Page 8 of 9
Re: Interstate 35W
Posted: October 28th, 2015, 9:54 am
by Mdcastle
I forgot to take a picture (and they told me the exhibits would be online in a few days anyway), but they're planning columns / pillars / monument type things made out of fake limestone at the four corners of the bridge that could be lit up. Unfortunately, unless someone wants to cough up a lot of money (as happened with Hennpin Ave, Hastings, Lowry, and the St. Croix Crossing), building bridges that are visually impressive from the road went out when the early 1980s supply of cheap steel dried out and concrete technology matured. The Bong and "New Cedar" bridges were they last of them.
Re: Interstate 35W
Posted: October 28th, 2015, 10:09 am
by seanrichardryan
I wish they could find a way to provide more separation between the freeway traffic and the pedestrian / bike trails on these bridges. At least this one looks like there will be a full shoulder on the bridge, which helps, but traffic moving at 70 mph (and regardless of speed limit, it will be going at least that) is pretty intense on these pedestrian trails. Probably the worst is the MN-5 Mississippi River bridge, since there's almost no shoulder to speak of, but the MN-55 Minnesota bridge (the Mendota bridge) is pretty awful too, and so is the 35E Mississippi bridge.
Don't get me wrong: it's better to have these non-ideal crossings than not, and I don't expect that they'll actually put in the effort to make them great pedestrian areas, but I do wish they could find a way to make it a bit less unpleasant. For cyclists it's over relatively quickly, but on foot it takes anywhere from five to fifteen minutes to cross these bridges, and especially in the winter it's pretty awful.
/OT MN-5 should become a 35mph until it passes Fort Snelling. The access ramps aren't designed for the speeds they are used at.
Re: Interstate 35W
Posted: October 28th, 2015, 10:17 am
by mattaudio
And they should reconfigure to only 1 through lane for TH-5. Going west, left lane should be TH-5 West (Airport), right lane should be TH-55 East/West (Minneapolis, Hastings). Going east, left lane should be from TH-5, and right lane should get its own lane at the merge from East TH-55.
Re: Interstate 35W
Posted: November 12th, 2015, 7:05 am
by Mdcastle
Re: Interstate 35W
Posted: November 12th, 2015, 9:15 am
by froggie
Since the forum software does weird stuff with what MnDOT put in that URL, here's
a better link.
Re: Interstate 35W
Posted: November 12th, 2015, 9:43 am
by mattaudio
Why again are we keeping the Black Dog Road interchange? That seems to make things needlessly complex for the trail routing. Didn't the barge terminal sue to keep that interchange open when the UPA project proposed to eliminate the interchange about five years ago? Seems like a frontage road back to Cliff would be just fine for such a substandard and low use interchange.
Also, what's the point of "art panels" and monuments on the bridge? I'd rather see that money spent on trail amenities that actually matter for nonmotorized users of the bridge. Sorry, but the only thing that makes a freeway bridge nicer for sidepath users is increased screening and distance to freeway-speed vehicles. Art is a waste, because you basically want to get from one side of the bridge to the other as fast as humanly possible.
Re: Interstate 35W
Posted: November 12th, 2015, 9:52 am
by jw138
Also note that Black Dog Road north of 35W was closed to the public last summer:
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... vate-hands
Re: Interstate 35W
Posted: November 12th, 2015, 10:53 am
by Mcgizz
Art is a waste, because you basically want to get from one side of the bridge to the other as fast as humanly possible.
I disagree. In fact I think many would disagree. Art is not a waste. If the purpose of this bridge is to be purely utilitarian, then yes let's not spend the money on some faux concrete relief pannels. Those end up looking tacky. It usually ends up making the crowd who don't like art thinking its a waste of money while simultaneously angering the crowd who appreciate good art. But if the purpose is to build a utilitarian bridge that is visually appealing it is possible and by no means a waste. MNDOT and the state need to pony up and pay for a well designed bridge, if that is the intent.
I think that's probably what you were trying to say. If not let's not make statements dismissing the purpose of art or the necessity of it simply because you find it a waste.
