AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Minnesota Notes  (Read 309243 times)

triplemultiplex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3275
  • "You read it; you can't unread it!"

  • Location: inside the beltline
  • Last Login: October 05, 2022, 02:50:00 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1500 on: June 16, 2022, 02:49:18 PM »

I supposed since everyone else is talking about the new Brooklyn Park Taco Bell:




Wow, fancy!  No wonder they won the Franchise Wars. ;)
Logged
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5209
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 06:05:44 PM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1501 on: June 25, 2022, 11:53:11 PM »

MnDOT has approved a six-leg roundabout that will carry MN 19, the northbound I-35 on and off ramps, and Rice CSAH 46/59 on the east side of the I-35 interchange.

https://kdhlradio.com/rice-county-6-legged-roundabout-approved-by-mndot/

« Last Edit: June 25, 2022, 11:57:41 PM by TheHighwayMan394 »
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 23201
  • My 2 Achilles' heels: sarcasm & snark

  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: Today at 05:02:31 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1502 on: June 27, 2022, 02:55:11 PM »

Is that the Flying J exit?
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. Dick
If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

andarcondadont

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 55
  • I mainly focus on Minnesota

  • Location: Anoka County, MN
  • Last Login: Today at 12:34:23 AM
    • University of Minnesota's Center for Transportation Studies
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1503 on: June 27, 2022, 02:59:47 PM »

Is that the Flying J exit?
Indeed you are correct
Logged
Student at the University of Minnesota.
Quote from: Robby Valentine
Life is just a fading star, it's going too fast.

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5209
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 06:05:44 PM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1504 on: June 27, 2022, 04:03:39 PM »

Is that the Flying J exit?
Indeed you are correct

Also where most of the services listed on the logo signs (other than the Flying J) are 7-8 miles from I-35 in Northfield proper, Unless you're going to Northfield itself you might as well just wait until Faribault (SB) or Lakeville (NB) to stop. :P
« Last Edit: June 27, 2022, 06:11:12 PM by TheHighwayMan394 »
Logged

rte66man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1642
  • Location: Warr Acres, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 09:36:51 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1505 on: June 29, 2022, 06:33:40 AM »

Is that the Flying J exit?
Indeed you are correct

Also where most of the services listed on the logo signs (other than the Flying J) are 7-8 miles from I-35 in Northfield proper, Unless you're going to Northfield itself you might as well just wait until Faribault (SB) or Lakeville (NB) to stop. :P

How right you are! My biggest complaint about the Services on the blue sign is they are often deceptive. Why should you be allowed to put up a sign when you are 3, 4, or more miles off the exit? You don't know that until you actually exit, thereby increasing frustration.
Logged
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1798
  • Age: 27
  • Last Login: Today at 02:36:47 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1506 on: July 02, 2022, 09:33:41 PM »

At least the roundabouts in Rice County are going in nice locations that have enough room for them, and where improvements actually need to be made. I think MN/DOT jumped the shark in New Prague replacing almost all of the traffic lights with them, so I can understand why some folks in the area are a little apprehensive, but not to the degree of negative reception this one is getting.

All I hope is that MN/DOT relinquishes its vendetta against passing lanes and gives us at least one between Northfield and I-35…
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12451
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 03:42:35 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1507 on: July 04, 2022, 09:21:31 AM »

^ Maybe it's just District 6 that has a "vendetta"?  Plenty of passing lanes that have been built elsewhere outstate, even recently.  MnDOT recently built a set of 6 along MN 23 spread out between I-90 and Willmar.
Logged

mattaudio

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4
  • Last Login: July 29, 2022, 02:32:39 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1508 on: July 14, 2022, 02:16:36 PM »

Crow Wing County recently released "TH 210/TH 371 Intersection Study - Improvement Concepts Definition and Assessment
Memo"
https://www.crowwing.us/DocumentCenter/View/18919/TH-210-TH-371-Intersection-Study---FINAL-Alternatives-Definition-and-Assessment-Memo---062122

The most obvious combination to me seems like a folded diamond facing away from the train tracks, plus a grade separation at Excelsior Road. I have no idea why that alternative was not studied.











Logged

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5209
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 06:05:44 PM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1509 on: July 14, 2022, 04:16:18 PM »

I do think it's interesting how two of the alternatives have MN 210 as the through movement, but maybe they thought the tracks would be easier to work with by bending 210 away from them and putting the ramps to/from 371 in the old ROW on the south side.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12451
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 03:42:35 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1510 on: July 14, 2022, 08:09:22 PM »

Reading through the assessment memo, staff recommended that Concept 1 (the at-grade DLT) and Concept 4 (the N/S DDI) be removed from consideration...the DLT because it doesn't grade separate 371 from the railroad, and the N/S DDI because of the construction cost (bridging 371 over the railroad and then 210 over 371), lowering the railroad grade, and removal of access at 371/Excelsior and possibly Design Rd (the 3/4 intersection north of 371/Excelsior).

