AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Minnesota Notes  (Read 324487 times)

Mdcastle

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 661
  • Last Login: January 28, 2023, 02:47:01 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #75 on: June 26, 2013, 08:37:56 AM »

Yes, Lake St and Thomas Ave.
Logged

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2897
  • Last Login: Today at 02:20:46 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #76 on: July 02, 2013, 06:58:53 PM »

I didn't realize that US 52's treated as a north-south highway by MNDOT; the exit numbers through Rochester indicate that.
Logged

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1860
  • Age: 27
  • Last Login: December 29, 2022, 03:05:04 AM
    • Instagram
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #77 on: July 02, 2013, 08:51:34 PM »

I didn't realize that US 52's treated as a north-south highway by MNDOT; the exit numbers through Rochester indicate that.
That's because most of the signed part follows former U.S. 55. The unsigned part was formerly signed E-W; the cutoff, I assume, was in Saint Paul, at Robert Street's junction with U.S. 10 on University Avenue.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12563
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: January 28, 2023, 10:52:09 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #78 on: July 03, 2013, 07:43:27 AM »

Not just Minnesota.  IIRC, 6 of the 10 states US 52 passes through classify it as a north-south route.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12563
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: January 28, 2023, 10:52:09 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #79 on: July 10, 2013, 05:31:33 AM »

MnDOT recently released it's Draft State Highway Investment Plan for the next 20 years.  It's a legislatively-manded update every 4 years of MnDOT's 20-year state highway policies and plans.  It also includes a 10-year District Work Plan for each MnDOT District and the Metro Division.  The first 4 years from the Work Plan are projects already in the STIP and currently funded. Years 5-10 are a general plan of specific project improvements but are subject to change.  Here's a quick-look at some of the major projects being proposed over the next 10 years, broken down by route type/number.

I-35:   pavement reconstruction and add auxiliary lanes between Bridge St and Old US 14 West in Owatonna, 2014.
I-35:   bridge replacement over the Snake River (Pine County, IIRC), 2019.
I-35E:  reconstruction/add MnPASS lane from I-94 to I-694, 2014.
I-35W:  add ramp from 4th St to NB I-35W and add auxiliary lane to Johnson St, 2014.
I-35W:  bridge replacement over the Minnesota River (placeholder...may not actually happen), 2020-22.
I-90:   construct interchange at Jackson CSAH 34 near Jackson, 2016.
I-94:   add eastbound auxiliary lane from 7th St to Mounds Blvd, 2016.
I-94:   interchange modification at US 75 in Moorhead, 2016.
I-94:   add managed lane between downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul (placeholder...may not actually happen), 2020-21.
I-494:  reconstruction and add "dynamic shoulder" from I-394 to I-94/694, 2014.

US 2:    bridge rehab or replacement over the Red River at East Grand Forks, 2018.
US 8:    roadway reconstruction from MN 95 South to Taylors Falls (this is the long grade into the St. Croix River valley), 2016.
US 14:   4-lane widening from Nicollet to North Mankato, 2018-19.
US 14:   Bridge replacements over the Minnesota River and Front St at New Ulm (should also include 4-laning), 2018-20.
US 53:   relocation/realignment from Eveleth to Virginia due to mine operations, 2015.
US 59:   construct roundabout at Becker CSAH 22 south of Detroit Lakes, 2017.
US 61:   reconstruct the two MN 97 intersections and replace with roundabouts, 2016.
US 63:   bridge replacement over the Mississippi River and US 61 at Red Wing, 2018.
US 169:  construct interchange at Scott CSAH 69 in Shakopee, 2014.
US 212:  reconstruct interchange at Hennepin CSAH 61/Shady Oak Rd, 2015.

