News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Main Menu

Stillwater Bridge

Started by on_wisconsin, August 21, 2011, 11:31:32 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

hobsini2

Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on March 16, 2013, 09:32:49 AM
There is a bill in the Minnesota Legislature this year to create a new Legislative Route (339, the next number in sequence) that looks like it is for the St. Croix River bridge. I wondered why, since this would simply replace the existing crossing in the trunk highway system, but then I looked at the description for Constitutional Route 45 (which is carried by MN-36 west to the junction with MN-5). The description reads:
QuoteRoute No. 45. Beginning at a point on the west bank of the St. Croix River at Stillwater and thence extending in a southwesterly direction to a point on the easterly limits of the city of St. Paul, affording Stillwater, Lake Elmo, St. Paul and intervening and adjacent communities a reasonable means of communication, each with the other and other places within the state.
Turns out the new bridge is in Oak Park Heights, not Stillwater, and thus can't be the eastern terminus of Route 45. Descriptions of Constitutional Routes can't be amended, so it is necessary to create the new route. I wonder whether MnDOT will continue to maintain Chestnut Street up to the old lift bridge or whether MN-95 is close enough to the river to be that aforementioned point on the west bank of the river.

I am amazed that it can't be amended when the new Stillwater Birdge would be the logical carrier of Hwy 36 and since the old 36 is already cosigned with Hwy 95 except for the old Stillwater Bridge. That just seems very dumb.
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)


NE2

You're amazed that the legislature can't amend the constitution? This is grade-school stuff.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

hobsini2

NE2, Amendments to the US Constitution have been proposed and passed as well as even repealed.  I don't get why Minnesota should be any different.
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

NE2

Sure, they could put the question to the voters. It would be pretty pointless, but who cares?
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

The High Plains Traveler

Quote from: NE2 on March 17, 2013, 03:56:56 PM
Sure, they could put the question to the voters. It would be pretty pointless, but who cares?
The Babcock Amendment to the Minnesota constitution in 1920 set forth specific route descriptions, including termini and towns served, for 70 routes. Since then, the Legislature has added a number of additional routes (since it will be up to 339), which can be amended or repealed like any law. The fix would be a technical amendment to the state constitution to convert the constitutional routes to statutes, but I have never heard of a plan to do this. There might be some opposition from rural areas of the state that would be concerned the state could turn the highways serving their area over to local government. Much of the rest of the voting public wouldn't understand the issue.
"Tongue-tied and twisted; just an earth-bound misfit, I."

Mdcastle

#105
How about they just have a bill that Stillwater annexes Oak Park Heights as revenge for all their interference and attempts to stop the project.

My prediction is that Chestnut street gets turned back, and new secret routes are created for the OPH frontage roads and the old lift bridge itself.

froggie

QuoteNE2, Amendments to the US Constitution have been proposed and passed as well as even repealed.  I don't get why Minnesota should be any different.

A) because amendments to the Minnesota Constitution must go to the voters, and is a 2-year process to do so.  B) amending the Constitution for such a mundane situation like this is not a good way to do business.  Why not amend the state Constitution every time some minor trivial thing comes up then?

QuoteHow about they just have a bill that Stillwater annexes Oak Park Heights as revenge for all their interference and attempts to stop the project.

Because any such annexation would require approval of Oak Park Heights.  Figure.  The.  Odds.

QuoteMy prediction is that Chestnut street gets turned back, and new secret routes are created for the OPH frontage roads and the old lift bridge itself.

More likely, Chestnut St would get a secret route rather than get fully turned back.  They'd have to keep continuity in C.R. 45.

texaskdog

those stupid consitutional routes...why not just get rid of the whole constitutional route system?

Alps

Quote from: texaskdog on March 18, 2013, 10:39:07 AM
those stupid consitutional routes...why not just get rid of the whole constitutional route system?
Agreed. One amendment, saying that all state highways are hereafter under the jurisdiction of MnDOT and that the Babcock Amendment is hereby repealed.

hobsini2

#109
Quote from: froggie on March 18, 2013, 08:32:38 AM
QuoteNE2, Amendments to the US Constitution have been proposed and passed as well as even repealed.  I don't get why Minnesota should be any different.

A) because amendments to the Minnesota Constitution must go to the voters, and is a 2-year process to do so.  B) amending the Constitution for such a mundane situation like this is not a good way to do business.  Why not amend the state Constitution every time some minor trivial thing comes up then?

Froggie, let me get this straight as to how Minnesota works. Any highway that is built by the state is added to the state's constitution because of the Babcock Amendment?  So every single route, if I am understanding this correctly, has to be voted on by not just the legislature but the public as well? Is this correct?  If that is the case, the Babcock Amendment is completely silly.  And yes having the public vote on such things is very trivial.  But I have never heard of this kind of a process in any other state.

I know states do public hearings for proposals and then the road is voted on by the legislature but the public has no voting aspect to the highway proposal.   It just seems that it should be a much more simple process to say "Ok. Since this road has now become a bypass of the town, the new route is the current number and the old route if need be becomes like a Business Route of the current number."  And since MN 95 is currently cosigned with all of this except for the little stub leading to the Old Lift Bridge, the state's mileage numbers would not drastically change nor would Stillwater be losing access to the state highway system.

When Minnesota built the bypasses of Wilmar and Marshall on MN 23, did the Babcock Amendment force a public vote to get the route number moved?
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

Mdcastle

#110
No.

The first 70 routes are constitutional routes covered by the Babcock amendment and can't be changed. If you look at a vintage map they still are the major through routes. As a side note 58 is the last of the original 70 numbers that wasn't changed or extended.

The next 200+ (generally added in two major waves and two minor waves) are legislative routes and can easily be changed by the legislature. MN 66 (LR 256) and MN/LR 235 are up for deletion in bills this year.

They tried to change a constitutional route when MN/CR 42 was extended to I-90, but later undid it and assigned the extension LR 338.

The Willmar and Marshall bypasses always have had portions within city limits so the numbering charades as is happening in Stillwater weren't necessary. MN 361 was created so CR 1 could continue to serve Pine City and Rush City, but was removed when those city limits reached I-35 so CR 1 could stay on the freeway.

The High Plains Traveler

Quote from: hobsini2 on March 18, 2013, 09:23:34 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 18, 2013, 08:32:38 AM
QuoteNE2, Amendments to the US Constitution have been proposed and passed as well as even repealed.  I don't get why Minnesota should be any different.

A) because amendments to the Minnesota Constitution must go to the voters, and is a 2-year process to do so.  B) amending the Constitution for such a mundane situation like this is not a good way to do business.  Why not amend the state Constitution every time some minor trivial thing comes up then?

Froggie, let me get this straight as to how Minnesota works. Any highway that is built by the state is added to the state's constitution because of the Babcock Amendment?  So every single route, if I am understanding this correctly, has to be voted on by not just the legislature but the public as well? Is this correct?  If that is the case, the Babcock Amendment is completely silly.  And yes having the public vote on such things is very trivial.  But I have never heard of this kind of a process in any other state.

I know states do public hearings for proposals and then the road is voted on by the legislature but the public has no voting aspect to the highway proposal.   It just seems that it should be a much more simple process to say "Ok. Since this road has now become a bypass of the town, the new route is the current number and the old route if need be becomes like a Business Route of the current number."  And since MN 95 is currently cosigned with all of this except for the little stub leading to the Old Lift Bridge, the state's mileage numbers would not drastically change nor would Stillwater be losing access to the state highway system.

When Minnesota built the bypasses of Wilmar and Marshall on MN 23, did the Babcock Amendment force a public vote to get the route number moved?
No.

The Babcock Amendment of 1920 (named after the Highway Commissioner) established the Trunk Highway system and a means for paying for it. In return, the voters got a guarantee that certain highways would be in the Trunk Highway system. Those are the 70 constitutional routes.

After that, the Legislature established additional routes. Like any law, these can be amended and repealed. Only the 70 are sacrosanct, and MnDOT has clever ways of working around them when they turn back some historic sections of highway like Route 50 between Farmington and Lakeville (original U.S. 55, later U.S. 65 and finally MN-50). They simply route the Constitutional Route along a different section of trunk highway that ends up in the same place as the other route.

