Minnesota Notes

[Mdcastle]

So, currently the situation in the metro is that most scheduled MnDOT money goes to maintenance rather than improvement projects; those are done by federal grants doled out by the Met Council based on applications by local agencies who have to put some of their own money. Basically the applicants are scored, and they start funding the top scoring applications until the run out of money. They also program fund more projects than money (over-programming) I think so they have projects to spend money on if higher up projects are cancelled or downscaled.

The 2020 round is under discussion now. After discussing a number of ways to award projects, they're discussing A) The merits of doing it the traditional way vs trying to fund as many projects as possible, and B) Whether to manipulate things so Scott County gets a project.

For A), MnDOT is concerned about being overwhelmed with management with the "more projects" scenario, because the management burden for projects doesn't scale down project size. For B) it's been noted that while Scott County wouldn't get a project in a traditional scenario, for this round Scott County only bothered to submit five requests, and over the past few funding cycles they have gotten projects in proportion to their population. If they want to give Scott County a project (which would be the 169 / 282 interchange), they could keep going down the list fully funding projects, which would result in only one added due to over programming bike/ped project. (Downtown Chaska)) Or they could partially fund two larger road projects (this one and a substantial expansion of 41 / Engler in Chaska), resulting in more base and overprogrammed bike/ped projects but potentially causing the two road projects to be undeliverable due to funding.

https://metrocouncil.org/Council-Meetings/Committees/Transportation-Advisory-Board-TAB/2020/November-18,-2020/Info-2-Item-Reg-Sol-FundingScenarios.aspx

Major Projects- Strategic Capacity Improvements Category: All Scenarios, max $10 Million
252 / Brookdale Drive Interchange ($10 Million)
65 / 99th Interchange ($10 Million)
US 10 / Ramsey Blvd Interchange ($10 Million)

Additional Major Projects: Historical Process Scenarios Only
36 / Lake Elmo Ave Interchange ($10 Million)
5 in the arboretum area improvements ($10 Million)

Additional Major Projects: Historical Process and "Give Scott a Project"
41 / Engler intersection expansion [OP] ($7 Million- partial or $9.05 Million Full)
169 / 282 interchange [OP] ($7 million- partial, $10 Million Full)

Roadway Reconstruction and Modernization- Max $7 Million
Franklin, Lowry, and Robert Street get the max in all scenarios. Under "More Projects", The 169 / Brookdale interchange and a section of Cliff Road in Eagan [OP] also get the max.

Bridges: A Rockford Road Bridge over 169 gets $6.888 and the Third Street Viaduct in St. Paul get $7 million in all scenarios.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I thought they were planning to build it on the new US 14 alignment (which will be located well to the south of the existing route).

[DandyDan]

As froggie stated, Rochester-Lake City has to stay a state highway, so is it really worth it to swap 63 and 58 to correct a minor corridor inefficiency?

Rochester-Red Wing via Zumbrota is about 10 minutes shorter than going to Lake City, but a good chunk of that difference today can be attributed to US 52 being almost all freeway between Rochester and Zumbrota. It was probably only a couple minutes back in 1930.

Why they didn't put 63 on 58 at day one could be a curiosity in itself, regardless.

One other thing to keep in mind now is that when the US 63 Bridge to Wisconsin was rebuilt, they realigned US 63 to go directly to US 61 rather than go to MN 58 first. Frankly, I wonder if MNDOT had ever thought about swapping numbers. History doesn't have to stay the same forever.

[J N Winkler]

I am now getting caught up on MnDOT construction contracts from late 2019 to the present, having fallen behind when the agency stopped uploading the proposal/plan PDFs to its FTP server at the start of this year.  (They are available through the EDMS--at one time called eDIGS, now rebranded eDocs--but I didn't have a script to scrape them until yesterday.)  I'm currently going through 4895 pages of signing, traffic control, and signal plans, and have a couple of questions:

*  For ground-mounted small signs, has MnDOT abandoned U-channel with diagonal wind bracing in favor of square-tube posts on fin bases?  The standard plan sheet showing diagonal bracing seems to have disappeared in favor of new ones dealing with square tubes.

