US 61 Hastings Bypass idea

In April, 2008, after MnDOT announced an accelerated timeline for replacing the US 61 Mississippi River bridge at Hastings, fellow road aficionado John Weeks posted his idea for a Hastings bypass on his website, accessible here.  I had long had my own ideas for a Hastings Bypass, and finally decided to post them here.

This is my idea for a Hastings bypass and related transportation improvements in the Hastings area, overlaid on top of 2006 aerial imagery from NAIP.  Click on the image for a larger graphic (warning, larger graphic is 1.3MB).

While John proposed an eastern bypass for US 61, I've proposed a western bypass instead, in keeping with a 1968 bypass proposal from then-MHD (precursor to MnDOT).  Several items and features exist in my bypass proposal:

• A western bypass for US 61 through traffic, with interchanges at existing US 61/10, CSAH 42, existing MN 55, a relocated MN 55, CSAH 46/47, and existing US 61
• Ties into a new US 61 corridor either parallel to or along existing MN 316 towards Red Wing.
• Allows for replacement of the existing river bridge, which in my opinion will be necessary under ANY scenario, bypass or other.
• At the north end of the bypass, the interchange with existing US 61/10 also ties into a partial relocation of MN 95, with an optional 4-lane corridor north along MN 95 to I-94.
• At the southwest corner of the bypass, there's an interchange with a relocated MN 55, allowing MN 55 traffic from the west to bypass Hastings to the south.  This MN 55 relocation has an interchange at CSAH 42/CSAH 85 with a tie-in to existing MN 55 there.
• Also at the southwest corner, there's an option for a freeway or expressway-grade facility heading southwest.  I envision this corridor bypassing Farmington and Lakeville to the south and connecting to I-35 near the Scott/Dakota County line.
• There's also an option to build an interchange at the existing US 10/US 61 split on the north side of the river.
• Due to Constitutional Route requirements, existing US 61 needs to remain on the state highway system.  Existing US 61 between MN 50 and MN 316 becomes an extended MN 50, while existing US 61 north of MN 50 and through Hastings becomes an extended MN 20.  Optionally, under this scenario, the MN 50/MN 20 junction could be reconfigured into a normal 4-way intersection (or interchange) instead of today's pair of T-intersections.

Several reasons why I chose to go with a western bypass, vice the eastern bypass that John proposes:

• Fewer river floodplain impacts.
• Better serves existing and future development on the western side of Hastings.
• Better connections to MN 55 and MN 95.
• Opportunity to tie into a possible major arterial to the southwest (another east-west principal arterial south of the CSAH 42 corridor is being studied by Dakota County and MnDOT).
• Retains existing US 61 to serve downtown and eastern Hastings (an eastern bypass would somewhat duplicate this).
• Fewer total miles of freeway required.
• Fewer interchanges required (8 vs. 9).

Of course, with any major project, my proposal has a few drawbacks:

• 2 miles longer than an eastern bypass for US 61 through traffic (9.2 miles vs. 7.2 miles)
• 1 mile longer than an eastern bypass for traffic between MN 55 West and US 10 East (11.6 miles vs. 10.6 miles)
• Requires a 1 mile long crossing of the Mississippi River.

That said, I believe the benefits of a western bypass would outweigh the drawbacks.

Return to Twin Cities Interchange Upgrade Ideas
Return to Froggie's Rantings
Return to Twin Cites Highways
 

Page last modified 24 May, 2008