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.
Showing posts with label MnDOT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MnDOT. Show all posts
August 19, 2008
May 26, 2008
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.
----------
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.
May 05, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)