Letter to the Metropolitan Council Chairman Peter Bell regarding ...

April 6, 2010
Transit for Livable Communities, 626 Selby Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55104
Phone: 651-767-0298 E-mail: tlc@tlcminnesota.org Web site: www.tlcminnesota.org
Peter Bell, Chair
Metropolitan Council
390 Robert Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Dear Chair Bell:
Re: Concerns about TH-169/494 reconstruction project
I wanted to follow up on the remarks made by Transit for Livable Communities and Smart Growth
America at the Metropolitan Council meeting on March 24th regarding the proposed reconstruction of the
TH-169/I-494 interchange area. This letter details more explicitly our concerns about this $172 million
project and describes how the region can attack congestion in that corridor effectively and at much lower
cost. Savings from an alternative strategy for the interchange area would provide significant financial
resources for regional and local safety, repair, and multimodal projects that are more consistent with
regional transportation spending priorities.
Funding the interchange is inconsistent with state and regional policy
The state and the region share the policy goals of improving safety, expanding transportation choices, and
maintaining the infrastructure we have. Mn/DOT’s new highway plan states, ―This plan moves the region
away from its long held and historical approach of attempting to build its way out of congestion...‖
Expanding the interchange would spend $172 million explicitly to try to build out of congestion and take
money away from critical safety, mobility, and repair needs.
The interchange would take money away from safety needs
Safety—reducing transportation-related fatalities and injuries—is Mn/DOT’s first priority. The current
interchange corridor data show an elevated number of crashes, but Mn/DOT data show that none of the
crashes at this interchange during the period 2003 to 2008 have involved either a fatality or serious injury.
There are a lot of property-damage crashes. That is unfortunate, but these are not cause to invest in a full
reconstruction of this interchange which would result in the postponement of more pressing safety
investments. This interchange (shown as #5 in the lower portion of the map on the next page) is simply
not the most dangerous intersection in the region, nor is it even close.
The University of Minnesota is a national leader in making transportation safety data easily available.
Using saferoadmaps.org, co-developed by the University, one can quickly see that the TH-169/I-494
interchange and the area around it is actually is safer than many in the region. Moving the TH-169/I-494
expansion to the head of the queue takes money away from more pressing safety hot spots.
1

Fatalities, west side of the region, 2003-2007 (latest full data available)
Mn/DOT and the Department of Public Safety have made enormous strides in improving the safety of the
regional transportation system, but much remains to be done. Moving a relatively safe intersection to the
top of the funding queue takes money away from places with greater safety needs, and belies the
commitment that Mn/DOT and the Metropolitan Council have made to make safety their first priority.
Continued on next page
2

The interchange would take money away from higher priority projects
Mobility—including easing congestion—is Mn/DOT’s second priority. Mn/DOT data show that this
intersection is not the most congested in the region. As reported in Mn/DOT’s Feb 2010 Congestion
Report, this interchange experiences serious congestion in one direction during the morning peak period
and minimal congestion in the evening. Many other locations throughout the region experience
congestion much broader in time and scope.
AM peak congestion - 2009 PM peak congestion -2009
Nor will investment here produce meaningful or long-term improvement. Investing $172 million into one
small section of Hwy. 169 to attack congestion in one direction during one peak will move the morning
traffic jam a couple of miles. Vehicles coming northbound would simply arrive more quickly at the
congestion on eastbound I-494. The region needs a plan to provide alternatives to congested travel.
The interchange would take money away from needed repair projects
A third Mn/DOT priority is to bring our roads and bridges into a state of good repair. Spending
$172 million to fully reconstruct intersections and an interchange that are not in poor condition while
there are many metro area road and bridge segments in poor condition is inconsistent with that priority.
Mn/DOT’s new Statewide Transportation Plan acknowledges that Mn/DOT does not currently meet and
will not be able to meet its targets for pavement quality, resulting in a doubling of the percentage of
arterial roads in poor condition by 2012 (see p. 7.2-5). Delayed maintenance of roads and bridges results
in higher overall costs for repair and replacement, while well-maintained roads improve fuel efficiency,
reduce vehicle depreciation, and increase driver safety.
Moving this project to the top of the funding queue takes money away from communities with repair
needs, and belies the commitment that Mn/DOT and the Metropolitan Council have made to a state of
good repair.
We can spend less money and get a better result
Fortunately, it is possible to attack both the current crash rate and the rush hour congestion with
approaches that are both cheaper and proven by Mn/DOT.
3

1. Reduce crashes by redesigning the current approaches
Mn/DOT can slow the traffic heading into the congested part of existing Hwy. 169 by installing
variable speed limits and warning flashers similar to what exists on TH61 northbound, just south of I-
94. These measures slow traffic when necessary and allow higher speeds when not necessary. This
approach can be installed more or less immediately compared to the current time frame proposed for
the expansion.
2. Reduce congestion by offering commuters choices
The congestion in this corridor is entirely from commuters. Mn/DOT and the affected jurisdictions
can take numerous actions to give commuters in that corridor ways to avoid the morning congestion.
• Mn/DOT could work more closely with employers in the corridor. A 2007 Mn/DOT study found
that investing in Transportation Management Associations was a far more cost-effective way to
reduce congestion than building new lanes. Mn/DOT’s e-Work program is a national leader; it
can be much more aggressively implemented in that corridor.
• Public transportation options in that corridor are minimal (less than 20 northbound buses each
morning); these can be substantially increased. Mn/DOT and local communities all along the I-
494 corridor have been making roadway improvements to allow for an arterial BRT system
parallel to I-494. Now all that is needed is the transit.
All of these cost less and can be put in place more quickly than a multi-level interchange. And all of
these options would reduce congestion throughout the corridor, not just at a single interchange.
We need to put our time and money into a better system, not more of the same
As the region grows, we’re going to need some new roads, but a giant interchange is not going to move us
towards the system we need. This interchange expansion would take money and Mn/DOT attention away
from projects that take care of what we have, improve safety, and improve choices. With the savings that
could come from a lower-cost solution, there could be as much as $150 million available for other
transportation needs in the region such as:
• Safety. Project savings would pay for hundreds of miles of cable median barrier, shown to
dramatically reduce fatalities and the most serious injuries. These funds could buy intersection
lighting and rumble strips for more rural parts of the region –low cost investments that also are
proven to reduce fatalities.
• Choice and mobility. Federal funding being used for the project would pay for the $43 million in
metro-area transit capital projects in the bonding bill that were vetoed by the Governor. These
investments would ensure that we accelerate these vital transit corridors and maximize federal
funding.
• Repair. State highway and local pavements are currently in the worst condition in state history
and are projected to get much worse. A far greater percentage of motorists are affected by
potholes and poor road condition than are affected by the interchange at TH-169/I-494. $150
million would buy dozens of miles of mill and overlay and new pavement across the metro
region.
• Compliance with ADA. Minnesota should meet its obligations to make state and local roads more
accessible for people with disabilities.
4

Every poll shows that citizens want their transportation system to provide safety, mobility, and good
repair. Polls also show that the nearly 75% of individuals without convenient access to transit would like
more transportation choices. A majority of voters also say that government must be held accountable for
how our transportation tax dollars are spent.
Driving and congestion patterns have changed, technology has changed, and the region has learned a lot
about what works. The Council and the state have become national leaders in using more innovative
approaches to address congestion and put in place flexible, multi-modal corridors.
Transit for Livable Communities urges you not to add this project to the Transportation Improvement
Program as currently scoped. We would like to work with you, and could offer resources, to develop and
quickly implement an alternative plan for this corridor that addresses the local concerns, while adding to
the safety, mobility, and good repair of the regional transportation system.
Sincerely,
Barb Thoman, Acting Executive Director
Transit for Livable Communities
Cc:
Tom Sorel, Commissioner, MnDOT
Donn Wiski, Chair, TAB
Kevin Roggenbuck, Administrator, TAB
Tim Mayasich, Chair, TAC
5