Minnesota Notes

[triplemultiplex]

I supposed since everyone else is talking about the new Brooklyn Park Taco Bell:

Wow, fancy!  No wonder they won the Franchise Wars.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

MnDOT has approved a six-leg roundabout that will carry MN 19, the northbound I-35 on and off ramps, and Rice CSAH 46/59 on the east side of the I-35 interchange.

https://kdhlradio.com/rice-county-6-legged-roundabout-approved-by-mndot/

[kphoger]

Is that the Flying J exit?

[andarcondadont]

Is that the Flying J exit?

Indeed you are correct

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Is that the Flying J exit?

Indeed you are correct

Also where most of the services listed on the logo signs (other than the Flying J) are 7-8 miles from I-35 in Northfield proper, Unless you're going to Northfield itself you might as well just wait until Faribault (SB) or Lakeville (NB) to stop.

[rte66man]

Is that the Flying J exit?

Indeed you are correct

Also where most of the services listed on the logo signs (other than the Flying J) are 7-8 miles from I-35 in Northfield proper, Unless you're going to Northfield itself you might as well just wait until Faribault (SB) or Lakeville (NB) to stop.

How right you are! My biggest complaint about the Services on the blue sign is they are often deceptive. Why should you be allowed to put up a sign when you are 3, 4, or more miles off the exit? You don't know that until you actually exit, thereby increasing frustration.

[Molandfreak]

At least the roundabouts in Rice County are going in nice locations that have enough room for them, and where improvements actually need to be made. I think MN/DOT jumped the shark in New Prague replacing almost all of the traffic lights with them, so I can understand why some folks in the area are a little apprehensive, but not to the degree of negative reception this one is getting.

All I hope is that MN/DOT relinquishes its vendetta against passing lanes and gives us at least one between Northfield and I-35...

[froggie]

^ Maybe it's just District 6 that has a "vendetta"?  Plenty of passing lanes that have been built elsewhere outstate, even recently.  MnDOT recently built a set of 6 along MN 23 spread out between I-90 and Willmar.

[mattaudio]

Crow Wing County recently released "TH 210/TH 371 Intersection Study - Improvement Concepts Definition and Assessment
Memo"
https://www.crowwing.us/DocumentCenter/View/18919/TH-210-TH-371-Intersection-Study---FINAL-Alternatives-Definition-and-Assessment-Memo---062122

The most obvious combination to me seems like a folded diamond facing away from the train tracks, plus a grade separation at Excelsior Road. I have no idea why that alternative was not studied.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I do think it's interesting how two of the alternatives have MN 210 as the through movement, but maybe they thought the tracks would be easier to work with by bending 210 away from them and putting the ramps to/from 371 in the old ROW on the south side.

[froggie]

Reading through the assessment memo, staff recommended that Concept 1 (the at-grade DLT) and Concept 4 (the N/S DDI) be removed from consideration...the DLT because it doesn't grade separate 371 from the railroad, and the N/S DDI because of the construction cost (bridging 371 over the railroad and then 210 over 371), lowering the railroad grade, and removal of access at 371/Excelsior and possibly Design Rd (the 3/4 intersection north of 371/Excelsior).

Matt:  my guess is that they didn't consider your idea because the city wants to retain access at 371/Excelsior.

[Molandfreak]

Option 2 seems like the best bet to me since it limits the interruption on 371 without limiting the Excelsior access. An interchange prioritizing 210's traffic flow would feel a bit weird since that's the more heavily-lighted road at the moment.

[The Ghostbuster]

I would choose either Option 2 or Option 5 for the old US 210/old US 371 intersection.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I would choose either Option 2 or Option 5 for the old US 210/old US 371 intersection.

I'm not big on Option 2 because it requires stoplights on both routes. Option 5 has already been eliminated from consideration due to costs and impacts on local access to the north. I think MN 371 should have been the through movement, but that's not going to happen.

[KCRoadFan]

MnDOT has approved a six-leg roundabout that will carry MN 19, the northbound I-35 on and off ramps, and Rice CSAH 46/59 on the east side of the I-35 interchange.

https://kdhlradio.com/rice-county-6-legged-roundabout-approved-by-mndot/

That roundabout looks like a huge mess...

[froggie]

No worse than the existing situation, with 2 intersections within about 200 feet of each other.

Can't really put a traffic signal at the northbound ramps because it would backup into the 19/46/59 intersection.  Can't shift 46/59 east due to ROW and wetland impacts.  So a roundabout does seem like the best solution...it fits almost exactly within the existing ROW (with the exception of a tiny sliver along where CR 59 gets realigned).  The reason for a wide roundabout is trucks.  19 is the main truck access into Northfield with ~700 a day.  There's also a Flying J just off the map to the left so a lot of trucks will be using the roundabout.

The main downside that I see is this appears to put to bed any idea of 4-laning 19 between I-35 and Northfield.  I don't see a way that they could widen the roundabout to accommodate 4 lanes on 19...the ramp spacing seems a bit too tight and the volume of trucks would be problematic for the curvature too.

