News:

Finished coding the back end of the AARoads main site using object-orientated programming. One major step closer to moving away from Wordpress!

Main Menu

Minnesota Notes

Started by Mdcastle, April 18, 2012, 07:54:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

andarcondadont

Quote from: EpicRoadways on August 12, 2025, 10:42:53 PMIn today's edition of "what the [INSERT WORD OF CHOICE HERE] was MNDOT thinking?", I took quite possibly the most harrowing left turn of my life trying to merge from US-10 EB to US-169 NB in Elk River during the evening rush hour. It took me seven minutes for there to be a safe break in traffic for me to cross WB 10 safely, and part of the fun was trying to figure out which vehicles were exiting from WB 10 to NB 169 given how close the point of diverge was from the intersection (I will never trust a turn signal).

For the record, I understand that EB 10 to NB 169 is a weird movement that is mostly redundant, and what little traffic does use it on a regular basis I'm sure long ago decided connecting via the Main St. intersection to the north is the safer option, but I cannot for the life of me figure out why this movement still exists in its current form. I'm no fan of cloverleafs, but keeping the former free-flow loop ramp at least for this movement seems like it might've been smart. At the very least, they need a traffic signal at the existing intersection like they have for the WB 10 --> SB 101 movement.

I do not believe that there was ever a free-flow loop ramp for the EB 10 to NB 169 movement at this interchange. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Computer Science and GIS alumnus of the University of Minnesota.


TheHighwayMan3561

No, previously EB 10 to NB 169 was an at-grade left turn that forked off the ramp to southbound 101.

EpicRoadways

Quote from: TheHighwayMan3561 on Today at 01:13:47 AMNo, previously EB 10 to NB 169 was an at-grade left turn that forked off the ramp to southbound 101.

That's right. I totally forgot about that signal that used to be on 169. It's funny because the way the interchange is graded you'd definitely think there was a ramp there at one point. It's a good thing they were able to eliminate that stoplight on 169, but it really seems like they could just eliminate the movement altogether and put up a big 'TO US-169 NORTH' sign at the Main St. intersection, since from my experience it seems like that's what all of the more seasoned commuters do anyways (and what I'll be doing from now on  :-D ).



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.