All posts in the topic Bridge relocation (Short link)

Topic Navigation

Useful Links

Topics in Winona Online Democracy

Summary

There are 21 posts — by 8 authors — in this topic.
Latest post made by John Finn at Jul 03 17:40 UTC

Posts with files
From	File	Date
Leslie Hittner	BridgeProposal 4.pdf	Jun 25 11:23 UTC
Leslie Hittner	BridgeProposal 4.pdf	Jun 25 21:59 UTC
Leslie Hittner	BridgeProposal 5.pdf	Jun 26 12:25 UTC
John Finn	Sound wall.pdf	Jul 03 17:40 UTC

From: Chris Nelson Date: Jun 23 22:28 UTC Short link

I drove Riverview this morning while heading to work and thought about
traffic entering and leaving the bridge from 2nd Street.  Currently, the
bridge has traffic that enters and exits the bridge from 4th St. This
incline already is rather steep, and I've noticed over the years that
trucks leaving 4th St. and having to turn onto the bridge have a tough
time getting power.  I do believe that any semi traffic leaving from 2nd
St (2 entire city blocks) would find the incline to get up and over the
main channel of the river very difficult unless the truck had a good
head of steam prior to entering the bridge area.  One also must remember
that the edge of the dike system is along the main channel of the river
which requires the bridge to be a great deal above the waterway on the
Winona side compared to the Latsch Island side.  With the steep incline
and the sharp turn that was noted in Mr. Hittner's design, I think this
would be a difficult maneuver for large vehicles.  Land would also have
to be acquired from the railroad and from whoever owns the property
since the ramp leading to the bridge will leave the property useless.  I
would doubt they would be willing to give up any property, and I doubt
eminent domain can be used to take railroad property.  Just my 2 cents.

I hate to say it but MNDOT will do whatever MNDOT wants to do.  Winona
has historically been a pain in MNDOT's backside so I wonder if they
will even be willing to work with Winona.  I would venture to say that
we will find the bridge coming off of Huff St and Huff will end up being
widened to accommodate the increase  in  traffic.

Chris Nelson

From: Leslie Hittner Date: Jun 23 22:55 UTC Short link

Chris,

The incline distance is nearly the same and could be made
slightly more than on the current bridge because of the length
added by the curves. I don't know how the curves compare to a
normal entrance cloverleaf onto an interstate, but I suspect
they are sufficient. The radius of the curve is better than 175
feet and the truck traffic will be entering at speed, not from a
stop.

I have been told that the property west of Olmstead belongs to
the railroad and the property east of Olmstead belongs to Rich
Mikrut. I agree, it is unlikely that the railroad would give up
much more than perhaps a narrow slice along the right-of-way of
Riverview to accommodate the right-of-way for the eastbound
ramp.

The curve lengths can be adjusted by changing the angle of
approach of the bridge to Riverview, since there is still a bit
of space until the curve reaches Olmstead.

I agree that this concept might not meet MNDot's budget but it
seems to me that it is worth pressing them with it. What have we
got to lose?

-Leslie Hittner


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Nelson" <winonamn@charter.net>
To: <winona@forums.e-democracy.org>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 16:56
Subject: [Winona] Bridge relocation


> I drove Riverview this morning while heading to work and
thought about
> traffic entering and leaving the bridge from 2nd Street.
Currently, the
> bridge has traffic that enters and exits the bridge from 4th
St. This
> incline already is rather steep, and I've noticed over the
years that
> trucks leaving 4th St. and having to turn onto the bridge have
a tough
> time getting power.  I do believe that any semi traffic
leaving from 2nd
> St (2 entire city blocks) would find the incline to get up and
over the
> main channel of the river very difficult unless the truck had
a good
> head of steam prior to entering the bridge area.  One also
must remember
> that the edge of the dike system is along the main channel of
the river
> which requires the bridge to be a great deal above the
waterway on the
> Winona side compared to the Latsch Island side.  With the
steep incline
> and the sharp turn that was noted in Mr. Hittner's design, I
think this
> would be a difficult maneuver for large vehicles.  Land would
also have
> to be acquired from the railroad and from whoever owns the
property
> since the ramp leading to the bridge will leave the property
useless.  I
> would doubt they would be willing to give up any property, and
I doubt
> eminent domain can be used to take railroad property.  Just my
2 cents.
>
> I hate to say it but MNDOT will do whatever MNDOT wants to do.
Winona
> has historically been a pain in MNDOT's backside so I wonder
if they
> will even be willing to work with Winona.  I would venture to
say that
> we will find the bridge coming off of Huff St and Huff will
end up being
> widened to accommodate the increase  in  traffic.
>
> Chris Nelson
>
> Chris Nelson
>
> Info about Chris Nelson:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/3qlx8qIli8ECzUj4kQQyTs
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/wduJFYG1z72acU24Y1exD
> -----------------------------------------
>   To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>   To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest
on,"
>   in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>   More info about Winona Online Democracy:
>   http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/winona
>
>   E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at
http://OnlineGroups.Net


----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1514 - Release Date:
6/23/2008 7:17 AM

From: Bob Sebo Date: Jun 24 02:01 UTC Short link

Just a thought...

If we want to preserve the Huff Street corridor we should consider creating
an historic district around Windom Park.  Federal dollars (generally) cannot
be used to damage local historic districts.

I am chair of the city heritage preservation commission.  I'd like to see it
happen...full disclosure.


Bob Sebo
Winona





----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Nelson" <winonamn@charter.net>
To: <winona@forums.e-democracy.org>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 4:56 PM
Subject: [Winona] Bridge relocation


>I drove Riverview this morning while heading to work and thought about
> traffic entering and leaving the bridge from 2nd Street.  Currently, the
> bridge has traffic that enters and exits the bridge from 4th St. This
> incline already is rather steep, and I've noticed over the years that
> trucks leaving 4th St. and having to turn onto the bridge have a tough
> time getting power.  I do believe that any semi traffic leaving from 2nd
> St (2 entire city blocks) would find the incline to get up and over the
> main channel of the river very difficult unless the truck had a good
> head of steam prior to entering the bridge area.  One also must remember
> that the edge of the dike system is along the main channel of the river
> which requires the bridge to be a great deal above the waterway on the
> Winona side compared to the Latsch Island side.  With the steep incline
> and the sharp turn that was noted in Mr. Hittner's design, I think this
> would be a difficult maneuver for large vehicles.  Land would also have
> to be acquired from the railroad and from whoever owns the property
> since the ramp leading to the bridge will leave the property useless.  I
> would doubt they would be willing to give up any property, and I doubt
> eminent domain can be used to take railroad property.  Just my 2 cents.
>
> I hate to say it but MNDOT will do whatever MNDOT wants to do.  Winona
> has historically been a pain in MNDOT's backside so I wonder if they
> will even be willing to work with Winona.  I would venture to say that
> we will find the bridge coming off of Huff St and Huff will end up being
> widened to accommodate the increase  in  traffic.
>
> Chris Nelson
>
> Chris Nelson
>
> Info about Chris Nelson:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/3qlx8qIli8ECzUj4kQQyTs
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/wduJFYG1z72acU24Y1exD
> -----------------------------------------
>  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>  More info about Winona Online Democracy:
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/winona
>
>  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

From: Paul Double Date: Jun 24 13:47 UTC Short link

MNDOT has the responsibility to move vehicles both cars and trucks
efficiently and safe.  I believe that is their primary job and that is why
it is important to provide them with input so long as that input fits their
mission.  Cost is part of efficiency and should a location or design embrace
that I would see not logical reason that they would also agree to keep and
open mind so that all parties and idea are on the table for consideration.

The situation we have now is terrible at best.  The only thing worse was the
bridge the current on replaced or the full closure we had this month.  Keep
traffic flow, construction cost including eminent domain, safety, relocation
and removal of homes at the top of the list and I think we will find MNDOT
to be receptive and supportive.

