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

Trademark

Quote from: froggie on December 02, 2021, 08:33:32 PM
^ 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.

I think 252 and 65 north of 10 will be the last freeways built in the metro area.


froggie

I'm not even convinced that 65 will happen.  36 between 694 and Stillwater has a higher chance of happening.

Trademark

Quote from: froggie on December 02, 2021, 11:06:35 PM
I'm not even convinced that 65 will happen.  36 between 694 and Stillwater has a higher chance of happening.

True. I forgot about that one.

midwesternroadguy

Quote from: webny99 on November 29, 2021, 07:58:29 PM
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.

Sorry, but CSAH 66 is not the obvious choice. 

Do people realize that the HAFA farms at 200th Street provide a huge percentage of the produce consumed at the Twin Cities’ farmers’ markets?  This would affect 100,000s of people.   These aren’t another bunch of cornfields.  There is also the social implications of taking away a primary income source for a disadvantaged community. I imagine that that will have to be reviewed extensively under social implications in any sort of environmental assessment.

Secondly, the Vermillion River is recognized as having habitat suitable for brown trout.  There is no layout at 200th Street that will not impact the river or its immediate watershed. 

From a traffic circulation perspective, County 66 east of US 52 curves to the north to join County 62 before it enters Vermillion. So moving the interchange north to County 62 doesn’t really have any impacts to destinations east of 52. West of 52, County 66 could be diverted north on either Donnelly or Clayton Avenue and then curve to the east at 190th St.  Currently the worst traffic issues of the two intersections on US 52 are created by traffic turning northbound from County 62. In true Minnesota fashion, people pull right out in front of northbound traffic on 52 with very little regard for the impact they create.  Traffic needs to enter that intersection with a merging movement into 52, instead of a stop sign. This is the highest volume turning movement now of either intersection. 

Rothman



Quote from: midwesternroadguy on December 03, 2021, 06:26:26 AM
Quote from: webny99 on November 29, 2021, 07:58:29 PM
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.

Sorry, but CSAH 66 is not the obvious choice. 

Do people realize that the HAFA farms at 200th Street provide a huge percentage of the produce consumed at the Twin Cities' farmers' markets?  This would affect 100,000s of people.   These aren't another bunch of cornfields.  There is also the social implications of taking away a primary income source for a disadvantaged community. I imagine that that will have to be reviewed extensively under social implications in any sort of environmental assessment.

Sounds like an exaggeration to me in terms of how many people rely upon the farmers markets or how much food is produced by the farms.

Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

froggie

That may be an exaggeration (though the Minneapolis Farmers Market is not small by any means), but he is not wrong in pointing out the disadvantaged community (in this case, the Hmong) who own land on one corner of 52/66 that would be impacted by an interchange there.

webny99

#1306
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on December 03, 2021, 06:26:26 AM
Quote from: webny99 on November 29, 2021, 07:58:29 PM
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.

Sorry, but CSAH 66 is not the obvious choice. 

Do people realize that the HAFA farms at 200th Street provide a huge percentage of the produce consumed at the Twin Cities' farmers' markets?  This would affect 100,000s of people.   These aren't another bunch of cornfields.  There is also the social implications of taking away a primary income source for a disadvantaged community. I imagine that that will have to be reviewed extensively under social implications in any sort of environmental assessment.

It's a single interchange. There will be impacts, but it's not like miles of new freeway construction that would eliminate all the crop-producing fields for miles. It's just four new ramps that will likely be aligned to create the least possible impact wherever they're located.


Quote from: midwesternroadguy on December 03, 2021, 06:26:26 AM
From a traffic circulation perspective, County 66 east of US 52 curves to the north to join County 62 before it enters Vermillion. So moving the interchange north to County 62 doesn't really have any impacts to destinations east of 52. West of 52, County 66 could be diverted north on either Donnelly or Clayton Avenue and then curve to the east at 190th St.  Currently the worst traffic issues of the two intersections on US 52 are created by traffic turning northbound from County 62. In true Minnesota fashion, people pull right out in front of northbound traffic on 52 with very little regard for the impact they create.  Traffic needs to enter that intersection with a merging movement into 52, instead of a stop sign. This is the highest volume turning movement now of either intersection.

If you're talking about re-routing Co 66 north along Donnelly Ave to meet Co 62, that wouldn't leave enough space for a diamond interchange at Co 62. On a regional level, that would also do nothing to address the primary traffic movement in the area, which is from Lakeville/Farmington to US 52 south. That traffic isn't going to backtrack 1 mile just to access US 52 at an interchange; they'll just continue to use Co 66 even if there's no interchange.

The Co 66 to US 52 south movement may not be as busy as Co 62 to US 52 north right now, but that's because most traffic is currently using MN 50. Much of that traffic could use Co 66 if there was an interchange, so I would argue that Co 66 to US 52 south is not only a much more important movement regionally and in terms of the purpose of the new interchange, it's also only going to become more important over time given the suburban growth. Vermillion has a population of under 500. Lakeville and Farmington have a combined population of almost 90,000. To say there's no comparison would be an understatement, which is why I maintain that the only way Co 62 makes sense is if the gaps in 190th St are completed, allowing it to be used for through traffic.

skluth

Quote
Secondly, the Vermillion River is recognized as having habitat suitable for brown trout.  There is no layout at 200th Street that will not impact the river or its immediate watershed.

This could potentially be a bigger issue than the Hmong farm. Environmental issues can delay if not outright stop highway upgrades. Also, it would not be difficult to upgrade Donnelly Ave between 190th and 200th to improve access for Co 66 to the interchange.

webny99

Quote from: skluth on December 03, 2021, 12:14:07 PM
Also, it would not be difficult to upgrade Donnelly Ave between 190th and 200th to improve access for Co 66 to the interchange.

It wouldn't be difficult, but it also wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, as per my post above:

Quote from: webny99 on December 03, 2021, 12:11:36 PM
If you're talking about re-routing Co 66 north along Donnelly Ave to meet Co 62, that wouldn't leave enough space for a diamond interchange at Co 62. On a regional level, that would also do nothing to address the primary traffic movement in the area, which is from Lakeville/Farmington to US 52 south. That traffic isn't going to backtrack 1 mile just to access US 52 at an interchange; they'll just continue to use Co 66 even if there's no interchange.

andarcondadont

Quote
If you're talking about re-routing Co 66 north along Donnelly Ave to meet Co 62, that wouldn't leave enough space for a diamond interchange at Co 62. On a regional level, that would also do nothing to address the primary traffic movement in the area, which is from Lakeville/Farmington to US 52 south. That traffic isn't going to backtrack 1 mile just to access US 52 at an interchange; they'll just continue to use Co 66 even if there's no interchange.

Then my proposal is to remove all Co 66 access to US 52.

Computer Science and GIS student at the University of Minnesota.

skluth

Quote from: webny99 on December 03, 2021, 12:17:19 PM
Quote from: skluth on December 03, 2021, 12:14:07 PM
Also, it would not be difficult to upgrade Donnelly Ave between 190th and 200th to improve access for Co 66 to the interchange.

It wouldn't be difficult, but it also wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, as per my post above:


I don't agree with your arguments above. There's less room for a diamond at Co 66 than Co 62; the Co 62 crossing is surrounded by farmland while there is an environmentally-sensitive stream on the NW corner of the Co 66 crossing and a business (yes, it's barely standing) on the NE corner. You combine Lakeville and Farmington in your argument when most of the population is in Lakeville and I-35 already runs through Lakeville. Farmington, the community most affected is <25K. It seems to me that you are going out of your way to rationalize an interchange at Co 66. And your statement that wouldn't leave enough space for a diamond interchange at Co 62 is completely unjustified as the intersection is completely surrounded by acres of farmland.

I think an interchange at Co 62 that looks like this would be better for more people than an interchange for Farmington. There would be a direct connection to Donnelly Ave like the Vogel Road connection in my example. Our secondary office in St Louis was on Vogel Road so I used this interchange often and it worked quite well for Vogel Road traffic.

webny99

Quote from: skluth on December 03, 2021, 12:42:45 PM
There's less room for a diamond at Co 66 than Co 62

That's true as it currently stands, but part of the case for a Co 62 interchange is that it could be a standard diamond, while Co 66 would  have to be modified because of the river. But an improved connection to Donnelly Ave (to serve phantom traffic IMO) would negate that, as either Donnelly Ave would have to be realigned or the interchange would have to be modified in some way:

Quote from: skluth on December 03, 2021, 12:42:45 PM
And your statement that wouldn't leave enough space for a diamond interchange at Co 62 is completely unjustified as the intersection is completely surrounded by acres of farmland.

Again, that was in response to the premise of Co 66 being routed north along an improved Donnelly Ave to meet Co 62. But the current Donnelly Ave/Co 62 intersection is too close to US 52 to allow for a diamond interchange at Co 62/US 52 without modification.




