I remember when they were building it, in the early 80s (very late). I'm curious why I-94 was built north from Minneapolis instead of northwest. It would have saved a lot of driving time and distance to head up near US 52 (now county 81).
Quote from: inkyatari on April 28, 2017, 01:52:55 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on April 28, 2017, 09:12:53 AM
I remember when they were building it, in the early 80s (very late). I'm curious why I-94 was built north from Minneapolis instead of northwest. It would have saved a lot of driving time and distance to head up near US 52 (now county 81).
I'm guessing the rather large-ish city of Duluth has something to do with it, vs. no city of near that size in the NW part of the state.
Uh, no, they built I-94 to Saint Cloud but it initially heads north and then west instead of NW
Is your question basically Why does I-94 not look something like this (https://goo.gl/maps/E4bhmUY2tGD2)?
Quote from: kphoger on April 28, 2017, 03:53:21 PM
Is your question basically Why does I-94 not look something like this (https://goo.gl/maps/E4bhmUY2tGD2)?
I believe that that is what he meant. From what I can tell, ROW acquisition costs. Building I-94 where it was also combines that with a corridor that goes straight north and continues as MN 252 and that the added capacity/time savings for I-94 NW traffic to and from DT Minneapolis wasn't with that cost.
Mike
Quote from: texaskdog on April 28, 2017, 03:20:50 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on April 28, 2017, 01:52:55 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on April 28, 2017, 09:12:53 AM
I remember when they were building it, in the early 80s (very late). I'm curious why I-94 was built north from Minneapolis instead of northwest. It would have saved a lot of driving time and distance to head up near US 52 (now county 81).
I'm guessing the rather large-ish city of Duluth has something to do with it, vs. no city of near that size in the NW part of the state.
Uh, no, they built I-94 to Saint Cloud but it initially heads north and then west instead of NW
Geeze. I don't know where my head is today. I was thinking of 35. Oops. Carry on.
94 was planned north along the river instead of northwest along then-US 52 because it would have both served the industrial land along the river at that time and served as a buffer between that industrial land and the neighborhoods along and west of Lyndale Ave.
Quote from: mgk920 on April 28, 2017, 03:59:53 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 28, 2017, 03:53:21 PM
Is your question basically Why does I-94 not look something like this (https://goo.gl/maps/E4bhmUY2tGD2)?
I believe that that is what he meant. From what I can tell, ROW acquisition costs. Building I-94 where it was also combines that with a corridor that goes straight north and continues as MN 252 and that the added capacity/time savings for I-94 NW traffic to and from DT Minneapolis wasn't with that cost.
Mike
and once 252 was built it wasn't even built into a freeway.
Quote from: texaskdog on April 28, 2017, 08:50:39 PM
and once 252 was built it wasn't even built into a freeway.
A mistake that'll only get more and more expensive the longer and longer it gets put off.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 29, 2017, 05:15:14 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on April 28, 2017, 08:50:39 PM
and once 252 was built it wasn't even built into a freeway.
A mistake that'll only get more and more expensive the longer and longer it gets put off.
That's Minnesota for you. Underbuild a new road and it is crowded from day 1
Quote from: kphoger on April 28, 2017, 03:53:21 PM
Is your question basically Why does I-94 not look something like this (https://goo.gl/maps/E4bhmUY2tGD2)?
So they should have cut the corner to save 3.8 miles of travel?
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 30, 2017, 05:41:32 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 28, 2017, 03:53:21 PM
Is your question basically Why does I-94 not look something like this (https://goo.gl/maps/E4bhmUY2tGD2)?
MNDOT should have built the missing hypotenuse :bigass:
So they should have cut the corner to save 3.8 miles of travel?
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 30, 2017, 05:41:32 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 28, 2017, 03:53:21 PM
Is your question basically Why does I-94 not look something like this (https://goo.gl/maps/E4bhmUY2tGD2)?
So they should have cut the corner to save 3.8 miles of travel?
ya think?
Quote from: texaskdog on May 01, 2017, 08:54:48 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 30, 2017, 05:41:32 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 28, 2017, 03:53:21 PM
Is your question basically Why does I-94 not look something like this (https://goo.gl/maps/E4bhmUY2tGD2)?
