Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Alex]

Received an email from Pine City about their new business loop for I-35. www.aaroads.com/forum_images/central/pine_city_business_loop_map.pdf

Anyone willing to add this with Google Map Maker?

[Mdcastle]

The political fallout from the I-35W bridge disaster required Mn/DOT to get rid of, in most cases, major fracture critical bridges. Rehabilitating it to add redundant elements and address deteriorating components was almost exactly the same as scrapping it and building a new one with a 100 year design life. 

[TheHighwayMan394]

Received an email from Pine City about their new business loop for I-35. www.aaroads.com/forum_images/central/pine_city_business_loop_map.pdf

Anyone willing to add this with Google Map Maker?

They just replaced the signs at the two interchanges on I-35 in the last couple years so I'd be pleasantly surprised to see any mainline I-35 signage for the loop.

[Molandfreak]

Received an email from Pine City about their new business loop for I-35. www.aaroads.com/forum_images/central/pine_city_business_loop_map.pdf

Anyone willing to add this with Google Map Maker?

They just replaced the signs at the two interchanges on I-35 in the last couple years so I'd be pleasantly surprised to see any mainline I-35 signage for the loop.

They could pull a sketchy Montana. http://goo.gl/maps/6bXGM

[agentsteel53]

They could pull a sketchy Montana. http://goo.gl/maps/6bXGM

what's even sketchier is the green sign on the right.  since when does an interstate pull-through get local town streets added to it?

[Molandfreak]

They could pull a sketchy Montana. http://goo.gl/maps/6bXGM

what's even sketchier is the green sign on the right.  since when does an interstate pull-through get local town streets added to it?

Not unheard of. http://goo.gl/maps/TVHnp

[TheHighwayMan394]

The Pine City BL is signed on I-35 in both directions at the first interchange with it but not repeated at the second. By the way, the route follows the decommissioned MN 324 into downtown from the south end of the business loop, then follows old US 61 through downtown north to Pine CR 11 west back to I-35.

[Molandfreak]

So it's signed a la Faribault's business loop. That makes much more sense than signing it from both directions at both exits. If I wanted the business loop, I would have taken the first exit.

[TheHighwayMan394]

I kind of wonder what decisions go into asking for a business loop. I would think Sandstone would be a perfect place for a business loop following MN 23 between the I-35 junctions at Exit 191 and 195.

[froggie]

Not really, since even MN 23 bypasses the bulk of Sandstone's business district.  You'd have to route it partially along MN 123 and a short bit of Main St (what maps identify as Pine CSAH 64).

[TheHighwayMan394]

Not really, since even MN 23 bypasses the bulk of Sandstone's business district.  You'd have to route it partially along MN 123 and a short bit of Main St (what maps identify as Pine CSAH 64).

Close enough.

[Molandfreak]

Breaking news: U.S. 63 signage in Rochester north of CSAH 22 has been changed to extend CSAH 33. 63 is still on its old alignment through Rochester, so it has a gap for the time being. There are no 63 signs on highway 52, but the BGSes for CSAH 14 have been replaced to reflect the reroute. 63 is also unsigned anywhere along CSAH 14.

[Brandon]

They could pull a sketchy Montana. http://goo.gl/maps/6bXGM

what's even sketchier is the green sign on the right.  since when does an interstate pull-through get local town streets added to it?

Like this?

Granted, I-55 ends at LSD, but still, it's the control "city" on the pull-through.

[TheHighwayMan394]

Breaking news: U.S. 63 signage in Rochester north of CSAH 22 has been changed to extend CSAH 33. 63 is still on its old alignment through Rochester, so it has a gap for the time being. There are no 63 signs on highway 52, but the BGSes for CSAH 14 have been replaced to reflect the reroute. 63 is also unsigned anywhere along CSAH 14.

So just so I understand - 63 now follows 52 north from their current interchange near the airport north to CR 14, then east on CR 14 to the current route of 63?

[Molandfreak]

Breaking news: U.S. 63 signage in Rochester north of CSAH 22 has been changed to extend CSAH 33. 63 is still on its old alignment through Rochester, so it has a gap for the time being. There are no 63 signs on highway 52, but the BGSes for CSAH 14 have been replaced to reflect the reroute. 63 is also unsigned anywhere along CSAH 14.

So just so I understand - 63 now follows 52 north from their current interchange near the airport north to CR 14, then east on CR 14 to the current route of 63?

That is the plan. But for now it remains signed on Broadway until CSAH 22. So there's a gap in U.S. 63 until MN/DOT signs it along 52-14.

[TheHighwayMan394]

Might end up like MN 55 in Minneapolis, where there is one brief mention of joining I-94 at Exit 230 and no mention of the duplex anywhere else. Hopefully it ends up fully signed though.

[Mdcastle]

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?

I finally got a chance to field-check.

MN 243 IMG_4220 by North Star Highways, on Flickr


MN 243 IMG_4224 by North Star Highways, on Flickr
The old road heading west of MN 243, the powerlines still follow this route.


MN 243 IMG_4231 by North Star Highways, on Flickr
Opposite direction from MN 95. Part of the road is now a long driveway, marked No Trespassing so I didn't venture in.

[TheHighwayMan394]

I-35 southbound through the southwest part of downtown Duluth was unexpectedly shut down and will be for a few weeks after crews found a problem with a piling supporting the route's viaduct through that part of town. The route is closed from Lake Ave to I-535.

[JREwing78]

Another instance of pilings rusting out. Apparently this isn't just a Wisconsin thing (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10525.0)

Portion of southbound I-35 in Duluth closing for repairs
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/283870/

[froggie]

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/newsrels/13/10/20speed.html

MnDOT's raising the rural (i.e. outside of towns/cities) speed limit from 55 to 60 on all of US 75, most of US 59 (south of Worthington and from Clarkfield to Marshall), and on MN 7 between US 75 and Appleton.  This map shows the general locations.

[I94RoadRunner]

Thanks for the list Froggie -- MnDOT has some informative project pages that come right up on Google.

I will miss that old-school I-694/MN 51 interchange though.

I drove that interchange at I-694 and MN 51 daily and trust me that it was no picnic in rush hour trying to get across from MN 51 north to continue on US 10. During construction, I was missing US 10 and MN 51 being open! It was several commutes on Silver Lake Road, Old Highway 8, and Lexington at double the time to get to work for me .....

I do wish that MNDot had used the other proposal that they had which was for higher speed ramps from MN 51 north to both I-694 and US 10 instead of the two loop ramps. Well, the new configuration is still a vast improvement over the weave and single through lane on I-694.

[froggie]

MnDOT updated their Logpoint a few weeks ago.  A few items of note:

- US 63 is listed along its new routing around Rochester, utilizing US 52 and CSAH 14/75th St NW.

- MN 244 still exists in Washington County.

- MN 295, MN 332, and MN 333 are gone.

- While MN 361 was turned back, there are 8 bridges still listed on the Logpoint.  What that likely means is those bridges still belong to MnDOT and are awaiting improvements before they get turned back.

- A new route, MN 410, is listed in the Logpoint between I-94 and US 10 but is also listed as "Non-Existent".  The city codes suggest this is the designation MnDOT is giving to the planned I-94/US 10 connector near Clearwater and Clear Lake.

- A "MN 923" exists to reflect the segment of Old MN 23 through Paynesville that is to be turned back.  Same case with a "US 963" along US 63's old alignment along Broadway Ave through Rochester (but only as far as CSAH 22/37th St NE).

[NE2]

If anyone cares about history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Minnesota/All-time_list

I think the only one missing from Riner's log is 234, which was proposed, then disappeared, then reappeared as an extension of 64.

Anyone know what LR 314 is?

[The High Plains Traveler]

They could pull a sketchy Montana. http://goo.gl/maps/6bXGM

what's even sketchier is the green sign on the right.  since when does an interstate pull-through get local town streets added to it?

Not unheard of. http://goo.gl/maps/TVHnp

And from the same area: http://goo.gl/maps/XXljy. It helps that MnDOT doesn't see control cities at freeway-freeway interchanges as important within the Twin Cities core.

[NE2]

Neither of those Minnesota examples is a pull-through...?