Minnesota Notes

[STLmapboy]

If the intersection was going to be signaled anyway, I don't understand why a continuous-flow intersection wasn't built since they don't have funds for a full interchange. The one pictured is the design from INDOT at the intersection of U.S. 31 and SR 135/Thompson Road on the south side of Indianapolis mentioned on the Indiana Notes thread. I've used one at MO 30 and Summit Road SW of St Louis several times when I lived there. It's not that much more expensive and easily handles both the through and cross-traffic. There is more than enough room in the median to build one. It looks like Minnesota took the cheapest route possible regardless of whether it would work.

Yeah, Gravois/Summit is the only CFI in my area and it works fine. MN should look into it. Are there any CFIs yet in MN?

[triplemultiplex]

Stillwater Loop Trail Time Lapse that I did

I get a kick out of the 'hill climbing lane' on the Wisconsin side of the path.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Saw the new completed diamond interchange between US 14 and MN 15 just outside New Ulm on Monday. I feel like I'm wrong about this but I think this is the first full interchange between (for now) 2 two-lane roads in the state, but even when US 14's expansion is complete, MN 15 is the priority movement.

[kphoger]

I feel like I'm wrong about this but I think this is the first full interchange between (for now) 2 two-lane roads in the state, but even when US 14's expansion is complete, MN 15 is the priority movement.

Are you not counting MN-23 @ Kandiyohi CH-5?  I drove through this interchange on October 6 and 8, 2017.

[froggie]

Saw the new completed diamond interchange between US 14 and MN 15 just outside New Ulm on Monday. I feel like I'm wrong about this but I think this is the first full interchange between (for now) 2 two-lane roads in the state, but even when US 14's expansion is complete, MN 15 is the priority movement.

Third such interchange.  MN 55/MN 28 outside Glenwood has existed as a diamond since the '70s.  And then there's US 12/Hennepin CSAH 6 on the Long Lake Bypass.

kphoger:  MN 23/CSAH 5 doesn't count because it still involves a left turn off EB 23 to access CSAH 5.  It's basically a 3/4 intersection combined with an eastbound on-ramp.

[kphoger]

And then there's US 12/Hennepin CSAH 6 on the Long Lake Bypass.

How did I forget that one?  Driven through it many times.  Oh, yeah, it's because the Jersey barrier makes me forget it's still really just a two-lane highway.

I'm trying to remember...  Was the barrier original to the construction, or did the interchange survive for about a year without one?

[Mdcastle]

So what were they thinking making 15 the through route when 14 is the future expressway?

[froggie]

I'm trying to remember...  Was the barrier original to the construction, or did the interchange survive for about a year without one?

Barrier in the immediate footprint of the CSAH 6 interchange is original to construction.  Barrier beyond the interchange is more recent...within the past couple years.

So what were they thinking making 15 the through route when 14 is the future expressway?

Probably because you have CSAH 21 as a "fourth leg" of the junction and it's far easier to make a diamond interchange than to make something favoring US 14's through movements.  Traffic counts also show that there's almost as much traffic on 15 North as there is on 14 East.

[kphoger]

And then there's US 12/Hennepin CSAH 6 on the Long Lake Bypass.

How did I forget that one?  Driven through it many times.  Oh, yeah, it's because the Jersey barrier makes me forget it's still really just a two-lane highway.

I'm trying to remember...  Was the barrier original to the construction, or did the interchange survive for about a year without one?

Barrier in the immediate footprint of the CSAH 6 interchange is original to construction.  Barrier beyond the interchange is more recent...within the past couple years.

Yep, thanks!  That totally jives with my experience driving it, plus GSV I've looked at since then while discussing the corridor on this forum.

I've never driven the corridor since the barrier was extended.  I wonder how many of you guys have ever done what I've done once or twice:  successfully passed someone along the super-2 section west of Wayzata.  Traffic is always thick on that highway, but there has been one or two occasions when I've been able to pass–I think I even remember passing multiple vehicles at a time there once.

[triplemultiplex]

I wonder how many of you guys have ever done what I've done once or twice:  successfully passed someone along the super-2 section west of Wayzata.  Traffic is always thick on that highway, but there has been one or two occasions when I've been able to pass–I think I even remember passing multiple vehicles at a time there once.

A feat never to be repeated since they added that jersey barrier.  No one will match you.

[skluth]

So what were they thinking making 15 the through route when 14 is the future expressway?

Probably because you have CSAH 21 as a "fourth leg" of the junction and it's far easier to make a diamond interchange than to make something favoring US 14's through movements.  Traffic counts also show that there's almost as much traffic on 15 North as there is on 14 East.

It's a bit surprising the junction just to the east of the interchange on US 14 wasn't removed and CSAH 21 redirected to directly connect to itself west of the interchange by building a longer interchange bridge on MN 15 to cross both US 14 and CSAH 21.

