News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Minnesota Notes

Started by Mdcastle, April 18, 2012, 07:54:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

EpicRoadways

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 15, 2021, 04:37:05 PM
Have there been any rumblings about what projects would be advanced with the infrastructure money? I realize there's a lot of wrangling to do at the state legislature (which gives me minimal hope for any agreement on matching money coming quickly) but other states seem to already be dropping their wish lists.
I haven't heard anything officially (or unofficially, for that matter) but I'd speculate at the very least we'll see more money being dumped into projects already either under construction or planned for the near future but limited in some aspect due to lack of funding. The additional "unfunded phases" of the I-35W/494 interchange rebuild in the south metro and the Twin Ports interchange in Duluth are two explicit examples that MNDOT has touted as being candidates for any additional $$$ coming in. Along with that, the 494/694/94 Fish Lake interchange, the 94 Monticello to Albertville expansion, the various US-52 improvements between Saint Paul and Rochester (maybe we'll finally some freeway sections built out?), the US-10 improvements in the north metro, a full I-90 modernization through Austin, and the MN-252/I-94 Minneapolis rebuild all come to mind as programmed projects that would benefit from some additional funds to really achieve their desired effect. Beyond that, I'd imagine outside of maybe a few other large-scale projects that are escaping me right now it'll mostly go towards spot safety improvements and preservation of existing infrastructure.


Papa Emeritus

Community activists in north Minneapolis are pushing for the removal of MN 55 / Olson Parkway.

https://kstp.com/news/activists-say-getting-rid-of-olson-memorial-highway-could-revitalize-north-minneapolis/6305281/

Although I support making it easier for pedestrians to cross it, I think removing it is total lunacy. Downtown Minneapolis is in dire trouble right now, and the last thing downtown needs is for people making it more difficult to get there from the suburbs.

froggie

Given that MnDOT has studied improvements to 394, one prevailing theory is that improvements to 394 means less need for 6 lanes on Olson through North Minneapolis.  I question the need for 6 lanes west of 94 even today...and it would not be hard to take one lane each way between Penn and 94 and convert it to a bus only lane which would help out the Route 19 bus and the express buses along 55.

Papa Emeritus

Quote from: froggie on November 18, 2021, 11:25:51 AM
Given that MnDOT has studied improvements to 394, one prevailing theory is that improvements to 394 means less need for 6 lanes on Olson through North Minneapolis.  I question the need for 6 lanes west of 94 even today...and it would not be hard to take one lane each way between Penn and 94 and convert it to a bus only lane which would help out the Route 19 bus and the express buses along 55.

I agree with you, Froggie; narrowing it to 4 lanes would be a good compromise.

The alignment of the Blue Line light rail extension hasn't been decided yet, and this will have a big impact on how many lanes are needed on Olson in the future, and even how many buses will be using Olson once the light rail line opens.

I think the future role Olson plays in north Minneapolis' transit patterns should be considered at the same time alignments for light rail are being considered.

froggie

Given the currently proposed alternatives for the Blue Line extension, I doubt whatever they decide will change much on Olson Hwy.  Metro Transit will still likely run the C Line along Penn Ave, using Olson as the connection between Penn and downtown.  You also have the Route 755 limited stop along Olson Hwy.  As such, I see no problem with converting the extra lanes east of Penn to bus-only.

Trademark

Quote from: froggie on November 18, 2021, 12:35:30 PM
Given the currently proposed alternatives for the Blue Line extension, I doubt whatever they decide will change much on Olson Hwy.  Metro Transit will still likely run the C Line along Penn Ave, using Olson as the connection between Penn and downtown.  You also have the Route 755 limited stop along Olson Hwy.  As such, I see no problem with converting the extra lanes east of Penn to bus-only.

