Soapbox

We need to assure funding for our transportation needs --- benevolent elves won't build and maintain the roads. The main problem is a lack of commitment to funding. Governor Arne Carlson (1991-99) never had a coherent transportation policy, and seemed to only be interested in not raising taxes. Highway construction funding and transit languished during his administration. Governor Ventura, as a former suburban mayor who lobbied hard for funding for the TH-610 freeway, had a different viewpoint. He appointed another former mayor (Elwyn Tinklenberg) as Transportation Commissioner, who strongly supported investment in transportation infrastructure. Ventura strongly supported additional highway funding, though at the same time he lobbied to reduce one major source of transportation funding, vehicle license fees.

Unfortunately, Ventura was an ineffective advocate. I suspect his report card as a child indicated, "Does not play well with others." Because he essentially refused to build political alliances or compromise, he never succeeded in securing an adequate level of highway funding. During his administration, budget surpluses allowed general fund money to be diverted to transportation and the effects of the cuts in license fees were not felt. However, once the state was mired in deficits, the dollars available to fund road construction dried up.

Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty came into office promising to never raise taxes and to push for additional road construction. If this seems like an inconsistent position, it probably is --- that is, unless you don't believe that you actually have to pay for roads. Pawlenty appointed his Lieutenant Governor, Carole Molnau, as Commissioner of Transportation. As a state senator, Molnau was a frequent critic of transit spending --- especially the light rail project. Pawlenty was consistent in vetoing gasoline tax increases and continuing to borrow heavily throughout his first term, and the 2007 legislative session was no exception, with another gas tax and rise in vehicle registration fees being vetoed.

Meanwhile, the borrowing to build goes on. A new wrinkle is Pawlenty's promotion of HOT lanes to increase capacity. In case you don't know, a HOT (High Occupancy/Toll) lane is an exclusive lane for either high occupancy vehicles (generally 2+ riders) or those who have a transponder to register their presence and debit an account to pay a variable toll. The existing I-394 HOV lanes were converted to HOT lanes in 2005, and (surprise!) ridership has been lower than projections. Other projects are under consideration where new lanes will be constructed by private parties, to be paid by revenues.

So it's clear, I don't hold Pawlenty or Monlau directly responsible for the I-35W bridge collapse. The neglect of Minnesota's roadways went on for many years - every governor since Perpich in the 1980s has either rejected funding solutions or failed to gain support at the Legislature. But, it is clear that MnDOT tried for years to find the cheapest way possible to maintain this bridge and missed warning signs of impending trouble. It's clear, however, that the ultimate cause for the collapse was not lack of maintenance but rather a critical design error (the thickness of the gusset plates). Still, many will argue that had MnDOT taken the most conservative steps to maintain the bridge's integrity, such as installing reinforcing members to supplement the gussets (as suggested by their bridge consultant), it's possible the bridge would have stood.

Finally --- a tax increase for roads! The 2008 Legislature passed a gas tax increase to be eased in over the next several years (the total amount isn't at my fingertips). Pawlenty, predictably, vetoed it. Surprisingly, the Legislature mustered enough Republican votes to OVERRIDE the veto!  One of the early impacts of the tax and funding increase was the ability of MnDOT to immediately move to replace the MN-23 Mississippi River crossing at St. Cloud, and to budget replacement of the crumbling U.S. 61 bridge at Hastings for 2010. Another great move by the Legislature was to sack Commissioner/Lt. Governor Molnau. (At least from her first title.)   Pawlenty instead nominated an experienced transportation professional, regional FHWA administrator Tom Sorel.

Fix those bottlenecks!! Jump to my list of the worst interchanges in the Twin Cities.

Put control destinations on Twin Cities freeway interchange signs. Long ago, some visionary decided that freeway guide signs in the Twin Cities area would not use control destinations to help motorists navigate. Freeways here do not have names, and so (with rare exception) only route numbers and directions are used inside the beltway. Traveling through Minneapolis and St. Paul, the control destinations of St. Cloud, Albert Lea, Madison and Duluth are not mentioned until the driver is well through the core cities (generally) at the beltway. Drive through Kansas City if you want to see good use of control cities on freeway signs, especially along the beltways.

The worst interchanges. Here's my top list:

1. I-35W/I-494. A straight cloverleaf (so no diagram needed), but there are no C/D lanes on either roadway. And, the loops carry as much traffic as the straighter ramps, so the weaving on and under the bridge is significant. This cries out for flyover ramps, but until a decision is made (and funding appears) for widening 494, nothing will be done. There are some very nice buildings such as the Best Buy world headquarters nestled in the curves of the outer ramps, too, meaning that expansion of the interchange will be very $pendy. This is currently shown on planning documents as a post-2010 project.

