Minnesota Notes

[froggie]

Some notes from a short trip out "west" to attend a wedding:

- On US 52, the new interchanges in and south of Cannon Falls have exit numbers, and an exit number was "retrofitted" to the MN 19 interchange as well.  Of note, MnDOT went cheap on the exit gore signing in a very 1990s-Alabama-esque way, posting the exit number above a standard exit gore sign.  None of the other interchanges north of Oronoco have exit numbers (for now).

- The I-94 widening between Rogers and the St. Michael exit (MN 101 to MN 241) has all traffic in a 2-way/4-lane config on the eastbound lanes.  Oddly, MnDOT retained a 60 MPH speed limit through this stretch...given the narrowness, I'd have expected them to go 55, similar to what they normally do with Outstate (non-Metro) reconstruction projects that close one side at a time.

- As has been mentioned previously, MnDOT has upped the speed limit on a number of rural 2-lane highways to 60 MPH.  I was looking to see if there was a pattern yet as far as improvements done before they upped the limit, and most of them do appear to have paved shoulders and both centerline and side rumble strips, but there was one notable 60 MPH route that lacked both (MN 79).

- Related to the 60 MPH limits, there were at least 3 towns I passed through (on US 71 and US 59) where the speed limit drops directly from 60 to 30.

- Near Owatonna, US 14 and US 218 are signed concurrently west of their interchange, but there's an "END US 218" sign at the CSAH 45 interchange, instead of at I-35.

- Old US 14 between Owatonna and Janesville is now Steele CSAH 2 and Waseca CSAH 14.  It's in the process of being rebuilt in both jurisdictions (presumably as part of the turnback agreements).

- On MN 23 near Paynesville, the half-interchange at the northeast end of the bypass is signed as County 85, and with "BUSINESS 23" in all-caps text.

- Nicollet County has recently rebuilt at least two of their county state aid routes (23 and 25) with concrete.

(EDIT):  Also, one more thing of note.  When MnDOT recently widened the MN 55/149 concurrency to 6 lanes and rebuilt 149 between 55 and I-494, they upgraded all the traffic signals to galvanized steel poles and flashing yellow arrows.  But the big thing here is there are FYAs for dual-left-turn-lane movements, and they actually are using the flashing yellow for some of these movements.  I've also noticed this (a FYA dual-left-turn-lane) at MN 55/Plymouth Blvd.  This marks a noted change in MnDOT signal policy....in the past, dual left turn lanes were automatically protected-only.

[Bickendan]

Of note, MnDOT went cheap on the exit gore signing in a very 1990s-Alabama-esque way, posting the exit number above a standard exit gore sign.

Huh, I figured that was a WSDOT thing.

[Roadguy]

(EDIT):  Also, one more thing of note.  When MnDOT recently widened the MN 55/149 concurrency to 6 lanes and rebuilt 149 between 55 and I-494, they upgraded all the traffic signals to galvanized steel poles and flashing yellow arrows.  But the big thing here is there are FYAs for dual-left-turn-lane movements, and they actually are using the flashing yellow for some of these movements.  I've also noticed this (a FYA dual-left-turn-lane) at MN 55/Plymouth Blvd.  This marks a noted change in MnDOT signal policy....in the past, dual left turn lanes were automatically protected-only.

As a person who uses the 55/Plymouth Blvd/Niagara Lane intersection daily, the FYA on the dual left turns works really well for the side road (Glad they did this as my car had big troubles at idle before I replaced it).  Mn/DOT never activates the FYA for the mainline Left turns on 55 (even at 2-3AM in the morning they keep the protected green arrow but have shorter wait times).  But the FYA's on Plymouth Blvd/Niagara Lane are used 24/7 (there is still a green arrow but once that green arrow turns off they revert to the FYA during the green ball phase). 

Woodbury also has started to convert many of the single and dual lefts to FYA on city and county roads (Last I hear was 70% were converted to include FYAs).

[Molandfreak]

- The I-94 widening between Rogers and the St. Michael exit (MN 101 to MN 241) has all traffic in a 2-way/4-lane config on the eastbound lanes.  Oddly, MnDOT retained a 60 MPH speed limit through this stretch...given the narrowness, I'd have expected them to go 55, similar to what they normally do with Outstate (non-Metro) reconstruction projects that close one side at a time.

Rogers and St. Michael are metro cities now.


iPhone

[TheHighwayMan3561]

- The I-94 widening between Rogers and the St. Michael exit (MN 101 to MN 241) has all traffic in a 2-way/4-lane config on the eastbound lanes.  Oddly, MnDOT retained a 60 MPH speed limit through this stretch...given the narrowness, I'd have expected them to go 55, similar to what they normally do with Outstate (non-Metro) reconstruction projects that close one side at a time.

Rogers and St. Michael are metro cities now.

I don't even want to envision how absolutely beyond imagination awful cabin traffic would be if they didn't keep it four lanes through there.

[froggie]

Rogers and St. Michael are metro cities now.

