Minnesota Notes

[andarcondadont]

In 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.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

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

[EpicRoadways]

No, 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  ).

[froggie]

No, 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  ).

In the previous interchange iteration, the only signal was at the off-ramp from westbound 10.  The ramp from eastbound 10 had a stop sign to turn north onto 169.  So the current scenario for the EB 10 to NB 169 movement is not much different from the previous scenario...just trading ducking across 101 traffic for that of crossing WB 10.

IMO, they should eliminate that movement entirely.  Drivers can either use the aforementioned Main St or continue down and U-turn at the signal at 171st.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Pre-freeway, Jackson Ave (former TH 201) was probably an even better option for through traffic to 169, skipping the congested lights at Main and School.

[Zaphod]

IMO, they should eliminate that movement entirely.  Drivers can either use the aforementioned Main St or continue down and U-turn at the signal at 171st.

I disagree. I commute to Elk River and the EB 10 to NB 169 turn is a good alternative to turning left on Main St when there is a train going thru town and avoiding the unnecessary 4 way stop at Gates Ave. I use that movement in the morning and there is very little traffic on WB 10 to wait for at that time.

IMO, there should be a fix to the cluster that is Jackson and Main intersections so close together on 10. Keep one the full intersection (probably Jackson) and remove the stoplight on Main, either closing the intersection or making it a right in/right out.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

remove the stoplight on Main, either closing the intersection or making it a right in/right out.

Main could be defaulted into the Parrish Ave bridge then with some back door access to the bank. I really hated making the left turn off CSAH 42 onto Main Street, and the new condo building they put up on that corner made it significantly worse.

[froggie]

IMO, they should eliminate that movement entirely.  Drivers can either use the aforementioned Main St or continue down and U-turn at the signal at 171st.

I disagree. I commute to Elk River and the EB 10 to NB 169 turn is a good alternative to turning left on Main St when there is a train going thru town and avoiding the unnecessary 4 way stop at Gates Ave. I use that movement in the morning and there is very little traffic on WB 10 to wait for at that time.

IMO, there should be a fix to the cluster that is Jackson and Main intersections so close together on 10. Keep one the full intersection (probably Jackson) and remove the stoplight on Main, either closing the intersection or making it a right in/right out.

20-25 years ago, as part of an earlier plan for 10 through downtown Elk River, Jackson Ave would have been underpassed underneath both the railroad and 10.  Kinda like what was done with Roosevelt Ave in Detroit Lakes.  Perhaps it's time to resurrect that plan.

----------------------

Meanwhile, I just noticed on GMSV that MnDOT has what looks like a temporary roundabout at MN 23/CSAH 61 south of Hinckley.  Presumably related to the I-35 construction and the southbound on-ramp in Hinckley being closed, thus redirecting that traffic to Exit 180.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

So from March I had forgotten about this oddity. Headed west on US 212/TH 22 from Glencoe is a sign mentioning New Ulm. Neither of these routes go anywhere near New Ulm, and to my knowledge New Ulm is never mentioned again even when US 212 meets TH 15, which does go there. Any explanations for this?

[Mav94]

So from March I had forgotten about this oddity. Headed west on US 212/TH 22 from Glencoe is a sign mentioning New Ulm. Neither of these routes go anywhere near New Ulm, and to my knowledge New Ulm is never mentioned again even when US 212 meets TH 15, which does go there. Any explanations for this?

That is baffling. I thought it might be the quickest way between the Cities and New Ulm, but it isn't, you'd take MN-5 instead. I can't imagine there is so much traffic leaving Glencoe for New Ulm that this was necessary. Why even sign a MN-15 destination at all? Anywhere that road goes, there's a quicker way to get there from Glencoe.

[Molandfreak]

So from March I had forgotten about this oddity. Headed west on US 212/TH 22 from Glencoe is a sign mentioning New Ulm. Neither of these routes go anywhere near New Ulm, and to my knowledge New Ulm is never mentioned again even when US 212 meets TH 15, which does go there. Any explanations for this?

That is baffling. I thought it might be the quickest way between the Cities and New Ulm, but it isn't, you'd take MN-5 instead. I can't imagine there is so much traffic leaving Glencoe for New Ulm that this was necessary. Why even sign a MN-15 destination at all? Anywhere that road goes, there's a quicker way to get there from Glencoe.

The signed control cities when approaching 212 from TH 22 are more sensibly Gaylord and Hector (and Norwood, referring to the J-turn that must be made from 212 without any further signage clarifying this movement). I recall a few years ago, there was discussion about rerouting TH 22 through Glencoe. I am not sure the status of these plans, but a realignment would be helpful since the TH 22/US 212 route will soon be the primary route from Hutchinson to the cities. One thing I will say is this isn't a place where loading on a bunch of long-shot control cities is very helpful after the J-turn was installed.

[Molandfreak]

As a related side question, why is it that the westbound US 212/TH 5/TH 25 split has to sign Arlington and Gaylord on the right side, then Green Isle on the left side of the road? It seems to me like this is an intersection where signing more significant long-distance control cities would be helpful.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Maple Grove released its final design ideas for a potential rebuild of the US 169/CSAH 130 interchange. It removes the loop from WB Elm Creek to NB 169 and creates a loop ramp exit off SB 169.

https://www.hometownsource.com/press_and_news/news/local/maple-grove-major-bridge-interchange-designs-finalized/article_033f17b7-42cc-4e72-b2a1-ea17f249cb76.html

[TheHighwayMan3561]

The I-535 overpass at Garfield in Duluth is now open, so the route can be driven thoroughly without having to use the awkward/scary ramp bypasses.