Interstate 494

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
SteveXC500
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 145
Joined: September 11th, 2014, 11:43 am
Location: Waconia

Re: Interstate 494

Postby SteveXC500 » February 17th, 2016, 10:29 am

Agree with the need for relief on this stretch of highway. I do commute using 494 and am generally opposite the heavier flow/direction of traffic. However, both 494 and 62 could use some form of relief. I would support MnPass along with greater emphasis of transit from EP to Woodbury.

Mikey
Landmark Center
Posts: 262
Joined: January 6th, 2015, 2:33 pm
Location: Gunflint Trail
Contact:

Re: Interstate 494

Postby Mikey » February 17th, 2016, 10:36 am

I actually have no problem adding a third lane in each direction to a four lane freeway (inside /including the loop). It might technically be a 50% increase in capacity, but traffic seems to flow 65-75% better because one slow / crippled vehicle can't block half of the road.

Adding a fourth lane, on the other hand, should probably be MnPass - and any fifth lanes definitely should be.

And they should all be coupled with capacity reduction on parallel city streets
Urbanist in the north woods

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

Re: Interstate 494

Postby mattaudio » February 17th, 2016, 10:39 am

When the Crosstown project was redeveloped, there was a missed opportunity to provide at least future provisions for a MnPASS connection from 35W to 62 east or west. Based on what I've been hearing from contacts at the county and Richfield/Edina, I'd guess that Hwy 62 MnPass lanes west of 35W to France or MN-100 will be a pop-up project that happens sooner rather than later. But there's no direct connectivity to the 35W lanes. Additionally, having continuous MnPASS lanes from MN-77 to 35W via MN-62 would be a good idea, since that short connector stretch of 62 is always congested and creates a significant time delay for express buses serving the Cedar corridor.

Which is why I'm disappointed that there are not provisions for MnPASS connectivity between 35W and 494 in the big interchange plans I've seen.

In my dream world, assuming 494 must still exist, it would have two free lanes and two MnPASS lanes in each direction. Provisions would need to be made for those interior MnPASS lanes at major junctions such as 35W, 77, and 100 since having fast-moving traffic slow down to weave across stop-and-go traffic to get to/from an exit would be unsafe and unproductive.

I also do think we should consider MnPASS tolling of the entirety of MN-62 and US-169. Those are four lane freeways originally built by Hennepin County with very limited right of way and expansion opportunity. They are already paralleled by other freeways: 494 for both, and hwy 100 paralleling 169. They are both heavily congested, and closer to inner-ring suburbs and job centers which could support bus rapid transit. And they are not Interstate highways, so my understanding is that there would be fewer/no federal barriers to conversion to toll facilities.

UrsusUrbanicus
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 127
Joined: February 13th, 2014, 2:08 pm

Re: Interstate 494

Postby UrsusUrbanicus » February 17th, 2016, 10:39 am

Not unrelated to this problem is that these cities failed to develop a rational arterial grid to get between neighboring cities and neighborhoods. They built up around on the assumption the highways would always be the useful arterial.
This. So much this. The results include massive amounts of "doubling back" -- i.e. extra VMT -- i.e., increased aggregate safety risk and pollution. For a particularly egregious example in the southwest metro, look at a map of Shakopee and consider what you'd have to do to get from the Southbridge residential neighborhoods to the industrial park (just barely kitty-corner across 169).

And the "highway-as-arterial" assumption is a great illustration of how suburban development patterns are a subsidized affair: Why build roads for our local trips when we can just have everyone cut over to the highway, effectively shuffling a large portion of the expense off onto the state?

Mikey
Landmark Center
Posts: 262
Joined: January 6th, 2015, 2:33 pm
Location: Gunflint Trail
Contact:

Re: Interstate 494

Postby Mikey » February 17th, 2016, 10:49 am

When the Crosstown project was redeveloped, there was a missed opportunity to provide at least future provisions for a MnPASS connection from 35W to 62 east or west. Based on what I've been hearing from contacts at the county and Richfield/Edina, I'd guess that Hwy 62 MnPass lanes west of 35W to France or MN-100 will be a pop-up project that happens sooner rather than later. But there's no direct connectivity to the 35W lanes. Additionally, having continuous MnPASS lanes from MN-77 to 35W via MN-62 would be a good idea, since that short connector stretch of 62 is always congested and creates a significant time delay for express buses serving the Cedar corridor.

Which is why I'm disappointed that there are not provisions for MnPASS connectivity between 35W and 494 in the big interchange plans I've seen.

In my dream world, assuming 494 must still exist, it would have two free lanes and two MnPASS lanes in each direction. Provisions would need to be made for those interior MnPASS lanes at major junctions such as 35W, 77, and 100 since having fast-moving traffic slow down to weave across stop-and-go traffic to get to/from an exit would be unsafe and unproductive.

I also do think we should consider MnPASS tolling of the entirety of MN-62 and US-169. Those are four lane freeways originally built by Hennepin County with very limited right of way and expansion opportunity. They are already paralleled by other freeways: 494 for both, and hwy 100 paralleling 169. They are both heavily congested, and closer to inner-ring suburbs and job centers which could support bus rapid transit. And they are not Interstate highways, so my understanding is that there would be fewer/no federal barriers to conversion to toll facilities.
This is the main reason I'm leery of MnPass lanes truly solving anything. We have too many small freeways spaced too close to each other. MnPass lanes work best when they provide a "straight shot" to where you're going. That's why 394, 35W and 35E make sense, and 94 between the downtowns and out to Woodbury would make sense. So unless they will redesign the 494 / 35W interchange and tack something on to the brand new 494 / 169 interchange... I don't see the same demand
Urbanist in the north woods

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

Re: Interstate 494

Postby mattaudio » February 17th, 2016, 10:54 am

We have too many small freeways spaced too close to each other.
That's why it would work well to take some of those small freeways, for which there are alternatives nearby, and make them MnPASS tollways. Rather than just having a lane of MnPASS. 169 and 62 would be great, since they're both four lanes. 62 would probably need a free connector between 77 and 35W, and would also need free lanes for 212 traffic, at least eastward to Hwy 100.

Mikey
Landmark Center
Posts: 262
Joined: January 6th, 2015, 2:33 pm
Location: Gunflint Trail
Contact:

Re: Interstate 494

Postby Mikey » February 17th, 2016, 11:01 am

I'd rather just double the gas tax

And I say that as someone who drives an 18 year old full-size 4x4 pickup

(Maybe if we call it a Road-Access user fee?)
Urbanist in the north woods

SteveXC500
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 145
Joined: September 11th, 2014, 11:43 am
Location: Waconia

Re: Interstate 494

Postby SteveXC500 » February 17th, 2016, 11:05 am

So when I purchased my hybrid vehicle a few years ago, I began immediately paying less gas tax with a more efficient vehicle. Wouldn't this be a con to increasing the gas tax? It would also make it more difficult for commercial enterprises to meet margins without passing in on to their customers - might this lead to reduced business with transportation providers in MN? I would support tolls (based upon use of roads) before sweeping gas tax increases.

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

Re: Interstate 494

Postby mattaudio » February 17th, 2016, 11:19 am

So when I purchased my hybrid vehicle a few years ago, I began immediately paying less gas tax with a more efficient vehicle. Wouldn't this be a con to increasing the gas tax?
Yes, but it correlates nicely with the negative externalities of fossil fuel consumption. Maybe we need a gas tax that's indexed not just to inflation, but to the combination of our Minnesota fleet mix (fuel economy) and aggregate vehicle miles traveled.
It would also make it more difficult for commercial enterprises to meet margins without passing in on to their customers
While this is true, I think it speaks to how far we have moved away from a proper feedback loop regarding transportation expenses and transportation choices. The supply chain for the American Way Of Life (tm) is highly subsidized, from containerization on the global scale to regional distribution for retail and restaurant chains on the local scale. Would a higher gas tax make business-as-is more difficult for many businesses? Yes. But that needs to happen, because they will adapt their supply chain accordingly and we'll all benefit in the end when we stop picking winners (business models that depend on subsidized travel and globalization) and losers (the merchant class and the localized supply chain).

Mikey
Landmark Center
Posts: 262
Joined: January 6th, 2015, 2:33 pm
Location: Gunflint Trail
Contact:

Re: Interstate 494

Postby Mikey » February 17th, 2016, 11:28 am

It would also make it more difficult for commercial enterprises to meet margins without passing in on to their customers
While this is true, I think it speaks to how far we have moved away from a proper feedback loop regarding transportation expenses and transportation choices. The supply chain for the American Way Of Life (tm) is highly subsidized, from containerization on the global scale to regional distribution for retail and restaurant chains on the local scale. Would a higher gas tax make business-as-is more difficult for many businesses? Yes. But that needs to happen, because they will adapt their supply chain accordingly and we'll all benefit in the end when we stop picking winners (business models that depend on subsidized travel and globalization) and losers (the merchant class and the localized supply chain).
I'll second this. A major reason it's cheaper to build something in China or where-ever is the cheap transportation cost to get the merchandise to the end user. With higher shipping costs, locally sourced goods would be more competitive.
Urbanist in the north woods

acs
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1364
Joined: March 26th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Re: Interstate 494

Postby acs » February 17th, 2016, 11:36 am

I think you guys have it completely backwards on who would benefit and lose. Gas tax only applies to fuel at the consumer pump, railroads and ships don't pay it. Shipping containers travel the vast majority of their distance on ships and rail, the local distribution by road at the end is a much smaller cost. Those global supply chains that can take advantage of this aren't going to be affected much. Local manufacturers on the other hand rely almost exclusively on roads, so you'd be putting more burden on them. Fortunately we have our rail and ports centrally located in this region so our inner city distributors and manufacturers have the advantage of easier access to those efficient global networks.