Which, if nothing else, is why I would've expected them to go with a 55 zone, as they've typically done with Metro-area reconstruction as well, and is the case with I-494.

I don't even want to envision how absolutely beyond imagination awful cabin traffic would be if they didn't keep it four lanes through there.

Probably similar to what rush hours are like along 494 right now.  But it's not like there aren't alternatives to 94 for cabin traffic.  Drivers are just too fixated on the Interstate system.

On that note, I was impressed with the level of non-peak-flow that 94 has now, even before I got back to Monticello...

[TheHighwayMan3561]

MNDot working on rebuilding MN 101 between old US 212 and the Minnesota River Bridge. When this is done will Carver County finally accept this section for turnback? I think it's one of three separate sections of MN 101 in Carver County that the county has not accepted yet.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/hwy101river/index.html

Looking at GSV it appears more of the section south of US 212 has been turned back; the state section picks up again at Pioneer Trail.

Yep, Carver County appears to want the entire thing four-laned before they'll take it. The section between Pioneer Trail and old 212 would probably require some straightening to bring it to the standard they want, but the rich NIMBYs in the area will likely put an end to that. On another subject, 101 north of MN 5 is absolutely dreadful, and the county is right to wait for improvements to be made. But that area will be much worse in terms of NIMBYism, so there probably won't be anything done for a long time there. That's a shame, because it effectively dumps both 101 and Crosstown traffic onto a two-lane road with no shoulders.

Obviously each situation/county is different but the way MNDot is handling the MN 5 turnback is that they're basically just giving Washington County a bunch of cash for future maintenance on that stretch of 5 to use how they see fit. I wonder if Carver would accept a similar deal with MN 101 where MNDot doesn't do all the work Carver wants done before they take over 101, but the state gives them cash to do their own desired work with.

[I94RoadRunner]

Speaking of MN 5 in Washington county, I wonder why MNDOT does not just truncate MN 5 to the I-494/US 212 interchange or even US 212 at the Y in Eden Prairie .....? The airport freeway from I-494 across to the Crosstown could become an extended MN 110 or some new number .....

[Molandfreak]

Speaking of MN 5 in Washington county, I wonder why MNDOT does not just truncate MN 5 to the I-494/US 212 interchange or even US 212 at the Y in Eden Prairie .....? The airport freeway from I-494 across to the Crosstown could become an extended MN 110 or some new number .....

Exactly, plus it removes a concurrency no one is following from end to end. I was thinking of just renumbering that section MN 594 since it is effectively an airport spur of I-494. Shepard/Warner Road can also be MN 594 and go up U.S. 61/10 to I-94.

[I94RoadRunner]

Sure, not a bad idea. I guess nothing wrong with I-594 between the airport and I-494 either .....? I figure if you want to give it an X94 number, might as well be an interstate!

[froggie]

Given past precedent, it's highly doubtful that MnDOT would consider an Interstate.  The airport is so well signed from 494 (not to mention that the Humphrey Terminal is accessed from 494 anyway) that there isn't really a point to it.

I'd disagree with Moland's assertion that nobody is following the 494/5 concurrency from end-to-end.  Those going between Carver County (and points west) and the Airport are likely following it.  That said, whether that's a rationale to keep MN 5 is another matter entirely.  I could see truncating 5 back to Eden Prairie (whether 494 or the 212 split) and giving existing 5 between 494 and 35E another number...since 594 has been suggested for the eventual I-94/US 10 Connector near Clearwater, I'd go with 205 (never used, shows it's a derivative of 5).

[TheHighwayMan3561]

The new Minnesota state highway map has been released. On the map MN 101 is shown as being entirely turned back south of US 212, including the winding portion between Pioneer Trail and Flying Cloud Drive. The only section in Carver County still shown to be state-maintained is the portion from MN 5 north to the Hennepin/Carver line.

[Molandfreak]

Does nobody on this forum understand exaggeration to support a point? Obviously someone is taking 5 all the way, but not very many per day. You could make an argument that the affluent area 5 goes through to the west has a lot of airline pilots, but even so they are pretty much two separate highways with different functions. 5 loses a lot of significance beyond the 212 interchange as it's basically just an urban alternate. This is why I'd at least like to see all signs for 5 removed along 494.

since 594 has been suggested for the eventual I-94/US 10 Connector near Clearwater, I'd go with 205 (never used, shows it's a derivative of 5).

When was this discussed other than in road enthusiast talk? I really think 5 should get 594 if it's split up. Puts more emphasis on the idea that it's an airport spur off of 494. MSR 200 can easily be extended over 194 so that 194 can be used in Clearwater.

[froggie]

since 594 has been suggested for the eventual I-94/US 10 Connector near Clearwater, I'd go with 205 (never used, shows it's a derivative of 5).

When was this discussed other than in road enthusiast talk?

