From the Brainerd Dispatch:
https://www.brainerddispatch.com/news/local/blatnik-bridge-will-be-rebuilt-likely-to-feature-new-wisconsin-connector
Quote
Duluth's Blatnik Bridge will be rebuilt, likely to feature new Wisconsin connector
The bridge won't be refurbished. Instead, it will be a full replacement beginning in 2028, with construction lasting five or six years.
They've got an ad blocker blocker, so what is a 'Wisconsin connector'?
Mike
^ "Wisconsin connector" means they're going to revise the Wisconsin end so that the bridge more directly ties into US 53 instead of directly into Hammond Ave.
(BTW, you can still read the article if you just ignore the ads)
Here's the project website (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/d1/projects/blatnik-bridge/index.html). They're taking comments through July 21.
That's too bad, actually. I guess traffic patterns have changed with increased tourism since I lived in Superior.
Superior has been trying to develop the Barkers Island area for years, though.
Makes me wonder what Downtown looks like now.
Hopefully the new bridge will have emergency shoulders on both sides of the roadway. I'd also like the exits to be numbered in both Wisconsin and Minnesota.
MnDOT recently released an alternatives evaluation tech memo: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/d1/projects/blatnik-bridge/pdf/Blatnik_Alternatives_Tech_Memo_Step3b.pdf
Superior approach reconfiguration details start on p. 43. Here's an example:
(https://i.imgur.com/HsoEV3h.jpg)
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 14, 2022, 01:39:23 PM
Hopefully the new bridge will have emergency shoulders on both sides of the roadway. I'd also like the exits to be numbered in both Wisconsin and Minnesota.
True. I knew someone who died when a drunk managed to flip over the jersey barrier-ish median and land on their car.
Quote from: mattaudio on July 14, 2022, 02:07:51 PM
MnDOT recently released an alternatives evaluation tech memo: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/d1/projects/blatnik-bridge/pdf/Blatnik_Alternatives_Tech_Memo_Step3b.pdf
Superior approach reconfiguration details start on p. 43. Here's an example:
(https://i.imgur.com/HsoEV3h.jpg)
I like that. This project makes perfect sense.
Quote from: Rothman on July 14, 2022, 01:26:58 PM
That's too bad, actually. I guess traffic patterns have changed with increased tourism since I lived in Superior.
Superior has been trying to develop the Barkers Island area for years, though.
Makes me wonder what Downtown looks like now.
Downtown got a makeover when they rebuilt WIS 35/Tower Ave ~10 years ago (that shocks me that it's been that long now). It seems like downtown Superior businesses are doing OK, at least stable where if something goes out of business, something else takes its place, and there is some degree of innovation to try to put things in that aren't just another dive bar.
The problem is Hammond doesn't really go anywhere; the main business districts are on the west side and east side. I think that would be the biggest benefit of realigning 535 aside from tying two through roads together.
Looking at the alternatives, it really seems like this project is going to entail some long term closure of the entire crossing.
It also seems like there might be a result of marginally extending the freeway down US 53 past where it crosses railroad tracks adjacent to the sewage treatment plant, based on some of these options. I see a dashed line that indicates a potential local street connection to eliminate the intersection at 5th St to access Connors Point. Interesting.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 14, 2022, 05:18:09 PM
Looking at the alternatives, it really seems like this project is going to entail some long term closure of the entire crossing.
It also seems like there might be a result of marginally extending the freeway down US 53 past where it crosses railroad tracks adjacent to the sewage treatment plant, based on some of these options. I see a dashed line that indicates a potential local street connection to eliminate the intersection at 5th St to access Connors Point. Interesting.
I was wondering if this would extend I-535 further into Wisconsin.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 14, 2022, 09:03:22 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 14, 2022, 05:18:09 PM
Looking at the alternatives, it really seems like this project is going to entail some long term closure of the entire crossing.
It also seems like there might be a result of marginally extending the freeway down US 53 past where it crosses railroad tracks adjacent to the sewage treatment plant, based on some of these options. I see a dashed line that indicates a potential local street connection to eliminate the intersection at 5th St to access Connors Point. Interesting.
I was wondering if this would extend I-535 further into Wisconsin.
