Duluth's Blatnik Bridge

Started by rte66man, July 14, 2022, 09:59:33 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

rte66man

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.

When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra


mgk920

They've got an ad blocker blocker, so what is a 'Wisconsin connector'?

Mike

froggie

^ "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.  They're taking comments through July 21.

Rothman

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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

The Ghostbuster

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.

mattaudio

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:


Rothman

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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

SEWIGuy

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:




I like that.  This project makes perfect sense.

TheHighwayMan3561

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.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

triplemultiplex

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.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

SEWIGuy

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.

TheHighwayMan3561

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,
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

Rothman



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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

mgk920

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:




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

triplemultiplex

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.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

hobsini2

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?
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

skluth

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:




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.

SEWIGuy

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:




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.

Alps

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

Molandfreak

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: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PM
AASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

TheHighwayMan3561

#20
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:




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.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

froggie

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.

Alps

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.

TheHighwayMan3561

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
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

froggie

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.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.