Paul Double

From: Bob Sebo Date: Jun 24 20:11 UTC Short link

Actually, Paul...I believe (and fervently hope) that MnDOT's job is to
facilitate the movement of people and goods and services, not cars and
trucks.  That may seem like splitting hairs given our current reliance on
cars and trucks, but the fact that surfaced recently that the state doesn't
even consider ferry service a form of transit...it reminds me of how much we
take for granted that our roads and bridges will always look like they do
today.  I thnk that would be a mistake.

I think MnDOT will try to build the cheapest bridge they can and be done
with it.  This community, however, may well live with the new bridge for a
century.  We have to fight for the best solution for us.  Something that
comes to mind as we think about a new bridge downtown is that it will be
much more pedestrian and bicycle friendly there than on Pelzer or Mankato.
We are hoping for an increase in bike tourism via the new Wisconsin trail
connection to Latsch Island...just think if we had a 15 foot bike lane
instead of that agoraphobic (yet arguably simultaneously claustrohobic)
nightmare of a sidewalk on the existing bridge?  Build it and they will
come?  I don't know but cycling is a growing tourism sector and we've got
the country (and the river) to take advantage of it.  Such a feature could
also accomodate mobility scooters, segways...who knows what the big thing
will be in 2035...but it would be great if the bridge was flexible and
multipurpose since it will still be the only one we have.

That bike pedestrian lane could peel off into Levee Park, even.  It's not
all just about cost and eminent domain.  We need a bridge that will work for
the city...a simple new straight shot bridge doesn't cut it for me.  With
this project we could remove ALL through truck traffic from downtown...can
you imagine what that would mean?  It's not like MnDOT overspends in
Winona...and more than most cities Winona is fracture critical...if our
bridge breaks the rest of the community goes down with it...we've learned
that first hand.

Bob Sebo

From: Chris Nelson Date: Jun 24 23:17 UTC Short link

Below is information that I found concerning the  I-90 Dresbach bridge
and the reasons why it is being replaced.  If you look at the reasons
you will find that the curve is noted, along with the confusing design
and the ramps.  Also noted is pier placement not to interfere with barge
traffic. These issues shouldn't be overlooked by any group that is
formed.  I thought the last reason "There are no provisions for
bicyclists and pedestrians on the bridge" was very interesting since
pedestrians and bicyclists are not allowed on the I-system.  MNDOT has
estimated to replace the Winona bridge will cost around $200 million
compared to the $59 to $71 million for the Dresbach bridge.


I hope that any idea this is formulated and presented to MNDOT will be
concise and not a "pie in the sky" plan.

Chris Nelson



    * The deck is deteriorating, the most pressing issue in the short term.
    * The bridge is of an obsolete, non-redundant structural design
      similar to that of the Hoan Bridge </wiki/Hoan_Bridge> in
      Milwaukee, which suffered a substantial structural failure. After
      the Hoan Bridge incident, the I-90 Mississippi River Bridge was
      hurriedly inspected and found to be in satisfactory condition, but
      concern about the basic steel structural design remains.
    * A lack of standard shoulders inhibits emergency responses to
      incidents on the bridge and does not provide enough room for
      disabled vehicles to get out the traffic lanes.
    * There are issues with the interchange on the Minnesota side,
      including a curve on the main travel lanes that is sharper than
      desirable for an interstate, a confusing design, and congestion on
      some of the ramps.
    * There are capacity problems at the Dresbach Rest Area on the
      Minnesota side, which currently has only limited room for
      expansion. Compounding the problem, it is currently accessible
      from the eastbound direction, even though it is intended for
      westbound traffic only.
    * There are no provisions for bicyclists and pedestrians on the bridge.