I know the project manager personally and have talked with her at length about the project.  594 was suggested back when the connector was being studied a decade or so ago.  Since it's so far out on the funding horizon, nobody bit.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

The MN 210 rebuild through Jay Cooke State Park is finally getting going. The road has been closed since June 2012 following massive floods; the relatively insignificant nature of the route obviously contributed to the waiting period. MNDot seriously considered not reconstructing the road at all, in which case I suspect MN 210 would have been rerouted over MN 45 north from Carlton to reconnect to I-35 at Scanlon.

http://www.fox21online.com/news/local-news/highway-210-jay-cooke-state-park-flood-repair-project-underway/34286464

[froggie]

MNDot seriously considered not reconstructing the road at all, in which case I suspect MN 210 would have been rerouted over MN 45 north from Carlton to reconnect to I-35 at Scanlon.

Given precedent (120/244 and various hanging ends of other routes), it's possible that they would have left 45 intact and truncated MN 210 to either Carlton or (more likely) the main entrance to Jay Cooke State Park.

[triplemultiplex]

Really liking the look of the new curve MnDOT is putting in on I-90 at La Crescent as part of the Dresbach Bridge project.  Should be able to keep the cruise on around that once it's done.  Interesting to see the new interchange with US 14/61 is going to be free-flow.
MnDOT is tempting me to come up with a fictional freeway spur into downtown La Crosse via US 14/61 with this design.

[Brandon]

Of note, MnDOT went cheap on the exit gore signing in a very 1990s-Alabama-esque way, posting the exit number above a standard exit gore sign.

Huh, I figured that was a WSDOT thing.

Around here, it's more like an old-school Missouri thing.  Texas seems to do it as well.  And the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority has a few like that on the Tri-State Tollway (I-94 and I-294) now.

[froggie]

MnDOT is tempting me to come up with a fictional freeway spur into downtown La Crosse via US 14/61 with this design.

It de-facto serves as one anyway.  Aside from a northbound scenic overlook, there is only one at-grade access north of Hillview Dr.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Minnesota is planning to close part of US 169 in the southwest Twin Cities metro for an entire year starting in November 2016 with the main goal being replacing the long viaduct over some swampland between Bren/Londonderry Road and the Lincoln Drive exit (this is the part of 169 that would be completely closed). In addition, the RIROs at 16th St are proposed to be removed as well as improving the acceleration/deceleration at Cedar Lake Road which is a very tight interchange as well as some general repaving of the road.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/hwy169hopkins/

[Roadguy]

Minnesota is planning to close part of US 169 in the southwest Twin Cities metro for an entire year starting in November 2016 with the main goal being replacing the long viaduct over some swampland between Bren/Londonderry Road and the Lincoln Drive exit (this is the part of 169 that would be completely closed). In addition, the RIROs at 16th St are proposed to be removed as well as improving the acceleration/deceleration at Cedar Lake Road which is a very tight interchange as well as some general repaving of the road.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/hwy169hopkins/

Yet people say MnDOT doesn't coordinate projects, they are waiting to start this one until after Highway 100 and 494 are finished.

That Cedar Lake entrance to northbound is bad, uphill and no acceleration lane.  This will certainly help with traffic flow.

16th Street should have never been there to begin with, that thing is a death trap.  Last week I saw someone trying to pull out onto the highway going southbound, not only is there no acceleration lane, the grade is so steep up the hill you can't get up to highway speeds.  Most locals don't even use it because they think it's unsafe.

I think back to the days of the old County Road 18 and even though 169 is still not ideal (Too many closely spaced entrance and exit ramps and not enough lanes), it is way better than it use to be.

[froggie]

replacing the long viaduct over some swampland between Bren/Londonderry Road and the Lincoln Drive exit

It's not just swampland.  The primary reason for the viaduct is to cross Nine Mile Creek.

In addition, the RIROs at 16th St are proposed to be removed

I was under the impression that only the southbound RIRO was going to be removed.  The project website writeup specifies southbound as opposed to both directions.

[texaskdog]

Minnesota is planning to close part of US 169 in the southwest Twin Cities metro for an entire year starting in November 2016 with the main goal being replacing the long viaduct over some swampland between Bren/Londonderry Road and the Lincoln Drive exit (this is the part of 169 that would be completely closed). In addition, the RIROs at 16th St are proposed to be removed as well as improving the acceleration/deceleration at Cedar Lake Road which is a very tight interchange as well as some general repaving of the road.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/hwy169hopkins/

Oddly they can't temporarily route everyone around it. 

[mrsman]

Minnesota is planning to close part of US 169 in the southwest Twin Cities metro for an entire year starting in November 2016 with the main goal being replacing the long viaduct over some swampland between Bren/Londonderry Road and the Lincoln Drive exit (this is the part of 169 that would be completely closed). In addition, the RIROs at 16th St are proposed to be removed as well as improving the acceleration/deceleration at Cedar Lake Road which is a very tight interchange as well as some general repaving of the road.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/hwy169hopkins/

Oddly they can't temporarily route everyone around it.

Why do you say that?  I would imagine some type of detour signange would be put in place.  Even if the detour is many miles, there will be a detour.

[froggie]

I think he's referring to the point that MnDOT isn't going to keep part of the bridge open for 2-lane-2-way traffic while they work on the other side.