Minnesota Notes

[froggie]

It's been mentioned somewhere in the past, but MnDOT can't even fund a freeway connection that's been through the EIS process for years (between I-94 and US 10 near Clearwater), so the odds of this getting funded anytime soon are basically zero.

[Roadguy]

It's been mentioned somewhere in the past, but MnDOT can't even fund a freeway connection that's been through the EIS process for years (between I-94 and US 10 near Clearwater), so the odds of this getting funded anytime soon are basically zero.

Agreed with Froggie.  Especially under the Met Council's 2040 Thrive plan, one might as well consider this a dead project.  Any expansion project like this one, especially outside of the 494-694 loop, has virtually 0.0001% chance of getting funding.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Some notes from today:

I-494 in Maple Grove: All three southbound lanes to MN 55 plus the auxiliary lane between I-94/694 and Bass Lake Road are completed and open until spring when traffic will shift to that side so the northbound lanes can be rebuilt and widened.

MN 100 in St. Louis Park: Work is progressing at the south end of the rebuild zone around MN 7/Hennepin County 25 and the Cedar Lake Regional Trail. North of MN 7, much of the northbound work has been completed. The new northbound auxiliary lane to the West 25th St exit is now open. One personal thought though is that unsurprisingly, a lot of the intimate feel of MN 100 passing through the neighborhood in St. Louis Park is no longer there. Small price to pay of course, but I'll miss that.

MN 610 in Maple Grove: Road bed is being graded and some overpass construction work at Fernbrook Lane at the least is underway, if not elsewhere along the extension.

[froggie]

I-494 in Maple Grove: All three southbound lanes to MN 55 plus the auxiliary lane between I-94/694 and Bass Lake Road are completed and open until spring when traffic will shift to that side so the northbound lanes can be rebuilt and widened.

A friend of mine posted a photo of this on his Facebook a couple weeks ago, as it's his normal commute route.  Sadly, I had to point out that it's "temporary" until construction resumes.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Oh, and at long, glorious, fucking last: US 52 Lafayette Bridge project is done.

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_29092737/st-paul-officials-mark-end-u-s-52?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook

[triplemultiplex]

Minnesota deserves credit for replacing a lot of old, structurally deficient bridges in the wake of the 35W collapse despite a tight road budget.  The Lafayette Bridge was one of the big ones.  And they have a bunch more under construction or in the pipeline.
It's good to see a state committed to fixing established infrastructure over expanding rural corridors.

[rte66man]

In St. Paul, I saw this bridge on Google Earth:
https://goo.gl/maps/dgbzLjfFmaM2

Surely there aren't plans to widen 494 that much?  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Smileys/default/confused0003.gif

[TheHighwayMan3561]

In St. Paul, I saw this bridge on Google Earth:
https://goo.gl/maps/dgbzLjfFmaM2

Surely there aren't plans to widen 494 that much?  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Smileys/default/confused0003.gif

I believe that design was to minimize the effects on some wetlands adjacent to the freeway.

[froggie]

Minnesota deserves credit for replacing a lot of old, structurally deficient bridges in the wake of the 35W collapse despite a tight road budget.  The Lafayette Bridge was one of the big ones.  And they have a bunch more under construction or in the pipeline.

That's mainly because the transportation package the Legislature passed during the 2008 session (over the Governor's veto, I might add) contained a funding increase that went SPECIFICALLY to two things:  widening MN 60 between Windom and St. James, and replacing/rehabilitating structurally-deficient bridges, with a focus (and Legislative mandate) on fracture-critical bridges.

[Roadguy]

In St. Paul, I saw this bridge on Google Earth:
https://goo.gl/maps/dgbzLjfFmaM2

Surely there aren't plans to widen 494 that much?  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Smileys/default/confused0003.gif

I believe that design was to minimize the effects on some wetlands adjacent to the freeway.

That is 100% correct.  Also the bridge was extended because if you were to place 20 feet of fill over that area, the soils are so poor that the roadway placed on top of that fill would have settled probably 1-3 feet.  Bridges don't settle because they are on piling but the soils under the approaches do especially when the fill is placed on poor soil.  It would have created quite the bump right at the bridge. 

All of the costs to mitigate the soils issues and allowing them to avoid major wetland impacts made extending the bridge worth it.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I took a day trip down through New Ulm and Mankato this afternoon, taking MN 68 between the two cities instead of US 14. But I was wondering if sometime down the line when they finish with their US 14 four-laning that MNDot might have designs on eliminating 68 east of New Ulm. It's a nice drive but the upgrades to US 14 make it superfluous. I'm not suggesting this turnback would happen anytime in the near future, more like sometime in the mid-2020s or later.

[froggie]

MnDOT completed a Jurisdictional Realignment study 2 summers ago.  According to that, they have no plans to turn back MN 68.

[froggie]

According to today's Pioneer Press, the EZPass lanes on I-35E between 694 and downtown St. Paul are supposed to open today (snowstorm permitting).  This is a big part of the overall reconstruction project on I-35E between downtown and Little Creek Rd.

A related construction project for next year will extend the EZPass lanes further north...to CSAH 96 southbound and County Rd J northbound.  The northbound lane will have a "gap" through the 694 commons, while the southbound lane will be continuous through the commons (starting at CSAH 96).

[JMAN_WiS&S]

Update Notes:
Both Intersections for the Century Ave/I-694 Interchanges have had their signals replaced with the stainless steel looking poles, and black signal heads, and the turn signals for Century Ave have been changed from 5 stack to 4 stack FYA. Also, a Dual Right turn lane has been added

[TheHighwayMan3561]

MNDot announced a new project for spring: rebuilding the ramp from MN 280 to northbound I-35W in Roseville, and resurfacing 280 between 35W and Como Avenue.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/hwy280/index.html

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I94RoadRunner just sent me a photo of a "JCT OLD MN 5" trailblazer on I-694 indicating the MN 5 turnback in Washington County is about to finally be completed.

[invincor]

I94RoadRunner just sent me a photo of a "JCT OLD MN 5" trailblazer on I-694 indicating the MN 5 turnback in Washington County is about to finally be completed.

Yes, I saw these myself on Wednesday night.  They're posted right next to the BGSes for the exit on both northbound and southbound, but all the old, normal MN 5 signage is still up too, or it was then.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I94RoadRunner just sent me a photo of a "JCT OLD MN 5" trailblazer on I-694 indicating the MN 5 turnback in Washington County is about to finally be completed.

Yes, I saw these myself on Wednesday night.  They're posted right next to the BGSes for the exit on both northbound and southbound, but all the old, normal MN 5 signage is still up too, or it was then.

I checked it out today. I'll post some photos later, but to summarize:

-Old MN 5 west of Lake Elmo to MN 120 is an extension of Washington CR 14; east of Lake Elmo to MN 36 is an extension of CR 15.
-The 1-mile guide sign on northbound I-694 has been patched over with a CR 14 shield. All other guide signs related to MN 5 have not been changed yet.
-All signs at the MN 36 interchange have been replaced, although the END MN 5/BEGIN CR 5 1/2 MILE sign has not been removed. There are no OLD MN 5 signs here like there are on 694.
-Still plenty of MN 5 mast-arm signs along the decommed stretch.

[froggie]

An article yesterday from the Worthington Daily Globe makes note of the 53 year process it's been to upgrade MN 60 to 4 lanes across the southern/western part of the state.  But there are 3 notable design changes being pursued for the final segment...from Windom to Mountain Lake:

- The left lane will be 11ft instead of 12ft.
- Some of the shoulder will be aggregate (gravel) instead of fully paved.
- The inside (left) shoulder will be 3ft instead of 4ft.

MnDOT estimates that this will save about $1 million.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I94RoadRunner just sent me a photo of a "JCT OLD MN 5" trailblazer on I-694 indicating the MN 5 turnback in Washington County is about to finally be completed.

Yes, I saw these myself on Wednesday night.  They're posted right next to the BGSes for the exit on both northbound and southbound, but all the old, normal MN 5 signage is still up too, or it was then.

I confirmed that all the old MN 5 signage is now gone since you and I went through there when I went to Stillwater on Tuesday. Anyway here are the photos from my drive through there 10 days ago:

New END MN 5 shield at MN 120



Patched-over guide sign on I-694


Old eastern terminus at MN 36 (note: there are no OLD MN 5 markers in this area)


OLD MN 5 assembly along MN 120 at the new eastern terminus.

