5 votes

Daniel Boone Bridge


Overview from north

Photo taken by James Baughn


Request this photo

BH Photo #121956

Street View 


Driving the 1935 Daniel Boone Bridge | 06-07/21st 2015

Video from my archive as I drive over this historic and now lost bridge. Includes the view from behind me as well.

Mark W. Shannon


Lost through truss bridge over the Missouri River on I-64 / U. S. 40 / U. S. 61 in Chesterfield
St. Louis County, Missouri, and St. Charles County, Missouri
Replaced by deck girder bridge in a location just west of the current 1991 bridge
Original bridge built 1935, rehabilitated 1992, demolished 2016. Current through truss bridge built in 1991. New deck girder bridge opened June 2015.
- Kansas City Bridge Co. of Kansas City, Missouri
Cantilevered Warren through truss
Length of largest span: 513.5 ft.
Total length: 2,614.0 ft. (0.5 mi.)
Deck width: 47.9 ft.
Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
Approximate latitude, longitude
+38.68667, -90.66333   (decimal degrees)
38°41'12" N, 90°39'48" W   (degrees°minutes'seconds")
Approximate UTM coordinates
15/703237/4284597 (zone/easting/northing)
Quadrangle map:
Weldon Spring
Land survey
T. 46 N., R. 3 E., Sec. 34
Average daily traffic (as of 2014)
Inventory numbers
MONBI 5624 (Missouri bridge number on the National Bridge Inventory)
BH 22622 (Bridgehunter.com ID)
Inspection report (as of September 2013)
Overall condition: Fair
Superstructure condition rating: Fair (5 out of 9)
Substructure condition rating: Fair (5 out of 9)
Deck condition rating: Satisfactory (6 out of 9)
Sufficiency rating: 54.7 (out of 100)
View more at BridgeReports.com

Update Log 

  • May 11, 2022: New photo from Tim Alexander
  • November 22, 2019: New photo from Rusty Weisman
  • June 5, 2019: New photos from Joe Sonderman
  • May 18, 2019: New photos from Joe Sonderman
  • February 13, 2017: New photos from Daniel Barnes
  • February 11, 2017: New photos from Daniel Barnes
  • June 15, 2016: New video from Mark Shannon
  • February 25, 2016: Updated by Mark Dellbringge: Updated status
  • November 5, 2012: Updated by Mark Dellbringge: Updated future prospects.
  • January 27, 2012: New photos from Mark Dellbringge
  • July 1, 2011: Updated by Mark Dellbringge: Updated future prospects; modified date of construction of old span based on data from NBI
  • May 4, 2010: Updated by Nathan Holth: Updated status to reflect demolition plans.
  • July 4, 2009: Updated by Kim Harvey: Future Prospects
  • August 18, 2008: New photos from James Baughn



Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted June 15, 2016, by Anonymous

Daniel Boone was a man he's a biiiiiiiig man lol

Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted March 3, 2016, by Karen Daniels (karen [dot] daniels [at] modot [dot] mo [dot] gov)

The remaining span will come down on March 7: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/demolition-of-westb...

Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted February 18, 2016, by CConkle (msplinter1964 [at] gmail [dot] com)
Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted February 18, 2016, by CConkle (msplinter1964 [at] gmail [dot] com)
Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted February 18, 2016, by CConkle (msplinter1964 [at] gmail [dot] com)

What is going to replace this bridge? Blowing it up is absurd. It could have been used elsewhere. My 2c.

Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted January 16, 2016, by Bill Tayon (Btayon [at] aol [dot] com)
Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted July 17, 2014, by Fmiser (fmiser [at] gmail [dot] com)

I drove over it yesterday. The new span has some concrete on the deck on the north approach span. Tho south approach spans (short steel beams) have their steel up, and the first section of the tall, main span beams are up. They are still building some of the center piers. It looks like most of the excavating for the new road alignment is done.

I'm still dreaming the 1935 span will not be demolished... but it's MO DOT so I don't really expect it will ever be more than a dream.

Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted July 16, 2014, by TW (tcw94 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

I remember traveling with my parents and crossing the Daniel Boone Bridge for the first time in 1980 when it was still US-40 & US-61, long before it was upgraded to I-64.

It was still 3 lanes and it still had the red & green directional signals above each lane. I thought that was so cool when I saw it for the first time.

I'll miss it when it's gone, assuming MODOT still has plans to dismantle this beautiful old historic bridge.

Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted April 5, 2014, by Matt Lohry


There aren't many that would disagree that the roadway needs to be upgraded and a new bridge built; we get that. The disgusting part of this is that it's being done at the complete cost of the historic bridge. Put up a new bridge, by all means. But don't punish the historic bridge and the tax-paying public by spending foolish money to demolish it when the same amount could be used to rehabilitate and convert it to pedestrian use.

Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted April 5, 2014, by Anonymous

Congested? Yes. Narrow? Not really. Know the difference. Ignorance is bliss.

Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted April 5, 2014, by Norman Scherer (nxs0152 [at] gmail [dot] com)

This project is NOT disgusting but is absolutely necessary. I drove on this old, dilapidated dangerously narrow bridge for over 30 years and I'm glad to see it go. A new modern bridge is needed for the safety of the drivers and was spurred on by the fact that the old US highway 40/61 needed to be upgraded to interstate standards to be designated I-64. There were still stoplights on this "highway" and the only way to get it designated as an interstate was to get rid of the old Daniel Boone bridge which is too narrow to meet these standards.

Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted March 20, 2014, by Chris Perry

This project is disgusting. It appears MODOT does not maintain bridges properly, then blames the bridge and spends much more money building a new one and many people are too foolish to see it. Replacing it with a concrete slab is a way to accelerate the obseletion of the eastbound truss and its replacement when it would also have many years of use left.

Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted April 21, 2013, by Nathan Holth (form3 [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

I am sure pedestrians and bicyclists will appreciate being able to cross an ugly bridge a few feet from the roar of freeway traffic versus having an entire historic cantilever bridge to themselves.

Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted April 21, 2013, by Fmiser (fmiser [at] gmail [dot] com)

I appears the new bridge is not a through truss, based on data on the MODOT page.


And the new bridge will have a pedestrian/bicycle lane, so there is no use for the historic span.

In the list of excuses for replacing the 1935 span, the page says "... has reached a point where it needs regular preventative maintenance." I guess MODOT figures that any bridge needing maintenance needs to be replaced. Stupid. Maintenance is more cost effective than repair, which is more cost effective than replecement. Maybe it's that politicians like to put in new bridges so they can earn brownie points by naming the bridge for big-named people.

The attached image is an artist rendition extraced from a PDF I found on the MODOT site

Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted December 1, 2011, by David Smothers (davidsupreme [at] embarqmail [dot] com)

And another thing I forgot to mention, is that cost of propert acquisition would be non existant if the current rights of way are used for the new bridge, instead of moving it farther upstream.

Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted December 1, 2011, by David Smothers (davidsupreme [at] embarqmail [dot] com)

Tony, MODOT people always cite safety and liability concerns when it comes to leaving an old bridge there for pedestrain use, IMO... keeping bicycles and such off of a busy bridge is good for safety, I just don't see how it can be more expensive to turn an old bridge into a pedestrain bridge, than it would cost to demolish it. I understand that tweaks would have to be made to make a twin... but I was going on the assumption that the twin would be RIGHT next to the other, so the topgraphy should not be THAT much different, not 100 feet away. Also, the fact that bridges are routinely moved and reused at completely different crossing made me think that this should work. the twin bridges on I-270 at Chesterfield certainly serve their purpose well, I don't see why the Daniel Boone bridge couldn't be the same.

Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted December 1, 2011, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Having worked for an engineering firm, I do agree that some "tweaking" to the design would need to be done. The difference in topography would require some adjustments to the substructure and approach modifications at the least. But I do believe the same basic design could be used that would save the taxpayers a great deal of money in the long run.

Two through truss Camelback spans in Delaware County, Indiana came from the same design back at the turn of the century. The Priest Ford Bridge was built by the Indiana Bridge Company in 1897. Then in 1902, IBCo. used the same plans to build another bridge downstream at High Banks. The bridges were on totally different types of substructures with uniquely different approaches, but the trusses were (are) identical.

As far as the historic structure goes...I'm all for leaving it in place if for nothing more than pedestrian usage. But we're talking Missouri here...so I don't expect it will occur.

Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted December 1, 2011, by Nathan Holth (form3 [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

If MoDOT actually cared about saving taxpayer dollars, they wouldn't waste money demolishing the historic bridge after they build the replacement bridge.

Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted November 30, 2011, by Clark Vance (cvance [at] dogmail [dot] com)

While I'm sorry to see the replacement of this bridge, I should comment on the question of simply reusing the newer design.

Any engineering project requires the final seal of a licensed professional engineer. They are paid for the design and are professionally liable for the proper performance of the design--if the bridge design is defective, the engineer is liable. Clearly a recycled design would not have have been created for the exact location or under the same design code and other legal requirements. The engineer responsible for the original design clearly can't be held responsible for a design used in a way in which it was not intended, that is, for a bridge in another time and location.

Even building a seemingly identical bridge requires a study of the ground conditions at the exact location of the new piers. Regulations and codes may have changed and the engineer needs to certify that the design meets current requirements. Tie-in to existing roadways will be different, traffic flow during construction will have to be arranged, new construction materials and equipment need to be taken into account, etc. Materials may be sourced from different vendors (can you still buy steel from the same mills as they did 20 years ago?) and have different specifications. Even the wind loads may be different--the effect of the parallel span on the wind will be different from that of the older bridge.

Although it shouldn't cost as much as requesting a totally new design, there will be a lot of original engineering work required before a set of plans for an "identical" span will be ready for approval.

I'm grateful at least it's a through truss.

Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted November 30, 2011, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Because it is too fiscally responsible and makes WAAAAY too much sense!

Sorry...couldn't avoid a response that wasn't dripping with sarcasm.

Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted November 30, 2011, by David Smothers (davidsupreme [at] embarqmail [dot] com)

Here's something I've always wondered. The articles state that money allocated includes design, and property acquisition for the new bridge. WHY does the state pay money for a new bridge to be designed? Does anyone know why they don't save taxpayer dollars and simply use the design from the 1991 span, and build an exact twin? What is their reasoning for not doing this?

Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted August 7, 2011, by Mark Dellbringge

Design-build. That is how the new bridge would be built. Once it is complete, it would carry traffic into St. Louis County that the existing 1991 span now does. The 1991 span would be reconfigured to handle the traffic going into St. Charles County, that the old bridge is now doing. The 1935 bridge will be torn down later. Link: http://www.modot.mo.gov/stlouis/major_projects/NewDanielBoon...

Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted June 30, 2011, by Sharon Spear (sweetsexysharon [at] gmail [dot] com)

And MODOT is scraping the plan of keeping the older span for pedestrian use, citing continual repairs and maintaining the span for such use.

Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted June 30, 2011, by Sharon Spear (sweetsexysharon [at] gmail [dot] com)

The work is now projected to begin by late 2012 and take about three years to complete.


Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted July 30, 2010, by Sharon Spear (sweetsexysharon [at] gmail [dot] com)

The following is a link to the bridges and approaches during the Great Flood of 1993.


Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted May 5, 2010, by Lyon_Wonder (lyon_wonder [at] yahoo [dot] com)

MoDOT has decided against keeping the original Boone span for a frontage road after a replacement span for I-64/US-40 is built. Of course MoDOT doesn't know when the new span is going to be constructed since there's no funding for it.




Recent inspections of the 73-year-old westbound segment of the Daniel Boone Bridge have spurred an end to plans to keep it open for outer-road traffic after a replacement is built.

The Missouri Department of Transportation decided it would cost too much to keep maintaining the old span indefinitely, spokesman Andrew Gates said Tuesday.

He added, however, that MoDOT will continue to keep it safe for travel as long as it's used to take Highway 40 across the Missouri River between Chesterfield and St. Charles County.

"We will do what it takes to keep it open and safe," Gates said. "It may require more and more preventive maintenance."

Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted February 3, 2010, by Mickey Lambert and Chalon Harper (highlandwolf64 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Pictures of Daniel Boone Bridge on trip of 12.14.09 to St.Charles. One is water from van. All pictures are from traveling towards St.Charles.

Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted January 24, 2010, by James Baughn (webmaster [at] bridgehunter [dot] com)

Sharon, the current plan is to keep the existing bridges but add a third span. The 1937 span would then be used to carry a frontage road and possibly a bike lane. See:



Daniel Boone Bridge
Posted January 24, 2010, by Sharon Spear (sweetsexysharon [at] gmail [dot] com)

The westbound span of the bridge is not up to interstate standards. MODOT says the bridge is currently safe. They are planning on sending a formal request to the FHA to continue the I-64 designation on the western section of the interstate. But there are plans to replace the bridge once funding becomes available.

The full article can be read here: