Minnesota Notes

[froggie]

Is that I-94 shot from Maple Grove Pkwy?

[Mdcastle]

Yes



The I-35W traffic camera at 110th Street is essentially a web cam for the I-35W Minnesota River Bridge construction.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Am I the only one whose first thought was "holy crap, the image quality of traffic cams has improved infinitely"?

[froggie]

Regarding last month's discussion on US 10/169 in Ramsey, it was announced that the project has received a $40M INFRA grant.

[Mdcastle]

So it appears MnDOT is giving up on the idea of the EZ-Pass people being able to accept ISO-1800 6C, so they're just going to start issuing EZ-Pass compatible active transponders to new MnPass customers and any existing customers that want one starting next summer as well. Presumably MnPass will also be able to work in Florida now that Florida is doing the same thing. I will finally get one if I can use it in Florida and Chicago.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnpass/mnpassnews.html#otherstates

[TheHighwayMan3561]

So it appears MnDOT is giving up on the idea of the EZ-Pass people being able to accept ISO-1800 6C, so they're just going to start issuing EZ-Pass compatible active transponders to new MnPass customers and any existing customers that want one starting next summer as well. Presumably MnPass will also be able to work in Florida now that Florida is doing the same thing. I will finally get one if I can use it in Florida and Chicago.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnpass/mnpassnews.html#otherstates

That's interesting, but seems to be more of a "nice to have" than a "need" since we don't have full-size toll roads. Trying to entice new customers if they can use their passes elsewhere?

[DJ Particle]

So it appears MnDOT is giving up on the idea of the EZ-Pass people being able to accept ISO-1800 6C, so they're just going to start issuing EZ-Pass compatible active transponders to new MnPass customers and any existing customers that want one starting next summer as well. Presumably MnPass will also be able to work in Florida now that Florida is doing the same thing. I will finally get one if I can use it in Florida and Chicago.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnpass/mnpassnews.html#otherstates

That's interesting, but seems to be more of a "nice to have" than a "need" since we don't have full-size toll roads. Trying to entice new customers if they can use their passes elsewhere?

It's what I've been waiting for all these years.  I'll likely finally buy one.

[EpicRoadways]

It seems MNDOT's first attempt at constructing a signalized RCI at MN-65 and Viking Blvd in the north metro last year has turned out to be quite a disaster. I can't say I'm surprised.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/residents-want-change-at-dangerous-hwy-65-intersection-in-east-bethel/ar-BB17i1p3?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds

[JREwing78]

It seems MNDOT's first attempt at constructing a signalized RCI at MN-65 and Viking Blvd in the north metro last year has turned out to be quite a disaster. I can't say I'm surprised.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/residents-want-change-at-dangerous-hwy-65-intersection-in-east-bethel/ar-BB17i1p3?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds

There's a number of factors at play here. Stoplights on a road posted for 65 mph is ambitious. Two lanes turning right is ambitious. Pushing nearly 30,000 vpd on MN-65 and 6000 vpd on Viking through this intersection is ambitious. Expecting idiot American drivers to navigate this while maintaining lane discipline - that's just laughable.

I think you can Band-Aid this by not allowing turns on red. But ultimately, yes, an overpass is needed here.
I think a RCI being asked to handle that level of traffic in a ostensibly rural area is asking a lot.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Anoka County 22/Viking Blvd has steadily grown into a fairly heavily trafficked corridor across north central Anoka County as the metro has fanned outward, and although it's still entirely two-lane, new stoplights have popped up at a couple intersections along it in the last several years, and then the RCI replacing the previous standard signal at MN 65.

I agree that banning turns on red should help for the moment. I know MnDOT probably wanted a cheaper solution than a full interchange, but unfortunately sometimes there's just no way around it.

[froggie]

^ I would argue, given recent studies in conjunction with the Met Council, that MnDOT's preference would be for an interchange at 65/Viking.  They just can't afford to build one at the present...

[jakeroot]

Signage would suggest that RTOR is only permitted from the right lane. If the issue may lie with the double right turns, this should have prevented issues with people blindly turning without ensuring it's clear. In practice, I'm not usually a fan of such restrictions as they tend to increase traffic in the lane that allows turns on red, but that's not to say that it might not be effective in reducing/preventing crashes.

In practice, making a hard right turn from a stop is no different from the original intersection. The original lacked slip lanes, and did not have any NTOR signage.

If I had to suggest a change, probably eliminate turns on red for both lanes, and change the signals to red arrows to further enhance the change. MN law may not have separate rules for red arrows, but when used elsewhere, they do seem to reduce the number of cars turning on red, even when the law allows it. Here in WA, for example, I do see slightly fewer cars turning on red with a red arrow. I don't know if this is because of a high number of CA transplants, but it's something I've noticed.

Some better markings may be in order as well. I'm thinking edge markings for all movements, rather than just an extension of the white line.

As a side-note, I have no reason to believe signal placement is problematic. MN always does quite well in this department. My only suggested change might be to add near-side signals to all approaches for both sides of each stop line, especially for the Viking Blvd approach if NTOR is implemented. Pulling back the stop line may also help. It would make an "illegal" turn on red that much more awkward.

As another side-note, why was this intersection rebuilt? Traffic issues? Because safety does not appear to have been a major issue.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

The problem doesn't seem to be the right turns; it's the Michigan left U-turns that are causing the problems. It was an aging intersection that had grown more congested on Viking; there was also a large dip on Viking crossing between the MN 65 carriageways that had an advisory speed of 20 MPH on a road posted at 55, not that you were likely to get through the intersection with a green light long enough to go 55 anyway. Having gone through the intersection fairly frequently before it was rebuilt, and having driven through it once since it reopened, I can see why it's causing problems for some.

[froggie]

MN law may not have separate rules for red arrows,

Section 169.06, Subdivision 5, Subsection 3iii covers red arrows.  To summarize, turning on a red arrow is prohibited in Minnesota unless specifically signed that turns on red are allowed.

[EpicRoadways]

It's interesting to me that RTOR is an issue at this intersection. I drive through a similar situation at the MN-15/CSAH 120 DDI in St Cloud almost daily and I don't think I've ever seen anyone turn right on red (or left on red in the other direction, for that matter) at the dual turn lanes despite it being permitted. While it doesn't surprise me that the Viking installation is (was?) permitted RTOR, it surprises me a little bit that people would actually use it in practice.

[jakeroot]

The problem doesn't seem to be the right turns; it's the Michigan left U-turns that are causing the problems. It was an aging intersection that had grown more congested on Viking; there was also a large dip on Viking crossing between the MN 65 carriageways that had an advisory speed of 20 MPH on a road posted at 55, not that you were likely to get through the intersection with a green light long enough to go 55 anyway. Having gone through the intersection fairly frequently before it was rebuilt, and having driven through it once since it reopened, I can see why it's causing problems for some.

So, with regard to the Michigan left U-turns, is it that left turns are permitted on red, and drivers are misinterpreting speeds when attempting to make the left turn? Or turning into the incorrect lane?

For the record, while the Michigan left U-turns might be the problem, the photo in the story clearly shows a crash at the double right turn. Hence my earlier position and comment.

MN law may not have separate rules for red arrows,

Section 169.06, Subdivision 5, Subsection 3iii covers red arrows.  To summarize, turning on a red arrow is prohibited in Minnesota unless specifically signed that turns on red are allowed.

Thank you. Still can't keep track of where it's permitted, versus where it's not. MN struck me as a state that would have permitted it. Don't ask why!

It's interesting to me that RTOR is an issue at this intersection. I drive through a similar situation at the MN-15/CSAH 120 DDI in St Cloud almost daily and I don't think I've ever seen anyone turn right on red (or left on red in the other direction, for that matter) at the dual turn lanes despite it being permitted. While it doesn't surprise me that the Viking installation is (was?) permitted RTOR, it surprises me a little bit that people would actually use it in practice.

If TheHighwayMan394's comment above is any indication, it doesn't seem to be the double right turn (although, from the story, crashes do still occur there).

I know around my area (Seattle), NTOR restrictions are generally quite rare, so it would not be unusual to see traffic turning on red from both lanes at a similar installation. Are NTOR restrictions pretty typical in MN at double right turns?