[The Ghostbuster]

I'd like to see a lot more "old highway" signs. And not just in Minnesota.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I'd like to see a lot more "old highway" signs. And not just in Minnesota.

You might already be aware, but unfortunately these are only transitional and they'll be removed in a couple years.

I remember OLD US 12 assemblies being posted at the interchange with US 169 following I-394's creation, and OLD MN 49 signs posted at I-35W's Exit 36 after that route was retired.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

The state just released the 11 projects receiving a total of $32M under the Transportation Economic Development program.

Metro projects include:
-Interchange at MN 36 and Hadley Avenue just west of I-694
-US 169/MN 41 interchange construction near Jordan
-Completing the I-494/West Bush Lake Road interchange in Bloomington by adding a ramp to westbound 494. A ramp wasn't built either initially or during the 2006 I-494 widen/rebuild due to the proximity of a railroad and the MN 100 interchange.
-Rebuild of the US 52/Dakota CR 42 interchange in Rosemount
-Expansion of MN 41 to four lanes between US 212 and Pioneer Trail

Metro: http://www.mn.gov/gov-stat/pdf/2016_01_05_ted2016-metro.pdf

Outstate (not much except some minor intersection improvements): http://www.mn.gov/gov-stat/pdf/2016_01_05_ted2016-statewide.pdf

[peterj920]

I'd like to see a lot more "old highway" signs. And not just in Minnesota.

You might already be aware, but unfortunately these are only transitional and they'll be removed in a couple years.

I remember OLD US 12 assemblies being posted at the interchange with US 169 following I-394's creation, and OLD MN 49 signs posted at I-35W's Exit 36 after that route was retired.

Why would there be OLD US 12 signs along I-394 if US 12 is routed along I-394?  I know MNDOT wants to make it a hidden concurrency, but I don't think OLD US 12 signs were appropriate since it was part of the current routing.  US 10 is signed along I-35E and I-694 so why can't US 12 be signed along I-394 and I-94?

[Roadguy]

I'd like to see a lot more "old highway" signs. And not just in Minnesota.

You might already be aware, but unfortunately these are only transitional and they'll be removed in a couple years.

I remember OLD US 12 assemblies being posted at the interchange with US 169 following I-394's creation, and OLD MN 49 signs posted at I-35W's Exit 36 after that route was retired.

Why would there be OLD US 12 signs along I-394 if US 12 is routed along I-394?  I know MNDOT wants to make it a hidden concurrency, but I don't think OLD US 12 signs were appropriate since it was part of the current routing.  US 10 is signed along I-35E and I-694 so why can't US 12 be signed along I-394 and I-94?

US 12 was not signed along 394 due to the signing clutter it would have created (https://goo.gl/maps/q69HEHVSD2R2).  The signage is already dense in the corridor due to the close interchanges and MnPASS/HOT signing.  As for the OLD 12 you are right, that is not correct.

The same is done with 52 along 94 (https://goo.gl/maps/D6jUnMFHuKs) and 12 along 94 (https://goo.gl/maps/SBGY9QPz1J82) through the twin cities metro area with the same idea to reduce signage clutter.

MnDOT in Minneapolis/St. Paul for years has been trying to remove their non-freeway/expressway portions from the central cities recognizing the fact that the freeway system is dense enough to carry these routes.

The larger reason is MnDOT and these two cities also clash in visions for these more urban roadways.  An example is during the recent discussion with Bottineau LRT, Minneapolis wanted to turn Olson Mem (MN 55) into a one lane roadway each direction with turn lanes and sell the excess land off for development.  MnDOT and the suburban politicians clearly did not have this vision.  It came to the point where politicians got involved from as far out as Buffalo (The mayors of Golden Valley, Plymouth, and Medina were extremely outspoken about against the one lane concept), ultimately it will be LRT down the center and 3 lanes inbound/2 lanes outbound (with accommodations to be able to build a 3rd lane if necessary).  This just gives people an idea of how different the visions are for these types of roadways.

As we saw, MN 5 was the most recent turnback to the counties.  MN 7 east of 100 is another example.  MN 120, MN 65 (south of 694), MN 47 (south of 694), and MN 51 are all on the list to be turned back to local governments when the money is available to do so.