Minnesota Notes

[Papa Emeritus]

The Star Tribune has an article about how Oak Park Heights and Washington County are disagreeing about the interchange on MN 36 at Manning that's under construction:

https://www.startribune.com/oak-park-heights-miffed-over-decision-to-remove-hwy-36-slip-lane/600126431/

The county has included an extra lane on Westbound 36 between Stillwater Boulevard and Manning, so people taking 36 westbound between the two roads don't have to merge onto 36, then merge back off again.

However, on the eastbound side, the county isn't including an extra lane. Instead, they're building a service road with several intersections between Manning and Stillwater Boulevard. Oak Park Heights wants the eastbound side to have the extra lane, like the westbound side will have. Oak Park Heights is refusing to "consent" to construction of the service drive.

Personally, I think Oak Park Heights is right about this. Motorists will take 36 eastbound between Manning and Stillwater rather than the service road, and the extra lane will reduce congestion on the through lanes.

The least surprising thing in the article is that traffic on 36 "has increased exponentially" since the St Croix bridge opened four years ago. Once 36 becomes a freeway west of 694, the traffic will go up further between 694 and the new bridge....which will further increase pressure to make improvements to that stretch of 36.

[froggie]

The least surprising thing in the article is that traffic on 36 "has increased exponentially" since the St Croix bridge opened four years ago. Once 36 becomes a freeway west of 694, the traffic will go up further between 694 and the new bridge....which will further increase pressure to make improvements to that stretch of 36.

Which one can then blame on Oak Park Heights because they're the ones who shot down upgrading 36 to a freeway between Stillwater Rd and the river.  Funny how things come full circle.

[Molandfreak]

Some of that traffic would use the service road if Washington County moved county road 15 onto it.

[Papa Emeritus]

The least surprising thing in the article is that traffic on 36 "has increased exponentially" since the St Croix bridge opened four years ago. Once 36 becomes a freeway west of 694, the traffic will go up further between 694 and the new bridge....which will further increase pressure to make improvements to that stretch of 36.

Which one can then blame on Oak Park Heights because they're the ones who shot down upgrading 36 to a freeway between Stillwater Rd and the river.  Funny how things come full circle.

I agree 100%. I predicted when the bridge was under construction that the traffic on 36 through Oak Park Heights would get a lot worse once the bridge opened, and Oak Park Heights would regret their anti-freeway views.

Froggie, do you think it's feasible to make 36 east of Stillwater Road a freeway, or is the right of way so built up that it would be cost prohibitive?

[froggie]

Some of that traffic would use the service road if Washington County moved county road 15 onto it.

The interchange project layout indicates that the county planned on doing that anyway...note the "CSAH 15" labels where the service road would tie into the eastbound ramps at Manning.

Froggie, do you think it's feasible to make 36 east of Stillwater Road a freeway, or is the right of way so built up that it would be cost prohibitive?

Much of that development, especially on the north side of 36 and at Osgood, has existed for 20+ years, and MnDOT did manage to come up with a buttonhook ramp concept when the bridge studies were going on.  But at this point, overall costs would probably make it prohibitive.  Plus the newer (within the last 10 years) development on the south side of 36 and west of Oakgreen would complicate things further.

[TheGrassGuy]

https://www.google.com/maps/@46.0605779,-95.8543729,3a,75y,193.35h,101.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCb-YpKSuTzE1MKkjdhmFfQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@46.6818535,-96.4362789,3a,75y,225.76h,106.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD9a-toq9_9NuwGxHrYWivw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Well, that's a long pylon parallel if I've ever seen one. Seems to have gone up between 2013 and 2015.

[froggie]

^ Several of those along Minnesota Interstates.  Transmission lines that parallel the Interstate corridors.  I know of a number of segments that have existed since long before 2013.

[Mdcastle]

That would be CapX2020, it was designed to distribute power, especially wind power, from eastern South Dakota and southwestern Minnesota, to the Twin Cities and Wisconsin. It starts at Aberdeen, SD, touches the Twin Cities at Hampton, and then heads along US 52 to La Crosse.

[The Ghostbuster]

Here in Madison, there is a power line that parallels the Beltline.

[Papa Emeritus]

Today's Strib says MnDoT will finally be building a ramp from WB 610 to EB 94 in Maple Grove. Other projects MnDoT will be funding are a ramp from SB 35W to CR 42 / Buck Hill Road in Burnsville, a frontage road on 65 between 99th and 109th in Blaine, and improvements to the intersection of MN 41 and CR 10 in Chaska.

https://www.startribune.com/hwy-610-ramp-to-eastbound-i-94-in-maple-grove-gets-funding/600132076/

Another article in the Strib discusses how Hmong farmers are concerned about losing farmland if an interchange is built at MN 52 and County 66.

https://www.startribune.com/hmong-american-farmers-worry-about-road-project-eating-up-acres-of-land/600132133/?refresh=true

I understand how farmers feel about losing some of their land, but I also feel the 52 / 66 interchange is dangerous, and needs to be fixed soon.

[Molandfreak]

a ramp from SB 35W to CR 42 / Buck Hill Road in Burnsville,

What does this mean? Improvements to the ramp that exists there?

