urbanMSP

I get the sense that people are confusing a busy highway for a congested one. So you can't go 90 mph anymore because the road is filled with people going 65-75. Adding a lane will add more opportunities to pass, but a lot of drivers will camp out in the middle lane, wiping out a lot of the potential "benefit". But congestion should really only be counted as the differential between travel at the speed limit (or maybe 85 to 90% of that) and the actual travel times people experience. I can't say I've ever experienced significant real congestion north of the Rogers/Albertville area.

From my point of view, the biggest issue with this stretch of 94 is that it handles a fairly high volume of truck traffic, which makes it difficult driving for others. I'd be interested in a strategy that worked to push some of this truck traffic to trains.

From my point of view, the biggest issue with this stretch of 94 is that it handles a fairly high volume of truck traffic, which makes it difficult driving for others. I'd be interested in a strategy that worked to push some of this truck traffic to trains.

And move some of the passenger traffic to trains. How much auto traffic is people commuting between the Cities and St. Cloud or points in-between?

Northstar isn't going to help those going to the lake, but honestly, no amount of widening will. Both 94 and 10 get clogged Friday afternoons. You just deal with it.

We need to fix existing roads, not create new ones.

I get the sense that people are confusing a busy highway for a congested one. So you can't go 90 mph anymore because the road is filled with people going 65-75. Adding a lane will add more opportunities to pass, but a lot of drivers will camp out in the middle lane, wiping out a lot of the potential "benefit". But congestion should really only be counted as the differential between travel at the speed limit (or maybe 85 to 90% of that) and the actual travel times people experience. I can't say I've ever experienced significant real congestion north of the Rogers/Albertville area.

Same.

Some sort of compromise could be made.. Some combination of restricted access, tolled lanes, and extension of rail to St Cloud. Exempt freight traffic from tolls? The congestion (what rare amount there is) is not due to trucks, even if the Bakken field and ND area continue to boom (which, they won't once the oil/gas are gone). It's commuters and cabin-goers.

Preliminary drawing so they can firm up the cost estimate: http://blogs.mprnews.org/stadium-watch/ ... -problems/

I hesistate to call this the East Metro, but it looks like Wisconsin is getting a little more serious about six-laning a few more miles of rural 94. http://www.riverfallsjournal.com/conten ... -six-lanes

5th Street will be converted to a pedestrian connection only. It was in the Mayor's budget address yesterday.

I know that's not as good as gold, but introducing cars to the rail/trail crossing would be a disaster, as currently configured. Non-motorized is the only way to go, since we don't have the $ to make other needed changes to make vehicular crossing possible/safe.

My budget also invests in a kind of transportation that we have not focused on enough in this town: it’s a good, old-fashioned mode shift to something called “walking.” The five-year capital plan that I am proposing makes a variety of pedestrian investments, including pathway paving and bridges, sidewalk improvements, lighting improvements, a pedestrian staircase to the new Dinkytown Greenway, and beginning to convert the 5th Street off-ramp from I-94 to a pedestrian connection between downtown and the West Bank.

I have to say I'm personally impressed with his speech. If you invest in the connections and safety of walking facilities across the city while residential/business continues to grow, other things like transit and bike facilities will fall in line much easier (and will also benefit in modal share).

Looks like someone gets it.
http://m.startribune.com/?id=227590011

Awesome. I realize that this in no way means it'll happen anytime soon, but I like that a MnDOT commissioner agrees that finishing Northstar is a better option than just adding more lanes to I-94.

Also, lots of fun whining in the comments section. My favorite is the one who accuses the entire region of being "outrageously pro-transit". You know, because we just build transit lines one after another here. Two in just ten years!

Edit: Well, two and a half, including Northstar.

Dayton and Transportation Commissioner Zelle announced $300 million for road improvements state-wide today.
http://www.startribune.com/local/231954591.html

$300 Million Program Will Boost Highway Capacity, Improve Freight Movement Statewide

ST. PAUL, MN – Governor Mark Dayton and the Minnesota Department of Transportation announced today that ten highway construction projects will receive funding through the state’s new $300 million Corridors of Commerce program. The projects will strengthen Minnesota’s transportation system by adding capacity and improving the movement of freight across the state.

Here's the link to the press release from MnDOT: http://mn.gov/governor/newsroom/pressre ... =102-93794

Biggest highlights for the metro:
1. Additional lanes on I-94 from MN 101 to MN 241
2. 610 extension from CSAH 81 to I-94

Both are slated to start construction in 2014.

