Street, Road and Highway Projects

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
DanPatchToget
Foshay Tower
Posts: 964
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Street, Road and Highway Projects

Postby DanPatchToget » March 8th, 2021, 6:19 pm

Access-controlled roads and urban grid streets are far too often lumped together as it relates to this discussion. They are totally different beasts.

Even 30 is too fast on city streets and in my opinion (and based on design speed) 55 is too slow for many freeways and it shows. Heck, have you even noticed where the speed traps are set up? The straight, fast, safe stretches by and large (see Pascal on 94).

As for the recent core city speed changes, I think the main benefit there is its implications for future street reconstruction and design speeds. Freeway speed limits with modern cars are kind of a joke and really hard to obey unless you set your cruise control. People rightly get bored when they are going 15+ below a road's design speed.
Exactly! This is why I say we should let the corridor determine what makes sense as a speed limit. When we start dealing in absolutes like saying all roads should be slow, or all freeways shouldn't exist, or everyone should take transit, or everyone should live in the city we lose many people to urbanism. This will increase resistance to doing what is important like lowering speed limits where it's needed and increasing transit and density.

Our goal should be to include people's lives while being safe and inline with climate goals. Stealing people's time by forcing them to go slower and having more people getting pulled over for speeding because they were driving what makes sense in an area doesn't make people's lives better.

There is an inherant risk to driving and on freeways since there are no pedestrians or bicycles everyone there participates in a social contract of inherant risk. Raising the speed limits on urban streets is different because it endangers the safety of people who did not choose to take the risk of driving. Therefore we need to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.
No one is saying freeways shouldn't exist, but they also shouldn't be used to drive at speeds where humans simply can't react in time such as debris in the roadway or a stalled car on the shoulder.

Also just because someone is driving on the freeway doesn't mean they wanted to. In our region there isn't much of a choice between driving and other modes of transportation. If people think driving 55 mph on I-94 is boring then that's their problem. It shouldn't be used as justification for raising speed limits.

Trademark
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 142
Joined: March 31st, 2019, 11:22 am

Re: Street, Road and Highway Projects

Postby Trademark » March 8th, 2021, 6:51 pm

Access-controlled roads and urban grid streets are far too often lumped together as it relates to this discussion. They are totally different beasts.

Even 30 is too fast on city streets and in my opinion (and based on design speed) 55 is too slow for many freeways and it shows. Heck, have you even noticed where the speed traps are set up? The straight, fast, safe stretches by and large (see Pascal on 94).

As for the recent core city speed changes, I think the main benefit there is its implications for future street reconstruction and design speeds. Freeway speed limits with modern cars are kind of a joke and really hard to obey unless you set your cruise control. People rightly get bored when they are going 15+ below a road's design speed.
Exactly! This is why I say we should let the corridor determine what makes sense as a speed limit. When we start dealing in absolutes like saying all roads should be slow, or all freeways shouldn't exist, or everyone should take transit, or everyone should live in the city we lose many people to urbanism. This will increase resistance to doing what is important like lowering speed limits where it's needed and increasing transit and density.

Our goal should be to include people's lives while being safe and inline with climate goals. Stealing people's time by forcing them to go slower and having more people getting pulled over for speeding because they were driving what makes sense in an area doesn't make people's lives better.

There is an inherant risk to driving and on freeways since there are no pedestrians or bicycles everyone there participates in a social contract of inherant risk. Raising the speed limits on urban streets is different because it endangers the safety of people who did not choose to take the risk of driving. Therefore we need to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.
No one is saying freeways shouldn't exist, but they also shouldn't be used to drive at speeds where humans simply can't react in time such as debris in the roadway or a stalled car on the shoulder.

Also just because someone is driving on the freeway doesn't mean they wanted to. In our region there isn't much of a choice between driving and other modes of transportation. If people think driving 55 mph on I-94 is boring then that's their problem. It shouldn't be used as justification for raising speed limits.
Just because someone exists in society doesn't mean they want to pay taxes but they still have to because of the social contract they enter by living here. And no one is saying they should drive at unsafe speeds. If the experts determine it is safe to raise speeds in an area we should listen to them.

Right now the majority of people are already driving over the speed limit. They are voting with their gas pedal. They don't feel unsafe at those speeds or if they did they choose to enter the social contract of existing on a freeway. If people feel unsafe driving at 60 mph or other speeds that the engineers feel is safe there are plenty of other roads they can go slower on. You yourself said earlier:
The problem is our impatient culture where we need to get somewhere as quickly as possible even if it means compromising the safety of ourselves and those around us.
If getting somewhere quickly isnt as important too you and others then take frontage roads. There is no one stopping you from doing that.

John21
Union Depot
Posts: 369
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:23 am
Location: 38th Street Station

Re: Street, Road and Highway Projects

Postby John21 » March 8th, 2021, 8:13 pm

60 on 394 is fine. I would’ve kept the Crosstown at 55. Not many places where people are speeding on that stretch.

Mdcastle
Foshay Tower
Posts: 900
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN

Re: Street, Road and Highway Projects

Postby Mdcastle » March 9th, 2021, 7:36 am

My own feeling is a freeway shouldn't be 60 unless it has 1 mile interchange spacing and interstate standard lane widths and shoulders. For a while we were building non-interstates to that standard, see Highway 100 through the northern suburbs. But now we've gotten away from it and sometimes are even building new interstates below standards, like the new I-35W Minnesota River Bridge. But then again there's not a lot of difference between 55 and 60 considering most traffic is already going 65-70.

