AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Minnesota Notes  (Read 194043 times)

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11272
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 08:33:32 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1025 on: October 25, 2020, 11:42:33 PM »

Why did MnDOT say no? The cost? I see the removal of another at-grade rail crossing along with better access to that area.

They did not say no to the design Monte posted...they said no to the originally preferred design, dated 2011.  THAT design had the full interchange at Coon Rapids Blvd, not East River Rd.  My guess is they (and the Met Council too, which is the regional MPO) said no because it was too close to the MN 47 ramps.
Logged

rte66man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1370
  • Location: Warr Acres, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 10:03:46 AM
Re: Minnesota Notes
« Reply #1026 on: October 28, 2020, 01:35:08 PM »

Why did MnDOT say no? The cost? I see the removal of another at-grade rail crossing along with better access to that area.

They did not say no to the design Monte posted...they said no to the originally preferred design, dated 2011.  THAT design had the full interchange at Coon Rapids Blvd, not East River Rd.  My guess is they (and the Met Council too, which is the regional MPO) said no because it was too close to the MN 47 ramps.


Gotcha.  WIll go back and take a look at the 2011 design.  Any design that includes the removal of an at-grade crossing of a major Class 1 railroad gets my vote.
Logged
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

 


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.