AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Minnesota Notes  (Read 194016 times)

KCRoadFan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 192
  • Enthusiastic fan of roads, sports, and waterparks.

  • Age: 27
  • Location: Kansas City, MO
  • Last Login: Today at 12:44:27 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1000 on: October 10, 2020, 11:57:48 PM »

Hiding behind this tree https://goo.gl/maps/uVXsz1ibK6kBzzXHA is one of a pair of obelisks that exist on the on/off ramps from I-94 to downtown St Paul. This tree has slowly been growing, and is probably going to start cracking this obelisk. It looks to me, based on their existing at the end of a retaining wall existing on the ramps, that these obelisks are likely property of MnDOT, not the City of St Paul, or Ramsey County, right? If so, does anyone know the best way to contact MnDOT to find out if this is theirs, and if they have interest in trying to remove this tree before it destroys the obelisk? I'm sure most things MnDOT gets contacted about are roadways and signage, not obelisks. :) Thanks.

I note that there's another pair of obelisks like this at the corner of 10th and Wacouta for traffic coming from 35E to downtown St Paul, and can't say I've seen anything like them anywhere else, so I'll presume it's purely due to St Paul being our capital city.

Hereís a Reddit thread that I found about the obelisk: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/saintpaul/comments/1ofj47/does_anyone_know_the_history_or_story_around_the/

Anyway, proud to have made reply #1,000 on this thread!
« Last Edit: October 11, 2020, 12:00:28 AM by KCRoadFan »
Logged

EpicRoadways

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 74
  • Age: 18
  • Location: Central MN
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 11:10:34 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1001 on: October 13, 2020, 09:58:28 AM »

The city of Maple Grove is planning to construct what is effectively the final extension of MN-610 between I-94 and CR 30 in 2023. The $22.5 million dollar project includes a four-lane overpass over I-94 and *I think* a WB 94 to SB 610 loop ramp as well, although it isn't listed in the TIP. The remaining MNDOT sections (the thru SB 610 movement with a flyover over the existing MN-610 ramps and a NB 610 to EB 94 connection) are listed as "unfunded" at this time. Given that the project is city-led, the new segment will be given the designation of 'CSAH 610'.

I originally stumbled across this project in the Met Council's 2020-2023 TIP, but the city of Maple Grove website has a lot more information:
https://www.maplegrovemn.gov/files/6615/5293/1073/610_brochure_-_completing_final_connections.pdf

https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation/Publications-And-Resources/Transportation-Planning/Transportation-Improvement-Program-(TIP)/2020-2023-TIP.aspx (I couldn't link just one page, but the project is listed at the top of page A-20)
Logged

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3099
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 02:12:24 AM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1002 on: October 13, 2020, 03:00:25 PM »

Not sure if a WB 610-EB 94 movement is really needed since anyone doing that probably already got off at Maple Grove Parkway.
Logged
Drive slow on the left. Pass on the right. Live your life the way you want.

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14235
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 05:24:05 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1003 on: October 13, 2020, 03:04:49 PM »

Not sure if a WB 610-EB 94 movement is really needed since anyone doing that probably already got off at Maple Grove Parkway.

And longer-distance traffic would be using other routes.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3099
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 02:12:24 AM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1004 on: October 13, 2020, 03:08:34 PM »

Not sure if a WB 610-EB 94 movement is really needed since anyone doing that probably already got off at Maple Grove Parkway.

And longer-distance traffic would be using other routes.

This whole idea of making it a full connection between 94 and 610 grinds on me because it would be such a giant waste of money to send people right back where they came from. 94 and 610 both have interchanges at MG Parkway, 169, County 81/Bottineau, Hemlock/Zachary, and MN 252.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2020, 03:15:19 PM by TheHighwayMan394 »
Logged
Drive slow on the left. Pass on the right. Live your life the way you want.

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11272
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 11:15:06 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1005 on: October 14, 2020, 11:18:47 AM »

Not sure if a WB 610-EB 94 movement is really needed since anyone doing that probably already got off at Maple Grove Parkway.

Back when 94/610 was proposed as a full freeway-to-freeway interchange, such a movement would allow those coming from northern Brooklyn Park via 610 to get down to the Weaver Lake area or 494 without going through the signals along Maple Grove Pkwy.  Making that same movement today requires going through 7 signals.

The current plan has it as a signalized left turn from WB 610 to EB 94.  But that's one signal versus the 7 along Maple Grove Pkwy.
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14235
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 05:24:05 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1006 on: October 14, 2020, 11:39:52 AM »


Not sure if a WB 610-EB 94 movement is really needed since anyone doing that probably already got off at Maple Grove Parkway.

Back when 94/610 was proposed as a full freeway-to-freeway interchange, such a movement would allow those coming from northern Brooklyn Park via 610 to get down to the Weaver Lake area or 494 without going through the signals along Maple Grove Pkwy.  Making that same movement today requires going through 7 signals.

The current plan has it as a signalized left turn from WB 610 to EB 94.  But that's one signal versus the 7 along Maple Grove Pkwy.

I'd probably just use this route.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11272
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 11:15:06 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1007 on: October 14, 2020, 11:46:08 AM »

^ I misspoke above.  Was referring more to Fish Lake and the Maple Grove Crossing area.

As to your proposed route, both 169 and 94/694 tend to be more congested than 610 or 94 past Fish Lake.
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14235
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 05:24:05 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1008 on: October 14, 2020, 12:05:45 PM »

^ I misspoke above.  Was referring more to Fish Lake and the Maple Grove Crossing area.

As to your proposed route, both 169 and 94/694 tend to be more congested than 610 or 94 past Fish Lake.

My route (9.5 miles) is still about 1Ĺ miles shorter than using 610 to 94.

But yeah, the latter is definitely less congestedóat least on 610 compared to 169.  Traffic counts on I-94 at Rice Lake, though, are equivalent to those on I-94 east of Arbor Lakes (between MM 28 and 29).

US-169 = 88k AADT with 4 through lanes = 22k AADT per through lane
I-694 = 124k AADT with 6 lanes = 21k AADT per through lane

MN-610 = 44k AADT with 4 through lanes = 11k AADT per through lane
I-94 = 119k AADT with 6 through lanes = 20k AADT per through lane
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

KCRoadFan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 192
  • Enthusiastic fan of roads, sports, and waterparks.

  • Age: 27
  • Location: Kansas City, MO
  • Last Login: Today at 12:44:27 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1009 on: October 15, 2020, 12:18:21 AM »

Having often driven the stretch of 94 northwest of Maple Grove to visit my mom's sister in St. Michael, here's something I've sometimes wondered: what do you think of putting an exit in near the intersection of County 81 and Brockton Lane? Do you think there could/should be one there, given development patterns? Also, does MNDOT have any plans to do so?
Logged

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3099
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 02:12:24 AM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1010 on: October 15, 2020, 12:19:43 AM »

Having often driven the stretch of 94 northwest of Maple Grove to visit my mom's sister in St. Michael, here's something I've sometimes wondered: what do you think of putting an exit in near the intersection of County 81 and Brockton Lane? Also, does MNDOT have any plans to do so?

They actually began work on that just this summer, part of a new road called Dayton Parkway. Iím not sure if itíll open next year or in 2022.
Logged
Drive slow on the left. Pass on the right. Live your life the way you want.

KCRoadFan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 192
  • Enthusiastic fan of roads, sports, and waterparks.

  • Age: 27
  • Location: Kansas City, MO
  • Last Login: Today at 12:44:27 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1011 on: October 15, 2020, 12:22:58 AM »

Back when 94/610 was proposed as a full freeway-to-freeway interchange, such a movement would allow those coming from northern Brooklyn Park via 610 to get down to the Weaver Lake area or 494 without going through the signals along Maple Grove Pkwy.  Making that same movement today requires going through 7 signals.

If I were heading to the Weaver Lake Road/shopping center area in Maple Grove from 610 in Brooklyn Park, I would probably just take 169 south to 94/694 west - that's just me though. Here's a map for reference: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.0975878,-93.432247,13z
Logged

rte66man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Warr Acres, OK
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 04:56:35 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1012 on: October 15, 2020, 05:44:26 PM »

Having often driven the stretch of 94 northwest of Maple Grove to visit my mom's sister in St. Michael, here's something I've sometimes wondered: what do you think of putting an exit in near the intersection of County 81 and Brockton Lane? Also, does MNDOT have any plans to do so?

They actually began work on that just this summer, part of a new road called Dayton Parkway. Iím not sure if itíll open next year or in 2022.

https://cityofdaytonmn.com/dayton-parkway-interchange/
Logged
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

EpicRoadways

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 74
  • Age: 18
  • Location: Central MN
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 11:10:34 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1013 on: October 15, 2020, 07:07:24 PM »

Having often driven the stretch of 94 northwest of Maple Grove to visit my mom's sister in St. Michael, here's something I've sometimes wondered: what do you think of putting an exit in near the intersection of County 81 and Brockton Lane? Also, does MNDOT have any plans to do so?

They actually began work on that just this summer, part of a new road called Dayton Parkway. Iím not sure if itíll open next year or in 2022.
Plans still call for the interchange itself to open in the fall of next year, but various delays and design changes to other aspects of the larger Maple Grove to Clearwater reconstruction/expansion project that the interchange construction is a part of have been pushed back to 2022 (notably the Monticello to Clearwater segment, where the project was redesigned to add the additional lanes to the outside of the existing roadway as opposed to the inside of the roadway with a center concrete barrier as was originally proposed). To be fair, the segment from MN-101 to I-494 seems to be by far the furthest along of the three work zones, so maybe that segment is still scheduled to be done by 2021.
Logged

Mdcastle

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 604
  • Last Login: October 27, 2020, 10:48:23 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1014 on: October 15, 2020, 09:35:55 PM »

Highlights from the Bonding Bill that just passed the House and Senate and the governor promises to sign: (project dollars in thousands):

$75,000: Undesignated Local Road Improvement Fund Grants

$1500:    Converting the half-interchange at MN 610 and East River Road to full access

$8400:    Ferry Street and US 10 Interchange Reconstruction. There is an upcoming project to replace the Rum River bridge, additional funding was sought to rebuild the badly over capacity interchange and build a Ferry Street railroad overpass, which also causes congestion, divides the community, and was the site of several fatalities

$1500 Interchange at MN 65 and 109th Street. This was the third busiest at-grade intersection in the state when I wrote a streets.mn article back in 2015

$4000 Narrow Diffley Road from five lanes to two and build two roundabouts in front of the middle school (just east of the school is the current transition from five lanes to three

$6500 Reconstructing the Douglas Drive and MN 55 interesection to include a roundabout on the frontage road

$13,000 A county owned extension of MN 610 east to CSAH 30

$1000: Extend CSAH 15 / Morninside Ave in Glencoe to reroute through traffic away from a residential area.

$1500 Convert the County J and I-35E to full access and related work including a bicycle facility on County J. The existing interchange is over-capacity, as an interim measure a temporary signal was installed on the northbound ramp to keep traffic from backing up onto the freeway

$6000: The Richield 77th Street (for now) underpass under MN 77

$5500: Various local roads in Sartell

$14,000 Sibley CSAH 6 reconstruction including raising the road out of the 50 year flood plan and adding bicycle lanes.

$5269 The MN 13 and Dakota / Yosemite interchange in Savage

$2000 The Zimmerman US 169 interchange. An interchange was recommended here as far back as the early 2000s but is larger in scope than the typical "replace a small town signal with an interchange" due to relocating the mainline to the east and large property takeings.

$3000 Reconstruct Jefferson Drive in Zumbrota, still with the 1930s concrete pavement from it's days as US 52

$30,000 Undesignated local bridges

$52,000 Replace the Third / Kellogg Bridge in St Paul, despite being 1980s vintage it has severe structural issues

$2682 Highway 65 flood mitigation in Albert Lea

$8000 A reconstruction of a section of US 8 in Chisago County from I-35 to Karmel Ave, to include bicycle trails. This bumps up a planned resurfacing to a full reconstruction

$1800 Henderson Flood Mitigation on Highway 93. Regularly the routes south, east, and north of downtown flood, leaving the sole access from the west. Projects wre studied before but did not advance because improving none of the three accesses had a benefit / cost greater than 1. Of those  raising 93 was the most "cost effective".

$6000 new overpass at 7th Street and new interchange at CSAH 104 on US 14 east of Rochester. These are the first at-grade intersections west of Rochester and are safety and operational concerns.

$3000 to the interchange at MN 36 and Manning Ave to begin construction next year

$3000 Railroad grade separation at CSAH 24 in International Falls

$10,000 Railroad grade separation at Sturgeon Lake road in Red Wing

$4090 City of Anandale local street and utility work to be done at the same time as an upcoming project on MN 24 and MN 55

$20,500 Streets and Utilities for an industrial park in Becker.

$84,000 undesignated trunk highway construction

$110,000 undesignated trunk highway railroad grade separations

$25,000 trunk high project development

$23,000 flood mitigation for projects that are undesignated but must be in  Sibley and LeSueur Counties

« Last Edit: October 15, 2020, 09:40:15 PM by Mdcastle »
Logged

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3099
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 02:12:24 AM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1015 on: October 16, 2020, 03:57:02 PM »

$8400:    Ferry Street and US 10 Interchange Reconstruction. There is an upcoming project to replace the Rum River bridge, additional funding was sought to rebuild the badly over capacity interchange and build a Ferry Street railroad overpass, which also causes congestion, divides the community, and was the site of several fatalities

Yeah, that segment of original Anoka bypass that remains between Main St and the railroad tracks east of 7th Ave is a death trap. No shoulders, poor sightlines, minimal acceleration lanes.
Logged
Drive slow on the left. Pass on the right. Live your life the way you want.

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11272
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 11:15:06 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1016 on: October 16, 2020, 11:31:18 PM »

Quote
$1500:    Converting the half-interchange at MN 610 and East River Road to full access

The quantity here looks more like "study money" than anything concrete (pun intended).  But I question the location given the close proximity and impact to both the Coon Rapids Blvd ramps and the WB on-ramp from the very large Foley Blvd Park-and-Ride.

Quote
$1500 Interchange at MN 65 and 109th Street. This was the third busiest at-grade intersection in the state when I wrote a streets.mn article back in 2015

As with above, the dollar amount looks more like "study money".  Could be for a follow up to the existing corridor study mentioned upthread.
Logged

Mdcastle

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 604
  • Last Login: October 27, 2020, 10:48:23 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1017 on: October 18, 2020, 09:21:58 AM »



Apparently MnDOT said "No" to Coon Rapids several times before relenting.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2020, 09:25:57 AM by Mdcastle »
Logged

EpicRoadways

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 74
  • Age: 18
  • Location: Central MN
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 11:10:34 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1018 on: October 18, 2020, 12:03:34 PM »



Apparently MnDOT said "No" to Coon Rapids several times before relenting.
Are the existing 610 bridges over E River Rd and the railroad tracks wide enough to accommodate that extra lane or will they have to be rebuilt as well? 
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11272
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 11:15:06 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1019 on: October 18, 2020, 09:34:12 PM »

Monte:  where did you find that graphic?

Quote from: EpicRoadways
Are the existing 610 bridges over E River Rd and the railroad tracks wide enough to accommodate that extra lane or will they have to be rebuilt as well?

Probably don't need to be rebuilt but will instead be widened.  Especially the westbound bridge as it looks like the ramp taper begins on the bridge.
Logged

rte66man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Warr Acres, OK
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 04:56:35 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1020 on: October 19, 2020, 01:40:34 PM »



Apparently MnDOT said "No" to Coon Rapids several times before relenting.

Why did MnDOT say no? The cost? I see the removal of another at-grade rail crossing along with better access to that area.
Logged
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14235
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 05:24:05 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1021 on: October 20, 2020, 03:13:41 PM »

Monte:  where did you find that graphic?

It looks like he got it here.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

KCRoadFan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 192
  • Enthusiastic fan of roads, sports, and waterparks.

  • Age: 27
  • Location: Kansas City, MO
  • Last Login: Today at 12:44:27 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1022 on: October 21, 2020, 01:23:41 AM »

I read on MNDOTís website about new concrete barriers going in on US 12 east of Maple Plain, along with a new roundabout in Independence, among other safety upgrades along US 12 in western Hennepin County. (Link here: https://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/hwy12-orono-independence/index.html)

Page said 2021 and 2022 - has there been any prep work yet along this section? Also, I was surprised to see nothing mentioned about four-laning. I guess MNDOT thinks thereís no room to widen the road along that stretch. Your thoughts?
« Last Edit: October 21, 2020, 01:29:11 AM by KCRoadFan »
Logged

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3099
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 02:12:24 AM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1023 on: October 21, 2020, 12:59:41 PM »

The ship sailed on four-laning when Maple Plain and Independence couldnít agree on a bypass route. There certainly isnít funding for it today.
Logged
Drive slow on the left. Pass on the right. Live your life the way you want.

Stephane Dumas

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2126
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 08:01:02 PM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1024 on: October 24, 2020, 08:14:08 PM »

This one passed under my nose, the new Beaudette/Rainy River international bridge is open.
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/d2/projects/baudette-bridge/index.html
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.