Any new section of trunk highway not already enacted into law as a Legislative Route has to be added. Thus, the need to add a short spur between Route 45 (MN-36) and the Wisconsin border for the new St. Croix River bridge. But the voters don't need to get involved. It's just a law. Steve, the guy from New Jersey, nailed it. As I said many messages above, the Legislature could propose an amendment to eliminate the Constitutional Routes and make them statutes. More than 50% of voters casting votes (not just on this issue) would have to approve for it to pass.
"Tongue-tied and twisted; just an earth-bound misfit, I."

SEWIGuy

The constitutional routes have to be state maintained per the state constitution, but they don't have to keep the same route number right?  So MN-36 is going to be used on the new bridge.

froggie

QuoteThe constitutional routes have to be state maintained per the state constitution, but they don't have to keep the same route number right?

No.  Monte hinted at this earlier, but the Constitutional/Legislative Route numbers do not have to match the numbers signed in the field.  Old Steve (i.e. High Plains Traveler) highlights this very well on his Minnesota route webpages.

SEWIGuy


froggie

I was thinking more specifically of Old Steve's route listings, where he breaks down which Constitutional/Legislative routes are associated with a given signed route.  But yes, that page shows the basic legal breakdown.

SEWIGuy

Quote from: froggie on March 19, 2013, 10:59:36 AM
I was thinking more specifically of Old Steve's route listings, where he breaks down which Constitutional/Legislative routes are associated with a given signed route.  But yes, that page shows the basic legal breakdown.


Ask and you shall receive!!!

http://www.steve-riner.com/mnhighways/conrtes.htm

froggie

I'm very familiar with Steve's webpages...have contributed material over the years.

I was referring specifically to the route pages like this or this.  Notice the entry on most route listings for "Constitutional/Legislative Route(s):"?

SEWIGuy

I know you have done so froggie.  I was just providing a link for the other reader's reference.

The High Plains Traveler

Quote from: froggie on March 19, 2013, 09:51:36 AM
QuoteThe constitutional routes have to be state maintained per the state constitution, but they don't have to keep the same route number right?

...  Old Steve (i.e. High Plains Traveler) ...
I really prefer to be known as "Mature Steve".
"Tongue-tied and twisted; just an earth-bound misfit, I."

agentsteel53

Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on March 19, 2013, 01:57:00 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 19, 2013, 09:51:36 AM
QuoteThe constitutional routes have to be state maintained per the state constitution, but they don't have to keep the same route number right?

...  Old Steve (i.e. High Plains Traveler) ...
I really prefer to be known as "Mature Steve".

that's kinda implied - especially after that incident where Alps flung his feces.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

The High Plains Traveler

Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 19, 2013, 02:11:37 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on March 19, 2013, 01:57:00 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 19, 2013, 09:51:36 AM
QuoteThe constitutional routes have to be state maintained per the state constitution, but they don't have to keep the same route number right?

...  Old Steve (i.e. High Plains Traveler) ...
I really prefer to be known as "Mature Steve".

that's kinda implied - especially after that incident where Alps flung his feces.
Funny comment, since I'm the one who uses a gorilla for his Facebook avatar.
"Tongue-tied and twisted; just an earth-bound misfit, I."

texaskdog

Okay I'll be old Steve then

hobsini2

Quote from: froggie on March 19, 2013, 09:51:36 AM
QuoteThe constitutional routes have to be state maintained per the state constitution, but they don't have to keep the same route number right?

No.  Monte hinted at this earlier, but the Constitutional/Legislative Route numbers do not have to match the numbers signed in the field.  Old Steve (i.e. High Plains Traveler) highlights this very well on his Minnesota route webpages.

Froggie, looking at the link that was provided, it reads to me that these Constitution Routes became Statutes in the 1960s.  And "When MnDOT turns back a section of road, the legislation that authorized that portion may or may not be modified or removed to reflect the change in jurisdiction."

So if this is the case, why would there need to be a public vote on a change to an endpoint of a trunk highway?  If I read this correctly, it looks like it can be simply done by the legislature at the time when a new roadway is completed, such as the case with the new Stillwater Bridge.  Couldn't MnDOT just turn over control of the short street leading to the old bridge to local control at that point and the new bridge become MN 36 when the bridge was approved by the legislature?

What am I missing?
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

Alps




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.