the event. The poll for this week asks your thoughts on the new bridge which is expected to be complete by February 2014. The poll is in the upper right sidebar.
– Steve Patterson
Currently there are "15 comments" on this Article:
The answers are not mutually exclusive, nor are they black-and-white.
Removing the highway from the PSB to Cass would be a bigger possibility IF Illinois were constructing a full interchange for the new bridge. They're not, so there still will be no East St. Louis freeway alternative for the existing depressed section.
While, philosphically, I support the concept of it being a toll bridge, since its “need” is primarily to accomodate peak-hour, local commuter traffic, unless the other existing bridges, or at least the PSB, also became toll bridges, having just one toll bridge would likely make it the one most commuters avoid.
Again, philosphically, I agree that building a new bridge to reduce congestion can encourage more driving. But you have to balance the ability to better-access downtown against having congestion drive economic development to the suburbs. We might not like it, but we ARE an autocentric region.
Finally, I firmly believe that money would be better spent fixing the ramps on the Missouri side of the PSB first – they're THE major reason it's congested now, not because there aren't enough lanes!
And a PS – I have a pet peeve about only identifying bridges by name and/or, especially, initials. If you're not from around here, they have absolutely no context. Don't call the Poplar Street Bridge the PSB, call it the I-55 Mississippi River Bridge! Call the new one the I-70 Mississippi River Bridge. And certainly don't name it for Ronald Reagan!
You hit the nail on the head JZ71, when you said the money would be better spent fixing the ramps on the Missouri side of the PSB. Ever since they first floated the idea of a new bridge I've said it isn't really needed. All we really need to do is make the bridges we have more accessable. The ONLY good thing that will come out of all of this is it may be possible to remove the highway lanes from PSB to Cass. This bridge they will be building is what they should have built 45 years ago! And at the same time connected the old MacArthur bridge to the interstate highway system. If it can carry the weight of all those tons of railroad cars loaded with coal, a few lanes of auto traffic certainly wouldn't hurt it. Instead the PSB was built in the screwball arrangement we all know and have lived with since '67. Just the typical bassakwards St. Louis way of doing things.
I'm disappointment with the design itself. I understand that structurally, it is state of the art but it has been done so many times now around the country that it is becoming a cliche. As far as the name, I do find it strange that it will be named after RR. As far as I know, he was born and raised in Northern Illinois and has no connection to this area that I know of. But other than that, I have no problem with it. Better than naming it after George Bush.
FYI: the cable stay design was a result of the shortages of steel and other building materials after WWII. Like the steel plate design of the Bernard F. Dickmann (PSB), it was a German innovation. The other aspect of the cable stay design, with respect to the reduced usage of steel, is that it is considerably less costly to build than a suspension bridge. I believe that the design may also lend itself well to an abbreviated construction period. I'm not certain how it compares to a steel truss.
Take a step further, we are an autocentric country and Poplar street Bridge handles three interstates that go through or commence from the metro region. These conduits of commerce will be a big part of our economy for a while. So I see a plus in finally getting this bridge in place and I-70 routed off Poplar Street Bridge.
The plus side, it gives us an opportunity to make a fundementally change to downtown/riverfront.
JZ71, The Missouri side of Poplar Street Bridge is a confined area for all intents and purposes and I doubt that you could ever ideally configure interchange for three major interstates. If you did, I think it would do a great disservice to the Arch Grounds and Downtown. However, the overall Master Plan is too rebuild a new stretch of I-70 to the new bridge with an interchange configured to interstate standards. Now you would finally have an interchange between I-55 and I-70 in which traffic could easily North, South, East, and West. That would provide much better thru traffic flow even if I-55 northbound traffic would have to cross the river twice to get I-70 westbound.
I agree that the site for the current interchange on the west end of the PSB is constrained, but I don't agree that we must live within these constraints. Building the new bridge has significant impacts on the area north of downtown, to say nothing about the impacts across the river; rebuilding the existing interchange would create significant impacts south of downtown. It all boils down to choices/which neighborhood receives the brunt of these impacts . . .
Steve you might offer some insight on this. I believe the project as it stands doesn't include funding to fully relocate I-70 in Illinois. I understand that they are building out the current IL Highway 3 to a four lane highway. The full plan was a billion dollars plus and included a full six/eight lane I-70 on the Illinois side as well as complete rebuilt of Missouri's interchange at the foot of the Poplar Street Bridge. I believe it is a misconecption on where the project currently stands and what is being built.
My favorite is the ranting on the PD blog about the bridge being only four lanes right now (then again, I believe the actuall bridge deck will include space for six full lanes and that it will be striped to for four lanes plus two full shoulders). The fact of the matter is that their will only be a four lane highway on the Illinois side. I believe that one of the compromises agreed to was a twin span if more lanes were desired
“I believe the project as it stands doesn't include funding to fully relocate I-70 in Illinois.” Contrary to popular assumption 4 lanes is a full relocation of the downtown stretch of I-70. I-70 is only 4 continuous travel lanes between the PSB and the elevated section around Washington Avenue. Interestingly enough, that stretch gets more traffic than the 6 lane portion further north. Basically that means that the extra traffic must enter the grid downtown, and it does so at three major choke points Spruce (SB) and at Pine and Carr (NB). If the traffic was allowed to permeate the grid at more than three points there is reason to believe this would decrease congestion caused by exit backups.
Rivers, by definition, break the grid. More bridges can help, but the wider the river, the more expensive, and thus fewer, the bridges become. The “rivers” in Chicago, Des Moines, Denver or Phoenix are easily bridged. The mouth of the bay in San Francisco, Mobile or Tampa have only one bridge. We're in the middle and we can't change geography. If you live on one side and work, educate and/or recreate on the other side, then, guess what, congestion WILL always be a part of your life. The easiest solution is to simply move. Waiting for the government to “solve” the problem will just make you old . . .
I definitely agree with that thought. If people in Illinois hate the congestion so bad then they can move across the river. The money would be better spent on public transportation. I live in Edwardsville and would like a way to get downtown, without a vehicle, outside of the peak commuting hours.
AARP Livibility Index
The Livability Index scores neighborhoods and communities across the U.S. for the services and amenities that impact your life the most
Built St. Louis
historic architecture of St. Louis, Missouri – mourning the losses, celebrating the survivors.
Geo St. Louis
a guide to geospatial data about the City of St. Louis
The answers are not mutually exclusive, nor are they black-and-white.
Removing the highway from the PSB to Cass would be a bigger possibility IF Illinois were constructing a full interchange for the new bridge. They're not, so there still will be no East St. Louis freeway alternative for the existing depressed section.
While, philosphically, I support the concept of it being a toll bridge, since its “need” is primarily to accomodate peak-hour, local commuter traffic, unless the other existing bridges, or at least the PSB, also became toll bridges, having just one toll bridge would likely make it the one most commuters avoid.
Again, philosphically, I agree that building a new bridge to reduce congestion can encourage more driving. But you have to balance the ability to better-access downtown against having congestion drive economic development to the suburbs. We might not like it, but we ARE an autocentric region.
Finally, I firmly believe that money would be better spent fixing the ramps on the Missouri side of the PSB first – they're THE major reason it's congested now, not because there aren't enough lanes!
And a PS – I have a pet peeve about only identifying bridges by name and/or, especially, initials. If you're not from around here, they have absolutely no context. Don't call the Poplar Street Bridge the PSB, call it the I-55 Mississippi River Bridge! Call the new one the I-70 Mississippi River Bridge. And certainly don't name it for Ronald Reagan!
How does congestion drive development to suburban areas — which inherently create congestion by their own design?
If we don't remove the depressed lanes, then in my opinion the Mississippi Bridge does nothing to benefit our City.
Because too many people think simplistically, that things won't get any worse after they move in!
You hit the nail on the head JZ71, when you said the money would be better spent fixing the ramps on the Missouri side of the PSB. Ever since they first floated the idea of a new bridge I've said it isn't really needed. All we really need to do is make the bridges we have more accessable. The ONLY good thing that will come out of all of this is it may be possible to remove the highway lanes from PSB to Cass. This bridge they will be building is what they should have built 45 years ago! And at the same time connected the old MacArthur bridge to the interstate highway system. If it can carry the weight of all those tons of railroad cars loaded with coal, a few lanes of auto traffic certainly wouldn't hurt it. Instead the PSB was built in the screwball arrangement we all know and have lived with since '67. Just the typical bassakwards St. Louis way of doing things.
