urbanMSP

The St. Paul City Council is expected to approve plans for a 300-page blueprint on the Mississippi riverfront. Details include establishing a preserve at Pig’s Eye Lake and adding improvements to Crosby Park, the Watergate Marina and the old Island Station.

It also mentions giving better neighborhood connections to Shepard Road. An idea that might get some of the traffic of West 7th to make room for a possible transit line.
http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul/202242261.html

Interesting, considering that yesterday on MPR I heard some official wanting to get Riverview LRT back on the table.

I think extending Lexington and St. Paul Avenue to Shepard Rd could help a lot in that effort. The extension from Lexington looks halfway done already.

My fiance's parents live down near St Paul Ave so I am down there all the time. While driving on W 7th from 35E to Hwy 5, it is impossible to know that a better road is only 3 blocks away.

I am confused where you say the extension from Lexington to Shepard looks half done... How do you see it? Are you using Montreal to Elway? I see neighborhoods that would be nearly impossible to cut through with a Lexington extension.

I think he's referring to Elway. I always thought it would be better to route Lexington Ave east of that triangle park roughly where Albion Ave is, then connecting to the Elway alignment to Shepard.

Regarding West 7th, would it make more sense to connect the Fort Road bridge to Shepard Road instead of 7th St? Or would that make the riverfront less interesting for development?

Oh yeah, now I see how you can draw a straight line from Lexington south to Elway. The problem again is that there is a whole neighborhood "in the way" of that connection.

I am very interested in using the old Ford plant rail as LRT or street car. I am fairly certain that it's only function was to serve the Ford plant. Now with that up for development, it would be a great way to connect downtown and Highland.

Apart from the nursery there's really nothing in the way. Elway doesn't have to be as wide as it is now.

Apart from the nursery there's really nothing in the way. Elway doesn't have to be as wide as it is now.

Yes, if you use Lexington to Albion as the connection. I was referring to drawing a straight line from Lexington south of Otto Ave. That is where a neighborhood gets in the way.

I think it would be nice to get rid of the 5-way intersection at Montreal/Lexington/W 7th. They could expand the park a little too. Just need to have alley access for the houses along the "abandoned" portion of Lexington that is a dead end and does not connect to W 7th/Montreal. It looks like "old" Lexington could end 300-400 ft north of the intersection.

^^Not a bad idea. I'm also looking at Edgcumbe and Homer Streets and wondering if connecting those is within the realm of possibility. Probably have to check with the locals on that one.

Edgcumbe turns into an entrance ramp onto Hwy 5. I think with all of the on/off ramps there it is unlikely.

Note that just west of Hwy 5 there is a connection with Prior Ave. I think technically it is Mississippi River Blvd at that point, but it is the same road.

If you mean connecting Edgcumbe to Homer at the corner of the golf course, that is not possible. It is a steep grade. Notice how Snelling has to weave it's way down to connect to W 7th.

Regarding West 7th, would it make more sense to connect the Fort Road bridge to Shepard Road instead of 7th St? Or would that make the riverfront less interesting for development?

I'm all for connecting Shepard Rd directly to the Fort Rd Bridge as long as it continues its frontage road design to 35E. Traffic shouldn't matter to much to developers judging by what's already been built on the existing frontage roads.

Looks like the website is up and running.
http://www.greatriverpassage.org/
Here's the video presentation:

I don't understand why these projects insiste that every location can support cafes and hotels. Can't they just make a framework for things to naturally and incrementally develop?

It's a sales pitch.

I don't understand why these projects insiste that every location can support cafes and hotels. Can't they just make a framework for things to naturally and incrementally develop?

Especially those locations further away from the city center.

Overall, great plan but I wish St. Paul and Mpls. would work together to create a joint comprehensive plan for the Mississippi instead of separate plans that compete for funding, etc.

I agree. There are plenty of places closer to the city for hotels, restaurants, and housing. Instead of trying to make a new "urban" area happen, they should work on the two we've already got. Let growth develop naturally, don't force it.

Its midway between St. Paul and the Airport/MOA, and a hopeful area for some more river-related events, previously confined to Harriet Island. Why wouldn't you plan for hotels here?

Why wouldn't I? I'm not a hotel developer. Neither is the city of St. Paul.
I did mention that I think it's reasonable to plan "a framework for things to naturally and incrementally develop" which would open the doors for such uses if an investor saw it as a worthwhile project.

Its midway between St. Paul and the Airport/MOA, and a hopeful area for some more river-related events, previously confined to Harriet Island. Why wouldn't you plan for hotels here?

Harriet Island in just over a year is going to be hooked up to the Green line by only a handful of blocks plus the walk across the river. So once this idea gets built many of the events once on Harriet Island are going to move here? Seems counterproductive! Particularly when people who would otherwise have just taken the train or bus to Harriet Island are now going to have to drive, or take a bus into downtown St. Paul and hope that a bus route will bring them to this new "event area". If this is all a private quest then go for it. Since it is St. Paul then what are they thinking? sure there are some good ideas! I like the nature paths.
The video seems to leave out tons of details. Is St. Paul going to put tons of cash up for hotels, shops, etc. Or are they just going to do the clean up and lay down some nice nature paths?

It's nice that they want to create comprehensive plans for the river, but things like this always tend to get in the way of organic development by forcing some pre-conceived notion that the city knows best. If the city has no intention of funding any of this development, they need to simply get out of the way.