U.S. Highway 52

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
pannierpacker
Metrodome
Posts: 53
Joined: July 16th, 2013, 6:25 pm

Re: U.S. Highway 52

Postby pannierpacker » November 18th, 2015, 1:14 pm

froggie wrote:
pannierpacker wrote:I think that the bike trail over the river would be a lot more useful if there was some way to get off of the bluff (Concord Ave) and follow 52 down to the flat area.
http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/64917 (11.5mb PDF)

Will tie into the existing MRT in South St. Paul, from which there is a path heading up the bluff over Concord Ave and through Kaposia Park which works if one is south of Butler Ave and east of Robert St.
I see the value in having a trail that ties into the South St. Paul trail system. That said, I do think better utility could be gained by the average commuter or day-to-day user if there were a better connection to Concord Ave, which currently has bike lanes. Hopefully, when MNDOT rebuilds the bridge over the tracks adjacent to the bluff, either MN-DOT or another party will raise this concern.

Mikey
Landmark Center
Posts: 237
Joined: January 6th, 2015, 2:33 pm
Location: Gunflint Trail
Contact:

Re: U.S. Highway 52

Postby Mikey » November 18th, 2015, 4:05 pm

That bridge was just re-decked a few years ago, so it might be awhile.

That said, a bike path that followed the NB Concord ramp, then branched off to a separate bridge over the tracks angling towards the east frontage road shouldn't be too hard
Urbanist in the north woods

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7544
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: U.S. Highway 52

Postby mattaudio » November 30th, 2015, 8:34 pm

So. What's next for this corridor?

With some relatively minor access management, the freeway facility could be extended 7 miles to the north end of Zumbrota.

The next two intersections that ought to receive some sort of grade separation would be, IMO:
- Hwy 57 / Hader
- Dakota County 86 / Cannon Falls/Randolph

Also, it looks like Union Pacific has built a wye between their mainline (ex-Rock Island) and their Flint Hills lead (ex-Chicago Great Western), possibly to move the mainline to the northern track crossing 52 in Inver Grove Heights. If this was the case, the southern bridges could be used to provide connectivity between 105th St and Inver Grove Trail, eliminating the last intersection north of the refinery.

User avatar
Mdcastle
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 761
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN
Contact:

Re: U.S. Highway 52

Postby Mdcastle » December 1st, 2015, 6:18 am

There's still no funding for Mn/DOT initiatives to get things going in an organized, prioritized, or sequential fashion so it's still dependent on popup projects. Of note:

*County 86 has been fully designed and they had hoped to start construction this year, so I don't know what happened.
*Cannon Falls still wants a new overpass
*Dakota County is tired of waiting for Mn/DOT and federal funding to build the grand new "almost cloverleaf", realignment of MN 55, and new local roads that have been proposed for over a decade, so they have plans for a much scaled down (probably just new bridges at County 42 and interim diamond ramps) beta version in 2017.

Since the MN 55 realignment is still the official plan, I don't see anything happening with the Koch refinery area, and Goodhue County has mentioned they feel they need to put some of their money towards repairing their own roads rather than their share of more Mn/DOT interchanges; there's zero momentum for a Hader interchange now.

When the Pine Island north access was closed there was some grumbling about wanting the north interchange built, but I think that's settled down.

froggie
Rice Park
Posts: 419
Joined: March 7th, 2014, 6:52 pm

Re: U.S. Highway 52

Postby froggie » December 1st, 2015, 8:04 am

Also, it looks like Union Pacific has built a wye between their mainline (ex-Rock Island) and their Flint Hills lead (ex-Chicago Great Western), possibly to move the mainline to the northern track crossing 52 in Inver Grove Heights. If this was the case, the southern bridges could be used to provide connectivity between 105th St and Inver Grove Trail, eliminating the last intersection north of the refinery.
This was done to add capacity, not to move the mainline.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7544
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: U.S. Highway 52

Postby mattaudio » December 1st, 2015, 9:44 am

There's also this plan to rebuild the Hwy 58 interchange (zumbrota) in 2017: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/d6/projects/ ... oncept.pdf

Mikey
Landmark Center
Posts: 237
Joined: January 6th, 2015, 2:33 pm
Location: Gunflint Trail
Contact:

Re: U.S. Highway 52

Postby Mikey » December 1st, 2015, 1:55 pm

Hadar, Dakota Co 86 and Co 62 are the most obvious needs to me.

