Minnesota Notes

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Side note, I wonder if at some point in the past they ever evaluated realigning TH 18 to cut between the lakes on the north side of Garrison rather than making that 75-degree dive down to Garrison just to end up going back northeast with 169 to the same plane TH 18 was on.

The thing is that TH 18 is ostensibly three separate highways handling local traffic, with an exception close to the Y which is mostly traffic headed to TH 6. The Y was actually needed because far more traffic comes from the south than from the east on TH 18's independent segment over Mille Lacs. They could build it, but it would see very minuscule amounts of traffic since there are no real population centers to feed into it. Malmo to Brainerd traffic?

I mean so it's clear, I'm not talking about getting rid of the west leg of the Y between Garrison and 6, it could be a southern extension of 6 or a county road instead of being 18 is all. But points taken.

Anyway, I've made this sound more like a proposal than a curiosity - I wonder if MnDOT looked into it, not whether I think it should or shouldn't have happened.

[froggie]

I hope one provision of this TH 210 work in Brainerd will be removing the  "ramp" from northbound TH 25 to westbound TH 210 that was closed and left to rot in place after all NB 25 traffic was rerouted to the stoplight where 25 ends.

[Molandfreak]

Ugh. How hard is it to just keep one intersection around? What's the point of having two 3-way roundabouts when there's a way to handle all the movements in one location?

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Ugh. How hard is it to just keep one intersection around? What's the point of having two 3-way roundabouts when there's a way to handle all the movements in one location?

I'm just going WTF at this.

[Molandfreak]

It looks like the light at TH 25/210 is very old, so I can sort of see why they would want to eliminate that. But what exactly is the point of doing all of this when existing intersections seem to handle the situation without issue?

Is the 5th Avenue intersection going to be closed? Because if not, I see no point in attempting to introduce a new movement at the C Street curve.

Roundabout bashing is beating a dead horse and annoying as hell unless there's a legitimate point to be made, but I feel there is one to be made here. This is an area filled with open swamps, industrial and commercial uses, and peripheral residential areas. Walkability between these adjacent areas is not all that important when so much of it is industrial. I'd hate to give the "roundabouts are the devil" folks any more rope, but greenlighting this project at the same time as the TH 210/371 interchange just isn't going to sit well with a lot of people.

Sometimes less is more. Not every intersection needs to be a beautiful roundabout and not every interchange needs to be a DDI or SPUI.

[froggie]

I'm finding it more or less acceptable.  Hear me out as to why:

- Perusing traffic counts, it appears that at least a plurality, if not a majority, of traffic on both 25 and on CSAH 3 are going either to the "mall" or taking 210 to/from the west.  There's not a lot of 25/CSAH 3 through traffic, and there's even less that turns east on 210.  And traffic between 25 south and 210 east can always use 10th Ave to cut the corner.

- Standing MnDOT policy has long been to evaluate signalized intersections for potential roundabouts if the signal needs replacement or the intersection has issues (safety, capacity, or other) that need to be corrected.

- There is a desire for two accesses into the "Mall".  Hence the two roundabouts plus the RIRO which is mainly because NB CSAH 3 will not be able to turn left into the mall.  For traffic on 210 from the west, using the first roundabout will by far be the best option.

- Since Moland asked, the 5th Ave intersection will not be fully closed.  But traffic on 5th will no longer be able to turn left onto eastbound 210.  So the western roundabout is in part so McDonalds, Dairy Queen, and others on that side can turn east on 210 (or south on 25).  The 4th Ave signal is also being removed and there will be further turn restrictions at 4th, 2nd, and 1st Avenues.  3rd Ave will remain a full intersection but the next signal to the west isn't until Gillis/13th St.

- Moland also mentioned the swamps and wetlands in the vicinity, especially in the "triangle" between 210, 25, and the spur.  This, to me, is partially why it makes sense for 25 to utilize the spur since most of its traffic is going 210 west or to the mall anyway (as I noted above).  To eliminate the spur and keep 25 going up to the existing signal would require either keeping the existing tight 90 degree turn or digging into some other wetland and/or Shannon's parking lot.  By my estimate, that turn could only be smoothed to, at best, about a 25mph design speed.

[Molandfreak]

https://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/hwy52-hwy55-cord42/index.html

Good news, the planned rerouting of TH 55 onto County 42 may finally be realized in the next decade.

[froggie]

^ It's promising.  And long overdue.  But I'll believe it when there are shovels and bulldozers working the dirt.  Some of the things listed in that study (like redoing the 52/42 interchange and removing the bridge at the 52/55 split) have been talked about for north of 20 years.

[thspfc]

What's the reason for this realignment?

[Molandfreak]

What's the reason for this realignment?

The rationale behind the study I read from the early 2000s detailed that it was a more cost-effective approach. I heard reports that there is an issue with the grade separation at existing TH-55 which is nearing the end of its lifespan, and I certainly respect the initiative that would eliminate the at-grade intersection south of there, which can't technically happen unless they waste money on a southbound ramp. There is no shortage of people who can't use their brains and just use 42 to access southbound 52.

For a while, it seemed like they had completely abandoned any initiative to do the right thing in the area. There was a document floating around with a plan for some Swedish-style three-lane nonsense which might still be the plan between Fischer Avenue and Hastings. It should really be a 65-mph expressway with an interchange at eastbound CSAH 42/CSAH 85.

The city of Rosemount should not have allowed development so close to the interchange. This would have been much easier to do 10 years ago.

[Molandfreak]

^ It's promising.  And long overdue.  But I'll believe it when there are shovels and bulldozers working the dirt.  Some of the things listed in that study (like redoing the 52/42 interchange and removing the bridge at the 52/55 split) have been talked about for north of 20 years.

Are the reports that the existing grade separation is nearing the end of its lifespan untrue? That could light a fire under their butts to finally do the right thing.

[froggie]

Oh, it's aged.  The bridge dates to 1958.  But it wouldn't be the first time MnDOT dithered on a new bridge due to funding.

[thspfc]

I'm still confused as to what the problem is with 55's current alignment. They could remove the Pine Bend Tr intersection (so traffic against the flow just uses 42) and replace the aging overpass, for cheaper than what this is going to be.

Is it a traffic volume issue and they can't upgrade the current alignment? Is it a traffic flow issue where they want all the traffic on the state route rather than some of it detouring on a country road?

[Molandfreak]

I'm still confused as to what the problem is with 55's current alignment. They could remove the Pine Bend Tr intersection (so traffic against the flow just uses 42) and replace the aging overpass, for cheaper than what this is going to be.

Is it a traffic volume issue and they can't upgrade the current alignment? Is it a traffic flow issue where they want all the traffic on the state route rather than some of it detouring on a country road?

I believe there is an issue with getting FHWA approval for closing the intersection. Again, it wouldn't have been a problem if they just took the initiative to do it in the 2000s for a hybrid solution, but it isn't that simple nowadays.

The road is above the 11,000 VPD threshold to warrant four-laning, so that is on the radar. From what I remember, simply four-laning the TH 55 corridor was an option they considered in the early 2000s, but they opted to recommend creating a consistent four-lane corridor for CSAH 42 instead.

If they could get FHWA approval, revisiting the option of four-laning the existing TH 55 corridor, closing the Pine Bend intersection, and creating a J-turn/reduced-conflict intersection for the western TH 55/CSAH 42 intersection could be an interesting idea.

[mattaudio]

I've also wondered if MnDOT is not a fan of Hwy 55 being a left exit, even though it's more of a split of a concurrence.

Is there still a long-term possibility for CR 42 to become a state highway? If that ever happens, I wonder if TH 55 would be truncated to the northern split in Inver Grove Heights, giving a different designation to the state highway connection to Hastings.

[Molandfreak]

Another consideration they may be taking into account is the potential bridge to Grey Cloud Island which would pick up from the end of 117th Street. It's an extremely charitable reading knowing MnDOT and the complete lack of initiative for effective traffic management in this area beyond these studies, but if the ball gets rolling on that, it could siphon a bit of traffic off TH 55.