Minnesota Notes

[TheHighwayMan3561]

US 169 got a nice speed boost to 60 through at least part of the metro area. I only saw between 694 and 394, so I'm not sure how far it extends. I'm guessing northward it probably goes to 610 where the freeway section ends. It would be interesting if the 60 section extends south of 394, since that's where the 60 section of MN 100 ends (which went to 60 between 394 and 694 a decade ago).

[kphoger]

US 169 got a nice speed boost to 60 through at least part of the metro area. I only saw between 694 and 394, so I'm not sure how far it extends. I'm guessing northward it probably goes to 610 where the freeway section ends. It would be interesting if the 60 section extends south of 394, since that's where the 60 section of MN 100 ends (which went to 60 between 394 and 694 a decade ago).

I couldn't find any reference on the Channel 5 news story to indicate where the 60 zone ends either.

[bschultzy]

US 169 got a nice speed boost to 60 through at least part of the metro area. I only saw between 694 and 394, so I'm not sure how far it extends. I'm guessing northward it probably goes to 610 where the freeway section ends. It would be interesting if the 60 section extends south of 394, since that's where the 60 section of MN 100 ends (which went to 60 between 394 and 694 a decade ago).

The 60MPH limit is posted south of 394, and continues to where the 65MPH limit begins south of 494.

[DandyDan]

A question about the Worthington area: Why is there a half diamond interchange for Nobles County Road 3 east of Worthington? I drove past it on the way to my uncle's farm in western Nobles County and I looked at it on Google Maps and can't figure out why that exit exists.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

A question about the Worthington area: Why is there a half diamond interchange for Nobles County Road 3 east of Worthington? I drove past it on the way to my uncle's farm in western Nobles County and I looked at it on Google Maps and can't figure out why that exit exists.

Almost makes you wonder if somebody transposed the plans, since the interchange would make a little sense if it was EB entry/exit as a shortcut to eastbound MN 60. My best guess is it's meant to be another access route to Round Lake without sending people all the way over to MN 264.

[DandyDan]

A question about the Worthington area: Why is there a half diamond interchange for Nobles County Road 3 east of Worthington? I drove past it on the way to my uncle's farm in western Nobles County and I looked at it on Google Maps and can't figure out why that exit exists.

Almost makes you wonder if somebody transposed the plans, since the interchange would make a little sense if it was EB entry/exit as a shortcut to eastbound MN 60. My best guess is it's meant to be another access route to Round Lake without sending people all the way over to MN 264.

Having now driven back home, going east on 90, I can guess it has everything to do with the weigh station east of the MN 60 exit. Before the US 59 and MN 60 exits, there is a sign that tells trucks they have to go to the weigh station if the light is flashing. I wonder if they have the same sign on MN 60 eastbound as you approach I-90. That exit ramp is a glorified U-turn. I suspect it's cheaper to have one there than to have one on 60 south of Worthington and one on 90 west of Worthington.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

MnDOT has narrowed down to four alternatives for rebuilding 35/535/US 53 in Duluth, even though funding is still far from guaranteed.

Concepts B and C both involve signalized 90-degree turns to remain on US 53 and/or I-535.
Concept I is the free-flow, which would be my preferred alternative.
Concept O has a weird U-turn on the east side to facilitate the transition between I-535 and southbound 35/northbound 53.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/d1/projects/twin-ports-interchange/technicaldocuments.html

The other problem which can't be helped in any scenario will be detour routes. There are no alternatives to I-35 or US 53 and the local streets around this interchange are not suitable for long-term detour traffic.

[froggie]

Concept I isn't fully free-flow.  There would still be a traffic signal where the northbound ramps meet US 53.  But it's certainly more streamlined than the 90-degree turns of B/C and the U-turn ramp of O and would also be my preference.  But a big problem with I is that it creates the worst weaving situation on southbound 35 between the 53 on-ramp and the exit to 27th.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Water main break under I-694 causes a sinkhole underneath the road in Oakdale. Closed in both directions between MN 36 and 10th St until further notice.

[froggie]

From this morning's Strib:

MnDOT enlarged the portion that is closed, which now stretches from I-94 in the south to Hwy. 36 in the north.

The break occurred in a 12-inch diameter pipe connected to the municipal water supply system, said Oakdale police spokeswoman Michelle Stark.

The washout formed under the southbound lanes of the interstate just north of the 15th Street N. overpass and was visible in the median.

Gutknecht said the larger closure is needed so vehicles can be "detoured through like-sized roads."