[skluth]

If the intersection was going to be signaled anyway, I don't understand why a continuous-flow intersection wasn't built since they don't have funds for a full interchange. The one pictured is the design from INDOT at the intersection of U.S. 31 and SR 135/Thompson Road on the south side of Indianapolis mentioned on the Indiana Notes thread. I've used one at MO 30 and Summit Road SW of St Louis several times when I lived there. It's not that much more expensive and easily handles both the through and cross-traffic. There is more than enough room in the median to build one. It looks like Minnesota took the cheapest route possible regardless of whether it would work.

[Papa Emeritus]

In news that isn't strictly road related, but will have a HUGE impact on the transportation system in the Twin Cities, MnDoT announced today that they are not going to build the Blue Line light rail extension from downtown Minneapolis to Target's north campus near the 610 / 169 interchange on its previously planned alignment, due to "an inability to work with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad", whose tracks parallel the preferred alignment for about eight miles. Here's a link:

https://www.startribune.com/hennepin-met-council-abandon-route-for-bottineau-blue-line/571994512/

What the article doesn't say is that BNSF stopped cooperating with Hennepin county about the Blue Line extension after the county blocked a proposed link between the Canadian Pacific and the BNSF that would have reduced congestion in a BNSF yard, but increased the number of trains going through some of the same communities that the Blue Line extension was planned to pass through. Here's a link to a discussion about the controversy:

https://streets.mn/2019/07/01/the-blue-line-extension-in-limbo/

Personally, I think that the BNSF's unwillingness to cooperate with Hennepin County about the blue line extension was definitely affected by the county's unwillingness to help BNSF with their connection to the Canadian Pacific. Hennepin County won the battle, but they may have lost the war.

However, although I strongly supported the Twin Cities' light rail system pre-covid, now, I strongly question whether the money being spent on it is the best use of transportation dollars. Many people who started working from home due to covid will never resume working in offices. This will significantly reduce rush hour traffic, and it also reduces the need for an expensive light rail line; thanks to people working from home, the Twin Cities' freeway system is going to have a lot more capacity.

[M86]

Section 169.06, Subdivision 5, Subsection 3iii covers red arrows.  To summarize, turning on a red arrow is prohibited in Minnesota unless specifically signed that turns on red are allowed.

I was in the Twin Cities area recently, and was at a dual right turn lane, in the inner lane, with a cop next to me. It was in Chaska at Jonathan Carver Pkwy & Chaska Blvd. I stayed in that lane until it turned green! Looking on Streetview, it looks like the intersection doesn't have red arrows.

You never know all of the laws of other states!

[froggie]

The county could solve some of the Blue Line issue by running it down the middle of Bottineau/CSAH 81.  81 does *NOT* need to be 6 lanes.  The sticking point, though, would still be getting it from Robbinsdale to Target Field.

[Mdcastle]

Too bad we just finished rebuilding the entire length of Bottineau. And I agree that BNSF smelled blood in the water and is out for revenge. If you kick someone in the groin chances are they're going to kick you back rather than cooperate with you. Schoolkids know this. Hennepin County commissioners don't seem to.

[froggie]

Trying to figure out where/how this BNSF/CP connection would have gone.

[Mdcastle]

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Crystal,+MN/@45.047828,-93.3557451,504m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x52b33698653e30f3:0xf0c5e9963f833bdd!8m2!3d45.0327425!4d-93.3602286

Where CP Rail and BNSF tracks cross in Crystal. CP sends oil trains easttbound that enter the BNSF Northtown Yard to continue farther east on the BNSF system. BNSF wanted to build a connection between the west and south legs so rather than entering the over-capacity Northtown Yard oil trains would be diverted southeast along the Monticello subdivision, coincidentally where light rail would go, then northeast along Target Field entering the BNSF downtstream from the yard

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Only for the humor of it, at the end of the Two Harbors Expressway on MN 61 there is a short piece of two-lane road posted at 55 between the end of the expressway and the edge of town. Last time I was there, the speed limit on this piece had been upped to 60 MPH southbound only while it remained at 55 northbound. I wonder if perhaps it fell strictly under the mandated 55 MPH road studies. Anyway, MnDOT did some sign replacement in the region and the entire stretch is now back at 55.

[Mdcastle]

Stillwater Loop Trail Time Lapse that I did
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTfhm6XD9Ns