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

Re: Interstate 494

Postby mattaudio » February 17th, 2016, 11:44 am

And now I'm going FAR FAR beyond the scope of an Interstate 494 thread... but we need to massively raise taxes or other costs on global shipping as well. My two principles are this: First, people and companies should pay the true costs of their mobility decisions. And, second, whenever we have a policy choice, that choice should reward the short trip. My guess is that if we had #1 taken care of, #2 would mostly work itself out.

How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... world.html

SteveXC500
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 145
Joined: September 11th, 2014, 11:43 am
Location: Waconia

Re: Interstate 494

Postby SteveXC500 » February 17th, 2016, 12:19 pm

In the end, the consumer bears the cost, so I don't agree with raising taxes on global shipping. Ships might be polluters, but they are far more efficient than all the trucks it would take to ship the goods (think Great Lakes as an example). Instead of shipping ore via truck from MN to OH, the ships do a much more efficient job.

Companies DO pay the costs of mobility decisions. Which ever mode is cheaper will be used, policy and subsidies aside.

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

Re: Interstate 494

Postby mattaudio » February 17th, 2016, 1:01 pm

Companies DO pay the costs of mobility decisions. Which ever mode is cheaper will be used, policy and subsidies aside.
They pay the costs imposed upon them. They do not necessarily pay the true costs of their decision. Those two figures are quite separated right now.

Mdcastle
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1209
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN

Re: Interstate 494

Postby Mdcastle » February 17th, 2016, 6:12 pm

Nothing like making just about everything cost a lot more for just about everyone.

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

Re: Interstate 494

Postby FISHMANPET » February 17th, 2016, 6:16 pm

Matt isn't talking about increasing taxes to be punitive, he's talking about raising taxes to be in line with societal costs.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Mdcastle
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1209
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN

Re: Interstate 494

Postby Mdcastle » February 17th, 2016, 7:14 pm

I wasn't suggesting he was talking about increasing taxes to be punitive. If you increase shipping costs to cover all sorts of alleged abstract societal costs it's going to make everything cost a lot more, form the clothes you wear to the bicycle your ride.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5989
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Interstate 494

Postby MNdible » February 17th, 2016, 7:28 pm

Do you disagree with the premise because it's not the status quo or do you just like making ad hominem attacks on Matt as often as possible?
While Matt's subsequent posts actually had some nuance and meat to them, including some actually realistic and executable plans for expanding MNpass, the initial post wasn't particularly helpful. While it's no doubt true that in a theoretical world some sort of congestion based pricing on every lane would quickly solve the congestion problem, we absolutely don't live in that world. If a solution isn't achievable, it's not a real solution.

And any first assessment of 494 ad 62 that doesn't acknowledge that they're probably undersized for the regional transportation task that we've asked them to perform, and further doesn't recognize that they have often comically obsolete geometries, isn't seriously assessing the situation.

It wasn't intended as an attack, ad hominem or otherwise. Just some light jostling.

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

Re: Interstate 494

Postby FISHMANPET » February 17th, 2016, 8:40 pm

I wasn't suggesting he was talking about increasing taxes to be punitive. If you increase shipping costs to cover all sorts of alleged abstract societal costs it's going to make everything cost a lot more, form the clothes you wear to the bicycle your ride.
Well yes, but if you accept the premise that there are costs not being borne by the current transportation system, then they're being paid for somewhere. They don't just disappear if they're not paid at the pump. They're being paid by the children growing up near highways with increased levels of asthma. They're being paid by future generations as they deal with climate change. Those may be too granola bar crunchy for you. Certainly there's room for debate about what those externalities are and what their monetary value is, but there's something there.

But there's really only two ways to look at it. First is that these externalities don't exist, so increasing the cost of transportation is punitive. Or those externalities do exist and the're not being paid for by the correct parties. So to complain about prices, you're either in the first camp and think it's punitive, or you're in the second camp where you believe there are externalities but you just don't care, as long as your cheeseburgers are cheap. Nether position really seems very intellectually rigorous.

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

Re: Interstate 494

Postby mattaudio » February 17th, 2016, 8:41 pm

they're probably undersized for the regional transportation task
Undersized at what price?


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 61 guests