<a id="pl.1.3"></a><var>1.3</var>accommodations as part of trunk highway bridge improvement program;<br/>
<a id="pl.1.4"></a><var>1.4</var>amending Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 165.14, subdivisions 4, 5.<br/>
<a id="pl.1.5"></a><var>1.5</var>BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:<br/>
<br/>
<a id="bill.0.1.0"></a><a id="pl.1.6"></a><var>1.6</var>    Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 165.14, subdivision 4, is amended to read:<br/>
<a id="pl.1.7"></a><var>1.7</var>    Subd. 4.  <b>Prioritization of bridge projects.</b> (a) The commissioner shall classify all <br/>
<a id="pl.1.8"></a><var>1.8</var>bridges in the program into tier 1, 2, or 3 bridges, where tier 1 is the highest tier. Unless <br/>
<a id="pl.1.9"></a><var>1.9</var>the commissioner identifies a reason for proceeding otherwise, before commencing bridge <br/>
<a id="pl.1.10"></a><var>1.10</var>projects in a lower tier, all bridge projects within a higher tier must to the extent feasible <br/>
<a id="pl.1.11"></a><var>1.11</var>be selected and funded in the approved state transportation improvement program, at <br/>
<a id="pl.1.12"></a><var>1.12</var>any stage in the project development process, solicited for bids, in contract negotiation, <br/>
<a id="pl.1.13"></a><var>1.13</var>under construction, or completed. <br/>
<a id="pl.1.14"></a><var>1.14</var>    (b) The classification of each tier is as follows: <br/>
<a id="pl.1.15"></a><var>1.15</var>    (1) tier 1 consists of any bridge in the program that (i) has an average daily traffic <br/>
<a id="pl.1.16"></a><var>1.16</var>count that is above 1,000 and has a sufficiency rating that is at or below 50, or (ii) is <br/>
<a id="pl.1.17"></a><var>1.17</var>identified by the commissioner as a priority project; <br/>
<a id="pl.1.18"></a><var>1.18</var>    (2) tier 2 consists of any bridge that is not a tier 1 bridge, and (i) is classified as <br/>
<a id="pl.1.19"></a><var>1.19</var>fracture-critical, or (ii) has a sufficiency rating that is at or below 80; and <br/>
<a id="pl.1.20"></a><var>1.20</var>    (3) tier 3 consists of any other bridge in the program that is not a tier 1 or tier 2 bridge. <br/>
<a id="pl.1.21"></a><var>1.21</var>    (c) By June 30, 2018, all tier 1 and tier 2 bridges originally included in the program <br/>
<a id="pl.1.22"></a><var>1.22</var>must be under contract for repair or replacement with a new bridge that contains a <br/>
<a id="pl.1.23"></a><var>1.23</var>load-path-redundant design, except that a specific bridge may remain in continued service <br/>
<a id="pl.1.24"></a><var>1.24</var>if the reasons are documented in the report required under subdivision 5. <br/>
<a id="pl.2.1"></a><var>2.1</var>    (d) All bridge projects funded under this section in fiscal year 2010 or later must <br/>
<a id="pl.2.2"></a><var>2.2</var>include bicycle and pedestrian accommodations if both sides of the bridge are located in a <br/>
<a id="pl.2.3"></a><var>2.3</var>city or the bridge links a pedestrian way, shared-use path, trail, or scenic bikeway.<br/>
<a id="pl.2.4"></a><var>2.4</var>Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations would not be required if:<br/>
<a id="pl.2.5"></a><var>2.5</var>(1) a comprehensive assessment demonstrates that there is an absence of need for <br/>
<a id="pl.2.6"></a><var>2.6</var>bicycle and pedestrian accommodations for the life of the bridge; or<br/>
<a id="pl.2.7"></a><var>2.7</var>(2) there is a reasonable alternative bicycle and pedestrian crossing within <br/>
<a id="pl.2.8"></a><var>2.8</var>one-quarter mile of the bridge project.<br/>
<a id="pl.2.9"></a><var>2.9</var>    (e) All bicycle and pedestrian accommodations should enable a connection to <br/>
<a id="pl.2.10"></a><var>2.10</var>any existing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in close proximity to the bridge. All <br/>
<a id="pl.2.11"></a><var>2.11</var>pedestrian facilities must meet or exceed federal accessibility requirements as outlined in <br/>
<a id="pl.2.12"></a><var>2.12</var>Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, codified in United States Code, title 42, <br/>
<a id="pl.2.13"></a><var>2.13</var>chapter 126, subchapter II, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, codified in <br/>
<a id="pl.2.14"></a><var>2.14</var>United States Code, title 29, section 794.<br/>
<a id="pl.2.15"></a><var>2.15</var>(f) The commissioner shall establish criteria for determining the priority of bridge <br/>
<a id="pl.2.16"></a><var>2.16</var>projects within each tier, and must include safety considerations as a criterion. <br/>
<br/>
<a id="bill.0.2.0"></a><a id="pl.2.17"></a><var>2.17</var>    Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 165.14, subdivision 5, is amended to read:<br/>
<a id="pl.2.18"></a><var>2.18</var>    Subd. 5.  <b>Statewide transportation planning report.</b> In conjunction with each <br/>
<a id="pl.2.19"></a><var>2.19</var>update to the Minnesota statewide transportation plan, or at least every six years, the <br/>
<a id="pl.2.20"></a><var>2.20</var>commissioner shall submit a report to the chairs and ranking minority members of the <br/>
<a id="pl.2.21"></a><var>2.21</var>house of representatives and senate committees with jurisdiction over transportation <br/>
<a id="pl.2.22"></a><var>2.22</var>finance. The report must include: <br/>
<a id="pl.2.23"></a><var>2.23</var>    (1) an explanation of the criteria and decision-making processes used to prioritize <br/>
<a id="pl.2.24"></a><var>2.24</var>bridge projects; <br/>
<a id="pl.2.25"></a><var>2.25</var>    (2) a historical and projected analysis of the extent to which all trunk highway <br/>
<a id="pl.2.26"></a><var>2.26</var>bridges meet bridge performance targets and comply with the accessibility requirements <br/>
<a id="pl.2.27"></a><var>2.27</var>of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; <br/>
<a id="pl.2.28"></a><var>2.28</var>    (3) a summary of bridge projects (i) completed in the previous six years or since the <br/>
<a id="pl.2.29"></a><var>2.29</var>last update to the Minnesota statewide transportation plan, and (ii) currently in progress <br/>
<a id="pl.2.30"></a><var>2.30</var>under the program; <br/>
<a id="pl.2.31"></a><var>2.31</var>    (4) a summary of bridge projects scheduled in the next four fiscal years and included <br/>
<a id="pl.2.32"></a><var>2.32</var>in the state transportation improvement program; <br/>
<a id="pl.2.33"></a><var>2.33</var>    (5) a projection of annual needs over the next 20 years; <br/>
<a id="pl.2.34"></a><var>2.34</var>    (6) a calculation of funding necessary to meet the completion date under subdivision <br/>
<a id="pl.2.35"></a><var>2.35</var>4, paragraph (c), compared to the total amount of bridge-related funding available; and <br/>
<a id="pl.3.1"></a><var>3.1</var>    (7) for any tier 1 fracture-critical bridge that is repaired but not replaced, an <br/>
<a id="pl.3.2"></a><var>3.2</var>explanation of the reasons for repair instead of replacement. <br/>