In 2006 Mn/DOT </wiki/Mn/DOT> commissioned a study on ways to rectify
some or all of these issues. Some of the options that were presented
included:

    * Replacing the deck only, estimated cost $23 million
    * Widening and rebuilding the existing structure with either
      additional piers or strengthening the foundation, estimated cost
      $40-$58 million
    * Building a new westbound girder bridge </wiki/Girder_bridge> and
      converting the existing bridge to eastbound only, estimated cost
      $63 million
    * Building a new girder bridge </wiki/Girder_bridge>, extradosed
      bridge </wiki/Extradosed_bridge>, or cable stayed bridge
      </wiki/Cable_stayed_bridge>, and demolishing the existing one,
      estimated cost $59-$71 million

Selecting a preferred alternative will take further studies, but it
should be noted that the least costly option that would address the
non-redundant design of the existing bridge is $58 million, while the
least costly total replacement option is $59 million. There are also a
number of concepts for rebuilding the interchange on the Minnesota side,
depending on whether the bridge is rebuilt or replaced. Complicating
construction will be the proximity to steep bluffs and an active railway
on the Minnesota side, proximity to the La Crosse Municipal Airport
</wiki/La_Crosse_Municipal_Airport>, which could limit the height of any
towers, and barge traffic, which restricts where piers may be placed.
Construction is currently planned for 2013.

From: John Finn Date: Jun 25 01:15 UTC Short link

Winona's Comprehensive Plan update process touched on the likelihood that
the bridge would be replaced during the time period that the Plan addressed.
It was determined that it was too much of a "wild card" for the Plan to
attempt to address the details of how and where.

One participant in the process was familiar with MnDOT and traffic planning.
I believe she had been involved in Winona's attempt to improve the Hwy 61
corridor through town. Although she wanted to develop a design concept for
inclusion in final document, the Plan ended up saying only, in effect, that
it would be a big deal for our downtown.

I note that she is on the WOD list of members, so I'm concerned that we
haven't heard from her on this subject.

From: Chris Nelson Date: Jun 25 10:40 UTC Short link

It wasn't my intention to disrespect anybody.  I'm just thinking that
when dealing with a government body one needs to have a realistic plan
so they will take the plan seriously.  I've been our union steward for 6
years.  I've never walked in and demanded a 25% pay increase.  I knew
there wouldn't be anyway of getting it and it would only cloud the other
issues that were important.  I've asked what I thought could be paid and
compared our pay to that of other entities.  We need to be realistic.

Chris Nelson

From: Leslie Hittner Date: Jun 25 11:23 UTC Short link

Here is yet one more drawing. Only slight changes. I dropped the
two-lane secondary access below the eastbound lane from Pelzer.
That allows the secondary access to begin its drop to street
level sooner.

I also blocked off Second Street west of the access ramp.

I like the bike lane idea. I guess the best place to put a bike
lane would be on the eastbound side of the bridge coming to/from
Riverview/Pelzer. That way there would be no need to cross lanes
after everything merges together. Those access lanes would
likely be less steep as well.

Chris' information on the Dresbach bridge was interesting. I
must admit, I never found the exits particularly confusing but
agree that the turn on the main span is a bit sharp for 70 mph.
I guess the concern about bike lanes (on an interstate) says
more about the process of "justification" than  it does about
any real need or concern. That may also be true of the
"confusing" issue.


-Leslie Hittner

The following file was added to this topic:

BridgeProposal 4.pdf (application/pdf, 1458KB)

From: Leslie Hittner Date: Jun 25 21:59 UTC Short link

Since the link did not get posted this morning, I will try again
with a "clean" message.

-Leslie Hittner

The following file was added to this topic:

BridgeProposal 4.pdf (application/pdf, 1458KB)

From: Bob Sebo Date: Jun 25 22:15 UTC Short link

You know, Les, that's pretty damned impressive...well done!

I've got to get down there and drive that area...I'm curious what would have
to come out.  I really think you are onto something the way you utilize
Second Street...it never occurred to me.  Depending on what is there you
could maybe create a U using Second to connect Grand and Olmsted.  I dislike
dead end streets.

I read an editorial in the Daily Planet today that argued we should wait on
Levee Park decisions until "MnDOT decides" what happens with the bridge.
That, as I have said previously, cannot be allowed.  We must decide what
kind of bridge Winona needs and fight to get it.

