Virtual open house questions and answers
Below are questions we received at the Sept. 29 virtual open house with answers from the project team.
Why study this stretch of Hwy 65?
MnDOT studied this corridor in 2005 and again through the Principal Arterial Intersection Conversion Study in 2017. This stretch of Hwy 65 has well-identified traffic problems which lends itself to creating a larger corridor vision. The PEL study currently underway is taking a high-level look at those problems. This stretch of Hwy 65 offered an opportunity to really study problems and issues.
A full grade-separated interchange would seem more cost effective than the grade separated U- turn option. Why aren't more traditional interchanges being considered?
There are some solutions (Option 1 Freeway in all sections) identified that would fall under a more traditional freeway interchange design. However, those options typically have a larger impact on businesses and residences due to the amount of land needed to build them. Due to the expense and impact of traditional freeway interchanges, we wanted to explore more innovative approaches that meet traffic needs but also reduce impact and cost.
With the new intersection types included as a part of these alternatives, will there be an effort to provide additional signage and education for drivers that may be unfamiliar with navigating them?
Yes, overhead freeway-type signage will be used at ramp exits and wayfinding signage will be needed for areas of redirection, like a grade separated median U-turn.
Why are you proposing to change the cloverleaf at the County Rd. 10/Hwy 65 interchange?
Operational issues at cloverleaf interchanges are common when traffic volumes reach a certain level due to weaves between ramps. In this case there are also nearby signalized intersections which contribute to congestion experienced in the area.
Will Hwy 65 be widened as part of this project? Was adding lanes looked at as a potential solution?
At this time adding an additional lane may be necessary to carry traffic volumes into the future. We evaluated whether this alone would solve congestion and determined that it doesn’t because so much traffic not currently using Hwy 65 would likely move to Hwy 65 if more capacity is added without addressing the issues at the intersection.
What will be the impact to streets that serve the adjacent residential and commercial neighborhoods? Do the alternatives divert or route traffic off Hwy 65 and into those neighborhoods?
The potential solutions use existing or proposed (new) frontage roads to move local traffic onto or off Hwy 65. Additionally, with the increased operations and capacity on Hwy 65, more traffic will be drawn off local road systems.
How do these alternatives impact emergency response times if the vehicles can no longer directly access Hwy 65? What about the fire station at 89th Ave.?
The potential solutions resolve much of the congestion problems on Hwy 65 and getting on/off Hwy 65 which will also benefit emergency service vehicles.
What will be the impact to traffic on parallel routes such as Hwy 47 and Hwy 252?
The analysis showed that some traffic would be diverted off parallel routes such as University Ave. and Hanson Blvd. We didn’t see a large change at the noted Hwys, however. There is currently a similar PEL study underway on Hwy 47 and Hwy 65. An environmental review is being conducted on Hwy 252/I-94 between 4th St. in Minneapolis and Hwy 610 in Brooklyn Park.
Is the current entrance to Blaine International Village at 103rd Way a service road?
Yes
Please address cross traffic at 109th Ave., and please address how traffic gets onto Hwy 65 from both directions. There is a lot of cross traffic at 109th- which solution best addresses that cross traffic?
Two solutions show an interchange at 109th Ave. to allow cross traffic to cross at Hwy 65 but be grade separated from Hwy 65 and not conflict with Hwy 65 traffic. One solution uses grade separated median U-turns and one-way frontage roads on either side of 109th Ave. Cross traffic would have to access the one-way frontage roads and cross beneath Hwy 65 at the U-turn location.
Seems like a lot of short merges in these options. Are there any safety concerns with these merges?
The hybrid freeway solutions have shorter ramps because traffic is already traveling at an assumed speed of 30 mph on the adjacent frontage roads that connect to Hwy 65 which allows traffic to merge much quicker with mainline traffic traveling at 60 mph. There is a larger speed differential at a typical interchange because traffic starts from a stopped condition.
Will there be a right turn lane on the frontage road, or does all frontage road traffic stop for somebody making a right turn?
In many cases right turns are proposed due to expected traffic volumes along the proposed frontage roads.
What speed limits (design speed) are proposed for the frontage roads?
The proposed frontage roads are designed for lower speeds (around 30 mph).
Will all of these frontage roads be plowed with the same urgency as Hwy 65 since they are now part of my commute?
Where the frontage roads are an extension of ramps (hybrid freeway options) they will likely be plowed with the same priority as Hwy 65.
For the options that incorporate a U-turn (Texas U-Turn, Reduced Conflict Intersection), is there a safety issue? Since people have to look behind them as they are turning?
The angles for U-turns are similar to angled right turns at typical intersections and roundabouts. We do not anticipate safety issues related to the proposed angles. Learn more about how median U-turns operate and information related to reduced conflict intersections and roundabouts.
Can you explain how population growth and traffic growth over time is accounted for in these alternatives?
We project traffic 20 years into the future to help us determine how well a potential solutions address traffic operations.
Can you explain how bicyclists and pedestrians were considered in this process? Are any trail or bike facilities included in these alternatives?
In areas with proposed new frontage roads we have identified new trails. Several areas have been identified to cross Hwy 65 using a bridge or underpass.
Can there be a trail on the east side? Specifically at Bunker Lake Blvd.?
This can be considered as designs progress.
Is there a way to make overpasses at 109th Ave. and Bunker Lake Blvd. that are similar to the overpass at 129th Ave. with a slow speed intersection halfway between elevation of the Hwy and bridge crest?
Option 1 is similar, however overpasses without ramps are not shown because many of the roadways are T- intersections that do not connect across Hwy 65 today.
Do these alternatives provide adequate space for all the trucks using Hwy 65 to safely navigate U- turns to access and provide products to area businesses?
These alternatives are designed for trucks.
Is there a reason the diamond interchange at County Rd. 10 has traffic signals on Hwy 65? County Rd. 10 seems to have lower volumes and would be more suitable for traffic lights.
This was studied, but the ramps on Hwy 65 in this location did not operate well with a trail along the Hwy, so the option with signals on Hwy 65 was advanced.
Will bridges identified in the alternatives be over (Hwy 65 under) or under (Hwy 65 elevated)?
The assumption today is that Hwy 65 would go over, but this could change as the designs progress.
Can you draw some parallels to the problem with Hwy 169 through Elk River? It seems like a similar problem there with a solution underway.
A project is currently planned to the section of Hwy 169 through the city of Elk River into a freeway. The Hwy 65 project is independent from that project and has had a separate planning process. For more information on this project please visit the Hwy 169 Elk River project webpage.
I don't like the addition of traffic signals at County Rd 10 where there currently are none. No option allows a good way to get from the west side of 89th Ave. to northbound Hwy 65 (it looks like a right turn only from 89th Ave.). The use of Lincoln St. south of 89th Ave. will place more traffic through this residential area on a road that is already poorly maintained. It also looks like traffic coming from the east on 85th Ave. will not be able to turn onto southbound Hwy 65. How are they supposed to get there?
The proposed options use the existing frontage roads, a new bridge and right-in/right-outs to get on, off and across Hwy 65. Our analysis shows that removing the traffic signals in this area with this type of access addresses the congestion experienced on Hwy 65 in this area.
I feel that none of these options adequately address residential traffic flow and merging onto Hwy 65 between 85th Ave. and 89th Ave.
The options use the existing frontage roads, a new bridge and right-in/right-outs to get on, off and across Hwy 65. Our analysis shows that removing the traffic signals in this area with this type of access addresses the congestion experienced on Hwy 65 in this area.
The traffic flow from eastbound Hwy 10 to northbound Hwy 65 is not being adequately addressed. This area can backup severely if traffic going north is slow or stopped.
The options remove left turns and replace them with new ramps to make these connections more efficient and reduce congestion currently experienced, according to our analysis.
How about a Diverging Diamond at Old Hwy 10? Why wasn’t that considered?
We didn’t review more advanced interchanges because the simpler diamond interchange works and didn’t impact adjacent properties or protected environmental resources.
Is a roundabout going to be warranted at Baltimore St.? Why not just replace the stop sign at Baltimore St. and 99th Ave.? Roundabouts aren't necessarily pedestrian friendly. Have any other intersection designs been considered for the 109th intersection?
In Option 1, a roundabout allows more traffic movements (legs), including ramps. Our analysis shows that it would effectively move traffic including pedestrians/bicyclists. Other types of interchanges were not considered because our analysis shows that removing traffic signals (i.e. not stopping traffic) on Hwy 65 moves traffic better.
What is the timeline to make final decisions on which designs to implement?
The short answer is “it depends”. MnDOT and project partners need to identify funding before any proposed alternatives move toward construction. Once funding is identified, the environmental and preliminary design process would begin before the project is built. Some identified alternatives may begin this process before others.