Minnesota Notes

[Roadguy]

A state lawmaker plans to introduce a law to raise the loathed 45 MPH speed limit on I-35E to 55, and failing that will then introduce a bill to prevent cops from giving tickets to anyone driving 55 or under on that stretch.

This would not alter the truck ban on that section, for the record.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2017/02/13/speed-limit55-mph-interstate-35e/

That's an annual bill that has been introduced every year.  Not even sure if it's ever made it out of committee, usually it goes to the house or senate transportation committees and then dies as it is never taken up.  Not enough support statewide to go any further.  Only south metro residents are affected and care about it so usually it's one of their legislators who introduce the bill.

The truck ban removal would probably take an act of congress like the stillwater bridge as the original court agreement between the neighborhoods and MnDOT included the ban.  The only way around that would be to pass a new federal law overruling the courts.  The speed limit was treated the same if I remember right, so that would take the same effort to change that as well.

[froggie]

The truck ban removal would probably take an act of congress like the stillwater bridge as the original court agreement between the neighborhoods and MnDOT included the ban.  The only way around that would be to pass a new federal law overruling the courts.  The speed limit was treated the same if I remember right, so that would take the same effort to change that as well.

That is correct...the original court agreement also imposed the 45 MPH limit.  Because of that, any passage of a law changing the speed limit would immediately be subject to a lawsuit that would likely kill said law.

[Roadguy]

MnDOT is planning the first Reduced Conflict Intersection with stoplights in the state at MN 65 and Viking Boulevard in East Bethel:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/hwy65rci/

Found some on google in North Carolina that have stoplights but it seems there are not too many in the country that have stoplights with them.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I really think MN 65/Viking Blvd needs to become an interchange at some point in the future. I've gotten to know that intersection fairly well over the last several years. But as the DOT even points out themselves in the video, not a lot of money hanging around right now so this at least would be some kind of solution even if I think it's kind of an annoying-sounding one.

[MNHighwayMan]

Speaking as someone who took many, many trips as a child (and then teenager/adult) between Cambridge and the Twin Cities, MN-65 should really be a freeway between US-10 and something like the Isanti/Anoka County line. As a youngster I used to be able to tell you exactly how many traffic signals there were in that stretch...

[Mdcastle]

What's the advantage of a RCI with traffic signals over a just an ordinary signalized intersection? I thought the whole point of a RCI was not having signals?

[froggie]

RCI with signals is still safer, in that there are fewer conflict points, and has more throughput as the signal phasing is simpler (basically a two-phase).

[Mdcastle]

County Road 42 interchange gets under way this year. At least for now they're not doing an "almost cloverleaf" and the new local street under US 52 next to the railroad tracks. This got popup funding with the 2014 round of Met Council TAB grants. County 42 will be shut down and US 52 traffic diverted to the ramps.

https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/Transportation/PlannedConstruction/CR42

[DandyDan]

County Road 42 interchange gets under way this year. At least for now they're not doing an "almost cloverleaf" and the new local street under US 52 next to the railroad tracks. This got popup funding with the 2014 round of Met Council TAB grants. County 42 will be shut down and US 52 traffic diverted to the ramps.

https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/Transportation/PlannedConstruction/CR42

I find myself amused by the presence of the MN 56 shield on that map.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Took a nice day drive today. I have to say MN 30 is a fun alternative to MN 16 between Rushford and US 52 between the curves, grades, and hills, comparative lack of traffic, and not being as "safe" as MN 16 in terms of road condition (minimal shouldering and some fairly steep dropoffs when winding over some of the bluffs).

[Mdcastle]

Wrote a short post on the 2015 "Bicycles on the Freeways" incidents.
https://northstarhighways.wordpress.com/all-articles/

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Wrote a short post on the 2015 "Bicycles on the Freeways" incidents.
https://northstarhighways.wordpress.com/all-articles/

I'm actually going to comment on one of your other entries, which is the second one related to Bloomington's love of the four-lane undivided road. First, is that Normandale rebuild going to reconfigure it into a four-lane boulevard? And second, was there a problem with the city overbuilding its street grid and thus the city being stuck with these narrow four lane streets?

[jakeroot]

Wrote a short post on the 2015 "Bicycles on the Freeways" incidents.
https://northstarhighways.wordpress.com/all-articles/

Hmm. Not sure how I feel about bikes and freeways. On one hand, I'm quite used to seeing it around here. Cyclists may ride upon most non-major freeways in the Seattle area. But, it does seem like the speed differential could pose an issue (if an issue were to arise -- most drivers don't drive in the shoulder, but shit happens).

How does Minnesota view bikes? Here in Washington, they are legally viewed as cars, with the same rights. Bikes are allowed wherever cars are, barring specific restrictions.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Wrote a short post on the 2015 "Bicycles on the Freeways" incidents.
https://northstarhighways.wordpress.com/all-articles/

Hmm. Not sure how I feel about bikes and freeways. On one hand, I'm quite used to seeing it around here. Cyclists may ride upon most non-major freeways in the Seattle area. But, it does seem like the speed differential could pose an issue (if an issue were to arise -- most drivers don't drive in the shoulder, but shit happens).

How does Minnesota view bikes? Here in Washington, they are legally viewed as cars, with the same rights. Bikes are allowed wherever cars are, barring specific restrictions.

Minnesota also views bikes as being equivalent to cars.

[froggie]

Bikes riding in the street/road are the equivalent of cars.  Bikes riding on off-street paths or on sidewalks are the equivalent of pedestrians, but yield to actual pedestrians.

[Mdcastle]

Wrote a short post on the 2015 "Bicycles on the Freeways" incidents.
https://northstarhighways.wordpress.com/all-articles/

I'm actually going to comment on one of your other entries, which is the second one related to Bloomington's love of the four-lane undivided road. First, is that Normandale rebuild going to reconfigure it into a four-lane boulevard? And second, was there a problem with the city overbuilding its street grid and thus the city being stuck with these narrow four lane streets?

Normandale they're adding a median and turn lanes.

Around the time the inner-ring suburbs were built, the trend was to build four lane undivided roads. Hennepin County did it, Bloomington did it. In most cases the anticipated traffic volumes never materialized. Both the county and the city acknowledge the problem and are trying to fix it when appropriate, in most cases three lanes will work fine but Normandale was an exception, as is 66th in Richfield where they went as far as to take out a row of houses to add a turn lane and cycletracks.

[Mdcastle]

Wrote a short post on the 2015 "Bicycles on the Freeways" incidents.
https://northstarhighways.wordpress.com/all-articles/

Hmm. Not sure how I feel about bikes and freeways. On one hand, I'm quite used to seeing it around here. Cyclists may ride upon most non-major freeways in the Seattle area. But, it does seem like the speed differential could pose an issue (if an issue were to arise -- most drivers don't drive in the shoulder, but shit happens).

How does Minnesota view bikes? Here in Washington, they are legally viewed as cars, with the same rights. Bikes are allowed wherever cars are, barring specific restrictions.

And the specific restrictions in Minnesota are to exclude them from freeways. Although it was illegal for her to be on the freeway and she would have passed a sign on the on-ramp stating such they gave the 14-year-old a warning rather than a citation.

Here's a summary of Minnesota laws:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=169.222

Of note:

* Bicycles  have all of the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle except as noted below.

* Riding on a sidewalk is permitted except in a business district, but local ordinances can override this either way. Bloomington has a local ordinance allowing bicycles on any sidewalk. Carefully using the sidewalks has in fact been advocated by the city in the Oxboro business district.

* The commissioner of transportation may post a road as off-limits to bicycles. All the interstates are so posted. Other freeways usually are but this is inconsistent; US 52 has signs on some ramps but not others.

* Absent are any kinds of bicycle helmet laws for any age, and there's none on the municipal level either. The 14-year-old was wearing her riding helmet, (although a lot of good it probably would have done given typical freeway speeds). My own study showed usage from around 20% for women on Minneapolis streets to 90% for children along the Minneapolis parkways.
https://northstarhighways.wordpress.com/2016/10/19/bicycle-helmet-use-in-minneapolis-and-suburbs-2015-2016/

* A light is required at night. There is some thought among bicycle advocates that lights should be required for each bicycle sold, given how low compliance is.

Here's a direct link to the videos
https://youtu.be/x4_CZVU-vfo
https://youtu.be/zrGgJH5azC0

[Roadguy]

As MnDOT and the Met Council have received more requests for the locals to build interchanges within busy non-freeway corridors, they decided to study priorities for future intersection to interchange conversions.  The results are out: https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation/Planning-2/Transit-Plans,-Studies-Reports/Highways-Roads/Principal-Arterial-Intersection-Conversion-Study.aspx

[froggie]

^ It should be noted that 7 of those sub-corridors are segments that had official freeway-conversion proposals within the past 2 decades.

[ET21]

That's one of the perks of the Twin Cities area I like when I was up there this past fall. Those in-between corridors that were up to freeway standards. Made for an easy drive from UofM and Chaska, MN

[mgk920]

^ It should be noted that 7 of those sub-corridors are segments that had official freeway-conversion proposals within the past 2 decades.

So then it looks like they might eventually make that cut.  I'm especially drawn to the MN 65 and MN 252 ones, those upgrades would turn them into full freeways.  How long before the rest of US 61 in Saint Paul and on southeastward gets the same treatment?  Also, I'm kind of surprised that those intersections on MN 36 east of I-694 aren't higher priorities and that we might see the MN 77 freeway extended southward to at least County 42.



Mike

[froggie]

How long before the rest of US 61 in Saint Paul and on southeastward gets the same treatment?  Also, I'm kind of surprised that those intersections on MN 36 east of I-694 aren't higher priorities and that we might see the MN 77 freeway extended southward to at least County 42.

None of the above.  61 and 36 just don't have the cross traffic to warrant major expense.  And despite it being NHS, MnDOT has (to my knowledge) no interest in taking over jurisdiction of more of Cedar Ave.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Monte mentioned it again recently, but in addition to traffic volume concerns the city of Oak Park Heights also pushed back against any potential MN 36 interchanges within its limits because of the large amount of chain businesses that currently front those intersections.

[MNHighwayMan]

I just found this today while searching for other Minnesota turnback information, and I don't think it's been posted here yet (it's from February 27):

https://www.senate.mn/departments/scr/billsumm/summary_display_from_db.php?ls=90&id=5043

Section 6.  Legislative Route No. 123 removed.  Provides county turnback of Trunk Highway 112 (running from Le Sueur to Le Center) following an agreement between MnDOT and Le Sueur County.

Section 7.  Legislative Route No. 225 removed.  Provides a county turnback of Trunk Highway 225 (running from Ponsford to Trunk Highway 34 near Osage in Becker County) following an agreement between MnDOT and Becker County.

The bill proposes to eliminate MN-112, which I find to be an odd decision to make. It's a shortcut from MN-99 west to US-169 north, never mind that it's the perfectly logical route from Le Center to Le Sueur (duh) and then from there north on MN-93 to points on MN-19 west. Doesn't make sense to me. The only thing that would make sense to me is to eliminate MN-112 from the MN-93 junction to its north terminus, as I've always thought of it as a bit redundant. Then you could re-route 112 over MN-93 to US-169 and have it terminate there, which would remove the MN-93 concurrency with US-169.

The MN-225 elimination, however, is one that I actually can't believe hasn't been done years ago. One of the most useless Trunk Highways in the state.

Looks like I should try to make some time soon to drive up there and photograph those routes before they're gone.


Yet another edit:

The text of SF 1059 also changes the description of LR 259 (MN-93) to end not at LR 123 (MN-112), but instead at "a point at or near Le Sueur." This implies to me that in addition, the short east-west segment of MN-93 will be turned back as well, and the concurrency with US-169 eliminated.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

MN 112 being axed could be part of a broader effort to reduce district mileage, since the useless MN 66 was eliminated in the last year or so as well.