Minnesota Notes

[mrsman]

Oh, well in that case, the reason is that it would be cheaper and quicker to simply stop all traffic than to rebuild while traffic were using the other side.

DC did that a few years ago when they closed the bridge that's by Wash Nationals Stadium.  They closed for a few weeks in summer and did the job quickly while diverting traffic to other crossings.  Yes, it's harder on commuters than simply keeping a few lanes open, but at least they got the job done quickly.

A similar approach was rejected for work done on I-395's northern approach, north of the Capitol.  To accommodate a new development, the developer wanted to close the stub I-395 north of D street in DC for a year.  The city council rejected this and so now they do intermittent lane closures over the course of a few years.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I think he's referring to the point that MnDOT isn't going to keep part of the bridge open for 2-lane-2-way traffic while they work on the other side.

I think the traffic volumes are too heavy for that configuration anyway. MN 100 will be done by then and I-494 will also be an easy detour option. There's no shortage of easy N-S options in the west metro.

[The Ghostbuster]

Has anyone ever driven along state highway 61 between Duluth and Grand Portage. The most interest segment of that roadway to me is the expressway between the outskirts of Duluth and the outskirts of Two Harbors. It is the last leg of the road trip I've taken to Two Harbors when vacationing with my mother and stepfather. Also, Scenic 61, the old alignment, is a fun drive with all sorts of interesting businesses. If any of you haven't been up this way, I suggest you try it sometime.

[peterj920]

Does anyone know if MNDOT plans on reconstructing the I-94/I-494/I-694 East interchange in Woodbury?  The cloverleaf can't handle the amount of traffic that goes through that interchange and there is so much weaving between traffic coming from I-94 west onto I-494 south and I-694 south trying to exit onto I-94 east.  Flyover ramps are desperately needed to smooth the traffic and reduce accidents, that probably happen there frequently. 

[Rothman]

I haven't been up as far as Grand Portage. I believe I've only been up as far as MN 1.

[AsphaltPlanet]

Has anyone ever driven along state highway 61 between Duluth and Grand Portage. The most interest segment of that roadway to me is the expressway between the outskirts of Duluth and the outskirts of Two Harbors. It is the last leg of the road trip I've taken to Two Harbors when vacationing with my mother and stepfather. Also, Scenic 61, the old alignment, is a fun drive with all sorts of interesting businesses. If any of you haven't been up this way, I suggest you try it sometime.

I did the Lake Superior Circle Tour a few weeks ago.  MN 61 is a pretty nice drive.  I understand why they aren't but it seems kind of crazy that I-35 doesn't link with the 61 Expressway.  I found MN-61 to be pretty scenic, but I was kind of hoping that the shoreline would be a little bit more mountainous.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Has anyone ever driven along state highway 61 between Duluth and Grand Portage. The most interest segment of that roadway to me is the expressway between the outskirts of Duluth and the outskirts of Two Harbors. It is the last leg of the road trip I've taken to Two Harbors when vacationing with my mother and stepfather. Also, Scenic 61, the old alignment, is a fun drive with all sorts of interesting businesses. If any of you haven't been up this way, I suggest you try it sometime.

I've driven 61 a number of times, and I actually just did a photo documentary of the expressway today. Personally I think heading southbound on the expressway has some amazing views that are definitely equal to those of the scenic route. I also love Knife River and going through there.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Does anyone know if MNDOT plans on reconstructing the I-94/I-494/I-694 East interchange in Woodbury?  The cloverleaf can't handle the amount of traffic that goes through that interchange and there is so much weaving between traffic coming from I-94 west onto I-494 south and I-694 south trying to exit onto I-94 east.  Flyover ramps are desperately needed to smooth the traffic and reduce accidents, that probably happen there frequently. 

I agree with you. As far as I know there are no plans, and even if they did they wouldn't have the money to do it at this point.

[Roadguy]

Does anyone know if MNDOT plans on reconstructing the I-94/I-494/I-694 East interchange in Woodbury?  The cloverleaf can't handle the amount of traffic that goes through that interchange and there is so much weaving between traffic coming from I-94 west onto I-494 south and I-694 south trying to exit onto I-94 east.  Flyover ramps are desperately needed to smooth the traffic and reduce accidents, that probably happen there frequently.

MnDOT is a very conservative organization in the sense that it factors in construction and future maintenance costs (When you do your own maintenance you have to be).  That is why the metro area has so many cloverleaf interchanges.  The high costs for bridges, snow/ice removal, and shear number of cloverleafs (32 total in the metro area) make upgrading all of them extremely costly.  As an example, the cloverleaf at 610 and 169 cost around $30 million, had a full flyover configuration been built (it was considered), it would have cost over $120 million. The few times they have deviated from the cloverleaf, they have built turbine interchanges (94/394, planned 35W/494, etc).  169 and 494 was the exception to that due to frontage road configuration.  Even the crosstown project left a loop ramp from 35W NB to 62 WB and that is a heavily traveled movement.

The most we will probably ever see here is collector-distributor lanes added to 694/494 (Similar to the configuration on 94 below).  When the original interchange was upgraded in 1985 there was not the north-south traffic that there is today.  MnDOT has a TON of needs and quite frankly once the 2008 transportation bill construction money winds down in 2018 there is hardly enough money to simply maintain the existing system (They have estimated a $6 billion+ shortfall just for the status quo).

I agree a flyover type of interchange would be the most ideal fix but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

[peterj920]

Would be nice to at least make the loops bigger, they're very tight.  There are a lot freeways in the Twin Cities metro also, so I can understand why there's so many cloverleafs.  But that interchange is probably top 5 in traffic.  694 is used for traffic that wants to bypass the metro and 494 serves Bloomington, the airport, and the Mall of America.  Interesting how Minnesota focuses on building so many freeways but doesn't spend a lot on interchanges, where Wisconsin is the complete opposite.  Wisconsin has less urban freeways, but builds extravagant interchanges (Mitchell, Marquette, and Zoo Interchanges are prime examples)  It's very expensive to have both, and that's probably why the states have such a contrast. 

[froggie]

Even the crosstown project left a loop ramp from 35W NB to 62 WB and that is a heavily traveled movement.

It's really not that heavily used.  Combined with the lack of weaving along it plus the presence of Grass Lake just to the northwest is why that loop ramp was retained.  BTW, that loop ramp was the only loop ramp in the original Crosstown Commons design.

[froggie]

Interesting 1960s video from Minneapolis of I-35W.  35W ended at the Lake/31st St exit at the time, which puts the date of the video in 1966 or early 1967.  The cameraman is entering northbound from 35th St, passing through the barriers at 31st St, then continuing along the freshly completed concrete north into downtown.  There are views of US 212 signed with Lake/31st (212 followed Lake St from ~1934-1983), a 50 MPH speed limit sign (it's currently 55 MPH), a view down Lake St to the east from the 35W overpass, video from the downtown split up to 10th St, and a partial return southbound shot coming off 10th St/4th Ave towards where MN 65 crosses over I-94.  Aside from the 50 MPH speed limit sign, there were no signs yet posted on the then-unopened section.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mplsarchives/20639797346/

[TheHighwayMan3561]

They keep having issues with accidents at the I-35/MN 33 interchange in Cloquet where southbound traffic on 33 wanting to head north on I-35 has to turn left across traffic coming north off I-35, and the traffic coming off 35 is often speeding and has poor sightlines as they have to come over a hill. MNDot has tried adding an electronic speed indicator sign to get the attention of drivers getting off I-35 and making some pavement marking changes for MN 33 southbound traffic. I think honestly the best thing is just to install a stoplight here. It would be the most expensive fix short of reconfiguring the entire interchange, but what MNDot has tried isn't working.

[rte66man]

Interesting 1960s video from Minneapolis of I-35W.  35W ended at the Lake/31st St exit at the time, which puts the date of the video in 1966 or early 1967.  The cameraman is entering northbound from 35th St, passing through the barriers at 31st St, then continuing along the freshly completed concrete north into downtown.  There are views of US 212 signed with Lake/31st (212 followed Lake St from ~1934-1983), a 50 MPH speed limit sign (it's currently 55 MPH), a view down Lake St to the east from the 35W overpass, video from the downtown split up to 10th St, and a partial return southbound shot coming off 10th St/4th Ave towards where MN 65 crosses over I-94.  Aside from the 50 MPH speed limit sign, there were no signs yet posted on the then-unopened section.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mplsarchives/20639797346/

Froggie, thanks for the headsup.

And... Sears Used Cars? 

[midwesternroadguy]

Freeway lighting upgrades:

MnDOT is replacing the luminaires on most freeway lights within the metro and also around St. Cloud with very thin LED-imbedded luminaires.  Very quickly too. 

As an additional perk of the upgrade, the Lafayette Freeway is having continuous lighting extended from Thompson Avenue to I-494.  The median lighting is being replaced with new cobraheads along the outer shoulders. 

[froggie]

Going back to Old Hwy 14 between Janesville and Owatonna, a judge dismissed yet another lawsuit brought up by Steele and Waseca Counties against MnDOT (filed back in May) regarding the reconstruction of old US 14.  In short, the counties wanted paved shoulders and cited that MnDOT's own technical manuals and policies would suggest such in many locations.  In the current reconstruction, MnDOT is putting gravel shoulders instead.  And won on the simple fact that the settlement agreement from the PREVIOUS lawsuit states that "the MnDOT is to reclaim the existing shoulder of Highway 14 to aggregate."

