AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Minnesota Notes  (Read 169857 times)

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 05:11:16 PM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #625 on: October 12, 2017, 02:57:24 AM »

The non-Interstates where I have seen exit numbers:

-The aforementioned US 169 Shakopee bypass; the numbers have spread along the length of the bypass up to the Pioneer Trail exit across the river.
-US 10/61 in Newport and Cottage Grove.
-MN 610's westernmost three exits (the final segment of that freeway to open).
Logged
It sucks that you think where Iím from is whack, but as long as thatís enough to keep your ass from coming back

Clinched 2dis: 24, 35, 39, 41, 43, 76 (W), 84 (E), 88 (both), 96, 97

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4289
  • Blue and gold forever!

  • Age: 27
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: Today at 09:16:29 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #626 on: October 12, 2017, 03:17:17 AM »

The "Downtown Exits" sign (pointing to the downtown connector) may at one time have had TH 65 shields, though I can't be sure without going through my MnDOT sign panel detail sheet stash, which has well over two thousand sheets for Hennepin County alone.

It certainly would've been signed there, up until the mid 2000s, but I'm not sure if that panel is old enough. Dunno what else the empty space would've been for, though.
Logged

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3791
  • Last Login: January 22, 2020, 10:51:35 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #627 on: October 12, 2017, 06:44:23 PM »

Second, adding county roads to some freeway signs is pointless. I doubt there's even a single person in existence that navigates Ramsey County largely by using its numbered county road system. Who here previously knew that White Bear Ave is Ramsey County 65?

Someone from out of state looking at a map (and the MN state map does have some of these numbers), seeing a road has a county route number, and seeing county route numbers on other freeway guide signs?

* They seem inconsistent on the use of interchange sequence signs.

How so?

Seems there are several spots around the Twin Cities the interchange sequence signs are not used after having them after several other interchanges.

* They do not seem to do a good job signing option lanes.  This really becomes an issue when they don't always use exit only panels either

That particular example strikes me as a variant of the option-lane-followed-by-lane drop problem, which all agencies struggle with.

Still should be some form of "exit only" on the signs for I-494 on NB US 61 north of Glen Road.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 09:29:43 PM by Revive 755 »
Logged

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 05:11:16 PM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #628 on: October 12, 2017, 11:41:35 PM »

Drove the reopened US 169 tonight.

-As we knew, the southbound RIRO to 16th St was removed. But it's not that they just removed the exit and made the street into a dead end. They literally removed the entire street in that area.
-No exit numbers were added to any of the interchanges that were involved in the work project.
Logged
It sucks that you think where Iím from is whack, but as long as thatís enough to keep your ass from coming back

Clinched 2dis: 24, 35, 39, 41, 43, 76 (W), 84 (E), 88 (both), 96, 97

Roadguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 107
  • Location: Middle West
  • Last Login: December 31, 2019, 08:22:21 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #629 on: October 14, 2017, 05:00:08 AM »

Drove the reopened US 169 tonight.

-As we knew, the southbound RIRO to 16th St was removed. But it's not that they just removed the exit and made the street into a dead end. They literally removed the entire street in that area.
-No exit numbers were added to any of the interchanges that were involved in the work project.

With the new noise wall there, when I went by 16th street going southbound I said to myself "I can't believe there was ever an exit there".  I also really like the added northbound acceleration lane added at Cedar Lake Road.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10933
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: January 22, 2020, 02:40:53 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #630 on: October 14, 2017, 08:35:17 PM »

Regarding county route numbers on guide signs, there are two primary reasons for the vast bulk of these situations:

A):  It's in Ramsey County, which (with the exception of former state highways turned back to the county, namely former MN 49 and most of former MN 96) only within the last 20 years has started including reassurance shields for its county routes.  But as a general rule, Ramsey County does not fully sign its county routes.  MnDOT, as noted above, typically follows the county's lead and thus (again except for former MN 49 & 96 segments) ignores county routes on freeway signage.

B):  Cases where the county route has the same number as a state highway in the general vicinity**, and so MnDOT does not post the county route number in order to avoid confusion.  As an example, this is the reason why CSAH 5 was taken off the I-494 guide signs at Minnetonka Blvd (Exit 17).  It was being confused with MN 5, with that confusion made worse by MN 5 having a concurrency with I-494.

** - Two notable exceptions to this are Hennepin CSAH 62 and Ramsey CSAH 10.  The former is an extension of the Metro Area MN 62 (and deliberate), while the latter is the old routing of US 10 through Mounds View.
Logged

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 05:11:16 PM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #631 on: October 14, 2017, 09:05:38 PM »

To go off point B, there was one instance that confused me.