As Matt said, extending the freeway north to Zumbrota should be fairly easy. After that, start building interchanges / closing accesses on the north end and work south.

Is there a seperate budget for relocating driveways / minor roads that could happen before full freeway-ification?

Cannon Falls feels different now that they clear-cut those pines for the new power line...
Urbanist in the north woods

User avatar
Mdcastle
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 761
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN
Contact:

Re: U.S. Highway 52

Postby Mdcastle » December 1st, 2015, 6:06 pm

There was discussion about the option of buying farms as they came on the market, removing the access, and then reselling them without access presumably to the neighbors as an alternative to frontage roads, but I don't know if anything became of it.

froggie
Rice Park
Posts: 419
Joined: March 7th, 2014, 6:52 pm

Re: U.S. Highway 52

Postby froggie » December 2nd, 2015, 11:28 am

Extending the freeway section to Zumbrota may not be as easy as some may think. A (not-so-)quick breakdown:

Currently, the freeway section effectively extends to the Olmsted/Goodhue County line.

There are three private access points between the county line and CSAH 11...coincidentally all are on the southbound side (so technically the northbound freeway continues through Pine Island). But all three are isolated from areas away from 52 because of the adjacent Middle Fork of the Zumbro River. One access point serves 3 houses so there are technically 5 properties impacted. One of the properties is close to the on-ramp from CSAH 11, which itself is very close to the river, so building a frontage road through here would be pretty difficult, though not impossible if it occupies the space currently used by the on-ramp. The on-ramp would have to be replaced somewhere downstream, though, which would necessitate some additional ROW somewhere. Another possibility, along the lines of what Monte posted, would be to buy out that farm closest to the on-ramp. This might actually be the cheaper option. Here is how I had envisioned it, going with a frontage road/relocated on-ramp option.

Between Pine Island and Hwy 60, there are 6 private accesses and 3 public road intersections. There are parallel township roads both 1 mile west and a half-mile east of 52, so it'll be a little easier to close access points, though frontage road connections would still cost some coin. To facilitate cross-52 access, an overpass could be built over 52 (due to topography, I'd put it at 490th St).

On the Zumbrota bypass, though (between 60 East and 58), there are 3 more private access points. The one closest to the 60 East interchange could be closed by upgrading that property's "driveway" from 190th Ave (old, pre-bypass 52). The other two are more problematic due to topography. One (a field access) could be addressed by either building an access from another adjacent field through some trees or under a major power line...alternatively, this field could be "bought out" if that winds up being the cheaper option. The two houses sharing an access on the southwest side of 52 would be the most troublesome, but Zumbrota's long-range plan offers an option, albeit expensive. The plan calls for a backage road parallel to 52 connecting 180th Ave with a new roadway running west from the 60 East interchange. The house access points could be replaced to connect to this proposed roadway. This, of course, would be a very expensive option, probably running a few million.

User avatar
Mdcastle
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 761
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN
Contact:

Re: U.S. Highway 52

Postby Mdcastle » December 3rd, 2015, 7:10 am

And now we're back to how the CSAH 11 ramps were supposed to be removed in favor of what eventually morphed into the Elk Run interchange.

It will only be 3 miles from the new Pine Island north interchange to MN 60, so I don't believe a new overpass is needed.

froggie
Rice Park
Posts: 419
Joined: March 7th, 2014, 6:52 pm

Re: U.S. Highway 52

Postby froggie » December 3rd, 2015, 8:13 am

That's assuming a north Pine Island interchange is built. I have my doubts, especially given some local opposition and the recent construction of a roundabout at the north ramps at CSAH 11. Furthermore, there's no way to get west of 52 until the Hwy 58 interchange, so your distance between is a bit longer than 3 miles. Unless Goodhue County does wind up being successful in rerouting CSAH 10 to the 60 East interchange. But that'd be expensive as well, arguably a lot more expensive than rerouting CSAH 10 or building a new Pine Island interchange.

