News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Minnesota Interstate Question

Started by discochris, September 30, 2015, 12:06:38 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

discochris

First of all, I'm really enjoying this site. I've been a road/map geek since I was a little kid. I'd no idea there were so many others.

Quick question. I expect the answer might be out on the site somewhere already, but I'd have to dig through a lot to find it.

Why is Minnesota so conservative about interstate designations compared to other states such as Wisconsin? If Minnesota followed the Wisconsin model for requesting funds and designations, we'd likely see Interstates between the Twin Cities and Rochester for sure. Possibly from the Twin Cities to Mankato and even possibly following 60 west to connect to 90, and possibly along 10 and 371 to Brainerd.  Is it simply a funding issue? Are Wisconsin's roads paid for differently? (I know snow and ice control is largely a county, and not a state, responsibility in WI).


peterj920

#1
Wisconsin built about half of their interstates to interstate standards before they were designated.  I-43 between Beloit and Milwaukee was built as Wis 15 in the 1970s, and the interstate designation wasn't applied until 1988.  US 51 was built as a freeway from the 60s to the 80s when it was complete.  US 51 was upgraded in Illinois also, and they asked for the interstate designation once the new freeway was complete between Rockford and I-80.  When I-39 was complete, Wisconsin figured that I-39 could be applied to US 51 since it met interstate standards.  US 41 has been a freeway since 2000 between Abrams and Milwaukee, and Congressman Petri added a provision in a 2005 highway bill to make US 41 an interstate.  The roads were already freeways built to interstate standards by Wisconsin, so Wisconsin built a lot of its system before they were made interstates.

When the interstate system was planned out, Wisconsin submitted a number of proposals to the Federal Highway Administration, and just about all of their proposals were rejected.  Originally I-90 and I-94 were the only 2 digit interstates that were supposed to serve Wisconsin.  Green Bay to Milwaukee was approved eventually, but Beloit to Milwaukee was rejected.  Wisconsin felt that these routes were important and should be built as interstate standard freeways, so they built the roads themselves.  Minnesota builds 4 lane roads to expressway standards outside of urban areas.   Even though Beloit to Milwaukee was rejected, it became an interstate because it was already built. 

Outside of the Twin Cities, there aren't any roads in Minnesota that could instantly be made an interstate highway right now.  Wisconsin was building a lot  of their major projects to interstate standards from the 60s to the 80s, and it's easy to make a road an interstate if it's already a freeway. 

Politics plays a factor also.  Wisconsin most likely lost out on interstates initially because its congressman and senators were not very aggressive in getting federal highway dollars.  In the 80s and 90s, Rep. Petri wrote many editorials on how Wisconsin didn't get its fair share of highway dollars, and really pushed hard for Wisconsin to get more aid.  If you're wondering why I-99 exists in Pennsylvania, it's because Rep. Bud Schuster pushed for that road to be built, but he took that farther than any politician has.  I-41 had to get approval from AASHTO, I-99 was written into law to bypass that provision because he wanted the number so badly, despite violating numbering provisions.   

discochris

Thanks for the detailed response. That makes a lot of sense.

The one thing that I would question is the political factor, simply because for decades, Jim Oberstar was one of the most powerful congressmen with regards to transportation in the US. Which is why Duluth has such a ridiculously intricate freeway system considering the market size, including the I-535 spur to Superior, WI.  Was Oberstar just mainly focused on bringing pork to his own district when he could have directed some of those funds statewide?

peterj920

#3
Typically, congressmen look out for their own district because the people in their district elect them, and he/she campaigns on helping those people.  Senators will look to help the state as a whole since they're elected by the entire state.  A congressman in Duluth isn't going to push for a project in Rochester, since there wouldn't be any political gain.  Illinois is another state that probably had a lot of political muscle, since they have so many routes.  I-180 is in the middle of nowhere and was built for a factory.  It probably took some political moves to build that.  The new bridge in Stillwater also took an act of congress because it crosses an area that the national park service controls, and they rejected it.  Sen. Klobuchar, and Rep. Bachmann pushed a bill to overrule the NPS in congress so the bridge could be built.  It passed congress, and Pres. Obama signed it into law.  Without congressional action, the bridge wouldn't be under construction. 

It can be broken down to state governments also.  In Wisconsin, upgrading US 10 to an expressway between Marshfield and Stevens Point was questionable to a lot of people since the traffic counts weren't as heavy as a lot of other roads.  It got built because elected officials in the area wanted Marshfield to have 4 lane access.  On another board, someone said that there was a state rep in Minnesota that was pushing to make US 14 four lanes in Minnesota within his district.  When MNDOT didn't want to build the project around 2000, he tried to pass legislation to make things more difficult on MNDOT when he didn't get his way.  The ramp metering study was one of the retaliations.

froggie

Quote from: peterj920When MNDOT didn't want to build the project around 2000

This is flat out not true.  MnDOT's desire to upgrade US 14 goes at least back to 1993, and likely before that.

MnDOT's main issue is that they have lacked the resources to upgrade many of these Outstate corridors.  Unlike Wisconsin, which built a bulk of their corridors during the 1970s-1990s, Minnesota didn't raise or index their gas tax.  Another reason why Minnesota is generally disinterested in Interstates:  the primary means by which states can request Interstate additions DOES NOT CONFER TO THEM EXTRA MONEY from FHWA.  Now one could argue about the branding effect of the Interstate shield, but fiscally, there is no point in adding Interstates.  And the only corridor that would even remotely be feasible for such is St. Paul-Rochester.  The official long-range goal for that corridor has been for a freeway since 2000, but again there's the whole cost-funding issue.

peterj920

#5
Quote from: froggie on September 30, 2015, 06:08:26 AM
Quote from: peterj920When MNDOT didn't want to build the project around 2000

This is flat out not true.  MnDOT's desire to upgrade US 14 goes at least back to 1993, and likely before that.

MnDOT's main issue is that they have lacked the resources to upgrade many of these Outstate corridors.  Unlike Wisconsin, which built a bulk of their corridors during the 1970s-1990s, Minnesota didn't raise or index their gas tax.  Another reason why Minnesota is generally disinterested in Interstates:  the primary means by which states can request Interstate additions DOES NOT CONFER TO THEM EXTRA MONEY from FHWA.  Now one could argue about the branding effect of the Interstate shield, but fiscally, there is no point in adding Interstates.  And the only corridor that would even remotely be feasible for such is St. Paul-Rochester.  The official long-range goal for that corridor has been for a freeway since 2000, but again there's the whole cost-funding issue.

Guess I misunderstood you.  I was going off of your post on ramp meters with US 14 not being upgraded, and stating that Dick Day was frustrated with the lack of progress.  I disagree with your statement that there isn't much of a fiscal impact of making a road an interstate.  Designating a road an interstate makes it an easier sell to obtain more federal funding.  But, more restrictions come along with making a road an interstate.  Interchange additions need approval from the FWHA.  Also, new billboards are limited on interstate highways that aren't related to businesses in the vicinity of the road.  (A lot of existing billboards can remain and are grandfathered in under the Highway Beautification Act.)  This was evident along I-41 between Oshkosh and Green Bay, which probably has more billboards along it than any interstate highway in the country.  There was also a race to build even more billboards along the freeway rushing to build them before US 41 was made an interstate. 

froggie

QuoteGuess I misunderstood you.  I was going off of your post on ramp meters with US 14 not being upgraded, and stating that Dick Day was frustrated with the lack of progress.

The lack of progress was due to a lack of funding.  But that wasn't the only reason Dick Day went after MnDOT.

QuoteI disagree with your statement that there isn't much of a fiscal impact of making a road an interstate.  Designating a road an interstate makes it an easier sell to obtain more federal funding.

No it doesn't.  ISTEA in 1991 put a stop to that.  Except for specific Interstate routes that were specifically written into Federal law since then, adding an Interstate does not confer more Federal highway funding (especially since they got rid of the Interstate Maintenance fund with MAP-21), nor does it make it "an easier sell" to obtain more funding, as routes that get added as non-chargeable Interstate were most likely on the National Highway System (and eligible for those funds) to begin with.

Mdcastle

Minnesota has never seemed to care what color and shape the highway markers were. Beyond that eastern Wisconsin has a much higher population density and a lot more medium sized cities to connect.  The explosive growth around Rochester is a fairly recent phenomenon. Minneapolis and Duluth were linked by interstates since the beginning.

Rothman

Quote from: peterj920 on September 30, 2015, 06:44:37 AM
Designating a road an interstate makes it an easier sell to obtain more federal funding. 

This is not true.  Getting National Highway System designation allows National Highway Performance Program funding to be applied to a road, but interstate designation (much more restrictive than NHS) does not make federal funding easier to obtain than other roads that are eligible for federal aid.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

discochris

Was 610 ever considered for Interstate numbering? It seems as if it would be a viable candidate.

skluth

A lot of freeways were given interstate designation when the speed limit was raised from 55 mph. At first, you only could go faster on the interstates. So highways like WI 15 and the East-West Tollway became I 43 and 88.

TheHighwayMan3561

Quote from: discochris on October 05, 2015, 12:33:34 AM
Was 610 ever considered for Interstate numbering? It seems as if it would be a viable candidate.

As far as I know, no. I don't think anything has been considered for Interstate status since I-394 was created.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

discochris

Quote from: froggie on September 30, 2015, 06:08:26 AM
And the only corridor that would even remotely be feasible for such is St. Paul-Rochester. 

You could make a legitimate case for full freeway/interstate from St. Cloud to Brainerd...

froggie

#13
You could make a case for a freeway up to Little Falls, but not for an Interstate.  North of St. Cloud, city sizes are too small and there's no major National landmark/place to warrant an Interstate designation.  Camp Ripley has some defense value, but that's almost entirely National Guard and training...there's very little full-time military presence there.   And though non-summer traffic is enough to justify 4 lanes, it isn't enough to justify a full freeway 8 months out of the year all the way up to Brainerd.  Traffic volumes just aren't that high on 371.

discochris

Quote from: froggie on October 19, 2015, 08:06:47 AM
You could make a case for a freeway up to Little Falls, but not for an Interstate.  North of St. Cloud, city sizes are too small and there's no major National landmark/place to warrant an Interstate designation.  Camp Ripley has some defense value, but that's almost entirely National Guard and training...there's very little full-time military presence there.   And though non-summer traffic is enough to justify 4 lanes, it isn't enough to justify a full freeway 8 months out of the year all the way up to Brainerd.  Traffic volumes just aren't that high on 371.

I don't drive that stretch much (though I will be taking it this weekend), but I would have thought that the vacation traffic to Brainerd alone would justify it. What about 169 to Garrison or so? Or 169 to Mankato for that matter, though I suppose the proximity to the river would cause issues. At least a bypass of St. Peter would seem to make sense.

froggie

Vacation traffic to Brainerd justified 4 lanes, which MnDOT eventually built, but the Brainerd area has nothing to justify an Interstate, and even a freeway would be questionable between Camp Ripley and Baxter.

169 to Garrison has the same seasonal swings that 371 has, and if it wasn't for the lakes, its traffic would peter out quickly past Zimmerman.  169 to Mankato is fairly consistent, but isn't enough to warrant a freeway, plus there are the river/lowland issues you suggested.  A St. Peter bypass would make sense, but would be very expensive to build...probably more than it'd be worth.  Best you could potentially expect in St. Peter is a limited-access (but still at-grade) downtown bypass along a new river levee.

rte66man

Quote from: froggie on October 20, 2015, 08:38:11 AM
Vacation traffic to Brainerd justified 4 lanes, which MnDOT eventually built, but the Brainerd area has nothing to justify an Interstate, and even a freeway would be questionable between Camp Ripley and Baxter.

169 to Garrison has the same seasonal swings that 371 has, and if it wasn't for the lakes, its traffic would peter out quickly past Zimmerman. 

It always seems to be pretty heavy all the way north to Princeton.  I would agree that it drops quite a bit from there past Milaca to Mille Lacs Lake
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.