MN Highway 610

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
lordmoke
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1331
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 1:39 pm
Location: George Floyd Square

Re: MN Highway 610

Postby lordmoke » October 16th, 2014, 12:22 pm

Such an awesome use of EIGHTY MILLION DOLLARS.

http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/279454832.html

go4guy
Foshay Tower
Posts: 921
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 8:54 am

Re: MN Highway 610

Postby go4guy » October 16th, 2014, 12:57 pm

It is a project that needs to be done. The Fish Lake interchange is way over capacity, and hopefully this will relieve some of that.

bubzki2
Foshay Tower
Posts: 811
Joined: September 19th, 2012, 5:38 pm
Location: Snelling-Hamline

Re: MN Highway 610

Postby bubzki2 » October 16th, 2014, 12:59 pm

Over capacity at rush hour you mean? Like, when people are commuting to the Twin Cities from the exurbs? I'm not so convinced this was necessary. Sprawl!

go4guy
Foshay Tower
Posts: 921
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 8:54 am

Re: MN Highway 610

Postby go4guy » October 16th, 2014, 1:07 pm

Over capacity at off peak times as well. This is basically the only way out of the metro to the west. And Maple Grove is a well establisted suburb. I am all for getting people to and from their jobs in a timely fashion.

User avatar
mister.shoes
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1294
Joined: November 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: MN Highway 610

Postby mister.shoes » October 16th, 2014, 1:11 pm

If the Fish Lake Interchange had four lanes on the WB side as far as Weaver Lake Road, it would be fine.
The problem with being an introvert online is that no one knows you're just hanging out and listening.

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

Re: MN Highway 610

Postby mattaudio » October 16th, 2014, 1:17 pm

All for getting people to and from their jobs at all costs? Even if they choose to live in the NW Metro?
The only rational approach here would be to toll most or all of the lanes coming in.

mnmike
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1092
Joined: June 2nd, 2012, 11:01 am

Re: MN Highway 610

Postby mnmike » October 16th, 2014, 1:53 pm

I tend to want to agree about these sprawl promoting freeway expansions being unecessary...but I feel like sometimes we forget...drivers do pay gas tax for roads. The more they drive, the more tax they pay, and yes, they also pay tax for public transit. So before we are too high and mighty...

Not like the people who live out here aren't already paying something for the roads.

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

Re: MN Highway 610

Postby mattaudio » October 16th, 2014, 1:59 pm

1. The gas tax is constitutionally dedicated to roads. Gas tax revenues do not pay for transit, and the legislature could not make them pay for transit even if they wanted to.
2. Drivers do pay gas tax for roads, but that does not cover the cost of roads. In MN, "gas taxes etc" pays only 41.9% of road costs.

These numbers actually come from the conservative Tax Foundation..
http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoli ... d-spending
..where they say "Subsidizing road spending from general revenues creates pressure to increase income or sales taxes, which can be unfair to non-users and undermine economic growth for the state as a whole."

bubzki2
Foshay Tower
Posts: 811
Joined: September 19th, 2012, 5:38 pm
Location: Snelling-Hamline

Re: MN Highway 610

Postby bubzki2 » October 16th, 2014, 2:03 pm

Definitely the wrong thread for this, but wouldn't now (with low gas prices) actually be a great time to rethink the gas taxes in this state / country? Seems like you wouldn't get as much push back since prices are artificially low right now.

mnmike
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1092
Joined: June 2nd, 2012, 11:01 am

Re: MN Highway 610

Postby mnmike » October 16th, 2014, 2:08 pm

1. Did I say the gas tax paid for public transit? No, I did not. It does not. Everyone still pays tax that goes towards public transit though...so not sure what you are getting at here. Point is, drivers pay an additional tax (on gas), which is good.

2. Public transit doesn't pay for itself either...it loses money, and that is okay, it is a necessity.

3. We all know you hate roads at all costs. I'm certainly more anti road/pro public transit than the avg person, just trying to add some level headedness here.

go4guy
Foshay Tower
Posts: 921
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 8:54 am

Re: MN Highway 610

Postby go4guy » October 16th, 2014, 2:11 pm

I too wish more would be spent on public transportation infrastructure. But I also see the need to maintain and handle proper road capacity. I see this as a good way to spend money. I do NOT see the bridge over the St Croix as a good way to spend money.

