StarTribune.com

Far out: Exploring the mysteries of Hwy. 55

Posted on January 31st, 2007 – 6:05 AM
By Roadguy

Roadguy had never traveled on any of the western portions of Hwy. 55 — and by “western portions,” he means anything beyond the Lowe’s in Plymouth. The reason: He’d never been invited. Fortunately, on Tuesday evening, a few layers of government got together and threw an open house featuring some plans for the highway. The entire public was invited, so Roadguy seized the opportunity.

But first, as long as I was out that direction, I figured I might as well check out an on-the-road attraction that I’d heard so much about: the dots. As you may recall from last summer, MnDOT painted large dots on the pavement west of Rockford and erected signs that instructed motorists to pace themselves so there would be at least two dots between any two vehicles. The idea is that longer following distances would reduce crashes.

Hwy55_Dots.jpg

(You may also recall that the dots inspired someone to paint a large Pac-Man on the road. It’s still there, though winter has taken a toll.)

Anyway, during the evening rush hour, I gave the dots a try. They’re 225 feet apart, which, I quickly learned, is quite a bit farther than my usual following distance. Fortunately, the truck behind me was also playing along, so I didn’t have anyone breathing down my bumper.

Like many traffic rules, this one was selectively adhered to — many of the cars I saw were bunched up as they zoomed through the rolling hills. But a MnDOT report (available at the tailgating safety project page) found that the average distance between vehicles increased by about 18 feet during the study period, so perhaps more dots are in Minnesota’s future.

Safety is one of the big reasons that officials are looking to redo much of Hwy. 55, as I learned after I arrived for the open house, which was held at the …

Hwy55_HCBuilding.jpg

… a mammoth structure that takes up much of Medina. It was cold outside, but inside, things looked like an opening night at an art gallery:

Hwy55_Meeting1.jpg

Ever civic-minded, Minnesotans were not thwarted by near-zero temperatures — they wanted to learn about a project that could affect significant numbers of people.

The big maps hanging on the wall were actually aerial photos with various revamped roadways superimposed. There were two proposals for the Plymouth part of the project: one would turn Hwy. 55 into a four-lane almost-freeway, with overpasses and no stoplights. The other would convert it to a six-lane road and keep the stoplights. The engineers said that the four-lane version would actually have a greater capacity because a stoplight-free road can handle more cars. West of Plymouth, 55 would be four lanes (instead of the current two) all the way to the county line at Rockford.

There were lots of details on how the new road might be configured, but some key elements had yet to be determined, such as …

Hwy55_494Interchange.jpg

Indeed — not much room for loop ramps. Plus, there was the whole matter of money. The entire Hwy. 55 project is, as they say, unfunded, so its schedule sort of trails off:

Hwy55_Schedule.jpg

Still, officials want to move ahead with preserving the right of way now, while it’s cheaper and less disruptive to do so.

This means that people in the project’s path have at least a little time to consider their options. One guy, the owner of an independent gas station, told me he’s been worried that upgrades to Hwy. 55 will permanently cut off one of his station’s three entrances. (He was interesting to chat with — topics included his recent viewing of “An Inconvenient Truth,” the global-warming movie. Maybe it’s secretly popular among gasoline vendors?) Another guy, a homeowner, held up his cell phone to take a picture of a map that included a “potential access connection” — a possible new road, shown in purple below — running through his rural neighborhood and very close to his house:

Hwy55_Access.jpg

Hwy55_IntersectionCapacity.jpgOf course, it works both ways — lots of people would be affected if the highway isn’t expanded. Not only would the safety concerns remain, but the number of vehicles using the corridor will keep increasing no matter what, said Jim Grube, a Hennepin County engineer who’s the project’s manager. On display at the open house was a chart showing how traffic delays would rise if nothing is done. (You can click on the thumbnail at right to learn which intersections would receive an “F” in 2030 for having delays in excess of “180 seconds.”) As far as I could tell, the overall plans contain no transit-specific elements, although Grube noted that improved speeds on Hwy. 55 would benefit bus traffic.

By the time the open house was over, an estimated 75 people had stopped by to learn about the project, offer their comments, and grab a free cookie. You can see some of the same things via the project’s home page — though you’ll have to bring your own refreshments.

Comments, as always, are welcomed below.

5 Responses to "Far out: Exploring the mysteries of Hwy. 55"

David says:

January 31st, 2007 at 10:55 am

No surprise that transit isn’t a part of these plans. Mn/DOT will always be famous for the quote, “We don’t _do_ transit.”

Why can’t our department of transportation accept the fact that highways-only thinking is only going to carry us further down the present path that is not working? The number of vehicles in the corridor might very well increase “no matter what,” but it would be a lot slower increase with good transit. I think a light rail line in the corridor might work quite well.

bsimon says:

January 31st, 2007 at 10:58 am

“[T]he number of vehicles using the corridor will keep increasing no matter what, said Jim Grube. On display at the open house was a chart showing how traffic delays would rise if nothing is done.”

I wonder if anyone has produced charts that show how growth would (or wouldn’t) accelerate if the road is rebuilt & how that would impact (or wouldn’t) the chart showing how traffic delays would rise if nothing is done. In other words, I’m asking “how much would delays rise if something is done?”

Seems like this lesson has been learned before; people move out of city, to where homes are less expensive. Roads taking them to their jobs get congested. Roads are rebuilt, inspiring more people to move out of the city, to where homes are less expensive. Roads get more congested….

JoelCFC25 says:

January 31st, 2007 at 1:53 pm

I presume SRF Group did all the traffic modeling that formed the basis of the chart in the picture. They do the same thing on some projects here in Roseville.

As I would expect for as far out of the urban core as the project area is, there are only a couple current interchanges with failing levels of service. What you can’t tell from the chart is how long the failing level lasts (something you can easily determine from the raw data the traffic modeling generates). In some cases you might only be at that maximum delay for 10 or 15 minutes of the AM or PM peak period, yet it would be assigned the failing level of service. Alternatively, if the curve has broad shoulders you’d have the worst conditions lasting for much or all of the peak period and possibly beyond.

The 2030 no-build scenario has to include some baseline assumptions about growth–it would interesting to know what those are. For the purposes of the traffic model, they plug in numbers for additional housing units, square feet of retail, office, industrial, and other uses. Each land use type is associated with a certain amount of trip generation allocated throughout the day (for example, retail use will have a different pattern than office, which would typically have people coming and going at the AM peak, lunchtime, and the PM peak).

I can’t imagine a no-build through 2030 scenario is very realistic, as public pressure would inevitably mount to do something. Once a project gets proposed you take the results of these traffic studies and then think through mitigation strategies…things like adding lanes, adding dual left turn lanes at certain intersections, right turn lanes, right-in/right-outs, even grade separation. Some mitigation strategies can prove unfeasible…e.g., if the model showed that adding dual lefts was the only way to raise an intersection above a failing level of service, but your problem was only a 15 minute period in the AM and PM rush hour and due to previous development the cost of acquiring more right-of-way to fit the bigger resulting intersection was too high…you might just accept the failing level of service.

To (maybe) address bsimon’s question, they could definitely do sensitivity testing of the model in a number of ways. They could keep the growth assumptions they are using and run the model incorporating some or all of the proposed changes and see how the intersections grade out. Or you could go at it backwards and say “Well, we won’t accept any F levels of service at all” and tweak your growth assumptions to find the maximum amount of housing, retail, office, etc can be absorbed before the model blows up and starts showing F levels. Things can definitely reach a tipping point where small changes in one place have knock-on effects and dramatically alter the model at other key intersections.

Monte says:

February 1st, 2007 at 7:29 am

I’ll vote strongly in favor of the “freeway” option.

A few years ago there was a similar situation where Mn/DOT was studying what to do about MN 65 north of US 10. Same type of options: six lane highway with stoplights, or four lane freeway. They did a cost / benefit analysis and the costs for the six lane option actually exceeded the benefits.

(If you want to know, your time stuck in traffic is worth $12.63 an hour, if a teen rear ends you while texting on her cell phone it’s $4,600.)

As far as transit, Light Rail might be able to fit, especially with the freeway option, but I don’t think it’s an appropriate place because of lack of density. It’s worth noting that the Southwest line is going to stop near the I-494 beltway, even though right of way exists to take it almost to Chaska. commuter rail, or commuter coach busses might be better options if there’s sufficent demand for transit.

Froggie says:

February 2nd, 2007 at 11:33 pm

A couple notes:

- I was asked, by E-mail, to provide my own comments on the corridor to MnDOT. Still have to get around to that…I’ve had a lot on my plate lately.

- In response to David, MnDOT’s role regarding transit is to provide assistance. Given the location of this project, responibility for transit planning is with the Met Council and the city of Plymouth, NOT MnDOT.

- In response to bsimon, based on your comment, the solution would be to get more affordable housing in the city. In this case, a total revamp of Minneapolis Public Schools wouldn’t hurt either…a lot of these people are moving out to the sticks for schools that are magnitudes better than within the city.

Fat chance of that happening, though…