AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Minnesota Notes  (Read 147513 times)

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1971
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 05:52:29 AM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #800 on: September 18, 2018, 03:39:44 PM »

The latest batch of 2-lanes being increased to 60 is going into effect. MN 4 and MN 48 are two of those being upgraded this week.
Logged
Minnesconsin Highways

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

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2347
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 12:29:16 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #801 on: September 20, 2018, 10:49:46 PM »

I was surprised MN 110 has not been changed to MN 62 yet

Yeah, signs have been up for a couple of weeks now. Haven't tried to get a good photo while driving on it #safety

We were on it on 8/12 NB 35E crossing MN 110 and it still said 110, no sign of 62.
Logged

invincor

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 57
  • Location: River Falls, WI
  • Last Login: December 07, 2018, 08:17:36 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #802 on: September 21, 2018, 09:15:16 AM »

I drove through that area a few times on Labor Day weekend, and by then it was all "62" as far as I could see.
Logged

WhitePoleRD

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 52
  • Location: Iowa
  • Last Login: November 17, 2018, 06:32:37 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #803 on: September 29, 2018, 06:29:55 PM »

I have a question about US 69 (and to a lesser extent US 65)-

I know that 35 is only a few miles away but I wonder why 69 was never extended along MN 13. To me it only makes sense. The end of 69 kinda just hangs in Albert Lea.
Logged
You take the high road, I'll take the low road and I'll be in Iowa before ye.

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9916
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:37:34 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #804 on: September 29, 2018, 08:47:50 PM »

The end of 69 is at what was formerly US 16.  MnDOT, whatever the case was, had no interest and saw no reason in (re)extending* 69 when 16 was decommissioned.


* - prefaced with a (re) because US 69 originally ended at US 65 in/near downtown Albert Lea.  Not sure exactly when it was changed to its current terminus, but evidence suggests ca. 1939.
Logged

Roadguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 98
  • Location: Middle West
  • Last Login: October 30, 2018, 08:23:20 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #805 on: September 30, 2018, 02:50:55 AM »

The Met Council and MnDOT are studying freeway to freeway interchanges to determine where investments will be targeted in the next 20 years: https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation/Planning-2/Transit-Plans,-Studies-Reports/Highways-Roads/Freeway-System-Interchange-Study.aspx
Logged

DandyDan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 813
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Mason City Iowa
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 08:15:54 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #806 on: September 30, 2018, 04:17:15 AM »

I have a question about US 69 (and to a lesser extent US 65)-

I know that 35 is only a few miles away but I wonder why 69 was never extended along MN 13. To me it only makes sense. The end of 69 kinda just hangs in Albert Lea.

My personal speculation is that Albert Lea wanted one highway number from I-90 to downtown and since MN 13 goes north of I-90 (all the way to St. Paul), MN 13 won out. You could extend US 69 to I-90, but then you would have to waste a number on the short connector between 69 and 65. If 69 goes downtown, you make people take 2 highways to get to downtown Albert Lea from I-90. One other thing to keep in mind is that you can't go straight north from downtown Albert Lea to I-90 because there is a lake there.
Logged
CHICAGO CUBS 2016 WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS!!!!!

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9916
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:37:34 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #807 on: September 30, 2018, 06:58:30 AM »

^ You sort-of can do it directly via Bridge Ave.  Plus, most of Albert Lea's commercialization over the past 30 years as been at the 90/Bridge Ave interchange.
Logged

WhitePoleRD

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 52
  • Location: Iowa
  • Last Login: November 17, 2018, 06:32:37 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #808 on: October 01, 2018, 11:53:10 AM »

I have a question about US 69 (and to a lesser extent US 65)-

I know that 35 is only a few miles away but I wonder why 69 was never extended along MN 13. To me it only makes sense. The end of 69 kinda just hangs in Albert Lea.

My personal speculation is that Albert Lea wanted one highway number from I-90 to downtown and since MN 13 goes north of I-90 (all the way to St. Paul), MN 13 won out. You could extend US 69 to I-90, but then you would have to waste a number on the short connector between 69 and 65. If 69 goes downtown, you make people take 2 highways to get to downtown Albert Lea from I-90. One other thing to keep in mind is that you can't go straight north from downtown Albert Lea to I-90 because there is a lake there.