Matt:  my guess is that they didn't consider your idea because the city wants to retain access at 371/Excelsior.
Logged

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1798
  • Age: 27
  • Last Login: Today at 02:36:47 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1511 on: July 14, 2022, 10:50:59 PM »

Option 2 seems like the best bet to me since it limits the interruption on 371 without limiting the Excelsior access. An interchange prioritizing 210’s traffic flow would feel a bit weird since that’s the more heavily-lighted road at the moment.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3661
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: Today at 05:45:47 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1512 on: July 18, 2022, 02:35:29 PM »

I would choose either Option 2 or Option 5 for the old US 210/old US 371 intersection.
Logged

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5209
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 06:05:44 PM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1513 on: July 18, 2022, 03:56:30 PM »

I would choose either Option 2 or Option 5 for the old US 210/old US 371 intersection.

I'm not big on Option 2 because it requires stoplights on both routes. Option 5 has already been eliminated from consideration due to costs and impacts on local access to the north. I think MN 371 should have been the through movement, but that's not going to happen.
Logged

KCRoadFan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 773
  • Enthusiastic fan of roads, sports, and waterparks.

  • Age: 29
  • Location: Kansas City, MO
  • Last Login: Today at 02:49:04 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1514 on: July 19, 2022, 01:06:51 AM »

MnDOT has approved a six-leg roundabout that will carry MN 19, the northbound I-35 on and off ramps, and Rice CSAH 46/59 on the east side of the I-35 interchange.

https://kdhlradio.com/rice-county-6-legged-roundabout-approved-by-mndot/



That roundabout looks like a huge mess...
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12451
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 03:42:35 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1515 on: July 19, 2022, 08:04:46 AM »

No worse than the existing situation, with 2 intersections within about 200 feet of each other.

Can't really put a traffic signal at the northbound ramps because it would backup into the 19/46/59 intersection.  Can't shift 46/59 east due to ROW and wetland impacts.  So a roundabout does seem like the best solution...it fits almost exactly within the existing ROW (with the exception of a tiny sliver along where CR 59 gets realigned).  The reason for a wide roundabout is trucks.  19 is the main truck access into Northfield with ~700 a day.  There's also a Flying J just off the map to the left so a lot of trucks will be using the roundabout.

The main downside that I see is this appears to put to bed any idea of 4-laning 19 between I-35 and Northfield.  I don't see a way that they could widen the roundabout to accommodate 4 lanes on 19...the ramp spacing seems a bit too tight and the volume of trucks would be problematic for the curvature too.
Logged

mattaudio

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4
  • Last Login: July 29, 2022, 02:32:39 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1516 on: July 19, 2022, 09:29:30 AM »

There's no need to four lane TH 19 to Northfield. Spot improvements and access management will maintain things just fine. It's 7 miles from this intersection to the heart of Northfield.

Too bad the stoplight on the southbound ramps will remain rather than becoming a roundabout or half dumbbell as well.
Logged

webny99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11084
  • Left lane is for passing, not camping!

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Monroe County, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 12:17:43 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1517 on: July 19, 2022, 03:34:47 PM »

An update on I-94 northwest of the Twin Cities as I passed through this past weekend; from west to east...

-Five miles from MN 24/Clearwater to CR 8 is now fully six lanes. The striping is a bit odd, wider and more closely spaced than usual for MN, more like the Indiana Toll Road, but very nice otherwise.
-There's still a 10-mile construction zone that felt much longer from CR 8 to MN 25/Monticello. The eastbound roadway is being rebuilt, so both directions are sharing the westbound roadway.
-MN 25/Monticello to CR 19/Albertville is still four lanes with no active widening. There was a sign that said it was under study by MnDOT, although I don't remember the exact language.
-East of CR 19/Albertville is now fully six lanes, and eight lanes from MN 101 to MN 610.

I hadn't been on the northern end of I-494 in several years but noted it is now fully six lanes as well. It's a very nice road now but the 60 mph limit felt slow (especially compared to 65 mph on more urbanized sections of I-35W, MN 77, etc.)
Logged
On April 25, 2022, I became the 20th user in forum history to Like the Forum Way, Way Too Much. And then I found that there's another way..
__ _______ ___ __ _______ _____

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12451
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 03:42:35 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1518 on: July 19, 2022, 09:36:28 PM »

-MN 25/Monticello to CR 19/Albertville is still four lanes with no active widening. There was a sign that said it was under study by MnDOT, although I don't remember the exact language.