*  How extensively does MnDOT use secret routes?  Per the construction plans for SP 3412-73, US 71 Business in Willmar appears to be on the system as TH 994A.

[on_wisconsin]

I am now getting caught up on MnDOT construction contracts from late 2019 to the present, having fallen behind when the agency stopped uploading the proposal/plan PDFs to its FTP server at the start of this year.  (They are available through the EDMS--at one time called eDIGS, now rebranded eDocs--but I didn't have a script to scrape them until yesterday.)  I'm currently going through 4895 pages of signing, traffic control, and signal plans, and have a couple of questions:

*  For ground-mounted small signs, has MnDOT abandoned U-channel with diagonal wind bracing in favor of square-tube posts on fin bases?  The standard plan sheet showing diagonal bracing seems to have disappeared in favor of new ones dealing with square tubes.

*  How extensively does MnDOT use secret routes?  Per the construction plans for SP 3412-73, US 71 Business in Willmar appears to be on the system as TH 994A.

Does MnDOT still charge to view new construction plans that are put to bid?

[J N Winkler]

Does MnDOT still charge to view new construction plans that are put to bid?

Yes.  (Sigh.)  They used QuestCDN when they started putting plans on the Web in 2007, then moved to Franz Reprographics, and are now back with QuestCDN again.  There used to be ways to get usable PDFs without paying and also without contravening computer misuse laws, but the planroom providers have closed them down by sending only low-resolution PNG renderings of each plan or proposal page to your browser unless you are logged in with a username and password connected to a paying account.

However, it is a lot easier to get plans from MnDOT after contract award.  In the old days there was immediate availability after award on the FTP server and EDMS just for the proposal book, but since 2018 or so this has extended to the plans as well.  FTP is no longer used as a distribution channel, but the EDMS is pretty painless to work with.  The PDFs you get are basically the same as those initially made available through the pay planrooms.

MnDOT has instructions on its website for searching for awarded projects in the EDMS and also bid letting abstracts (useful for obtaining SP and contract numbers for projects in specific work categories, such as signing).

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I am now getting caught up on MnDOT construction contracts from late 2019 to the present, having fallen behind when the agency stopped uploading the proposal/plan PDFs to its FTP server at the start of this year.  (They are available through the EDMS--at one time called eDIGS, now rebranded eDocs--but I didn't have a script to scrape them until yesterday.)  I'm currently going through 4895 pages of signing, traffic control, and signal plans, and have a couple of questions:

*  For ground-mounted small signs, has MnDOT abandoned U-channel with diagonal wind bracing in favor of square-tube posts on fin bases?  The standard plan sheet showing diagonal bracing seems to have disappeared in favor of new ones dealing with square tubes.

They haven't fully abandoned the diagonal wind brace for new installs. It's a mix of the old practice and the new one described.

*  How extensively does MnDOT use secret routes?  Per the construction plans for SP 3412-73, US 71 Business in Willmar appears to be on the system as TH 994A.

Not that extensively, but there are two classes, 800-series and 900-series. 800-series routes are inventory such as the part of an interchange beyond where a marked route ends or turns onto the freeway. 900-series routes are things such as old alignments, stubs of former routes, and other turnbacks that haven't been fully completed which the state eventually plans to turn over. In this case, the route being referred to isn't actually Business 71/23, but former MN 294 (hence, the secret "994"  designation - the latter two numbers of an 800/900 refer to the former route in question)

[midwesternroadguy]

I am now getting caught up on MnDOT construction contracts from late 2019 to the present, having fallen behind when the agency stopped uploading the proposal/plan PDFs to its FTP server at the start of this year.  (They are available through the EDMS--at one time called eDIGS, now rebranded eDocs--but I didn't have a script to scrape them until yesterday.)  I'm currently going through 4895 pages of signing, traffic control, and signal plans, and have a couple of questions:

*  For ground-mounted small signs, has MnDOT abandoned U-channel with diagonal wind bracing in favor of square-tube posts on fin bases?  The standard plan sheet showing diagonal bracing seems to have disappeared in favor of new ones dealing with square tubes.

*  How extensively does MnDOT use secret routes?  Per the construction plans for SP 3412-73, US 71 Business in Willmar appears to be on the system as TH 994A.

The sign posting change has been occurring not just on new installations.  Many existing speed limit and route marker signs have had the dual post/diagonal bracing replaced with single posts in the last year. 

[Papa Emeritus]

Today's Star Tribune says the 3rd Avenue Bridge over the Mississippi in downtown Minneapolis will close next week for a two year rebuild. The bridge opened in 1918, and was last rebuilt in 1979. This rebuild will help restore it closer to its original appearance.

The Star Tribune also says MnDoT was given a merit award by the American Institute of Steel Construction for the rebuild of the bridge over the Mississippi in Winona.

Here's a link to both news items:

https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-3rd-avenue-bridge-to-close-for-nearly-two-years/573486932/

[n0ax]

Why does MnDOT sometimes discontinue control sections and sometimes reassign them? It seems for most early interstates the prior US numbered route control segment was discontinued, but in some cases (such as the realignment of US-169 to the Shakopee bypass, in which control segment 7005 which previously was MN TH 101 was just realigned to the new bypass as TH 169) the control segment is realigned to another highway with a new number?

[Mdcastle]

With the TAB grants the "Historical Process- Give Scott A Project- Partial Funding" scenario has been decided on. So the current recommendation going to the full council for approval:

Major Projects- Strategic Capacity Improvements (Max $10 Million)
252 / Brookdale Drive Interchange ($10 Million)
65 / 99th Interchange ($10 Million)
US 10 / Ramsey Blvd Interchange ($10 Million)
36 / Lake Elmo Ave Interchange ($10 Million)
5 in the arboretum area improvements ($10 Million)
41 / Engler intersection expansion [OverProgram] ($7 Millon)
169 / 282 interchange [OverProgam] ($7 million)

Roadway Reconstruction and Modernization- (Max $7 Million)
Franklin Ave ($7 Million)
Robert Street ($7 Million)
Lowry Ave ($7 Million)

Bridges: (Max $7 Million)
Rockford Road over US 169 ($6.88 Million)
Third Street Viaduct ($7 Million)

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Eventually I think it would be a good idea to reconfigure those US 169 full cloverleaves with Rockford and Bass Lake to SPUI/DDI. I don't know if that's something MnDOT has considered, but I hope rebuilding the Rockford bridge doesn't preclude that.

[Mdcastle]

Rockford Road is being reconfigured to a folded diamond.

[froggie]

^ Source?

[Trademark]

With the TAB grants the "Historical Process- Give Scott A Project- Partial Funding" scenario has been decided on. So the current recommendation going to the full council for approval:

Major Projects- Strategic Capacity Improvements (Max $10 Million)
252 / Brookdale Drive Interchange ($10 Million)
65 / 99th Interchange ($10 Million)
US 10 / Ramsey Blvd Interchange ($10 Million)
36 / Lake Elmo Ave Interchange ($10 Million)
5 in the arboretum area improvements ($10 Million)
41 / Engler intersection expansion [OverProgram] ($7 Millon)
169 / 282 interchange [OverProgam] ($7 million)

Roadway Reconstruction and Modernization- (Max $7 Million)
Franklin Ave ($7 Million)
Robert Street ($7 Million)
Lowry Ave ($7 Million)

Bridges: (Max $7 Million)
Rockford Road over US 169 ($6.88 Million)
Third Street Viaduct ($7 Million)

I only see news for a Manning avenue and 36 interchange. Are they doing Lake Elmo too?

[Mdcastle]

[froggie]

Thanks for the graphic, but what's the source?

[Mdcastle]

The TAB grant application

[froggie]

The TAB grant application

Took a bit but I did find it.

I only see news for a Manning avenue and 36 interchange. Are they doing Lake Elmo too?

It indeed looks like they're trying to.

What's interesting is they're proposing a 3/4 interchange...no direct WB off-ramp.  That traffic will use the Manning Ave off-ramp and the frontage road.  Also interesting is that all 3 ramps proposed at Lake Elmo Ave go to the frontage roads and not Lake Elmo Ave directly.

Also worth noting that the project will include a new south frontage road and close the intersection at 36/Keats Ave.  This plus the Manning interchange will have the effect of creating a de-facto freeway section on 36 from west of Keats to the Norell/Washington signal.

[Papa Emeritus]

The Blatnik Bridge, which takes I-535 between Duluth and Superior, is nearing the end of its life and MnDoT is beginning to evaluate replacement options. Construction of the replacement won't happen until at least 2028. Here's a link to more information.

https://www.startribune.com/blatnik-bridge-between-duluth-and-superior-headed-toward-retirement-replacement/600011499/

In non-road related news, the light rail line between Minneapolis and Eden Prairie has fallen behind schedule due to poor soil conditions in the area between Cedar Lake and Lake of the Isles. It was scheduled to open in the fall of 2023; no new opening date has been announced.

https://www.startribune.com/opening-of-southwest-light-rail-delayed-due-to-construction-challenges/600010482/

I always thought it would have made more sense for the light rail line to enter Uptown via the Greenway, then go to downtown Minneapolis via Hennepin Avenue or Lyndale. The population density in Uptown is much higher than in the area west of Lake of the Isles where the line will be routed, and light rail would have boosted Uptown's economy, something that was needed a few years ago and now is critical because many businesses in Uptown have closed over the last year due to Covid and / or damage from last summer's unrest,

[froggie]

Much of the Minneapolis urbanist community supported routing it through Uptown, though the only option approved for getting from Uptown to Downtown was via Nicollet.  IIRC, Lyndale and Hennepin were considered but a surface routing was deemed to take too much space from Hennepin and whether surface or tunnel construction would have had a huge negative impact on Hennepin.  There was also the issue of getting it through the "Bottleneck" (where Hennepin and Lyndale converge with 94 underneath).  Another downside of the approved Nicollet routing is that it wouldn't allow interlining with the existing lines.

[Mdcastle]

Can't imagine it would be very attractive to people commuting from the western suburbs if it took a loooong, sloooow detour from Uptown and then involved a transfer if you're not going to central or western downtown.

As for the Blatnik Bridge, would be a shame to put in yet another girder bridge. Maybe we can get the first cable-stayed bridge in the region?

[02 Park Ave]

The Ohio Turnpike has announced that Minnesota will be joining E-ZPass in August.

[texaskdog]

Eventually I think it would be a good idea to reconfigure those US 169 full cloverleaves with Rockford and Bass Lake to SPUI/DDI. I don’t know if that’s something MnDOT has considered, but I hope rebuilding the Rockford bridge doesn’t preclude that.

Obviously you know this, but 169 started as county road 18 and was upgraded to a freeway by the county so it's probably never been up to standard.

[triplemultiplex]

As for the Blatnik Bridge, would be a shame to put in yet another girder bridge. Maybe we can get the first cable-stayed bridge in the region?

At best, we'll probably get another cable-arch bridge like the Bong.
It is an opportunity to do something different on the Superior end of 535, though.  Nothing like having to slow down for a loop ramp after coming down a long, downhill and then cross the other direction of traffic at-grade.  Since a new bridge will have to be shifted east or west from the existing bridge, it would be a great time to come up with something better.