Bob Sebo
Winona (obviously...smiles)

From: Chris Nelson Date: Jun 25 22:32 UTC Short link

Where all those ramps come together over the main channel of the river
(regarding the drawing), I'd imagine there would need to be some sort of
a pier system below.  Those piers or whatever type of support would then
be in the main channel of the river.  I've seen barges up against the
rocks in that general area before.


Chris Nelson

From: Bob Sebo Date: Jun 25 23:11 UTC Short link

Chris...all of those ramps don't come together over the main channel...they
come together quite near the shore...I would imagine the bridge would come
in over Frog Slough per Les's drawings...that's not the main channel...and
it looks to me like most of those piers would be on land.  The piers
supporting the main span...I would think 2 would do it (that's what we've
got now)...and they might be spaced farther apart given the longer
span...the main channel might actually be widened.  This approach would be
closer to local port traffic, obviously, than is Winona Street.  Does anyone
know if it matters?

Bob Sebo

From: Leslie Hittner Date: Jun 26 00:41 UTC Short link

I did a Google Earth, looking for cloverleaf exchanges. Looks
like many of them have a diameter of around 300 feet. The less
than 180 degree turn of the exit ramp onto Second street ends
about 550 feet from the river bank. I imagine the declining
ramps could easily be moved further south so that the pylon is
closer to the shore. Moving the Winona end a bit further down
stream would also decrease the total angle of the Second Street
ramp (and slightly increase the angle of the Riverview ramps).

The pylon of the current bridge is about 35 feet from the Winona
riverbank (an estimate). My drawing would place the proposed
bridge pylon at about 150 feet. Bridge/road engineers could
probably prune 75 feet off of that at least.

Barges are around 200 feet long. Towboats on the upper
Mississippi are probably less than 200 feet for the most part.
That means most tows are probably under 2000 feet. There is 1500
feet to park downstream of the bridge (after the old one is
removed). Today I watched a tow with nine barges come down
stream, stop, and back into the Winona harbor to add or drop
barges. I believe it would have been able to do so with the
proposed bridge in place. I agree with Bob that the new bridge
will probably have a greater distance between main span pylons
than the current one (There are three on the current bridge, by
the way.)

Grand and Second street can be connected. In fact Grand already
goes through to Second Street (not shown on my map).

North of Second Street between Huff and Harriet: Sears and Ace
Hardware
North of Second Street between Harriet and Wilson: Riverview
Business Center
North of Second Street between Wilson and Grand: Not much
North of Second Street between Grand and Olmstead: A Quonset

South of Second Street between Huff and Harriet: Chrysler Winona
South of Second Street between Harriet and Wilson: Ledebuhr
Meats, Rochester

Wholesale Fruit, Gopher Bearing, etc.
South of Second Street between Wilson and Grand: Lawrence
Warehousing for Bay State
South of Second Street between Grand and Olmstead: Not much on
the northeast quarter.

 I don't know if this is a "pie in the sky" or not. According to
Chris Nelson, the DOT has allocated $60-$70 million for the
Dresbach bridge and $200 million for the Winona bridge. That's a
big difference! We should be able to get a least a piece of pie
for that much cash!

-Leslie Hittner


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Sebo" <bobsebo@hbci.com>
To: "Chris Nelson" <winonamn@charter.net>;
<winona@forums.e-democracy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 18:10
Subject: Re: [Winona] Bridge Relocation


