The current MN 62/MN 77 interchange is a standard cloverleaf, having been upgraded many years ago from the partial interchange that first existed where then-CSAH 62 and then-MN 36 intersected. This interchange is a severe bottleneck, especially for traffic trying to follow the loop from NB 77 to WB 62, the heaviest turning movement at the interchange. This frequently backs traffic up along MN 77, occasionally as far back as 66th St, almost a mile south. The EB 62 to SB 77 movement is also an especially heavy movement, compounded by the proximity of the on-ramp from Bloomington Ave.
MN 62 runs east-west. MN 77 runs south from MN 62, with the road continuing north as Cedar Ave.
My idea would help with the main problems at the current interchanges in the area, but at the expense of some wetland area and tighter curves on the remaining loops. At the MN 62/MN 77 interchange, I would build a flyover ramp for the NB to WB traffic, solving the problems caused by the current loop. The remaining loops would be tightened slightly, but this would allow enough room to put in collector-distributor roads both southbound and eastbound to get the weaving/merging problems off the mainlines. MN 77 to the south and MN 62 to the west would also be widened to 3 lanes each direction.
I've included the 28th Ave/34th Ave area along MN 62 in this map. These interchanges are substandard interchanges, with problems made worse by their proximity to each other and the tight curves on the 34th Ave ramps. I would, in a nutshell, combine them pretty much into one long interchange, as shown on the map. Also, as 58th St is mostly a residential street, I would close access to it off west of 28th Ave and move the westbound ramps to that intersection, which would be one less intersection to navigate in that area.
One interesting aspect to my idea would actually improve access in the area, that aspect being completion of a full (although ad-hoc) interchange in the Bloomington/60th St area for MN 62 traffic. In the long run, this could be an optional item, and could be removed to cut down on construction costs.
The main downside to this is that it would require partial filling in of a few wetlands, primarily at the MN 62/MN 77 interchange, in order to have enough space for the ramps.
Return to Twin Cities Interchange Upgrade Ideas
Return to Froggie's Rantings
Return to Twin Cites Highways
Page last modified 24 May, 2008