Bicycling as school curriculum

One Minneapolis elementary school has done it:

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/minnesota-elementary-school-adds-bikes-to-the-curriculum

Wish we had this back when I was in grade school.  I took it upon my self to start biking to school once I hit junior high.

Am I strange to come up with fantasy freeways?

I'm sure some people would think so. For one, it'd be anathema to the anti-freeway types. Some people think it's strange that my hobby involves roads and highways to begin with. Then there's the realist in me that wonders just how I can come up with roads that wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being built.

It's gotta be the roadgeek in me...thinking of the "what if" scenario. Upgrades of existing congested highways, freeways that were proposed at one point then subsequently cancelled, completely pie-in-the-sky proposals, etc etc. "Boy, it'd be great if this road existed!"

So with that, I've revised/re-created a Fantasy MN 3. Updated the exit list graphics, added a map of the routing, and included a detailed route log...items I'm trying to introduce as "standard".

Definately some nice-to-haves...especially 4 lanes, a bypass of Rosemount, and a direct connection to US 52. Do I think it has a chance? Not at all. But that's the novelty of it, I guess...

Meanwhile, back on the home front...

More MnDOT controversy this time....or moreso silence.

There's been a lot of talk and articles lately on the transportation funding bill passed (actually veto-overridden) by the Legislature early this spring, and on one Republican representative in particular.

Rep. Rod Hamilton (R-Mountain Lake) is one of six Republicans who voted to override Pawlenty's veto of the transportation funding bill, giving MnDOT its first major cash infusion (MVST phase-in notwithstanding...and that has problems of its own as it is) in years.

So you'd think everything was fine and dandy, and MnDOT now has funding...plus a means to pay back bonds...to get some much-needed and delayed projects running. And to an extent, it has...the 169 "Devil's Triangle" near Osseo had repeatedly been delayed...lastly by its funding being shifted to keep the Crosstown Commons on track. And it's now under construction. Some needed bridge replacements, including I-90 at Dresbach, US 52 Lafayette Bridge, and the US 61 Hastings bridge, are now funded and scheduled.

Stop the presses.

It seems there's a minor blurb in the funding bill that directs MnDOT to "finish Highway 60".

And indeed there is. Article 2, Section 3, Subdivision 2(e). It directs MnDOT to spend bond funds in District 7 to "accelerate all projects" that meet certain criteria...namely IRC projects that have an EIS completed, are included in the long-range plan, and add capacity. Interestingly, only Highway 60 meets this criteria.

The section between the Iowa line and Worthington is slated, but the section between Windom and St. James is still unscheduled, much to the dismay of local residents.

So a lot of the attention lately has been on this lack of scheduling, articles written by both Rep. Hamilton and other Legislative members, and this otherwise-obscure line in the transportation funding bill.

Now don't get me wrong...Hwy 60 needs to be improved. The back-and-forth between 2 lanes and 4 lanes is confusing to motorists, and the highway has had its share of accidents.

But there's a few things to consider here. First, there are numerous other roadways across the state that have the same accident problems, and have much more traffic on them. Yet they aren't scheduled.

Second is another part of the transportation funding bill that most people seem to have either forgotten or ignored.

I wrote up a letter that sums it up, and sent it to the StarTribune, the Mankato Free Press, the Worthington Daily Globe, and the Mountain Lake Observer. The version to the Worthington paper is slightly different than the other three as I was replying directly to a letter by Rep. Hamilton there. Below is the letter in italics:

-------------------

MnDOT in a Catch-22

A lot has been said lately about Rep. Rod Hamilton (R-Mountain Lake) and this year's transportation funding bill, not to mention the mandate put in for MnDOT to first expend funds on certain projects in southwestern Minnesota that meet certain criteria, and that only Highway 60 meets the criteria.

