Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheHighwayMan394]

Didn't intend to imply that they didn't exist (just that I had never seen any myself), but I'm just going to show myself out before I make myself look any dumber.

[J N Winkler]

Didn't intend to imply that they didn't exist (just that I had never seen any myself), but I'm just going to show myself out before I make myself look any dumber.

Don't feel bad--I found UT roads in St. Louis County only because the plans for the SP 8821-353 sign replacement furnished a cheat sheet.  MnDOT signing contracts with control sections of 88XX tend to be districtwide jobs, but this one focuses on US 53 in St. Louis and Koochiching Counties.  In many cases, perhaps most, UT roads will be signed far more conspicuously from US 53 than they are now.

Here's an example:



Google Maps not only fails to show Jacobs Road as UT 8146; it also misleadingly labels it as CR 519.  StreetView imagery (the latest of which dates from November 2015) shows a UT 8146 shield on Jacobs Road itself but no existing signing on US 53 referencing a UT route.

I don't know the current status of construction on SP 8821-353.

[froggie]

Didn't intend to imply that they didn't exist (just that I had never seen any myself), but I'm just going to show myself out before I make myself look any dumber.

That they exist is one thing.  Whether they're signed (and thus visible in the field) or not is another story.

My initial reaction was that there may not be many in St. Louis County because the county seems to throw a county route shield on practically every cowpath.

[Molandfreak]

The only spot I’ve seen where MN/DOT has signed a UT road (other than US 53) is on TH 61 near Knife River where 61 intersects CSAH 25 and UT 7. It’s a pretty recent installation that replaced an older sign that had the roadway marked as CR 103.

[TheHighwayMan394]

I noticed tonight that the signs on TH 100 have been replaced between TH 55 and I-694 (with exit numbers now added). But what was also installed that I don't ever remember seeing before in Minnesota were large yellow ground-mounted "RIGHT LANE EXIT ONLY AHEAD" signs throughout the auxiliary lanes on the stretch. Usually a small white "RIGHT LANE MUST EXIT" or often no signs at all denoted these sorts of things.

Apparently I was not the only one who noticed, as the Strib did a bit on this subject today. MnDOT's sometimes ambiguous job of explicity signing auxiliary lanes as "Exit Only" evidently caught up with it.

"Yes, there has been a history of late lane changes in these types of lanes," said Eric Peterson, MnDOT metro sign engineer. "They also generate frequent complaints and questions about why some lanes are not signed this way."

https://www.startribune.com/why-new-exit-only-signs-have-appeared-on-hwy-100/600280100/

[midwesternroadguy]

Quick work being done on the US 52 (Rosemount and south) and I-94 reconstructions in Afton/Woodbury.  PCC (concrete) is already being laid in both projects.   Both very much in need of rebuilding, with I-94 being the roughest.