User avatar
Mdcastle
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 761
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN
Contact:

Re: U.S. Highway 52

Postby Mdcastle » December 3rd, 2015, 2:44 pm

What's the alternative then, just not have any access between the present CSAH 11 and MN 60 except for the existing southbound exit at the north end of town?

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7544
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: U.S. Highway 52

Postby mattaudio » December 3rd, 2015, 3:00 pm

That seems fine to me... it's still a distance of less than 5 miles...

froggie
Rice Park
Posts: 419
Joined: March 7th, 2014, 6:52 pm

Re: U.S. Highway 52

Postby froggie » December 3rd, 2015, 8:50 pm

Access to/from 52 would be fine at that distance. The question/concern is access ACROSS 52, from one side to the other. That is where an overpass in the middle would be most useful and probably the least expensive option, especially given the topography and lack of roads connecting to 52 from the west near Zumbrota.

Mikey
Landmark Center
Posts: 237
Joined: January 6th, 2015, 2:33 pm
Location: Gunflint Trail
Contact:

Re: U.S. Highway 52

Postby Mikey » December 4th, 2015, 9:29 am

A ramp from northern Pine Island to NB 52 would be "nice to have," but it's not really needed

How long until the Elk Run DDI is converted into a normal diamond w/ roundabouts?

Somewhat related - is there any plan to extend MN 247 west to 52 at the Elk Run Interchange? Is it a turnback candidate?
Urbanist in the north woods

User avatar
Mdcastle
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 761
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN
Contact:

Re: U.S. Highway 52

Postby Mdcastle » December 5th, 2015, 7:29 am

Mikey wrote:A ramp from northern Pine Island to NB 52 would be "nice to have," but it's not really needed

How long until the Elk Run DDI is converted into a normal diamond w/ roundabouts?

Somewhat related - is there any plan to extend MN 247 west to 52 at the Elk Run Interchange? Is it a turnback candidate?
Elk Run: Even if they officially realize they've lost "Sim City" I don't see the interchange being modified any time soon. You can pay for a lot of energy and maintenance for the traffic signals for what it would cost to rip up and redo the interchange.

MN 247: The 2014 Jurisdiction alignment study recommended CSAH 14 to the Elk Run interchange as a candidate for a "turn-up" due to spacing preferences.

froggie
Rice Park
Posts: 419
Joined: March 7th, 2014, 6:52 pm

Re: U.S. Highway 52

Postby froggie » April 17th, 2016, 8:30 pm

MN 247: The 2014 Jurisdiction alignment study recommended CSAH 14 to the Elk Run interchange as a candidate for a "turn-up" due to spacing preferences.
Missed this when Monte posted it 4 months ago, but the segment of CSAH 14 (which is 75th St NW...south of Elk Run) that was recommended in the jurisdictional alignment study is the one that became part of the US 63 reroute around downtown Rochester.

Back to US 52, I found an article stating that construction of a new interchange at Dakota CSAH 86 began 2 weeks ago.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7544
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: U.S. Highway 52

Postby mattaudio » April 18th, 2016, 8:37 am

I thought they were going with a RCI at that intersection. Where did the money come to do an interchange? Dakota County? It would be nice if this could also fully access control the stretch from Hwy 19 in Cannon Falls to Hwy 50 in Hampton, but there are still probably a dozen private driveways that are not near an easy side street connection.

froggie
Rice Park
Posts: 419
Joined: March 7th, 2014, 6:52 pm

Re: U.S. Highway 52

Postby froggie » April 18th, 2016, 10:59 am

An RCI was an earlier plan...not sure when that was switched, but the interchange is a county-led project. $3.5 million is coming from MnDOT...the remainder is $5-some million, presumably from the county.

Here's the county's website on the project, but there isn't really anything there on the "why" or "how much".

User avatar
Mdcastle
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 761
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN
Contact:

Re: U.S. Highway 52

Postby Mdcastle » April 18th, 2016, 1:48 pm

Generally speaking Mn/DOT proposes a RCI, than the locals go ballistic and cough up funding for an interchange instead.


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jafeik, Nathan and 2 guests