Improvements: Any further widening of 494 would require reconstruction of the entire interchange. One clever plan that requires little additional land uses one flyover ramp (N to W) with widened loops extending beyond the directional ramps of the semi-cloverleaf.

2. I-694/U.S. 10-MN-51. Both 10 and 51, which are designed here to be continuations of each other, enter 694 from the left, and the other route exits shortly thereafter from the right. On top of that, the right hand lane of 694 (2 lanes wide at this point) exits to each of these roads, meaning that 694 traffic has to shift left, while traffic attempting to traverse this travesty weaves right. I have never figured out the rationale for this design; it appears the designer assumed a large percentage of the traffic on 694 exiting onto 10 west and (since 51 was originally the route of 10 going toward St. Paul) east.

Improvements: That part of 694 is slated for widening sometime after 2012.

3. I-494/U.S. 169. Believe it or not, this interchange has been moved from "most improved" to "worst" due to increasing congestion overwhelming an inadequate reconstruction attempt.  The original design was that the southbound U.S. 169 freeway (remember that it was originally a Hennepin County freeway) ended at [get this!] a diamond interchange with I-494. The left lane was dedicated to a turn onto eastbound 494 --- not too bad since the continuation onto what was then CSAH 18 was onto a two-lane road. Signals at each ramp backed traffic up. Then, U.S. 169 was rerouted over old CSAH 18 and reconstructed (originally) as an expressway with signalized intersections.  The 494 interchange was replaced by a 3/4 cloverleaf, that still has signals for each frontage road.  There is no loop for the eastbound 494 to northbound 169 movement, since most of the traffic going that way will use the 212 shortcut just west of there. A second reconstruction is needed to eliminate the two signals at the frontage roads now that 169  has been upgraded to full freeway south of 494 (there is still a signal at an intersection just south of the interchange, though). FHwA rejected MnDOT's design that could have qualified for ARRA funding in 2009 due to the lack of an eastbound I-494 to north U.S. 169 ramp.

4. MN-62/MN-77. Hard to pick the least of the worst (with so many other candidates), but I pick this one. Like the 35W-494 interchange, it's a straight cloverleaf with no C/D lanes and lots of loop traffic. In the morning, traffic waiting to take the loop from north 77 to west 62, headed for downtown, has to creep along for as much as a mile, with last-second cut-ins added to make things interesting. Unfortunately, this probably won't be improved until a decision is made on a long-term plan to move the MSP Airport terminal to the north side, which would require significant reconstruction along 62. It really needs a good flyover ramp from north to west, and that would take out some homes along the north side of 62.

Improvements: None planned that I've seen. Probably, like I noted above, awaiting a decision on moving the airport terminal.

Most Improved. Some previous trouble spots have been successfully rebuilt. These include:

1. I-35E/I-94/U.S. 52. "Spaghetti Junction" in downtown St. Paul was a bear even before the southbound segment of I-35E was built. I-94 was intended to have a one-half mile commons with 35E, and had a full interchange with the Lafayette Bridge junction (MN-3, now U.S. 52) that was not accessible to southbound I-35E traffic. Worst aspects: lefthand exits and entrances, the need to weave across three lanes of traffic to go from northbound Lafayette Bridge to north 35E, tight turns, and only two through lanes of traffic on I-94. When the last segment of 35E was built, this section was rebuilt as well. Both directions of 35E come in on both sides of 94 so there is no need to weave to exit onto 94 or continue on 35E. All major ramps are on the right. Curves were softened. Heck...MnDOT even raised the speed limit through this stretch from 50 to 55. Three through lanes on I-94. And, there is a direct ramp from southbound 35E to 52 rather than a detour over city streets. It really isn't bad!

2. I-694/I-35E. Looked like a simple interchange (or rather, two directional "T" interchanges with a short commons section). However, to continue on either route, you had to weave counter to the traffic coming from the other route within a half-mile section. Add to that some interesting lane drops, and you had the potential for disastrous accidents. This was reconstructed with strategically placed flyovers to keep I-694 traffic on the right and I-35E traffic on the left to minimize weaving.

3. I-394/MN-100. Maybe it isn't fair to compare a pre-interstate interchange with the new interstate-quality interchange. But, the old loops featured no acceleration lanes from U.S. 12 onto 100. After all, in 1937 when it was built, who know about acceleration lanes? Now, you have a choice to enter (or exit) the infamous "Sane Lane" headed toward downtown Minneapolis. This is still a congested interchange, unfortunately.

4. Crosstown Commons.  Actually, this is a placeholder but with the worst interchange ever being reconstructed I couldn't keep it in the "worst" category. By 2010 this will be much better - and I will provide an update to this listing. See http://www.dot.state.mn.us/projects/crosstown/ for updates on progress.

Return to Minnesota Highways Home Page.