Quote from: skluth on December 03, 2021, 12:42:45 PM
You combine Lakeville and Farmington in your argument when most of the population is in Lakeville and I-35 already runs through Lakeville. Farmington, the community most affected is <25K. It seems to me that you are going out of your way to rationalize an interchange at Co 66.

I-35 has nothing to do with it. The fact is that the southern MSP suburbs (Farmington/Lakeville/Apple Valley) are by far the largest population center in the area, and the vast majority of regional medium- and long-distance traffic (on the local roads like Co 66, not on US 52 itself) are connecting to US 52 southbound to get to Rochester, MN, I-90, and beyond. I've made the connection myself close to a dozen times, and I would rank improved safety along the US 52 corridor and better connectivity between Farmington and US 52 as the top two priorities of the project, and I suspect MnDOT would agree.



Quote from: skluth on December 03, 2021, 12:42:45 PM
I think an interchange at Co 62 that looks like this would be better for more people than an interchange for Farmington. There would be a direct connection to Donnelly Ave like the Vogel Road connection in my example.

That would also be a more costly interchange to build, requiring an additional overpass and an additional ramp. Donnelly Ave is also currently unpaved and likely has a very low AADT, and that will probably continue to be the case even if it's improved, so my guess is that it wouldn't be worth the additional cost.

Molandfreak

Quote from: webny99 on December 03, 2021, 12:11:36 PM
If you're talking about re-routing Co 66 north along Donnelly Ave to meet Co 62, that wouldn't leave enough space for a diamond interchange at Co 62. On a regional level, that would also do nothing to address the primary traffic movement in the area, which is from Lakeville/Farmington to US 52 south. That traffic isn't going to backtrack 1 mile just to access US 52 at an interchange; they'll just continue to use Co 66 even if there's no interchange.
If MN/DOT and Dakota County aren't going to half-ass the project, the other intersection should be replaced with an overpass or closed anyway. And there are already plans to finish 190th from highway 3 to the Biscayne Avenue intersection as an extension of county 60. I bet they would look into finishing 190th all the way if an interchange was built there, since a bonus would be that the traffic would have access to highway 3 via a roundabout and not the busy 66/3 intersection.

It would be pretty cool to see county 62 absorbed into the planned county 60 projects, too. It'd create another (almost) cross-county highway.
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.

TheHighwayMan3561

#1313
Not sure how Farmington came into this, but if we're talking about Rochester-Farmington/Lakeville traffic, we're talking about County 46 and MN 50, not County 62 or 66.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

Molandfreak

Quote from: skluth on December 03, 2021, 12:42:45 PM
I think an interchange at Co 62 that looks like this would be better for more people than an interchange for Farmington. There would be a direct connection to Donnelly Ave like the Vogel Road connection in my example. Our secondary office in St Louis was on Vogel Road so I used this interchange often and it worked quite well for Vogel Road traffic.
That's way overkill for the amount of traffic that uses either road. No doubt Donnelly Avenue would be paved if an interchange were built at 62, but not that many people use the county 66 intersection in the first place, and certainly not enough looking to travel north. There's a reason the reduced-conflict intersections were good enough 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.

webny99

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 03, 2021, 01:43:03 PM
Not sure how Farmington came into this, but if we're talking about Rochester-Farmington/Lakeville traffic, we're talking about County 46 and MN 50, not County 62 or 66.

Unless your starting point is north of MN/Co 50 and you're looking to avoid Farmington, which can be a slog even at the best of times. Co 66 would potentially be a good alternative if the interchange is built there.


Quote from: Molandfreak on December 03, 2021, 01:31:23 PM
If MN/DOT and Dakota County aren't going to half-ass the project, the other intersection should be replaced with an overpass or closed anyway.

Certainly agreed on that point.

Trademark

Quote from: Molandfreak on December 03, 2021, 01:31:23 PM
Quote from: webny99 on December 03, 2021, 12:11:36 PM
If you're talking about re-routing Co 66 north along Donnelly Ave to meet Co 62, that wouldn't leave enough space for a diamond interchange at Co 62. On a regional level, that would also do nothing to address the primary traffic movement in the area, which is from Lakeville/Farmington to US 52 south. That traffic isn't going to backtrack 1 mile just to access US 52 at an interchange; they'll just continue to use Co 66 even if there's no interchange.
If MN/DOT and Dakota County aren't going to half-ass the project, the other intersection should be replaced with an overpass or closed anyway. And there are already plans to finish 190th from highway 3 to the Biscayne Avenue intersection as an extension of county 60. I bet they would look into finishing 190th all the way if an interchange was built there, since a bonus would be that the traffic would have access to highway 3 via a roundabout and not the busy 66/3 intersection.

It would be pretty cool to see county 62 absorbed into the planned county 60 projects, too. It'd create another (almost) cross-county highway.

I was looking around and couldn't find any information on county 60 extensions. Do you have information about that?

Molandfreak

Quote from: Trademark on December 03, 2021, 04:09:37 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 03, 2021, 01:31:23 PM
Quote from: webny99 on December 03, 2021, 12:11:36 PM
If you're talking about re-routing Co 66 north along Donnelly Ave to meet Co 62, that wouldn't leave enough space for a diamond interchange at Co 62. On a regional level, that would also do nothing to address the primary traffic movement in the area, which is from Lakeville/Farmington to US 52 south. That traffic isn't going to backtrack 1 mile just to access US 52 at an interchange; they'll just continue to use Co 66 even if there's no interchange.
If MN/DOT and Dakota County aren't going to half-ass the project, the other intersection should be replaced with an overpass or closed anyway. And there are already plans to finish 190th from highway 3 to the Biscayne Avenue intersection as an extension of county 60. I bet they would look into finishing 190th all the way if an interchange was built there, since a bonus would be that the traffic would have access to highway 3 via a roundabout and not the busy 66/3 intersection.

It would be pretty cool to see county 62 absorbed into the planned county 60 projects, too. It'd create another (almost) cross-county highway.

I was looking around and couldn't find any information on county 60 extensions. Do you have information about that?
It probably hasn't even been studied yet, but the 2040 transportation plan includes proposed corridors in a lot of its maps. For example, the map on page 20.
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.

Rothman

Quote from: skluth on December 03, 2021, 12:14:07 PM
Quote
Secondly, the Vermillion River is recognized as having habitat suitable for brown trout.  There is no layout at 200th Street that will not impact the river or its immediate watershed.

This could potentially be a bigger issue than the Hmong farm. Environmental issues can delay if not outright stop highway upgrades. Also, it would not be difficult to upgrade Donnelly Ave between 190th and 200th to improve access for Co 66 to the interchange.
This is true.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

froggie

A few things to point out given recent posts:

- Given Dakota County long range plans, it is far more likely that Clayton Ave will be upgraded between 66 and 62 than Donnelly Ave.  In fact, Clayton Ave is in the county's plans regardless of whether or not an interchange gets built at 62 or 66.  Such an upgrade is seen by the county as a way to directly connect CSAH 71 and CSAH 79 without impacting

- As TheHighwayMan noted, traffic heading to/from 52 south is primarily going to use 50 or 46...we see that today with the existing traffic patterns.  Thus, webny99's argument about an interchange at 66 to serve this is largely moot.  And no, 3 through Farmington is *NOT* a slog.  The real slog is along and north of 42.  Full disclosure:   I have personal experience using 46, back when my parents lived in Burnsville.

- Between the river proximity and the disadvantaged farmers in the SW (and, as I've recently discovered, the SE) quadrants at 66, the most likely scenario from both an environmental and a social justice perspective is an interchange at 62.  Though detailed concepts and cost estimates have not been made public yet, I suspect the environmental remediation required at the river would also make an interchange at 62 less costly as well.

Molandfreak

Quote from: froggie on December 04, 2021, 01:25:03 AM
- Given Dakota County long range plans, it is far more likely that Clayton Ave will be upgraded between 66 and 62 than Donnelly Ave.  In fact, Clayton Ave is in the county's plans regardless of whether or not an interchange gets built at 62 or 66.  Such an upgrade is seen by the county as a way to directly connect CSAH 71 and CSAH 79 without impacting
Clayton is already paved. Besides putting in turn lanes, what else could they possibly do to it that would make it a better alternative for people in Empire and points east than just using Donnelly to access the interchange? It's the closest thing to a frontage road you can realistically get there.
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.

midwesternroadguy

#1321
Quote from: froggie on December 03, 2021, 10:01:38 AM
That may be an exaggeration (though the Minneapolis Farmers Market is not small by any means), but he is not wrong in pointing out the disadvantaged community (in this case, the Hmong) who own land on one corner of 52/66 that would be impacted by an interchange there.