[froggie]

^ Not sure of the need.  Would have added a bit of cost.  And then there's the question of how to connect 14 and 15 to 21.  Might also be a grade issue with the SB off-ramp from 15.

[Mdcastle]

New 14 coming along nicely.

[Papa Emeritus]

On Tuesday, MnDoT will be having a virtual open house from 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM, to discuss possible upgrades to MN-65 in Spring Lake Park, Blaine, and Ham Lake.

You need to pre-register at bit.ly/hwy65mtg to attend

More information about possible alternatives is on the Star Tribune's website: https://www.startribune.com/mndot-seeks-ideas-to-unclog-hwy-65/572556631/

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, actually gets built.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

The decrepit leaf at County 10 that remains from the US 10 days definitely needs to be rebuilt/reconfigured.

[froggie]

^ It will, but not in the way one would expect.

There are two options being considered at County 10.  One would replace the cloverleaf with a standard diamond, with County 10 as the "through route" (and, thus, two more signals on 65).  The second option would expand out both routes through the interchange footprint into what is effectively a pair of one-way roads, all crossing at-grade.  Kinda like how the ramps all intersect at a volleyball interchange except it's the mainlines intersecting.  Not sure I like either option.

Next, 87th would be bridged over 65, with the intersections at 85th and 89th converted into a right-in or right-out in a way to effectively make an "interchange" centered on 87th but with all "loop ramps".  For example, northbound 65 would have a right-in only at 85th and a right-out only at 89th.

There are two options at US 10.  Both options retain the existing EB 10 off-ramp and signal to 65.  Both options also include a grade-separated U-turn ramp from northbound to southbound located at approximately the equivalent of 92nd Lane.  This U-turn ramp would serve both the WB 10 to SB 65 and NB 65 to WB 10 movements.  The U-turn ramp would also tie into the ramps going to/from a 93rd Lane interchange.  Where the options differ is in the SB 65 to EB 10 access.  One option would retain the existing loop ramp, but connect it directly to the SB to WB ramp and the ramp coming off 93rd.  In other words, SB 65 traffic would exit at 93rd, then continue across 93rd to access either direction on 10.  The second option would remove the loop ramp and instead add a displaced-left-turn located approximately at the existing WB off-ramp terminal.  The video simulation suggests that the proposed SB on-ramp from 93rd would also tie into the signal system here, so that traffic from 93rd can access EB 10.

There are three options between 93rd and 117th.  All three would build what is fundamentally a tight-diamond interchange (mentioned above) at 93rd.  Option 1 is basically similar to a traditional freeway, with tight diamond interchanges at 109th (albeit with the NB off-ramp exiting at 105th) and 117th, and a modified interchange with NB ramps at 99th and a pair of SB buttonhook ramps at 103rd connecting to a new west side frontage road between 99th and 109th at Ulysses St.  Option 2 is called the "Hybrid Freeway", and the easiest way I can explain it is a series of grade-separated RCUTs.  One-way service roads would be built on each side of 65 between 93rd and 117th, with a series of access ramps between the 65 mainline and the service roads.  Each cross-street would T with the service roads, but a series of grade-separated U-turns would be built to provide access across 65.  The U-turns would be located at 97th, just south of 101st, 107th, 113th, and 117th.  Option 3 is similar to Option 2 but the through movement on 109th would be retained with an underpass under 65.  Given the evaluation rankings, I would expect Option 2 to be the leading contender on this segment.

Finally, we have Bunker Lake Rd.  There are also three options here.  All three would close the SB RIRO at 139th and also build a frontage road on the east side of 65 between 131st and 133rd in order to close both RIRO intersections on NB 65.  Option 1 at Bunker Lake is a tight-diamond interchange.  Option 2 is an RCUT.  Option 3 is similar to the "grade-separated RCUT" mentioned above.  The evaluation rankings make the RCUT the likely decision.

[KCRoadFan]

Saw the new completed diamond interchange between US 14 and MN 15 just outside New Ulm on Monday. I feel like I'm wrong about this but I think this is the first full interchange between (for now) 2 two-lane roads in the state, but even when US 14's expansion is complete, MN 15 is the priority movement.

Something else I wonder about New Ulm: does MNDOT have any plans afoot to take MN 15 off of Broadway through town and route it along US 14 instead? I don't think there are, but if they were to do so, through traffic on MN 15 approaching town from the south would presumably be directed to turn east on 20th South Street to connect to US 14. This is just speculation on my part, though.

Map of the area for reference: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.3064557,-94.4772597,13z

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Saw the new completed diamond interchange between US 14 and MN 15 just outside New Ulm on Monday. I feel like I'm wrong about this but I think this is the first full interchange between (for now) 2 two-lane roads in the state, but even when US 14's expansion is complete, MN 15 is the priority movement.

Something else I wonder about New Ulm: does MNDOT have any plans afoot to take MN 15 off of Broadway through town and route it along US 14 instead? I don't think there are, but if they were to do so, through traffic on MN 15 approaching town from the south would presumably be directed to turn east on 20th South Street to connect to US 14. This is just speculation on my part, though.

