I-90/US 52 interchange

I94RoadRunner · November 21, 2013, 10:01:33 PM

Apparently there was once a proposal to upgrade the substandard I-90/US 52 interchange to a full cloverleaf, however this project was indefinitely put on hold. I draw out three concepts in the attachment that could possibly serve the needs of the US 52 corridor better. Any comments or other concepts .....? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJMaeYxf1vg

NE2 · November 21, 2013, 10:41:14 PM

This needed to be a video.

I94RoadRunner · November 22, 2013, 12:52:47 AM

Quote from: NE2 on November 21, 2013, 10:41:14 PM
This needed to be a video.

.....?

NE2 · November 22, 2013, 01:25:56 AM

Why not just post scans/pictures of your plans? What's the point in making a video?

froggie · November 22, 2013, 05:28:58 AM

Concur with SPUI....photo scans would have been more useful for viewing than a YouTube vid (especially for those in locations where YouTube is blocked).

As for the proposal...very low priority. And traffic volumes don't even come close to justifying the expense of a flyover scenario.

I94RoadRunner · November 22, 2013, 07:58:39 AM

Quote from: froggie on November 22, 2013, 05:28:58 AM
Concur with SPUI....photo scans would have been more useful for viewing than a YouTube vid (especially for those in locations where YouTube is blocked).

As for the proposal...very low priority. And traffic volumes don't even come close to justifying the expense of a flyover scenario.

Good point froggie. I will look into buying a scanner after I return from Seattle .....

As for the proposal, I am trying to think ahead unlike most departments of transportation. The way traffic is now, I agree with you that a standard cloverleaf is probably sufficient.

froggie · November 22, 2013, 08:09:05 AM

Even if traffic tripled (which I highly doubt), a cloverleaf would be adequate at that location. More appropriate potential locations for flyovers in Rochester would be NB 63 to NB 52, and from NB 52 to WB 14.

mgk920 · November 22, 2013, 09:57:42 AM

One thing that I would definitely do at this one is improvements that will allow non-motorized traffic such as pedestrians and bicycles to completely bypass the interchange and the existing US 52 freeway in order to get from one side of I-90 to the other, this by reconnecting the dead ends of the old US 52 roadway across I-90.

This interchange has also been a bugaboo in the system to me due to its non-freeway standard intersection turns, but I also agree that traffic volumes on that part of US 52 are not all that high.

Someday....

Mike

froggie · November 22, 2013, 10:00:30 AM

FYI Mike, bicyclists are allowed to use US 52 north of I-90 to the interchange at CSAH 36. Obviously this is less safe for northbound cyclists due to the interchange ramps.

I94RoadRunner · November 22, 2013, 05:41:35 PM

Quote from: froggie on November 22, 2013, 10:00:30 AM
FYI Mike, bicyclists are allowed to use US 52 north of I-90 to the interchange at CSAH 36. Obviously this is less safe for northbound cyclists due to the interchange ramps.

Quote from: mgk920 on November 22, 2013, 09:57:42 AM
One thing that I would definitely do at this one is improvements that will allow non-motorized traffic such as pedestrians and bicycles to completely bypass the interchange and the existing US 52 freeway in order to get from one side of I-90 to the other, this by reconnecting the dead ends of the old US 52 roadway across I-90.

This interchange has also been a bugaboo in the system to me due to its non-freeway standard intersection turns, but I also agree that traffic volumes on that part of US 52 are not all that high.

Someday....

Mike

I have to side with you there. US 52 becomes a major freeway between Rochester and the Twin Cities once departing northward out of Rochester. Realistically though, the I-90/US 52 interchange will be exactly as it is today when I finally keel over .....

I94RoadRunner · November 22, 2013, 05:47:07 PM

Quote from: froggie on November 22, 2013, 10:00:30 AM
FYI Mike, bicyclists are allowed to use US 52 north of I-90 to the interchange at CSAH 36. Obviously this is less safe for northbound cyclists due to the interchange ramps.

Interesting. Some of the freeways in rural parts of WA state allow bicycle traffic as well. Even on the interstates. So this is not unheard of .....

JREwing78 · November 22, 2013, 08:30:00 PM

It would be a bigger deal if there was significant amounts of traffic that followed US-52 straight through the intersection. There's several intermediate steps that can be taken before flyovers become a dire need here - like a stoplight at the SBD US-52 -> EBD I-90 movement.

Just to put things in perspective, US-127 south of Jackson, MI has about the same level of traffic (both regular and commercial vehicles) as US-52 immediately north of the I-90 interchange. It's a TWO LANE highway (with a couple of passing lanes). They've had the ROW purchased for a 4-lane section since the 1950's, and sat on it. And sat on it. And, even today, continues to sit on it. Compared to MDOT (Michigan), MnDOT (Minnesota) thinks ahead quite effectively.

Jim920 · November 22, 2013, 11:41:57 PM

I don't really have a problem with the interchange itself (I only use it once or twice a year) even though it is a bit odd for a freeway to freeway interchange. What I do have a problem with is the way it is signed on US-52 South. One mile from the interchange you see this sign http://goo.gl/maps/0i70y so if you are not familiar with the area (like I was the first time I used it 15 years ago) you don't know that it's not really an exit but a left turn and that the freeway has "ended." The Speed Limit doesn't even drop to 55 until you get to the ramp for I-90 West http://goo.gl/maps/jVKte (there is a MN style reduced speed sign 1/5 mile back.) Maybe they should reduce the speed to 55 a little further back, post that the freeway has ended, and stop calling the ramps exits. Other then the signing issues I think the interchange works just fine.

News:

I-90/US 52 interchange