Interstate 694

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7760
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Interstate 694

Postby mattaudio » August 6th, 2012, 12:29 pm

I'm titling this thread I-694 since MnDOT is grouping together all the projects from Rice Street to 35W. I think most of us are familiar with some of these projects. The two bridges for old Hwy 10 over 35W are being replaced. Also planned are bridges and partial interchange at Hwy 10 (the cutoff between 35W and 694) and CR 96.

I saw on MnDOT's project page that the future design includes two flyovers at the 694/35W interchange. One of these flyovers seems really redundant to me.

If the plan is upgrading the Hwy 10 cutoff to freeway standards (especially the Hwy 96 overpass) then why not use this as the ramp from SB 35W to EB 694? Or, if the plan is to build a flyover from SB 35W to EB 694 as proposed, why not just get rid of the short Hwy 10 cutoff and use 694 to 35W and save the money of an interchange at 10/96 and future maintenance of those few miles of highway?

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7760
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Interstate 694

Postby mattaudio » August 6th, 2012, 12:52 pm

Or we could do something like this: http://goo.gl/maps/HZU3L with the same number of proposed flyovers and bridges.

Lancestar2

Re: Interstate 694

Postby Lancestar2 » August 6th, 2012, 6:17 pm

Or we could do something like this: http://goo.gl/maps/HZU3L with the same number of proposed flyovers and bridges.

hmm... that's a really good ideal though though it would be a tad confusing to see the 649 East bound exist over 1.5miles before the 694 West bound exit. Also wonder what the people living at Arden Manor Park would think if they knew that a good portion of the traffic from 35 was going to be diverted to the road just East of them! :shock:

Also what is the reasoning behind line 11 ?

PhilmerPhil
Moderator
Posts: 1064
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 11:38 am
Location: SOUP: SOuth UPtown

Re: Interstate 694

Postby PhilmerPhil » August 6th, 2012, 11:00 pm

i·de·al/īˈdē(ə)l/
Adjective:
Satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable: "the pool is ideal for a quick dip".
Noun:
A person or thing regarded as perfect: "you're my ideal of a man".
Synonyms:
perfect



i·de·a/īˈdēə/
Noun:
A thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action: "the idea of linking pay to performance".
A concept or mental impression.
Synonyms:
notion - thought - conception - concept - opinion - view

MSPtoMKE
Rice Park
Posts: 496
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 8:15 pm
Location: Loring Heights
Contact:

Re: Interstate 694

Postby MSPtoMKE » August 6th, 2012, 11:28 pm

I think that design is a few years old. In light of the redesign of the I-494 and US 169 interchange, MnDot may be willing to rethink this interchange as well. As I recall, MnDot had to convince the Feds that it would be ok to leave out the 2 ramps where US 212 provided an easy alternate route. This seems like an opportunity to do the same thing, in particular leaving out the ramp from southbound to eastbound.
My flickr photos.

Lancestar2

Re: Interstate 694

Postby Lancestar2 » August 7th, 2012, 1:21 am

i·de·al/īˈdē(ə)l/
Adjective:
Satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable: "the pool is ideal for a quick dip".
Noun:
A person or thing regarded as perfect: "you're my ideal of a man".
Synonyms:
perfect



i·de·a/īˈdēə/
Noun:
A thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action: "the idea of linking pay to performance".
A concept or mental impression.
Synonyms:
notion - thought - conception - concept - opinion - view

Yes, I made a spelling mistake. Also if your were observant to my posts on the other forum siteI have had a history of miss spelling that specify word and since then have learned from my mistake, however making a honest mistake early today without even noticing it. While I read the forums I notice some posters by users have mistakes from start to end while others have shockingly (shockingly for my level of understanding from under this here rock) have every single word correctly spelled in proper sentence structure and proper grammar.

I highly doubt in real conversations with the general public you would correct mispronounced words said from a stranger. Nor would you explain the meaning of words to them by looking up definitions. Why you take the time to correct others spelling and miss use of words is beyond me however I can only assume you don't make a habit of such behavior.

Any person here posting who takes the time to make sure they are correct I applaud you! I honestly do, your ability to communicate via written language you have artfully mastered and can serve as a educated role model into the cyber community. Of course if one was to define my intelligence based solely on my ability to communicate via written word I'm sure the definition "enthusiastic retard" would come to mind HAH! If I personally was to take the time to correct every single word and punctuation my desire to post would all but dry up. Also I must note I already do spend a great deal of time spell checking and doing the best with the amount of time I can invest in a hobby.

Finally your motivation to publicly post my mistake and copy and paste definitions comes off as condescending. I don't know if you intended to do that or was unintentional, however I would assume if you really wan't to better my education you would prefer private message instead of publicly pointing out the mistakes of others.

Also again I apologize for any inconvenience my lack of written education may has caused you and would encourage you to utilize the ignore button if you deem appropriate to safely return you to a world of completely perfect written English.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7760
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Interstate 694

Postby mattaudio » August 7th, 2012, 7:04 am

I thought it was rather mean spirited, too. Unless you need to ask for clarification, what's the value in pointing out someone else's errors? I've found that most of the time people are aware of their mistakes, and we'd all do better to grant some interpersonal grace rather than rubbing it in even more. Let's forget about this, move on, and keep the forum friendly.

OPAFiets1
Block E
Posts: 10
Joined: April 11th, 2013, 7:07 am

Re: Interstate 694

Postby OPAFiets1 » May 2nd, 2013, 3:43 pm

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projec ... layout.pdf

A couple of questions for those smarter about these things.

- There appears no ramp for NB 51/Snelling to EB 694 ??
- No ramp for WB 694 to NB 51/Hamline ?
- No ramp for SB 51/Hamline to either direction of 694.

SB51/Hamline to WB 694 I assume can use WB96>SB35W>WB694 without much problem.

Are they assuming that the rest of these will clog up Lexington?

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7760
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Interstate 694

Postby mattaudio » May 2nd, 2013, 4:06 pm

With the exception of WB 694 to Hamline, I don't think any of these movements were present before. 51 ends at 694, and Hamline is really a residential feeder north of there.

There was a much cooler design proposed about a decade ago, but then it was reworked into this double loop design. I can't seem to find the old one.

Speaking of this, since it's really an extension of this interchange, I still cannot figure out why we're upgrading Hwy 10 between 694 and 35W AND we're planning a system interchange at 35W and 694.

It would have made sense to either:
1. Turn back this section of Hwy 10, simplify the interchanges, and route Hwy 10 another mile west on 694 to 35W north.
OR
2. Upgrade this 2 mile segment of Hwy 10 to freeway standards (I think this is already underway with a bridge at Hwy 96) and use this as part of the system interchange to connect 35W from the north and 694 to the east. This would eliminate some weaving, and potentiallty reduce the need for flyovers at 35W/694 thereby reducing cost.

OPAFiets1
Block E
Posts: 10
Joined: April 11th, 2013, 7:07 am

Re: Interstate 694

Postby OPAFiets1 » May 3rd, 2013, 6:53 pm

For NB 51/Snelling to EB 694 you just went up and did a u-turn at Cty F. We did that several times each week and it was rare that there weren't others doing it at the same time. Taking Lake Johanna Blvd over to Lexington and Lex to 694 is a pain and I'd guess has added a fair bit of traffic to that route, not something needed along Lexington nor on Lake Johanna Blvd since the colleges are putting residences along there and hoped that students would ride bikes to the campuses. Don't think many will want to with the current level of traffic.

I wondered about 10 as well. I assume the idea is to shunt traffic to 10 to reduce major CF on NB35E between 694 & 10 during heavy traffic.

mulad
Moderator
Posts: 2753
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 6:30 pm
Location: Saint Paul
Contact:

Re: Interstate 694

Postby mulad » June 17th, 2013, 8:14 am

A $21.1 million resurfacing project on a I-694 between MN-100 and I-35W began today and is planned to run until November. MinnPost called it a 10-mile distance, but my measuring tool on Google Maps says it's more like 5.5 miles (maybe someone was counting both directions?). The bridge decks at MN-252 will also be replaced. MnDOT project page:

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/694west/

[Edit: According to the Strib, this won't begin until tonight due to a failure with lane-striping equipment.]

phop
Landmark Center
Posts: 207
Joined: May 28th, 2013, 8:58 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Interstate 694

Postby phop » June 15th, 2014, 10:54 pm

This is included in the MNDOT "I-694 North Central project", but it's actually an interchange proposal for 35W and Highway 96. A diverging diamond interchange has been recommended:

http://www.sehinc.com/online/35W96

The current interchange is only controlled by stop signs. This seems like a massive overbuild, even considering a moderate increase in traffic as a result of TCAAP development. The pedestrian/bike accommodations are unfortunate. The crossing geometries are particularly atrocious. It's a shame since there are actual possibilities for trail connections here.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 186 guests