News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Minnesota Notes

Started by Mdcastle, April 18, 2012, 07:54:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

TheHighwayMan3561

That money was likely earmarked for transit and can't be used for roads. A lot of people (which is almost always people bitching about transit that they can't/won't use) make the fatal assumption that all transportation money comes from one big pot to be divvied up among all the road, transit, and airport interests. These things have many sources independent of each other that don't cross over and can't be reallocated.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running


froggie

Quote from: Papa Emeritus on February 24, 2021, 09:17:07 AM
I think freeway from Elk River to Coon Rapids (or whatever name the City of Coon Rapids is referred to in 5 - 10 years, if plans to rename the city become a reality) isn't unlikely.

Once the last two interchanges are built, speeds on the route will increase. It's inevitable that faster speeds will result in a really bad accident, where someone thinks they can safely make it through one of the minor at grade crossings, but fails to do so, with lethal consequences. Once that happens, MnDoT is likely to intervene and try to eliminate the rest of the at grade crossings.

It is very unlikely when you consider MnDOT's perpetual funding situation.  Closing the remaining intersections would require frontage road construction, probably another interchange, and right-of-way.  All of which costs more money than MnDOT currently has available.  Now, if Elk River and/or Sherburne County want to ante up some funding, that would change the paradigm.

Quote from: Papa Emeritus on February 24, 2021, 09:23:42 AM
One of my concerns about light rail delays, with the associated additional construction expenses, is that if it costs significantly more to complete the light rail line, this could suck up money that could otherwise be used for road improvements in the Twin Cities and / or be the catalyst for a gas tax increase.

Not the case on both counts.  First is as The HighwayMan394 noted.  Second, the gas tax in Minnesota is Constitutionally dedicated to roads.

TheHighwayMan3561

Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2021, 09:07:44 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 23, 2021, 05:15:22 PM
Should also clarify it won't be entirely freeway from Elk River to 35W, as there are a number of minor at-grade crossings between the last Ramsey interchange at Armstrong Blvd and the first Elk River stoplight at 171st Ave.

Oh, I wouldn't expect a full freeway from Coon Rapids to Elk River.  Well, maybe in my dreams...


Sorry, that was meant for Papa since he was the one who posted that.

Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2021, 09:07:44 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 23, 2021, 05:15:22 PM
Personally I really hate the crossing at 165th Ave in front of the Broadway Pizza on the edge of Elk River, and wouldn't be opposed to RIROing that.

167th, you mean?

I haven't been west of Ramsey Blvd in ages, so I can't comment on those minor crossroads.  What is it about that particular one?  Heavy traffic usage, poor sight lines, poor queue storage, ...?

Yeah, the 167th intersection. 165th is the old recycling center intersection. It all blurs together after 20 years living somewhere you don't really like I guess. But I never liked the sightlines trying to pull out of that Broadway Pizza, even though I find that location inferior to other Broadways anyway so I should just go to those.  :)
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

texaskdog

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 24, 2021, 11:50:29 AM
Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2021, 09:07:44 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 23, 2021, 05:15:22 PM
Should also clarify it won't be entirely freeway from Elk River to 35W, as there are a number of minor at-grade crossings between the last Ramsey interchange at Armstrong Blvd and the first Elk River stoplight at 171st Ave.

Oh, I wouldn't expect a full freeway from Coon Rapids to Elk River.  Well, maybe in my dreams...


Sorry, that was meant for Papa since he was the one who posted that.

Quote from: kphoger on February 24, 2021, 09:07:44 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 23, 2021, 05:15:22 PM
Personally I really hate the crossing at 165th Ave in front of the Broadway Pizza on the edge of Elk River, and wouldn't be opposed to RIROing that.

167th, you mean?

I haven't been west of Ramsey Blvd in ages, so I can't comment on those minor crossroads.  What is it about that particular one?  Heavy traffic usage, poor sight lines, poor queue storage, ...?