I-494 in Bloomington. Portland Avenue is signed as County 35. Nicollet Avenue, which is County 52 had the shields removed on those signs. Were people confusing US 52 but not confusing I-35W/E?
Logged
It sucks that you think where Iím from is whack, but as long as thatís enough to keep your ass from coming back

Clinched 2dis: 24, 35, 39, 41, 43, 76 (W), 84 (E), 88 (both), 96, 97

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10933
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: January 22, 2020, 02:40:53 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #632 on: October 15, 2017, 08:28:05 AM »

I believe CSAH 52 was in advance of a county turnback that was planned but never happened, but I'm not 100% on that.
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11434
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: Today at 05:55:18 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #633 on: October 16, 2017, 01:04:21 PM »

Regarding county route numbers on guide signs, there are two primary reasons for the vast bulk of these situations:

A):  It's in Ramsey County, which (with the exception of former state highways turned back to the county, namely former MN 49 and most of former MN 96) only within the last 20 years has started including reassurance shields for its county routes.  But as a general rule, Ramsey County does not fully sign its county routes.  MnDOT, as noted above, typically follows the county's lead and thus (again except for former MN 49 & 96 segments) ignores county routes on freeway signage.

B):  Cases where the county route has the same number as a state highway in the general vicinity**, and so MnDOT does not post the county route number in order to avoid confusion.  As an example, this is the reason why CSAH 5 was taken off the I-494 guide signs at Minnetonka Blvd (Exit 17).  It was being confused with MN 5, with that confusion made worse by MN 5 having a concurrency with I-494.

** - Two notable exceptions to this are Hennepin CSAH 62 and Ramsey CSAH 10.  The former is an extension of the Metro Area MN 62 (and deliberate), while the latter is the old routing of US 10 through Mounds View.


This was Kandiyohi County, so A is right out.  Here are specific examples, in northeastĖsouthwest order.  Notice that some of them match and some of them don't, for no reason apparent to me.

1 Advance junction assembly using white squares, even though...
...both highways (CR-6 & CR-143) use blue pentagon markers.
MN-6 is >100 miles away, MN-143 does not exist.

2 Advance junction sign using a white square, even though...
...CR-2 uses blue pentagon markers.
MN-2 does not exist.

3 Advance junction sign using a blue pentagon, which...
...matches what CR-40 actually uses.

4 Advance junction sign using a blue pentagon, which...
...matches what CR-10 actually uses.

5 Advance junction sign using a blue pentagon, which...
...matches what CR-127 actually uses.

6 Advance junction sign using a white square, even though...
...CR-25 uses blue pentagon markers.
MN-25 is >50 miles away.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10933
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: January 22, 2020, 02:40:53 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #634 on: October 16, 2017, 01:44:52 PM »

I was referring to the earlier discussion on guide signs which Revive 755 brought up, not junction signs as your examples show.
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11434
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: Today at 05:55:18 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #635 on: October 16, 2017, 02:02:21 PM »

That's what I get for lazy reading.  I'm a guy, I thought I knew how that sentence ended so I stopped listening.  Basically, I assumed you were talking about potential confusion between white-on-blue county road markers and white-on-blue state highway markers.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 05:11:16 PM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #636 on: October 19, 2017, 03:19:19 PM »

I drove the reopened MN 210 today.

Wow. What a job.

Thatís also a top-3 drive in Minnesota just for that 10 miles east of Carlton.
Logged
It sucks that you think where Iím from is whack, but as long as thatís enough to keep your ass from coming back

Clinched 2dis: 24, 35, 39, 41, 43, 76 (W), 84 (E), 88 (both), 96, 97

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4289
  • Blue and gold forever!

  • Age: 27
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: Today at 09:16:29 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #637 on: October 19, 2017, 09:08:30 PM »

Did they straighten it out at all or is it pretty much on the same alignment as it was before?
Logged

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2703
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 06:22:21 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #638 on: October 19, 2017, 10:14:12 PM »

Did they straighten it out at all or is it pretty much on the same alignment as it was before?

I remember driving up that once westbound and it was just steep & slippery enough I couldn't get the car up it.  But the road was too narrow to turn around.
Logged

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 05:11:16 PM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #639 on: October 19, 2017, 10:46:19 PM »

It's pretty much the same alignment as it was before the floods destroyed the road.
Logged
It sucks that you think where Iím from is whack, but as long as thatís enough to keep your ass from coming back

Clinched 2dis: 24, 35, 39, 41, 43, 76 (W), 84 (E), 88 (both), 96, 97

Roadguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 107
  • Location: Middle West
  • Last Login: December 31, 2019, 08:22:21 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #640 on: October 22, 2017, 12:04:34 PM »

Heard that MnDOT is looking at a design build project for 494 in Bloomington/Richfield.  Three main goals:
1.) Build phase 1 of the turbine interchange at 35W and 494 which entails the 35W Northbound to 494 Westbound ramp (eliminating the loop). See the link for the report for phase 1: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/i494and35winterchange/pdf/trafficexecutivesummary.pdf
2.) A westbound auxiliary lane between MN 77 and 35W
3.) An eastbound auxiliary lane between MN 100 and 35W

MnDOT for the 35W project between 42nd and downtown has had numerous outreach on the upcoming project focusing on the 35W corridor.  But what has not been discussed are the temporary lane additions to MN 62, 394, and MN 100.  Similar to what was done over the 35W Minnesota River Bridge and 94 between 280 and 35W, lanes will be shifted and added to account for the additional traffic on these roadways.
Logged

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4289
  • Blue and gold forever!

