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.