FHWA-HRT-23-056 

HRDI-20/05-23(WEB)E

Office of Research, 

Development, and Technology

Office of Infrastructure 

Research and Development

Turner-Fairbank Highway 

Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

https://highways.dot.gov/research

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

infrastructure/

construction costs

CASE STUDY

Complete Streets Construction 

Cost Case Study: Resurfacing 

and Reconstruction of 

MN 28, MN 29, and MN 104 

in Glenwood, MN

Location: City of Glenwood, MN (45.65 N, 95.39 W)

Project Length: 4.2 mi

Project Duration: January 2016–October 2018 (33 mo)1

Problem Statement

Officials identified safety, mobility, and accessibility challenges for the three 

roadways in the Glenwood city center (MN 28 at Minnesota Avenue, MN 29 

at Glacial Ridge Trail, and MN 104 at Franklin Street). Deficiencies included 

gaps in the network of bicycle lanes, absent or poorly visible crosswalks, 

inadequate street lighting, and challenges for persons with physical limitations 

as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)(1)

 such as curb ramps 

with steep grades and cracked and uneven sidewalks.

The intersection of MN 28 with MN 29 and MN 104 had no pedestrian signal 

heads, and the crash rate was twice that of the State average. Large delivery 

vehicles had difficulty turning into and out of downtown shops and eateries 

on MN 29 and MN 104. MN 28 was designed to accommodate large trucks, 

which made navigation easier for freight providers but increased the potential 

for challenges to nonmotorized users.

The roadway pavement, utility, and drainage infrastructure were in poor 

condition, and the community wanted additional landscaping and amenities. 

Near the Pope County Fairgrounds, close to downtown, MN 28 experienced 

flooding because side ditches and culverts were in poor condition. The existing 

lighting facilities were inadequate (insufficient illumination and incomplete 

coverage across the project area).

1 Includes initial planning, project development, and 6 mo of construction.

Modal Focus (check all that apply):

F Pedestrians F Transit users

F Bicyclists F Freight providers

F Micromobility users F Motorists

✓

✓ ✓

✓

© 2015 Evannovostro / Adobe Stock.
2

Project Context

Context refers to the built environment within which the 

roadway is located. The American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 

A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets: 

The Green Book, 7th Edition provides information about 

traditional functional classifications for roadways as 

well as context classifications.(2)

 For all three roadways 

in this project, the roadway context is suburban, and the 

functional classification is arterial. In addition, MN 28 is a 

designated freight route.

Three roadways (six blocks of MN 28 and eight blocks 

of MN 29 and MN 104) provide access to the Glenwood 

city center, which has shops, eateries, and a hotel. The city 

center is approximately 3 mi from Lake Minnewaska, a 

water-sports location. The annual average daily traffic in 

2017 for MN 28, MN 29, and MN 104 was 7,900, 5,400, 

and 4,400 vehicles per day, respectively. MN 28 had four 

12-ft travel lanes (two in each direction) and onstreet 

parallel parking on both sides. MN 29 and MN 104 had 

two 12-ft travel lanes (one in each direction) and onstreet 

parallel parking on both sides. The total right-of-way for 

all three roadways ranged from approximately 100 to 

110 ft. Figure 1 presents the project location.

Community Engagement 

The city held public meetings to discuss improvements 

to MN 28, MN 29, and MN 104. Meeting formats 

included brown-bag lunches, short presentations, and 

open houses. The city used direct mail, press releases, and 

emails to notify participants. During the initial meetings, 

community members and stakeholders—business 

Figure 1. Map. Glenwood city center 

project location.(3)

Original map: © 2022 Google® My MapsTM. 

Modified by FHWA (see Acknowledgment section).

owners and the Minnesota Department of Transportation 

(MnDOT)—discussed freight traffic restrictions and 

safety, mobility, and accessibility challenges. The city 

incorporated feedback from attendees into project 

conceptual layouts and plans to enhance the streetscape, 

add bicycle lanes, and implement a road diet.(4)

 As the 

project progressed, the city used additional feedback to 

revise initial designs as much as possible.

Project Improvements

Table 1 presents a detailed summary of the project 

improvements. Figure 2 and figure 3 present the before 

and after improvement photos from a segment of MN 28.

Table 1. Project improvements.

Problem Description of Improvements

Nonexistent or poorly visible crosswalks. Curb 

ramps at crosswalks not compliant with the ADA 

• High-visibility crosswalks with curb extensions at each intersection 

in the downtown area.

• ADA-compliant curb ramps.

Sidewalks in poor condition and not compliant 

with the ADA Improved, ADA-compliant sidewalks on both sides of the roadway.

Absence of pedestrian and bicycle signals at 

the intersection Pedestrian and bicycle signals at existing signalized intersections.

Need for speed mitigation and shorter 

crossing distances

MN 28 roadway reduced from four 12-ft travel lanes to two (one in each 

direction), and space reallocated to include a center left-turn lane.

Freight mobility maintenance

• Travel and center left-turn lanes on MN 28 retained a width of 12 ft to 

maintain freight movement.

• Raised bicycle lanes were lowered to grade at intersections, allowing large 

delivery vehicles to turn

Gap in bicycle network

Raised, 7-ft, one-way bicycle lanes on both sides of the roadway. Reduced 

parking lane width on both sides of MN 28 (from 12 to 10 ft) and eliminated 

a travel lane, which freed 14 ft of space for bicycle lanes.
3

Table 1. Project improvements (continued).

Problem Description of Improvements

Inadequate landscaping infrastructure

Landscaping and amenities improved user comfort in the 7-ft buffer zone 

between the bicycle lane and the sidewalk and enhanced environmental and 

aesthetic quality.

Inadequate existing lighting facilities 

(i.e., insufficient illumination and incomplete 

coverage across the project area)

• Ecofriendly, energy-saving LED (light-emitting diode) street lighting covering 

a wider area replaced existing halogen streetlights.

• Separate pedestrian lights for sidewalks and bicycle trails.

Figure 2. Photo. A roadway segment on MN 28 

before improvement.

© 2023 MnDOT.

These images are intended to be examples of real-world, existing conditions; 

the conditions shown in the photos are not limited to best practices, approved 

designs, or approved behaviors, and may reflect conditions that are 

not recommended.

Figure 3. Photo. A roadway segment on MN 28 

after improvement.

© 2023 MnDOT.

These images are intended to be examples of real-world, existing conditions; 

the conditions shown in the photos are not limited to best practices, approved 

designs, or approved behaviors, and may reflect conditions that are 

not recommended.

Project Funding Sources

• Federal:

○ Surface Transportation Block 

Grant (STBG) program.(5)

○ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) Transportation 

Revolving Loan Fund (TRLF) (administered 

by the city of Glenwood).(6)

○ HUD Department of Employment and 

Economic Development (DEED) program 

(administered by the city of Glenwood).(6)

○ Minnesota Public Facilities Authority 

(PFA) Federal funds.(7)

• State:

○ Trunk Highway funds.(8)

○ ADA funds.(1)

○ Chapter 152 Federal bond funds.(9)

○ Transportation Alternatives program.(10)

• Local: Pope County and city of Glenwood.

Project Results

Upgrading sidewalks, closing the gap in the bicycle lane 

network, and reducing the crossing distance by at least 14 ft 

on MN 28 improved mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists. 

The city received no reports of disruption to freight traffic. 

Users and community members have increased their 

physical activity and appreciate having an inviting street 

environment and a cohesive downtown character.

Project Delivery Mechanism

F Alliance 

contracting/ 

integrated project 

delivery (IPD)

F Construction manager/

general contractor 

(CM/GC)

F Progressive 

design-build (PBD)

F Public-private 

partnership (P3)

F Design-build (D-B) F Project bundling

F Design-bidbuild (D-B-B)F Indefinite delivery/

indefinite quantity (IDIQ) 

F Other: Cooperative agreement

✓

✓
4

Acknowledgment

The map in figure 1 was modified by the authors to mark 

the path of the Glenwood city center project location. The 

original map is the copyright property of Google® My 

MapsTM and can be accessed at https://www.google.com/

maps/place/45%C2%B039’00.0%22N+95%C2%B023’24

.0%22W/@45.6504312,-95.3868672,16z/.

(3)

References

1. Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. 1990. Public 

Law 101-336. 108th Congress, 2nd session. https://www.

govinfo.gov/app/details/CREC-2002-01-29/CREC-2002-

01-29-pt1-PgS222, last accessed February 6, 2023.

2. AASHTO. 2018. A Policy on Geometric Design of 

Highways and Streets: The Green Book, 7th Edition. 

Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials.

3. Google®. 2022. Google® My MapsTM, Mountain View, 

CA, obtained from https://www.google.com/maps/d/, last 

accessed September 13, 2022.

4. MnDOT. “Hwys 28, 29, 104 in Glenwood” (web page). 

https://www.dot.state.mn.us/d4/projects/glenwood/, last 

accessed May 15, 2022.

5. FHWA. n.d. “Federal-Aid Programs and Special 

Funding: Surface Transportation Block Grant Program 

(STBG)” (web page). https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

specialfunding/stp/, last accessed February 8, 2023.

6. MnDOT. n.d. “Planning & Programming: TRLF 

DEED Rules” (web page). https://www.dot.state.mn.us/

planning/program/trlfdeedrules.html, last accessed 

February 8, 2023.

7. Minnesota PFA. n.d. “Minnesota Public Facilities 

Authority” (web page). https://mn.gov/deed/pfa/, last 

accessed February 8, 2023.

8. Minnesota House Research Department. 2021. Trunk 

Highway System. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota House 

Research Department. https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/

pubs/ss/ssthf.pdf, last accessed February 8, 2023.

9. Minnesota Legislature. 2008. “Transportation 

Appropriations.” Chapter 152--H.F.No. 2800. https://

www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2008/0/Session+Law/

Chapter/152/, last accessed February 7, 2023.

10. MnDOT. n.d. “Transportation Alternatives: Greater 

Minnesota Transportation Alternatives Solicitation” (web 

page). https://www.dot.state.mn.us/ta/, last accessed 

February 8, 2023.

Project Costs*

Total Project Costs – $10,450,275

Construction – $9,070,275

• Mobilization – $187,000

• Traffic control (upgrade signal 

and detection) – $230,584

• Roadway construction and related 

activities – $4,644,317

• Lighting (general street LED (light-emitting 

diode) lighting) – $988,406 ($14,120 each)

• Concrete sidewalk – $776,790 ($11 per sq ft)

• Curb ramps (with detectable warning 

surface) – $49,099 ($42 per sq ft)

• Pedestrian crossing improvements (lane striping 

and markings) – $115,507 ($11,551 each)

• Road diet (lane striping and markings) – $76,070

• Concrete bicycle lane (raised and colored) and 

bicycle parking – $768,959 ($11 per sq ft)

• Drainage – $187,268

• Landscaping and amenities (e.g., waste 

receptacles, metal benches, irrigation 

systems, trees) – $1,046,275

Preliminary Engineering

$1,250,000

Utility Adjustments

$0

Right-of-Way

$130,000

Project Website

https://www.dot.state.mn.us/d4/projects.html(4) 

Recommended citation: Federal Highway Administration, Complete Streets Construction Cost Case Study: Resurfacing 

and Reconstruction of MN 28, MN 29, and MN 104 in Glenwood, MN (Washington, DC: 2023) https://doi.org/10.21949/1522001.

*Project costs include improvements that benefit mobility in general and may have been necessary regardless of any safety improvements.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this document only because they are considered essential to the objective 

of the document. They are included for informational purposes only and are not intended to reflect a preference, approval, or endorsement of any one product or entity. 

Except for the statutes and regulations cited, the contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the States or the public in any way. This document 

is intended only to provide information regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.