  • Age: 27
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: Today at 09:16:29 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #641 on: October 29, 2017, 01:19:46 AM »

In the vein of the MN-210 discussion ó does anyone know what MnDOT might've done if they hadn't reconstructed the road, like they had originally wanted? Ended 210 at the state park entrance? At Jay Cooke Rd/CR-151, where the temporary end sign was erected? Something else? I hadn't thought about the possibility until now.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2017, 01:23:03 AM by MNHighwayMan »
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10933
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: January 22, 2020, 02:40:53 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #642 on: October 29, 2017, 08:39:00 PM »

Probably would have ended with MN 45, as they likely would have seen anything east of there as a county function, and providing access to state parks is not a state highway mission.  Several state parks whose main access is via county roads.
Logged

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 05:11:16 PM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #643 on: October 29, 2017, 09:57:30 PM »

Probably would have ended with MN 45, as they likely would have seen anything east of there as a county function, and providing access to state parks is not a state highway mission.  Several state parks whose main access is via county roads.

I agree in most cases, but as Jay Cooke is one of the state's five most visited parks annually with 300,000 visitors I think this is one time where it would be beneficial to keep it on the state highway network.
Logged
It sucks that you think where Iím from is whack, but as long as thatís enough to keep your ass from coming back

Clinched 2dis: 24, 35, 39, 41, 43, 76 (W), 84 (E), 88 (both), 96, 97

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4289
  • Blue and gold forever!

  • Age: 27
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: Today at 09:16:29 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #644 on: October 30, 2017, 01:00:42 AM »

Probably would have ended with MN 45, as they likely would have seen anything east of there as a county function, and providing access to state parks is not a state highway mission.  Several state parks whose main access is via county roads.

So you're suggesting they would've created yet another end-to-end terminus (much like the 120/244 terminus that somehow continues to exist to this day)? Or might've MN-45 been renumbered as a N/S extension of a truncated MN-210?
Logged

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 05:11:16 PM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #645 on: October 30, 2017, 01:19:07 AM »

Probably would have ended with MN 45, as they likely would have seen anything east of there as a county function, and providing access to state parks is not a state highway mission.  Several state parks whose main access is via county roads.

So you're suggesting they would've created yet another end-to-end terminus (much like the 120/244 terminus that somehow continues to exist to this day)? Or might've MN-45 been renumbered as a N/S extension of a truncated MN-210?

I would have liked to see 210 replace 45 in this case. What's amusing is it would mean two state routes would have terminated at Carlton County 1, which is the south leg of that 4-way and quietly duplexes with MN 210 to the east through Carlton.
Logged
It sucks that you think where Iím from is whack, but as long as thatís enough to keep your ass from coming back

Clinched 2dis: 24, 35, 39, 41, 43, 76 (W), 84 (E), 88 (both), 96, 97

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4289
  • Blue and gold forever!

  • Age: 27
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: Today at 09:16:29 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #646 on: October 30, 2017, 01:31:41 AM »

As an unrelated aside, I love that the 120/244 terminus in White Bear Lake/Mahtomedi has existed long enough for me to see it on Steve Riner's website, then long enough for me to become old enough to drive there to photograph it not once (2011), but twice (2015).
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10933
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: January 22, 2020, 02:40:53 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #647 on: October 30, 2017, 09:49:34 AM »

Prior to the 210 reconstruction, the Duluth MPO did a public input study to see what sort of public consensus there was on whether or not to rebuild the roadway, what sort of design, and who should have jurisdiction over the roadway.   As a general rule, both the public and Minnesota Power want MnDOT to retain the road as a state highway.  Both the DNR and local elected officials felt that it didn't necessarily have to remain a MnDOT road, just as long as their jurisdiction wasn't the one taking it over.  Below are specific, verbatim quotes from their final report to MnDOT:

Carlton County did not express a desire to take over the roadway.

The DNR has not expressed interest in taking the road over, despite the fact owning the road would give them a higher level of access control.

Logged

discochris

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 43
  • Location: Minnesota
  • Last Login: August 13, 2019, 10:44:46 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #648 on: November 06, 2017, 01:47:00 AM »

I drove the reopened MN 210 today.

Wow. What a job.

Thatís also a top-3 drive in Minnesota just for that 10 miles east of Carlton.

Yeah, we took it a couple weeks ago. It's pretty impressive.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10933
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: January 22, 2020, 02:40:53 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #649 on: November 06, 2017, 07:41:09 AM »

Did either of you get photos?  Is it significantly different from what existed pre-flooding?
Logged

 


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.