And here we are ...yep riding sidewalks.....dont see many cars doing that or riding against traffic in a bkie lane no less
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48lxqgdo8iw
And here we are ...yep riding sidewalks.....dont see many cars doing that or riding against traffic in a bkie lane no less
This annoys me so much because it just proves the point that bicycling infrastructure is so poor. Of course cars don't ride on the sidewalk because EVERYTHING is set up for them. If there was extensive bicycle infrastructure you wouldn't have people riding on the sidewalk. You just point out why we need it. If the road system was as lacking as the bike system you would have more vigilante drivers I guarantee it. Oh you mean I have a path for 5 miles then there is a parking lot, and I have to cross two major intersections with no right of way and then I have 2 miles of trail again? I'm sure drivers would love that.yep riding sidewalks.....dont see many cars doing that or riding against traffic in a bkie lane no less
They obliterated both decks, one still has the beams, the other just abutments and piersPark and Portland bridges over I-94 will be closed and redecked this summer, May to September:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/construction ... ctlist.pdf
Funny, the people with the purse strings are ok building a $700M bridge in Stillwater or forking over $500M to help build a stadium without a tested/proven revenue stream to back it up. But when it comes to things like this it's way too 'risky'.To an urbanist, I think the trade-off of potentially losing a building or set of buildings after 70 years is probably worthwhile just to help with pedestrian activation, but I'm not sure if you'll ever get the folks who hold the purse-strings to agree.
I don't doubt that there may be better spots based on desirability of land making for an easier ROI for the city/developer. Certainly DTE has enough surface parking to redevelop before a city council member could be convinced land is so desirable that we should finance making more of it. I was just pointing out that since they're re-doing these anyway why the extra cost now (as opposed to possibly re-considering this in 10-20 years) wasn't really evaluated, and Levinson's thread on streets.mn had a full proposal for this very site.Interesting. Let's have a big helping of lead all around!
Matt, I agree with your idea that TIF would be appropriate for freeway decking. However, I'm not sure this is going to be a great location for it. I would suggest starting out with a place that could support a large-scale privately financed development. There was a streets.mn thread about this a while ago, but I'd say that 394 between 4th & 5th is one of the best spots in the city (there would certainly be rationale to omit parking from the building at this location). Another great spot would be the east (or south?) portal of the Lowry Tunnel - the building could front Lyndale and make the interchange nightmare less heinous, and would have great skyline views.
There were alternative's to lead when our infrastructure was built, I'm quite sure, so please don't get stuck on what ancients used.Interesting. Let's have a big helping of lead all around!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests