The people at MN Dot still don't get it.
http://www.skywaynews.net/articles/2005/05/25/news/news02.txt
If they 'smooth out the corner' of 35W so that people can drive 55 mph,
people should be well aware of what that means. It means they plan to
increase the radius of the turn. It is physics, the curve needs to be
bigger in order to accomodate the higher speed. In order to increase
the size of that curve, large parts of nearby neighborhoods will have to
be razed, that was the reason the turn was so tight in the first place,
to avoid razing those neighborhoods. This plan should be stopped in its
tracks. We have already been through this once, building 35W caused
damage that even now we still haven't fully recovered from. It is
ludicrous to think that doing the same thing all over again will have a
different effect.
The worst part of all of this is that it does nothing for the city of
Minneapolis. Traffic has already grown to the point that if you are
driving in the city you are better off taking Portland or Park or one of
the other parkways rather than 35W or I-94. If we add another million
people to the metro, none of these fixes will change that overall
situation. But what we will be adding with this fix is another 20 or 30
acres of unproductive space that should be prime real estate right next
to Downtown that is paying property taxes and has people living there
that can support local businesses. Why should we waste BILLIONS of
dollars increasing a turn radius and burying a highway if we can't even
use the highways that runs right through our own city. If MN Dot wants
to invest in the city it should be in mass transit, they should build
their new highways out in the suburbs where the people actually need
them. Our only hope to avoid being strangled by traffic is mass
transit, we should be making a 30 year plan for that, not another 35W
boondoggle.
Peter Vevang
NE Minneapolis
For details on the MnDOT's proposed I-35W/I-94 project, take a look
at Scott Russell's article in the Skyway News:
http://www.skywaynews.net/articles/2005/05/25/news/news02.txt
I found this line by Tom O'Keefe, West Metro area manager for the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), particularly curious:
"It is hard for me to envision us affording a major expansion project in this area," he
said. "It [expansion] is not an expected outcome."
Which means, he can envision expansion though it is not expected because we don't
have enough money.
If "we" were flush, what would MnDOT do to the core of our city in the pursuit of traffic
flow?
Russell Raczkowski
Bancroft
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
