Mn/DOT Home
FAQ
Site Map
Search
Info@DOT

Frequently Asked Questions

June 2006

Why is Mn/DOT proposing another bridge?

• Existing Trunk Highway (TH) 41 is one of the most heavily-traveled two-lane roads in Minnesota, carrying over 18,000 vehicles per day; 20% of these vehicles are trucks. The resulting traffic congestion, noise and vibration pose serious quality of life concerns for downtown Chaska.

• Traffic congestion is projected to worsen on TH 41, as well as on Highway (Hwy) 101, as the southwest metropolitan area continues to develop. By our forecast study year (2040), TH 41 and Highway 101 are expected to be congested 10 hours a day. By this time, the Bloomington Ferry Bridge will also be congested.

• Both TH 41 and Hwy 101 bridges are low bridges, located within the 100-year floodplain. As a result these bridges or associated approach roadways are under water, often for many days, when the Minnesota River floods. The most recent significant flood (2001) closed the TH 41 bridge for 25 days and the Highway 101 bridge for 29 days. These closures cause major traffic disruptions and emergency service response delays for the entire southwestern metropolitan area.  

• There is poor north-south principal arterial connectivity between TH 169 and New TH 212. The only non-circuitous route between these two major roadways is on existing TH 41.

• The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) is responsible for the development and maintenance of a safe and efficient state highway system that meets the transportation needs of the public. It is our job to alleviate traffic congestion on state roads and ensure adequate access and mobility in support of a strong regional economy.

• The need for a crossing that would bridge the Minnesota River above the floodplain and connect TH 169 to New TH 212 has been recognized for over 30 years. A specific route to meet this need was studied in the 1970s but was not further pursued at that time due to fiscal constraints and more immediate transportation problems. Now, Scott and Carver Counties are rapidly growing. The Metropolitan Council has identified a new river crossing in this area as a regional priority. With the timeframe that is needed to implement a project of this magnitude, Mn/DOT must be planning for this project now.

When would this new river crossing be built?

• Funding for construction is not currently included in either the Mn/DOT’s or Metropolitan Council’s 20-year fiscally-constrained transportation plans. Right of way preservation funding is, however, included. While construction may be many years away, it is important to decide where the future river crossing would be located so that development and local transportation systems can be planned and right of way can be preserved.

If construction is not within Mn/DOT’s 20-year plan, why is this study being done now?

• Right of way preservation for a new regional crossing within this study area is included in current Mn/DOT and Metropolitan Council plans. While actual construction is not within current plans, in light of the rapid development occurring in the study area, it is good planning to reserve the appropriate corridor now so that it is available when the time comes to construct a new crossing. Because of the planning timeframe, Mn/DOT is using the "tiered" EIS process. The current Tier I EIS will address the question of which corridor to reserve; a Tier II EIS addressing more detailed design issues would be prepared much closer to the time of the construction of a new river crossing. 

What is an EIS and why is Mn/DOT preparing one?

• “EIS” is the abbreviation for Environmental Impact Statement. An EIS is prepared to meet federal and state requirements to study project impacts on the social, economic and environmental resources in the affected area. The alternatives and issues being studied in the TH 41 river crossing EIS were identified during a two-year “scoping” process.  There are six potential corridors being studied.

• The EIS will address impacts of the project alternatives on many resources, including (but not limited to) cultural resources/historic properties; wetlands and other water resources; groundwater, geology, and soils; parks, recreation areas, and the wildlife refuge; vegetation, fish and wildlife, threatened and endangered species; noise, visual and air quality; neighborhoods, community resources, and special populations; land use, development, and economic conditions; and traffic operations and other modes of transportation.

• An EIS is prepared per the regulations set out by the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) in fulfillment of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm

What does it mean to do a “Tier I” EIS?

• The federal environmental guidelines allow for a “tiered” two-step EIS process. Due to the extended timeframe for this project, it makes sense to do detailed design much closer to actual construction date; at that time a Tier II EIS will address more specific impacts and mitigation. The Tier I EIS being prepared now will inform the selection of a corridor, not a detailed design.

When will this EIS be published and where will I be able to read it?

• The Draft EIS is expected to be published late 2006. Copies will be available for review at local libraries, city halls, county government centers and Mn/DOT offices, as well as posted on this Web site. A public hearing will be held following release of the Draft EIS and there will be a 45-day formal comment period.  

When will a corridor be selected?

• Mn/DOT will select a “preferred alternative” following the 45-day formal comment period that begins when the Draft EIS is published (expected late 2006). The selection of a preferred alternative is expected to take place in 2007.

Who makes the decision and how is the public involved?

• Mn/DOT and FHWA confer to identify the preferred alternative. We will do so following thorough review of the environmental studies and in consultation with other federal “cooperating agencies” (the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency and Fish and Wildlife Service), as well as the many other stakeholder groups involved in the study.

• The selection of a preferred alternative will occur following the formal comment period on the Draft EIS. During this comment period, the Draft EIS will be available for review and a public hearing will be held. Public and agency comments received on the Draft EIS will be considered as part of the preferred alternative decision.

