Interstate 494

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Interstate 494

Postby RailBaronYarr » February 22nd, 2016, 4:41 pm

Relevant to our discussion earlier: http://www.streetsblog.net/2016/02/19/t ... n-the-u-s/

Tcmetro
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1768
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)

Re: Interstate 494

Postby Tcmetro » July 12th, 2021, 6:30 pm

Reviving this long unused thread for the 494 project.

There is a layout on this INFRA Grant application page from SRF Consulting for the 494 Bloomington project:
https://www.srfconsulting.com/i-494-infra/

News article yesterday about 494 receiving a $60 million grant:
https://www.startribune.com/mndot-gets- ... 600077093/

MnDot project page:
https://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/proje ... rt-hwy169/

tmart
Rice Park
Posts: 488
Joined: October 6th, 2017, 10:05 am
Location: Expat

Re: Interstate 494

Postby tmart » July 12th, 2021, 9:31 pm

Reviving this long unused thread for the 494 project.

There is a layout on this INFRA Grant application page from SRF Consulting for the 494 Bloomington project:
https://www.srfconsulting.com/i-494-infra/

News article yesterday about 494 receiving a $60 million grant:
https://www.startribune.com/mndot-gets- ... 600077093/

MnDot project page:
https://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/proje ... rt-hwy169/
The INFRA application is an improvement over most of the other stuff I've read on this project (e.g., the project website, the cost-benefit analysis, the Strib article) in that it at least contains words like "climate" and "greenhouse gas" which were entirely absent before.

However, I'm not at all convinced that adding lanes (even a MNPass lane) will reduce VMT and CO2 as they claim. If it was a straight conversion without widening, that would make sense, but I don't see any scenario where adding capacity reduces VMT. The cost-benefit workbook spreadsheet for the project seems to suggest they're actually projecting increases in VMT, CO2, and local pollution vs. the no-build scenario, so I'm really not sure at all where that's coming from. (And of course it goes without saying that expansion vs. status quo shouldn't be the only two options they study, but I know MnDOT and USDOT aren't quite there yet.)

Also, this statement:
The analysis identified that the Project improvements will not result in disproportionately high or adverse effects to low-income or minority populations.
is borderline insulting: the maps in the equity analysis shows areas of concentrated poverty and higher minority populations concentrated along the route, and higher cancer rates and particulate matter in those same areas. I get that they're saying the project won't make it significantly worse than existing conditions, but that's no excuse: the existing conditions are repugnant, and pouring money into locking in "not much worse than the status quo" for another generation is not an ethical outcome.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Interstate 494

Postby mattaudio » July 13th, 2021, 8:11 am

At a minimum, we should be studying alternatives where existing lanes (i.e. the entire freeway) are converted to congestion pricing.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests