U.S. Highway 169

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
fehler
Union Depot
Posts: 385
Joined: July 30th, 2012, 8:33 am

U.S. Highway 169

Postby fehler » November 8th, 2012, 10:33 am

I thought I saw a blurb on the 169/494 progress, but I can't find it now. How's it going?

bubzki2
Target Field
Posts: 523
Joined: September 19th, 2012, 5:38 pm
Location: Cathedral Hill, St. Paul

Re: Hwy 169

Postby bubzki2 » November 8th, 2012, 6:32 pm

Check this out http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/169/

Progress is slow and steady...

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7077
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: MN Highway 169

Postby mattaudio » November 18th, 2014, 10:45 am

Anyone see this study completed in 2013 for 169 in Elk River?
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/d3/projects/ ... ments.html

Of note is the proposed partial turbine for 169/101 at Hwy 10. This seems excessive... how much movement can there be between Hwy 10 to the east and Hwy 101? Or Hwy 10 to the west and 169? http://www.dot.state.mn.us/d3/projects/ ... ements.pdf

More MnDOT District 3 (non-metro district) exurban shenanigans. 169 is an important corridor northward, but this seems like overkill. BTW has anyone seen the 1/3 mile double left turn lane at Main Street? The problem was that MnDOT District 3 let 169 get stroadified in the first place!

mamundsen
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 768
Joined: November 15th, 2012, 10:01 am

Re: MN Highway 169

Postby mamundsen » November 18th, 2014, 11:22 am

Anyone see this study completed in 2013 for 169 in Elk River?
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/d3/projects/ ... ments.html

Of note is the proposed partial turbine for 169/101 at Hwy 10. This seems excessive... how much movement can there be between Hwy 10 to the east and Hwy 101? Or Hwy 10 to the west and 169? http://www.dot.state.mn.us/d3/projects/ ... ements.pdf

More MnDOT District 3 (non-metro district) exurban shenanigans. 169 is an important corridor northward, but this seems like overkill. BTW has anyone seen the 1/3 mile double left turn lane at Main Street? The problem was that MnDOT District 3 let 169 get stroadified in the first place!
The 169/101/10 intersection is always busy when I go by there. 101 is essentially a bypass. People use 94 west to 101 to either 169 or 10.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7077
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: MN Highway 169

Postby mattaudio » November 18th, 2014, 12:31 pm

True, which is why there seems to be relatively little movement between 101/169 and 10. And the real congestion is the stroadville section of stoplight purgatory from Main Street north.

User avatar
Anondson
Capella Tower
Posts: 2657
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm

MN Highway 169

Postby Anondson » November 18th, 2014, 12:44 pm

Is the 169 stretch north of Main going to be trenched through or are the city streets being put on bridges over? Could a cap, Grandview-like, work here? Seems that would be less violent to the Main Street area...

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

Re: U.S. Highway 169

Postby Mdcastle » November 18th, 2014, 9:52 pm

I saw the study a while ago. Seems like an excellent concept for an interchange; I'd expect traffic volumes are such that weaving would become an issue building cloverleafs rather than the turbine ramp.

I don't think in between a Walgreens and a couple of gas stations is a good use of resources for freeway caps. Maybe for an extension of Lions Park towards downtown Elk River if the US 10 freeway ever happens like the city wants.

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

Re: U.S. Highway 169

Postby Mdcastle » February 24th, 2015, 7:00 am

Seems that they're acknowledging that the proposed high-powered interchange, as well as freeways on US 10 and US 169 are too expensive right now so the current proposal is to complete the cloverleaf, alongside with upgrading the signals and building a new interchange on US 10 / 169 about a mile southeast of MN 101.
http://erstarnews.com/2014/09/16/elk-ri ... rovements/

User avatar
Anondson
Capella Tower
Posts: 2657
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm

U.S. Highway 169

Postby Anondson » August 27th, 2015, 9:58 pm

The 169 project next year between 62 and 394 will close the 16th St exits (thank God!), improve the safety of the Cedar Lake Road exits, repave the stretch, and rebuild the 3,000 ft. long Nine Mile Creek bridge.

News is the Nine Mile Creek bridge WILL be built wide enough for future capacity, four lane immediately but could be restriped to be six-lanes in the future.

http://current.mnsun.com/2015/08/hwy-16 ... sruptions/

I wish this was the time the Cedar Lake Road bridge put in roundabouts where the on-off-ramps intersected Cedar Lake Road.

