CHAPTER 8
ROAD JURISDICTION
Introduction
What Does Roadway Jurisdiction Signify?
County Roadway System Criteria
Types of County Funding Designations
Why Are Jurisdictional Changes Necessary?
Candidates for Roadway Jurisdictional Transfers
Hennepin County Transportation Systems Plan (HC-TSP)
Chapter 8 Road Jurisdiction
8.1 Introduction
Roadway jurisdiction determines whether a road falls under the state, county or city
level of responsibility. This chapter examines why jurisdictional road assignments
are needed, how system continuity is achieved for the county roadway system, and
what the ramifications are for funding designations. The chapter also describes the
criteria for county roadway system designation. The need for changes in
jurisdictional designations is discussed and potential candidates for exchange are
identified.
8.2 What Does Roadway Jurisdiction Signify?
The jurisdiction of a roadway is important as it signifies how a road is handled for
the following items.
Administration
The jurisdiction identifies the agency having system responsibilities for planning,
design, construction, and maintenance. Each agency’s staff has special expertise
and a distinct philosophy which appropriately matches to the level of roadways
they are responsible for.
Funding
Certain funding sources are made available based on a roadway’s jurisdictional
classification. For example, by policy established by the Metropolitan Council,
certain minor arterial roadways are eligible for federal funding participation.
Functional Classification
The hierarchy of roadway functional classification is supported by having the
proper agencies assigned to monitor a road’s mobility and access priorities.
System Continuity
Appropriate jurisdictional classification is necessary to provide system connectivity
and consistency.
Administrative levels generally refer to the state, county and city (or township). At
the state level, Mn/DOT oversees the interstate freeways, U.S. trunk highways, and
state trunk highways. Hennepin County oversees county roadways and the
individual cities are responsible for local streets.
The eligibility to use certain funding sources or portions of the funding sources is
tied to the jurisdictional designation. For instance, County State Aid funding can
HC – TSP
8-1
Chapter 8 – Roadway Jurisdiction
only be used on CSAH routes. Similar links to specific funding categories also
exist for state highways and municipal streets.
Functional classification responsibilities also tend to be tied to jurisdiction. As was
discussed previously in Chapter 6 on Functional Classification (Exhibit 6-3),
Mn/DOT ideally has jurisdiction over principal arterials and some minor arterials,
Hennepin County has jurisdiction over most minor arterials and some collector
streets and local cities have jurisdiction over most collector streets and all local
streets.
System continuity is important since each agency is responsible to provide for
certain types of trip making within their jurisdictional regions. For instance,
Mn/DOT is interested in maintaining a system of highways which serves the state,
Hennepin County’s roadway system needs to serve regional and subregional travel
needs, and individual cities are concerned about street systems which connect local
neighborhoods.
For Hennepin County, connectivity is achieved through developing:
•
System connections
•
Linkages to major activity centers
•
Spanning significant natural and man-made barriers
•
Inter-county connections between urban and rural areas
•
An interconnected network within a county-wide system
•
Integration between the regional metropolitan highway system and the local
street systems
Consistency is achieved through adherence to:
•
Design guidelines and standards
•
Design operating speeds
•
Access spacing guidelines
•
Maintaining the role of county roadways within the overall hierarchy of the
regional transportation system
•
Application of safety elements
8.3 County Roadway System Criteria
To be included in the county roadway system, a facility should satisfy a number of
basic criteria. To serve county-wide motorized and non-motorized transportation
modes, the roadway corridor should:
•
HC – TSP
. . . be projected to carry a relatively heavy volume of daily and peak hour trips.
8-2
Chapter 8 – Roadway Jurisdiction
•
. . . satisfy the regional functional classification guidelines for minor arterial
roads.
•
. . . enhance system connectivity by linking to major activity centers, spanning
major natural or man-made barriers, or interconnecting urban and rural
environments.
•
. . . maintain system continuity (design, speeds, access spacing, county role,
safety elements).
•
. . . be integrated with the state trunk highway system and the local street
system.
•
. . . serve medium length trips that travel within a community or across city
boundaries within the county.
•
. . . provide a moderate level of mobility with a relatively lower level of direct
land access. Depending on the context of the location, the balance between
providing mobility and land access will vary between urban and rural areas.
•
. . . be compatible with the desirable network spacing and it should provide
county-wide coverage.
