U.S. Highway 52

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
Suburban Outcast
Landmark Center
Posts: 229
Joined: June 10th, 2012, 8:33 pm

Re: U.S. 52

Postby Suburban Outcast » February 14th, 2013, 7:16 pm

I'm 31 and have one child and another on the way, and we don't want a half acre home with a white picket fence. We want a place that's safe and where there is SOME green space for kids to play, but we don't need very much. Currently (and we're not happy with our current living situation), our backyard is maybe 15'X40' -- MAYBE! Neither my wife or myself want to have to maintain a small field just so our kids don't have to walk to the park to play.....we just want some grass and sidewalks so we can walk to a nearby park.
I'm not in argument with you. I would best most on this forum would have your mindset. I'm saying we have a cultural ethos that people simply follow. My wife and I are going to be moving back in to the city next year (the soonest we can sell our place), but I feel as though we're in a relative minority of people our age who are planning for the long haul to be within 5 miles of the urban core of our city.
Schools come into factor, as well. People keep moving out to schools in the outer suburbs because "it's a better environment for my child". Schools even in the inner suburbs (Roseville) have been perceived as "ghetto" to outlying schools, even back when I attended MNSU someone from Delano said that I live near the 'hood since I live in Little Canada. So many people always talk about how "back in the day" this city/suburb was better and treat it like it's a crime-infested slum now, shit's ridiculous. So that helps further the mindset that it's better to keep moving farther way from the city in order to live in an area with high livability and low crime rates.
Another thing is how it seems we end up sprawling worse as the years go by. When my grandparents moved to Little Canada in the 60's it was still mostly agricultural and/or undeveloped, and was considered part of the outskirts of Saint Paul. Over the past 50 years, it's now a mostly/fully developed inner suburb of Saint Paul (though with only about 2,500 ppsm). At the same time, at least it was only 5 miles away from a downtown area in a city of around 300,000 people. The Elk Run development is about 15 miles away from the Rochester city center, with a city of nearly 110,000 people. Some news articles say exurban areas are finally losing steam, but can we just stop planning these mediocre developments for good? Both Little Canada and Elk Run are examples of poorly-planned urban sprawl, but at least one of these choices can be more easily adaptable to the future changes in how we commute and how we live.

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

Re: U.S. 52

Postby mulad » February 26th, 2013, 8:41 am

F&C says that bids for the Cannon Falls interchange project have come in at $14.3 to $19.2 million, below Mn/DOT's estimate of $22.7 million. S.M. Hentges & Sons of Jordan have the low bid. The project will get rid of the last two signaled intersections on the highway between Rochester and the Twin Cities.

http://finance-commerce.com/2013/02/hig ... er-budget/

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 2869
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: U.S. 52

Postby min-chi-cbus » February 26th, 2013, 8:57 am

F&C says that bids for the Cannon Falls interchange project have come in at $14.3 to $19.2 million, below Mn/DOT's estimate of $22.7 million. S.M. Hentges & Sons of Jordan have the low bid. The project will get rid of the last two signaled intersections on the highway between Rochester and the Twin Cities.

http://finance-commerce.com/2013/02/hig ... er-budget/
That's great -- next step: Interstate status!

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: U.S. 52

Postby mattaudio » February 26th, 2013, 9:59 am

Lots of improvements are still needed... First there are some major county roads with dangerous crossings, albeit not signalized.
Dakota County 66, 86. Goodhue County 9, MN 57, and maybe another one or two. Then they need to focus on removing private property access to 52, which would require a network of frontage roads and driveway reconfigurations. It will happen in time, but we're probably still two decades out from full grade separation if it ever happens to begin with.

At least 52 has a vision which put forth corridor protection and incremental improvements (even if they wasted major cash on the Elk Run interchange). Signals are so detrimental to these corridors, creating pulses of traffic which diminishes safety and uses capacity less efficiently. I think of US-10 between Anoka and Becker as one of the worst examples due to proliferation of stoplights. I don't think this is that big of a deal where there have always been towns... a stoplight or two in downtown Elk River or Big Lake isn't the end of the world since traffic slows anyways. But stoplights at county roads are a self-fulfilling prophesy, creating demand for greenfield development which then creates demand for cross traffic at the intersection.

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

Re: Lafayette Freeway Bridge (U.S. 52)

Postby mulad » May 1st, 2013, 12:18 pm

I'm told by coworkers that you no longer go straight across I-94 to get to 7th Street -- the new duck-under route coming out at Kittson Street has apparently opened.

Mn/DOT has also implemented vehicle length restrictions -- anything longer than 35 feet must take another route. They say that there are crossovers on or near the bridge now which have sharp turns, though I'm thoroughly confused why they'd be necessary. Just goes to show that this stuff is more complex than it appears, I guess. Last time I went by a week and a half ago, it looked like only half of the new bridge had segments in place.

Hmm.. Maybe they're working on replacing the southbound bridge at Plato? Is that already done? I got so spoiled by the Central Corridor's weekly map updates over the past couple of years...

ScottMcG
Block E
Posts: 1
Joined: May 1st, 2013, 2:43 pm

Re: Lafayette Freeway Bridge (U.S. 52)

Postby ScottMcG » May 1st, 2013, 2:56 pm

They have begun demolition of the existing Lafayette bridge over I-94. I found it disconcerting to drive over the crossover from the new bridge onto the old bridge as they demolished a portion of the old bridge.

Regarding the vehicle restrictions due to the tight constraints in the crossover, I've seen at least a dozen semi trucks pulled over by the MN State Patrol for failing to exit US 52 at Plato Blvd. You can see some of the action from MN DOTs traffic cam (c561) on US 52 at Plato (http://video.dot.state.mn.us/video/image?id=561).

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: U.S. 52

Postby mattaudio » May 2nd, 2013, 1:45 pm

Other projects starting this summer on US 52 between St. Paul and Rochester:

- Cannon Falls interchange - This will replace the two remaining stoplights between St. Paul and Rochester

- County 68 at the north end of Zumbrota - They aren't building an interchange, and this intersection received acceleration lanes in the past few years, so I'm not sure what is involved here.

- 65th St NW in Rochester interchange - This is purely a sprawl-driver and does not enhance mobility. There are already interchanges at 55th and 75th Sts NW.

- Elk Run will finish up, providing a high capacity diverging diamond interchange for tractors and rural route drivers.

Mdcastle
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1209
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN

Re: U.S. 52

Postby Mdcastle » May 2nd, 2013, 2:18 pm

Since the bid came in so low they should rebid it to include both phases of the project, it'll be far cheaper to get the whole thing done now.

County 68 is going to be converted into a "reduced conflict" intersection as an interim measure. Basically it eliminates the four most dangerous movements on an at-grade intersection- through traffic and left turns from the crossroad. All traffic will have to turn right and then make a U-turn at the crossovers provided just down the road.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: U.S. 52

Postby mattaudio » May 2nd, 2013, 2:27 pm

Monte, which project is separated into two phases? 68?

If I'm not mistaken, MnDOT wanted a reduced conflict at 68 in Zumbrota but it was not favored locally. The acceleration lanes are really weird and people do not have confidence in other cars using them, even if it's theoretically a good solution. RCIs are a good interim approach, however I hope there's extended left turn lanes for the U-turns since turning traffic in the left lane is a huge safety disadvantage of expressways compared to full freeways.

I have an email in to the project manager to get some details about this.

Mdcastle
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1209
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN

Re: U.S. 52

Postby Mdcastle » May 2nd, 2013, 4:24 pm

US 52 in Cannon Falls is currently a two phase project. The layout on the Mn/DOT project phase shows the complete project, but only the interchange near the southernmost signal and some of the frontage roads will be built at this time. The overpass at the northernmost signal and the balance of the frontage roads will have to wait. The project has been in the works over a decade and they finally managed to scrape up enough money to build part of it.

There's also a proposal for a reduced conflict intersection at County 86 north of Cannon Falls.

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

Re: Lafayette Freeway Bridge (U.S. 52)

Postby mulad » May 4th, 2013, 5:54 pm

I drove north on 52 into downtown today and saw the state patrol parked with lights flashing right at the Plato exit, waiting for trucks to go by.

Anyway, it does sort of make sense now -- the traffic is being diverted onto a short segment of the new bridge. I did a GPS trace, and the traffic shift happened between Kellogg and Prince. I wonder if there's some coordination with the Central Corridor/Green Line light rail going on here. I suppose they'd like to get the pylons built for the new bridge before trains start running either in passenger service or in heavy testing, since the bridge crosses right over the Lowertown O&M facility's yard.

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

Re: Lafayette Freeway Bridge (U.S. 52)

Postby mulad » May 6th, 2013, 7:37 pm

They aren't wasting any time getting rid of the portion of the old span north of the crossover. A shot from the corner of 5th Street and John Street this afternoon. I'm a little amused by the exit sign for Plato Boulevard that's still attached:

Image
Lafayette Bridge condestruction by Mulad, on Flickr

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: U.S. 52

Postby mattaudio » May 13th, 2013, 1:24 pm

Forgot to mention that a DDI requires two stoplights of course. For all that traffic.
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/elkrun/ddi.html

Mdcastle
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1209
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN

Re: U.S. 52

Postby Mdcastle » May 14th, 2013, 5:50 am

It's important to note that some kind of interchange in the same general area has always been in the plans since the studies started after 2000 for converting the entire corridor into a freeway. I'd be curious as to how much a standard diamond would have cost, Without making provisions to vaporware you still would need a bridge (but probably two lanes instead of four), ramps, and the frontage roads.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: U.S. 52

Postby mattaudio » May 14th, 2013, 8:11 am

The point is that this project squandered nearly $40 million if you include the local road network. It placed subsidizing speculative development over safety and mobility in the corridor.

If we had instead prioritized safety, that money would have gone a long ways already. The Canon Falls stoplights would already be gone. We might have interchanges at Dakota County 66 or 86, or Goodhue County 9/1, or Trunk Highway 57. Or we could have removed the awkward and dangerous intersection at the north end of Pine Island.

Instead, we're stuck building RCIs at many of those intersections due to funding shortfalls. Pine Island is throwing away money to subsidize the postwar development pattern near the Elk Run interchange, and it is doubtful that P.I. will EVER see a return to public coffers equal to their investment even if the plans are fully realized.

Mdcastle
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1209
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN

Re: U.S. 52

Postby Mdcastle » May 15th, 2013, 8:28 am

I agree that Cannon Falls should have gone first. But looking at the corridor study I'm not sure how far the money could have gone for alternative uses.

http://www.co.dakota.mn.us/Transportati ... rStudy.pdf
Somewhat dated, the Pine Island south interchange is $30 million and I think this is before the Elk Run foolishness started.

All the interchanges (except Dakota County 66 and 86) are estimated in the $30 million range, presumably because they include a lot of work on the supporting road network.

There's some merit to prioritizing the trouble spots in order of how bad they are, but I also see merit in working systematically from both ends and converting them to full freeway, since that's where the heaviest traffic is and it can get confusing to drivers if the road constantly changes from freeway to expressway and back. Except for Cannon Falls it seems the major investments have been on either end with four new interchanges on the south end, and three on the north end, with efforts to close accesses on both ends.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: U.S. 52

Postby mattaudio » May 15th, 2013, 8:48 am

What's weird is that it's not really an interchange at Oronoco, but rather a grade separation and then frontage roads with right in/right out access north of the grade separation.

It's about five miles from the Pine Island exit to the Oronoco exit/turn. There's no need for an interchange between the two. Rather, we'd be better off improving the local road network.

Similarly, it's also a waste to build interchange ramps at 65th Street NW this summer, considering there are already interchanges at 55th St NW and 75th St NW. It will only subsidize sprawl, induced demand for Rochester commuters, and a financially unproductive development pattern.

Freeways are supposed to be for mobility and safety. Having interchanges every two miles is counterproductive and reduces the the capacity of the facility to actually serve its intended and valued purpose.

Mdcastle
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1209
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN

Re: U.S. 52

Postby Mdcastle » May 15th, 2013, 9:29 am

The existing Pine Island interchange is planned to be removed, (Although Pine Island isn't exactly pleased at this prospect), and the intersection north of Oronoco will be removed with the Elk Run project. I think the original idea with building an interchange in the middle of nowhere was to not build one on the north end of Oronoco and the south end of Pine Island, but to have one serve both purposes, and the north Pine Island interchange will be built somewhat north of where that wonky intersection is.

Oronoco was setup like it was because the plan was always to have an overpass for local traffic, and extend County 12 to what is now the Elk Run interchange. It was only tied into US 52 as right-ins, right-outs as an interim bases until the next interchange could be built and the local roads extended.
Last edited by Mdcastle on May 15th, 2013, 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: U.S. 52

Postby mattaudio » May 15th, 2013, 9:34 am

Ok, that makes a little more sense. Where did they have these plans?
Yet I am still concerned with the precedent this sets... It seems unnecessarily expensive to put interchanges between towns, and then have a network of good service roads to connect to the towns. Instead, it would make much more sense to keep interchanges IN the towns, and funnel all local connecting traffic thru town to the interchange. Then, we wouldn't be subsidizing development in places without local services.

Mdcastle
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1209
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN

Re: U.S. 52

Postby Mdcastle » May 15th, 2013, 11:32 am

It dates back to a 2001 study of the Oronoco / Pine Island region. The original document seems to be purged of Mn/DOT, but I saved a copy on my computer. All the options seemed to included moving the north Pine Island junction farther north and the south junction to roughly where Elk Run is. It looks to me like the reason seems to be build some more local east-west roads to get through traffic out of the built up Pine Island and Oronoco areas. Additional options that were discarded included building a western bypass of Oronoco or building a 4th interchange roughly where the County 12 right ins/outs are now.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests