ADVERTISEMENT

The DOT says the best I-80 realignment plan will be chosen without taking the Bison Bridge proposal into consideration. But that doesn't rule it out.

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,134
58,316
113
Barb Ickes
The new I-80 bridge between LeClaire and Rapids City will be rebuilt in one of seven ways, including one alternative that would move traffic off the current bridge for four years of detours.
Officials from the Illinois and Iowa departments of transportation and their engineering consultants from Parsons Transportation Group conducted a public-information session Wednesday that disclosed the seven realignment options being considered for the Quad-Cities' third crossing over the Mississippi River.
The I-80 bridge is outdated, increasingly costly to maintain, has a high number of crashes and was designed well below current standards when it was built in 1967. A recording of Wednesday's webinar is to be available Thursday at I80mississippibridge.com, which is a site devoted to the project.

While many questions for the eight panelists on the webinar were related to the proposed reuse of I-80, dubbed Bison Bridge, they said the state-park concept is a non-starter regarding the bridge realignment.

People are also reading…​




Current and ongoing studies of the best realignment for the bridge take the environment into consideration — human, plant and animal — but the ultimate decision will be based on meeting transportation needs, not future reuses.

Subscribe today and support local journalism!

"We're certainly aware of the Bison Bridge concept, and we know there's a lot of interest in that," said Becky Marruffo, of the Illinois DOT. "There cannot be any undue outside influence ... on the purpose and need of the project."


Chad Pregracke, Quad-City environmentalist and founder of Living Lands & Waters, has considerable support in his concept for turning the vacant bridge into a two-state state park. One span of the crossing would be turned into a pedestrian and bike path and the other would become a crossing for bison, which would have roaming range on either side.


Bison Bridge proposal in the Quad-Cities gets big-name backing out of Chicago


A Chicago-based structural engineering firm will lead the inspections and design for the Bis…


None of the seven alternatives now being studied takes the idea into consideration. If the first alternative is selected, Bison Bridge could not happen, because the new bridge would be built at the same location as the current one, which would have to be razed.


Under the first alternative, bridge traffic would be detoured to the Interstates 74 and 280 crossings for four years, the panelists said. That would allow time to tear down the current bridge and build a new one.

Following are the other six alternatives being considered. The final choice is to be disclosed next year, and all of the options include a six-lane crossing, including exit lanes.
Alternative two: Build the new bridge about 50 feet to the east, or upstream, of the current bridge. This would create a minimum impact on private properties.
Alternative three: Build the new bridge about 50 feet west of the existing span, or downstream. It would require the acquisition of about six additional acres of right-of-way.

Alternatives four and five: Build two side-by-side companion bridges about 20 feet east or west of the current span. Traffic would be routed to the first completed span, then the second would be built.



Alternative six: A new bridge would be built about 600 feet east of the current one. It would be structurally complex, due to a "skew" in the alignment. It also would require the relocation of 15 private properties.
Alternative seven: Built 2,100 feet west of the current bridge, the curves in the current alignment would be removed, and considerably more roadway would be replaced. It also would take 128 acres of farmland and require 53 private properties be relocated.
Alternatives six and seven have the greatest impact on private properties, but they also would be the easiest to construct, the panelists said.

 
  • Like
Reactions: lucas80
Enclose the entire thing in glass and make it a bar/restaurant event center and lease it out to somebody to operate.

wedding receptions, conventions, and just a place to go eat and drink.

print money and it would be a destination for the entire region.

it’s a no brainer.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: cigaretteman
6lQorgo.jpg
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: lucas80 and QChawks
This seems like an easy decision, doesn’t it? Option 1… tear down bridge and put a better one is same location. Would cost less and require no additional land or issues.
 
This seems like an easy decision, doesn’t it? Option 1… tear down bridge and put a better one is same location. Would cost less and require no additional land or issues.
Meh. I don't like the idea of four years of no crossing for I-80. I don't think the article gives a cost breakdown. Probably too preliminary for that. If 6 and 7 are the easiest to build, then they might cost less. Those properties would not be expensive to purchase. If we can use eminent domain for a carbon pipeline we can certainly use it for a useful project.
 
IPR said the next public hearing is 11/15. I didn’t catch exactly what they said, but they will possibly announce the preferred bridge location.
And, we can vote on the choices? I did t see that in the original story, but you can go to the DOT website and cast a vote for your pick.
 
The best plan is to avoid I-80 if you can. Hwy's 6, 30 and 20 provide some alternatives.
I always take highway 30 if i am heading to the quad cities.

When i venture further east, ill jump on to 280 just past Walcott and reconnect with 80 on the illinois side.
 
those highways suck, although sometimes I will take 30 to CR just for the change of scenery
On 30, between CR and QC its easy enough to pass if you get behind somebody slow.

Its a much more relaxing drive, plus i am not following semi trucks blocking both lanes going 5 below the speed limit for miles
 
ADVERTISEMENT