U.S. Highway 14

[Mdcastle]

Honestly, coming from the rural north, I'm glad that my town and the towns near mine didn't have these bypasses. Bypasses always create car-oriented development, whereas in towns without bypasses you have development that is both car and pedestrian friendly. You can just walk to anyplace in a town, completely safely. And it is nonsensical to make it 4-lane for a mile and then bring it back down to a 2-lane.

I know the article made it sound that way (I think it was bad writing rather than ignorance) but there's a separate project, also funded, to extend the expressway westward from Mankato. So the 4 lanes will start at the east end of the Owatonna bypass and end at the west end of of the Nicollet bypass, with the areas around Owatonna, Nicollet, and Mankato, and the stretch from Owatonna to west of Waseca being freeway.

[Wedgeguy]

When the 4 lanes they are talking about are complete , there will be 4 lanes from Nicolet west of Mankato to Rochester. These 4 lanes are being build more for cargo transportation than for cars. These are trunk highways to transport goods and services out of the cities of Mankato and Rochester which are not directly connected to the Interstate system. If you look at the state as a whole there are several of these 4 lanes across the state to help with the transportation of good so that the outstate has the ability to attract businesses and commerce.

[uptowncarag]

Rochester is connected to I-90. Though the interstate does not go through the city it is close enough to be considered connected. If Rochester continues to grow I-90 will eventually be within the city limits.

[Silophant]

True. However, Mankato, and to a lesser extent, New Ulm, are not connected to I-90. There is a massive amount of trucking traffic on 14, and it absolutely is busy enough require 4-lane, even before the new Walmart distribution center gets built in Mankato next year.

[mattaudio]

I don't think anyone here is debating the merits of Hwy 14 being 4 lane or 2 lane, at least in sections.

The point of Nate's original blog post is that 1.1 miles of four lane around a town is a waste of money, doesn't really enhance safety, and doesn't really enhance regional mobility.

The point is that it's a total waste of money. It would actually make more sense to do a piecemeal approach to four laning so you get passing lanes in between certain towns. This money would have been much better spent reducing uncontrolled intersections on the existing road in Nicollet (improving safety) and then creating a four lane stretch somewhere between Nicollet and New Ulm.

Think of it like a railroad. Would a railroad start double tracking their transcon starting at Chicago and the Pacific? No. They would add in sidings for passing and slowly add in chunks of double track so trains can pass at speed. More mobility for less money.

It seems like MnDOT used to do this piecemeal approach back in the day, instead of working in from the ends. This was evident on older expressways such as US 10 west of Little Falls, US 212 west of Chaska, and MN 60 west of Mankato.

[Mdcastle]

I guess I'll just disagree with you and Nate then. It seems stupid to me to have a high speed expressway to Nicollet then slam on the brakes and slow to a crawl for a 20 mph section of road and then another high speed expressway to Courtland, and they can probably save money by building two adjacent sections at once. US 14 is not an interstate but it doesn't seem like a road that should go through every single small town on the way either being the main route across the south central part of the state. One minute is thrown out to make it seem like a small amount and 7,000 cars a small amount (although that would probably increase with a decent road without small towns every couple of miles)- At $15.00 per car per hour stuck in traffic (the official Mn/DOT figure,) the road makes sense over a 30 year time period. Are we in the realm of diminishing returns on transportation? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean a project isn't worthwhile. I'll bet the people in the area aren't impressed with (presumably mostly) city people telling them that growth outside the downtown is evil and they're wrong and to spruce up their downtown instead of getting traffic moving and out of there.

[Wedgeguy]

Also if you check on MN Dot 511 you will see that they have been and are continuing to get 4 lanes built all the way from the Iowa border to St James where I believe the last of the full four lanes are. There are already some bypasses built along this section to alleviate congestion in those cities along that section of 60. I believe the last section will be started in 2015 with the Iowa to Worthington section finishing up this winter or next spring.

Part of why they build by passes is also to help make crossing the street in the city safer. Nothing like getting smacked by a Mack truck trying to get though a changing light. There is wisdom in the insanity if you take the time to look at the whole picture and not just the dollar signs. There is Safety, congestion relief, and making the street in the city more friendly to pedestrians, which I read so much about on this blog. Expand your focus and it become much clearer.

[Silophant]

Yep. I drive through Janesville (east of Mankato, the most recent small (Nicollet-sized, not Waseca-sized) town on Hwy 14 to get the freeway bypass treatment), often, and I definitely see more people (esp. kids) walking around on the main drag now that it's not full of semis.