I don't see the need for more than 3 lanes on this highway. There is not much traffic on here at all. There is a lot of right of way especially west of Humboldt enough that they could build houses/apartments where this underused highway is today. Or bus lanes. Or a high quality bike connection. But whatever is chosen. There is no justification for 6 lanes.

froggie

Fun fact: that extra ROW west of Humboldt was originally intended for an interchange at Penn.

Trademark

Quote from: froggie on November 18, 2021, 04:08:51 PM
Fun fact: that extra ROW west of Humboldt was originally intended for an interchange at Penn.

I remember seeing that somewhere. It might have been on your website. I got a question for you since I know you know a lot of the history of the area. Was there ever a freeway proposed between 7th street and Broadway? I see how they are kind of in a straight diagonal line with a gap between 7th and Emerson and Broadway and Morgan.

froggie

A freeway coming down West Broadway was indeed proposed, but it would have tied directly into the North Loop (cancelled I-335) instead of 7th St.

froggie

https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/Transportation/PlannedConstruction/CR66/Pages/default.aspx

MnDOT and Dakota County are studying the potential for another interchange along US 52 near Vermillion.  Either at CSAH 62, CSAH 66, or somewhere else nearby.  They conducted a public outreach summary a couple months ago and found local support for an interchange, though opinion was split between whether it should go at 62 or 66.  An Environmental Assessment is expected next year.

TheHighwayMan3561

#1285
Quote from: froggie on November 29, 2021, 05:48:04 PM
https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/Transportation/PlannedConstruction/CR66/Pages/default.aspx

MnDOT and Dakota County are studying the potential for another interchange along US 52 near Vermillion.  Either at CSAH 62, CSAH 66, or somewhere else nearby.  They conducted a public outreach summary a couple months ago and found local support for an interchange, though opinion was split between whether it should go at 62 or 66.  An Environmental Assessment is expected next year.

With regards to the County 66 intersection, some farmers with land in one of the corners of that intersection have voiced concerns with regards to an interchange there eating up some of their farmland.

https://sahanjournal.com/climate/hmong-american-farmers-association-dakota-county-highway-52/
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

webny99

#1286
Quote from: froggie on November 29, 2021, 05:48:04 PM
https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/Transportation/PlannedConstruction/CR66/Pages/default.aspx

MnDOT and Dakota County are studying the potential for another interchange along US 52 near Vermillion.  Either at CSAH 62, CSAH 66, or somewhere else nearby.  They conducted a public outreach summary a couple months ago and found local support for an interchange, though opinion was split between whether it should go at 62 or 66.  An Environmental Assessment is expected next year.

Interesting. I've been through that area quite a bit traveling to/from the Lakeville area and I'd love to see US 52 upgraded to full freeway through there. Having used both Co 46 and MN 50 to connect to US 52, I've come to prefer Co 46 even though it's generally a bit longer time- and distance-wise. The MN 50 route goes right through Farmington and that can be a pain even at the off-peak times.

With that said, I think Co 66 is the fairly obvious choice for an interchange location. I don't see anything that a Co 62 interchange offers that a Co 66 interchange doesn't, except slightly better access to Vermillion, but that would still be accommodated by existing movements at Co 62. Suburban growth in Farmington/Lakeville/Apple Valley means that almost all traffic accessing US 52 in the area would be coming from the west (traffic coming from Hastings would enter at Hampton), and a Co 62 interchange doesn't do nearly enough IMO to provide an alternate to going right through Farmington.

The only case for Co 62 would be if 190th St. was completed in full, but it looks like there's gaps east of MN 3 and between Blaine Ave and Clayton Ave.

froggie

There's a couple more things going for 62:  proximity to the Vermillion River at 66 means an interchange at 62 would be easier to build.  There are also the aforementioned property concerns at 66 which appear to be louder than at 62.

Trademark

If the interchange is completed would that mean that besides the 55 to 52 south movements would it be fully freeway to Cannon Falls And after the projects in Goodhue County are complete, how much of US-52 would still need to be upgraded to a freeway?