So they should have cut the corner to save 3.8 miles of travel?
ya think?
No. I don't.
Quote from: Bickendan on April 30, 2017, 09:03:17 PM
MNDOT should have built the missing hypotenuse :bigass:
So they should have cut the corner to save 3.8 miles of travel?
I smell a good candidate for the Fictional Highways board. :bigass:
I almost put it fictional but my question was "why didn't they" not "what would it look like if they did".
Quote from: texaskdog on April 28, 2017, 08:50:39 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 28, 2017, 03:59:53 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 28, 2017, 03:53:21 PM
Is your question basically Why does I-94 not look something like this (https://goo.gl/maps/E4bhmUY2tGD2)?
I believe that that is what he meant. From what I can tell, ROW acquisition costs. Building I-94 where it was also combines that with a corridor that goes straight north and continues as MN 252 and that the added capacity/time savings for I-94 NW traffic to and from DT Minneapolis wasn't with that cost.
Mike
and once 252 was built it wasn't even built into a freeway.
You can thank Municipal Consent for that. MnDOT made multiple attempts to turn 252 into a freeway (back when there was money allocated towards it) and wanted it to be one from the get go. But Brooklyn Center refused to give the municipal consent needed under state law to make that conversion so it never happened. Today MnDOT supports turning 252 into a freeway but doesn't have the money to do so. The ironic part is now Brooklyn Center obtained federal money in the recent regional solicitation to convert 66th Ave and 252 into an interchange as they want it to be a freeway.
It also ranked the highest on the list of expressway to freeway conversions in the Met Council's recent interchange conversion study so it will continue to be higher ranked for federal money in the future. I expect it will probably be a freeway someday but it will be locally driven being done at one interchange/overpass at a time versus all at once.
169 to the SW was another one. It was overloaded when it opened as an expressway.
^ That one was also built as a CSAH project, where Eden Prairie initially didn't want interchanges.
Quote from: kphoger on April 28, 2017, 03:53:21 PM
Is your question basically Why does I-94 not look something like this (https://goo.gl/maps/E4bhmUY2tGD2)?
Why stop there? :bigass:
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/q81/s480x480/18222090_800640430100008_7117593377499267635_n.jpg?oh=91486765c4868c62b36ad14f23239047&oe=597BB9EF)
Now THAT, my friends, is how you do a Hypotenuse.
:clap:
On a slightly more serious note, up until around ~1950, what became I-94 was proposed to go in a northwesterly direction from downtown, eventually tying into what is now called Bottineau Blvd (CSAH 81), which at the time was US 52 up to Osseo and then MN 152 beyond that. Similar to what kphoger posted except continuing northwest along CSAH 81.
By 1951, the plan had changed to have the freeway run north from downtown. As I noted above, this was likely in order to better serve the industrial areas that where prevalent then along the river. It's for a similar reason why I-94 runs between the downtowns the way it does (in order to serve the then-heavy-industry in St. Paul's Midway) instead of following the Pierce Butler Route along the BNSF tracks (as the St. Paul city planner proposed in 1945).
It should also be noted that the original 1957 Interstate plan had the Fish Lake Interchange (I-94/I-494 in Maple Grove) southeast of the lake, roughly at today's 67th & Wedgwood, with I-94 then traversing to the south and west of the lake instead of to the northeast as was built. I do not know when this was changed.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 03, 2017, 07:22:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 28, 2017, 03:53:21 PM
Is your question basically Why does I-94 not look something like this (https://goo.gl/maps/E4bhmUY2tGD2)?
Why stop there? :bigass:
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/q81/s480x480/18222090_800640430100008_7117593377499267635_n.jpg?oh=91486765c4868c62b36ad14f23239047&oe=597BB9EF)
Now THAT, my friends, is how you do a Hypotenuse.
I like the idea of a straight shot from downtown to the NW corner of the loop! The original Hypotenuse planner could learn a thing or two from this.
Was Interstate 94 ever proposed to take the route shown above? Or is this a fictional opinion of how Interstate 94 should have been built through Minneapolis?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 05, 2017, 04:27:04 PM
Was Interstate 94 ever proposed to take the route shown above? Or is this a fictional opinion of how Interstate 94 should have been built through Minneapolis?
Neither. It's a joke I created in about 2 minutes.