Interstate 494
-
- Capella Tower
- Posts: 2622
- Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm
Re: Interstate 494
Relevant to our discussion earlier: http://www.streetsblog.net/2016/02/19/t ... n-the-u-s/
-
- Wells Fargo Center
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
- Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)
Re: Interstate 494
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/
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/
Re: Interstate 494
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.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/
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:
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.The analysis identified that the Project improvements will not result in disproportionately high or adverse effects to low-income or minority populations.
-
- Stone Arch Bridge
- Posts: 7761
- Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
- Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield
Re: Interstate 494
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 6 guests