[uptowncarag]

The interchange with US 14 and I-35 is interesting. When you exit east it says Owatonna and Rochester. When you exit west it says Waseca. There is no mention of Mankato. This is ridiculous. The same thing happens in Apple Valley and I-35E/77. When exiting on I-35 south it says Albert Lea. Albert Lea is 80 miles away.

[Silophant]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure MnDoT just randomly selects a city for those markers. I assume Albert Lea was picked for that sign because of I-90, but why not just say "I-90" in that case?

[mulad]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_city

[Mdcastle]

It looks like they're not going to build an interchange at this time east of Owatonna. There's a news release stating that the local farmers didn't like the idea of a reduced conflict intersection, so they're going to build a standard intersection instead.

On the Nicollet bypass, an interchange isn't looking likely , since the benefit/cost is significantly lower than a traffic signal, roundabout, or reduced conflict intersection, but the city of Nicollet still wants an interchange.

[Mdcastle]

Update: an interchange is going to happen. Minnesota is unique that local municipalities get veto power over highway projects (on non interstates it is absolute, on interstates it can go to binding arbitration), and Nicollet wanted an interchange so they get it (just like Oak Park Heights wanted stoplights on MN 36 so they're getting that).
http://www.mankatofreepress.com/local/x ... nterchange

[Mdcastle]

Some details on the US 14 River Bridge replacement at New Ulm:

1) The bridge will be rebuilt as a two-lane bridge. Traffic counts are only 8000 and not forecast to grow much in the 40 year planning horizon. Mn/DOT was OK with this if provisions are left for expanding it should the need arise in the future.

2) Unfortunately the interchange with Front Street will be removed in exchange for a roundabout with a link to Front Street in place of the west ramps. I assume this is because of the desire to make the river the boundary between "freeway" and "city street", and it's the only feasible way to include a bicycle trail while making use of the existing bridge over Front Street and the railroads.

3) Funds diverted from not building a 4-lane bridge will be used to build an interchange at the junction of MN 15. It will be a diamond favoring US 14 traffic with roundabouts with bypass lanes on the ramp terminals.

4) 7th Street will be converted from a 4-Lane Death Road to a three lane to match the bridge profile with a bicycle trail on the west side.

[Mikey]

Update: an interchange is going to happen. Minnesota is unique that local municipalities get veto power over highway projects (on non interstates it is absolute, on interstates it can go to binding arbitration), and Nicollet wanted an interchange so they get it (just like Oak Park Heights wanted stoplights on MN 36 so they're getting that).
http://www.mankatofreepress.com/local/x ... nterchange

In the long run, an interchange is probably for the best. Otherwise, new development (aka a gas station) would get built an then need $$$ to be bought out 20 years from now anyways.

Oak Park Heights (and Brooklyn Center and Edina and...), on the other hand...

[Mdcastle]

A wrongful death lawsuit against Mn/DOT and one of their engineers was thrown out on the basis that Mn/DOT and it's engineers have immunity provided they follow policy (this was an issue that was talked about in whether there should be a policy on the use of "no peds" signs at signals where ped signals are not provided).
http://www.southernminn.com/waseca_coun ... e3525.html

The intersection of old Highway 14 and County 27 used to be a two way stop. For a time after the Janesville Bypass was built but before the Waseca bypass was built, the new road ended at County 27, and through traffic used it to transition to the old highway. A temporary traffic signal was built. When the new bypass was built the signal was placed into flash mode, and then removed. The thinking was that a 4-way stop would be safest, but based on the observation that traffic on old 14 often ran the stop sign they implemented a two way stop. A motorist on County 27 pulled out into Old 14 thinking that it was a 4-way stop. That's the last thing he ever did.

A "cross-traffic does not stop" sign is optional based on engineering judgement, but not required. One was not initially installed, but was after the crash.

[Silophant]

It seems to me that the proper response to people frequently running a stop sign should be increased enforcement, not removal.

[FISHMANPET]

Yeah that's just like the ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ of traffic engineering right there.

[froggie]

Some think traffic engineering is the end-all-be-all, but that's not always the case. Driver attitude/driver error is still very pervasive.

If it wasn't so close to the DM&E tracks, they easily could've (and probably would have) built a roundabout.

As for why they took the signal out, my hunch is that, once the rest of 14 was finished and opened, they expected traffic on both roads at the intersection to drop below signal warrants.