Topic: Minnesota Notes (Read 324487 times)

The High Plains Traveler · « **Reply #100 on:** August 07, 2013, 01:57:02 PM »

2013-14 Minnesota map is now available on line. One thing I noticed is that MN-27 east of Alexandria to Osakis is being turned back as a county road, and 27 uses former MN-127 to connect to I-94. It then runs concurrent with I-94 to west of Alexandria. I think this can be accomplished without modifying Legislative Routes.

froggie · « **Reply #101 on:** August 08, 2013, 07:51:18 AM »

I found this press release from last October that describes the change.

MN 127 and the section of MN 27 in question were part of Constitutional Route (noted as "C.R." below) 3, but now that the Alexandria city limits have extended south of I-94, C.R. 3 can be routed along I-94 without issue...there's precedent elsewhere in the state for this.

Also, that stretch of old MN 27 between Alexandria and Osakis underwent a full-depth reconstruction about 10 years ago, in concrete, and is in good shape.

Mdcastle · « **Reply #102 on:** August 11, 2013, 03:10:40 PM »

Are MN 295 and MN 333 gone? Can't find them listed on the map.

froggie · « **Reply #103 on:** August 12, 2013, 02:51:03 AM »

Looks to be that way, yes. Both were still on the August, 2010 Logpoint but were delisted by the February, 2012 Logpoint.

Molandfreak · « **Reply #104 on:** August 14, 2013, 04:45:35 PM »

MN 295 was probably decommissioned. Some of the signs were recycled for the MN 19 detour in Northfield; you can see the ghost "295."

froggie · « **Reply #105 on:** August 21, 2013, 06:50:33 AM »

That's a possibility, but MnDOT has long been known to recycle/refinish old signs after sign replacement projects.

On a different note, while digging through Chisago County imagery for a GIS project, I noticed what might have been an old MN 243 alignment west of the curve near the river bridge. It looks like it used to tie into 263rd St. A quick check of MnDOT's project logs lists a 1953 project that relocated MN 243, but doesn't show the old alignment. Has anyone (Monte?) field-checked this?

NE2 · « **Reply #106 on:** August 21, 2013, 01:11:58 PM »

Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2013, 06:50:33 AM

That's a possibility, but MnDOT has long been known to recycle/refinish old signs after sign replacement projects.

I think the point is that they had these 295 signs lying around because it's gone.

froggie · « **Reply #107 on:** August 24, 2013, 02:53:21 AM »

Something else I've noticed recently in my research: Carver County's transportation plan, where they propose relocating MN 25 to what is basically the CSAH 33 corridor, with a couple miles of new construction, with a little bit of new construction to tie it directly into the western US 212/MN 5/MN 25 intersection west of NYA.

Just one problem with that. The language for Constitutional Route (C.R.) 25 specifies that it serve both Norwood and Watertown. So while MN 25 could be relocated as the county proposes, MnDOT would still have to retain a state highway that directly connects NYA, Watertown, and Montrose.

This isn't the first time I've seen this sort of disconnect, even within MnDOT. Past versions of MnDOT Metro Division's district plan proposed turning back parts of US 61, MN 20, and MN 50 in Dakota County, even though all three are required to meet Constitutional Route requirements. Especially MN 20, where Constitutional Route 20 is specifically written to end at "a point on Route No 3 in the town(ship) of Douglas, Dakota County, T 113, R 17 W".

Molandfreak · « **Reply #108 on:** August 24, 2013, 08:22:17 AM »

Confirmed: MN 295 and MN 333 are gone. Oddly they are still under MN/DOT's adopt a highway program.

Mdcastle · « **Reply #109 on:** August 24, 2013, 10:38:19 AM »

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/9583986308/" title="IMG_3271 by North Star Highways, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7311/9583986308_ed2d12ef88_z.jpg" width="640" height="480" alt="IMG_3271"></a>

So why can't I embed Flickr photos anymore?

on_wisconsin · « **Reply #110 on:** August 25, 2013, 01:25:51 AM »

by North Star Highways, on Flickr

Try using the [img] tags.

froggie · « **Reply #111 on:** August 25, 2013, 02:29:37 AM »

Nice find...presume it was somewhere near Elk Run, but where specifically?

Molandfreak · « **Reply #112 on:** August 25, 2013, 02:33:42 AM »

Quote from: froggie on August 25, 2013, 02:29:37 AM

Nice find...presume it was somewhere near Elk Run, but where specifically?

520th Street is the Olmsted/Goodhue county line.

froggie · « **Reply #113 on:** August 25, 2013, 02:49:20 AM »

Yes, I know that, but it doesn't tell me what road the sign is on. It's not necessarily located on 520th St.

Molandfreak · « **Reply #114 on:** August 25, 2013, 02:58:23 AM »

Sorry, Mdcastle will know. I was just down there during Gold Rush Days and it was almost unnavigable.

Probably on the most recent incarnation of county 12, where it meets 52 west of the brand new roundabout on county 18.

Mdcastle · « **Reply #115 on:** August 25, 2013, 10:10:00 AM »

Signs, there's actually a couple of them like that, one on the southbound mainline (if IRC correctly), one at the gore area, and one on the left side of the southbound off-ramp approaching the junction, which is the one on the pictures. (You can't see the "MN 52" mainline in the shot because it's looking up from a ramp). I think one of the median crossovers is closed an they're telling traffic they have to go south and make a U-turn at the interchange now (a construction worker saw me take the picture and gave a "WTF?" look.). I needed to get to Kendall, WI before 5 so I didn't have as much time to snoop around in the area as I would hae liked.

MN 243- going by online resources it does look like there was an old road to the Franconia Bridge (for lack of a better name), but it looks to me like it met MN 95 south of 263rd, lining up with what was then an old road on the other side. There's still power lines, private driveways, and a break in property lines along it. If you want I'll see if there's anything worth photographing the next time I'm in the area.

midwesternroadguy · « **Reply #116 on:** September 06, 2013, 10:35:22 AM »

US 52 DDI at Elk Run:

The interchange fully opened in the last week. I drove through it, and lo and behold as soon as I exited the off-ramp onto the overpass I encountered a wrong-way pick-up coming at me. I stopped, flashed my lights at him and pointed to the other side of the roadway. He actually stopped, backed up, and drove down the right--er, correct/left--side of the roadway. Luckily he didn't go the wrong way onto the exit ramp off of 52. I have decided to avoid the whole mess for a number of months risking another near-miss, as traffic volumes are light enough to not provide visual cues about the proper movement of traffic through the DDI.

Other observations: The "free flow" turns controlled by yield signs have absolutely no merging space or auxiliarly lanes. I see this as a major flaw. Particularly with the waist-high weeds (they're weeds and not landscape plantings) that block sight lines as you're merging. There needs to be much more signage prohibiting turns and guiding the counter flow crossings. People are missing the little signage that's there. The angle of the intersections and curb radii encourage people to turn right into the oncoming traffic. County 12/31 is paved in concrete between the frontage road roundabouts which is a little unusual, but nice.

I'm afraid that between the roundabouts and the DDI (wouldn't the term "braided interchange" be more appropriate and descriptive?), that most of the locals will avoid it. People in the Rochester area are particularly roundabout-phobic.

NE2 · « **Reply #117 on:** September 06, 2013, 12:32:14 PM »

Quote from: midwesternroadguy on September 06, 2013, 10:35:22 AM

wouldn't the term "braided interchange" be more appropriate and descriptive?

Already used for a C/D-like setup where an offramp crosses over or under an onramp.

froggie · « **Reply #118 on:** September 07, 2013, 02:30:02 AM »

Quote

Other observations: The "free flow" turns controlled by yield signs have absolutely no merging space or auxiliarly lanes. I see this as a major flaw.

My hunch is they're waiting for the development at Elk Run to actually kick in, at which point signal warrants will probably be met.

on_wisconsin · « **Reply #119 on:** October 02, 2013, 04:38:57 AM »

The new I-90 Dresbach Bridge project over the Mississippi River between MN & WI near La Crosse, is well under way.

Looking towards MN:

New construction with the current bridge in the background:

both courtesy of the Dresbach Bridge Project Facebook site- https://www.facebook.com/DresbachBridge

froggie · « **Reply #120 on:** October 02, 2013, 07:00:53 AM »

That retaining wall is for the relocated access road down to the boat access point. Needed as the old access road is basically where the I-90 mainline will be...the vast cleared swath in the upper photo.

ARMOURERERIC · « **Reply #121 on:** October 02, 2013, 06:02:11 PM »

Why is the bridge being replaced, the old one seems to look OK?

on_wisconsin · « **Reply #122 on:** October 02, 2013, 06:36:55 PM »

The current bridge is being replaced due to it having a non-redundant design and not meeting modern geometric standards. It is also fracture critical.

mgk920 · « **Reply #123 on:** October 02, 2013, 08:29:47 PM »

Quote from: on_wisconsin on October 02, 2013, 06:36:55 PM

The current bridge is being replaced due to it having a non-redundant design and not meeting modern geometric standards. It is also fracture critical.

From what you are saying, can I correctly surmise that it is of essentially the same design that failed on the Hoan bridge (I-794) in Milwaukee a decade ago? The former College Ave bridge over the Fox River here in Appleton was of the same design, too, and was replaced in 2008-2009.

Mike

froggie · « **Reply #124 on:** October 03, 2013, 12:46:52 AM »

Different design than the Hoan but the same issue...fracture-critical. The existing bridge also lacks shoulders.

News:

Author Topic: Minnesota Notes (Read 324487 times)