MN 15:   construct interchange at 33rd St in st. Cloud/Waite Park (existing "freeway" segment between MN 23 and I-94), 2014.
MN 22:   construct a roundabout at Blue Earth CSAH 17/Madison Ave in Mankato (would have to be a multi-lane roundabout given the approach roads), 2014.
MN 24:   bridge replacement over the Mississippi River at Clearwater, 2017.
MN 29:   4-lane widening from I-94 to Douglas CSAH 28 and interchange modification at I-94, 2016.
MN 36:   St. Croix River Crossing, 2014-17.
MN 60:   4-lane widening from Mountain Lake to Butterfield, 2015.
MN 60:   4-lane widening from Windom to Mountain Lake, 2017-20.
MN 72:   bridge replacement over the Rainy River at Baudette, 2018.
MN 100:  reconstruction from 36th St to Cedar Lake Rd, including interchanges at MN 7 and Minnetonka Blvd, 2015.
MN 101:  reconstruction from the MN River to Carver CSAH 61 (old US 212), 2014 (likely part of a future turnback agreement).
MN 101:  construct interchange at Hennepin CSAH 144 in Rogers, 2014.
MN 210:  bridge replacement over the Mississippi River at Brainerd, 2020.
MN 250:  bridge replacements north of Lanesboro (mentioned b/c the existing bridges are old through-truss bridges), 2016.
MN 371:  4-lane widening from Nisswa to Crow Wing CSAH 16, 2018-21.
MN 610:  construct freeway from CSAH 81 to I-94 (placeholder...may not actually happen), 2018-19.
Logged

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1860
  • Age: 27
  • Last Login: December 29, 2022, 03:05:04 AM
    • Instagram
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #80 on: July 10, 2013, 09:28:19 AM »

US 169:  construct interchange at Scott CSAH 69 in Shakopee, 2014.
Finally!
Logged

rte66man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1697
  • Location: Oklahoma City, OK
  • Last Login: January 26, 2023, 09:46:34 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #81 on: July 10, 2013, 10:37:15 AM »

MnDOT recently released it's Draft State Highway Investment Plan for the next 20 years.......

MN 101:  construct interchange at Hennepin CSAH 144 in Rogers, 2014.


Google Maps won't give me the CSAH #.  Can I assume this is the intersection with 141st Av North?

rte66man
Logged
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

rte66man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1697
  • Location: Oklahoma City, OK
  • Last Login: January 26, 2023, 09:46:34 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #82 on: July 10, 2013, 10:38:59 AM »

Very disappointed to NOT see any mention of major work on US169 in and around Elk River.  :banghead:

rte66man
Logged
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12563
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: January 28, 2023, 10:52:09 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #83 on: July 10, 2013, 12:44:30 PM »

Quote
Google Maps won't give me the CSAH #.  Can I assume this is the intersection with 141st Av North?

Yes.
Logged

The High Plains Traveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1138
  • Age: Just an old prairie dog

  • Location: Pueblo West CO
  • Last Login: January 27, 2023, 05:05:06 PM
    • Unofficial Minnesota and New Mexico Highway Pages
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #84 on: July 11, 2013, 09:48:19 PM »

MnDOT recently released it's Draft State Highway Investment Plan for the next 20 years.  It's a legislatively-manded update every 4 years of MnDOT's 20-year state highway policies and plans.  It also includes a 10-year District Work Plan for each MnDOT District and the Metro Division.  The first 4 years from the Work Plan are projects already in the STIP and currently funded. Years 5-10 are a general plan of specific project improvements but are subject to change.  Here's a quick-look at some of the major projects being proposed over the next 10 years, broken down by route type/number.


MN 101:  reconstruction from the MN River to Carver CSAH 61 (old US 212), 2014 (likely part of a future turnback agreement).

This is the longest-running turnback process, having probably started in 1988 when MnDOT started looking for incentives for Carver to take back their portion of 101. That little piece from Scott County line to old 212 (CSAH 61) includes reconstruction of an unusual three-signal triangle to, IIRC, a roundabout. The piece of 101 from 212 (when it was that) to the Minnesota River was strangely marked Carver County 101, though it was on pentagonal signs, which Carver does not use. Thus, it was still a state highway. After old 212 was turned back, I was informed via e-mail that the former "County" 101 was again properly marked as MN-101.

