The Infrastructure Guru of Moorhead

SA: Dr. Zimmerman, for the benefit of those new to the area, particularly Moorhead, a little background information about who you are may be enlightening for many who don’t always pay attention to Moorhead City Council meetings, where you are often called upon for explanations regarding what the city is in need of, what the choices for the city are and how much whatever it is will eventually cost. So, where are you from originally, and when and where did you earn your degrees, including a doctorate in engineering?

Dr.Z: I grew up on a farm near Ulen, Minn. After graduating from Ulen-Hitterdal High School, I attended NDSU and earned a bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering in 1985, a master’s degree in 1987 and a Ph.D. in 1991.

SA: Where did you first begin your career, and what was your first employment opportunity?

Dr.Z: My first job offer was from a large, national consulting firm in Kansas City. Not wanting an office cubicle in a group of hundreds of engineers, I declined and went back to school for a master’s degree. While I was working on a Ph.D., I was employed at NDSU as an instructor.

SA: What year did you first begin working for the City of Moorhead, and in what capacity? What is your official position currently in the City of Moorhead’s staff operations? In ‘layman’s terms, in what departments and areas is your expertise called upon for decisions, and how do those areas and departments affect the citizens of Moorhead?

Dr. Z: I started working for the City in 1989 as Superintendent of the wastewater utility. In 2000, I was promoted to Assistant Public Works Director, and in 2002, I was promoted to City Engineer. The City Engineer serves as the director of the Engineering Department, which has responsibility for three general functions: Engineering Services, the Wastewater Utility and the Stormwater Utility. The Engineering Services group is responsible for managing, designing, constructing and reconstructing the City’s transportation, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure for both existing and new development. The Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities are responsible for managing the operation and maintenance of the City’s wastewater and stormwater collection and treatment systems. The department is also responsible for floodplain management. The services provided by the Engineering Department are used by citizens every day.

SA: As the person most knowledgeable about the recent fiasco regarding the Federal Highway Administration’s demand for the City to close the ramps leading to Highway 52 going south and Main Avenue going north; when push came to shove, would we have been able to retain the substantial Federal funding we needed in order to build 34th Street and continue it out to I-94 had we not agreed to the whims of the Federal Highway Administration?

Dr.Z: No. The total cost of the 34th St./I-94 Interchange Project is approximately $25 million. Of that, about $17.5 million is being paid with federal and state funds. There were deadlines associated with obligating some of this funding. Had the first phase of the project not moved to construction in 2008, some of the funding would have been lost.

In the project development phase, City staff first requested that FHWA approve retention and reconstruction of the eastbound off-ramp and westbound on-ramp at the SE Main Ave./CSAH 52 and I-94 interchange in December of 2005. The City provided technical justification and, despite numerous discussions, FHWA did not approve the request. In November of 2006, a decision was made to move forward with the project per FHWA requirements (including removal of the ramps) to ensure that funding was not lost. Funding for award of the final construction contract for the 34th St./I-94 project was allocated in March of 2010, and staff immediately resurrected the request to retain the ramps.

SA: How important was building and completing 34th Street for the future growth of Moorhead?

Dr.Z: Vitally important. In the early 1990s, the area east of the city was identified as a major growth opportunity. To support that growth, a new transportation corridor (34th Street) was necessary. As part of the 34th Street corridor, the City originally requested funding to relocate the Otter Tail Valley rail line outside of city limits and to connect 34th Street, SE Main Ave./CSAH 52 and I-94 with a new interchange. However, that request met with opposition. A congressionally-established commission of local leaders developed a compromise alternative to rail relocation that included construction of the 34th St./I-94 Interchange Project and construction of the proposed railroad underpass at SE Main Ave and 20th/21st Street.

SA: Does Moorhead (or, Brian Neugebauer, Moorhead’s City Attorney) have a legal argument for reopening the ramps to Hwy. 52 and Main Avenue due to the Highway Administration retracting their original understanding?

Would it help Moorhead if Senator Klobachar and Representative Colin Peterson stepped in on Moorhead’s behalf by explaining to the Federal Highway Administration brass the multiple reasons the ramps they’ve insisted on barricading have a very large impact on many more areas than simply Moorhead and local traffic? Because of rivers and railroad crossings, the interstate is used by many local area people much of the time. We have many small towns surrounding Moorhead with over half those populations commuting to work, school, play and home again day after day. Is it fair to say having two interstate ramps less than a mile apart is far less dangerous than having thousands of people traveling further than they need to during winters such as the last two weeks or when the rivers are too high to pass over or go around during flood season? — two natural events we recognize repeatedly here in the valley. What part of that does the Federal Highway Administration argue with?

Dr. Z: Being several years and thousands of dollars short of a law degree, that’s probably not a question I can answer.