Yeah, the 167th intersection. 165th is the old recycling center intersection. It all blurs together after 20 years living somewhere you don't really like I guess. But I never liked the sightlines trying to pull out of that Broadway Pizza, even though I find that location inferior to other Broadways anyway so I should just go to those.  :)

Pizza is horrible in Texas.  If I could pull into a Broadway Pizza right now I'd never leave.

skluth

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 24, 2021, 11:07:31 AM
That money was likely earmarked for transit and can't be used for roads. A lot of people (which is almost always people bitching about transit that they can't/won't use) make the fatal assumption that all transportation money comes from one big pot to be divvied up among all the road, transit, and airport interests. These things have many sources independent of each other that don't cross over and can't be reallocated.

You are correct. Here's the breakdown of the Southwest Rail Project funding:

The total project cost is $2.003 billion. Committed funding sources for the Southwest LRT:

  • Hennepin County: $591.4 million
  • Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB): $218.9 million (provided funding until dissolution in 2017)
  • Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA): $199.5 million
  • State of Minnesota: $30.3 million
  • Other local contributions: $26.4 million
  • Eden Prairie Town Center Station: $7.7 million ($6.14 million CMAQ, $1.54 million Eden Prairie)

  • The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) will provide $928.8 million through the New Starts program with a Full Funding Grant Agreement which was signed in September 2020.
Full details on the Project Facts page

Half the funding comes from a federal grant which would likely go to a different transit project in another state if it weren't used. A quarter is from Hennepin County which could reallocate their share anywhere. Another 10% came from a dissolved transit fund. (I'm guessing this has already been spent or at least must be spent on transit.) Only 1.5% is coming from the state of Minnesota. Yes, that $30M could be spent elsewhere assuming that money has not been spent for the project. But TheHighwayMan394 is right that it's unlikely that you can reallocate the funding to highways.

TheHighwayMan3561

#1105
Speed limits will increase to 60 on 394 and the Crosstown this summer. These were the two (especially with Crosstown) that I thought it wouldn't happen. It mentions a few for future studies, but the one I'm not seeing is MN 36 inside of 694 - that one definitely could go to 60 without issues unless they're holding out to building the (unscheduled) Century Ave interchange first.

https://www.startribune.com/speed-limit-rising-to-60-mph-on-crosstown-and-i-394/600031541/?fbclid=IwAR0MQQ1pA9jvg76CqOu8iX1gJFeWYR9lndBfvpiS_UBkf_zrQMTVNF9sVRs
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

n0ax

#1106
I'm surprised as well about Crosstown, the county built segments are pretty curvy and substandard.... Now that the 35W river Minnesota bridge/causeway improvement is near completion, the inner shoulders seem substandard throughout the reconstructed segment (although the additional auxiliary lane/eventual mainline lane (as can be gleaned by the spot for more girders on SB 35W 106th St. bridge) is a welcome addition), are such narrow inner shoulders now considered acceptable for interstates? It seems odd.. it's not as though the corridor is ROW constrained..

Mdcastle

South of the bridge there was a strong desire to not expand the footprint of the freeway due to wetlands on one side and contaminated soils on the other. With that in mind they figured out they might as well value engineer the bridge itself to match.

The extra girders aren't for an additional through lane, but extending the auxiliary lane to the 98th street entrance.

n0ax

#1108
Thanks Monte! that makes sense... But I do wonder why other projects seem to have lesser inner shoulders when there are no apparent adjacent ROW issues? projects like the recent I-35E Cayuga project and I-494 north six lane widening come to mind with six foot inner shoulders. It doesn't seem that prior freeway projects in the early 2000's were designed with such narrow inner shoulders such as the early 2000's I-494 southwest widening and highway 100 expansion... Is this a change in policy

TheHighwayMan3561

Quote from: n0ax on March 11, 2021, 02:17:17 AM
Thanks Monte! that makes sense... But I do wonder why other projects seem to have lesser inner shoulders when there are no apparent adjacent ROW issues? such as the recent I-35E Cayuga project and I-494 north six lane widening, etc.. (six foot inner shoulder instead of the prior ten foot standard for interstates wider than four lanes). It doesn't seem that prior freeway projects  used such narrow inner shoulders (the I-494 south project from Eden Prairie to Wayzata in the early 2000's used ten foot ones along with the highway 100 north metro project, etc..).

