News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Minnesota Notes

Started by Mdcastle, April 18, 2012, 07:54:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

TheHighwayMan3561

Arrow-per-lane signs have made their first appearance in the state. They were installed on northbound I-494 in Maple Grove approaching the 94/694 junction.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running


rte66man

Quote from: lakewobegon on October 06, 2016, 07:40:22 AM
After lurking for 2 years, this topic brought me out of the shadows.
I've been living in St. Cloud for the past 27 years. Not only does TH 23 have loads of lights. They are also badly synchronized. In addition, the two intersections of TH 15 with TH 23 (and CR 75) are rated among the worst 10 intersections in MN as of 2013. That's because there is so much turning left traffic in all directions that the two lights each only allow 1 direction of travel at a time. https://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/2013/11/minnesota-s-10-most-dangerous-intersections-and-why-they-are-so-perilous

Also, all main roads on the west side of the Mississippi River converge at these intersections.

Bob Weisman

The last line in your quote sums it up for me.  I've been traveling MN23 on and off for the past 35 years between Mora and Pipestone visiting relatives.  Yes, my experience is anecdotal; however, I suspect MnDOT knows there is an appreciable amount of through traffic given their improvements to 23 both NE and SW of St Cloud. Other than replacing the Mississippi River Bridge a few years ago, there has been minimal improvement to 23 from the MN95 junction west to I-94.  It is long past time for MnDOT to do a corridor study to come up with real figures.
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

froggie

Looks like MnDOT and Scott County have made a decision regarding a proposed interchange at US 169/MN 41 outside Shakopee.  The preferred design (to be built in 2018) is a DDI with US 169 bridged over MN 41/CSAH 78.

The project website mentions that Scott County has also won some additional Federal funding which will allow for an overpass to be built a little further south at CSAH 14.  The existing intersection will remain except for a median closure (in effect, it'll be a pair of RIRO on each side).  Access across US 169 will be provided by the overpass, about 400ft north of the existing intersection.

In conjunction with median/driveway closures and some frontage road construction, this project will extend the freeway section on US 169 from CSAH 69 down to CSAH 14...about 3 miles.

TheHighwayMan3561

MN 610 appears set to open any moment now. Crews were working on installing the final signage on I-94 on Wednesday night.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

TheHighwayMan3561

MN 610's final piece slated to open tomorrow (Friday 12/9).
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

TheHighwayMan3561

Drove the new 610 tonight.
-The new exits are numbered, but the pre-2011 exits were not retrofitted with exit numbers as of yet.
-It is not Interstate-standard, which will likely quash any hypothetical dreams of making it an x35 or x94. Some features were scaled back as a cost-saving measure. The shoulders on the new segment are either a combination of paved and aggregate, or on overpasses only four feet wide. In addition, the last mile westbound is only one lane as it transitions into the I-94 ramp.
-There are big green spaces on the Maple Grove Parkway signs; does this mean Hennepin County and Maple Grove may have made a CSAH application for that road?
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

froggie

Quote-It is not Interstate-standard, which will likely quash any hypothetical dreams of making it an x35 or x94. Some features were scaled back as a cost-saving measure. The shoulders on the new segment are either a combination of paved and aggregate, or on overpasses only four feet wide.

Believe it or not, for a rural 4-lane cross-section like what they built on 610, a 4ft inside shoulder is the Interstate standard.

Quote-There are big green spaces on the Maple Grove Parkway signs; does this mean Hennepin County and Maple Grove may have made a CSAH application for that road?

I doubt they've made the application yet, but it's a long-term goal to extend/reroute CSAH 121 along Maple Grove Pkwy.  The main hold-up with the reroute is extending the parkway north of 81 to tie into Fernbrook.

J N Winkler

Quote from: froggie on December 16, 2016, 08:55:24 AMBelieve it or not, for a rural 4-lane cross-section like what they built on 610, a 4ft inside shoulder is the Interstate standard.

I don't have a copy of the actual Interstate design reference, but a quick check of the Wikipedia article based on it suggests that the shoulders don't actually have to be paved, either.  I recall that about 20 years ago, before most of it was reconstructed, I-85 in North Carolina between Durham and the Virginia state line had stabilized vegetated shoulders.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Mdcastle

Just three randon things I noticed:
1) A square County 25 shield on the new exit ramp off MN 100
2) A Flashing Yellow Arrow U-Turn Signal on MN 7
3) Business Loop 169 is on the new BGSes at the Shakopee Bypass.