Sorry I should have been much more specific. I'm talking about taking out MN 13 altogether and replacing it with US 69 to West St. Paul.
Logged
You take the high road, I'll take the low road and I'll be in Iowa before ye.

DandyDan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 813
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Mason City Iowa
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 08:15:54 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #809 on: October 01, 2018, 04:30:24 PM »

^ You sort-of can do it directly via Bridge Ave.  Plus, most of Albert Lea's commercialization over the past 30 years as been at the 90/Bridge Ave interchange.
And all that was well after they removed US 16 from Minnesota. I suspect at the point in time when they eliminated US 16, much less usage of the Bridge Ave. exit occurred than today.
Logged
CHICAGO CUBS 2016 WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS!!!!!

discochris

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 42
  • Location: Minnesota
  • Last Login: October 10, 2018, 11:25:25 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #810 on: October 10, 2018, 10:44:16 PM »

I noticed coming from Duluth this weekend that Thomson has been removed from the Thomson - Esko exit sign.
I had to look up why. Apparently, Thomson merged with Carlton back in 2013. Why did it take so long to remove it from the sign?
Logged

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1971
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 05:52:29 AM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #811 on: October 13, 2018, 11:50:03 PM »

Of particular interest maybe to High Plains Traveler (who has an entire page on his website devoted to a rant about this), one of the gantries on eastbound I-94 at the 494/694 Fish Lake Interchange is down for replacement. We shall wait with bated breath to find out if they actually put control cities on the new sign.

Yep. For those keeping score, one of the most important decision points for traffic coming into MSP has no control cities whatsoever.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2018, 11:54:06 PM by TheHighwayMan394 »
Logged
Minnesconsin Highways

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

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8430
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 07:54:33 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #812 on: October 14, 2018, 04:13:24 PM »

Yep. For those keeping score, one of the most important decision points for traffic coming into MSP has no control cities whatsoever.

Yeah, the twin cities suck at putting destinations on freeway signage.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9916
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:37:34 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #813 on: October 29, 2018, 10:53:01 PM »

A bit out of the blue, but I discovered this evening that MnDOT has an upcoming project to reconstruct and widen I-94 between Clearwater and Monticello.  The driving need (pun intended) is pavement reconstruction...but the segment has a high enough traffic volume that it will require 2 lanes in each direction during construction...traffic simulations suggest that going with a single lane would result in peak period backups of up to 5 miles, and summer weekend backups approaching 20 miles.  For this reason, they plan on permanent widening in order to provide space to maintain 2 lanes each way during construction.  The permanent widening does not have a large cost differential over temporary widening, and MnDOT has long-range plans for a 6-lane cross-section on this segment of I-94 anyway.

The environmental documentation covers this reconstruction/widening all the way to Albertville (where widening from there to MN 241 will begin next year), but it appears they didn't have funding to do it all.  As it is, the Clearwater-Monticello project will be design-build.

I know the project manager personally and have sent her an email asking for a few clarifications.
Logged

Roadguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 98
  • Location: Middle West
  • Last Login: October 30, 2018, 08:23:20 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #814 on: October 30, 2018, 03:12:00 AM »

A bit out of the blue, but I discovered this evening that MnDOT has an upcoming project to reconstruct and widen I-94 between Clearwater and Monticello.  The driving need (pun intended) is pavement reconstruction...but the segment has a high enough traffic volume that it will require 2 lanes in each direction during construction...traffic simulations suggest that going with a single lane would result in peak period backups of up to 5 miles, and summer weekend backups approaching 20 miles.  For this reason, they plan on permanent widening in order to provide space to maintain 2 lanes each way during construction.  The permanent widening does not have a large cost differential over temporary widening, and MnDOT has long-range plans for a 6-lane cross-section on this segment of I-94 anyway.

The environmental documentation covers this reconstruction/widening all the way to Albertville (where widening from there to MN 241 will begin next year), but it appears they didn't have funding to do it all.  As it is, the Clearwater-Monticello project will be design-build.