The only real evidence I have is the details about the final MN 60 four-laning project, but I think reducing shoulder widths for rebuild/widens has been about targeted cost cutting.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

TheHighwayMan3561

For some reason MnDOT didn't put out their annual press release of major projects like they usually do in early April, but here are some highlights (some may have been mentioned as they were previously announced):

MN 7: cleaning up access and repaving between I-494 and Shorewood., along with adding a second left turn lane at Hopkins Crossroad in Minnetonka.
US 10: freeway extension in Anoka and Ramsey with interchange at Thurston/Cutters Grove and grade separation at Fairoak Avenue
US 10: reconstruction near downtown Elk River
US 14: four-lane expansion in Steele and Dodge Counties. A new alignment of US 14 will be constructed for this portion of the widening rather than just adding on to the existing two-lane road.
I-35/535/US 53: major interchange rebuild in Duluth finally gets underway after being postponed a year due to cost overruns
I-35E and I-94: bridge repairs and resurfacing in downtown St. Paul (not too exciting but will likely create traffic headaches so I'm including it)
I-35W: continuing the replacement of the Minnesota River bridge
I-35W: continuing adding MnPass lane north of downtown Minneapolis
I-35W: continuing the rebuild between 46th Street and I-94 in Minneapolis
MN 36: interchange at Manning Avenue in Lake Elmo
MN 61: Grand Marais reconstruction and regional improvement work continues
MN 65: redecking/restoring the Central/3rd Avenue bridge across the Mississippi in downtown Minneapolis
I-90: continuing interchange upgrades at US 63/MN 30 in Stewartville; this included a reroute of MN 30 completed last summer
I-94: rebuild/widens in two sections between 494/694 in Maple Grove and MN 24 in Clearwater (with the gap through Monticello) continue

2021 is kind of light. Hopefully funding can make future years juicier.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

froggie

QuoteI-90: continuing interchange upgrades at US 63/MN 30 in Stewartville; this included a reroute of MN 30 completed last summer

This one isn't an "interchange upgrade" in the sense most roadgeeks would take it...the configuration will be the same as before...a 6-ramp par-clo.  The main reason behind the project is replacing the US 63 bridges over I-90.

The Ghostbuster

Any chance the Interstate 90/US 52 interchange could be upgraded to include some free-flow ramps, considering US 52 is an expressway/freeway from Interstate 90 in Rochester all the way to Interstate 94 in Saint Paul? Or are there insufficient traffic counts at the 90/52 junction to warrant free-flow ramps?

TheHighwayMan3561

#1113
Heh, the day after I wonder where the release is, it comes out. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/construction/

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 08, 2021, 05:45:30 PM
Any chance the Interstate 90/US 52 interchange could be upgraded to include some free-flow ramps, considering US 52 is an expressway/freeway from Interstate 90 in Rochester all the way to Interstate 94 in Saint Paul? Or are there insufficient traffic counts at the 90/52 junction to warrant free-flow ramps?

Work is planned for 2024. Because US 63 handles half the movements, a fully free-flow interchange is not really needed. Probably just one from SB 52 to EB 90. Rochester's development seems to be slowly following 63 these days anyway, and maybe more improvements will eventually be needed at the 52/63 southern split than at 52/90.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

SSOWorld

So eventually, 52/63/90 can become a massive triangle interchange - with development inside it.
Scott O.

Not all who wander are lost...
Ah, the open skies, wind at my back, warm sun on my... wait, where the hell am I?!
As a matter of fact, I do own the road.
Raise your what?

Wisconsin - out-multiplexing your state since 1918.

