Intersection design?

they are replacing a bridge/overpass and wanted to improve issues of cars exiting and entering the hwy onto 169. everything that is dashed is going away. so, there will be no on/off ramps to the south of this east/west road. i asked engineer about the design and he basically said it was to remove merge/enter points for drivers on 169 getting on/off of hwy 9. seems correct?

If that interchange was busy, I see major congestion in the future. Was it?

1 Like

hwy 169 is major 4 lane north/south route and has constant issues during rush hours. they could add separated merge lanes but then it goes from 4 lanes total to 6 lanes so interchange would need to be made wider. the main part of job is new bridge for hwy 9 which is over 169. so, remove merge choke points and get new bridge and keep same footprint. yes, it is a busy road

cars are slowing to get off 169 under hwy 9 and cars are trying to speed up to get on 169 at same point.

I assume the engineer meant that they want to eliminate weaving, which is somewhat dangerous. See here if you don’t know what I mean:

MN seems to favor jughandles. Jughandle road pattern.

" What is the point of jughandles?

Put simply: Jughandles are a safe way to make a left turn "

So the driver going straight is screwed??? lol… Sorry but to me that looks like a design from someone that has never driven a vehicle… I don’t think I have ever seen one, but I stay in the South East area also…

I guess if you are used to them then it might make more since

Yeah they did one of those here a couple years ago. There was an accident every now and then. It was a popular intersection for a couple fast food places. So now you can’t make a left turn and either go down a block and make a u turn at a major intersection or take the residential route. The cost was way over half a million. This the third intersection they have messed with on the same five mile stretch.

It is a safer way for north/south traffic to cross a busy highway, I use the same method even though it is not required. I wouldn’t call that a jughandle.

Like they say two wrongs don’t make a right but three rights make a left. :roll_eyes: :upside_down_face:

1 Like

This is a very different usage of “jughandle” than the more common usage you’d see in places like New Jersey. What you show has some elements of a Michigan left, but it’s not really that either.

In 1966, when I took the MN written test for my learners permit, I seem to remember MN required no oncoming traffic for 500 feet.
In as much as that was more than 50 years ago my memory may well be wrong.

Well, as long as there is a route even though it maybe slow I suppose it’s ok.

There is a fairly new divided road in Central Maryland (Konterra Dr) where it intersects with I-95.

I will give Mn dot this, the changed an angled intersection to a right angle. Angled intersections are dangerous due to limited visibility. But then they kinda blew it by putting a stop light in. One or the other but not both. Then they spent half a million or so putting in a totally unnecessary right turn lane. Two lane road. Right lane flows to an entrance ramp. Left lane was always used as a left turn lane. Now folks use both lanes advancing toward the entrance ramp but need to rhen merge together. So yeah I don’t have a high opinion of their budget priorities.

They did though find it in their hearts with much pressure to finish a major road that was half for lane and Hal two lane. So going east is done, but going west to South Dakota is so far down on their list it can’t be seen. But hey those round abouts are important.

Appears the goal is to eliminate traffic merging problems. One car waits while the other car goes, continuing with an alternating pattern so everbody goes eventually. Traffic engineers probably think it is better to just replace that practice with a traffic light. For traffic merging to work, it requires polite drivers.

1 Like