Minnesota Notes

[froggie]

MnDOT is proposing a road diet and multiple new roundabouts for TH 65/Central Avenue between the north end of the Third Avenue Bridge in Minneapolis and 53rd Ave in Fridley (immediately south of I-694). If Minneapolis and Columbia Heights approve, construction would begin in 2028.

https://hoodline.com/2026/08/central-avenue-overhaul-brings-roundabouts-bus-lanes-and-a-85m-price-tag/

Let's start with cutting off Reservoir Blvd from the 37th Ave intersection.

That's already part of the plan.

[andarcondadont]

Saw the reopened 280 tonight on a fair shuttle bus as well as driving it myself after. MnDOT built a frontage road of sorts (similar to the old US 169 frontage road that existed in St. Louis Park that was located between Minnetonka Blvd and 394) to separate some of the industrial driveways at the north end from the mainline, though one additional driveway remains directly connected to the road. We will see if they can remove that as part of the Broadway intersection removal in a couple years.

The University and I-94 interchanges are also Exit 0 A-C, plus a new END shield at the south end that didn't exist previously.

The frontage road along 280 isn't new with the recent construction, having been in place since around 2009. However, I did notice that the northbound lane drop just before 35W has been shifted from the left lane ending to the right lane ending.

[rte66man]

Saw some amazing stills and a drone flyover of the progress on 169 in Zimmerman:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/730598493717002/user/100045218565152/

[froggie]

Saw some amazing stills and a drone flyover of the progress on 169 in Zimmerman:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/730598493717002/user/100045218565152/

A pity that it's a private group...

[triplemultiplex]

Haven't been up the North Shore in a few years, but took it up to TH 1 en route to Ely this summer and noticed something that's always intrigued me for decades.

A recent improvement south of the Silver Cliff Tunnel finally has TH 61 using the "to be continued" concrete laid down thirty-whatever years ago when the tunnel was built.  You know what I mean; the concrete keeps going straight, but traffic gets shunted off of it before it ends to merge back on the pre-existing roadway, leaving a tantalizing promise that the improvement you just merged off of will continue some day.

Here's what I mean.
Before:
https://mapper.acme.com/?ll=47.06502,-91.60186&z=18&t=S
After:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/KSzH5tMjv2u2tXmp6

I've been ogling that 'to be continued' since I was a kid, wondering if Minnesota was ever going to do anything with it.  And now they finally have!  Dreams do come true. 

[Molandfreak]

Haven't been up the North Shore in a few years, but took it up to TH 1 en route to Ely this summer and noticed something that's always intrigued me for decades.

A recent improvement south of the Silver Cliff Tunnel finally has TH 61 using the "to be continued" concrete laid down thirty-whatever years ago when the tunnel was built.  You know what I mean; the concrete keeps going straight, but traffic gets shunted off of it before it ends to merge back on the pre-existing roadway, leaving a tantalizing promise that the improvement you just merged off of will continue some day.

Here's what I mean.
Before:
https://mapper.acme.com/?ll=47.06502,-91.60186&z=18&t=S
After:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/KSzH5tMjv2u2tXmp6

I've been ogling that 'to be continued' since I was a kid, wondering if Minnesota was ever going to do anything with it.  And now they finally have!  Dreams do come true. 

I always thought it had something to do with property rights issues surrounding the Gitchi Gami State Trail, but I also assumed the result would be a bit more extensive than that. I don't really care about the sections between Silver Bay and Schroeder since that is way too desolate of a stretch to really make a difference to most users, but there are frequently bikes along the shoulder from Two Harbors to where the trail begins at Gooseberry Falls. This was the most dangerous section due to traffic and a smaller shoulder footprint. At least the ball appears to be rolling towards getting the trail finished in the area.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

The project to convert the I-35E/County J interchange in the north metro from a half to a full diamond is nearly complete, but what's strange about it is that they apparentlysign County J as a literal actual shield on some signage (styled with the outstate white square that Ramsey County does not use). The "County (x)" roads are street names, with unrelated numerical county designations.

For those with FB you can see the video here: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1750168726234603

[Molandfreak]

The project to convert the I-35E/County J interchange in the north metro from a half to a full diamond is nearly complete, but what's strange about it is that they apparentlysign County J as a literal actual shield on some signage (styled with the outstate white square that Ramsey County does not use). The "County (x)" roads are street names, with unrelated numerical county designations.

For those with FB you can see the video here: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1750168726234603

https://maps.app.goo.gl/YEeBqVwNJFmjf3B98
County J did have some courtesy signage before the project since following a gap near the interchange required going into Anoka County.

[andarcondadont]

The project to convert the I-35E/County J interchange in the north metro from a half to a full diamond is nearly complete, but what's strange about it is that they apparentlysign County J as a literal actual shield on some signage (styled with the outstate white square that Ramsey County does not use). The "County (x)" roads are street names, with unrelated numerical county designations.