MNtoOC

One of the upcoming projects is to "Replace signs on I-35E from South I-35E/I-35W Jct in Burnsville to Deerwood Dr in Eagan" Is there a reason for replacing these signs other than (what I'm guessing is) to move the exit tabs from center to right alignment?

TheHighwayMan3561

Quote from: MNtoOC on April 10, 2021, 02:49:11 PM
One of the upcoming projects is to "Replace signs on I-35E from South I-35E/I-35W Jct in Burnsville to Deerwood Dr in Eagan" Is there a reason for replacing these signs other than (what I'm guessing is) to move the exit tabs from center to right alignment?

I don't get down that way much, but some of the signs on 35E were legitimately aging and in need of replacing. They've also already done some of this work, roughly between the split and Dakota County 11. The last bastion of center tabs is on 494 between 394 and 213, which those signs are still in good condition and the state seems to be in no rush to replace those.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

MNtoOC

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 10, 2021, 05:56:38 PM
I don't get down that way much, but some of the signs on 35E were legitimately aging and in need of replacing.

I wonder if the Series C/D(?) 35E reassurance shields will get replaced then too; I think they may be the last ones I know of left in MN on that southern part of 35E.

https://goo.gl/maps/vn73FvUkp5JWMjzu6

Mdcastle

Quote from: MNtoOC on April 10, 2021, 02:49:11 PM
One of the upcoming projects is to "Replace signs on I-35E from South I-35E/I-35W Jct in Burnsville to Deerwood Dr in Eagan" Is there a reason for replacing these signs other than (what I'm guessing is) to move the exit tabs from center to right alignment?

Signs wear out and it's time to replace them. I wouldn't read any more than that into it.

Mdcastle

Quote from: froggie on April 08, 2021, 09:52:51 AM
QuoteI-90: continuing interchange upgrades at US 63/MN 30 in Stewartville; this included a reroute of MN 30 completed last summer

This one isn't an "interchange upgrade" in the sense most roadgeeks would take it...the configuration will be the same as before...a 6-ramp par-clo.  The main reason behind the project is replacing the US 63 bridges over I-90.

It's an upgrade in that the existing interchange only has 5 ramps.

froggie

Forgot that a WB-SB loop didn't exist.

TheHighwayMan3561

Quote from: MNtoOC on April 10, 2021, 06:32:22 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 10, 2021, 05:56:38 PM
I don't get down that way much, but some of the signs on 35E were legitimately aging and in need of replacing.

I wonder if the Series C/D(?) 35E reassurance shields will get replaced then too; I think they may be the last ones I know of left in MN on that southern part of 35E.

https://goo.gl/maps/vn73FvUkp5JWMjzu6

I admit I'm not well-versed in fonts, but I think there are a couple other isolated BGS still with them

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.0333001,-92.9847746,3a,45y,54.6h,107.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-A2xaSiGdmwUvsBkMmhfBQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8635762,-93.4363819,3a,37.5y,74.45h,95.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgnjsXYhNgzymrIEBOcJmCA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

Papa Emeritus

Today's Star Tribune says a study is under way for a beltway around St Cloud, including a new Mississippi River crossing south of downtown that would connect with US 10. Here's a link to the article:

https://www.startribune.com/st-cloud-revives-plan-for-new-mississippi-crossing-highway-around-city/600045633/

bwana39

Quote from: Papa Emeritus on April 14, 2021, 01:58:18 PM
Today's Star Tribune says a study is under way for a beltway around St Cloud, including a new Mississippi River crossing south of downtown that would connect with US 10. Here's a link to the article:

https://www.startribune.com/st-cloud-revives-plan-for-new-mississippi-crossing-highway-around-city/600045633/

A Missippi River crossing sounds like a big deal to we southerners. Then we trcall our trip decades ago to Minneapolis and realize that at that point the Mississippi is about the size of the Sulphur or Sabine.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

The Ghostbuster

If the proposed beltway is completely built to freeway standards, maybe it could be numbered Interstate 294.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.