Minnesota Notes

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

Previous topic - Next topic

froggie

^ The city/county/MPO still have it in their long-range plan, yes.


TheHighwayMan3561

Quote from: froggie on April 12, 2018, 10:25:42 PM
^ The city/county/MPO still have it in their long-range plan, yes.

What more are they planning to do with it? There are already three new interchanges between 52 and 90, so is it going to be a full freeway conversion?
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

froggie

Two new interchanges.  CSAH 16 was a rebuild of a previously existing interchange.

Their long range plan is for a freeway conversion, but there are two notable sticking points:  how to address MN 30 West given its proximity to the I-90 interchange, and what to do in the 60th Ave SW vicinity.

Papa Emeritus

The Minneapolis Star Tribune has an article about the latest efforts to upgrade the I-494 / I-35W interchange. Here's a link:

http://www.startribune.com/suburbs-look-for-state-funding-to-renovate-i-494-i-35w-interchange/479817103/

A full upgrade to the interchange is estimated to cost $300 Million, but as Froggie said up thread, the first phase would cost $85 Million. Legislators are hoping to fund the upgrades as part of plans to extend bus rapid transit down 35W to Burnsville.

TheHighwayMan3561

#704
Corridors of Commerce grants awarded for 2018:

-Freeway conversion of most of US 169 in Elk River, though this will not include modification to the existing US 10/MN 101 interchange.
-Expansion of I-94 to six lanes from St. Michael to Albertville.
-Two separately submitted projects on I-494 in Bloomington, which most dramatically finally includes the first phase of upgrade to the 494/35W interchange.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/newsrels/18/05/1-award.html

All four of these being metro area projects (the criteria making the Elk River and Albertville projects "outstate" allowed for those to be selected) has already rankled some, particularly the US 14 commission in southern Minnesota.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

froggie

There's a couple of things they possibly could have done along US 14, though most of what's easily broken down is between New Ulm and Nicollet.  Because of the chosen design between Owatonna and Dodge Center (a new-alignment freeway south of the DM&E tracks), that would have to be done all in one fell swoop...probably too big for a Corridors of Commerce grant.  They probably could have thrown a bone to southern Minnesota by building a Courtland bypass or adding the interchange near Owatonna at Steele CSAH 43, but there's not much else that would have fit.

The first phase of 494/35W is a big thing.  That interchange is arguably the most congested interchange in the state now, and one of the most dangerous.

froggie

#706
Did some more digging into the Corridors of Commerce results.  It's worth noting that they selected the top two-scoring projects each from the Metro and "Outstate".  While many consider Sherburne and Wright Counties part of the Metro, they're in an Outstate MnDOT District (District 3) and those two projects scored top amongst all the non-Metro-Division projects.

Plenty of other big projects scored fairly high, though.  Here are the top 11 Metro projects (scored above 600 out of 700) and the top 10 Outstate projects (scored 500-600 out of 700) considered.  It should be noted that several of these overlap with or were superseded by others.

Top 11 Metro:

1)  I-494 MnPASS lanes from France Ave to MN 77 (selected as noted previously, westbound MnPASS lane will end at I-35W)
2)  I-494/I-35W interchange Phase 1 (selected as noted previously...adds a NB 35W to WB 494 flyover, though this appears to be the only part that got funded.  The remainder of this project included two auxiliary lanes along EB 494:  through the Bush Lake Rd interchange, and from France Ave to the SB 35W ramp)
3)  I-94/MN 252 MnPASS lanes from Dowling Ave to MN 610
4)  I-494 improvements from France Ave to I-35W (includes the flyover from #2 above plus the EB 494 auxiliary lane from France Ave to the SB 35W ramp)
5)  I-494 eastbound auxiliary lane from MN 100 to I-35W (a longer version of the auxiliary lane in #4 that would effectively begin at MN 100)
6)  US 169 MnPASS lanes from Scott CSAH 17 to I-494
7)  I-494 improvements at E Bush Lake Rd and I-35W (includes both the flyover from #2 above plus the EB 494 auxiliary lane at Bush Lake Rd)
8)  MN 65 convert to freeway from US 10 to 131st Ave NE (does not include improvements at US 10, but would build interchanges at 99th, 109th, and 117th, an overpass at 93rd, and extend a west-side frontage/backage road, effectively an extension of Ulysses, from 93rd to 109th)
9)  I-494 improvements between E Bush Lake Rd and I-35W (includes ONLY the eastbound auxiliary lanes mentioned above at E Bush Lake Rd and from France Ave to SB 35W)
10)  I-494 eastbound auxiliary lane from France Ave to the SB 35W ramp (ONLY this auxiliary lane as described above)
11)  I-94 interchange reconstruction at MN 280 (this would relocate EB 94 and reconstruct the interchange into a trumpet with the EB 94 on-ramp as the loop, allowing access from 280 to the Cretin Ave exit.  The 280/Franklin Ave interchange would also be revised for "better freight connections".)


Top 10 Outstate:

1)  US 169 convert to freeway from US 10 to 211th Ave NW (selected as noted previously, builds full interchanges at Main St, School St, and 193rd and a half-interchange at 197th.  Does not include improvements at US 10.)
2)  I-94 6-lane widening from MN 241 to Wright CSAH 19 (selected as noted previously, also rebuilds the interchanges at MN 241, widens the MN 241 bridge over I-94, and adds a loop ramp from WB 94 to WB 241)
3)  US 169 convert to freeway in Elk River (a partial version of #1 above, this would build the interchanges at Main St and School St)
4)  I-94 6-lane widening from MN 241 to Wright CSAH 19 plus interchanges (same as #2 above but includes an EB on-ramp from CSAH 19 and an EB C/D road between CSAH 19 and CSAH 37)
5)  US 14 Owatonna to Dodge Center (the top-scoring Outstate project *NOT* in District 3, this project would complete a 4-lane freeway between Owatonna (CSAH 43 in particular) and Dodge Center, with interchanges at Steele CSAH 3 and a relocated MN 56 North)
6)  MN 23 Willmar to St. Cloud (would fill the 4-lane gaps on both sides of Paynesville)
7)  I-35 at I-535/US 53 (reconstruction of the "Can of Worms" interchange, including the I-35/27th Ave W interchange and possibly the I-535/Garfield Ave interchange)
8)  MN 23 Paynesville to Richmond (a limited part of #6 above, this would fill the Paynesville to Richmond 4-lane gap)
9)  I-94 Albertville to Clearwater (6-lane widening)
10) US 14 Dodge CSAH 16 to Dodge Center (a limited extent variant of #5 above, this would build the 4-lane freeway relocation of US 14 between Dodge CSAH 16 and the existing freeway around Dodge Center, including the interchanges at CSAH 3 and MN 56 North.  A temporary connection would be built at Dodge CSAH 16.)

TheHighwayMan3561

Kind of shows how deficient 494 through Bloomington is when submissions for it make up more than half of that list...
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

Zaphod

#708
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 01, 2018, 04:56:33 PM
-Freeway conversion of most of US 169 in Elk River, though this will not include modification to the existing US 10/MN 101 interchange.

According to the city engineer on the City of Elk River's facebook page, he stated that there won't be any stoplights from the Mississippi River to 197th Ave. So that would imply removing the stoplight at the Hwy 10 interchange, which makes sense not to have a single stoplight in this stretch. Maybe the project will include a WB Hwy 10 to SB Hwy 101 cloverleaf loop. The details will be presented at future open houses/meetings. I am following this closely as I work in Elk River and use 169 often.

froggie

This is what's proposed at 10/169/101.  However, MnDOT's release on the Corridors of Commerce grant suggests that the improvements at 10/169/101 would *NOT* be built as part of the grant.  So it's hard to tell who's correct.

Roadguy

Quote from: froggie on May 04, 2018, 02:23:33 PM
This is what's proposed at 10/169/101.  However, MnDOT's release on the Corridors of Commerce grant suggests that the improvements at 10/169/101 would *NOT* be built as part of the grant.  So it's hard to tell who's correct.

There is no way that ever gets built as shown, that would be one of the most extravagant systems interchanges in the state  They are going to need another $150+ million to build that and if that money is sitting around, it's not going to a single interchange in Elk River.  To eliminate the stoplights at 101/169/10 they are going to have to implement a low cost solution to complete the conversion.

Roadguy

Sticking to the corridors of commerce topic:
For the I-494 MnPASS lanes from France Ave to MN 77 (westbound MnPASS lane will end at I-35W), this will dramatically change the corridor particularly between I-35W and MN 77. One would assume because the bridges at Nicollet, progressive railroad, Portland and 12th Avenue are too narrow to fit another lane without going to zero shoulders under them that they will all be replaced. Definitely interested to see if this will prompt the reconfiguration of interchanges in this stretch: closure of Nicollet with removal of the ramps, a full SPUI at Portland, and closure of the ramps at 12th.  This will dramatically change the corridor if this occurs.  Add in Richfield's project for the 77th Street tunnel and there will be quite a change for the east sides of Richfield/Bloomington.

froggie

Per the Elk River city engineer (who submitted the 169 proposal), the approved funding will include modifications at the 10/169/101 interchange to eliminate the existing signal.  What form those improvements will take has not been finalized yet.

