urbanMSP

I was caught by surprise by the huge construction going on at Highway 101 between Flying Cloud Drive and Pioneer Trail. Lots of trees cut down and tons of dirt being moved, so I looked up what was going on. They're straightening the road, widening it to four lanes plus a trail, and a bridge over the road for the Minnesota River Bluffs LRT Regional Trail. Seems like overkill to have four lanes when two lanes plus turn lanes and the trail would be enough, but I know traffic engineers love overkill. I am glad to see they're building a trail bridge, which has been long overdue.

http://highway101.wpengine.com/wp-conte ... nate-3.pdf

Yeah that road really doesn't need the expansion IMO. The whole point of rerouting 212 to the new freeway was to be the main highway to the SW suburbs (in addition to subsidizing sprawl). Also, the roundabout at 101/Flying Cloud really helped traffic about a decade ago.

I think I remember driving through recently because I love driving the smaller winding roads along the Minnesota River Valley and was surprised how much of the old rural winding road was ruined by this. What I remembered was some pretty massive retaining walls going in so they could build their high-speed high-volume curves.

Seems like it’s more MNDOT and maybe the city public works just connecting lines on a map, predicting “growth will cause traffic” so widening must happen right here or else, and then the widened road fulfills the prophecy.

Carver County is the main driver of the configuration, they've agreed to accept jurisdiction of the road on the condition MnDOT cough up with a large chunk of money to build it the way they want.

I don't recall a specific justification for four lanes, but it's obvious we're not going to expand the Bloomington Ferry Bridge anywhere close to where it needs to be to serve the people that use it, so this provides an alternative route to get to US 212 from Scott County, where growth isn't going to slow down anytime soon. Quite a bit of retaining walls would be needed to deal with the dangerous hills and curves anyway and you'd probably want a truck climbing lane in lieu of a five lane configuration.

For scenic driving there's the Grand Rounds Parkways or any number of other roads that aren't so important to the region.

I like occasional day trips to small towns outside the metro. The route there is half of the pleasure. The Grand Rounds is not a rural route for a day trip.
I was more musing at the loss of remnants of rural landscape nearby.

https://www.startribune.com/third-avenu ... 569660062/

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projec ... index.html

Is there a layout posted anywhere for this major bridge rehab project? I'm not expecting a lane reduction or anything major, since it's 4 lanes on each end of the bridge, a MnDOT project, etc. Is the note about adding a bus lane only for during construction? Even without major changes, you'd think a layout would be posted for a $120MM project...this is likely the 2nd most expensive bridge project happening in the state right now (only slightly less than the entirely new 35W bridge over the Minnesota River in Bloomington/Burnsville)

13' 6" of ped/bike space, a low barrier (like this), four 10' lanes flanked by 2' 6" gutters. Transit priority lane is construction-only for now (write to your electeds asking for it to be permanent, or for lanes on Washington so buses don't need to cross the bridge).

Forcing pedestrians and bikers to coexist in +13 feet of width is a bad idea.

Forcing pedestrians and bikers to coexist in +13 feet of width is a bad idea.

Not gonna claim it's ideal, but I think it'll be a similar set-up to what's on the Franklin Ave Bridge (see the link above), which seems acceptable.

13' 6" of ped/bike space, a low barrier (like this), four 10' lanes flanked by 2' 6" gutters. Transit priority lane is construction-only for now (write to your electeds asking for it to be permanent, or for lanes on Washington so buses don't need to cross the bridge).

I don't understand why this needs four lanes, unless one in each direction is going to be transit only.

I don't think there is any reason, but it's MnDOT.

Forcing pedestrians and bikers to coexist in +13 feet of width is a bad idea.

It isn't ideal, but it works well enough on Franklin. I think the key thing they got right on Franklin is to have bicycle traffic signed one way on each side, with a design that fairly successfully reinforces that. In a non-social-distancing epoch there's enough space for two directions of walkers and runners to coexist with bicycles as long as everybody's paying attention. Right now it's a bit more difficult, but I don't think we're at a point to design for social distancing.

Franklin avenue works better with the current set up because there is only space for 2 lanes of car traffic plus the pedestrian/bike space. Central Ave-Third ave does not need 4 lanes of car traffic at the expense of dedicated bike lanes.

4-3 conversion, MUP, and mini-roundabout on old highway 16 in Fairmont


City originally wanted to maintain an unwarranted traffic signal but balked when they learned they'd have to pay the full $200,000 cost themselves.

https://clients.bolton-menk.com/lakeave ... -Study.pdf

In regards to the 3rd Ave bridge redesign, any indication that they'll have those like observation cutouts for people to stop and take in the view like there are on that Franklin Ave bridge? I think that's a really nice touch to keep pedestrians from stopping in the middle of the bridge to get a view/picture

In regards to the 3rd Ave bridge redesign, any indication that they'll have those like observation cutouts for people to stop and take in the view like there are on that Franklin Ave bridge? I think that's a really nice touch to keep pedestrians from stopping in the middle of the bridge to get a view/picture

The 3rd Ave Bridge has 4 bump outs currently... I would suspect that they'll keep those, as they are a nice feature for taking pictures.

Lake city 4-3 reconstruction with some people metal detecting.

Lane configuration on I-94 in Maple Grove

Metropolitan Council's 2020 Regional Solicitation applications have been published. A lot of road projects seeking money.

https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation ... urce=child

Roadway Strategic Capacity

• Scott County - US 169/TH 282 grade separation. $24 million.
• Ramsey County - I-35E/CR J interchange reconstruction and full access. $10.8 million.
• Brooklyn Park - TH 252/Brookdale Drive interchange. $33.2 million.
• Carver County - US 212 from CR 51 to CR 36 4-lane. $26 million.
• Coon Rapids - TH 610/East River Road interchange reconstruction. $12.2 million.
• Anoka County - US 10/Ramsey Blvd interchange. $29.3 million.
• Anoka County - 109th Ave from Radisson to Lexington 4 lane. $9.6 million.
• Blaine - TH 65/99th Ave interchange. $29.8 million.
• Anoka County - 7th Ave from Bunker Lake to 157th 4-lane. $8.7 million.
• Anoka County - 125th from Harpers to Lexington 4-lane. $5 million.
• Washington County - TH 36/Lake Elmo interchange. Keats Ave access closed. $34.7 million.
• Scott County - US 169/166th overpass. $2.6 million.
• Dakota County - Dodd/179th new alignment. $4.9 million.
• Carver County - TH 41/Engler intersection enlargement. $11.3 million.
• Carver County - TH 5/Arboretum 4-lane and new signal. $13.4 million.
• Washington County - Extend Manning Ave to TH 5/58th. $7.8 million.
• Washington County - TH 120 from I-694 to CR E 4-lane. $8.2 million.
• Lakeville - 185th new road from Dodd to Highview. $2.3 million.

There's also a ton of projects seeking money for reconstruction (without adding capacity), bridge reconstruction and rehab, traffic signals, and safety.

As always, it's wild when you compare the scale of the asks for highways versus the scale of the asks for transit, bike, and ped.