The selection criteria needs to allow for special circumstances where it would be in
the county’s interest to designate a roadway even if some of the above criteria were
not met, for example - providing a county regional park access route.
These criteria are for guidance in the selection process. Many competing and
overlapping elements are involved and a considerable amount of professional
judgment must be included in the final evaluation.
8.4 Types of County Funding Designations
County roadways have two primary funding related designations: 1) County State
Aid Highway (CSAH) and 2) County Road.
8.4.1 County State Aid Highway
County State Aid Highways are routes that are eligible for state aid funding
assistance. Currently, Hennepin County has approximately 520 centerline miles
designated as CSAH routes. Besides state aid monies, other funding sources
available to CSAH routes include:
Federal Aid
Most CSAH routes are functionally classified as “A” type minor arterials by the
Metropolitan Council, and as such, they are eligible for federal assistance made
available by the Metropolitan Council.
HC – TSP
8-3
Chapter 8 – Roadway Jurisdiction
Property Tax
Monies levied directly from property taxes are available for county roadways.
Another mechanism is for the county to issue county road bonds which are repaid
via property tax revenues.
Local Matching Funds
Many construction elements require a local matching contribution. For instance,
the construction of sidewalks or multi-use trails within county roadway rights-ofway requires a local contribution.
Trunk Highway Turnback
Roads, which were formally designated by Mn/DOT as trunk highways, become
CSAH roadways when they are conveyed to the county. A turnback funding
account is normally available to the county for improvements after the road is
transferred.
State Bonding Funds
County road bridge construction projects are eligible to use state bonding monies.
8.4.2 County Roads
Roadways that are not designated as CSAH (county roads) generally serve cities
under 5,000 population and carry low levels of traffic volumes. This class of roads
is functionally classified as “B” type minor arterials or collector streets.
Approximately 40 centerline miles of the county roadway system are designated as
county road. The funding source for maintenance and construction is primarily
county property tax.
8.5 Why Are Jurisdictional Changes Necessary?
The function of some roadways change or transition over time due to factors such
as increased urbanization or other significant changes in the roadway system.
System realignments and adjustments are often made to facilitate functional
changes prompted by new land development and redevelopment.
Jurisdictional transfers are generally infrequent. Hennepin County typically
processes 2-3 transfers in an average year. The four types of jurisdictional transfers
that occur are:
HC – TSP
8-4
Chapter 8 – Roadway Jurisdiction
8.5.1 Trunk Highways Turned Back to Hennepin County
Under this type of exchange, the roadways formerly under state jurisdiction are no
longer functioning as a principal arterial, but are functioning as a minor arterial.
One example of a recent jurisdictional change would be the transfer of old
Trunk Highway 212 from Mn/DOT to Hennepin County as part of the construction
of the new TH-212 through Eden Prairie into Carver County.
Improvements of a roadway can change the type and directional nature of trips
using another parallel roadway thus supporting a jurisdictional change.
For example, the construction of the new TH-12 Bypass in Long Lake and Orono
significantly reduced the through trips on the old highway changing its principal
arterial function to more of a minor arterial function similar to other county
roadways.
In some cases, Mn/DOT may have originally designated trunk highway routes
through the urban core area in an effort to maintain continuity with the statewide
system. Recent examples of this type of a transfer include CSAH-101 (formerly
TH-101) in Corcoran and Plymouth, University Avenue / CSAH-36 (formerly US52) and Washington Avenue / CSAH-122 (formerly TH-122) at the University of
Minnesota.
Table 8-1 lists the trunk highway turnbacks that have occurred in Hennepin County
to date.
HC – TSP
8-5
Chapter 8 – Roadway Jurisdiction
Table 8-1 History of Trunk Highway Turnbacks in Hennepin County
Former Trunk
Highway
Present County State
Aid Highway
TH-190
CSAH-46
Location
Turnback
Mileage
Date of
Transfer
Release
Minneapolis
1.35
July 1966
Edina
2.23
November
1967
Dayton &
Hassan
Township
5.68
October 1968
Minneapolis
0.25
April 1977
(East 46th Street)
US-169
CSAH-158
(Vernon Avenue)
TH-101
CSAH-12 &
CSAH-13
TH-190
CSAH-5
(Franklin Avenue)
US-212
CSAH-3
(Excelsior Blvd.)