[TheHighwayMan3561]

a ramp from SB 35W to CR 42 / Buck Hill Road in Burnsville,

What does this mean? Improvements to the ramp that exists there?

I'm assuming he meant a ramp from CSAH 42 to I-35W South, he just wrote it backwards. I'm paywalled so I can't verify. I'm surprised with Burnsville Center being on the 35W side of this cluster that it took this long for more ramps to be added to 35W/42.

I know we've talked about this subject numerous times, but I just don't understand why finishing out the missing 94/610 movements is such a high priority. But I guess their studies have said they need to push it to the forefront, so I'll have to trust them on that.

[Molandfreak]

a ramp from SB 35W to CR 42 / Buck Hill Road in Burnsville,

What does this mean? Improvements to the ramp that exists there?

I'm assuming he meant a ramp from CSAH 42 to I-35W South, he just wrote it backwards. I'm paywalled so I can't verify. I'm surprised with Burnsville Center being on the 35W side of this cluster that it took this long for more ramps to be added to 35W/42.

I know we've talked about this subject numerous times, but I just don't understand why finishing out the missing 94/610 movements is such a high priority. But I guess their studies have said they need to push it to the forefront, so I'll have to trust them on that.

The article just says the exact same thing, which makes no sense. If it means another ramp from Buck Hill Road onto 35W, I suppose it would make sense to relieve some traffic on 42, but I don't really see why it's a priority.

"MnDOT also plans to build an exit ramp from southbound I-35W to Buck Hill Road and County Road 42 near the Burnsville Center. The ramp will support redevelopment in the area and bring as many as 350 new jobs in the next five years, the agency said."

[Mdcastle]

[froggie]

Monte beat me to it (and had a map which I had previously been unable to find), but the Burnsville project involves another southbound off-ramp from I-35W.  As the map indicates, Buck Hill Rd will be realigned and reconfigured as part of a broader redevelopment of Burnsville Center.

[Molandfreak]

Great news. Burnsville Center is a sad place these days.

[andarcondadont]

When would construction of this added exit ramp and other local improvements around Burnsville Center take place?

[TheHighwayMan3561]

This discussion tangentially got me wondering why MnDOT never built return ramps between 35E and 35W like Texas's set has. The south end arguably doesn't need them anyway since you can go between 35W and 35E on CSAH 42 just north of the merge point, but the Forest Lake split is much more remote and could be more easily justified with the space between exits on 35W and 35E up there.

For the record I don't think return ramps are needed at either end. Just a thought exercise.

[froggie]

https://www.burnsvillemn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/21212/Center-Village-Traffic-Study-Presentation-2020-02-11

https://www.burnsvillemn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/21264/Center-Village-Traffic-Study---March-2020-small

These two city documents go into a bit more detail on the proposed ramp to Buck Hill Rd, along with other options considered, mitigation on CSAH 42, and a few references to the proposed street grid where Burnsville Center is currently located.

[Molandfreak]

This discussion tangentially got me wondering why MnDOT never built return ramps between 35E and 35W like Texas's set has. The south end arguably doesn't need them anyway since you can go between 35W and 35E on CSAH 42 just north of the merge point, but the Forest Lake split is much more remote and could be more easily justified with the space between exits on 35W and 35E up there.

For the record I don't think return ramps are needed at either end. Just a thought exercise.

I think a ramp from 35E north to 35W south in Columbus could fill a small niche since there's no direct connection there, and 35W travels southwest at that point. But the south metro has enough roads running between them that it wouldn't really be worth it.

[rhen_var]

The I-90/US-52 interchange will be reconstructed starting in 2024, possibly adding a flyover ramp from SB US-52 to EB I-90:

https://krocnews.com/major-upgrades-to-rochester-area-interchange-to-begin-in-2024/

https://www.dot.state.mn.us/d6/projects/i90-hwy52/index.html

Hopefully this project will eliminate both "left exits" and transform it into a true freeway-to-freeway interchange.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Hopefully this project will eliminate both "left exits" and transform it into a true freeway-to-freeway interchange.

I'm not sure we'll get that. 52 is a two-lane road to the south of 90, and US 63 handles half the 52/90 movements with MnDOT putting a bunch of money into US 63 between 90 and 52 and improving the I-90 interchange with US 63/MN 30.

[triplemultiplex]

At the very least, it sounds like the most critical turning motion will be improved; SB to EB.  That implies some sort of turbine or flyover.
I was eager to see some diagrams of proposed alternatives, but no dice. Not yet at least.  MnDOT, you tease!

[TheHighwayMan3561]

At the very least, it sounds like the most critical turning motion will be improved; SB to EB.  That implies some sort of turbine or flyover.
I was eager to see some diagrams of proposed alternatives, but no dice. Not yet at least.  MnDOT, you tease!

Of course the MnDOT thing to do would be to make the new SB-EB movement a loop ramp. 

[Roadguy]

Of course the MnDOT thing to do would be to make the new SB-EB movement a loop ramp. 

With the homes and farmstead right there in the southwest quadrant of the interchange, a loop ramp may actually be more expensive and impactful than a turbine or flyover.