Working through our congressional delegation, the City Council secured language in federal transportation legislation authorizing retention and reconstruction of the ramps at SE Main Ave./CSAH 52 and I-94. While the project is authorized in federal law, there are other federal laws that the City must comply with before the ramps can be reconstructed. For example, the environmental impacts must be considered as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. The information necessary to comply with these laws, originally developed in 2006, is being updated for FHWA consideration.

I think it is reasonable to try to understand FHWA’s responsibility to protect the integrity of the operation of the interstate system and the federal government’s extensive investment in it. The interstate system was originally built to provide mobility from region to region (for example, from the Twin Cities to Fargo-Moorhead). Because the interstate system has limited access and higher speeds of travel, it becomes the preferred route to move not only regional traffic, but also local traffic in metropolitan areas — contrary to its purpose. For anyone that has driven in the Twin Cities, it is clear that this local-traffic issue is not unique to the Fargo-Moorhead metro. Local traffic places demands on the system that can result in increased federal expenditures for expansion (for example, to build more lanes).

For those reasons, FHWA has established guidelines to request access to the interstate system. Essentially, the City must evaluate all alternatives to improve the local street system and show that no reasonable alternatives exist other than the requested access to the interstate system. In addition, the access cannot adversely affect operations of the interstate system.

As you very appropriately noted, our situation is certainly somewhat unique, given the physical barriers to travel that exist in the metro area, including numerous rail lines and the Red River. Those constraints limit alternatives, and that information will be used to support the updated request to FHWA. With or without the ramps, local traffic will continue to use the interstate system.

In the past, the City has enjoyed strong support from its congressional delegation. Most of the federal funding for the project was a direct result of the work of our Senators and Congressman. The special legislation I previously described was secured with their support. The Mayor and City Council have already directed staff to seek their assistance with the ramp issue.

SA: There has been speculation regarding whether there are businesses that will prosper due to the Old 52 ramp closure versus those that might suffer. In your opinion, is that a situation of reality — that the ramp closure for Highway 52 will hurt already established businesses while RDO and Minnesota Business School will benefit? Would re-opening the ramps on Hwy. 52 in any way lessen the accessibility to anything the 34th Street ramps lead to now or will lead to in the future?

Dr.Z: From an engineering perspective, our objective is to construct the best transportation system possible, considering both operations and safety. If we accomplish that objective, it would seem reasonable that access to all areas of the City (and businesses located there) would be improved. That is the primary reason that staff originally requested that the FHWA consider retaining the ramps back in 2006.

I think it is also important to note that the 34th St./I-94 project provides access and a safe means of transportation to all areas of the community. With the ramps restored, we will enhance accessibility to existing and new development, enhance the operation of the City’s local street system and enhance safety by minimizing the need to cross railroad tracks.

SA: What decision has been made about paving the frontage road off 20th Street South leading to Menards? With the railroad crossing, the turn and road leading to the tracks is very short; is that a concern for safety relative to the frontage road becoming a more popular access to Menards for those living both north and south of 28th Avenue?

Dr. Z: That street (28th Ave. S.) is scheduled to be paved in 2012. As part of the project, we will give consideration to realigning the intersection with 20th St., installing rail crossing gates and installing a traffic signal to address safety concerns with increased traffic volumes.

SA: Do you know if Menards knew, prior to building their Moorhead store, that the ramps would possibly be closed? Was there any discussion with the public affected by the ramp closure prior to the Federal Highway Administration insistence on closing the ramps?

Approximately what areas and communities are being directly affected adversely by the ramp closure on Highway 52 and Main Avenue? Do you foresee more difficulties for the rural outlying areas southward if we experience another flood like the one in 2009 and should the Federal Highway Administration not allow the reopening of the ramps on Hwy 52?

Dr. Z: Menards was aware of the 34th St./I-94 Interchange Project and the unresolved status of the SE Main Ave./CSAH 52/I-94 ramp issue.

A public meeting for the project was held in March of 2006. There was also a public hearing in November of 2007. Those most affected by the project received mailed notice of the hearing.

The areas of the city most affected by the closure are those north and south of I-94 and west of SE Main Ave./CSAH 52. There will be impacts to the rural outlying areas to the south, but the traffic volumes are not as significant.

SA: What can the public do to enhance the likelihood of getting the Old Highway 52 ramps reopened?

Who can proponents of reopening the ramps contact at the Federal Highway Administration to explain why it is important to them? E-mail address? Phone number? And last, how is the Federal Highway Administration funded?

Dr.Z: The Council has adopted a three-pronged approach, which includes technical, political and legal considerations. So, for the short-term, the public should allow the City to work through the process. As a federal agency with a specific mission, FHWA will make its determination based on the information provided by the City and is not likely to consider direct input from the general public.

FHWA is funded with federal tax dollars, including federal gas tax money.