Per the project manager (who I happen to know), it's tentatively scheduled for 2024-25.  They have partial funding lined up.  How much actually gets done (and when) will be dependent on whatever additional funding they can get.
Logged

webny99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11084
  • Left lane is for passing, not camping!

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Monroe County, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 12:17:43 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1519 on: July 19, 2022, 10:09:31 PM »

-MN 25/Monticello to CR 19/Albertville is still four lanes with no active widening. There was a sign that said it was under study by MnDOT, although I don't remember the exact language.

Per the project manager (who I happen to know), it's tentatively scheduled for 2024-25.  They have partial funding lined up.  How much actually gets done (and when) will be dependent on whatever additional funding they can get.

Good to know! Needless to say I hope it does get done so six lanes will be continuous from Clearwater to I-494.
Logged
On April 25, 2022, I became the 20th user in forum history to Like the Forum Way, Way Too Much. And then I found that there's another way..
__ _______ ___ __ _______ _____

flan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 35
  • Location: MN
  • Last Login: Today at 03:01:19 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1520 on: July 24, 2022, 05:19:33 AM »

I am amazed by the relatively quick removal process for MN 237. I mean, the process for the removal of MN 120 and MN 244 from MN 96 to Stillwater Rd have began two decades ago, yet they are still maintained by MnDOT.

Is there by any a chance some MNDOT list somewhere that lists exactly which state highways are being considered for immediate turnback? I got around to driving MN 237 last fall, but I had missed the boat on MN 54. Knowing my luck MN 120 and 244 will be county roads by next week when I plan to finally drive them haha.
Logged

brad2971

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 332
  • Native Roadgeeking Son of the Great Plains

  • Age: 51
  • Location: Denver, CO
  • Last Login: Today at 07:41:34 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1521 on: July 24, 2022, 01:17:58 PM »

Reading through the assessment memo, staff recommended that Concept 1 (the at-grade DLT) and Concept 4 (the N/S DDI) be removed from consideration...the DLT because it doesn't grade separate 371 from the railroad, and the N/S DDI because of the construction cost (bridging 371 over the railroad and then 210 over 371), lowering the railroad grade, and removal of access at 371/Excelsior and possibly Design Rd (the 3/4 intersection north of 371/Excelsior).

Matt:  my guess is that they didn't consider your idea because the city wants to retain access at 371/Excelsior.


Has MnDOT at any point and time considered a study of the BNSF traffic on that particular line that is parallel to MN 210? Maybe, instead of trying things like CFI intersections and DDI interchanges, MnDOT may want to base the solution on what can be done with the BNSF line instead (i.e. raise the grade and rebuild the line over MN 371 instead).
Logged

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5209
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 06:05:44 PM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1522 on: July 24, 2022, 02:13:44 PM »

I am amazed by the relatively quick removal process for MN 237. I mean, the process for the removal of MN 120 and MN 244 from MN 96 to Stillwater Rd have began two decades ago, yet they are still maintained by MnDOT.

Is there by any a chance some MNDOT list somewhere that lists exactly which state highways are being considered for immediate turnback? I got around to driving MN 237 last fall, but I had missed the boat on MN 54. Knowing my luck MN 120 and 244 will be county roads by next week when I plan to finally drive them haha.

There is, but it moved from the bookmark I had it under and I'm currently unable to find it again (froggie is much better than I am at digging through the bowels of the MnDOT archives anyway). I'm not sure if it was 100% comprehensive, but some sections outlined for future turnback/realignment in the document are currently not possible under the state constitution either.
Logged

Mdcastle

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 660
  • Last Login: October 01, 2022, 04:01:23 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1523 on: July 25, 2022, 07:59:09 AM »

If you're thinking about the 2014 Jurisdictional Alignment Project study, I just looked, and yeah it appears to be gone.

The statewide map I clipped and used in this page:
https://www.northstarhighways.com/?page_id=598
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12451
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 03:42:35 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1524 on: July 25, 2022, 08:51:10 AM »

The Jurisdictional Realignment Study from 2014 had a list of all the long-term potential turnbacks that MnDOT was considering (as well as some routes it was considering taking over), but from what I can tell, the details of that study are no longer online...that might be the bookmark that TheHighwayMan lost.

More recently, MnDOT's 10-Year Capital Highway Investment Plan (updated annually AFAICT) includes a small section on programmed turnbacks.  The current 2022-2031 version lists MN 222 this year, MN 96 east of MN 244 next year, and MN 3 in downtown St. Paul in 2025.  This last one, BTW, is the first confirmation I've had that Robert St is a trunk highway beyond 7th St (MN 5) up to I-35E/94, although other MnDOT mapping products still show MN 3 as ending at MN 5/7th.
Logged

 


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.