• Following selection of a preferred alternative, a Tier I Final EIS will be prepared. The public will be invited to review the Final EIS document and comment on its adequacy. The environmental review process is concluded when the FHWA issues a federal “Record of Decision” (which will include responses to substantive comments made on the Final EIS) and Mn/DOT issues a state “Adequacy Determination”.

Who else is involved in this project?

• The Study Advisory Committee for the project meets approximately bi-monthly to provide information, review technical work and comment on the study. Staff from the following agencies/organizations sit on the Study Advisory Committee:

  Scott County Carver County City of Carver City of Chanhassen City of Chaska City of Shakopee Jackson Township Louisville Township Metropolitan Council Department of Natural Resources Pollution Control Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Highway Administration U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Army Corps of Engineers Chaska Heritage Preservation Commission

  Lower Minnesota Watershed District Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District Scott Watershed Management Organization Carver Watershed Management Organization Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy Friends of the Minnesota Valley Sierra Club Audubon Society Southwest Corridor Coalition Shakopee Chamber of Commerce Chaska Chamber of Commerce Carver Downtown/HPC

• The Policy Advisory Committee is made up of elected officials from the agencies listed below. The role of this group is to review findings at key points in the study and to provide input regarding how the study relates to regional and local government concerns.

  Scott County Carver County City of Carver City of Chanhassen City of Chaska City of Shakopee

  Jackson Township Louisville Township Metropolitan Council Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Southwest Corridor Coalition

What happens after the preferred alternative is selected and the environmental process is complete?

• Following the conclusion of the environmental process, Mn/DOT can begin working with cities and counties to preserve right of way. This process will include official mapping of the corridor, dedication of right of way as part of new development, and purchase.

How many alternatives are being considered? Will some of these alternatives be eliminated from further consideration soon?  

• Six alignments are being studied in the Draft EIS. This is reduced from a total of 21 Build alternatives assessed during the scoping process. It is not anticipated that any of the six alternatives will be eliminated prior to the publication of the Draft EIS. The purpose of the Draft EIS is to document the impacts of each of the alternatives on the natural, built and social environment in order to fully inform the decision as to which corridor to preserve for future construction.

Why even consider an alignment where there are existing neighborhoods when there is undeveloped land further west? 

Why even consider an alignment near a calcareous fen?

Why even consider an alignment through a state recreation area?

Why even consider an alignment through a national wildlife refuge?

• The numerous social and environmental constraints in the study area create a significant challenge for siting a new river crossing. The study area includes established business areas and neighborhoods (including mobile home parks), planned development areas, two historic downtowns and numerous other historic resources, the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, a state recreation area, the Seminary Fen/Assumption Creek wetland complex as well as the extensive wetlands throughout the valley and, of course, the Minnesota River itself.  

• Mn/DOT, along with its stakeholders, evaluated 21 Build alternatives during the project’s scoping process before narrowing the options to six to be studied in detail. The first “cut” eliminated further consideration of alternatives that did not meet the identified transportation need. The final cut during scoping eliminated those options that had greater impacts but no more benefit than those that were retained for further study in the Draft EIS.

• Mn/DOT understands that each of the remaining alternatives has serious impact potential. The western area has relatively little development but is home to a national wildlife refuge and also cuts through the edge of a developing community, the City of Carver. The central area includes the refuge, a state recreation area, developing land, and proximity to historic downtown Chaska. The eastern area has an existing roadway corridor as well as land that, based on earlier studies, has been preserved for the project for nearly 30 years; however, this area also has many existing homes and businesses and a sensitive calcareous fen wetland complex. These are only a few of the many potential “pros and cons” involved in the study options. In addition, different alternatives have different travel-related benefits and serve different trip needs. The final corridor decision will need to consider these many factors; the Draft EIS will provide analysis to assist in that consideration.

What is more important – impacts on wildlife habitat or on people’s homes?

• The environmental process under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm requires that social, economic and environmental considerations be included in the planning of projects that receive federal funding. Similarly, the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) requires discussion of environmental, economic, employment, and sociological impacts.

• The purpose of NEPA as stated in 42 USC Section 4321 is “to declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.”

• The Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) has set regulations for environmental review in order to carry out the NEPA purpose, as well as guidance to further express the intent of these regulations.  In the CEQ memorandum:  “Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s NEPA Regulations” http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/40p3.htm it states that the CEQ “recognizes that the identification of the environmentally preferable alternative may involve difficult judgments, particularly when one environmental value must be balanced against another. The public and other agencies reviewing a Draft EIS can assist the lead agency to develop and determine environmentally preferable alternatives by providing their views in comments on the Draft EIS.”

• Mn/DOT likewise recognizes that there may be difficult judgments in the selection of a corridor for this important river crossing. The Draft EIS will assess impacts to the entire range of socioeconomic and natural resources including (but not limited to) existing and future development, national wildlife refuge and other wildlife habitat, Seminary Fen and other wetlands, and cultural resources, and will document how each alternative performs in solving the problems that led to the project being proposed in the first place.