KCRoadFan

As someone familiar with the Twin Cities area, I'm interested to see what new light rail comes through. Like, for example, what about the extension of the Northstar Link (or whatever it's called) from Elk River up to St. Cloud, like I've heard rumors about? Also, I think it would be neat to run a line down the median of 35W (much like the train on the Kennedy in Chicago), linking up to the already-existing bus station near Lakeville. Just a thought.

TheHighwayMan3561

Northstar has been held up beyond Big Lake for over a decade by politicians who are trying to discourage the use of the service in the hopes of getting it scrapped completely. Between this and the plummet in the already flimsy ridership during the virus did leave a time of uncertainty of keeping Northstar operating at this year's legislature, but funding to continue the existing route was ultimately approved in the state budget.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

Molandfreak

Quote from: Trademark on November 30, 2021, 11:51:56 AM
If the interchange is completed would that mean that besides the 55 to 52 south movements would it be fully freeway to Cannon Falls And after the projects in Goodhue County are complete, how much of US-52 would still need to be upgraded to a freeway?
It depends on the design of the 66 or 62 interchange, and if they choose to build access roads and overpass/close the intersection that isn't going to be upgraded. If they do close these two access points, there are still 31 at-grade intersections and farm access points in Dakota County, not to mention the railroad crossing.

And it isn't even a full freeway up to that 55 intersection in the southbound lanes; one at-grade was left on Inver Grove Trail that should have been cul-de-saced when improvements were being made in the area a decade ago.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PM
AASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

Trademark

Quote from: KCRoadFan on November 30, 2021, 01:14:17 PM
As someone familiar with the Twin Cities area, I'm interested to see what new light rail comes through. Like, for example, what about the extension of the Northstar Link (or whatever it's called) from Elk River up to St. Cloud, like I've heard rumors about? Also, I think it would be neat to run a line down the median of 35W (much like the train on the Kennedy in Chicago), linking up to the already-existing bus station near Lakeville. Just a thought.

Light rail was proposed in the 90s for 35w. But it was rejected because MNDot didn't have enough money to do it all at once. They are launching a BRT service down to Burnsville though (Orange Line).

Also the Southwest corridor (Green Line extension) from Minneapolis to Eden Prairie thru Hopkins is currently under construction and the Bottineau corridor (Blue Line extension) from Minneapolis to Brooklyn Park thru Robbinsdale and Crystal should have a route finalized in the spring according to someone I talked to on the project.

There is also the Riverview corridor streetcar running from Mall of America to Downtown St. Paul. But this will most likely include mixed traffic segments and possibly single traffic segments which will hold back the potential of this project and won't get completed til at least 2035.

Other then that it's a lot of BRT including the Gold line from St. Paul to Woodbury next to I-94. The Purple Line from St. Paul to White Bear Lake thru Maplewood Mall. And a bunch of rapid bus projects.

Other proposed BRT includes 94 thru North Minneapolis either to 694 and Maple Grove or up 252 and 610 to Fridley. As well as 55 to Plymouth. 169 from Minneapolis to Shakopee and 36 from Minneapolis to Maplewood.

TheHighwayMan3561

Quote from: Trademark on November 30, 2021, 05:43:53 PM
Other proposed BRT includes 94 thru North Minneapolis either to 694 and Maple Grove or up 252 and 610 to Fridley. As well as 55 to Plymouth. 169 from Minneapolis to Shakopee and 36 from Minneapolis to Maplewood.

Why would the Met Council want 55 as a BRT route? To my knowledge they have no plans of ever making 55 from somewhere west of 494 to 169/100 a freeway, do they?
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

Molandfreak

Quote from: webny99 on November 29, 2021, 07:58:29 PM
The only case for Co 62 would be if 190th St. was completed in full, but it looks like there's gaps east of MN 3 and between Blaine Ave and Clayton Ave.
I don't know if the U of M would throw a fit over losing that little bit of land at UMore Park, but I guess it's been done before when they extended county 46.