> Chris...all of those ramps don't come together over the main
channel...they
> come together quite near the shore...I would imagine the
bridge would come
> in over Frog Slough per Les's drawings...that's not the main
channel...and
> it looks to me like most of those piers would be on land.  The
piers
> supporting the main span...I would think 2 would do it (that's
what we've
> got now)...and they might be spaced farther apart given the
longer
> span...the main channel might actually be widened.  This
approach would be
> closer to local port traffic, obviously, than is Winona
Street.  Does anyone
> know if it matters?
>
> Bob Sebo
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Nelson" <winonamn@charter.net>
> To: <winona@forums.e-democracy.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 5:32 PM
> Subject: [Winona] Bridge Relocation
>
>
> > Where all those ramps come together over the main channel of
the river
> > (regarding the drawing), I'd imagine there would need to be
some sort of
> > a pier system below.  Those piers or whatever type of
support would then
> > be in the main channel of the river.  I've seen barges up
against the
> > rocks in that general area before.
> >
> >
> > Chris Nelson
> >
> > Chris Nelson
> >
> > Info about Chris Nelson:
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/3qlx8qIli8ECzUj4kQQyTs
> >
> > This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2WkHFBOAWT7xOMnUQW5S5g
> > -----------------------------------------
> >  To post, send your message to:
<email obscured>
> >  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest
on,"
> >  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
> >
> >  More info about Winona Online Democracy:
> >  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/winona
> >
> >  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at
http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
> Bob Sebo
> East End, Winona
> Info about Bob Sebo: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/bobsebo
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1BdxxSF8XCTBmVrxFaJljs
> -----------------------------------------
>   To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>   To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest
on,"
>   in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>   More info about Winona Online Democracy:
>   http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/winona
>
>   E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at
http://OnlineGroups.Net


----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.101 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1518 - Release Date:
6/25/2008 9:46 AM

From: Leslie Hittner Date: Jun 26 12:25 UTC Short link

Here is one more drawing. This one addresses Chris Nelson's
concern about reasonableness in the eyes of MNDOT. It also
substantially separates the two issues of bridge placement and
highway 43 routing.

The bridge placement remains such that access is from Second
Street (in an east-west direction). As noted in my previous
posts, this placement minimizes impact on surrounding
neighborhoods.

Note.however, that there is only a single access ramp. Highway
43 traffic could be routed any of a number of ways:

1. I prefer to se it routed via Pelzer, in which case it would
come across Riverview to Second Street and then west to the
bridge ramp.

2. It could stay where it is (coming down Main Street)  with a
slight modification extending it to Huff Street and then north
to Second Street.

3. Huff Street advocates could push on with their thoughts of
coming straight in from highway 61.

4. Etc., etc., etc.

This is an "uncomplicated" bridge design featuring a curved
entrance ramp with a 400 foot turning radius and it should be an
easy sell.

-Leslie Hittner

The following file was added to this topic:

BridgeProposal 5.pdf (application/pdf, 816KB)

From: Tim Slade Date: Jun 26 12:50 UTC Short link

The radius question was raised in the 70 MPH context of Dresbach... so
here, I would think, less of an issue.


On Jun 26, 2008, at 7:25 AM, Leslie Hittner wrote:

> Here is one more drawing. This one addresses Chris Nelson's
> concern about reasonableness in the eyes of MNDOT. It also
> substantially separates the two issues of bridge placement and
> highway 43 routing.
>
> The bridge placement remains such that access is from Second
> Street (in an east-west direction). As noted in my previous
> posts, this placement minimizes impact on surrounding
> neighborhoods.
>
> Note.however, that there is only a single access ramp. Highway
> 43 traffic could be routed any of a number of ways:
>
> 1. I prefer to se it routed via Pelzer, in which case it would
> come across Riverview to Second Street and then west to the
> bridge ramp.
>
> 2. It could stay where it is (coming down Main Street)  with a
> slight modification extending it to Huff Street and then north
> to Second Street.
>
> 3. Huff Street advocates could push on with their thoughts of
> coming straight in from highway 61.
>
> 4. Etc., etc., etc.
>
> This is an "uncomplicated" bridge design featuring a curved
> entrance ramp with a 400 foot turning radius and it should be an
> easy sell.
>
> -Leslie Hittner
>
> Winona Online Democracy now contains the following file
>
>    http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/file/2550-2008-06-26T122544Z
>    Name: BridgeProposal 5.pdf
>    Tags: "attachment"
>    Type: application/pdf
>    Size: 815KB
>
>
> All the files that have been added to Winona Online Democracy can be
> viewed at
>    http://forums.e-democracy.org/s/?g=winona&amp;f=1&amp;t=0
>
>
> Les Hittner
>
> Info about Leslie Hittner:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/2VnBuSDEUMqnsFLSSoUeJ
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2uEOY9HM82PTGPYYeUHVrx
> -----------------------------------------
>  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>  More info about Winona Online Democracy:
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/winona
>
>  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

From: John Finn Date: Jun 27 11:22 UTC Short link

From: Leslie Hittner Date: Jun 27 11:48 UTC Short link

I guess I would leave those details to the engineers and the
site procurement people. The key idea here is the curved
approach that reaches grade level in an east-west direction on
Second Street and/or Riverview. It's that approach idea that
makes it feasible to consider a wide range of alternatives for
routing traffic through the community.