While this is true...it's in Article 2, Section 3, Subdivision 2(e) of the transportation bill...it also represents somewhat of a dilemma for MnDOT. Because Article 6, Section 5, Subdivision 4 (and its various components) requires all state highway bridges that are fracture-critical or have a sufficiency rating below 80 to be under contract by mid-2018. And as we've all seen, bridges are expensive. Also, because of the ongoing escalation in material costs (steel, cement, oil, etc), MnDOT just doesn't have the funding to maintain the existing system, build Highway 60, and meet the bridge repair/replacement requirements, even with the funding bill. So something has to give. And unless we're all willing to live with less road maintenance and worse pavement, MnDOT will have to go against one of the legislative requirements, whether it be the bridge requirements or Highway 60.

A catch-22, if you will.

-------------

Will be interesting to see if anyone publishes it...nevermind what MnDOT plans to do to address the controversy. Stay tuned.

Taking down freeway spurs, and some possible Minneapolis examples

First off, a quick update, as I've been out to sea for 3 months. The Minnesota Legislature DID pass a transportation funding bill, which was promptly vetoed by the Governor. However, when the veto override vote came up, six House Republicans chose to break ranks and vote for the bill, and so both MnDOT and regional transit finally have their first real surge in funding in years. Afterwards, and somewhat in keeping with requirements in the bill, MnDOT announced accelerated timetables for several bridge replacements, including the US 52 Lafayette Bridge, the US 61 Hastings Bridge, and the MN 23 DeSoto Bridge in St. Cloud...which has been closed for the past month after an inspection brought up concerns about the gusset plates.

----------

Moving on to more recent events, about a week ago was the first of some articles around the country (mainly the same article/story appearing in different locations on different days) on removing freeways from urban areas, especially blighted elevated freeways, and highlighting Oklahoma City's removal of I-40 through downtown.

What some of these articles barely mention, however, is that I-40 is not being eliminated. It's being relocated to a covered-over trench along an old railroad line a few blocks to the south. While this will allow the city to build a park along the existing I-40 right-of-way, to say that the freeway is being torn down to make room for a park, without discussing the relocation, is misleading.

Supporters are quick to point out real-life examples of freeway removal as a talking point for further projects. It should be pointed out that most of these removals were spur routes, not major through routes. They were also done either due to structural damage (i.e. the Embarcadero in San Francisco after the '89 earthquake) or because the route was underutilized (i.e. the Park East in Milwaukee).


That said, the story has opened up discussion nationwide about removing or relocating freeways from undesirable locations, either for aesthetic reasons (i.e. along a waterfront), or to open up areas of the central city for redevelopment. Minneapolis is no exception, and there's been some discussion on the StarTribune Roadguy blog about doing the same thing in Minneapolis. Two of the more popular suggestions involve downgrading the 3rd St spur east of the Metrodome that feeds into the U of M campus, and downgrading the 3rd/4th St spur from 2nd Ave N to I-94.

Removing the spur east of the Metrodome to the "U" has several issues related to it, between it being the primary route into and through campus, the proposed Central LRT line, and elevation/grade differences between Cedar Ave and the spur. I'll save this for a future discussion.

Below are some points on the other freeway spur...along 3rd/4th St between I-94 and 2nd Ave N:

- Average traffic volumes on the spur are about 20K daily. Combined with the existing 3rd St/4th St, it’s a total of about 23K. This is on par with many of the one-way pairs around downtown.

- With that in mind, it’s within the realm of possibility to take down the freeway spur and create a 3rd/4th St “boulevard” in between I-94 and 2nd Ave N.

- To maintain traffic flow, though, two main recommendations, if not outright requirements, would be A) traffic signal progression, and B) three lanes on each street. I don’t remember street widths offhand, but I think it’s possible to maintain 3 traffic lanes and still have enough street width for parking and a bike lane, especially inbound along 4th St (which has the wider width available due to the overpass).

- One of two areas of concern is bridging over the BNSF rail tracks. I don’t remember the elevation difference between the BNSF trench and old 3rd St/4th St, but if there’s enough of an elevation difference, you should be able to bridge over the rail tracks without having to bridge over 5th Ave N as well.

- The other area of concern is connecting to the I-94 ramps, especially outbound on 3rd St. The inbound connection to 4th St shouldn’t be much of a problem, but the outbound connection currently has a large building in the way…this building is what causes the break in 3rd St between 10th Ave N and 12th Ave N. It’s not insurmountable, but it may require some tight curviture and will definately impact the parking lots at the building.



So, in a nutshell, I think one's doable, but the other has too many issues that need to be sorted out first.

Transportation at the Minnesota Legislature

As expected, the transportation situation in Minnesota is at the forefront of the state Legislature.

The DFL has already introduced a major transportation spending bill similar to last year's...several billion dollars worth. Unfortunately for them, many Republicans are aghast at the large number of 'tax increases' contained in the bill, and the Governor has already put out that he will oppose any tax increases that do not include a corresponding 'tax decrease' elsewhere.

With the state facing a budget deficit, I doubt that'll happen. Unless some major compromise occurs, it'll probably come down to a situation similar to last year: Governor vetoes a transportation bill, the Senate overrides, but the House sustains the veto.

I'm on the mailing list for one state Senator (who shall remain nameless here). The following is part of a legislative update this Senator E-mailed out today:

------------

The $8.4 billion transportation plan introduced last week is very
similar to the bill vetoed by Gov. Pawlenty last spring. It includes a
new 5-cent gas tax with inflationary increases, as much as a 2-1/2 cent
fuel surcharge, a new car registration tax and a half-cent metro sales
tax for transit which is not subject to voter approval.

The bill would undoubtedly provide a large infusion of needed funding
for congested roads and ailing bridges across the state, as well as
funding new state patrol officers and giving transit users more options.
Unfortunately, the bill relies too heavily on new taxes and fees that
would cost all of us directly and indirectly by adding to the cost of
goods brought to market. An additional provision borrows $2.2 billion
for bonding over 10 years. Although the governor has promised a veto of
any bill that does not have a corresponding tax cut, a veto override
attempt could be close.

The House and Senate bills both have a few more committee hearings
before being brought to the respective floors for full debate. At those
stops, it is possible that significant changes will be made, so I will
try to keep you updated on this important bill's status.

----------------------------

Following is my reply:

We're not going to improve the transportation situation by bonding alone, contrary to what the Governor may think. And given the budget deficit that you've already cited, we can't exactly pull money out of the general fund either.

Some sort of revenue increase will be needed. If it takes the DFL and enough Republicans to compromise on a transportation bill that would be veto-proof, then so be it. I'd rather have something than nothing. And if the Legislature ends this session with nothing, you and the Governor will have a lot of angry voters to contend with.

A lot of people are complaining that the tax increases for transportation proposed would "hurt the working poor". Do any of them (yourself included) realize that the working poor are hurt just as much, if not more, by traffic congestion in the metro, poor roadways, and poor transit service? Sure, nobody likes paying more to drive or travel, but if the result is a better transportation system, one that saves TIME as well as the hidden monetary costs of congestion, then it will be worth it.

But the gas tax is still part and parcel of it. Already has Constitutional protection, and is more a "user fee" than most people think.

Nevermind that history shows infrastructure improvements to be economic builders as
well...an important thing to remember in this near-recession economic time.

Lastly, on the subject of tax reform and transportation, it's been long established by the scientific community that heavier vehicles both A) damage roads more than lighter vehicles, and B) require much heavier road construction for the road to support them. Given those in mind, perhaps the state should change vehicle registration fees to be based on vehicle weight instead of based on market value/age depreciation.

----------------------

Will be interesting to see what happens. Hopefully Minnesotans won't be disappointed in the end.

And now, a word from our compromiser...

So the Minnesota House and Senate have come to some sort of compromise on a transportation funding bill.

Looks like a 5 cent gas tax increase (vice the previously planned 10-cent), $1.5 billion in bonding (to be repaid via a 2.5-cent gas tax instead of the MVST transfer), and a rescinding of the second-year-and-beyond caps on vehicle registration fees for NEW vehicles (existing vehicles will apparently still have the caps on tab fees). The Strib article suggests that they're still working out other details.

That's nice. Fine and dandy. Though given that the Governor has vowed to veto *ANYTHING* involving a tax increase this year, it will be even better if this thing has enough votes to override a veto. I sure as hell hope the Republicans in the Legislature have the balls to go with what's best for Minnesota...BETTER TRANSPORTATION FUNDING...and not stick with their head-in-the-sand leader.

I know at least one who will (and Rep. Erhardt, you get kudos, as you did from me two years ago). Alas, I know at least three who won't have the balls (Seifert, Sviggum, and Day...you're on notice).

'Course, maybe someone could convince the Governor that the gas tax is like a "health impact fee"...

MnDOT wants to expand the "toll lane" business...

Time to repopulate the blog...and what a better opportunity than with a contentious transportation issue back home.

It seems that MnDOT wants to expand its inventory of HO/T lanes (or HOV/toll lanes) in the Twin Cities metro. An article in last week's StarTribune talks about MnDOT's proposal for an I-35W "toll lane" between downtown Minneapolis and Lakeville. Though the article concentrates mainly on I-35W, earlier articles mentioned the possibility of an I-494 toll lane through Plymouth, and I've heard through the grapevine about other potential corridors.

Personally, I don't see how a toll lane proposal for 35W south can be viable, for two main reasons:

- The "dynamic shoulder" bit...converting the inside shoulder into a lane...is dangerous. 35W has enough accidents as it is. Taking away one of the two parts of the roadway where those accidents (or regular breakdowns too) can be moved to and clear the regular lanes is asking for trouble. And the inside shoulder through Bloomington is substandard as it is.

Also, experience in Boston has shown that converting the shoulder into a lane not only increases accident potential, but also the severity of those accidents. There have been several fatal accidents on I-95 around Boston due to the use out there of the shoulder as a travel lane.

- Even though the existing 35W HOV lanes have a high violation rate, they also have a high rate of usage by valid HOV vehicles, not to mention the high bus frequency and usage along the corridor. And bus frequency along the corridor will likely jump even higher if the city ever manages to fix the bus lane situation along Marquette and 2nd Aves downtown. What this means is that any toll lane along 35W would have to charge a fairly high rate in order to keep the lanes flowing. And from what we've already seen with the 394 toll lanes, metro drivers aren't willing to pay that high of a price to use the lanes.

And related to that, I recall from earlier toll lane studies that traffic projections for 35W were such that by 2010 or shortly thereafter, there would be enough buses and valid HOVs using the lanes during peak hours to where there would be no room for toll-paying drivers.


The only alternatives (and the main negative aspect of each) are below:

- Have 2 toll lanes in each direction instead of one. This would solve the capacity issue noted above, but brings a whole slew of other problems: it would require either conversion of existing free lanes, or would require MAJOR construction to implement. The former is not feasible from a traffic standpoint and the latter would be both extremely expensive and likely opposed by Minneapolis.

- Increase the minimum number of riders for HOV status to 3. This would also solve the capacity issue, but would further complicate what is already a sticky enforcement issue.

- Require HOVs to pay the toll (but still allow buses to go free). This solves the enforcement problem but would likely be opposed by drivers and the city.


Although one could make the arguement that this is a way to implement "congestion pricing", the bottom line remains that it's all about money, or lack thereof, for funding road improvements. If we had a Legislature that could both support and pass a REALISTIC transportation funding package (the House version is close...the Senate version is too heavy) that is VETOPROOF (given who is sitting in the Governor's Mansion), we could solve the lack of funding problem and reduce/eliminate the need to pursue these "toll lane" carrots the Feds are offering.