If there is a road you travel on in the metro that (Buffalo: to buy, design)

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by tijlover

Freeways were originally built for military reasons, growing out of the Cold War of the 50's, to easily transport missiles in case of another war.

They should remain that way: deserted of cars.

Can you imagine how much more horrendously bloated the defense department's budget would be if there wasn't a gas tax being used to pay for interstate highway expansion and maintenance?

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by Voyageur

Actually, that's just a remarkably pervasive urban legend (one I've heard many times myself):
Eisenhower Interstate Highway System - Interstate Myths

"One in five miles of the Interstate System is straight so airplanes can land in emergencies.
This myth is widespread on the Internet and in reference sources, but has no basis in law, regulation, design manual—or fact. Airplanes occasionally land on Interstates when no alternative is available in an emergency, not because the Interstates are designed for that purpose."

Meh, it has its grey areas...

I've read both ways.

The quote is right, there is nothing that says "THERE HAS TO BE A MILE OF HIGHWAY EVERY __ MILES" but it's more like "Hey, let's not make this son of a gun all windy, so godforbid if a plane needs to land, it can"--that's how I've always understood it when doing research.

[tijlover]

Originally Posted by Globe199

Can you imagine how much more horrendously bloated the defense department's budget would be if there wasn't a gas tax being used to pay for interstate highway expansion and maintenance?

Some of the earliest cars on the road were electric, usually bought by husbands for their wives. Now if we'd continued along that path, with furthur development and usage of electric cars, there would have been no gas tax to collect. And as we move to more electric cars, the ones now driving them are getting free rides. No?

Any number of local and state governments are dependent on moving violations to raise revenue. The day may come when we'll beef up our highway patrol and let them become our revenue collectors, lower the speed limits, and politicians can stick to their promises: No new taxes.

Imagine an act of cruelty, like lowering the speed limit to 50 on the Interstates around the Twin Cities, higher fines, and a beefed up highway patrol? And the additional revenue collected in fines? Or just let photo radar do the job?

Just fine our way out of our budget messes, or use to maintain and build roads?

[MplsTodd]

Originally Posted by tijlover

Some of the earliest cars on the road were electric, usually bought by husbands for their wives. Now if we'd continued along that path, with furthur development and usage of electric cars, there would have been no gas tax to collect. And as we move to more electric cars, the ones now driving them are getting free rides. No?

I've often heard this argument that electric vehicles make the gas tax obsolete, but the fact is, we desparately need revenue NOW, and our highways and bridges continue to deteriorate. The technology for electric vehicles continues to improve, but it will still take many years before electric vehicles supplant gas-powered vehicles. It just seems common sense to increase the gas tax. A gas tax is a great user fee--use the highway, pay for it! It provides an incentive for buyers to buy a gas efficient vehicle (which tend to be lighter and cause less wear and tear on the roads). The revenue collection system is already in place, so an increase could be administered without any new costly technology to be put into affect.
The problem is no political leader has the guts to champion this proposal...Meanwhile our roads deteriorate

[Voyageur]

Originally Posted by knke0204

Meh, it has its grey areas...

I've read both ways.

The quote is right, there is nothing that says "THERE HAS TO BE A MILE OF HIGHWAY EVERY __ MILES" but it's more like "Hey, let's not make this son of a gun all windy, so godforbid if a plane needs to land, it can"--that's how I've always understood it when doing research.

Engineers (those who design the roads) don't make policy decisions regarding usage. That is done by administrators who tell the engineers what to design. Administrators prefer roads that are straight absent a compelling reason (generally, obstacles) to make them otherwise because straight roads are cheaper to build and they get traffic from point A to point B faster.

Cost is important. Efficiently moving 100,000+ vehicles/day is important. The slight possibility that, someday, just maybe, 35W will be the only possible place to land for an F-16 to land just isn't important.

Which is why it wasn't a factor in designing the Interstate freeway system.

[gearedtowardssalad]

169

[stmp692]

Originally Posted by knke0204

Ahh Ben.. This is you best post ever!

"All so some clown can live in Medina, work in Woodbury and bring his car to work with him every day. (Just to have it sit unused in the parking lot). Kinda sad"

Adding lanes does nothing to ease congestion as it's actually an incentive TO drive, assuming that MORE lanes will EASE traffic and make it LESS stressful to drive, thus increasing one's desirability to drive.

Does your plumber tell you that if you install a bigger pipe to the toilet, your poo will get more girth?

Capacity does not cause more trips. If it did, places like Pittsburgh and Buffalo would have serious traffic problems. A lot of it has to do with economic activity.

As for the original question, 169 & 494 would be a great spot to become a freeway. Wrapping up extending 610 to I94 would be nice. But really, I'm more concerned with sorting out some of the choke points. For example, upgrading both intersections of 494/694 and 94 so traffic exiting and enterting the freeway has it's own lane, etc.

[tijlover]

What this country needs to do is face up to the fact we're rapidly becoming a third world country and plan accordingly. Freeways are 1st world. We're no longer 1st world. We're 2nd world going on 3rd.

I read in some rural areas of the country (notably Michigan) they're begining to rip up paved rural roads and reverting back to gravel. The county governments simply can't afford it anymore.

What a big fuss that would create in the Twin Cities one day! Ripping up I-35 and reverting back to gravel. Imagine the dust that would create! Driving to work and back with a face mask! And dusting off your car every day!

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by MplsTodd

Good post! I also seem to recall reading that planners back in the 1950s originally wanted the freeways to be landscaped and wooded and never intended for them to become developed with extensive linear commercial development. It would be interesting to see what the twin Cities would look like had that policy been maintained.

Actually, there was one that followed that model. It was called Lilac Drive. Today it is part of Highway 100 in Golden Valley. It had beautiful landscaping and park-like rest areas with picnic tables and barbecue grills. From what I understand, all was torn out when it was widened. BTW, New York State still has many of these freeways (they call them "parkways" out there)

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by MplsTodd

I've often heard this argument that electric vehicles make the gas tax obsolete, but the fact is, we desparately need revenue NOW, and our highways and bridges continue to deteriorate. The technology for electric vehicles continues to improve, but it will still take many years before electric vehicles supplant gas-powered vehicles. It just seems common sense to increase the gas tax. A gas tax is a great user fee--use the highway, pay for it! It provides an incentive for buyers to buy a gas efficient vehicle (which tend to be lighter and cause less wear and tear on the roads). The revenue collection system is already in place, so an increase could be administered without any new costly technology to be put into affect.
The problem is no political leader has the guts to champion this proposal...Meanwhile our roads deteriorate

My neighbor fuels his Ford Expedition with recycled french fry oil.