Topic: Minnesota Notes (Read 333507 times)

rte66man · « **Reply #50 on:** June 07, 2013, 08:52:47 AM »

Froggie, thanks for the link.

The project that would affect me the most is this one in central Mora:

Hwys 23, 65 Ann River bridge to north Hwy 23/65 junction in Mora

Description: Resurface 3 miles of road, repair median, repair underground utilities, install accessible pedestrian ramps and signals (ADA compliant), improve drainage
Construction Dates: Aug-Sept 2013
Traffic Impacts: Lane closures with flaggers, detour

rte66man

Coelacanth · « **Reply #51 on:** June 07, 2013, 09:59:01 AM »

The email was specific to the metro-area projects.

Specifically, the reduction to a single lane at the under-construction interchange with CSAH 30 in Maple Grove (Osseo? Champlin? whatever). And, more importantly for me, the month-plus-long repair work on the bridges between TH 62 and TH 7. 169 will be one lane each direction throughout that entire stretch, with some exits being closed for part of the work.

The big killer will be the closure of the ramp from Bren Rd to NB169. I would guess that ramp is the beginning of the afternoon commute for almost half of the several thousand people who work here, including me.

The recommended detour is to take SB 169 and use the loops to/from EB 62 to get on NB 169. Good thing EB 62 has almost no traffic during the afternoon rush....oh wait.

froggie · « **Reply #52 on:** June 08, 2013, 01:14:18 AM »

Quote

Specifically, the reduction to a single lane at the under-construction interchange with CSAH 30 in Maple Grove (Osseo? Champlin? whatever).

Brooklyn Park.

Mdcastle · « **Reply #53 on:** June 16, 2013, 11:05:09 PM »

IMG_2834 by North Star Highways, on Flickr
The first Minnesota doghouse and first Minnesota bimodal arrow.

froggie · « **Reply #54 on:** June 17, 2013, 02:06:00 AM »

Given the location (yes, it's sad that I know exactly where that is), that'd have to be a city installation. My question is why they'd have FYA in a case with both a dedicated left and a shared left-thru lane. IIRC the MnDOT manual, that scenario requires a protected left or split-phase, not a permitted left.

Stephane Dumas · « **Reply #55 on:** June 17, 2013, 07:00:41 PM »

Some folks on Openstreetmap posted the plans of a Y-interchange near Marion, south of Rochester near the current junction of US-52 and I-90.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=43.977778&mlon=-92.387222&zoom=12&layers=M

Is it really in MN DOT plans or if it's a fantasy of one guy at Openstreetmap?

twinsfan87 · « **Reply #56 on:** June 17, 2013, 08:04:10 PM »

I was just at a MnDOT signal coordination training class a few weeks ago and was talking to a guy in the MnDOT traffic department (Jerry Kotzomacher). He mentioned that MnDOT's new policy that is likely to be put into the next manual updates is that all new and retro-fit signals on the trunk highway system will be required to use 4-section FYA heads (for exclusive left turn lanes) or doghouse bimodal signals (for shared left turn lanes). Apparently MnDOT likes what they've seen from their test installations of the bimodal doghouse signals.

froggie · « **Reply #57 on:** June 19, 2013, 01:02:26 AM »

Quote

Some folks on Openstreetmap posted the plans of a Y-interchange near Marion, south of Rochester near the current junction of US-52 and I-90.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=43.977778&mlon=-92.387222&zoom=12&layers=M

Is it really in MN DOT plans or if it's a fantasy of one guy at Openstreetmap?

I've never seen any actual plans for the 52/90 interchange...I'm not sure they even exist. My guess is it's either some guy's fantasy or it came from a non-transportation-based source. I doubt MnDOT would go with such a configuration, however, given 52's importance to the south.

Quote

He mentioned that MnDOT's new policy that is likely to be put into the next manual updates is that all new and retro-fit signals on the trunk highway system will be required to use 4-section FYA heads (for exclusive left turn lanes) or doghouse bimodal signals (for shared left turn lanes). Apparently MnDOT likes what they've seen from their test installations of the bimodal doghouse signals.

Part of me is sad to see this, given that I see Minnesota's standard 5-lens vertical as iconic to the state. It'd be like Wisconsin or New Mexico getting rid of their horizontal overhead signals...

NE2 · « **Reply #58 on:** June 19, 2013, 01:23:25 AM »

All I could find for 90/52 is a full cloverleaf on http://capx2020.com/Regulatory/State/Minnesota/route-permit-app-HRL/Appendix_D_Hwy52.pdf page 170.

Mdcastle · « **Reply #59 on:** June 20, 2013, 10:49:09 PM »

I agree 5 light vertical heads with the ugly but distinct green-yellow-silver masts remind me of Minnesota. Also davit poles are something not a lot of states use, I felt like I was at home when on a trip through the northeast I drove through Rhode Island.

Also of note, the first large scale installation of LEDs on a trunk highway was just completed on Crosstown between Cedar and Hiawatha.

froggie · « **Reply #60 on:** June 20, 2013, 11:52:01 PM »

Can someone screencapture that 90/52 cloverleaf graphic and either E-mail it or post it here? Can't get to the PDF.