Map of the area for reference: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.3064557,-94.4772597,13z

Nope. Here's the wishlist of identified jurisdiction changes (some of these have taken place in the years since this report came out, and not everything on this list is permissible due to the state constitutional routes)

https://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/programlibrary/jrp-final-report.pdf

[froggie]

Not really any benefit to MnDOT.  They'd be adding mileage without a corresponding drop elsewhere....Broadway would still carry MN 68.  Nevermind that the vast bulk of traffic has an origin or destination in New Ulm....I recall the US 14 studies (for the corridor upgrade between New Ulm and Mankato) which looked at US 14 through traffic and bypass possibilities and found that only 15% of the traffic coming from the east is continuing through.

[KCRoadFan]

Saw the new completed diamond interchange between US 14 and MN 15 just outside New Ulm on Monday. I feel like I'm wrong about this but I think this is the first full interchange between (for now) 2 two-lane roads in the state, but even when US 14's expansion is complete, MN 15 is the priority movement.

Something else I wonder about New Ulm: does MNDOT have any plans afoot to take MN 15 off of Broadway through town and route it along US 14 instead? I don't think there are, but if they were to do so, through traffic on MN 15 approaching town from the south would presumably be directed to turn east on 20th South Street to connect to US 14. This is just speculation on my part, though.

Map of the area for reference: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.3064557,-94.4772597,13z

Nope. Here's the wishlist of identified jurisdiction changes (some of these have taken place in the years since this report came out, and not everything on this list is permissible due to the state constitutional routes)

https://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/programlibrary/jrp-final-report.pdf

I read the report in the above link last night and found it rather interesting. One thing that really caught my eye was the proposal to decommission MN 241 in St. Michael and turn control of it to Wright County. That road is very familiar to me because my mom's sister lives right off of County 19 just south of St. Michael; coming from the south through the metro up I-94, MN 241 is the best way for us to get to her house. Having frequently traveled that corridor, I find MNDOT's proposal somewhat surprising. I'm guessing their rationale is that the road is only 4 miles long and ends at a county road. In my opinion, having frequently traveled the corridor, I feel that, amid the rapidly growing Wright County exurbia (which has been the case since the early aughts), the traffic volumes and facilities along MN 241 more than justify its status as a state highway. If anything, I think MN 241 should be extended. I was thinking the designation could overlap the portion of County 19 between downtown St. Michael and I-94 at Albertville, near the outlet mall, thus creating a state highway loop road through St. Michael; in addition, I think that MN 241 should also be extended east, taking over County 36 between I-94 and MN 101 north of Rogers.

Oh, and speaking of MN 101: another item in the MNDOT report that came across as a total shock was a proposal to turn over MN 101 to Hennepin County. It's an important road through Rogers and Elk River, to the point of actually being a freeway between I-94 and US 10/US 169. Is MNDOT really saying that that road should be a "mere" county road? As someone who doesn't live in the area but is familiar with it from having made numerous family visits over the years - I would say I'm rather floored.

What are your thoughts?

[TheHighwayMan3561]

That's the disjointed segment of MN 101 in Chanhassen/Eden Prairie along the Hennepin/Carver line that Carver County has stubbornly refused to accept for over 30 years.

[KCRoadFan]

That's the disjointed segment of MN 101 in Chanhassen/Eden Prairie along the Hennepin/Carver line that Carver County has stubbornly refused to accept for over 30 years.

Thanks for clarifying. Anyway, what are your thoughts regarding MN 241 and what I said about it?

[froggie]

Given MnDOT's policies, if they were to keep 241, it would be a better fit to extend it to Buffalo via CSAH 35 than to make it a "loop" off 94.  I also don't think it needs to extend east of 94.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

As it stands now 241 is one of those 200-series spur routes the state has tried to get rid of (though this one has required 4-laning and has a 60 MPH limit for most of it), so I can see why the state wants Wright County to take it.

[MNtoOC]

Hiding behind this tree https://goo.gl/maps/uVXsz1ibK6kBzzXHA is one of a pair of obelisks that exist on the on/off ramps from I-94 to downtown St Paul. This tree has slowly been growing, and is probably going to start cracking this obelisk. It looks to me, based on their existing at the end of a retaining wall existing on the ramps, that these obelisks are likely property of MnDOT, not the City of St Paul, or Ramsey County, right? If so, does anyone know the best way to contact MnDOT to find out if this is theirs, and if they have interest in trying to remove this tree before it destroys the obelisk? I'm sure most things MnDOT gets contacted about are roadways and signage, not obelisks. Thanks.

I note that there's another pair of obelisks like this at the corner of 10th and Wacouta for traffic coming from 35E to downtown St Paul, and can't say I've seen anything like them anywhere else, so I'll presume it's purely due to St Paul being our capital city.