There are plans in the works to extend county 60 to the highway 3 roundabout at 190th, but nothing to finish the roadway where it would edge out UMore Park. If the interchange were built at 62, I could see it being considered.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PM
AASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

Trademark

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 30, 2021, 07:15:21 PM
Quote from: Trademark on November 30, 2021, 05:43:53 PM
Other proposed BRT includes 94 thru North Minneapolis either to 694 and Maple Grove or up 252 and 610 to Fridley. As well as 55 to Plymouth. 169 from Minneapolis to Shakopee and 36 from Minneapolis to Maplewood.

Why would the Met Council want 55 as a BRT route? To my knowledge they have no plans of ever making 55 from somewhere west of 494 to 169/100 a freeway, do they?

https://dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/hwy55plymouthtorockford/about.html

This study that was completed in 2009 was the last rumblings that I know of improving 55 to a freeway. According to this it would be from 116 to 494. But I highly doubt that this study will ever move forward. With 55 BRT it will most likely be signal preemption / priority and bus lanes. But i also question the need for a BRT on this corridor. Personally I think they should use 394 instead to connect to West End, General Mills, redevelopment of Ridgedale, and Wayzata, which would probably be enough to justify Light Rail on that stretch.

The 55 BRT is also very questionable to ever get built. IIRC it was Plymouth that financed a study of BRT on 55, not the Met Council.

Also according to the planning documents of 169 BRT. They will likely use 55 going into downtown.

webny99

Quote from: froggie on November 30, 2021, 10:39:00 AM
There's a couple more things going for 62:  proximity to the Vermillion River at 66 means an interchange at 62 would be easier to build.  There are also the aforementioned property concerns at 66 which appear to be louder than at 62.

Would either interchange be a diamond configuration, or would an interchange at 66 have to be a different design?

froggie

That hasn't been determined yet and will likely be part of the current study.

Concepts I've seen from ~20 years ago indicated either a folded diamond to the south, or realigning 66 to the south to fit a standard diamond.  Both concepts were to avoid impacts to the Vermillion River.

TheHighwayMan3561

#1298
Quote from: Trademark on December 01, 2021, 10:49:24 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 30, 2021, 07:15:21 PM
Quote from: Trademark on November 30, 2021, 05:43:53 PM
Other proposed BRT includes 94 thru North Minneapolis either to 694 and Maple Grove or up 252 and 610 to Fridley. As well as 55 to Plymouth. 169 from Minneapolis to Shakopee and 36 from Minneapolis to Maplewood.

Why would the Met Council want 55 as a BRT route? To my knowledge they have no plans of ever making 55 from somewhere west of 494 to 169/100 a freeway, do they?

https://dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/hwy55plymouthtorockford/about.html

This study that was completed in 2009 was the last rumblings that I know of improving 55 to a freeway. According to this it would be from 116 to 494. But I highly doubt that this study will ever move forward. With 55 BRT it will most likely be signal preemption / priority and bus lanes. But i also question the need for a BRT on this corridor. Personally I think they should use 394 instead to connect to West End, General Mills, redevelopment of Ridgedale, and Wayzata, which would probably be enough to justify Light Rail on that stretch.

The 55 BRT is also very questionable to ever get built. IIRC it was Plymouth that financed a study of BRT on 55, not the Met Council.

Also according to the planning documents of 169 BRT. They will likely use 55 going into downtown.

Too much crap has been built up along 55 between 494 and CSAH 9/24 for the freeway idea to happen anyway. Which sucks because it's an awful drive at rush between 494 and 101.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

froggie

^ I would disagree.  Most of the adjacent land east of 101 was already built up when MnDOT did their study, so it's already been addressed.

If it doesn't happen, it's going to be because of changing priorities and/or lack of funding.  Not because the land is too developed.



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.