MnDOT 20-Year State Highway Investment Plan

This topic contains 1 reply, has 2 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of SDHO SDHO 3 years ago.

  • Creator
  • #788891
    Avatar of giddything

    There is a survey collecting information on people’s preferred approach to transit funding here:

    Hint: Approach C is the bicycle-friendliest one.

    I was disappointed that it did not tell me what superhero I was at the end, but you can’t have everything.

Viewing 1 replies (of 1 total)
  • Author
  • #792165
    Avatar of SDHO

    Kind of sad that an increase in pedestrian and bicycle investment comes at such a price to pavement quality. I think the many rural bikers, who enjoy riding on our trunk highway system (on shoulders, or just in lanes that would not qualify as bike infrastructure), might disagree that the ideas are totally separate.

    I also was irritated that there is no option to not prioritize interstates and freeways. Honestly, I would rather see Mn/DOT spending money to maintain and rebuild some of the aging non-freeway trunk highways — like the Olson Highway, University Ave, Highway 7, etc — than to continue to dump more money into making sure auto commuters have are able to move farther and farther away from our cities. Increases in freeway capacity are catastrophically expensive, especially in urban areas.

Viewing 1 replies (of 1 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.