For sure MNDOT was directly involved with this. They never see a project they don't want to do twice......494/169, Hwy 100 thru SLP, and now soon to come, 494 thru Plymouth. We get our first dose in 2014, with another dose a couple years later. Embarrassing!

That's because Minnesota drivers are terrible and insist on merging within the first 50 feet of a ramp. That's why they painted the double white lines on the ramp from 35W to 94 west, and why I see so many people ignore them every morning. Start ticketing people!

Drivers don't know how to navigate it? What about fixing the backup that occurs at the ramp to enter the bridge?

It's not a driver problem. It's a hwy capacity problem. Much better now without the traffic signals at 169/494, unfortunately it's always backed up at all freeway entrances just south of the river in the morning.

If MNDOT didn't see that backup coming then they should go find another job. I knew the first time I seen the plans what was going to happen. You have one lane getting onto 169N, people coming from Burnsvill stay in the right lane and it's bumper to bumper crawling traffic back to the merge of traffic coming on from Savage 13N traffic. Where is one supposed to merge in when those that have waited 15 minutes in the right lane don't want you merging at the last minute on the ramp. Nope, I'd never have seen that one coming either. Right!

I agree with rockford and disagree with the conclusions in the article. This isn't an issue of driver education. The problem is not that drivers coming north towards the MN river on Hwy 13 want to merge too quickly. The problem is that the volume of traffic coming north on 13 and trying to merge onto 101 towards Shakopee (169 north)is so great that traffic already on 101 has to slow way down to allow the merging traffic onto 101. Bottom line: this design is a failure for the number of vehicles using this merge point. You have a packed lane of traffic trying to cross two other lanes of traffic from left to right at rush hour.

Don't let MnDOT fool you. They knew this was going to happen, at least to some degree, and they went ahead with the design anyway. The operational models showed the problem. The Federal Highway Administration practically begged them not to go ahead with that configuration. But MnDOT's Metropolitan District went with it for two reasons: 1. It's an innovative design, and innovation is the mantra; and 2. it would have cost a few more million for a better design, and they wanted to hold the line on cost and scope. Nothing wrong with innovation and cost control - unless taken to a fault, like in this case. A lot of "I told you so" conversations going on behind the scenes right now.