Hopkins
1.99
July 1980
TH-152
CSAH-152
(Brooklyn Blvd.)
Brooklyn
Center
0.47
July 1980
TH-47
CSAH-52
Minneapolis
0.08
July 1981
TH-152
CSAH-152
Minneapolis
4.04
November
1984
TH-36
CSAH-3
(Lake Street)
Minneapolis
0.46
February
1987
15 Segments
of Trunk
Highways
Mn/DOT Agreement No.
64760 *
----
----
April 1988
US-52
CSAH-152 (Washington
Ave.)
Minneapolis
1.71
May 1996
TH-122
CSAH-122 (Washington
Ave.)
Minneapolis
1.44
November
1996
TH-101
CSAH-101
Minnetonka &
Wayzata
6.19
October 1997
TH-65
CSAH-152
Minneapolis
0.15
April 2005
US-212
CSAH-61
Eden Prairie
7.12
November
2009
US-12
CSAH-112
Long Lake &
Orono
4.14
January 2011
*
HC – TSP
This 1988 agreement between Mn/DOT and Hennepin County exchanged 15 segments of trunk
highway and legislative routes for the existing county roadways of CSAH-62 and CSAH-18 (now
TH-62 and TH-169).
8-6
Chapter 8 – Roadway Jurisdiction
8.5.2 County Roads Turned Back to Cities
County roads that are primarily serving a collector type local street function are
occasionally turned back to cities when the transfer serves both agency’s purposes.
Recent transfers of this type include Rogers Drive (formerly CSAH-49) in Rogers
and West River Road (formerly CSAH-12) in Brooklyn Park.
The turnback of a county roadway to a city is accomplished through a dialog
intended to lessen the maintenance burden to the accepting city. The county’s
policy is to ensure the road has been upgraded to provide a long service life prior to
the turnback. Hennepin County will not proceed with a turnback action to a city
unless the city is comfortable with the terms of the turnback.
8.5.3 County Roads Transferred to Mn/DOT
These types of transfers are relatively infrequent. They are initiated when a county
road has transitioned from a minor arterial function to a principal arterial function.
The road is carrying significant volumes of traffic, and is serving regional travel
movements beyond Hennepin County.
Two examples of this type of jurisdictional change are the transfer of CSAH-62
(Crosstown Highway – now TH-62) and CSAH-18 (now TH-169). Both roadways
are limited access freeways that serve the region, connect to major Mississippi
River crossings and carry tens of thousands of trips every day. The transfer of these
two roadways was included in the 1988 Mn/DOT Transfer Agreement that
exchanged CSAH-62 and CSAH-18 for 15 segments of trunk highway and
legislative routes.
8.5.4 Local Streets Added to County Roadway System
Higher volume local streets that are transitioning to serving longer trips are often
added to the county roadway system by agreement with the affected city. A recent
example of this type of transfer was the designation of Noble Parkway as new
CSAH-12 in the City of Brooklyn Park. This transfer was done as an exchange for
the county transferring old CSAH-12 (West River Road) to the city.
8.6 Candidates for Roadway Jurisdictional
Transfers
Map E, entitled “Jurisdiction and Long-range Transportation Issue Areas.” is
included in the report map pocket and it displays potential candidates for
jurisdictional transfers based on an evaluation of the county roadway system and
based on discussions with Mn/DOT and a number of cities. The items identified on
the map are provided for discussion purposes only. The identified roadway
segments do not constitute implicit support by the affected agencies for any of the
potential revisions.
HC – TSP
8-7
Chapter 8 – Roadway Jurisdiction
Jurisdictional transfers or exchanges are generally a result of a mutually agreed
transaction between both affected agencies. As part of the transfer of a county
roadway to another agency, Hennepin County will try to ensure that the roadway
has an adequate design life so as not to burden the accepting agency with undue
maintenance needs. To do this, the county will often provide improvements such as
a pavement overlay and other miscellaneous upgrades for a roadway before it is
transferred to a city.
It is anticipated that considerable on-going discussion will occur regarding these
candidates as part of the comprehensive planning process since these transfers
involve a number of issues including funding, functional class, and system
continuity. Additional evaluation will be required to resolve which candidates will
ultimately be put forth as recommendations during the implementation of the 2030
HC-TSP.
HC – TSP
8-8
Chapter 8 – Roadway Jurisdiction