Minnesota Notes

[SEWIGuy]

It's interesting that very early on they decided they were going to put a frontage road on either side.

Did Minnesota ever consider keeping and maintaining the US routes that the Interstates were supplanting?  I'm thinking of the way Wisconsin continues to maintain a separate US-12 alongside I-94.  I've always thought of it like a superior frontage road.

Wisconsin hasn't always done that either. US-12 is really the only example of significant length.

There's also WIS-16 alongside I-90, and later, I-94.  (Formerly US-16, of course.) 
And to begin with, those were the only two Interstates Wisconsin had.  The more recent three additions started out as US highways that were expanded to four lanes in stages and eventually promoted to Interstates after a few decades, so you can see why separate highways near them didn't happen.

You said specifically US routes. Then bring up a Highway that is no longer a US route.   🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Edina became the most recent city to start signing a lower default speed limit adding with Minneapolis, St. Paul, and St. Louis Park. Minneapolis is 20 MPH while the others are 25. It seems interesting that limits on our freeways have mostly increased from 55 to 60 across the metro while cities are starting to lower their surface street limits.

[JREwing78]

It's not just a Minnesota thing. Madison's made a big push for lowering speed limits in the interest of (pedestrian) safety.

[triplemultiplex]

It's not just a Minnesota thing. Madison's made a big push for lowering speed limits in the interest of (pedestrian) safety.

Yeah I've seen this.  But since they're basically not enforcing those limits, it has made zero difference.

[skluth]

It's not just a Minnesota thing. Madison's made a big push for lowering speed limits in the interest of (pedestrian) safety.

Yeah I've seen this.  But since they're basically not enforcing those limits, it has made zero difference.

It's another Urbanist thing called Vision Zero. For some reason, I was reminded of this old National Lampoon song.

[froggie]

^ Vision Zero isn't just an "urbanist" thing.  MnDOT has used a similar term with the same end goal (zero vehicle deaths) with Outstate (i.e. outside the Twin Cities) corridors, especially 52 between St. Paul and Rochester.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I noticed a handful of "YOUR SPEED" electronic signs appended onto the lower part of regular speed limit signs on I-35 between Duluth and Minneapolis. They were not operational (or only trigger at a certain speed over 70) but I've never seen those on a freeway that wasn't part of a construction zone. I wondered if they were having issues with speeders so they were trying some low-cost effort to spook them into slowing down.

[Papa Emeritus]

Today's Star Tribune says MnDoT is looking for ways to make MN 7 safer through Hennepin and Carver counties. Over the past five years, there have been more than 1,500 accidents and 11 fatalities on MN 7 in this area. Here's a link:

https://www.startribune.com/through-audit-mndot-trying-to-find-ways-to-make-dangerous-hwy-7-safer/600146426/

I think the problem with Highway 7 is that drivers treat it like a freeway even though it has a lot of intersections and relatively few interchanges....and the area it goes through is so built up that it would be almost impossible to add service drives and reduce the number of intersections.

I'm also concerned that traffic on 7 through St Louis Park and Hopkins will get worse as the population density of the neighborhoods south of 7 increases due to redevelopment along the long-delayed light rail line between downtown Minneapolis and Eden Prairie.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

The 4-lane section of MN 7 (and MN 5) both warrant extension past MN 41 at this point, but are unlikely due to NIMBY and environmental concerns.

7 likely needs a full-scale rebuild between 494 and 41 at this point to upgrade the ancient divided highway (with further minor intersection removal and an interchange at CSAH 101), but that's certainly well beyond funding capabilities right now.

We talked a bit about 7 inside of 494 a few months back, but the one stretch that they shouldn't wait much longer to figure something out with is between the Blake and Texas intersections in front of Knollwood, and the more things that get built like the CFA that went in at the corner of the Texas intersection and the strip mall with Jersey Mike's/BWW Express at Blake will make this more and more difficult to address.

[Papa Emeritus]

The 4-lane section of MN 7 (and MN 5) both warrant extension past MN 41 at this point, but are unlikely due to NIMBY and environmental concerns.

7 likely needs a full-scale rebuild between 494 and 41 at this point to upgrade the ancient divided highway (with further minor intersection removal and an interchange at CSAH 101), but that's certainly well beyond funding capabilities right now.

We talked a bit about 7 inside of 494 a few months back, but the one stretch that they shouldn't wait much longer to figure something out with is between the Blake and Texas intersections in front of Knollwood, and the more things that get built like the CFA that went in at the corner of the Texas intersection and the strip mall with Jersey Mike's/BWW Express at Blake will make this more and more difficult to address.

I agree 100% about the Texas / Blake area on 7. Building interchanges on 7 at Wooddale and Louisiana was a good idea, especially because the Louisiana interchange makes it easier for emergency vehicles and patients to get from 7 to Methodist Hospital. However, westbound traffic on 7 goes up the hill west of Louisiana then after the crest of the hill has to slow down quickly if the traffic light at Texas is red.

The former site of Atlas Cold Storage on Blake south of 7 is going to be redeveloped into a high rise residential complex, and an empty overflow parking lot across from Texa Tonka mall at the Texas / Minnetonka intersection is also being turned into high rise residential housing. Further north, a parcel of land on the east side of Louisiana between 27th Street and the Burlington Northern tracks is for sale, and will likely be turned into high rise housing, too. Once these complexes are complete, the congestion on 7 in this area is going to get worse, and it doesn't seem like St Louis Park has any plans to address the issue.

[Trademark]

The 4-lane section of MN 7 (and MN 5) both warrant extension past MN 41 at this point, but are unlikely due to NIMBY and environmental concerns.

7 likely needs a full-scale rebuild between 494 and 41 at this point to upgrade the ancient divided highway (with further minor intersection removal and an interchange at CSAH 101), but that's certainly well beyond funding capabilities right now.

We talked a bit about 7 inside of 494 a few months back, but the one stretch that they shouldn't wait much longer to figure something out with is between the Blake and Texas intersections in front of Knollwood, and the more things that get built like the CFA that went in at the corner of the Texas intersection and the strip mall with Jersey Mike's/BWW Express at Blake will make this more and more difficult to address.

I agree 100% about the Texas / Blake area on 7. Building interchanges on 7 at Wooddale and Louisiana was a good idea, especially because the Louisiana interchange makes it easier for emergency vehicles and patients to get from 7 to Methodist Hospital. However, westbound traffic on 7 goes up the hill west of Louisiana then after the crest of the hill has to slow down quickly if the traffic light at Texas is red.

The former site of Atlas Cold Storage on Blake south of 7 is going to be redeveloped into a high rise residential complex, and an empty overflow parking lot across from Texa Tonka mall at the Texas / Minnetonka intersection is also being turned into high rise residential housing. Further north, a parcel of land on the east side of Louisiana between 27th Street and the Burlington Northern tracks is for sale, and will likely be turned into high rise housing, too. Once these complexes are complete, the congestion on 7 in this area is going to get worse, and it doesn't seem like St Louis Park has any plans to address the issue.

The green line extension (when it finally gets built) will help with reducing future congestion particularly at the cold storage facility.

While congestion will get worse I don't see it being that bad as the main problem which is the safety of the Blake intersection. Iirc it's one of the most dangerous in the state. Also they should really look at closing off the Texas intersection. Access can still be provided thru Blake and Louisiana. At the very least though they need flashing lights and big signs west of Louisiana warning that a traffic light is ahead and to be prepared for stopped traffic.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Also they should really look at closing off the Texas intersection. Access can still be provided thru Blake and Louisiana. At the very least though they need flashing lights and big signs west of Louisiana warning that a traffic light is ahead and to be prepared for stopped traffic.

I don't think closing off Texas is a realistic option (at least not to the north), because it's where the main entrances are to Cub and CFA.

[Trademark]

Also they should really look at closing off the Texas intersection. Access can still be provided thru Blake and Louisiana. At the very least though they need flashing lights and big signs west of Louisiana warning that a traffic light is ahead and to be prepared for stopped traffic.

I don't think closing off Texas is a realistic option (at least not to the north), because it's where the main entrances are to Cub and CFA.

They would still be accessible thru 36th street and a stub road. Especially if an interchange was added at Blake.

[Roadguy]

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.

Concept is now available on the project website in the meeting presentation and in the news article: https://www.postbulletin.com/news/local/mndot-plans-25-million-project-to-upgrade-i-90-highway-52-interchange

Significant improvements to what is currently there today, seems like this will address the issues at the interchange.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

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.

Concept is now available on the project website in the meeting presentation and in the news article: https://www.postbulletin.com/news/local/mndot-plans-25-million-project-to-upgrade-i-90-highway-52-interchange

Significant improvements to what is currently there today, seems like this will address the issues at the interchange.

To summarize:

-Flyover from SB 52 to EB 90 and new ramp for NB-EB to tie into the flyover
-Improvements for WB 90-NB 52 access
-EB-SB, SB-WB and WB-SB movements will remain at-grade left turns

[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.

Concept is now available on the project website in the meeting presentation and in the news article: https://www.postbulletin.com/news/local/mndot-plans-25-million-project-to-upgrade-i-90-highway-52-interchange

Significant improvements to what is currently there today, seems like this will address the issues at the interchange.

To summarize:

-Flyover from SB 52 to EB 90 and new ramp for NB-EB to tie into the flyover
-Improvements for WB 90-NB 52 access
-EB-SB, SB-WB and WB-SB movements will remain at-grade left turns

Interesting that they are still going to use the left turn onto the loop ramp for SB-WB instead of adding a direct right turn ramp.  Doing so would have only left a single at-grade turn from the perspective of those going  from freeway-to-freeway (the left turn from WB I-90 to SB US-52 will still cross over freeway traffic).

[triplemultiplex]

I know there's some topography to deal with for a direct SB->WB ramp, so I can understand why they didn't include that given the low volume for that movement.  The cost of the earth moving and additional r/w probably didn't make the cut.  The way the highways in that area lay out, only low amounts of local traffic need to get on I-90 EB from US 52 SB.  US 63 handles all of your Rochester to I-90 WB traffic.
It's about what I would expect for this interchange.

Subtle thing that's very clever: shifting the WB I-90 loop on-ramp so they can flatten the geometry on the WB->NB ramp with lower impacts to the floodplain of Badger Run. 

[TheHighwayMan3561]

One minor note: I know it's typically MnDOT practice not to repeat "redundant" control cities after passing the first exit to a city (in this case, most traffic on eastbound 90 would have taken US 63 to Rochester, so Rochester is not signed again at US 52), but Rochester is big enough that it's dumb to omit it from eastbound 90. I hope it gets added in the new signs for the rebuilt interchange.

[The Ghostbuster]

I understand why Chatfield is signed, but they should also sign Rochester as well.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I understand why Chatfield is signed, but they should also sign Rochester as well.

Rochester is at least signed at the bottom of the EB exit ramp. Incidentally, Chatfield is not signed westbound because MN 74 handles that movement from I-90 (but also signed at the bottom of the ramp from WB 90).

[Papa Emeritus]

Today's STrib says MnDoT is planning open houses for an extension of 610 west from I-94. It seems like the extension will be a divided highway, not a freeway like the rest of 610, which, I think, is a mistake because of the inevitable congestion that will develop once the road is open. Here's a link to the article:

https://www.startribune.com/maple-grove-seeks-to-extend-hwy-610/600157817/

[Trademark]

Today's STrib says MnDoT is planning open houses for an extension of 610 west from I-94. It seems like the extension will be a divided highway, not a freeway like the rest of 610, which, I think, is a mistake because of the inevitable congestion that will develop once the road is open. Here's a link to the article:

https://www.startribune.com/maple-grove-seeks-to-extend-hwy-610/600157817/

For such a short section only to connect to County 30 I don't see the need for a freeway there.

[DJ Particle]

Today's STrib says MnDoT is planning open houses for an extension of 610 west from I-94. It seems like the extension will be a divided highway, not a freeway like the rest of 610, which, I think, is a mistake because of the inevitable congestion that will develop once the road is open. Here's a link to the article:

https://www.startribune.com/maple-grove-seeks-to-extend-hwy-610/600157817/

For such a short section only to connect to County 30 I don't see the need for a freeway there.

Though, adding about a mile or so to the highway...won't that mean they'll have to renumber all the exits.... most of which were *just* numbered last year?

[froggie]

As I understand it, the extension will be a county route, not a state route.  No need to renumber exits.

[DJ Particle]

As I understand it, the extension will be a county route, not a state route.  No need to renumber exits.

Ah...I figured that since MNDoT was commissioning the construction, that they'd sign it MN-610.  Though signing it Hennepin CSAH-610 does make more sense.