Having worked with a local organic farmer for years, done graduate research about HAFA, I don’t think this group understands how the tentacles of food production affect people, much less  market forces driving the farm-to-table movement/locally sourced movement, and the organic movement.  There are dozens of farmers’ markets in the greater Twin Cities that have a significant, if not majority presence of Hmong vendors.  Some of these markets are large such as Minneapolis, Midtown, Mill City, and St. Paul markets with thousands of customers weekly.   Some are local.  In addition is the Hmong Village mall that provides year-round food to the 50,000-60,000 Hmong people in St. Paul.  Local farmers, including HAFA, distribute their produce to restaurants and markets/co-ops across the Twin Cities reaching many more people than the Hmong community or farmers’ market patrons.  The Cities have the highest number of co-ops per capita in the country.  Considering that farmers’ markets’ patronage varies from week to week, and that there are 4,000,000 people in the Twin Cities CMSA, 100,000+ people utilizing food produced by HAFA is not that unrealistic.  Certainly more than 2.5% of the Twin Cities utilizes any of these food sources during the year.

froggie

Quote from: Molandfreak on December 04, 2021, 01:45:09 AM
Quote from: froggie on December 04, 2021, 01:25:03 AM
- Given Dakota County long range plans, it is far more likely that Clayton Ave will be upgraded between 66 and 62 than Donnelly Ave.  In fact, Clayton Ave is in the county's plans regardless of whether or not an interchange gets built at 62 or 66.  Such an upgrade is seen by the county as a way to directly connect CSAH 71 and CSAH 79 without impacting
Clayton is already paved. Besides putting in turn lanes, what else could they possibly do to it that would make it a better alternative for people in Empire and points east than just using Donnelly to access the interchange? It's the closest thing to a frontage road you can realistically get there.

At first blush, the county would probably want to include the shoulders.  There are also the long-term plans to connect it to CSAH 71 to the north and CSAH 79 to the south, though those go beyond the interchange area.

My point is that you already have a county-promoted plan along Clayton that can be used to connect 66 with 62 if an interchange goes in at 62.  No need to reinvent the wheel on Donnelly.

Molandfreak

Quote from: froggie on December 04, 2021, 11:19:40 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 04, 2021, 01:45:09 AM
Quote from: froggie on December 04, 2021, 01:25:03 AM
- Given Dakota County long range plans, it is far more likely that Clayton Ave will be upgraded between 66 and 62 than Donnelly Ave.  In fact, Clayton Ave is in the county's plans regardless of whether or not an interchange gets built at 62 or 66.  Such an upgrade is seen by the county as a way to directly connect CSAH 71 and CSAH 79 without impacting
Clayton is already paved. Besides putting in turn lanes, what else could they possibly do to it that would make it a better alternative for people in Empire and points east than just using Donnelly to access the interchange? It's the closest thing to a frontage road you can realistically get there.

At first blush, the county would probably want to include the shoulders.  There are also the long-term plans to connect it to CSAH 71 to the north and CSAH 79 to the south, though those go beyond the interchange area.

My point is that you already have a county-promoted plan along Clayton that can be used to connect 66 with 62 if an interchange goes in at 62.  No need to reinvent the wheel on Donnelly.
And my point is that there's a non-zero number of people that would either have to backtrack a whole mile or drive on a gravel road to reach Empire or 66 east. Why wouldn't that be taken into consideration? They don't have to do anything aside from laying down a slab of asphalt and re-routing the road to accommodate the interchange.
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.

Rothman

Quote from: midwesternroadguy on December 04, 2021, 02:00:57 AM
Quote from: froggie on December 03, 2021, 10:01:38 AM
That may be an exaggeration (though the Minneapolis Farmers Market is not small by any means), but he is not wrong in pointing out the disadvantaged community (in this case, the Hmong) who own land on one corner of 52/66 that would be impacted by an interchange there.

Having worked with a local organic farmer for years, done graduate research about HAFA, I don't think this group understands how the tentacles of food production affect people, much less  market forces driving the farm-to-table movement/locally sourced movement, and the organic movement.  There are dozens of farmers' markets in the greater Twin Cities that have a significant, if not majority presence of Hmong vendors.  Some of these markets are large such as Minneapolis, Midtown, Mill City, and St. Paul markets with thousands of customers weekly.   Some are local.  In addition is the Hmong Village mall that provides year-round food to the 50,000-60,000 Hmong people in St. Paul.  Local farmers, including HAFA, distribute their produce to restaurants and markets/co-ops across the Twin Cities reaching many more people than the Hmong community or farmers' market patrons.  The Cities have the highest number of co-ops per capita in the country.  Considering that farmers' markets' patronage varies from week to week, and that there are 4,000,000 people in the Twin Cities CMSA, 100,000+ people utilizing food produced by HAFA is not that unrealistic.  Certainly more than 2.5% of the Twin Cities utilizes any of these food sources during the year.
I'd be more persuaded by actual data on who shops at farmers markets than speculation.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.



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.