We’ve been ringing the alarm bells that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is utilizing outdated mobility metrics and flawed assumptions when modeling traffic for the Rethinking I-94 project. Ray Delahanty, also known as CityNerd, posted a video titled “I’m Not Saying Traffic Engineering Is Junk Science But” that highlights flaws in the traffic engineering models used by state agencies. Delahanty was previously a planner with the Oregon Department of Transportation and has a master’s in urban and regional planning and transportation.
Delahanty identifies the Rethinking I-94 project as an example of “malpractice”, saying, “the rationale for not including the at-grade options is they’re bad for ‘mobility,’ which seems to be narrowly defined as mobility for drivers.”
MnDOT will argue that, to include boulevard options in the next phase of the Rethinking I-94 Project, the department would need to redo the evaluation, including the traffic modeling. However, it is the definition of sunk cost fallacy to move forward, knowing the modeling erroneously favors rebuilding the highway.
The problem is, when the model you used to analyze potential transportation investments assumes everyone is going to behave the same in 25 years as they do today, it’s kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.
Ray Delahanty | CITYNERD
The costs of this are varied and astronomical. First, the opportunity cost of connected neighborhoods, new land use, environmental justice, and racial justice. Second, the billions needed to rebuild and maintain the highway. Lastly, the cost of pollution to our health and environment for the next 60 years to come.
“The fact that there’s this very obvious disconnect between what we say our goals are and where the regional model says we’re headed is extremely problematic and leads to all kinds of bad investments,” says Delahanty.
Let’s stop this bad investment.
Take action to keep the Twin Cities Boulevard vision alive.