Soapbox

Comments on meter study below. Expecting a major rant? Actually, I believe that MnDOT does a good job of managing its highway system with limited financial resources, but some things could be improved.

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.

A permanent increase in highway funding is needed. One proposal is to direct vehicle sales taxes into the Highway Users Fund. I agree, and would agree with cutting license fees by that amount. However, I believe a hard look should be taken at gas taxes. How about cutting the state sales tax by 1%, while raising gasoline taxes $0.03-0.05 per gallon. Minnesota gasoline taxes, once virtually the highest in the country, haven't been raised since 1988, and are now around the median. License fees are based on the vehicle's value, and while higher than adjoining states, aren't unreasonable compared to many other states.

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 5 list:

1. Crosstown Commons (I-35W/MN-62). This is a complicated monster. The explanation for the poor design is that 35W through Richfield, which runs roughly along Humboldt Avenue, followed an earlier alignment intended for a pre-interstate U.S. 65 expressway to bypass Lyndale Avenue. Minneapolis, however, wanted 35W to be about 3/4 mile further east, along Stevens Avenue. So, this east-west commons section (which runs along the Minneapolis-Richfield boundary) was designed to accomplish this jog in 35W. A probably apocryphal story is that the design was originally drawn on a napkin at a coffee shop during a meeting between Minnesota Highway Department and city of Minneapolis engineers. Whether true or not, it was evident soon after its opening in 1964 that the design was very deficient, even by the standards and at traffic levels of that day.

It used to be worse...see the loop from north 35W to west 62? That used to terminate east of the overpass, with no acceleration lane, and only a YIELD sign. (I said many a quick prayer approaching that bad boy!) A few years back, MnDOT did a stopgap correction and built a temporary timber bridge to hold the extended onramp. That suicide onramp was the result of an early modification to add a second lane to the SB 35W-WB 62 ramp.

Here are the trouble spots:

1. The worst! Eastbound 62 traffic, whether going north on 35W or continuing on 62, has to all merge to the left lane to enter the commons section. The right lane goes off to Lyndale Ave. This commonly backs up for several miles on 62.

2. The west / southbound commons section requires southbound 35W traffic to weave to the left (since the right lane exits at 62 west) and westbound 62 traffic to weave to the right. They all meet in the center lane.

3. Not quite so bad as the above, but there is a left lane exit from southbound 35W to east 62. Then, just as you merge,

4. ...there is immediately an exit ramp on the right to Portland Avenue. Westbound, there is an onramp from Portland, and traffic from this ramp who wants to go west on 62 has to immediately merge to the left lane.

Improvements: South of the interchange, construction is now complete on a third lane to be used for HOV, though the lane won't open until the Crosstown Commons construction is done. After years of wrangling, a new design that cost more and required more right of way than earlier proposals, but that also provided two through lanes on 62, has been approved. Construction was due to start in 2006 --- but, MnDOT has a cash flow problem and wants to delay payments to contractors. Finally, as of Spring 2007, construction is underway! (Just hang on for three years). See http://www.dot.state.mn.us/projects/crosstown/ for updates on progress.

2. 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: That section of I-494 is currently slated for widening after 2006, and any 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.

3. 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 2008.

4. I-694/I-35E. Looks like a simple interchange (or rather, two directional "T" interchanges with a short commons section). However, to continue on either route, you must weave counter to the traffic coming from the other route within a half-mile section. Add to that some interesting lane drops, and you have the potential for disastrous accidents. This will be reconstructed within the next couple of years to provide flyovers to distribute traffic on both sides of the commons section and eliminate the need to weave.

Improvements: The "Unweave the Weave" project is underway and should be complete in 2007.

5. 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-494/U.S. 169. The previous 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 CSAH 18 was onto a two-lane road. Signals at each ramp backed traffic up. The new design is a 3/4 cloverleaf, that still has signals for each frontage road. South of 494, 169 is an expressway with signalized intersections. There is no loop for the eastbound 494 to northbound 169 movement, since most of the traffic going that way would have used the 212 shortcut just west of there. A second reconstruction may take place within 10 years to eliminate the two signals at the frontage roads if 169 is upgraded to full freeway south of 494. Update (2004): the expressway section of U.S. 169 is being upgraded to full freeway, with construction of interchanges at the signalized intersections between County 1 and I-494 (but not presently including the 494 signals).

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.

Return to Minnesota Highways Home Page.