Last month, I drove by the new U.S. 212 exit of 101, and it was marked County 101. This sign used a proper Carver County standard square white rectangle rather than the blue pentagon. MnDOT maps show the trunk highway terminus of this segment has moved south of 212, indicating that as the road is improved by MnDOT, it is then turned back to Carver County. I don't know what is planned for the winding segment of 101 that goes up the hill out of the river valley, but it's possible that once the afore-mentioned project is complete, that whole piece of 101 south of MN-5 may belong to Carver County.
Logged
"Tongue-tied and twisted; just an earth-bound misfit, I."

Mdcastle

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 661
  • Last Login: January 28, 2023, 02:47:01 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #85 on: July 11, 2013, 11:45:26 PM »

I get the idea that to get a new interchange  built nowadays, the local agencies have to really champion (and help get funding for) it. Elk River doesn't seem that excited about work on US 169, they paid for a study on US 10 but don't seem to be pushing that even.
Logged

rte66man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1697
  • Location: Oklahoma City, OK
  • Last Login: January 26, 2023, 09:46:34 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #86 on: July 13, 2013, 01:08:01 PM »

I get the idea that to get a new interchange  built nowadays, the local agencies have to really champion (and help get funding for) it. Elk River doesn't seem that excited about work on US 169, they paid for a study on US 10 but don't seem to be pushing that even.

Does MN work the same as OK where many local legislators have the stroke to get new projects done (or at least prioritized)?

rte66man
Logged
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

Mdcastle

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 661
  • Last Login: January 28, 2023, 02:47:01 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #87 on: July 13, 2013, 04:25:17 PM »

I noticed the US 10 detour signs up in the northern suburbs are cutouts.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12563
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: January 28, 2023, 10:52:09 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #88 on: July 14, 2013, 02:59:06 AM »

Quote
Does MN work the same as OK where many local legislators have the stroke to get new projects done (or at least prioritized)?

Not really.  They try...you always see bills specifying this project or that project in the Legislature, but they never go anywhere.  State law gives MnDOT a lot of leeway in determing where highway funds go on the state highway system, but there's also a fair bit of oversight...not the least of which being the requirement for "municipal consent" for road projects.  If the local town doesn't like the project, they have de facto veto power, except for certain Interstate highway projects.

The only example I can think of recently is the transportation bill about 5 years ago that increased the gas tax to help pay for bridges (in the aftermath of the 35W collapse).  A provision was inserted in that bill to also give funding to finish the 4-laning of MN 60 between Worthington and Mankato.  One could argue that this was a statewide priority anyway (has long been on MnDOT's priority list but languished due to funding), but some of us feel it was inserted as a way to "buy" those legislators votes to help ensure passage of the bill (which barely survived Pawlenty's veto as it was).

No, the main avenue for the Minnesota porkfest is the bi-annual bonding bill.  But that's also subject to fairly stringent budgeting limitations.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2013, 03:04:44 AM by froggie »
Logged

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5357
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: January 28, 2023, 05:42:34 PM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #89 on: July 15, 2013, 06:01:57 PM »

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!

I took this last summer. As far as I knew at the time they were restricted to Chisago County along CR 30, but it sounds from here like the shields have appeared elsewhere to the north.

Logged

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 41
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #90 on: July 15, 2013, 06:57:01 PM »

I noticed the US 10 detour signs up in the northern suburbs are cutouts.

I would certainly like to see a photo of that.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Biddco

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4
  • Last Login: July 18, 2013, 08:45:35 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #91 on: July 17, 2013, 11:20:38 PM »

Would love to see something done to the I-394 East to I-94 east in Minneapolis. Worst bottleneck in the Cities in my view
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12563
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: January 28, 2023, 10:52:09 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #92 on: July 18, 2013, 02:54:29 AM »

Short of what would be a *VERY* expensive widening of the Lowry Hill Tunnel, there's nothing that can be done for that EB 394 to EB 94 movement.
Logged