I know the project manager personally and have sent her an email asking for a few clarifications.

Glad I do not drive this corridor often with almost 40 miles of construction planned.  But when it's finished 94 will be three lanes in each direction up through Clearwater.  Wouldn't be surprising to see a Corridors of Commerce project in the future complete the last few miles of three lanes in each direction up to Saint Cloud.

Heard recently that the "Brockton interchange" will be a diverging diamond interchange as well (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/i94rogers/)
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9916
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:37:34 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #815 on: October 30, 2018, 08:07:58 AM »

Not continuous.  There will be a gap between Albertville and Monticello.
Logged

Roadguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 98
  • Location: Middle West
  • Last Login: October 30, 2018, 08:23:20 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #816 on: October 30, 2018, 08:14:41 AM »

Not continuous.  There will be a gap between Albertville and Monticello.

When you email the project manager, ask her about the plan to fill in this gap between Albertville and Monticello as well.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9916
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:37:34 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #817 on: October 30, 2018, 01:54:06 PM »

Got a response.  The most relevant section is posted below, with my clarification notes in bold and parenthesis:


The project was originally programmed as an unbonded concrete overlay (i.e. standard pavement reconstruction). We had been looking at MOT (Maintenance of Traffic) for some time and needed to keep two lanes open during construction. There really isnít a capacity need west of Monticello. There was a bill in the legislature last year requiring any temporary widening on freeways to be made permanent. The bill didnít pass but politics played into top managementís decision for the third lane.  The pavement west of Monticello is in terrible shape and we needed to address it now.  The segment from Albertville to Monticello isnít in the program til 2025 +/- .



Further on in the email, it was noted that there is no funding identified yet for the Monticello-Albertville segment so that "2025" is just a placeholder.  She seems confident that politics will force/demand some sort of funding be made available to address the gap.
Logged

Mdcastle

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 559
  • Last Login: Today at 10:20:13 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #818 on: November 02, 2018, 12:14:52 AM »

So this is yet another unbonded concrete overlay rather than an actual reconstruction down to the earth.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9916
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:37:34 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #819 on: November 02, 2018, 08:45:14 AM »

Hard to say what it is now.  But a full reconstruction would probably be more than their budget covers.

I also don't think what MnDOT terms as an "unbonded concrete overlay" is as bad as you're making it sound.  They usually strip down at least to the base for such projects, from what I've seen.
Logged

n0ax

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4
  • Last Login: December 09, 2018, 09:13:39 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #820 on: November 02, 2018, 11:53:20 PM »

Does anyone know why most of the ILCS (intelligent lane warning signs) on i-35W have gone down. I remember reading some time ago that the sign manufacturer went bankrupt and MnDOT was looking for another supplier, but I can't seem to remember the exact document...
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9916
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:37:34 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #821 on: November 03, 2018, 07:01:32 AM »

First I've heard of that.  The obvious ones are down due to the reconstruction project, but I recall the others still working when I was in town over Labor Day.
Logged

n0ax

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4
  • Last Login: December 09, 2018, 09:13:39 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #822 on: November 04, 2018, 09:37:39 PM »

Ok, I found the document, so apparently MnDOT is attempting to get rid of them in most places and cannibalize the signs for absolutely necessary areas, replacing the rest with more frequent DMS. I don't know the exact reasoning regarding why MnDOT thinks more frequent DMS is a substitute for ILCS deployment, considering several of their own studies years ago indicated that DMS was not a suitable replacement for ILCS signs.
https://www.pcb.its.dot.gov/t3/s170404/s170404_Variable_Speed_Limits_Systems_presentation_mcclellan.ppt
Logged

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 3052
  • Blue and gold forever!

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: Today at 10:36:47 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #823 on: November 07, 2018, 10:00:40 AM »

The 2019-2028 Capital Highway Investment Plan (CHIP) was released this morning.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/10yearplan/
Logged

Mdcastle

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 559
  • Last Login: Today at 10:20:13 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #824 on: November 14, 2018, 09:58:05 PM »

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.