[triplemultiplex]

MnDOT has narrowed down to four alternatives for rebuilding 35/535/US 53 in Duluth, even though funding is still far from guaranteed.

Concepts B and C both involve signalized 90-degree turns to remain on US 53 and/or I-535.
Concept I is the free-flow, which would be my preferred alternative.
Concept O has a weird U-turn on the east side to facilitate the transition between I-535 and southbound 35/northbound 53.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/d1/projects/twin-ports-interchange/technicaldocuments.html

The other problem which can't be helped in any scenario will be detour routes. There are no alternatives to I-35 or US 53 and the local streets around this interchange are not suitable for long-term detour traffic.

Some of these options would require I-535 to go bye-bye.
Concept I is the least stupid and could be made functional with some changes to eliminate the tight weave and provide a non-shitty ramp from 35 NB to 535 SB.

[Bickendan]

Concept O looks like what they did with the I-94/US 52 interchange rebuild.

[froggie]

Some of these options would require I-535 to go bye-bye.

Strictly speaking, no (keeping in mind that Interstates are just as much a funding category as they are a design standard...this is why I-180 WY exists).  But "B" would certainly require a design exemption from FHWA.  The other three options, while not optimal to some, still retain enough ramp connections to qualify.

[paulthemapguy]

Some of these options would require I-535 to go bye-bye.

Strictly speaking, no (keeping in mind that Interstates are just as much a funding category as they are a design standard...this is why I-180 WY exists).  But "B" would certainly require a design exemption from FHWA.  The other three options, while not optimal to some, still retain enough ramp connections to qualify.

Wasn't it similar changes that brought about the decommissioning of I-587 in New York though?  Or am I way off?

[froggie]

I wasn't aware that I-587 NY was decommissioned.  If anything, the rebuilt circle at the Thruway interchange is an improvement over what was there before.

[MNHighwayMan]

Both Wikipedia and GSV (admittedly from about a year ago) seem to indicate that I-587 still exists (though not actually connected to I-87?). I don't know what to believe.

[Rothman]

I-587 still exists.

[MNHighwayMan]

I-587 still exists.

Thanks for the confirmation. But is it accurate to say that I-587 no longer connects to I-87? The placement of the END signs certainly suggest it.

[froggie]

I don't believe that situation has ever changed.  It's always connected to the 87/Thruway interchange via a traffic circle (which was rebuilt about 10-15 years ago).

[Roadguy]

MnDOT's employee newsletters from the 1950's on-wards have been digitized, found the article on the initial authorization of the interstate network in metro.  Also included are pictures of 35E/94 next to the capital (full interchange) and 94 at Hennepin/Lyndale (when the freeway when it was planned to go above Hennepin/Lyndale versus through a tunnel as it does today):
https://reflections.mndigital.org/catalog/mdt:1793#/image/3

[Mdcastle]

Apparently Minnesota's 2nd route marker was redesigned at some time to remove the "Minnesota" at top
signs by North Star Highways, on Flickr

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Where is that? Guessing the junction on the east side of the Mendota Bridge?

[froggie]

Yes.  Northbound 13 at the former junction.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

MnDOT's employee newsletters from the 1950's on-wards have been digitized, found the article on the initial authorization of the interstate network in metro.  Also included are pictures of 35E/94 next to the capital (full interchange) and 94 at Hennepin/Lyndale (when the freeway when it was planned to go above Hennepin/Lyndale versus through a tunnel as it does today):
https://reflections.mndigital.org/catalog/mdt:1793#/image/3

Forgot to follow up on this one, but why exactly was the NB 35E-WB 94 connection removed from the final design?

[mgk920]

MnDOT's employee newsletters from the 1950's on-wards have been digitized, found the article on the initial authorization of the interstate network in metro.  Also included are pictures of 35E/94 next to the capital (full interchange) and 94 at Hennepin/Lyndale (when the freeway when it was planned to go above Hennepin/Lyndale versus through a tunnel as it does today):
https://reflections.mndigital.org/catalog/mdt:1793#/image/3

Forgot to follow up on this one, but why exactly was the NB 35E-WB 94 connection removed from the final design?

Didn't that planned NB I-35E to WB I-94 ramp ultimately morph into what is now the WB I-94 on ramp from 5th St (ditto the planned/never built connection for EB I-94 to SB I-35E)?  ISTR that before that area was rebuilt in the late 1980s/early 1990s, the I-94 ramps there were configured differently with the never-built I-35E connections in mind.

Mike