[mattaudio]

There's no need to four lane TH 19 to Northfield. Spot improvements and access management will maintain things just fine. It's 7 miles from this intersection to the heart of Northfield.

Too bad the stoplight on the southbound ramps will remain rather than becoming a roundabout or half dumbbell as well.

[webny99]

An update on I-94 northwest of the Twin Cities as I passed through this past weekend; from west to east...

-Five miles from MN 24/Clearwater to CR 8 is now fully six lanes. The striping is a bit odd, wider and more closely spaced than usual for MN, more like the Indiana Toll Road, but very nice otherwise.
-There's still a 10-mile construction zone that felt much longer from CR 8 to MN 25/Monticello. The eastbound roadway is being rebuilt, so both directions are sharing the westbound roadway.
-MN 25/Monticello to CR 19/Albertville is still four lanes with no active widening. There was a sign that said it was under study by MnDOT, although I don't remember the exact language.
-East of CR 19/Albertville is now fully six lanes, and eight lanes from MN 101 to MN 610.

I hadn't been on the northern end of I-494 in several years but noted it is now fully six lanes as well. It's a very nice road now but the 60 mph limit felt slow (especially compared to 65 mph on more urbanized sections of I-35W, MN 77, etc.)

[froggie]

-MN 25/Monticello to CR 19/Albertville is still four lanes with no active widening. There was a sign that said it was under study by MnDOT, although I don't remember the exact language.

Per the project manager (who I happen to know), it's tentatively scheduled for 2024-25.  They have partial funding lined up.  How much actually gets done (and when) will be dependent on whatever additional funding they can get.

[webny99]

-MN 25/Monticello to CR 19/Albertville is still four lanes with no active widening. There was a sign that said it was under study by MnDOT, although I don't remember the exact language.

Per the project manager (who I happen to know), it's tentatively scheduled for 2024-25.  They have partial funding lined up.  How much actually gets done (and when) will be dependent on whatever additional funding they can get.

Good to know! Needless to say I hope it does get done so six lanes will be continuous from Clearwater to I-494.

[flan]

I am amazed by the relatively quick removal process for MN 237. I mean, the process for the removal of MN 120 and MN 244 from MN 96 to Stillwater Rd have began two decades ago, yet they are still maintained by MnDOT.

Is there by any a chance some MNDOT list somewhere that lists exactly which state highways are being considered for immediate turnback? I got around to driving MN 237 last fall, but I had missed the boat on MN 54. Knowing my luck MN 120 and 244 will be county roads by next week when I plan to finally drive them haha.

[brad2971]

Reading through the assessment memo, staff recommended that Concept 1 (the at-grade DLT) and Concept 4 (the N/S DDI) be removed from consideration...the DLT because it doesn't grade separate 371 from the railroad, and the N/S DDI because of the construction cost (bridging 371 over the railroad and then 210 over 371), lowering the railroad grade, and removal of access at 371/Excelsior and possibly Design Rd (the 3/4 intersection north of 371/Excelsior).

Matt:  my guess is that they didn't consider your idea because the city wants to retain access at 371/Excelsior.

Has MnDOT at any point and time considered a study of the BNSF traffic on that particular line that is parallel to MN 210? Maybe, instead of trying things like CFI intersections and DDI interchanges, MnDOT may want to base the solution on what can be done with the BNSF line instead (i.e. raise the grade and rebuild the line over MN 371 instead).

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I am amazed by the relatively quick removal process for MN 237. I mean, the process for the removal of MN 120 and MN 244 from MN 96 to Stillwater Rd have began two decades ago, yet they are still maintained by MnDOT.

Is there by any a chance some MNDOT list somewhere that lists exactly which state highways are being considered for immediate turnback? I got around to driving MN 237 last fall, but I had missed the boat on MN 54. Knowing my luck MN 120 and 244 will be county roads by next week when I plan to finally drive them haha.

There is, but it moved from the bookmark I had it under and I'm currently unable to find it again (froggie is much better than I am at digging through the bowels of the MnDOT archives anyway). I'm not sure if it was 100% comprehensive, but some sections outlined for future turnback/realignment in the document are currently not possible under the state constitution either.

[Mdcastle]

If you're thinking about the 2014 Jurisdictional Alignment Project study, I just looked, and yeah it appears to be gone.

The statewide map I clipped and used in this page:
https://www.northstarhighways.com/?page_id=598

[froggie]

The Jurisdictional Realignment Study from 2014 had a list of all the long-term potential turnbacks that MnDOT was considering (as well as some routes it was considering taking over), but from what I can tell, the details of that study are no longer online...that might be the bookmark that TheHighwayMan lost.

More recently, MnDOT's 10-Year Capital Highway Investment Plan (updated annually AFAICT) includes a small section on programmed turnbacks.  The current 2022-2031 version lists MN 222 this year, MN 96 east of MN 244 next year, and MN 3 in downtown St. Paul in 2025.  This last one, BTW, is the first confirmation I've had that Robert St is a trunk highway beyond 7th St (MN 5) up to I-35E/94, although other MnDOT mapping products still show MN 3 as ending at MN 5/7th.