Duluth's Blatnik Bridge

[Molandfreak]

Just out of curiosity, were there ever any proposed alternatives that would tie 535 into Tower Avenue (WIS 35) maybe with flyover ramps and some new-terrain highway connecting to US 53? It would ultimately just move the problem over a couple blocks, but I could see it being an option some businesses in Superior would prefer, and it would also move the new construction to a location where it would be out of the way of the current bridge and US 53.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Full closure for HOW LONG?? There's no way there's enough capacity to use the US 2 bridge for everyone. I can see a half closure, one lane each way, but not a full closure.

IIRC, it's been done before within the past decade, but not for that length of time.  The Bong Bridge has enough capacity...the problem will be getting to the Bong Bridge on the Superior side.

Unless your origin/destination is downtown Duluth, the Bong is realistically the only available crossing right now anyway with 535 being inaccessible from I-35.

[froggie]

Just out of curiosity, were there ever any proposed alternatives that would tie 535 into Tower Avenue (WIS 35) maybe with flyover ramps and some new-terrain highway connecting to US 53? It would ultimately just move the problem over a couple blocks, but I could see it being an option some businesses in Superior would prefer, and it would also move the new construction to a location where it would be out of the way of the current bridge and US 53.

Nothing from what I could find.  But I would expect that such an alternative would also run afoul of the same issues that killed other new-alignment options:  namely impact to maritime operations (in this case, Tower Slip) and high risk of contaminated soil, especially on the Superior side.  There would be the added problem of providing an adequate connection to US 53, which would require additional ROW with the high potential for contaminated soil.

I got the impression, reading through the alternatives memo, that they REALLY want to avoid any contaminated soil location.

[JREwing78]

   
• "Fun" facts from the OD study:  about 69% of bridge traffic has an origin/destination within Superior, and about 63% has an origin/destination within the Duluth core.  Just under 1/4 of bridge traffic has an origin/destination along US 53 (or US 2) south (east) of WI 13.

This is precisely why a cross-town freeway/Interstate across Superior isn't going to happen anytime soon, if ever. US-2/53 spends a lot of time on city streets in Superior, but it's not congested. To build a freeway that didn't obliterate much of Superior would require a minimum of a 20-mile southerly bypass of Superior to tie into I-35, and more like 35 miles if it eventually ties back into US-53 somewhere. That makes no sense when there's comparatively little through traffic to begin with.

The only real problematic portion of US-2/53 is through Allouez, where a 4-lane truck route is jammed into a footprint so narrow there's barely room for sidewalks, and trucks rumble at 35 mph within 10 feet of some living room windows. I would argue taking property on one side of the street or the other for a wider boulevard would end up being a net positive as it would allow more space to separate pedestrians, cars, and residential spaces.

Otherwise, though, there's nothing wrong with US-2/53 as-is.

[Rothman]

Given downtown Superior, any suggestion of a "crosstown expressway" or whatever connecting the Bong to the Blatnik reeks of an idea of someone who only knows the city from a map and has never been there.

[SEWIGuy]

It's a city of 25,000 with about a five mile stretch between freeways/expressways where traffic moves just fine for the most part. There is zero need for any sort of upgrade, bypass, etc.

[mgk920]

There WAS a proposal to extend a 4 lane freeway off of the Superior end of the Bong bridge, it was to head southward past a large railroad yard end then pretty much due eastward to feed into US 2/53 at the southeast corner of the city, but that idea died decades ago, not long after that bridge was first opened.  The southeast end of that bridge was since been reconfigured to be better integrated with the area streets.

Mike

[SEWIGuy]

There WAS a proposal to extend a 4 lane freeway off of the Superior end of the Bong bridge, it was to head southward past a large railroad yard end then pretty much due eastward to feed into US 2/53 at the southeast corner of the city, but that idea died decades ago, not long after that bridge was first opened.  The southeast end of that bridge was since been reconfigured to be better integrated with the area streets.

Mike

There were a lot of proposals to put freeways places they (thankfully) didn't go.

[The Ghostbuster]

Maybe the US 2/53 intersection with CTH E/Moccsain Mike Rd. intersection could be converted into a jug-handle interchange, but other than that, no freeway will ever go any further into Superior. Also, does anyone know why the US 2/Richard I. Bong Memorial Bridge was built with a WB on-ramp at US 2 Truck/Susquehanna Ave., but no EB off-ramp at the same location? I always found that kind of odd.