And who knows what MNDOT can do with $200 million? If they don't
have to buy and dismantle a neighborhood, perhaps they can spend
more on the bridge itself.

-Leslie Hittner

----- Original Message -----
From: "john finn" <norbert@hbci.com>
To: <winona@forums.e-democracy.org>
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 06:21
Subject: Re: [Winona] Bridge Relocation


>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leslie Hittner [mailto:lhittner@hbci.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:26 AM
>
>
> Here is one more drawing. This one addresses Chris Nelson's
> concern about reasonableness in the eyes of MNDOT. .......
>
>
>
> -------Response------
>
>
> If the support piers were to preserve the width of the
navigation channel, I
> think that the main span on your sketch would have to be twice
as long as it
> is now. I suppose there is some "rule of thumb" calculation as
to cost vs.
> span length increase. I'll bet it's not a linear relationship.
Maybe the
> main span could be more perpendicular to the river and turn to
the west
> while over Riverview Drive for a distance until curving around
to Second
> Street.
>
> As I noted previously, I truly hope that something other than
a Huff Street
> alignment can be found. If there was any chance that Winona
would enforce
> motor vehicle noise laws, the prospect of living next to or
within a more
> elaborate approach intersection would be somewhat less
dreadful. But as
> Chris Nelson points out, we need to be realistic.
>
>
>
> John Finn
> Winona, Winona
> Info about John Finn: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/johnfinn
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5kk6a9OO78crExyQnsQQDS
> -----------------------------------------
>   To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>   To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest
on,"
>   in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>   More info about Winona Online Democracy:
>   http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/winona
>
>   E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at
http://OnlineGroups.Net


----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.101 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1521 - Release Date:
6/26/2008 11:20 AM

From: Joliene Olson Date: Jun 27 21:18 UTC Short link

In his article in the Daily News, Jim Galewski asks the same question I have
asked before.  Do we know if the powers to be and who are working with MNDOT
have gotten these ideas in a written format and are able to use them in their
discussions.

If anyone knows whether or not this is happening, I would appreciate you just
coming on the site and saying so.

I understand most of what has been described but not entirely. Les, would you
be able to make sure Senator Ropes has copies of your maps that you have
contributed?  I saw something in the paper about a meeting that is being pulled
together by Senator Ropes an am unable to attend so hope those of you who have
drawn and analyzed these suggestions will be able to attend or see that she has
the information.

Thanks everyone
Joliene Olson

From: Steve Kranz Date: Jun 27 22:14 UTC Short link

I attended the first meeting of the "bridge coalition" that was convened by
Senator Ropes.  I don't think another meeting has been scheduled yet . . .
at least I haven't received notice of it (and I am on the email list).  I
did talk at that meeting about Winona Online Democracy as a resource for
bringing the discussion into the community.

I hope to put together a bridge "wiki" page on e-democracy.org that includes
the information from the wod discussion on the topic  (and include Les's
drawings and any other graphic, photo or video information that might be
helpful - and then bring the page to the attention of those doing the
planning - assuming that their will be public notice of the planning
process.

Steve Kranz,
List Manager

From: John Finn Date: Jul 03 17:40 UTC Short link

The following file was added to this topic:

Sound wall.pdf (application/pdf, 531KB)

Add to the topic Bridge relocation [?]

You cannot post because you are not logged in. If you are a member Winona Online Democracy, login to post to this topic. Otherwise sign up, become a member of Winona Online Democracy, and post to this topic.

Need help? Please contact technical support. To support your forum, please donate.