• The final decision will represent an assessment of each alternative’s benefits (i.e. traffic congestion relief, regional highway connectivity, and “flood-proof” travel) and costs (i.e. impacts on the social, physical and natural environment, as well as monetary cost). In addition, the decision will consider the ability to adequately mitigate the impacts that are posed by each alternative.

Why not raise the elevation of the Hwy 101 bridge?

• A key objective of the project is to connect TH 169 to New TH 212. Hwy 101 provides poor connectivity between these two major facilities.

Why not build a river crossing in Jordan instead since development will have occurred to the west of the study area by the time of construction?

• A river crossing outside of the study area would do little to relieve traffic congestion on existing TH 41 and Hwy 101 which in the project forecast year will be congested 14 and 10 hours per day, respectively.

Why not invest in transit instead of building more roads?

• The travel forecasts developed for this project include assumptions about transit use based on Metropolitan Council transit plans. In addition, during the scoping process, we studied an alternative that assumed more aggressive work-related trip reduction (through transit use and measures such as flextime and telecommuting) than is actually anticipated in regional plans. It was found that even with these more aggressive transit use assumptions, existing TH 41 would not have sufficient capacity to handle forecast traffic.

Will my home be acquired?  If so, when would this occur and what is the process?

• Each of the alternatives being studied would require Mn/DOT to acquire right of way from currently developed land; some alternatives would affect more existing homes or businesses than others. For purposes of the Tier I EIS, a general corridor width is being assumed in order to quantify property impacts of the various alternatives. The Tier I Draft EIS will include figures showing these assumed “construction limits” and which properties they would affect. In addition, preliminary construction limits will be included in displays to be shown at the next public open house in Spring 2006.

• The outcome of the Tier I EIS process will be a selected corridor for right of way preservation. Upon completion of the EIS process Mn/DOT will work with local communities and the affected landowners to identify the best approach to preserve the needed right of way. It will most likely involve official mapping of the selected corridor. “Official Mapping” is a local zoning tool that enables Mn/DOT to work with the local communities to acquire undeveloped properties within the selected corridor where development is imminent as well as open market sales or hardship acquisitions of existing homes or businesses (i.e. the river crossing alignment makes selling the property difficult). Early acquisition efforts are limited by law to willing sellers. When the bridge construction is programmed then it will be necessary to complete acquisitions of all the properties and eminent domain actions may be required if negotiated settlements cannot be reached.

  Many homeowners expressed concern at the open house about whether it is permitted or a good idea to make home improvements (replace siding, decks, etc.). At this point in the study process, homeowners may continue with property improvement plans. If your property is within the selected corridor and an acquisition is necessary, improvements that have been made will be considered in the appraisal process.

  In terms of new development, Mn/DOT is encouraging cities to take the river crossing alignments into consideration during the local approval process. To date, Mn/DOT is not aware of any local development moratoriums on the river crossing alignments.

• All right of way acquisition and relocation must be done in accordance with procedures set by federal and state law. Mn/DOT relocation advisors help develop individual relocation plans.

How noisy will it be near the road?  Will there be noise walls?

• The Draft EIS will include a specific analysis of existing, future “No Build” and future “Build” daytime and nighttime noise levels at numerous noise-sensitive “receptors” (such as homes and recreational lands) for each of the alternatives. The Draft EIS will also compare these levels to federal and state noise standards.

• The decision on noise walls or other noise mitigation would be made after the Tier II EIS, during final design, and in accordance with federal and state policy in place at the time. Currently, noise walls are installed when they meet established cost-effectiveness criteria (i.e. they achieve a set level of noise reduction within a defined cost). The location and design of noise walls and materials are reviewed with affected communities during the design process.

How high and how long will the bridge be?

• Depending on the alternative, the bridge will between approximately 60 and 75 feet above the river and will span the entire 100-year flood plain, similar to the Bloomington Ferry Bridge. Due to the local topography and the width of river valley, the bridge will be long (1¾ to 2¾ miles, depending upon the alternative). Detailed design of the bridge and roadway will take place during the Tier II EIS process, much closer to the time of construction.

How will local access to existing TH 169 or New TH 212 change if this project is built?

• New TH 212 is currently under construction in Carver and Hennepin Counties. All of the local interchanges that are part of the New TH 212 project will be accommodated under any of the TH 41 river crossing alternatives being studied, though some minor modifications to the New TH 212 interchanges may be needed.

• There are long-term plans to convert existing at-grade intersections on TH 169 into interchanges at existing TH 41 and Highway 69 in Scott County. These plans are also accommodated within the design of each of the river crossing alternatives being studied.

Why didn’t Mn/DOT build this project 30 years ago when it was first studied?

• A Draft EIS was prepared for a single TH 41 corridor alignment alternative in the eastern portion of the study area in the early 1970s. (The E-2 alignment being assessed in the current EIS is similar to the alignment evaluated in the 1970s’ study.)  However, further environmental study and implementation decisions about this corridor were deferred due to funding constraints and more pressing transportation needs at the time.  

[ top of page ]

Prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc.  [ Last Updated: 07/26/06 ]