Biddco

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4
  • Last Login: July 18, 2013, 08:45:35 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #93 on: July 18, 2013, 08:41:29 AM »

Short of what would be a *VERY* expensive widening of the Lowry Hill Tunnel, there's nothing that can be done for that EB 394 to EB 94 movement.
Sigh. That is what I thought. I guess I'll just keep taking 55 or 694 to 94 to avoid it during peak times.
Logged

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3558
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Kyle, TX
  • Last Login: January 27, 2023, 04:25:04 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #94 on: July 18, 2013, 10:56:40 AM »

well, they could have built a freeway north of downtown to funnel off some traffic :P
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12563
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: January 28, 2023, 10:52:09 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #95 on: July 19, 2013, 02:08:20 AM »

That was the proposed I-335, which believe it or not did not have ramps planned at I-94, so it's effectiveness at funneling off traffic from the tunnel would have been minimal.
Logged

midwesternroadguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 134
  • Location: Midwest
  • Last Login: November 22, 2022, 06:32:42 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #96 on: July 19, 2013, 09:38:21 AM »

That was the proposed I-335, which believe it or not did not have ramps planned at I-94, so it's effectiveness at funneling off traffic from the tunnel would have been minimal.

I think that it did have some ramps that connected directly to I-94, but it may not have had a full set, it had some ramps connecting to local streets too (Plymouth Avenue?)

On another note, the 2013 MN official highway maps came out last week.  Some of the big changes:  US 14 west of Owatonna, US 53 expansion to Cook shown as under construction, TH 60 south of Worthington, scattered new interchanges in the Twin Cities and near Oronoco.  A big graphic change is the introduction of blue and red interstate route marker shields.  I love the idea, however the execution was weak, as the numbers extend across both the blue and red portions of the shield, and ideally should only be in the blue portion, as most other states have done with their maps.  Now if they could just graphically show main highway/US highways/NHS routes in red instead of black, and differentiate non-interstate limited access freeways from 4-lane divided highways, I'd be happy. 
Logged

The High Plains Traveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1138
  • Age: Just an old prairie dog

  • Location: Pueblo West CO
  • Last Login: January 27, 2023, 05:05:06 PM
    • Unofficial Minnesota and New Mexico Highway Pages
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #97 on: July 21, 2013, 10:51:18 PM »

That was the proposed I-335, which believe it or not did not have ramps planned at I-94, so it's effectiveness at funneling off traffic from the tunnel would have been minimal.

I think that it did have some ramps that connected directly to I-94, but it may not have had a full set, it had some ramps connecting to local streets too (Plymouth Avenue?)

On another note, the 2013 MN official highway maps came out last week.  Some of the big changes:  US 14 west of Owatonna, US 53 expansion to Cook shown as under construction, TH 60 south of Worthington, scattered new interchanges in the Twin Cities and near Oronoco.  A big graphic change is the introduction of blue and red interstate route marker shields.  I love the idea, however the execution was weak, as the numbers extend across both the blue and red portions of the shield, and ideally should only be in the blue portion, as most other states have done with their maps.  Now if they could just graphically show main highway/US highways/NHS routes in red instead of black, and differentiate non-interstate limited access freeways from 4-lane divided highways, I'd be happy. 
Maps are not available on line yet. Kind of late in the year for the next 2-year edition to be made available. Minnesota maps have always had the kinds of graphics you're describing, with no color differentiation between minor and major state routes. It would be a major change now to go to red for major routes.
Logged
"Tongue-tied and twisted; just an earth-bound misfit, I."

Mdcastle

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 661
  • Last Login: January 28, 2023, 02:47:01 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #98 on: August 03, 2013, 10:27:52 PM »

I noticed the US 10 detour signs up in the northern suburbs are cutouts.

I would certainly like to see a photo of that.


IMG_2971 by North Star Highways, on Flickr

More new photos on Flickr: MN 36 and English, Stillwater Bridge, US 10 and County 96
Logged

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 41
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #99 on: August 04, 2013, 01:45:35 AM »

36 inches, no less.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.