Not everyone lives in the city. We still need to accomodate their driving needs.

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

Re: MN Highway 610

Postby mattaudio » October 16th, 2014, 2:16 pm

What is "proper road capacity?" Should it be subsidized by people who choose not to use proper road capacity? What is "Accommodating [non city dwellers'] driving needs?" Should it come at a cost to other people? This isn't a moral judgment over what type of land use and transportation system is good or bad. It's a question of whether we should continue a 70 year policy of heavily subsidizing one type of infrastructure, tipping the scales that ultimately rise as "personal preference" but are heavily influenced by systemic subsidies.

Just think how efficient our private decisions and public investments/costs could be if we actually charged in a way that passed the full cost of decisions onto the user. Whether it's for roads or transit or whatever else. Thankfully we have that technology.

HiawathaGuy
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1636
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 12:03 pm

Re: MN Highway 610

Postby HiawathaGuy » October 16th, 2014, 2:22 pm

I'm glad that I'm not the only one that sees completing 610 as a good thing for the metro. I understand people hating highway expansions. But sadly, the ALL ROAD or ALL TRANSIT camps both seem illogical. Whether we like it or not, the vast majority of goods and people still use roads. Just as we can't build our way out of highway congestion, we can't build ourselves out of roads. Even in very, very, very well-developed transit places, highways and sprawl occur. The population will continue to grow, and roads will need to be maintained/expanded to keep up with that.

So I'm for a more balanced approach. Increase transit investments in corridors that make sense, but also do the same with roads. And in MN, we need to make sure the balance is kept for roadways, or the suburban legislators will rapidly switch to a group who will make the ALL ROAD option the only option.

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

Re: MN Highway 610

Postby mattaudio » October 16th, 2014, 2:24 pm

Ah, the Winning by Default strategy
http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2013/01 ... ng-by.html

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

Re: MN Highway 610

Postby mattaudio » October 16th, 2014, 2:25 pm

Anyone seen a traffic projection for this new stretch?
(even though "DOT Traffic Projections Fail" http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... _fail.html)

IllogicalJake
Target Field
Posts: 513
Joined: January 30th, 2014, 9:03 am

Re: MN Highway 610

Postby IllogicalJake » October 16th, 2014, 2:32 pm

Living in the city: Fuck the suburbanites.

Living in the suburbs: Fuck the city.

And the cycle goes on...
i talk too much. web dev, downtown. admin @ tower.ly

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

Re: MN Highway 610

Postby mattaudio » October 16th, 2014, 2:33 pm

The cycle is broken. There's a way out of this. It involves reinstituting market forces on mobility, asking people to pay for what they consume. Whether they are in the city or the suburbs. Easy.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4241
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: MN Highway 610

Postby FISHMANPET » October 16th, 2014, 2:37 pm

If only there were some way to calculate the economic return of a project like this, but I think any attempt to do that would be brought down by all the assumptions you'd put in such that it would end up coming out in favor of whatever outcome you preferred.

mnmike
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1092
Joined: June 2nd, 2012, 11:01 am

Re: MN Highway 610

Postby mnmike » October 16th, 2014, 2:42 pm

Ha, but I live in the city, and even I think that Matt is being extreme. I am assuming you are grouping me with the suburbanites because I dare question the "hate everyone that lives in the suburbs and drives" mentality.

As for Matts suggestion of passing along the full cost of roads/transit to the user...this would backfire horribly. Do you know how much fares would be on public transit?!??! It isn't just roads that are expensive. Public transit is heavily subsidized and bleeds money in almost all cities to make it affordable.

And yes, I am all for public transit expansion. And live in the city. Can you believe it? I don't drink the car hating kool aid:)
Last edited by mnmike on October 16th, 2014, 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: MN Highway 610

Postby mattaudio » October 16th, 2014, 2:44 pm

Yes, I do. But imagine how much demand there would be for public transit if we asked road users to actually pay for the full cost of roads. It would end up making our communities much more walkable.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests