News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Minnesota Notes

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

Previous topic - Next topic

bschultzy

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 12, 2020, 02:53:10 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 09, 2020, 12:15:06 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 05, 2020, 08:47:40 PM
Minneapolis and St. Paul will be collaborating to lower speed limits cities-wide next week.

http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-st-paul-to-lower-speed-limits-together-this-spring/568524002/?fbclid=IwAR1VBwuuO0ECKoNnb_2xOOAyt93sSKli3s1DX6HWRHlMmXa5XJaK1bo4QUU

"progress"

And just in. 20 MPH on residential streets, 25 on city arterials, 30 elsewhere. The big problem I think is Minneapolis really wants to do something about Lyndale, but can't because that's CSAH.

And Minneapolis puts basically zero resources into traffic enforcement. This is going to be an expensive re-signing and nothing else.


TheHighwayMan3561

Exit numbers added to most of US 212 between 62 and 494, and the infamous "END 212/BEGIN 62"  has been replaced by a more appropriate "JCT EAST 62" .
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

TheHighwayMan3561

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on July 21, 2017, 04:34:59 PM
On my way back from Duluth and I must've briefly passed through a time warp back to 2007, because I saw this on SB I-35. I had to pick my jaw up off the floor:

[img width=800 height=455]http://i.imgur.com/3osWYLR.jpg[/img

Contractor error on a replacement sign?

Edit to replace hasty gas station upload with straightened and cropped version of picture.

The error MN 361 sign is now gone. Appears they are replacing that entire assembly yet again, as a result of I-35 road work in that area.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

TheHighwayMan3561

The 2020 project list dropped today, including:
-rebuild/widens of I-94 from 494/694 to MN 101, and from MN 25 to MN 24
-three major projects continuing on I-35W, rebuilding the Minnesota River bridge, 46th St into downtown, and the MnPass lane from MN 36 to Lexington
-rebuild of the eastern 94/494/694 interchange, but only upgrades to the existing leaf with no flyovers being added
-US 14 from Owatonna to Dodge Center 4-laning filling in the expressway gap
-interchange on US 169 at 101sr Ave in Brooklyn Park, extending the freeway segment a little further north

The I-35 Duluth project has been postponed a year due to cost increases.

https://www.dot.state.mn.us/construction/index.html
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

froggie

Quote-rebuild/widens of I-94 from 494/694 to MN 101

More specifically, while the project includes a full rebuild from 494/694 to 101, the lane addition is specifically between 610 and 101, partially in conjunction with the new Dayton interchange that is also being built.

One you didn't mention for 94:  rebuilding and widening in Wright County from 241 to the Albertville interchange complex (more specifically CSAH 37 westbound and from CSAH 19 eastbound).

(and yes, I realize I said "specifically" three times, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )

triplemultiplex

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 02, 2020, 08:31:49 PM
-rebuild of the eastern 94/494/694 interchange, but only upgrades to the existing leaf with no flyovers being added

Booooo!
That junction should have higher speed ramps from SB -> EB and WB -> SB.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

froggie

Not in the budget.  The main driving force behind that project is the need to replace the 494/694 bridges over 94.

midwesternroadguy

Other than funding concerns, why was the stretch of I-94 between CSAH 19 and TH 25 left out?  Challenges of expanding the road through MnRoad?  I have concerns about a new bottleneck at peak times. 

froggie

^  I know the project manager and have talked to her about that.  It really is "funding concerns" why Monticello to Albertville is thus far left out.  She also said they're trying to locate funding to complete that gap sooner rather than later.

Clearwater to Monticello is happening primarily because of the need to replace the existing pavement.  But volumes are too high to run single-lane through that stretch, so the reconstruction will take out the median to add additional lanes in order to keep 2 lanes each way.  And will open to 3 lanes each way once construction is complete.

Papa Emeritus

Quote from: texaskdog on February 14, 2020, 10:10:38 AM
Quote from: Papa Emeritus on February 13, 2020, 04:31:12 AM
The Minneapolis Star Tribune is reporting that the cost of converting Ayd Mill Road in St Paul into a three lane road, with one lane for bikes and pedestrians, has increased to $7.5 Million. The article also says Ayd Mill Road burns up 1/3 of the city's pothole budget every year. Here's a link to the article:

http://www.startribune.com/cost-for-fixing-ayd-mill-road-in-st-paul-soars-to-7-5-million/567806142/

My favorite quote in the article is that one St Paul city council member questions the plan, and says "We've seen numerous times where, when we rush through a project, we tend to make a lot of mistakes,"  he said. "This doesn't give us a lot of confidence."

Personally, I think St Paul should invest the money to keep it a 4 lane quasi-freeway, and invest the money to make sure the pavement is durable. I know that's too much to hope for.......

Here's a link to another article, from last summer, about Ayd Mill's problem plagued history. It really should have been a four lane freeway link between I-94 and I-35E, but politicians avoided making the tough decisions required to do so.

http://www.startribune.com/st-paul-mayor-pitches-green-option-for-crumbling-ayd-mill-road/558253492/?refresh=true

Yeah, it's 2/14 and apparently people are going to ride bikes to work.  they should connect it to I-94 and remove all exit ramps (entrance ramps only).  Problem solved.
b
Last night, St Paul voted to switch Ayd Mill Road to a three lane parkway, with one lane reserved for bicycles. The Star Tribune article (see the link below) says the city knows removing a lane will increase the number of people using city streets at peak hours, but they went ahead with the project anyway.

https://www.startribune.com/st-paul-s-ayd-mill-road-will-get-a-greenway-in-2020/569871822/

froggie

There's been a debate about just how much traffic diversion there would be.  And the diversion wouldn't be to residential side streets anyway....it'd be mainly to Lexington.

Also, volumes north of Grand Ave are within the 4-to-3 threshold range.

Papa Emeritus

Anoka County is looking for funding to remove the final two traffic signals on US 10 through Ramsey, at Ramsey Boulevard and Sunfish Lake Boulevard. Building interchanges at these two intersections would cost $138 Million, but it would eliminate a major bottleneck. Here's a link to a Star Tribune article:

https://www.startribune.com/ramsey-seeks-138m-to-remove-traffic-lights-bottlenecks-from-hwy-10/570238422/

According to the article, the last two traffic signals on US 10 in Anoka are already due to be replaced with interchanges, and upgrades are also planned for the US 169 / US 10 interchange in Elk River.

It sure would be nice to get the two interchanges in Ramsey built.....

kphoger

Quote from: Papa Emeritus on May 06, 2020, 02:04:50 PM
Anoka County is looking for funding to remove the final two traffic signals on US 10 through Ramsey, at Ramsey Boulevard and Sunfish Lake Boulevard. Building interchanges at these two intersections would cost $138 Million, but it would eliminate a major bottleneck. Here's a link to a Star Tribune article:

https://www.startribune.com/ramsey-seeks-138m-to-remove-traffic-lights-bottlenecks-from-hwy-10/570238422/

According to the article, the last two traffic signals on US 10 in Anoka are already due to be replaced with interchanges, and upgrades are also planned for the US 169 / US 10 interchange in Elk River.

It sure would be nice to get the two interchanges in Ramsey built.....

It can't come soon enough, in my opinion.  I've always disliked that stretch through Anoka and Ramsey because of the stoplights.  It wasn't too terrible the last time I was there, but that might have had something to do with the fact that it was -19 degrees and Christmas break...
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

rte66man

Quote from: Papa Emeritus on May 06, 2020, 02:04:50 PM
Anoka County is looking for funding to remove the final two traffic signals on US 10 through Ramsey, at Ramsey Boulevard and Sunfish Lake Boulevard. Building interchanges at these two intersections would cost $138 Million, but it would eliminate a major bottleneck. Here's a link to a Star Tribune article:

https://www.startribune.com/ramsey-seeks-138m-to-remove-traffic-lights-bottlenecks-from-hwy-10/570238422/

According to the article, the last two traffic signals on US 10 in Anoka are already due to be replaced with interchanges, and upgrades are also planned for the US 169 / US 10 interchange in Elk River.

It sure would be nice to get the two interchanges in Ramsey built.....

I see there are still an appreciable number of driveways with direct connections. Are there plans to add frontage roads or otherwise address the driveways?
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

TheHighwayMan3561

#939
A problem with that area is a lot of the businesses with those driveways are older and located right on top of the road where adding frontage roads won't be feasible, unless they're routed behind the businesses and new connections to them added on that side, or the businesses purchased and razed. Adding any frontage roads will be complicated further by the railroad line on the north side.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

Papa Emeritus

#940
Quote from: Papa Emeritus on May 06, 2020, 02:04:50 PM
Anoka County is looking for funding to remove the final two traffic signals on US 10 through Ramsey, at Ramsey Boulevard and Sunfish Lake Boulevard. Building interchanges at these two intersections would cost $138 Million, but it would eliminate a major bottleneck. Here's a link to a Star Tribune article:

https://www.startribune.com/ramsey-seeks-138m-to-remove-traffic-lights-bottlenecks-from-hwy-10/570238422/

According to the article, the last two traffic signals on US 10 in Anoka are already due to be replaced with interchanges, and upgrades are also planned for the US 169 / US 10 interchange in Elk River.

It sure would be nice to get the two interchanges in Ramsey built.....

I see there are still an appreciable number of driveways with direct connections. Are there plans to add frontage roads or otherwise address the driveways?

A problem with that area is a lot of the businesses with those driveways are older and located right on top of the road where adding frontage roads won't be feasible, unless they're routed behind the businesses and new connections to them added on that side, or the businesses purchased and razed. Adding any frontage roads will be complicated further by the railroad line on the north side.


The STrib article says some of the money is being sought to "re route adjacent roads". I hope this means they are planning to address the issue of all the driveways, because once US 10 becomes "free flowing", it would become even more dangerous for people to enter and exit the driveways.

kphoger

Quote from: Papa Emeritus on May 08, 2020, 03:05:55 PM

Quote from: rte66man on May 07, 2020, 11:39:43 AM

Quote from: Papa Emeritus on May 06, 2020, 02:04:50 PM
Anoka County is looking for funding to remove the final two traffic signals on US 10 through Ramsey, at Ramsey Boulevard and Sunfish Lake Boulevard. Building interchanges at these two intersections would cost $138 Million, but it would eliminate a major bottleneck. Here's a link to a Star Tribune article:

https://www.startribune.com/ramsey-seeks-138m-to-remove-traffic-lights-bottlenecks-from-hwy-10/570238422/

According to the article, the last two traffic signals on US 10 in Anoka are already due to be replaced with interchanges, and upgrades are also planned for the US 169 / US 10 interchange in Elk River.

It sure would be nice to get the two interchanges in Ramsey built.....

I see there are still an appreciable number of driveways with direct connections. Are there plans to add frontage roads or otherwise address the driveways?

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 07, 2020, 09:44:47 PM
A problem with that area is a lot of the businesses with those driveways are older and located right on top of the road where adding frontage roads won't be feasible, unless they're routed behind the businesses and new connections to them added on that side, or the businesses purchased and razed. Adding any frontage roads will be complicated further by the railroad line on the north side.

The STrib article says some of the money is being sought to "re route adjacent roads". I hope this means they are planning to address the issue of all the driveways, because once US 10 becomes "free flowing", it would become even more dangerous for people to enter and exit the driveways.

Fixed your formatting.

Gotta be meticulous with those nested quotes.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

froggie

Some notes:

- A number of the properties on the north side of 10 between Armstrong and the Anoka line have already been purchased by the city, including 9 of the properties between Ramsey Blvd and Sunfish Lake.

- The current plan for a frontage road on the north side of 10 between Ramsey Blvd and Sunfish Lake calls for moving the westbound 10 lanes more into the median and using part of the existing westbound lanes footprint for the frontage road.  This would minimize some of the property impacts that TheHighwayMan394 mentioned.

- The current plan, with preliminary approval last fall from both the Ramsey City Council and Anoka County Transportation Committee, is for a tight diamond interchange at Ramsey Blvd with Ramsey bridged over both 10 and the railroad.  Ramsey would also be realigned west of its existing alignment to meet 10 more perpendicularly (not unlike what was done at Armstrong).  The westbound ramps would be folded to the west.

- The preliminary plan at Sunfish Lake Blvd is for Sunfish Lake to be bridged over both 10 and the railroad with a pair of buttonhook ramps on each side.  The eastbound ramps would intersect with Riverdale Dr just west of the Comfort Suites, while the westbound ramps would intersect with the frontage road which would become a backage road behind Plants and Things.  This backage road would then curve to become a frontage road going east and tie into the upcoming frontage road in front of the Anoka Technical College that is being built as part of the Thurston interchange project.

- One more frontage road is proposed, along the south side of 10 east of Tungsten St.

- The $138 million cost estimate mentioned in the Strib article is for all of the above, including the rail separation at Sunfish Lake.  However, the Anoka County Transportation Committee's support for a rail separation at Sunfish Lake is contingent on finding funding in the next couple years.  If that doesn't happen, they may rescind their support for the Sunfish Lake rail separation and instead support a lower-cost alternative that keeps the Sunfish Lake at-grade rail crossing and instead bridges 10 over Sunfish Lake.  As noted above, the city fully supports rail separation at Sunfish Lake, as does BNSF.

- I'm not sure if this is included in the $138 million figure, but the city supports connecting the separate segments of McKinley St together, including the Anoka segment and also tying it into Jaspar St to become a local street alternative on the north side of the railroad.

- Lastly, while researching the above, I found a county-led feasibility study for an "add-a-lane" project on US 10 between Round Lake Blvd and Hanson Blvd.  This project, currently unfunded, would add a 3rd lane in each direction on US 10.

kphoger

Thank you for all those details!
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

EpicRoadways

I finally got bored enough in quarantine today to go check out progress on MNDOT's $350 million reconstruction and widening of I-94 from Clearwater to Maple Grove. The last time I drove this section was a couple of months ago, before any major work began. I figured I'd share some general observations about the project, considering it's both MNDOT's most expensive undertaking and longest work zone (even though it's technically three different work zones, they all pretty much function as one). For reference, I drove both directions of I-94 from the MN-15 interchange in St. Cloud (Exit 167) to the Weaver Lake Rd. interchange in Maple Grove (Exit 215). I'm not going to go into detail about the project itself (you can look upthread for more information), I just wanted to share some outsider observations as someone who drives this stretch of roadway semi-regularly when there isn't a global pandemic :)
Dynamic Message and Traffic Systems:
Given the major traffic impacts this project will have on I-94 between St. Cloud and the metro, MNDOT temporarily installed a crapload of ITS equipment that provides real-time travel information to drivers. The first of these signs eastbound is just prior to the MN-15 interchange at MM 167; westbound I'd imagine it's somewhere along the I-94/694 duplex but I don't know for sure.
Eastbound, the display method is a combination of temporary movable dynamic message signs and an existing permanent system that was put in maybe seven or eight years ago, which is weird because MNDOT has permanent dynamic signage spaced every couple of miles throughout the project limits. Westbound, the display method is almost exclusively temporary DM signs, as permanent dynamic signage is sparse beyond the MN-101 interchange.
The temporary signs only display the time to the next major interchange ('TIME TO MN-25/ X MINUTES'), while the existing ITS systems display two interchanges in MNDOT's more typical time-to/destination format.

Lane Changes/Shifts: One of the reasons that I chose to take this drive today is because of a number of changes to the traffic pattern that have happened over the past few weeks. The most notable of these being an express/local lane setup on the eastbound lanes from MN-101 to I-494 in which the left two lanes are shifted to westbound roadway, which is being run in a 3 lanes WB/2 lanes EB configuration to allow crews to work on the two leftmost lanes of the eastbound carriageway.
The other eastbound lane is reserved for the three local exits between MN-101 and I-494; MN-610, Maple Grove Pkwy, and Weaver Lake Rd. This change just took effect two days ago so I'm assuming there's some issues left to be worked out, but the process of getting into the local lanes was a little confusing. I along with a half-dozen other drivers assumed that the local lane began right at the MN-101 interchange and would continue as a single lane through the interchange, but we were surprised to find that the righthand lane was in fact still an exit only lane and the entire EB carriageway was closed between the gore point and the point of merge (I suppose to allow this section to be reconstructed first). In other words, the lane drop from three to two lanes at MN-101 is still, unfortunately, a thing.
While the MN-101 exit was technically signed properly as right lane exit only on the overhead signs, MNDOT could stand to install another temporary sign a mile or so before the gore point that says 'MN-101/RIGHT LANE/EXIT ONLY' or something along those lines to avoid confusion since the permanent BGS's aren't always trusted in road construction zones. I also hope that temporary lighting is on the way for the express/local split because I'd imagine it only gets more confusing at night with all those lane shifts in such a short span.  Beyond that little misconception (which, like I said, nearly all local travelers were dealing with), the exit for the local lanes was actually signed well (again, this traffic pattern has only been in place for two days so I had no idea what to expect signage-wise for the local lanes).
Traffic:
Traffic was flowing super well in both the express and local lanes at 3PM on a Thursday, which was impressive. Westbound, despite there being no major lane shifts or new traffic patterns traffic was backed up from I-494 to just beyond MN-610, which isn't too out of the ordinary. Aside from that and the approach to the eastbound lane shifts west of MN-101 traffic was flowing normally.
Other Notes (No Particular Order):
The majority of the major work going on at this point is from MN-101 to I-494, where I can see grading beginning for the new Brockton Lane interchange as well as the new fourth lane. Crews were just beginning to tear up some of the old pavement eastbound around MN-610.

The CASH 19 to MN-241 section through St. Michael is also progressing quite nicely, though most of the work is concentrated to the CSAH 19 bridge and MN-241 interchange/new loop ramp.

The only evidence of work on the MN-24 to MN-25 section was grading in the median for the future third lane between MN-25 and CSAH 8. Eastbound traffic was reduced to one lane from the CSAH 8 Hasty interchange to MN-25, again with no traffic impacts. There's no evidence of work from MN-24 TO CSAH 8 yet.

BOTH rest areas within the project limits (the Enfield rest area between Clearwater and Monticello and the Elm Creek rest area in Maple Grove) are signed as being open to trucks only, despite the MNDOT website only indicating that the latter is closed to autos.

The project limits except for the aforementioned MN-24 to CSAH 8 are signed at 60MPH (if there was a drop to 50 at Maple Grove Pkwy where the road normally drops from 70 to 60, I didn't see it, so I think it's all posted at 60).

I wish I could've gotten pictures, but I see no way that I could have managed that at 60+MPH unless I had a dash cam or was riding as a passenger. Maybe later in the project. Overall I'm impressed with the way construction is progressing, and it seems to be staged in a way that will cause minimal impact to traffic. Really my only complaint is the temporary signage at the MN-101 interchange, which I'm sure will be modified in no time.

Aaannnddd I'm just now realizing how much I've typed... this is quite the ramble. Read at your own risk  :-P

TheHighwayMan3561

A section of MN 244 has been turned back between MN 120 and downtown Willernie. I'm supposing MnDOT and Washington County couldn't agree on the remainder of it yet.

What's fun though is the MN 120 north end is still a four-way endpoint as Washington County 12, which replaced that section of 244 ends there.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

TheHighwayMan3561

MnDOT is using an express/local setup on I-94 eastbound between MN 101 and 494/694 during construction, and it's already been causing a fair share of confusion and accidents. It's going to be a long summer.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

jakeroot

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 25, 2020, 01:12:52 PM
MnDOT is using an express/local setup on I-94 eastbound between MN 101 and 494/694 during construction, and it's already been causing a fair share of confusion and accidents. It's going to be a long summer.

Do you have a diagram and/or a link to where I can find an illustration of the setup?

WSDOT used an express/local setup on I-5 through Tacoma (WA) during a construction project, and it took a good 6-8 months before I was no longer seeing as much last-second swerving. The problem was the temporary use of those plastic giveaway bollards...drivers would routinely drive over them to reach their exit. Eventually, the freeway was restriped and concrete barriers put up.

rte66man

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 25, 2020, 01:12:52 PM
MnDOT is using an express/local setup on I-94 eastbound between MN 101 and 494/694 during construction, and it's already been causing a fair share of confusion and accidents. It's going to be a long summer.

OkDOT is doing the same thing on WB I44 at the I235 reconstruction. Poorly signed and very confusing.
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

Mdcastle

I-94


Stillwater lift Bridge 5 minutes after opening




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.