CtrlAltDel

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 16, 2016, 11:37:21 AM
I don't have a copy of the actual Interstate design reference, but a quick check of the Wikipedia article based on it suggests that the shoulders don't actually have to be paved, either.  I recall that about 20 years ago, before most of it was reconstructed, I-85 in North Carolina between Durham and the Virginia state line had stabilized vegetated shoulders.

The 2005 standards state: "On a four-lane section, the paved width of the left shoulder shall be at least 1.2 m (4 ft)."
Interstates clinched: 4, 57, 275 (IN-KY-OH), 465 (IN), 640 (TN), 985
State Interstates clinched: I-26 (TN), I-75 (GA), I-75 (KY), I-75 (TN), I-81 (WV), I-95 (NH)

TheHighwayMan3561

The US 169 shutdown at Nine Mile Creek in Hopkins begins this week to rebuild the viaduct there, which is scheduled to last seven months. It's similar to when MN 36 was rebuilt several years ago between I-35E and I-694 where a complete shutdown of the road was enacted to expedite the rebuild.

What do people think of this method anyway? Good idea or is it worth keeping the road open with a longer work process?
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

Roadguy

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 16, 2017, 10:19:11 PM
The US 169 shutdown at Nine Mile Creek in Hopkins begins this week to rebuild the viaduct there, which is scheduled to last seven months. It's similar to when MN 36 was rebuilt several years ago between I-35E and I-694 where a complete shutdown of the road was enacted to expedite the rebuild.

What do people think of this method anyway? Good idea or is it worth keeping the road open with a longer work process?

It's a good idea in my opinion based on the other projects surrounding it.  Be in and out in 9 months instead of 2 years.  If they did it under traffic over the 2 year schedule for most of the time 169 would be 1 lane each direction and a parking lot anyways for a majority of the day.  Might as well close it.

Main reason it was done this way was to get detour traffic off 100 before 35W Lake Street Access gets into high gear in 2018:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/i35wminneapolis/

The last thing they wanted was for 35W and 169 to be under construction at the same time.  That would place a lot of pressure on the remaining system (that's already at/over capacity) to handle the diverted volumes of traffic.

Random note:  Another interesting project: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/i94brooklyncntr/index.html
Planning on having bi-directional traffic through one tube of the Lowry Hill Tunnel at 30 mph and no trucks.

froggie

QuoteRandom note:  Another interesting project: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/i94brooklyncntr/index.html
Planning on having bi-directional traffic through one tube of the Lowry Hill Tunnel at 30 mph and no trucks.

They did the same thing back in the early '90s when they had to do a full pavement reconstruction in the tunnel.  4 narrow lanes (2 per direction) and a 30 or 35 MPH speed limit (don't remember which), with trucks diverted onto the "Prohibited Vehicles" route along Lyndale Ave.  Good thing the city rebuilt the Hennepin/Lyndale bottleneck last year...

jakeroot

I hate to do this, but I don't have the patience to check twenty pages to see if it's been brought up already, so here goes my question:

Back in December when I visited the Mall of America, I noticed that all the new signals along Lindau Ln were flashing yellow arrows, but only the single-lane approaches actually had the permissive phase going (the double lane approaches with the FYAs were always protected-only).

Anyone know if the double lefts only get permissive phasing during certain times of day? I swear even late at night, the brief couple of times that I checked (it was -15 for Pete's sake), they were still running protected-only.

froggie

Past MnDOT policy was that dual left turn lanes *ALWAYS* were protected-only.  I do not know if that changed when MnDOT implemented FYA's, though my own empirical evidence (from times home to Minneapolis since then) suggests that policy remains in place.  I'm also pretty sure that, for logistical reasons, MnDOT installs the 4-lens FYA signals even when they have no intention of allowing FYA...simplifies the supply chain when they're only buying one type of left turn signal instead of two or more...