What's frustrating about this is that there have not been any concrete plans listed on the MnDOT website for lane expansion west of Rogers. And just a few months ago MnDOT engineers seemed to accept the truth that expansion was not feasible nor would it reduce congestion. But now this comes out of nowhere, reversing everything. It smells like pork.

The whole list is just political handouts to the most vocal exurban and rural interest groups. Very little correlation with merit or statewide priorities.

Maybe all this crap is just designed to shut up the rest of the state so we can get our half cent transit tax?

Well, maybe giving extra lanes for 2 miles will at least temporarily quiet those advocating for extra lanes all the way to St. Cloud....

Anyone with a subs want to fill us in? Or is this analysis of the new "special funding" projects? http://finance-commerce.com/2013/12/big ... -counties/

If I had to take a guess, the other project would be the Brockton Lane interchange, the local government agencies are really pushing for "popup funding" for this for economic growth and to relieve pressure on existing interchanges a. $60 million - the cost of the new travel lanes ($35-46 million) leaves $14-25 million for the "other" project, Brockton lane is budgeted at $16 million.

Another possibility, but less likely, would be a direct ramp from south 101 to east 94, rather than build the full proposed system interchange the northbound movement got popup funding for a ramp a few years ago, leaving southbound to still go through a traffic light and around a loop.

Does MnDOT even want a Brockton interchange? I doubt it. They seem to be (finally) getting smarter about how these systems work, and a new interchange at Brockton would likely increase congestion and definitely induce even more freeway demand.

MnDOT didn't want the 65th St NW interchange in Rochester, but the city wanted it anyways and paid for it themselves so they could get the "economic growth" of a relocated Menards a mile further up the freeway.

Anyways, I'm fairly certain this will be the previously announced projects: 610 connection to 94, and 94 six-laning to St. Michael.

I did some more research and there's been substantial changes to the layout from the original 1994 / 2003 plans. So with the downscaled plans (which shifts a lot of the costs to Hennepin County if they still want to build the short extension west of I-94), $60 million does seem about right for the interchange and the new lanes.

Mn/DOT has their policy about not paying for new local access interchanges out of general highway funds so I don't think they wanted Brockton / 65th either, although I also don't think they objected to them since someone else is paying. I guess there's traffic congestion on 55th in Rochester and a consultant suggested building a new interchange at 65th as well as widening 55th and rebuilding it as a SPUI or diverging diamond. Rochester can go nuts as far as I care since it's their money, it's not taking away from funds that could be used to build more important road improvements like the second Pine Island interchange to eliminate that weird, scary grade crossing.

Powerpoint from the study in case anyone hasn't seen it.
http://www.northernrochesterstudy.com/p ... 201112.pdf

I pay property taxes on a home in Rochester, right near 55th St NW, so I don't want them to go nuts

Re Pine Island - Not sure why they don't just close that intersection (at least northbound) and force traffic to the existing interchange a mile south.

Re "the short extension west of I-94" -- is that referring to 610? I haven't seen that plan - the only plans I had seen included a directional interchange that tees 610 at 94.

The local agencies (Hennepin County and presumably Maple Grove) want an extension southwest from I-94 that would end about a mile and a half later at a signalized intersection with County 30.

There's 4 different layouts out there- the original 1994/2002 layout and the 2012 layout, and version of each with and without the county extension. I'm not sure if there ever was a 94/02 layout online showing the extension, and the only one I have in my archives does not, but that may have been another reason (besides cost and the potential weave from what is now known as Maple Grove parkway.) that the ramp from WB 610 to EB I-94 was a loop.

Presumably after the US 169/I-494 situation FHWA was more amenable to partial interchanges on interstates, so the ramps to and from I-494 east were eliminated because the benefit/cost was unfavorable, which is why I think it's reasonable to construct it and the new lanes for $60 million. Also, you'd have functionally a left exit off WB 610. Maple Grove objected to the change, but didn't object enough to make noises about stopping the project. The local agencies still want the extension, but now they're presumably going to have to pay for bridges to carry the WB extension over the WB ramps to I-94, and over the I-94 mainline.

Another minor change was relocating the 105th Ave overpass slightly to the south to avoid having to reconstruct a culvert on the I-94 mainline.