[discochris]

I think I asked about a Superior bypass in another thread and someone mentioned that to do a south bypass would require going through the municipal forest, which is something they would never do.  But as someone who drives that stretch all the time (we have a cabin 35 miles east) I detest driving through Superior.

[Rothman]

I think I asked about a Superior bypass in another thread and someone mentioned that to do a south bypass would require going through the municipal forest, which is something they would never do.  But as someone who drives that stretch all the time (we have a cabin 35 miles east) I detest driving through Superior.

Hm.  Coming from the east wasn't that bad when I lived in Superior.  I could see getting frustrated coming from the south on WI 35, especially given the speed enforcement.  But driving US 2/53 from the east?  Driving through Ashland is worse.

[SEWIGuy]

And just because driving through Superior is a pain in the a**, that doesn't mean that spending limited resources on a bypass is a good idea.

[discochris]

And just because driving through Superior is a pain in the a**, that doesn't mean that spending limited resources on a bypass is a good idea.

Of course not. I'm just being selfish.

[Rothman]

And just because driving through Superior is a pain in the a**, that doesn't mean that spending limited resources on a bypass is a good idea.

Of course not. I'm just being selfish.

You monster!

[TheHighwayMan3561]

With the way Superior and the routes in and around the city are laid out, a bypass would probably not save any time anyway with how far it would have to go to connect back to the existing roads.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

At the latest public meeting regarding the Blatnik replacement, it was revealed that rerouting 535 into a direct connection with 53 is the sole alternative being considered for the southeast end at this point.

https://www.superiortelegram.com/news/local/states-narrow-options-for-blatnik-bridge-replacement

[triplemultiplex]

I kind of figured they'd go in that direction.  The goal being to make it so 'thru' traffic doesn't have to exit.

[edwaleni]

Governors agree to apply for $1 Billion in Federal funds to replace the Blatnik Bridge.

https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/over-1-billion-in-federal-funding-sought-to-replace-duluth-bridge

[mgk920]

I kind of figured they'd go in that direction.  The goal being to make it so 'thru' traffic doesn't have to exit.

I also really liked the drawings that I saw that were presented at that meeting regarding the Wisconsin approach to the new bridge, directly feeding US 2/53 from the southeast into I-535.  It will make getting around in that area much easier and straightforward.



Mike

[The Ghostbuster]

Has anyone checked the Appendixes on the Minnesota DOT website on the Blatnik Bridge's reconstruction page? I'd like it better if I could just read the documents online, and not have them automatically downloaded into my Downloads folder to read them. Hopefully, the new Blatnik Bridge will last a full 75 years, which I believe is the projected lifecycle for constructing new bridges over major bodies of water.

[Plutonic Panda]

Another article about this bridge: https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/states-seek-second-federal-grant-to-replace-blatnik-bridge/63422

[RoadMaster09]

I think I asked about a Superior bypass in another thread and someone mentioned that to do a south bypass would require going through the municipal forest, which is something they would never do.  But as someone who drives that stretch all the time (we have a cabin 35 miles east) I detest driving through Superior.

The most logical bypass option is a very wide bypass though. You'd have to go all the way to around the MN-33 interchange near Cloquet, cross into Wisconsin southeast of Wrenshall and then roughly follow CTH C to the current 2/53 split. Admittedly, it would provide an excellent bypass for both US 2 and US 53 traffic given the orientation of those routes (combined with an upgraded MN 33) and avoids all the local forests and development, but you're 20 miles out from Duluth so it isn't too helpful for local traffic.

The only other bypass route that isn't too disruptive I can think of runs roughly from CSAH 13 west of Proctor to Oliver, with a new low-level bridge (it's south of the harbors), then carefully running along the rail corridors eastward to the northern end of the 2/53 freeway. A northern extension would bypass all the development on Miller Hill and join existing US 53 near the airport.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

A $1 billion federal grant was approved and announced to go toward replacing the bridge.

https://www.wdio.com/front-page/top-stories/1-billion-grant-announced-for-blatnik-bridge-replacement/

[mgk920]

A $1 billion federal grant was approved and announced to go toward replacing the bridge.

https://www.wdio.com/front-page/top-stories/1-billion-grant-announced-for-blatnik-bridge-replacement/

Good news.  Without clicking on the link, when is construction expected to begin?

Mike

[The Ghostbuster]

The phased construction of the new Blatnik bridge is planned to be constructed between 2026 and 2032: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/nw/blatnikbridge/default.aspx. The 2025 phased construction start date is a misprint.