JMAN_WiS&S

Quote from: froggie on February 01, 2017, 08:25:17 AM
Past MnDOT policy was that dual left turn lanes *ALWAYS* were protected-only.  I do not know if that changed when MnDOT implemented FYA's, though my own empirical evidence (from times home to Minneapolis since then) suggests that policy remains in place.  I'm also pretty sure that, for logistical reasons, MnDOT installs the 4-lens FYA signals even when they have no intention of allowing FYA...simplifies the supply chain when they're only buying one type of left turn signal instead of two or more...
A similar case noted across the boarder in Eau Claire Wi. Eau Claire has 4 different intersections where 1 of the approaches has a 4 section left turn signal. They all have the sign indicating to yield on a flashing yellow arrow, however, only one intersection has them operating protected/permitted 100% of the time, crossing 3 lanes at 35mph. The other three installations are protected only all of the time aside from one that becomes permissive/protective late at night. I think Wisconsin is the same where they are just moving to installing one type of light.
Youtube, Twitter, Flickr Username: JMAN.WiS&S
Instagram username: jman.wissotasirens-signals

I am not an official representative or spokesperson for WisDOT. Any views or opinions expressed are purely my own based on my work experiences and do not represent WisDOTs views or opinions.

MNHighwayMan

#491
Quote from: froggie on February 01, 2017, 08:25:17 AM
Past MnDOT policy was that dual left turn lanes *ALWAYS* were protected-only.  I do not know if that changed when MnDOT implemented FYA's, though my own empirical evidence (from times home to Minneapolis since then) suggests that policy remains in place.

Yeah, I honestly am pretty sure that I've never seen double left-turn lanes have FYAs, in Minnesota or elsewhere. There certainly aren't any in the Des Moines area, to my knowledge.

mgk920

Quote from: JMAN12343610 on February 01, 2017, 12:45:55 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 01, 2017, 08:25:17 AM
Past MnDOT policy was that dual left turn lanes *ALWAYS* were protected-only.  I do not know if that changed when MnDOT implemented FYA's, though my own empirical evidence (from times home to Minneapolis since then) suggests that policy remains in place.  I'm also pretty sure that, for logistical reasons, MnDOT installs the 4-lens FYA signals even when they have no intention of allowing FYA...simplifies the supply chain when they're only buying one type of left turn signal instead of two or more...
A similar case noted across the boarder in Eau Claire Wi. Eau Claire has 4 different intersections where 1 of the approaches has a 4 section left turn signal. They all have the sign indicating to yield on a flashing yellow arrow, however, only one intersection has them operating protected/permitted 100% of the time, crossing 3 lanes at 35mph. The other three installations are protected only all of the time aside from one that becomes permissive/protective late at night. I think Wisconsin is the same where they are just moving to installing one type of light.

That is also WisDOT's policy.  Two or more left turn lanes - protected (green arrow) turn ONLY.

Mike

jakeroot

Phasing of dual left turns has been one of forte's for some time now. I've discovered over the years that, in general, state manuals don't permit it, but that individual cities within the state seem to do as they wish. WashDOT doesn't permit it, but several cities in Washington (Seattle, Kennewick; Federal Way and Bellevue at some point) do permit permissive phasing at dual lefts.

In regards to the FYAs outside the MOA, I'm almost as interested to know whether or not the signals surrounding the mall are maintained by MnDOT or the City of Bloomington. Only important because Bloomington may allow dual permissive turns but MnDOT may not.

MNHighwayMan

#494
Quote from: jakeroot on February 01, 2017, 11:16:34 PM
Phasing of dual left turns has been one of forte's for some time now. I've discovered over the years that, in general, state manuals don't permit it, but that individual cities within the state seem to do as they wish. WashDOT doesn't permit it, but several cities in Washington (Seattle, Kennewick; Federal Way and Bellevue at some point) do permit permissive phasing at dual lefts.

In regards to the FYAs outside the MOA, I'm almost as interested to know whether or not the signals surrounding the mall are maintained by MnDOT or the City of Bloomington. Only important because Bloomington may allow dual permissive turns but MnDOT may not.

The only thing MnDOT would be maintaining, if anything at all, are signals on ramps to/from Cedar Ave (MN-77), but I don't know the specifics of the agreements between the different levels of government. The rest would be the city of Bloomington and/or possibly Hennepin County. I doubt they would differ much/if at all from state regulations.

froggie

Quote from: jakerootIn regards to the FYAs outside the MOA, I'm almost as interested to know whether or not the signals surrounding the mall are maintained by MnDOT or the City of Bloomington. Only important because Bloomington may allow dual permissive turns but MnDOT may not.

Those signals along 24th Ave would be county-maintained.  The others would be city-maintained.  But this is a moot point since MnDOT has pretty rigorous state-aid standards, and all of the main roads surrounding the Mall of America are on the state-aid system.

Roadguy

#496
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on February 01, 2017, 12:56:54 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 01, 2017, 08:25:17 AM
Past MnDOT policy was that dual left turn lanes *ALWAYS* were protected-only.  I do not know if that changed when MnDOT implemented FYA's, though my own empirical evidence (from times home to Minneapolis since then) suggests that policy remains in place.

Yeah, I honestly am pretty sure that I've never seen double left-turn lanes have FYAs, in Minnesota or elsewhere. There certainly aren't any in the Des Moines area, to my knowledge.

The policy is now pretty standard that FYA gets installed on all new installations.  Now instead of having to justify why you need a FYA, you have to justify why one shouldn't be there.
http://dotapp7.dot.state.mn.us/edms/download?docId=1225902

A couple of locations with FYA on dual lefts (there are more out there, but the list is starting to get longer especially when including local roads):
MN 55 and Lone Oak Road in Eagan: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8479371,-93.1265094,3a,75y,157.59h,75.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sabv71k6BJd4ZS85cUeWEAw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

MN 55 and Winnetka Avenue in Golden Valley: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9836276,-93.3805031,3a,75y,113.98h,86.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1XUQiBWbEhl97a4bxfmgww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

MN 55 and Plymouth Blvd/Niagara Lane in Plymouth: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.0153297,-93.4708616,3a,75y,299.3h,77.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKz3_JIRcM0tLqBzbs5JSHw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

MN 7 and Oak Street in Excelsior: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8979595,-93.5678597,3a,75y,47.45h,81.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBACQjdDQcqGHOD4RR3jV6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

These run protective during the day and only run FYA later at night.  On the local systems there are some that run FYA during the day on dual lefts and only go to protected in AM/PM peak hours.  Recently I've noticed there are some FYA that wait 3-4 seconds to go to FYA after that thru direction indication gets a green ball.  One would assume it would be to get other vehicles and pedestrians out into the intersection so they are more visible to those who can turn left on a FYA.

MNHighwayMan

Quote from: Roadguy on February 02, 2017, 08:09:17 AM
The policy is now pretty standard that FYA gets installed on all new installations.  Now instead of having to justify why you need a FYA, you have to justify why one shouldn't be there.
http://dotapp7.dot.state.mn.us/edms/download?docId=1225902

[snip]

Cool to see I've been proven wrong. Thanks!

jakeroot

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on February 02, 2017, 03:40:03 PM
Quote from: Roadguy on February 02, 2017, 08:09:17 AM
The policy is now pretty standard that FYA gets installed on all new installations.  Now instead of having to justify why you need a FYA, you have to justify why one shouldn't be there.
http://dotapp7.dot.state.mn.us/edms/download?docId=1225902

[snip]

Cool to see I've been proven wrong. Thanks!

At least you're humble.

Glad to see MnDOT being so progressive (by installing FYAs at all new approaches that meet criteria), even if they disable the FYAs during most of the day (or entirely). It gives the traffic engineers a lot of freedom to really control each and every signal, something that isn't entirely possible with protected only turns. If there's no ban on permissive turns against a lot of lanes or high speed approaches, they could have a lot of fun with lead/lag signals (if that's something they like to do).

Quote from: Roadguy on February 02, 2017, 08:09:17 AM
These run protective during the day and only run FYA later at night.  On the local systems there are some that run FYA during the day on dual lefts and only go to protected in AM/PM peak hours.

Any video of this? I believe you, but I'm just curious to see how they operate.

MNHighwayMan

Quote from: jakeroot on February 02, 2017, 04:25:55 PM
At least you're humble.

Glad to see MnDOT being so progressive (by installing FYAs at all new approaches that meet criteria), even if they disable the FYAs during most of the day (or entirely). It gives the traffic engineers a lot of freedom to really control each and every signal, something that isn't entirely possible with protected only turns. If there's no ban on permissive turns against a lot of lanes or high speed approaches, they could have a lot of fun with lead/lag signals (if that's something they like to do).

Quote from: Roadguy on February 02, 2017, 08:09:17 AM
These run protective during the day and only run FYA later at night.  On the local systems there are some that run FYA during the day on dual lefts and only go to protected in AM/PM peak hours.

Any video of this? I believe you, but I'm just curious to see how they operate.

Is humility on the Internet really so rare as to be noteworthy these days? ...Psssh, who am I kidding, lol. My username might try to imply that I know everything about Minnesota highways... but I don't, and I haven't even lived there since 2010. I ain't going to pretend I even know close to everything.

I second that request for a video.



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.