For those with FB you can see the video here: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1750168726234603

I suppose this has something to do with the fact that prior to 2026, the segment of County J between Centerville Road and Otter Lake Road was not designated as a County State Aid Highway by either county. For years, Ramsey County had internally designated it as County Road 81, but the other half of the roadway was under the jurisdiction of the City of Lino Lakes. Related to the reconstruction, both county boards have adopted resolutions designating CSAH status, with Ramsey County doing so in September 2024, and Anoka County doing so in November 2025.

[Great Lakes Roads]

https://talk.dot.state.mn.us/hwy-10-study-st-cloud-to-little-falls

Hwy 10 – St. Cloud to Little Falls study

About this project study
We're identifying future safety and access needs along 30 miles of Hwy 10 between E Saint Germain St. in St. Cloud and the south limits of Little Falls in 2025-2026.

This study will analyze the corridor's current and future demographics, land use/development, maintenance operations, road and drainage conditions, and safety data.

The corridor experiences ongoing access, mobility, and safety issues:

• Numerous at-grade crossings create challenges for left-turn movements
• Traffic signals in Royalton and St. Cloud cause significant safety concerns and traffic flow issues.

The project team will pursue the following goals for the corridor as they complete the study:

• Improve safety for all users
• Enhance mobility and travel reliability
• Improve access management and corridor function
• Develop implementable, fundable, and phased recommendations
• Inform and engage the public and stakeholders

[EpicRoadways]

https://talk.dot.state.mn.us/hwy-10-study-st-cloud-to-little-falls

Hwy 10 – St. Cloud to Little Falls study

About this project study
We're identifying future safety and access needs along 30 miles of Hwy 10 between E Saint Germain St. in St. Cloud and the south limits of Little Falls in 2025-2026.

This study will analyze the corridor's current and future demographics, land use/development, maintenance operations, road and drainage conditions, and safety data.

The corridor experiences ongoing access, mobility, and safety issues:

• Numerous at-grade crossings create challenges for left-turn movements
• Traffic signals in Royalton and St. Cloud cause significant safety concerns and traffic flow issues.

The project team will pursue the following goals for the corridor as they complete the study:

• Improve safety for all users
• Enhance mobility and travel reliability
• Improve access management and corridor function
• Develop implementable, fundable, and phased recommendations
• Inform and engage the public and stakeholders

I travel this stretch of US-10 not infrequently, and one of the things that I find interesting in St. Cloud is how despite the MN-23 interchange having just been rebuilt, the ramps are significantly underutilized because it took all of a week for drivers bound for east St. Cloud and the downtown area to realize that it's faster to just take a direct left at the signal at East Saint Germain. Unscientifically, it seems like they could literally just close the East Saint Germain intersection, without doing a whole lot more, and the MN-23 interchange could absorb the traffic no problem.

[mattaudio]

Yes it was a mistake to leave St. Germain as a signalized intersection, and unfortunate to not grade separate this intersection at the same time as the Hwy 23 interchange reconstruction.

At this point, maybe a cost-effective approach would be to curve St Germain to connect to the existing folded diamond intersections at Hwy 23 on both sides of Hwy 10, and maybe put in a bike/ped bridge or culvert on the existing St. Germain alignment?

[TheHighwayMan3561]

The prbblem I see with this is, based on that study area it might not get rid of the 50 MPH speed bump through East St. Cloud.

[EpicRoadways]

The prbblem I see with this is, based on that study area it might not get rid of the 50 MPH speed bump through East St. Cloud.

I think it's gonna be all or nothing with the two remaining signals in St. Cloud, even though ironically, they're both being examined as part of two different studies. Removal of the signal at 15th seems to be an actual priority for MNDOT now thanks to some legislative pressure, and I suspect we'll probably see funding identified for that project within the next few years, especially now that a recommended alternative has been developed. At that point, I don't see there being any way to justify keeping the signal at East Saint Germain and with it the 50MPH speed limit. I don't think both projects will happen simultaneously, but I think one will set the other in motion, and I suspect the 50MPH speed limit will be maintained until both signals are removed and maybe even indefinitely, although at that point I don't think there would be any reason they couldn't bump it up to at least 55 if not 60.

[froggie]

^I wasn't aware that they decided on a recommended alternative at 15th.  I've only seen the studied alternatives.  What did they pick?

[EpicRoadways]

^I wasn't aware that they decided on a recommended alternative at 15th.  I've only seen the studied alternatives.  What did they pick?

Actually, it seems like you're right that they haven't formally announced a preferred alternative yet. It looks like they've dropped the alternatives being considered from 9 to 3 (or 4 if you count the "no build" option) all alternatives being considered right now are pretty similar, as two of the three options are hybrid tight/folded diamond interchanges with roundabouts and the third is a standard tight diamond with roundabouts. Option "3B" seems to be the most likely based off of their analysis, and based on their timeline there should be a final determination made pretty shortly. 

[Stephane Dumas]

Yes it was a mistake to leave St. Germain as a signalized intersection, and unfortunate to not grade separate this intersection at the same time as the Hwy 23 interchange reconstruction.

At this point, maybe a cost-effective approach would be to curve St Germain to connect to the existing folded diamond intersections at Hwy 23 on both sides of Hwy 10, and maybe put in a bike/ped bridge or culvert on the existing St. Germain alignment?

I wonder if the owners of the Wendy's and McDonald's restaurants near that intersection have played a role about keeping that intersection?

And going slightly into fictional territory, is it far-fetched to dream of a freewaylization of US-10 between St-Cloud and Elk River?

[Molandfreak]

Yes it was a mistake to leave St. Germain as a signalized intersection, and unfortunate to not grade separate this intersection at the same time as the Hwy 23 interchange reconstruction.

At this point, maybe a cost-effective approach would be to curve St Germain to connect to the existing folded diamond intersections at Hwy 23 on both sides of Hwy 10, and maybe put in a bike/ped bridge or culvert on the existing St. Germain alignment?

I wonder if the owners of the Wendy's and McDonald's restaurants near that intersection have played a role about keeping that intersection?

And going slightly into fictional territory, is it far-fetched to dream of a freewaylization of US-10 between St-Cloud and Elk River?

Yes, Big Lake would throw a fit. For selfish reasons, I hope the freeway connector in the Clearwater area that was studied around 20 years ago starts moving dirt.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I lived on that corridor for most of 20 years. A freeway is not needed. A few spot interchanges, sure (things like TH 24 and Sherburne CSAH 11) and cleaning up a few access points (like maybe an RCUT at the northern TH 25 junction among other spots) would probably be a good thing, but it mostly works fine as it is. There are so many minor at-grades on the stretch in question that it's just not practical.

[EpicRoadways]

I lived on that corridor for most of 20 years. A freeway is not needed. A few spot interchanges, sure (things like TH 24 and Sherburne CSAH 11) and cleaning up a few access points (like maybe an RCUT at the northern TH 25 junction among other spots) would probably be a good thing, but it mostly works fine as it is. There are so many minor at-grades on the stretch in question that it's just not practical.

I don't disagree here. I'd say from personal experience the CSAH 11 signal should be priority #1. During the evening rush (and especially on Thursdays and Fridays over the summer when everyone's headed up to the cabin) backups from folks trying to turn left onto WB 10 can sometimes exceed a mile in length. Under normal conditions the signal actually does a fairly decent job of clearing the queue, but at the expense of US-10 traffic because of the sheer volume of left-turning traffic that's being shunted into a single lane. Throw in some semis and the not-so-occasional train, and you've got yourself a pretty crappy situation.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

There does appear to be activity happening on the US 10/CSAH 11 front.

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b51833db61254912a792857bcd1d51ff

[rte66man]

Are there active plans to remove the signal at 171st Ave NW and 10 in Elk River?

[EpicRoadways]

Are there active plans to remove the signal at 171st Ave NW and 10 in Elk River?

I don't think so. In fact, there are active plans to construct two J-turn intersections between 171st Ave and the first Ramsey exit next summer, which makes me think a full freeway between Armstrong Blvd. and 169 isn't in the works in the near future.

On a completely unrelated note, on the newly expanded section of I-94 between Albertville and Monticello I noticed the WB 94 bridge over CR 19 in Albertville is super wide. There's space for at least another full lane, if not two, plus a full shoulder. Anyone know why the bridge was built so wide? Maybe there are plans to build a feeder lane so vehicles entering the highway at CR 37 don't have to "re-exit" at CR-19?

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Are there active plans to remove the signal at 171st Ave NW and 10 in Elk River?

I don't think so. In fact, there are active plans to construct two J-turn intersections between 171st Ave and the first Ramsey exit next summer, which makes me think a full freeway between Armstrong Blvd. and 169 isn't in the works in the near future.

It's kind of the same issue as was mentioned a few posts above regarding the section west of Elk River. Most of the at-grades between 101/169 and Armstrong just don't merit grade separation, and a number of dead ends also jut off of the road. The turn out in front of the recycling center (165th?) needs some work because of bad sight lines, but an interchange there wouldn't make much sense.

[froggie]

Elk River initiated a study that wrapped up a few years ago.  While MnDOT has a stated preference for a full freeway, the long term vision from the study is for RIRO at 173rd, a 3/4 intersection at 171st, and interchanges at an extended Twin Lakes Rd (physically just south of 167th) and at Adams St (connecting to a relocated Jarvis St north of 10 and the railroad).  All other access would be eliminated once supporting frontage/backage roads are built.

Also, Elk River got $1.6M at the beginning of this year to finish preliminary design and the environmental documentation.  I imagine that will take a couple years.

I haven't found anything on the stretch of 10 between Jarvis/Adams and Armstrong Blvd that isn't outdated, but the planning a dozen years ago suggested no changes to the median weigh station, the eastbound rest area at the weigh station, or access to the homes along the eastbound lanes between Adams and Riverdale Dr.  That long ago study suggested an RCUT at Bowers Dr, but since then the Bowers intersection was removed with a RIRO built at Riverdale.