FINAL REPORT TASK FORCE REVIEW OF ISSUE 1 Functional

final report task force review of issue #1 functional classification/roadway jurisdiction/state aid system march, 2009 assignmen

FINAL REPORT
TASK FORCE REVIEW OF ISSUE #1
Functional Classification/Roadway Jurisdiction/State Aid System
March, 2009
ASSIGNMENT FROM BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The Task Force members comprised of Rick Kjonaas, Rhonda Lewis, Tom
Behm, Al Forsberg, Mark Krebsbach, Jim Grube, Mike Hanson, Rich
Sanders, John Brunkhorst, Marcus Hall, and Brian Noetzelman,
considered the assignment and offered the following response.
The Task Force answered the assigned questions as follows:
A.
Should MN/DOT own all Principal Arterials? Should MN/DOT take over
any Principal Arterials beyond the current TH system? How would
these routes be taken over? This will require coordination with
MN/DOT top staff.
Task Force Recommendation:
The Task Force is in agreement that MN/DOT should own all Principal
Arterials, including those beyond the current TH system. Similarly,
there are Collectors and lower priority Minor Arterials on the TH
system
that should be turned back to the CSAH system.
Counties with Principal Arterials should be encouraged to work with
MN/DOT to transfer jurisdiction of Principal Arterial Routes. This
should be done in coordination with MN/DOT to transfer jurisdiction of
appropriate Minor Arterials or Collectors to the CSAH system.
B.
Should Counties release roads designated as “local” to cities or
townships? Consult with the Township Association.
Task Force Recommendation:
The Task Force is in agreement that these are currently local
decisions and should remain so.
This recommendation was made without consultation with the Township
Association. Because of this, the Task Force awaits further direction
from the MCEA Board.
C.
After considering jurisdictional transfers, what roadways should
be on the state-aid system and how does that coincide with the
updated functional class?
Task Force Recommendation:
The majority of the CSAH system should be classified as collectors;
however, strict adherence to this guideline is not always possible.
Collector classification is recommended, not required.
Counties should be encouraged to look at internal revisions to remove
as many local roads as possible from their system. It would be
preferable that where possible, the local routes should be banked or
swapped with a non-CSAH collector.
D. If the state-aid system and the arterial/collector system do not
coincide, what criteria should be used to justify a “local” road
remaining on the state-aid system? A definition could form the basis
for a tiered state-aid system.
Task Force Recommendation:
In the past, State Aid has been strict in requiring that roadways
classified as collector or above be eligible for State Aid funding.
However, there are not enough collector miles available under the
federal guidelines for an adequate State Aid system.
The State Aid system is not intended to be a mirror image of the
Federal Aid collector system. Most CSAH routes should be classified as
collector; however, this should be viewed as a recommendation and not
a rule.
E.
What roads should be removed from the system? When? How?
Task Force Recommendation:
The Task Force is mindful that in the last 50 years the CSAH system
has become less homogeneous across the state as local jurisdictions
have differing priorities.
County engineers are also aware that placing local roads on the CSAH
system and funding local road projects with state and federal funds
can draw criticism.
What may be worth pursuing is a Hold Harmless clause to protect
funding for counties that actively turn back routes where appropriate.
E.
How is the CSAH/Municipal mileage affected by the recommendations?
How do TH turn-back miles affect the CSAH/Municipal system? Are
classified local roads needed to make an integrated network on the
CSAH/Municipal system?
Task Force Recommendation:
Previously turned-back trunk highways should not be required to remain
on the CSAH system indefinitely. Where appropriate, they must be
allowed to migrate to the municipal system.
Counties are making turn-backs to cities with increasing frequency.
This has resulted in diluting the MSAS fund but has not decreased the
size of the CSAH system.
Some local roads on the CSAH system are appropriate, particularly in
cases where providing linkages and grid-work are necessary.
G.
Consult with CEAM. Will there be any impacts to the MSAS system as
a result of these recommendations?
Task Force Recommendation:
Growth of city mileage remains a concern but the jurisdiction of
highways should be a local decision.
Although concerns remain about the “right size” of the CSAH and MSAS
system, it was agreed that the incentive for a city to take on a CSAH
or county road turn-back is negligible.
3