Regional Boards > Great Lakes and Ohio Valley

Minnesota Notes

<< < (335/347) > >>


--- Quote from: Molandfreak on March 23, 2023, 10:38:30 PM ---
--- Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 23, 2023, 12:44:49 PM ---I always found it interesting that US 69 never made it north of Albert Lea, while its spur route US 169 makes it all the way north to Virginia (and International Falls before 1934). Although there are a number of examples of 3-digit US Highways going further north (or south, or east, or west) of their parent routes, though it always seems a little awkward to me.

--- End quote ---
US 69's extension into Minnesota was really Iowa's initiative to provide an alternate route to US 65 (before I-35 came along). The routing of US 65 was extremely awkward from Faribault to Lakeville until former MN 165 was paved and US 65 was re-routed to follow it in 1957. Getting MN 165 paved was probably the priority rather than signing yet another alternate route as a US highway.

--- End quote ---

I guess 69 could have followed today's TH 13, then ultimately taken over what is today's 169 from MSP north...I just don't see a reason for this, though.

So I found this document of interest (if needed, search MN for state and 1952 for year).  About 1/3 of the way down is a mileage tabulation that the state highway department submitted to AASHO.  It shows US 69 as "beginning" at US 16 and extending 12.49 miles down to the Iowa line.  This mileage matches what recent MnDOT Logpoint and Keypoint reports show for the mileage on US 69 from the state line to MN 13.  Given that the same mileage tabulation shows then-US 371's northern terminus concurrent with US 2, it's reasonable to consider that US 69 indeed ended at US 16 and the state highway maps showing the two concurrent were in error.


MnDOT public meeting on April 18th for the I-94/MN 252 corridor from downtown Minneapolis to MN 610.  Comments are open on the Scoping Document will be accepted through May 19th.

A lot to digest with this one.  This is the restart of a previous study conducted to assess upgrading MN 252 to a freeway (which was funded via state dollars) but elements of which were opposed by local suburbs...particularly Brooklyn Center with the impacts at 66th Ave.  So MnDOT basically went back to the drawing board.

Several dozen alternatives (some rather farcical) were analyzed for MN 252, many of which include the segment of I-94 to the south.  All non-freeway alternatives for MN 252 have since been dropped, leaving three:  a 4- or 6-lane freeway with bus shoulders, and a 6-lane freeway with 2 lanes being managed lanes (most likely HO/T given precedent elsewhere in the Twin Cities).

The alternatives for I-94 range from doing nothing to adding a lane between MN 252 and Dowling Ave and converting an existing lane between Dowling Ave and 4th St to HO/T.  The I-94 options that include a HO/T lane (whether addition or conversion) would also add a direct connection to the 4th St ramp...creating a HO/T lane without that direct connection was considered but dropped.  The I-94 alternatives also look at adding the lane "southbound only" or in both directions.

One interesting option at the 94/252 merge that is being considered would "flip" eastbound 94 and southbound 252, so that the 252 lanes would merge on the right instead of on the left as they currently do.

Five different alternatives for access along 252 are being considered.  The only constants among the five are that all would have an interchange at CSAH 109/85th Ave and all would eliminate access at 81st Ave/Humboldt (though an overpass at 81st/Humboldt will be considered).  Only one of the five retains access at 70th Ave...all other alternatives would eliminate access there and NOT include an overpass.

Several interchange designs were considered at each access point, but only the Tight Diamond is being retained as an option at every location except 66th.  As a general rule, bridging 252 over the cross-streets would have fewer property impacts but greater noise impacts.  Given the latter and local input thus far, I would expect to see those cross streets bridged over 252.  A split-diamond between 73rd and Brookdale Dr is also being considered as an option.

A potential interchange at 66th is complicated due to both adjacent development and the close proximity of the 94/694/252 interchange.  This is the only location along the corridor where a tight diamond is *NOT* being considered.  The remaining interchange options at 66th are a folded-diamond to the north or a diamond with C/D roads between 66th and 694.

The Ghostbuster:
How many homes and businesses might have to be demolished if MN 252 is converted to freeway standards?

If they had asked me in 1985 I could have told them they needed a freeway, and I would have given them a better deal on a consultant fee.

8th Grade English class we had to write a "Letter to the Editor" and mine was complaining about the traffic signals on 252


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version