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

Re: U.S. Highway 169

Postby froggie » August 28th, 2015, 6:09 am

Unless things have changed, only the southbound 16th St exits will be removed. Northbound will remain.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7077
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: U.S. Highway 169

Postby mattaudio » August 28th, 2015, 8:36 am

They really need to get rid of both of those. And ideally add ramps to/from the south at Wayzata Blvd (southern 394 Frontage Road) instead. This could actually help with the CF at 169 and Betty Crocker/Shelard, since that interchange is an even bigger disaster tightly squeezed between the 394 and 55 cloverleafs. More commuters from GM/MetroPoint could hop across 394 and get to/from south 169 without going through the 169/394 cloverleaf.

User avatar
Anondson
Capella Tower
Posts: 2657
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm

U.S. Highway 169

Postby Anondson » August 28th, 2015, 9:17 am

Huh not eliminating the northbound leaves some dangerous access points in place. Are they leaving those in place until a future project that tackles 169/394/55/Shelard?

Plus, was this not going to take on putting in an on/off lane between TH 7 and Minnetonka on northbound 169? North has 2 lanes here but south has 3 lanes. The merging TH 7 traffic to north 169 is a congestion choke point that if they're doing all this other work now is the time to equalize the lanes.

Mikey
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 195
Joined: January 6th, 2015, 2:33 pm
Location: Gunflint Trail

Re: U.S. Highway 169

Postby Mikey » August 28th, 2015, 9:26 am

I have a feeling that area is going to need something huge, complex and ungodly expensive.

Does anyone else find it weird that Hennepin Co built cloverleafs at 55, Rockford Rd AND Bass Lake, but somehow skipped MN 7?

User avatar
Anondson
Capella Tower
Posts: 2657
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm

Re: U.S. Highway 169

Postby Anondson » August 28th, 2015, 9:43 am

There was a rail line to the east that interfered with fitting cloverleaf loops at TH 7, the rail line has been converted to the North Cedar Lake trail.

bubzki2
Target Field
Posts: 523
Joined: September 19th, 2012, 5:38 pm
Location: Cathedral Hill, St. Paul

Re: U.S. Highway 169

Postby bubzki2 » August 28th, 2015, 9:45 am

Seems an obvious and cost-effective means to seriously improve 169 at 55/394 would be to eliminate Betty Crocker / Shelard exit. Would it really hurt flow and access that much to use 55 or 394 instead? This stretch is regularly clogged due to weaving.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 4903
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: U.S. Highway 169

Postby MNdible » August 28th, 2015, 9:59 am

That exit serves a ton of jobs. It's unlikely to go away.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7077
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: U.S. Highway 169

Postby mattaudio » August 28th, 2015, 10:10 am

I'm not suggesting that it goes away. I'm suggesting that it's supplanted.

Online
BoredAgain
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 148
Joined: July 3rd, 2014, 1:38 pm
Location: Lyndale Neighborhood

Re: U.S. Highway 169

Postby BoredAgain » August 28th, 2015, 10:11 am

Seems an obvious and cost-effective means to seriously improve 169 at 55/394 would be to eliminate Betty Crocker / Shelard exit. Would it really hurt flow and access that much to use 55 or 394 instead? This stretch is regularly clogged due to weaving.
Yes. Removing the local access ramp that is serving an area between two highways that separate the region from the territory to the north and south would hurt flow and access.

Does it hurt flow and access enough to keep the entrance/exit despite the effect it has on neighboring exits? That is debatable. I suspect that there is a design that maintains access while simplifying the merger movements. Possibly something like the slip lane ramps used on 394. It would require additional real estate, but I don't think that would be a problem.

bubzki2
Target Field
Posts: 523
Joined: September 19th, 2012, 5:38 pm
Location: Cathedral Hill, St. Paul

Re: U.S. Highway 169

Postby bubzki2 » August 28th, 2015, 10:11 am

Obviously it serves them, but it's a freeway. You have CR 73 just to the west, General Mills (a propos) boulevard to the east, along with the exit off HWY 55 to the north. Inconvenient for the locals, maybe, but have you seen how 169 grinds to a halt on that stretch? 55 and 394 are too close together even without to extra low-speed entrance wedged in there.

Mikey
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 195
Joined: January 6th, 2015, 2:33 pm
Location: Gunflint Trail

Re: U.S. Highway 169

Postby Mikey » August 28th, 2015, 10:19 am

How about getting rid of the ramps at Betty Crocker and "downgrading" 55 to a local access interchange?


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alleycat, BoredAgain, Silophant and 4 guests