This morning's Star Tribune has an article about studies to upgrade MN-252 to a freeway between 694 and 610. The first step would be to build an interchange at 66th Street, replacing the traffic signal there now. The intersection at 66th street and 252 is the most dangerous intersection in the Twin Cities metro, and the 2nd most dangerous in Minnesota, and four other intersections on 252 are among Minnesota's 100 most dangerous.
Here's a link to the article:
http://www.startribune.com/the-drive-upgrades-to-dangerous-hwy-252-still-in-the-works/477213383/
I think both 252 and 169 should be upgraded to freeways all the way to 610. There will be a lot of redevelopment in the northwest metro once the new light rail line opens from downtown to Brooklyn Center, and although some people will use the new light rail line, many will still commute by car.
I believe this got mentioned previously in the Minnesota Notes thread. This study's been ongoing for awhile.
Minor nitpick: 66th Ave (not street) in Brooklyn Center.
Also, not sure how often you get in that area, but 169 is already a freeway to 610. The light at 93rd was taken out a few years ago.
If this were to happen, Brooklyn Park would have its own freeway loop, bounded by the new MN 252 to the east, MN 610 to the north, US 169 to the west, and I-94 to the south! Just some random tidbit I thought I'd put out there...
Am I correct in that availability of funding was why this wasn't built as a full freeway to start? Back when it was built (and not having the access to information then that we have now, being that it was in the pre-internet days), I was operating on the assumption that there was some level of anti-freeway suburban environmentalism/NIMBYism at work here, too.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on March 19, 2018, 10:23:12 AM
Am I correct in that availability of funding was why this wasn't built as a full freeway to start? Back when it was built (and not having the access to information then that we have now, being that it was in the pre-internet days), I was operating on the assumption that there was some level of anti-freeway suburban environmentalism/NIMBYism at work here, too.
Mike
IIRC, the state wanted to build a freeway but the cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park wanted at-grade intersections so people wouldn't just drive through. So the state built what the cities wanted.
Quote from: Zaphod on March 19, 2018, 01:42:45 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 19, 2018, 10:23:12 AM
Am I correct in that availability of funding was why this wasn't built as a full freeway to start? Back when it was built (and not having the access to information then that we have now, being that it was in the pre-internet days), I was operating on the assumption that there was some level of anti-freeway suburban environmentalism/NIMBYism at work here, too.
Mike
IIRC, the state wanted to build a freeway but the cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park wanted at-grade intersections so people wouldn't just drive through. So the state built what the cities wanted.
If that's true, it's sure come around and bit them in the ass. :-D
The NIMBYism factor was the factor with US 169 between 494 and the Minnesota River. I don't recall that being the case with 252.
Back when modern 252 was built...there was almost nothing north of about 73rd. It may well be a case where they built an expressway because that's what volumes warranted at the time and figured they'd have time to widen it in the future as eastern Brooklyn Park grew.
I head that it got built as an expressway because that's what the cities wanted also.
Quote from: froggie on March 19, 2018, 08:23:36 AM
I believe this got mentioned previously in the Minnesota Notes thread. This study's been ongoing for awhile.
Minor nitpick: 66th Ave (not street) in Brooklyn Center.
Also, not sure how often you get in that area, but 169 is already a freeway to 610. The light at 93rd was taken out a few years ago.
Oops, my mistake, Froggie - thank you for the clarification.
Have there been any studies about upgrading 169 to a freeway from 610 to US-10, or are right of way issues in Champlin and Anoka too difficult to solve?
Quote from: Papa Emeritus on March 19, 2018, 08:17:05 PM
Have there been any studies about upgrading 169 to a freeway from 610 to US-10, or are right of way issues in Champlin and Anoka too difficult to solve?
There was a study opened for a new Anoka crossing/bypass (that may or may not involve US 169), but the likelihood of that happening anytime within the next several decades is probably next to nothing.
In talking with someone who worked at MnDOT at the time, Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park both stated they would refuse to pass municipal consent for a TH 252 freeway. MnDOT tried to continue to have discussions with the cities at no avail, even though they convinced one to agree to freeway conversion the other wouldn't budge. The decision to move forward with the expressway versus freeway to keep the project moving forward. One of the many reasons why municipal consent needs to be removed from state law. Cities should not be allowed to uphold municipal consent for certain safety improvements. Same reason why we were stuck with a horrendous 494 and 169 interchange for so long as Eden Prairie refused to grant municipal consent.
Ideally the cities would had been behind this by preserving right of way for the conversion but because they were against it they never did. Would had saved tens of millions today (an agriculture field cost to purchase is exponentially less in cost to purchase than a fully developed parcel including relocation costs). Between dedication through the plat process and purchasing before development the state and Maple Grove has saved the taxpayers tens of millions for the 610 freeway and the eventual future extension west of I-94. If Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park would had practiced this on 252, the cost would be a lot less than stated. It doesn't surprise me though, Brooklyn Park has always had the mentally that they will take and approve any development even if it means it's detrimental to the city and the transportation network in the area. It's the main reason there is an interchange at 169 and 93rd, another where the city refused to give municipal consent to remove the stoplight until they got an interchange instead of just an overpass.