Stillwater Bridge

[The High Plains Traveler]

The 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 really didn't want to get down in the weeds on this, but waaaay back, the Minnesota Constitution was simplified to remove a lot of the detail (like trunk route 1-70 details) that it contained. So, some of that detail, like Constitutional Route details, were moved into Minnesota Revised Statutes. The Constitutional Routes were put in Minn. Stat. §161.114, and Subdivision 1 saith:

Subdivision 1.Designation.

The trunk highway routes, numbered 1 through 70, as described in the constitutional amendment adopted November 2, 1920, are designated as the constitutional routes of the trunk highway system.

All this did is take verbiage out of the state constitution. Subdivision 1 quoted above indicates it's immovable and eternal, unless a subsequent amendment nullifies any part of it. There has never been a public vote to change any endpoint of a trunk highway. Every trunk highway change since that time has been accomplished by changes to any route numbered over 70 (Minn. Stat. §161.115) or by MnDOT making administrative changes to trunk highways by moving defined routes over different routes. As I cited above, Constitutional Route 50 originally went from Farmington through (what is now known as) Lakeville then north to the Minneapolis city limits. Maybe 20 years ago, MnDOT turned back the portion of MN-50 from Farmington to Lakeville, because it could reroute Constitutional Route 50 north along existing Constitutional Route 1 and Legislative Route 116 to the south limits of Minneapolis. (Routes already designated Trunk Highways 3, 149 and 55).

In the case of the new St. Croix River Bridge, MnDOT can't do any administrative magic because Constitutional Route 45 has to end in Stillwater on the west bank of the St. Croix River, and nothing is authorized from Constitutional Route 45 (MN-36) to the Wisconsin border outside Stillwater. Thus the need to have a friendly legislator run the annual MnDOT bill to include a housekeeping measure like this, creating a new Legislative Route.

[texaskdog]

The 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 really didn't want to get down in the weeds on this, but waaaay back, the Minnesota Constitution was simplified to remove a lot of the detail (like trunk route 1-70 details) that it contained. So, some of that detail, like Constitutional Route details, were moved into Minnesota Revised Statutes. The Constitutional Routes were put in Minn. Stat. §161.114, and Subdivision 1 saith:

Subdivision 1.Designation.

The trunk highway routes, numbered 1 through 70, as described in the constitutional amendment adopted November 2, 1920, are designated as the constitutional routes of the trunk highway system.

All this did is take verbiage out of the state constitution. Subdivision 1 quoted above indicates it's immovable and eternal, unless a subsequent amendment nullifies any part of it. There has never been a public vote to change any endpoint of a trunk highway. Every trunk highway change since that time has been accomplished by changes to any route numbered over 70 (Minn. Stat. §161.115) or by MnDOT making administrative changes to trunk highways by moving defined routes over different routes. As I cited above, Constitutional Route 50 originally went from Farmington through (what is now known as) Lakeville then north to the Minneapolis city limits. Maybe 20 years ago, MnDOT turned back the portion of MN-50 from Farmington to Lakeville, because it could reroute Constitutional Route 50 north along existing Constitutional Route 1 and Legislative Route 116 to the south limits of Minneapolis. (Routes already designated Trunk Highways 3, 149 and 55).

In the case of the new St. Croix River Bridge, MnDOT can't do any administrative magic because Constitutional Route 45 has to end in Stillwater on the west bank of the St. Croix River, and nothing is authorized from Constitutional Route 45 (MN-36) to the Wisconsin border outside Stillwater. Thus the need to have a friendly legislator run the annual MnDOT bill to include a housekeeping measure like this, creating a new Legislative Route.

Hence a block long MN 195

[agentsteel53]

just what is with early 20th century transportation policy giving responsibility for highway routing to the legislature!? 

California used to have Legislative Route Numbers, Oregon has a pathetically confusing system of highways vs. routes, and Minnesota has its competent transportation engineers tied up by elected officials.

who ever decided this was a good idea?

[The High Plains Traveler]

* * *
Hence a block long MN 195

Actually, I think the fragment of Chestnut Street, should MnDOT find it has to maintain it, would be invisible Trunk Highway 936A.

just what is with early 20th century transportation policy giving responsibility for highway routing to the legislature!? 

California used to have Legislative Route Numbers, Oregon has a pathetically confusing system of highways vs. routes, and Minnesota has its competent transportation engineers tied up by elected officials.

who ever decided this was a good idea?

In Minnesota, it took a constitutional amendment to ensure highway funding through transportation taxes. They didn't establish a Highway Commission with the authority to create and delete routes like many states have. Just the way they did it. Typically, route deletions and additions are part of the Transportation Omnibus bill in a housekeeping section, carried by a friendly legislator (I know, I used that term above). Hmmm, wouldn't an omnibus bill be about transit?

[Mdcastle]

Quite a few highways were foisted onto the Minnesota Department of Highways by the legislature against their will; most of the 1933, 1949, and 1951 additions. They're slowly undoing the 1949 and 1951 additions by about two per year. This year LR/MN 235 and LR 256 / MN 66 are up for removal.

[hobsini2]

* * *
Hence a block long MN 195

Actually, I think the fragment of Chestnut Street, should MnDOT find it has to maintain it, would be invisible Trunk Highway 936A.

just what is with early 20th century transportation policy giving responsibility for highway routing to the legislature!? 

California used to have Legislative Route Numbers, Oregon has a pathetically confusing system of highways vs. routes, and Minnesota has its competent transportation engineers tied up by elected officials.

who ever decided this was a good idea?

In Minnesota, it took a constitutional amendment to ensure highway funding through transportation taxes. They didn't establish a Highway Commission with the authority to create and delete routes like many states have. Just the way they did it. Typically, route deletions and additions are part of the Transportation Omnibus bill in a housekeeping section, carried by a friendly legislator (I know, I used that term above). Hmmm, wouldn't an omnibus bill be about transit?

Ok. With that being said, could the legislature renumber the stub of Chestnut St to fulfill the "requirement" of maintaining the "Constitutional" endpoint and have 36 on the new bridge? There has to be a way around this silliness and making the new bridge a different number would seem more silly than renumbering Chestnut.

[NE2]

The. Legislature. Does. Not. Set. Signed. Numbers. Some signed numbers match the legislative numbers, because it's easier that way, but many do not.

[froggie]

Ok. With that being said, could the legislature renumber the stub of Chestnut St to fulfill the "requirement" of maintaining the "Constitutional" endpoint and have 36 on the new bridge? There has to be a way around this silliness and making the new bridge a different number would seem more silly than renumbering Chestnut.

Joe Public won't notice a difference, because the new bridge will be signed as MN 36 regardless.  This conversation has basically boiled down to semantics at this point.  The bottom line is that the Constitutional/Legislative Routes are there for legal purposes...they're the means by which MnDOT can legally own/operate/maintain the highways.  The C.R./L.R. route DOES NOT HAVE TO MATCH WHAT IT'S SIGNED IN THE FIELD.

[Molandfreak]

* * *
Hence a block long MN 195

Actually, I think the fragment of Chestnut Street, should MnDOT find it has to maintain it, would be invisible Trunk Highway 936A.

I'm betting it will get turned back, and it will be an extension of county 23. Though I would like to see a renumbering of county roads in Stillwater... In my mind, it should be a county 5 extension.

If it's 936A, I bet MN/DOT will sign it as county 23, the same way they sign Scott county's 101 along MN 801B

[agentsteel53]

The. Legislature. Does. Not. Set. Signed. Numbers. Some signed numbers match the legislative numbers, because it's easier that way, but many do not.

then why have legislative numbers at all? 

[NE2]

then why have legislative numbers at all? 

Because the alternative is worse: numbers can't be changed without the legislature getting involved.

If you meant to ask "why have legislative routes defined", that's how they chose to do it.

[texaskdog]

Quite a few highways were foisted onto the Minnesota Department of Highways by the legislature against their will; most of the 1933, 1949, and 1951 additions. They're slowly undoing the 1949 and 1951 additions by about two per year. This year LR/MN 235 and LR 256 / MN 66 are up for removal.