NE2 · « **Reply #61 on:** June 20, 2013, 11:57:21 PM »

It's just a cloverleaf with the east-side ramps pretty much where the current ramps are, and C/D roads on I-94.

Big John · « **Reply #62 on:** June 21, 2013, 01:00:21 PM »

Quote from: froggie on June 19, 2013, 01:02:26 AM

Part of me is sad to see this, given that I see Minnesota's standard 5-lens vertical as iconic to the state. It'd be like Wisconsin or New Mexico getting rid of their horizontal overhead signals...

Hate to break the news that Wisconsin is currently doing away with the horizontal signal.

texaskdog · « **Reply #63 on:** June 21, 2013, 01:41:05 PM »

Hey, why is there a stoplight on I-35 and US-53 in Duluth? Always wondered that.

agentsteel53 · « **Reply #64 on:** June 21, 2013, 01:47:42 PM »

Quote from: texaskdog on June 21, 2013, 01:41:05 PM

Hey, why is there a stoplight on I-35 and US-53 in Duluth? Always wondered that.

there is? I don't remember one. which ramp?

texaskdog · « **Reply #65 on:** June 21, 2013, 02:05:57 PM »

trying to remember, i know its I-35 northbound, I believe right onto 53. You could be able to see it on googlemaps, which doesn't let me paste though it seems to for y'all.

Yes I just looked, that is where it is. There is a stoplight.

agentsteel53 · « **Reply #66 on:** June 21, 2013, 03:01:31 PM »

found it. I've never done those ramps. is that a SPUI?

twinsfan87 · « **Reply #67 on:** June 21, 2013, 03:22:25 PM »

It's a two-phase signal between the I-35 NB ramp to US 53 NB and the US 53 SB ramp to I-35 NB/I-535/US 53 SB. My best guess is that it's there because the vertical and horizontal constraints at the interchange due to the surrounding land (railroads next to the NB lanes of I-35, industrial/commercial buildings just to the west of the interchange, US 53 on a viaduct west of the interchange, interchanges close-by on I-35 and US 53) and the lack of sufficient volume to warrant an expensive flyover ramp.

Mdcastle · « **Reply #68 on:** June 23, 2013, 10:07:40 AM »

Quote from: twinsfan87 on June 17, 2013, 08:04:10 PM

I was just at a MnDOT signal coordination training class a few weeks ago and was talking to a guy in the MnDOT traffic department (Jerry Kotzomacher). He mentioned that MnDOT's new policy that is likely to be put into the next manual updates is that all new and retro-fit signals on the trunk highway system will be required to use 4-section FYA heads (for exclusive left turn lanes) or doghouse bimodal signals (for shared left turn lanes). Apparently MnDOT likes what they've seen from their test installations of the bimodal doghouse signals.

What about permissive only? Use a 4-section and put a dummy arrow into the bottom section? Under the latest Minnesota MUTCD a 3-section FYA is allowed, but looks like they're going to pull this before the first one is installed. I do see the logic in that you could convert it to to protected/permissive in the future with just a programming change, and plastic signals aren't that expensive even when bought new.

Outside of Minneapolis and St. Paul which normally use their own standards on trunk highways, is there a permissive only turn lane on the trunk highway system?

twinsfan87 · « **Reply #69 on:** June 23, 2013, 10:31:23 PM »

Permissive-only turn lanes would be installed with a 4-section FYA signal but operated without the protected phase. Like you said, it would just take a matter of a programming change rather than a physical installation of a new arrow section if the traffic volumes or safety problems necessitated it.

Biddco · « **Reply #70 on:** June 24, 2013, 08:38:45 PM »

Quote from: Molandfreak on May 15, 2013, 05:25:54 PM

Notes 5-15:

.

Hinckley (I): There are cutout signs designating "Old U.S. 61" along county road 61. The signs themselves do not have the original "Minnesota US 61," rather, they are signed "HWY US 61."

Saw the same thing at the crossing of Minnesota TH 70 and Pine County Road 61 outside of Rock Creek. I'm very interested to see if there are more signs along the old 61 Route

froggie · « **Reply #71 on:** June 25, 2013, 04:24:38 AM »

Any photos of such signs? I'm sure Jake would be interested...as am I.

agentsteel53 · « **Reply #72 on:** June 25, 2013, 01:00:57 PM »

Quote from: froggie on June 25, 2013, 04:24:38 AM

Any photos of such signs? I'm sure Jake would be interested...as am I.

I have seen a sign pair that has an OLD banner on top of a HWY/US 61 cutout shield. photos of any other styles would be greatly appreciated!

Mdcastle · « **Reply #73 on:** June 25, 2013, 09:46:50 PM »

Since my "Great American Road Trips" to western Illinois have ended at 22 as of last year, I can probably get up north this summer if someone else doesn't.

Cheap plastic 5 light + high winds = fail

froggie · « **Reply #74 on:** June 26, 2013, 04:34:14 AM »

Judging from the mast arm, I'd guess a city installation?

News:

Author Topic: Minnesota Notes (Read 333507 times)