I'm disappointment with the design itself. I understand that structurally, it is state of the art but it has been done so many times now around the country that it is becoming a cliche. As far as the name, I do find it strange that it will be named after RR. As far as I know, he was born and raised in Northern Illinois and has no connection to this area that I know of. But other than that, I have no problem with it. Better than naming it after George Bush.
FYI: the cable stay design was a result of the shortages of steel and other building materials after WWII. Like the steel plate design of the Bernard F. Dickmann (PSB), it was a German innovation. The other aspect of the cable stay design, with respect to the reduced usage of steel, is that it is considerably less costly to build than a suspension bridge. I believe that the design may also lend itself well to an abbreviated construction period. I'm not certain how it compares to a steel truss.
Take a step further, we are an autocentric country and Poplar street Bridge handles three interstates that go through or commence from the metro region. These conduits of commerce will be a big part of our economy for a while. So I see a plus in finally getting this bridge in place and I-70 routed off Poplar Street Bridge.
The plus side, it gives us an opportunity to make a fundementally change to downtown/riverfront.
Interesting post. I have just bookmarked this at stumbleupon. Others no doubt will like it like I did.
JZ71, The Missouri side of Poplar Street Bridge is a confined area for all intents and purposes and I doubt that you could ever ideally configure interchange for three major interstates. If you did, I think it would do a great disservice to the Arch Grounds and Downtown. However, the overall Master Plan is too rebuild a new stretch of I-70 to the new bridge with an interchange configured to interstate standards. Now you would finally have an interchange between I-55 and I-70 in which traffic could easily North, South, East, and West. That would provide much better thru traffic flow even if I-55 northbound traffic would have to cross the river twice to get I-70 westbound.
I agree that the site for the current interchange on the west end of the PSB is constrained, but I don't agree that we must live within these constraints. Building the new bridge has significant impacts on the area north of downtown, to say nothing about the impacts across the river; rebuilding the existing interchange would create significant impacts south of downtown. It all boils down to choices/which neighborhood receives the brunt of these impacts . . .
It is interesting that the bridge itself is only about 1/2 the cost of the project. Re-routing I-70 in Illinois is also a very large chunk.
Steve you might offer some insight on this. I believe the project as it stands doesn't include funding to fully relocate I-70 in Illinois. I understand that they are building out the current IL Highway 3 to a four lane highway. The full plan was a billion dollars plus and included a full six/eight lane I-70 on the Illinois side as well as complete rebuilt of Missouri's interchange at the foot of the Poplar Street Bridge. I believe it is a misconecption on where the project currently stands and what is being built.
My favorite is the ranting on the PD blog about the bridge being only four lanes right now (then again, I believe the actuall bridge deck will include space for six full lanes and that it will be striped to for four lanes plus two full shoulders). The fact of the matter is that their will only be a four lane highway on the Illinois side. I believe that one of the compromises agreed to was a twin span if more lanes were desired
“I believe the project as it stands doesn't include funding to fully relocate I-70 in Illinois.”
Contrary to popular assumption 4 lanes is a full relocation of the downtown stretch of I-70. I-70 is only 4 continuous travel lanes between the PSB and the elevated section around Washington Avenue. Interestingly enough, that stretch gets more traffic than the 6 lane portion further north. Basically that means that the extra traffic must enter the grid downtown, and it does so at three major choke points Spruce (SB) and at Pine and Carr (NB). If the traffic was allowed to permeate the grid at more than three points there is reason to believe this would decrease congestion caused by exit backups.
Rivers, by definition, break the grid. More bridges can help, but the wider the river, the more expensive, and thus fewer, the bridges become. The “rivers” in Chicago, Des Moines, Denver or Phoenix are easily bridged. The mouth of the bay in San Francisco, Mobile or Tampa have only one bridge. We're in the middle and we can't change geography. If you live on one side and work, educate and/or recreate on the other side, then, guess what, congestion WILL always be a part of your life. The easiest solution is to simply move. Waiting for the government to “solve” the problem will just make you old . . .
I definitely agree with that thought. If people in Illinois hate the congestion so bad then they can move across the river. The money would be better spent on public transportation. I live in Edwardsville and would like a way to get downtown, without a vehicle, outside of the peak commuting hours.