Poor Good Thunder

[agentsteel53]

If you meant to ask "why have legislative routes defined", that's how they chose to do it.

that is indeed my question.  why did they choose to do it that way?

is there any state that, historically, decided from the get-go to enact legislation forming a DOT and give them blanket responsibility over the roads?

[kkt]

If you meant to ask "why have legislative routes defined", that's how they chose to do it.

that is indeed my question.  why did they choose to do it that way?

Because it gets tedious to talk in committee about "the proposed route that goes between Springfield and Capitol City via Millet and Lake Wobegon"

is there any state that, historically, decided from the get-go to enact legislation forming a DOT and give them blanket responsibility over the roads?

I doubt it... new roads are expensive and possibly disruptive to the neighbors and the legislature will want to take any credit for them and specify the approximate route to minimize problems for their most important constituent$.

[agentsteel53]

"the proposed route that goes between Springfield and Capitol City via Millet and Lake Wobegon"

is that not how it is generally done?  it's the transportation department who comes up with a number, like MD-200 - and the legislature can use that number.

I-69C, I-99, etc, are anomalies and/or abominations.

[NE2]

is there any state that, historically, decided from the get-go to enact legislation forming a DOT and give them blanket responsibility over the roads?

Off the top of my head, I'd guess New England, Maryland, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and a bunch of others.

[agentsteel53]

is there any state that, historically, decided from the get-go to enact legislation forming a DOT and give them blanket responsibility over the roads?

Off the top of my head, I'd guess New England, Maryland, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and a bunch of others.

New England - which of the following do you mean?

a) every state in New England, and I didn't want to type them all out.
b) New England had a DOT with responsibilities beyond simply signing the old New England Highway System.
c) I misspelled New Alanland.  oopsie.

[NE2]

d) Australia.

[Alps]

is there any state that, historically, decided from the get-go to enact legislation forming a DOT and give them blanket responsibility over the roads?

Off the top of my head, I'd guess New England, Maryland, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and a bunch of others.

How does it work in New Jersey? I know there are statutes for every route, but are these actually drawn up by the legislature, or does the DOT designate the routes and hand the designations over for ratification?

[NE2]

I have no idea how NJ works now.

[Mdcastle]

Mn/DOT decided to award the design/build contract for the Minnesota approach to the second lowest bidder: Ames / Lunda instead of C.S. McCrossan because the latter didn't employ enough women and minorities. This act of political correctness will cost state $6 million.

[texaskdog]

Mn/DOT decided to award the design/build contract for the Minnesota approach to the second lowest bidder: Ames / Lunda instead of C.S. McCrossan because the latter didn't employ enough women and minorities. This act of political correctness will cost state $6 million.

But they'll feel so much better about themselves.

[Mdcastle]

Mn/DOT decided to award the design/build contract for the Minnesota approach to the second lowest bidder: Ames / Lunda instead of C.S. McCrossan because the latter didn't employ enough women and minorities. This act of political correctness will cost state $6 million.

But they'll feel so much better about themselves.

Oh, and C.S McCrossan is suing stop work on the contract until it is either rebid or awarded to them. The anti-car people are wetting themselves thinking this will stop the project, but it only affects the Minnesota approach road.

[rte66man]

Mn/DOT decided to award the design/build contract for the Minnesota approach to the second lowest bidder: Ames / Lunda instead of C.S. McCrossan because the latter didn't employ enough women and minorities. This act of political correctness will cost state $6 million.

So who decided the definition of "enough"?  Another one for the courts....

rte66man

[Brandon]

The. Legislature. Does. Not. Set. Signed. Numbers. Some signed numbers match the legislative numbers, because it's easier that way, but many do not.

Depends on the state.  The original Illinois state route numbers, the State Bond Issue (SBI) Routes, were set by the legislature.  They were numbered in the order the legislature approved the bonds; hence SBI-1 is IL-1.  Many of them are the same routes you see today, including the aforementioned IL-1 being on most of SBI-1.