urbanMSP

Looking at the Twin Cities Metro District map, I can't seem to make out the color on 494 against the legend for the map. What is being suggested along this corridor?

What exactly is the project implied for TH 7 in the western suburbs?

"New pavement" means rebuilding/repaving projects not currently on the docket. Expansion projects were shown as "Mobility Improvements".

My guess as to why 94 wasn't shown is because it's far enough out on the radar screen to not be buildable quickly. As I understand it, MnDOT has not completed an Environmental Assessment either.

Hmm, so we're more then ten years out on any 94 work? Hasn't there been talk of a MnPASS lane for quite a while? I suppose that would throw it into the "Mobility Improvements" category.

This is thinly related, couldn't find a better one, but here is a maps showing the traffic amounts for every road in the country. Fascinating to compare cities. But here is a comprehensive map showing traffic amounts through the entire Twin Cities.

https://api.tiles.mapbox.com/v4/enf.ee4 ... 6/-93.2094

It's rather beautiful to stare at. Also interesting that if you zoom far enough you will see traffic counts for every street traffic counts are measured for. Interesting to also see which segments are the heaviest.

[Edit]Do interactive maps like this work for Streets.mn maps of the day?

Great find! Makes a good case for returning 26th/28th to two-way operation west of Lyndale.

Wait, so traffic counts are actually higher north of KMart? interesting...

^That doesn't surprise me given the density of destinations. Most people driving along the stretch north of the K-Mart for a bite to eat/etc aren't taking Nicollet on the south side as well.

Hmm, so we're more then ten years out on any 94 work? Hasn't there been talk of a MnPASS lane for quite a while? I suppose that would throw it into the "Mobility Improvements" category.

Yes for the latter two. MnDOT documentation I found recently states it would be 2019 at the earliest before there would be any such lane added, which would put it beyond the current STIP timeframe.

Regarding the traffic Mapbox page, I happen to know the guy who created it. The traffic data comes from a FHWA dataset...who in turn receives that data from each state. From various field checks I tested, the Minnesota data is from MnDOT's 2012 AADT dataset (which will be earlier years for some of the CSAH and MSAS routes). Numbers that aren't rounded to the nearest 100 should be regarded with a grain of salt.

BTW, MnDOT has their own traffic mapping application here: http://mndotgis.dot.state.mn.us/tfa/Map

Great find! Makes a good case for returning 26th/28th to two-way operation west of Lyndale.

We already did...

Great find! Makes a good case for returning 26th/28th to two-way operation west of Lyndale.

We already did...

Yeah, I know. But now we have an accessible website we can point regular people to.

What exactly is the project implied for TH 7 in the western suburbs?

The current listed project in the 2015-2018 STIP is #2706-237 slated for 2018: Bituminous mill and overlay, ADA and intersection revisions from just East of 494 to just West of Louisiana. No clue what the increased funding improvements to the project would be.

Good find. Right, I think that if it isn't to do grade separations (Knollwood area, Hopkins avenues) there really isn't a need for more... *shrug*

My read on the "increased funding improvements" category would be a beefier resurfacing project. Such as a full reconstruction instead of a mill-and-overlay, or going with concrete pavement instead of asphalt. More expensive than your typical mill-and-overlay, but lasts a lot longer.

Road costs are too onerous on small cities according to current funding formula — Strib editorial board.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/edit ... 14721.html

Like or hate Strong Towns principles when they get mixed into big cities or regions, small towns they're (mostly) talking about are perfect case studies. We know MnDOT is already shifting funds to outstate areas. We know the state's LGA goes mostly to outstate areas.

There has to be a fundamental acknowledgement that rural-urban life cannot sustain the type of amenities found in many places, and we need a lower level of service. This is purely anecdata, but I visited Tracy, MN a few months back and got a full tour of their public buildings/parks for an energy efficiency project. It was obvious they're great people and proud of their city. But a place with 2,200 residents had multiple parks, over-wide streets, a big community pool with some nice amenities, an airfield, and was seeing some new strip development along US-14. There's a decent number of people living in the rural areas outside town and working inside it, plus 25% of residents leaving for just Marshall alone. I dunno. It's not all about roads and sewers and parks, obviously. It just seemed like the place was WAY overbuilt for what it was (empty streets, tons of parking, clearly folks living in surrounding rural areas driving into strip developments for daily needs/jobs). It's not a productive use of state money in my opinion. It's not economic development, subsidies targeted at meeting low-income needs (at least not specifically), or anything.

It just seemed like the place was WAY overbuilt for what it was (empty streets, tons of parking, clearly folks living in surrounding rural areas driving into strip developments for daily needs/jobs).

I'm not grasping your meaning here but I'd like to note that many people using small town amenities don't actually live in town. It's totally normal for people to drive 10-20 miles into town to do shopping, visit parks, etc. And it's totally normal for people living in small towns to make trips to bigger regional centers.

That's not "normal" though. We've made that normal by social engineering on both sides of the spectrum:

- We've made the default non-metro living condition to live on acreage out in the country (only a miniscule percentage of whom are actual farmers). We've built utilities, paved roads, etc. We've subsidized extremely low trip generation density and extremely high VMT in these communities.

- On the flip side, we've allowed small towns to be gutted. Towns of less than 5,000 are not likely to have a grocery store. Towns of less than 1,000 may not even have a gas station with basic supplies. Few towns have hardware stores now. Downtowns are gutted. Because we've subsidized the sprawlscapes on the fringes of larger towns and regional centers.

We've subsidized the walmartization of America. The result is that even people who live in "urban" transects of small towns are forced to basically live a rural existence, driving to a larger town to shop, conduct business, and engage in a large portion of the activities daily life.

On the flip side, we've allowed small towns to be gutted.

The reason that small towns have been gutted is primarily due to the industrialization of agriculture. The reason that these small towns existed was to serve the larger population required to work the fields --these towns were never big enough to be truly self-supporting. Big Ag means that that population has been slashed. Without that, there's just not enough people to support small towns. WalMart and sprawly regional centers is just window dressing.

Now I'm sure if you furrow your brow and work at it hard enough, you can figure out a way to cram that into a Strong Towns box.

It actually doesn't require much work... what do you think has subsidized industrial agriculture to a large degree?

People that hate Strong Towns, no doubt.

Industrialization of agriculture appears to be a long term trend of human development dating back to... probably 10,000 BC.

I'm sure if you have a little curbside chat, you'll be able to convince the farmers to get rid of their tractors.

Back on the topic of roads, as expected this is what the lions share of new spending would go towards:

http://www.startribune.com/local/292215731.html