Probably not unless Wisconsin makes more freeway upgrades to US 53, like replacing the low curb median between 5th St and US 2,
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on July 14, 2022, 04:31:41 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 14, 2022, 01:26:58 PM
That's too bad, actually. I guess traffic patterns have changed with increased tourism since I lived in Superior.
Superior has been trying to develop the Barkers Island area for years, though.
Makes me wonder what Downtown looks like now.
Downtown got a makeover when they rebuilt WIS 35/Tower Ave ~10 years ago (that shocks me that it's been that long now). It seems like downtown Superior businesses are doing OK, at least stable where if something goes out of business, something else takes its place, and there is some degree of innovation to try to put things in that aren't just another dive bar.
The problem is Hammond doesn't really go anywhere; the main business districts are on the west side and east side. I think that would be the biggest benefit of realigning 535 aside from tying two through roads together.
Good to know. I have plans to visit over the next couple of years.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 14, 2022, 03:27:48 PM
Quote from: mattaudio on July 14, 2022, 02:07:51 PM
MnDOT recently released an alternatives evaluation tech memo: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/d1/projects/blatnik-bridge/pdf/Blatnik_Alternatives_Tech_Memo_Step3b.pdf
Superior approach reconfiguration details start on p. 43. Here's an example:
(https://i.imgur.com/HsoEV3h.jpg)
I like that. This project makes perfect sense.
I do like this layout, too. It makes for much more efficient connections all around, especially with the decades ago demise of the proposed Bong bridge connector freeway. It should not be too difficult to use this to eventually extend I-535 itself southeastward to the US 2/53 split (and beyond?).
Mike
There's an interchange alternative similar to the one posted in the thread but it's got a single roundabout under the freeway; a roundabout SPUI if you will. That would be fun to have.
I'm betting that low curb median would be replaced since the diagrams imply that the section over the railroad bridges is within the scope of this project.
My guess is there is going to be no formal extension, but the way the signs wind up going, it'll look like I-535 starts sooner than it does. Kind of like how the signage makes it seem like I-41 has its north end at an arbitrary point a little bit north of the I-43 junction.
It said in the article that they were going to maintain traffic on the current bridge while the new bridge is being built. That to me says it would be on a new alignment, likely west of the bridge. These diagrams however look like it is going to be in the existing footprint. Any clarification on that?
Quote from: mgk920 on July 14, 2022, 10:12:35 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 14, 2022, 03:27:48 PM
Quote from: mattaudio on July 14, 2022, 02:07:51 PM
MnDOT recently released an alternatives evaluation tech memo: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/d1/projects/blatnik-bridge/pdf/Blatnik_Alternatives_Tech_Memo_Step3b.pdf
Superior approach reconfiguration details start on p. 43. Here's an example:
(https://i.imgur.com/HsoEV3h.jpg)
I like that. This project makes perfect sense.
I do like this layout, too. It makes for much more efficient connections all around, especially with the decades ago demise of the proposed Bong bridge connector freeway. It should not be too difficult to use this to eventually extend I-535 itself southeastward to the US 2/53 split (and beyond?).
Mike
That ship has long sailed. It's several blocks thick of residential for about a mile. Any potential route would destroy dozens of homes or would take away the waterfront; neither option is likely to get far. This isn't the early 60's where you can just destroy a neighborhood for a highway. Venturing into fictional here, but WISDOT would probably have to go west of downtown along the rail corridor to get I-535 much further south. There just isn't the space to build a freeway along the Second St corridor.
Quote from: skluth on July 15, 2022, 09:19:01 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 14, 2022, 10:12:35 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 14, 2022, 03:27:48 PM
Quote from: mattaudio on July 14, 2022, 02:07:51 PM
MnDOT recently released an alternatives evaluation tech memo: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/d1/projects/blatnik-bridge/pdf/Blatnik_Alternatives_Tech_Memo_Step3b.pdf
Superior approach reconfiguration details start on p. 43. Here's an example:
(https://i.imgur.com/HsoEV3h.jpg)
I like that. This project makes perfect sense.
I do like this layout, too. It makes for much more efficient connections all around, especially with the decades ago demise of the proposed Bong bridge connector freeway. It should not be too difficult to use this to eventually extend I-535 itself southeastward to the US 2/53 split (and beyond?).
Mike
That ship has long sailed. It's several blocks thick of residential for about a mile. Any potential route would destroy dozens of homes or would take away the waterfront; neither option is likely to get far. This isn't the early 60's where you can just destroy a neighborhood for a highway. Venturing into fictional here, but WISDOT would probably have to go west of downtown along the rail corridor to get I-535 much further south. There just isn't the space to build a freeway along the Second St corridor.
And none of this would be worth the cost.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 15, 2022, 12:44:28 PM
There's an interchange alternative similar to the one posted in the thread but it's got a single roundabout under the freeway; a roundabout SPUI if you will. That would be fun to have.
massachusetts rotary except entering traffic yields
I could maybe see them closing all the intersections until Truck US 2, but nothing after that would be worth it unless the city wants to remove some ugly architecture.
Quote from: skluth on July 15, 2022, 09:19:01 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 14, 2022, 10:12:35 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 14, 2022, 03:27:48 PM
Quote from: mattaudio on July 14, 2022, 02:07:51 PM
MnDOT recently released an alternatives evaluation tech memo: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/d1/projects/blatnik-bridge/pdf/Blatnik_Alternatives_Tech_Memo_Step3b.pdf
Superior approach reconfiguration details start on p. 43. Here's an example:
(https://i.imgur.com/HsoEV3h.jpg)
I like that. This project makes perfect sense.
I do like this layout, too. It makes for much more efficient connections all around, especially with the decades ago demise of the proposed Bong bridge connector freeway. It should not be too difficult to use this to eventually extend I-535 itself southeastward to the US 2/53 split (and beyond?).
Mike
That ship has long sailed. It's several blocks thick of residential for about a mile. Any potential route would destroy dozens of homes or would take away the waterfront; neither option is likely to get far. This isn't the early 60's where you can just destroy a neighborhood for a highway. Venturing into fictional here, but WISDOT would probably have to go west of downtown along the rail corridor to get I-535 much further south. There just isn't the space to build a freeway along the Second St corridor.
Yep. And as I mentioned above, the 2nd St corridor (known locally as East End) is one of Superior's two main business corridors as well. It's a bit plodding, but it's not nearly as bad as other urban arterials.
I've taken a full look through the Alternatives Tech Memo posted by Matt. I'll clarify some points, hopefully addressing some of the comments upthread. Everything here is what's recommended...AFAICT there have been no hard decisions made yet:
- The bridge is proposed to have 4ft inside shoulders, a 12ft outside shoulder southbound, a 10ft outside shoulder northbound, and a 14ft bike/ped path adjacent to the northbound side.
- Most of the new alignment alternatives have been eliminated due to impacts to maritime operations and the high risk of contaminated soil, especially on the Superior side. Following the existing alignment has been retained to minimize ROW taking and contamination risk, and an alignment that is west of the existing bridge over the St. Louis River and on the existing alignment over Howards Bay is retained because it offers a lower bridge closure timeframe (though still looking at a minimum of 3 years).
- On the Superior end of the bridge, the direct tie-in to US 53 is the preferred option. Having the direct tie-in to Hammond, despite more traffic going to/from Hammond, was dropped because of concerns about the freeway-to-local-street transition and also because of a desire to raise the bridge clearance over Howards Bay, which can be more easily done with the US 53 direct connection. Traffic studies have also indicated that about 20-25% of the traffic exiting the bridge to Hammond Ave is either getting back on US 53 downstream or has a destination close to US 53, and is using Hammond to avoid congestion. The thinking is that such traffic would stay on US 53 and not exit to Hammond if there were a more direct connection (with less congestion) from the bridge.
- The proposed curve on the tie-in to US 53 has a 55 MPH design speed.
- The interchange option in the graphic Matt posted is only one of several being looked at. Besides those mentioned in comments upthread, there's an option that has the SB off-ramp tying directly into Hammond Ave, another "low-impact" alternative that has SB ramps but NB access done via a RIRO at Clough Ave, and other options that provide a direct flyover from Hammond Ave to NB 535. Some of these other options are being looked at because the majority of bridge traffic is going to/from Hammond Ave (60% in the AM, 56% in the PM).
- 3MX noted this upthread, but some of the interchange options have an extension of 3rd St that would tie into 5th St going up to Connors Point. This would allow for the closure of the US 53/5th St intersection and would theoretically (along with other intersection closures related to interchange construction) extend the freeway section down to E Street (Truck US 2) as Moland suggests.
- "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.
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.
Quote from: froggie on July 16, 2022, 11:10:44 AM
- "Fun" facts from the OD study: about 69% of bridge traffic has an origin/destination within Superior
nice
Quote from: Alps on July 16, 2022, 12:45:01 PM
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.
A full closure will be needed because of how the existing Blatnik Bridge was built. There's no way to do half at a time. Especially when there will be grade and height changes with a new bridge.
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.
Quote from: froggie on July 16, 2022, 03:06:17 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 16, 2022, 12:45:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Molandfreak on July 16, 2022, 03:17:08 PM
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.
Quote from: froggie on July 16, 2022, 11:10:44 AM
- "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.
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.
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.
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
Quote from: mgk920 on July 18, 2022, 11:07:22 AM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: discochris on October 30, 2022, 11:46:30 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 31, 2022, 08:55:32 AM
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.
Quote from: discochris on October 31, 2022, 09:44:19 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on October 31, 2022, 08:55:32 AM
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!
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.
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
I kind of figured they'd go in that direction. The goal being to make it so 'thru' traffic doesn't have to exit.
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 (https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/over-1-billion-in-federal-funding-sought-to-replace-duluth-bridge)
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 19, 2022, 12:42:27 PM
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.
:nod:
Mike
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.
Another article about this bridge: https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/states-seek-second-federal-grant-to-replace-blatnik-bridge/63422
Quote from: discochris on October 30, 2022, 11:46:30 PM
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.
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/
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 22, 2024, 02:20:40 PM
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 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.
Also, over $1 billion has been given to fund the new Blatnik Bridge: https://www.wmtv15news.com/2024/01/23/more-than-1-billion-awarded-minnesota-wisconsin-bridge/.
Amazing how much shit costs now in construction. A four lane bridge of some height but not of particularly exciting width needs a billion dollars these days.
(https://morbotron.com/video/S02E14/2QQYu-QNZm8wpUigm5TMC-U2fZg=.gif)
Well, glad it'll get done. Should be fun to watch a new span go up later this decade. I hope it looks cool.
Between 1920 and 1970 the United States built a lot of bridges, a lot.
Between 2020 and 2070 the United States will be spending a lot of money *replacing* all those bridges.
A $1 Million dollar bridge in 1950 now would cost over $11 million.
The Blatnik, clearly a Modjeski & Masters design just like many, many others in the world:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Blatnik_Bridge_from_1st_Ave._W.%2C_Duluth%2C_MN%2C_September_30%2C_2012.jpg/1920px-Blatnik_Bridge_from_1st_Ave._W.%2C_Duluth%2C_MN%2C_September_30%2C_2012.jpg)
The Hart Bridge, Jacksonville Florida
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/HartBridgeJax.jpg)
Bridge of the Americas, Panama
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/US_Navy_080813-N-6266K-036_American_and_Panamanian_security_forces_practice_water_steering_and_maneuvering-edit.jpg)
Maybe. Can't find a source to confirm that assertion. Lots of big truss bridge designers out there.
Quote from: Rothman on January 24, 2024, 05:53:28 PM
Maybe. Can't find a source to confirm that assertion. Lots of big truss bridge designers out there.
According to this site it was designed by Howard, Needles, Tammen and Bergendorff.
https://historicbridges.org/bridges/browser/?bridgebrowser=minnesota/duluthblatnik/
Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 24, 2024, 06:44:17 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 24, 2024, 05:53:28 PM
Maybe. Can't find a source to confirm that assertion. Lots of big truss bridge designers out there.
According to this site it was designed by Howard, Needles, Tammen and Bergendorff.
https://historicbridges.org/bridges/browser/?bridgebrowser=minnesota/duluthblatnik/
Thanks.
If one thinks about it, just going by similarity of design to identify designers is a rather foolish business, especially nowadays, where girder bridges are ubiquitous (just one example). I mean, even within one NYSDOT region, you'll have a whole lot of similar bridges designed by various firms.
Another press release about the replacement bridge, this time from The Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/biden-infrastructure-wisconsin-blatnik-bridge-42b14e4f1e994bbe8bc0f33c3c11c19a.
Quote from: edwaleni on January 24, 2024, 03:34:01 PM
The Blatnik, clearly a Modjeski & Masters design just like many, many others in the world:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Blatnik_Bridge_from_1st_Ave._W.%2C_Duluth%2C_MN%2C_September_30%2C_2012.jpg/1920px-Blatnik_Bridge_from_1st_Ave._W.%2C_Duluth%2C_MN%2C_September_30%2C_2012.jpg)
What, pray tell, is that structure on the span's right?
Also, I'm kind of expecting the replacement bridge to be of a cable-stayed design.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on January 25, 2024, 12:18:06 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on January 24, 2024, 03:34:01 PM
The Blatnik, clearly a Modjeski & Masters design just like many, many others in the world:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Blatnik_Bridge_from_1st_Ave._W.%2C_Duluth%2C_MN%2C_September_30%2C_2012.jpg/1920px-Blatnik_Bridge_from_1st_Ave._W.%2C_Duluth%2C_MN%2C_September_30%2C_2012.jpg)
What, pray tell, is that structure on the span's right?
Also, I'm kind of expecting the replacement bridge to be of a cable-stayed design.
Mike
The gravel/cement pit? The white structure is part of that.
Photo brings back memories. I carried out a subpeona for documents in the Seaway Port Authority back in the day.
Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 24, 2024, 06:44:17 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 24, 2024, 05:53:28 PM
Maybe. Can't find a source to confirm that assertion. Lots of big truss bridge designers out there.
According to this site it was designed by Howard, Needles, Tammen and Bergendorff.
https://historicbridges.org/bridges/browser/?bridgebrowser=minnesota/duluthblatnik/
My bad. Correct, Blatnik was designed by what is now called HNTB. I got lazy and didn't look it up and assumed it was a Modjeski & Masters since they did so many cantilever based cable spans in the 50's and 60's.
Quote from: edwaleni on January 23, 2024, 12:09:29 PM
Between 1920 and 1970 the United States built a lot of bridges, a lot.
Between 2020 and 2070 the United States will be spending a lot of money *replacing* all those bridges.
A $1 Million dollar bridge in 1950 now would cost over $11 million.
Well sure, but you $11M number is just chain-weighted dollars (aka inflation). [As an aside after last few year's fiscal policy fiasco that number is now $12.5 Million. ]
But of course the big change in expense isn't the actual cost of the bridge, labor and design, but all bureaucratic extras put in by the NIMBY folks in the early 1970s; specifically NEPA. All those reviews take a whole hell of lot of lawyers and specialized people filling out paperwork.
Quote from: KelleyCook on January 26, 2024, 08:16:58 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on January 23, 2024, 12:09:29 PM
Between 1920 and 1970 the United States built a lot of bridges, a lot.
Between 2020 and 2070 the United States will be spending a lot of money *replacing* all those bridges.
A $1 Million dollar bridge in 1950 now would cost over $11 million.
Well sure, but you $11M number is just chain-weighted dollars (aka inflation). [As an aside after last few year's fiscal policy fiasco that number is now $12.5 Million. ]
But of course the big change in expense isn't the actual cost of the bridge, labor and design, but all bureaucratic extras put in by the NIMBY folks in the early 1970s; specifically NEPA. All those reviews take a whole hell of lot of lawyers and specialized people filling out paperwork.
Heh. You'd actually be surprised by how few people even a full EIS needs to get together, in terms of the document itself. :D
Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2024, 12:25:47 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 25, 2024, 12:18:06 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on January 24, 2024, 03:34:01 PM
The Blatnik, clearly a Modjeski & Masters design just like many, many others in the world:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Blatnik_Bridge_from_1st_Ave._W.%2C_Duluth%2C_MN%2C_September_30%2C_2012.jpg/1920px-Blatnik_Bridge_from_1st_Ave._W.%2C_Duluth%2C_MN%2C_September_30%2C_2012.jpg)
What, pray tell, is that structure on the span's right?
Also, I'm kind of expecting the replacement bridge to be of a cable-stayed design.
Mike
The gravel/cement pit? The white structure is part of that.
No no no no no, it looks like I'm looking down the length of an unused truss span.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on January 26, 2024, 01:19:30 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2024, 12:25:47 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 25, 2024, 12:18:06 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on January 24, 2024, 03:34:01 PM
The Blatnik, clearly a Modjeski & Masters design just like many, many others in the world:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Blatnik_Bridge_from_1st_Ave._W.%2C_Duluth%2C_MN%2C_September_30%2C_2012.jpg/1920px-Blatnik_Bridge_from_1st_Ave._W.%2C_Duluth%2C_MN%2C_September_30%2C_2012.jpg)
What, pray tell, is that structure on the span's right?
Also, I'm kind of expecting the replacement bridge to be of a cable-stayed design.
Mike
The gravel/cement pit? The white structure is part of that.
No no no no no, it looks like I'm looking down the length of an unused truss span.
Mike
The underside of the far side of the bridge? It's a bit of an optical illusion at this angle.
The outbound direction (relative to camera location) was closed for rehab work at the time of the photo...could that be what Mike is referring to?
Quote from: froggie on January 26, 2024, 11:40:11 PM
The outbound direction (relative to camera location) was closed for rehab work at the time of the photo...could that be what Mike is referring to?
That does have the 'look' of being a temporary bypass span (but that support structure looks pretty heavy and permanent for that use). That does look like a big-rig truck on it.
Mike
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on January 27, 2024, 01:02:57 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 26, 2024, 11:40:11 PM
The outbound direction (relative to camera location) was closed for rehab work at the time of the photo...could that be what Mike is referring to?
That does have the 'look' of being a temporary bypass span (but that support structure looks pretty heavy and permanent for that use). That does look like a big-rig truck on it.
Mike
Mike
I'm not seeing a temp bypass span anywhere. Just looks like there's rehabbing going on and they blocked off the underlying truss to prevent debris from falling below.
But, the photo is phuzzy.
After doing a reverse image search out of curiosity, bridge was in process of its first major, post I-35W incident rehab when that pic was taken (2012):
https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/business/after-two-years-of-construction-blatnik-bridge-to-shine-again
Quote from: KelleyCook on January 26, 2024, 08:16:58 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on January 23, 2024, 12:09:29 PM
Between 1920 and 1970 the United States built a lot of bridges, a lot.
Between 2020 and 2070 the United States will be spending a lot of money *replacing* all those bridges.
A $1 Million dollar bridge in 1950 now would cost over $11 million.
Well sure, but you $11M number is just chain-weighted dollars (aka inflation). [As an aside after last few year's fiscal policy fiasco that number is now $12.5 Million. ]
But of course the big change in expense isn't the actual cost of the bridge, labor and design, but all bureaucratic extras put in by the NIMBY folks in the early 1970s; specifically NEPA. All those reviews take a whole hell of lot of lawyers and specialized people filling out paperwork.
Since the weight of that "chain" varies depending on the state involved, all I have is an inflationary one, but thanks for the reminder.
Quote from: KelleyCook on January 26, 2024, 08:16:58 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on January 23, 2024, 12:09:29 PM
Between 1920 and 1970 the United States built a lot of bridges, a lot.
Between 2020 and 2070 the United States will be spending a lot of money *replacing* all those bridges.
A $1 Million dollar bridge in 1950 now would cost over $11 million.
Well sure, but you $11M number is just chain-weighted dollars (aka inflation). [As an aside after last few year's fiscal policy fiasco that number is now $12.5 Million. ]
But of course the big change in expense isn't the actual cost of the bridge, labor and design, but all bureaucratic extras put in by the NIMBY folks in the early 1970s; specifically NEPA. All those reviews take a whole hell of lot of lawyers and specialized people filling out paperwork.
IMO a worthwhile expense. I would rather have well thought out infrastructure than the eminent domain free for all that too often existed in the post-WWII era.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 28, 2024, 07:09:39 AM
Quote from: KelleyCook on January 26, 2024, 08:16:58 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on January 23, 2024, 12:09:29 PM
Between 1920 and 1970 the United States built a lot of bridges, a lot.
Between 2020 and 2070 the United States will be spending a lot of money *replacing* all those bridges.
A $1 Million dollar bridge in 1950 now would cost over $11 million.
Well sure, but you $11M number is just chain-weighted dollars (aka inflation). [As an aside after last few year's fiscal policy fiasco that number is now $12.5 Million. ]
But of course the big change in expense isn't the actual cost of the bridge, labor and design, but all bureaucratic extras put in by the NIMBY folks in the early 1970s; specifically NEPA. All those reviews take a whole hell of lot of lawyers and specialized people filling out paperwork.
IMO a worthwhile expense. I would rather have well thought out infrastructure than the eminent domain free for all that too often existed in the post-WWII era.
This x100000.