Re: Interstate 35W
Posted: November 12th, 2015, 10:54 am
by FISHMANPET
Matt isn't saying that all art is a waste, he's saying that art on a bridge where its sole purpose is to be sped through as fast as possible is a waste. By definition it's not going to be seen.
Re: Interstate 35W
Posted: November 12th, 2015, 11:09 am
by seanrichardryan
Re: Interstate 35W
Posted: November 12th, 2015, 1:07 pm
by Mcgizz
Yeah, that is truly embarrassing.
Re: Interstate 35W
Posted: November 12th, 2015, 1:18 pm
by MNdible
While that "art" is decidedly underwhelming, I think there's a real value in at least trying to acknowledge that you're on a bridge and you're crossing a major river.
You know, in the phenomenological sense.
This wasn't an issue when bridges had big steel arches or through-trusses, but now that freeway bridges have become so pedestrian, something somehow needs to acknowledge that it's important.
Re: Interstate 35W
Posted: November 13th, 2015, 7:25 am
by Mdcastle
If I had to guess about the Black Dog interchange, I'd say they didn't want to take existing wetlands for a temporary connection on the east side, and are afraid of what might turn up if they start digging into the Superfund site on the west side.
The previous proposal was to just eliminate the southbound off-ramp, and what might turn up on the west side was a specific reason noted as to why they re-striped the road to substandard lanes rather than widen it to add the auxillary lane.
Re: Interstate 35W
Posted: April 29th, 2016, 10:28 am
by fehler
An artist has been chosen to design the railing for the replacement of the 40th Street pedestrian bridge. No word if/when/where the money ic coming from to actually replace the bridge structure, but we've got the railing design covered.
https://www.facebook.com/elizabeth.glid ... 5450878570
Re: Interstate 35W
Posted: April 29th, 2016, 12:49 pm
by FISHMANPET
Isn't this part of the 35W access project? So it's already been funded.
Re: Interstate 35W
Posted: April 29th, 2016, 1:42 pm
by MNdible
This new municipal consent document does a good job of laying out what's included and excluded from the 35W Access project:
The City has also been coordinating the full replacement of the 40th Street pedestrian bridge and the re-decking of the 38th Street South bridge with MnDOT. Neither bridge are part of the municipal consent package however both bridges are being developed in coordination with the series of projects.
The 38th Street South bridge re-deck project was initiated by MnDOT due to the condition of the existing bridge deck. The City is requesting geometric improvements with this project that will result in wider sidewalks, improved pedestrian accessibility, pedestrian scale lighting and an enhanced railing design.
The 40th Street pedestrian bridge replacement was initiated by the City. The City has been trying, unsuccessfully, to pull together a funding package for this bridge for a number of years. The City asked MnDOT to partner on the full replacement and they agreed. Additionally, the City is allocating some public art funding to further enhance the railing of the new bridge.
Interstate 35W
Posted: August 2nd, 2016, 11:04 am
by Anondson
$200 million to add managed lanes from Blaine to Roseville. Also some concrete rehab and maybe sound walls.
http://www.bulletin-news.com/articles/2 ... anes-i-35w
Could begin construction as early as 2018.
Re: Interstate 35W
Posted: August 2nd, 2016, 11:03 pm
by min-chi-cbus
Is this a 4th lane in each direction? I'd rather MnDOT put those resources towards I-494 in Bloomington.
Re: Interstate 35W
Posted: August 3rd, 2016, 8:22 am
by mattaudio
I realize that federal funding sources may be a part of the reason...
But from an operational standpoint, why are we not looking at 2 regular lanes + 2 HOT lanes on these freeways which are getting expanded from 3 to 4 lanes in a direction, such as I-35E north of downtown or I-35W north of Roseville or I-94 between downtowns.
Re: Interstate 35W
Posted: August 3rd, 2016, 9:21 am
by SteveXC500
Is this a 4th lane in each direction? I'd rather MnDOT put those resources towards I-494 in Bloomington.
DING! 494 should see the managed lanes before another corridor does.
I believe you are correct about the 4th lane for 35W.
