9 Responses to “Stimulus update: an $86 million highway extension in Maple Grove, $1.5 million to feed seniors and the poor, $3,000 in everybody’s pocket”

1. Matty Says:
   March 19th, 2009 at 10:59 am

   It’s very disappointing to see this money being wasted on
   suburban freeway expansion schemes although I did predict
   that this is exactly what would happen back before X-mas:

   http://www.tcstreetsforpeople.org/node/571

2. Grady Says:
   March 19th, 2009 at 1:00 pm

   Matty, one man’s junk is another man’s treasure.
   You may view the highway “expansion” as a waste, but to
   the people who have lived in that area for years, this
   project has been a long time coming. The northern
   crosstown (Hwy. 610) has been planned since the 1960s.
   This is a rapidly growing area, and if you had listened
   to the MPR report this morning, you would have heard
   that most of Minnesota’s growth in the past few years has
   been in the outer ring suburbs. These roads are needed
   to facilitate the effective mobility of the very
   residents contributing the additional tax dollars
   and work to metro area.

3. Matty Says:
   March 19th, 2009 at 1:15 pm

   Thanks Grady. I did listen to the MPR report this morning
   and I know well that this road is right out of 1960’s
   planning which is why I describe it as a waste–its adding
   to the 20th Century land use and transportation model.

   Did you happen to see the Strib article today about the
   population growth rate decline in Scott and Dakota
   counties while Hennepin and Ramsey’s rates have climbed?
   Demographics and what people understand as a good
   quality of life are changing and what people want is not
   long commutes to bedroom communities in the outer ring
   ‘burbs.

   Suburbia as we know it is on its last legs and that’s why
   610 is a waste. Suburbs that embrace higher density mixed
   land uses along with mobility choices will survive while
   auto-centric communities that rely on the private automobile
   will choke on their own exhaust as their local economies
   falter and ultimately fail.

   Let’s check back with each other at about 2014 or so to
   see who’s closer to being right.

4. Grady Says:
   March 19th, 2009 at 2:43 pm

   Matty, do some research into some of the land use
   planning that’s being done along the 610 corridor.
   Specifically, look at Maple Grove’s plans for the
   intersection of 610 with County Road 81 and other local
   roadways in the northwest corner of Maple Grove (just
   east of I-94). You will notice land use planning for
   HIGH DENSITY residential and commercial development. Not
   everyone wants to live in a dense, urban area as you
   seem to desire. Suburbia as we know it is hardly on its
   last legs, and if you think that’s true, you’re in for
   a very rude awakening. I do agree that over time, more
   sustainable methods of land use will be employed. I can
   see that you’re one of those “doomsday” fanatics who
   thinks suburbia will die. Think again. Two-thirds of the
   people in this country live in suburbs. Most are fairly
   (if not heavily) designed around autos. 610 will be a
   vital corridor in an area that has a grand opportunity
   to have sensible land use policy. I just can’t stand
   when people such as yourself discount any new roadway
   as a waste. Do some research into the area’s land use
   before you begin making wild claims. I would love to check
   back with you in 2014 to see who is closer to being
   correct about reality (economics) vs. idealism (academic
   planning). Economics always win, my friend, even if they
   shouldn’t.

5. Matty Says:
   March 19th, 2009 at 3:51 pm

   Grady,

   You misunderstand and misquote me. I said suburbia
   “as we know it” is on its last legs. You are correct that
   I am not familiar with Maple Grove’s planning.

   If they are planning for a more urban, walkable and bikable
   community where motoring is not a necessity to live ones
   life, my prediction is that Maple Grove will do just fine.

   If they are planning for higher density development that
   requires the use of motor vehicles (and this is the direction
   that a Hwy 610 expansion points to), my prediction is that
   Maple Grove will ultimately fail. The population of the TC
   metro area is projected to increase by about 1 million
   people over the next couple of decades. If they all live
   in the outer suburbs (as they aredesigned today) driving private
   cars all of the time where will Maple Grove and similar
   communities get the right of way to (try to) move and store
   all of those cars? Where will they get the money to build
   and maintain all of the necessary lane miles and the parking?

   Lastly, I certainly do not discount any new roadway as a
   waste. New road ways that break up super blocks into walkable
   villages are a great example of a new roadway for the new
   economy that we’re entering. I agree that economics will
   be the determining factor for suburbia as we know it–suburbia as we know will never be able to pay for itself and it just will not be able to make a profit
   where our economy (reality as you say) is heading.

6. Grady Says:
   March 19th, 2009 at 8:20 pm

   Matty, if you read above in my last post, I did qualify my suburbia statement by
   saying “as we know it.”

   Your views on this matter seem rather idealistic. I agree that we should push for
   more walkable, bikable, and higher density neighborhoods for those who want it.
   But there will be a large percentage of people who will only live their lives in a
   reactionary way. In other words, we live in a free market society where one can
   essentially build a house anywhere. How do you propose we force people to live
   in higher-density housing? I am not saying that the “typical” suburban development
   pattern has been this fabulous model for the future. But it’s what people have wanted
   for the past century, and it will continue into the 21st century. The question is not
   forcing people to live in a high-density situation, but rather making both sustainable
   and traditional developments. People who buy unsustainable products will learn
   that it was a bad choice as energy costs increase and the “me” lifestyle becomes more
   and more unrealistic. Simultaneously, we must educate people about the true cost
   and destruction to the environment that is caused by poor land use. Those who buy
   more sustainable houses (say, a house located near what is currently a cargo freight
   railway but will eventually be a passenger railway) will ultimately benefit. As people
   begin to see the economic and environmental benefits, we’ll move away from the
   traditional model. But this will take years. 610 is just one component of what you
   see as poor land use planning. But while you see it as wasteful, I see it as an
   opportunity to create a high-density corridor. Again, this must be coordinated with
   city planners, officials, council, residents, businesses, and so on. This is a team
   effort, but it won’t happen overnight. 610 can still be a viable and sustainable
   corridor well into the future if it’s planned that way.

7. Grady Says:
   March 19th, 2009 at 8:22 pm

   Sorry to all… not sure why the spacing is messed up from that post. The text box in which I can type looks quite odd.

8. Luther Says:
   March 22nd, 2009 at 7:19 am

   Why don’t you guys just get a room…..

9. Grady Says:
   March 23rd, 2009 at 10:30 am

   Luther, what grade are you in at your elementary school?

   Seriously, what a nonsense comment.