[JMAN_WiS&S]

Would be nice to at least make the loops bigger, they're very tight.  There are a lot freeways in the Twin Cities metro also, so I can understand why there's so many cloverleafs.  But that interchange is probably top 5 in traffic.  694 is used for traffic that wants to bypass the metro and 494 serves Bloomington, the airport, and the Mall of America.  Interesting how Minnesota focuses on building so many freeways but doesn't spend a lot on interchanges, where Wisconsin is the complete opposite.  Wisconsin has less urban freeways, but builds extravagant interchanges (Mitchell, Marquette, and Zoo Interchanges are prime examples)  It's very expensive to have both, and that's probably why the states have such a contrast.

Oh my gosh, my family mentions it every time we pass through there. Shortest merging lanes I've ever seen. The WI29/US53 interchange in Lake Hallie is similar to a cloverleaf, a stretched out cloverleaf, has collector lanes 1/2 mile before the interchange in all directions, and the merge lanes between all the loops seem like they are all at least 1/4 mile long, with lanes extending past the loops on each end, so that traffic can use that to merge back onto the main flow rather use the part that traffic entering the cloverleaf uses.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

MNPass lanes proposed for a 14-mile stretch of I-35W roughly between MN 36 and Lexington Avenue. Construction wouldn't begin until 2019 provided MNDot can convince the state to fund the project.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2015/09/25/new-mnpass-lanes-could-be-coming-to-north-metro/

[TheHighwayMan3561]

US 53 relocation in Virginia receives final federal approval; the mining company that current US 53 exists on has agreed to an extension of the lease with MNDot until November 2017 when MNDot expects to finish the rerouted 53.

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/iron-range/3847530-highway-53-reroute-between-eveleth-and-virginia-receives-federal-approval

[froggie]

I'd noticed the I-35W MnPASS lane project (and a different news article on it) the other day, but opted not to say anything as only under the most optimum conditions would construction begin in 2019.

As for US 53....$240 million to relocate a road for a mine that has been having issues anyway...

[Roadguy]

I'd noticed the I-35W MnPASS lane project (and a different news article on it) the other day, but opted not to say anything as only under the most optimum conditions would construction begin in 2019.

As for US 53....$240 million to relocate a road for a mine that has been having issues anyway...

MnPASS... I have nothing good to say... 

No matter how the mining company does, to assume TH 53 will does not have to be relocated is a very bad assumption.  Even if United Taconite were to sell/go under, guaranteed another company would come in and buy out the mine and put MnDOT in the same position.  The company is not going to sell the mine or even in bankruptcy the land would not go for a significant value less than it's appraised value.  Typically land with significant mineral value in bankruptcy still fetches close to the fair market price.  So it still makes sense for MnDOT to build a bridge versus pay the $400 million to buy the mineral rights under the existing highway.  If anything this puts MnDOT in less of a stressful time frame to complete the bridge project and vacate the existing highway.

As for the writer's comment on cost overruns budget (I know you didn't write the piece Froggie, you are just linking us to it), MnDOT does a pretty good job at estimating project costs.  These large projects have enough contingency in them and MnDOT over the past 8 years has started/completed a lot of high cost bridge projects that one would expect they will probably stay on budget with this one as well.  Design-build has really brought down project overruns and change orders (averaging 2% of the project budget in design-build versus design-bid-build at 6%).

[triplemultiplex]

I haven't been following the situation up in Virginia closely, but I guess I just assumed the relocation of US 53 would involve filling in whatever mine hole the new highway would go through with the endless supply of old overburden in the area.
The huge "Bridge to Target" (as that editorial so delightfully put it) has got to be the majority of the cost.  If they are going to spend over $200 million, MnDOT might as well just build a bypass of Virginia to the east.  Like completely.  The land is already destroyed by older mines.

At the very least, that alternative they had in the County Road 7 corridor is looking much better now that I know there's a big, expensive bridge involved.

[discochris]

MN 5 likely to be turned back to Washington County between MN 120 and MN 36 (its present east terminus) this summer.

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_28194176/mndot-handing-over-stretch-minnesota-5-washington-county

The article mentions something a little more curious though: MNDot is apparently trying to hand over a section of MN 60 in Worthington. What is this section and why would they hand it over?

Wasn't there an intent long ago to make this a 4-lane highway through the east side of St. Paul all the way to Stillwater, but it was eventually killed, and that's why the 4-lane was built east of 694?

[froggie]

More or less.  Dates to the '50s.  Was effectively dead by 1980-ish.

[Revive 755]

I don't believe this was posted before:  Apparently a Tier 1 ROD was reached for a new freeway connecting US 212 with US 169

Notice is hereby given that FHWA has issued at Tier I Record of Decision (ROD) in connection with a proposed highway project in the State of Minnesota: Construction of a new Trunk Highway (TH) 41 Minnesota River crossing connecting Trunk Highway 169 and United States (US) Highway 212 in the vicinity of the existing Trunk Highway 41. A modified Alternative C-2 corridor was the selected alternative in the Tier I FEIS. The selected alternative is an approximately 3 mile long, 300-foot wide corridor to accommodate a new four-lane east-west regional freeway connection between US 169 and US 212 that will improve regional accessibility and alleviate traffic congestion.