I've had conversations with several Twin Cities residents that many of the overpasses along 494 are too narrow to squeeze the lanes in.  The bridges probably will be replaced for this, but I have doubts that they will include the interchange improvements.

Mdcastle

Probably they won't be wide enough for additional regular lanes either, just those stupid Lexus Lanes.

As for Elk River, one idea would be to replace the northwest ramp with a loop and then rely on Main Street for the movements between 10 west and 169 north.

TheHighwayMan3561

#714
Quote from: Mdcastle on May 15, 2018, 06:30:07 PM
As for Elk River, one idea would be to replace the northwest ramp with a loop and then rely on Main Street for the movements between 10 west and 169 north.

While we're on the topic of shunting traffic onto Main Street, they should eliminate the at-grade left turn from EB 10 to NB 169. That's a scary intersection these days.

The big problem with Main Street is it still has a 4-way stop between 10 and 169.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

Mdcastle

Yes, hence my suggestion. I really don't think it's a good idea to leave any crossing movements. The unsignalized eastbound to northbound relies on the Main Street traffic signal, and formerly the one at County 39, to create breaks in traffic. Now that the County 39 signal is gone there are no breaks northbound.

Depending on how fancy they want to get, they could also rebuild the railroad overpass to build the NW ramp and loop, and/or build a third river span to build the SE loop and ramp. Either would be directly incorporated if in some fantasy they do a full buildout of the final design.

Mdcastle

Scott County plans to convert just about every last traffic signal they own to flashing yellow arrows this year. Most will get flashing yellow arrows in all directions except for two in downtown Shakopee that will remain protected only, two in Shakopee where the side street left turns lanes will remain permissive only, and 9 where one or more of the side streets doesn't have dedicated turn lanes. If they wanted to they could use the flashing yellow arrow doghouse design, but they aren't.

TheHighwayMan3561

#717
The funding to finish US 14 from Owatonna to Dodge Center is finally in place with the new bonding bill passed by the state and will be signed by the governor after some questions about whether he would.

Also, MN 252 freeway conversion with MnPass lanes in Brooklyn Center and MN 23 widening from New London to Paynesville and then to Richmond.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/newsrels/18/05/30-corridors-of-commerce.html

Transit advocates had bemoaned the bill because it had no money for any public transit projects.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

MNHighwayMan

Wow, MN-252 is finally going to get the upgrades it's needed for at least 20 years, now? I'll believe it when I see it.

Roadguy

Additional transportation projects in the bonding bill:
Anoka County — Thurston Boulevard: $15,000,000 (Interchange and signal removal at US 10)
Anoka County — Ramsey Boulevard Rail Grade Separation: $2,000,000
Brooklyn Park — Highway 169/101st Ave: $4,000,000 (New interchange on 169)
Carver County — Hwy 101 Turnback: $9,000,000 (Reconstruction of Trunk Highway 101 from Flying Cloud Drive to Pioneer Trail, this would complete the 101 turnback in Carver County except the portion shared with Hennepin/Carver from County Road 62 to MN 5)
Chisago County — Hwy 8 Reconstruction: $3,000,000 (If anyone knows more chime in)
Dayton — Brockton Interchange: $13,500,000 (New interchange north of 610 and south of 101, potential to go forward with MnDOT's unbonded concrete overlay.  Dayton is growing so fast it's going to double it's population between the 2010 and 2020 census)
Foley — Hwy 23 Safety Improvements ($300,000 cash): $500,000 (The improvements are scheduled for the year 2022 and include a roundabout at Highway 23 and 8th Avenue, added lighting, turn lanes and improved pedestrian pathways and crossings)
Goodview — Railroad Crossing Quiet Zone: $330,000 (If anyone knows which specific crossings chime in)
Hennepin County — CSAH 9—494: $4,860,000 + (THB) $4,860,000 (Adds dual left turn lanes at Rockford Road and 494 interchange in Plymouth)
Inver Grove Heights — Argenta Trail 70th Street: $6,100,000 (Continuing to extend County Road 63 [Argenta] towards 494 and reconstructing County Road 26 [Lone Oak/70th] to Trunk Highway 3)
La Crescent — Wagon Wheel Trail: $2,500,000 (Funding for a trail bridge over Highway 14 which will ultimately create a trail connection between La Crescent and La Crosse)
Loretto/Medina/Wayzata — Rail Crossing Safety: $1,200,000 (To go towards creating quiet zones at Townline Road and County Road 19 in Loretto, Arrowhead Drive in Medina, and Lake Street/Barry Ave in Wayzata)
Mankato — Hwy 169 Levee Reconstruction (THB): $830,000 (City of Mankato/North Mankato looking for funding to fill in a leeve gap at 169 to avoid FEMA from designating new areas as floodplain requiring the purchase of flood insurance)
Minneapolis —  Upper Harbor Terminal: $15,000,000 (Not all of it will go toward transportation but a portion of it has already been identified for improvements at the Doweling/94 interchange and surrounding local streets)
Minnesota Commercial Railway — Rice Creek Bridge: $1,550,000 (Design funding for a replacement rail bridge over Rice Creek in New Brighton)
Moorhead — 21st Street Grade Separation: $6,000,000 (At 21st Street and Main Street grade separating the rail crossings and creating a Wye to eliminate railroad back ups)
Pope County — Glenwood Railroad Separation (THB): $10,500,000 (Grade separation for MN 55 at MN 29 and the CP rail crossing)
Wadena — Hwy 10 Enviro Cleanup (THB): $5,000,000 (Highway 10 is being rebuilt in 2019, an extensive amount of contamination was found that will require all of the water pumped from pits created to place water, sewer, and drainage pipes to be filtered before releasing it)
Wakefield — 200th Street: $600,000 (Reconstruction of an approximately 2.7 mile portion of 200th Street)

Feel free to chime in if you have corrections or added information

TheHighwayMan3561

That US 8 bill is a big mystery. I can find no projects on MnDOT's site and the actual bill is literally nothing more than one sentence with no references to what part of US 8 is involved. Given the relatively small amount of money involved, it's certainly not going to be a broad-scale project.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

Henry

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 06, 2018, 02:49:01 AM
That US 8 bill is a big mystery. I can find no projects on MnDOT's site and the actual bill is literally nothing more than one sentence with no references to what part of US 8 is involved. Given the relatively small amount of money involved, it's certainly not going to be a broad-scale project.
FWIW, the mileage in MN is a lot shorter compared to its immediate eastern neighbor, so I wouldn't be surprised if WI were also involved in converting US 8 into some sort of freeway/expressway combo.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

MNHighwayMan

Quote from: Henry on June 06, 2018, 09:20:29 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 06, 2018, 02:49:01 AM
That US 8 bill is a big mystery. I can find no projects on MnDOT's site and the actual bill is literally nothing more than one sentence with no references to what part of US 8 is involved. Given the relatively small amount of money involved, it's certainly not going to be a broad-scale project.
FWIW, the mileage in MN is a lot shorter compared to its immediate eastern neighbor, so I wouldn't be surprised if WI were also involved in converting US 8 into some sort of freeway/expressway combo.

But the money needed to truly fix US-8 in Minnesota (i.e. four-lanes and bypasses) is going to cost a hell of a lot more than $3 million, and I really can't envision cash-strapped WisDOT pitching in to help.

froggie

The US 8 money relates to studies MnDOT did about a decade ago.  The $3M is specifically for ROW acquisition and preliminary (possibly final) design for 4-laning US 8 from the end of the existing 4-lane near US 61 to Karmel Ave in Chisago City.

Some comments on other projects:

- The Thurston Ave project will effectively extend the US 10/169 freeway section to just west of Anoka Technical College.  The project has 4 main parts:  a southern frontage road between Thurston Ave and Main St, an underpass at Fairoak Ave, an odd interchange at Thurston Ave (essentially a SPUI with a roundabout instead of a signal), and adding roundabouts at the Main St interchange ramp terminals.  Tentative go-ahead for construction is 2021-22...articles on the project suggest that MnDOT will do as much as it can with the funding that is acquired by then.  This bonding bill addition reduces the funding gap to about $24M.

- The $13.5M in Dayton isn't specifically for the Brockton interchange on I-94 per se but instead is for local roads related to the interchange.

- The I-94/CSAH 9 project will replace the CSAH 9 bridge over 494.  It's the only way they'll be able to add the left turn lanes.

- The Glenwood rail separation will bridge MN 29 over MN 55 and the adjacent Canadian Pacific tracks.  Access between MN 29 and MN 55 will be via an upgraded 160th St.

MNHighwayMan

Minor detail I noticed a while ago, and one I just thought of again: anyone have any idea why US-61 (North) is not mentioned on the Mounds Blvd exit (Exit 243) on I-94? Seems like an omission in error to me, even if MnDOT wants to rid themselves of maintaining US-61 on surface roads in St. Paul.



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.