Thursday, June 19, 2008

North Central Section Newsletter Wins Again...

For the second year in a row, the INCITER newsletter of the North Central Section snagged the 2008 ITE Newsletter of the Year Award for publications with circulations between 250 and 500. Congratulations go to Peter Langworthy, INCITER Editor, for another job well done!

The presentation will be made at the Honorees Reception and Dinner at the Anaheim meeting in August.
Branson's Taneycomo Bridge Options Outlined...
Option A would have two-way traffic bridges. The new bridge will be constructed downstream from the existing bridge and connect at Branson Landing. A roundabout would be constructed on the Hollister side. (Photo illustration courtesy of MoDOT and Branson Daily News.) By Mindy HoneyBDN Staff Writermhoney@bransondailynews.com

Missouri Department of Transportation officials presented options to relieve traffic congestion on and around the Taneycomo Bridge on Tuesday at Hollister Town Hall. Taneycomo Bridge’s deck is worn and will be closed by MoDOT for safety reasons if it is not repaired in the next few years.


The first option, Option A, includes building a bridge just downstream from the Taneycomo Bridge. The option will make it so there are two two-way bridges with the new bridge’s connection coming out at Branson Landing. The Hollister side would include a roundabout. “We would build the first bridge,” said MoDOT engineer Kirk Juranas, who estimated the construction of the new bridge would take one year to complete. Taneycomo Bridge would remain open during the construction and when the new bridge was open, the existing bridge would be shut down for a yearlong rehab. Juranas said the advantage of Option A is the new bridge would connect with Branson Landing and provide an alternative to Missouri 76. Option A’s estimated cost is $17 million, Juranas said.


Option B would also include a second bridge downstream to the current one. Taneycomo Bridge would remain open while the second bridge was constructed. The second bridge would also take about a year to complete and when opened to motorists, the existing bridge would undergo a rehab. The difference from Option A is, Option B will make it so traffic flows on two, two-lane, one-way bridges with the new bridge tapering and connecting at the top to the existing bridge on the Branson side. On the Hollister side there would be a traffic signal. Option B would cost about $16 million.Andy Mueller, assistant district engineer, explained the funding for the options.


MoDOT has committed to paying for the rehab of the existing bridge, which will cost about $4.5 million. The rest of the funds, Mueller said they are hoping to split 50-50 with Taney County, Hollister and Branson. MoDOT project manager Chad Zickefoose said MoDOT officials have visited with each of the entities. “All four of us would be satisfied,” Zickefoose said after Tuesday’s meeting to spend some time visiting with city and county officials to discuss the public’s comments. He said Tuesday’s meeting should offer some insight to which option is most favorable. “We anticipate getting good public comment and being able to move forward,” Juranas said.


This won’t be the first time a cost-share application has been submitted. In early 2008, a cost-share application was submitted to MoDOT’s Cost Share Committee for a project dubbed B-10. B-10, Zickefoose said, was similar to Option A, and referred to Option A as a modified version of the original plan. In February a reviewing committee declined to recommend the application, explaining it contained costs too high to recommend. Juranas reported the project was not rejected out of hand, but because of the financial forecast limiting future funds, the project would have to be revamped.


Several months later, MoDOT officials are now confident one of the two options will get the Cost Share Committee’s approval this time. “In our process we’ll have answered a lot of the questions that came up,” Juranas said. Zickefoose said, “We’ve met with (members of the Cost Share Committee) several times. Either option would be acceptable. The Cost Share Committee was comfortable with either.”