A motorist should be able to avoid road debris or whatever at 60 mph during the day. But we've apparently decided that's not an issue anyway since we allow legal speeds of 70 mph on rural interstates at night when you're well into the realm of overdriving your headlights.

DanPatchToget
Foshay Tower
Posts: 964
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Street, Road and Highway Projects

Postby DanPatchToget » March 9th, 2021, 8:40 am



Exactly! This is why I say we should let the corridor determine what makes sense as a speed limit. When we start dealing in absolutes like saying all roads should be slow, or all freeways shouldn't exist, or everyone should take transit, or everyone should live in the city we lose many people to urbanism. This will increase resistance to doing what is important like lowering speed limits where it's needed and increasing transit and density.

Our goal should be to include people's lives while being safe and inline with climate goals. Stealing people's time by forcing them to go slower and having more people getting pulled over for speeding because they were driving what makes sense in an area doesn't make people's lives better.

There is an inherant risk to driving and on freeways since there are no pedestrians or bicycles everyone there participates in a social contract of inherant risk. Raising the speed limits on urban streets is different because it endangers the safety of people who did not choose to take the risk of driving. Therefore we need to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.
No one is saying freeways shouldn't exist, but they also shouldn't be used to drive at speeds where humans simply can't react in time such as debris in the roadway or a stalled car on the shoulder.

Also just because someone is driving on the freeway doesn't mean they wanted to. In our region there isn't much of a choice between driving and other modes of transportation. If people think driving 55 mph on I-94 is boring then that's their problem. It shouldn't be used as justification for raising speed limits.
Just because someone exists in society doesn't mean they want to pay taxes but they still have to because of the social contract they enter by living here. And no one is saying they should drive at unsafe speeds. If the experts determine it is safe to raise speeds in an area we should listen to them.

Right now the majority of people are already driving over the speed limit. They are voting with their gas pedal. They don't feel unsafe at those speeds or if they did they choose to enter the social contract of existing on a freeway. If people feel unsafe driving at 60 mph or other speeds that the engineers feel is safe there are plenty of other roads they can go slower on. You yourself said earlier:
The problem is our impatient culture where we need to get somewhere as quickly as possible even if it means compromising the safety of ourselves and those around us.
If getting somewhere quickly isnt as important too you and others then take frontage roads. There is no one stopping you from doing that.
"Experts" have been wrong before. Are these the same "experts" who think if we add one more lane to a road or highway then that will fix the congestion problem?

Again, just because people "feel" that driving 60+ is safe doesn't mean it actually is. Everyone has the right to safety. People don't have the right to drive what they "feel" is safe. An officer won't be convinced by the argument that you felt safe driving in a certain way.

Trademark
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 142
Joined: March 31st, 2019, 11:22 am

Re: Street, Road and Highway Projects

Postby Trademark » March 9th, 2021, 11:18 am



No one is saying freeways shouldn't exist, but they also shouldn't be used to drive at speeds where humans simply can't react in time such as debris in the roadway or a stalled car on the shoulder.

Also just because someone is driving on the freeway doesn't mean they wanted to. In our region there isn't much of a choice between driving and other modes of transportation. If people think driving 55 mph on I-94 is boring then that's their problem. It shouldn't be used as justification for raising speed limits.
Just because someone exists in society doesn't mean they want to pay taxes but they still have to because of the social contract they enter by living here. And no one is saying they should drive at unsafe speeds. If the experts determine it is safe to raise speeds in an area we should listen to them.

Right now the majority of people are already driving over the speed limit. They are voting with their gas pedal. They don't feel unsafe at those speeds or if they did they choose to enter the social contract of existing on a freeway. If people feel unsafe driving at 60 mph or other speeds that the engineers feel is safe there are plenty of other roads they can go slower on. You yourself said earlier:
The problem is our impatient culture where we need to get somewhere as quickly as possible even if it means compromising the safety of ourselves and those around us.
If getting somewhere quickly isnt as important too you and others then take frontage roads. There is no one stopping you from doing that.
"Experts" have been wrong before. Are these the same "experts" who think if we add one more lane to a road or highway then that will fix the congestion problem?

Again, just because people "feel" that driving 60+ is safe doesn't mean it actually is. Everyone has the right to safety. People don't have the right to drive what they "feel" is safe. An officer won't be convinced by the argument that you felt safe driving in a certain way.
An officer probably wouldn't pull someone over in the first place for driving 59 in a 55 so they actually would agree with me. I appeal to experts until research shows different which is how we know induced demand is a thing.

Everyone has a right to safety to a certain extent but there is a line that will be drawn. Nothing is completely safe and there is inherant risk in living life. Just like there is inherant risk to the freeway. Like I said if people don't feel safe on the freeway they don't have to go on it. The difference between me and you is I recognize the rights of people to choose as long as it doesn't unduly impose on other people's freedom. Who determines what the acceptable range of risk is? The people who run these studies that the government commissions.

What your doing is enforcing your values that already nobody follows on the rest of society (that's why I used the example of the majority of people speeding) preventing people making a choice that would make their life better.

Those values you hold have consequences. What if something came up before work and going that little bit faster would allow them to not get fired for being late. Or if someone's going to the hospital and needs to get there in time and needs to go a little bit faster. Or if someone was kept late from work and that little bit faster is the difference between them having to pay an extra fee for childcare that they might not be able to afford. If any of them get pulled over they will have a ticket that they have to pay that they might not be able to afford. If they can't pay their license could be suspended and then they will have to make the choice between driving and risking their license being resuspended and higher fines and not having access to many jobs.

These are all decisions people make everyday. I'm not talking about speeding recklessly in any of these circumstances. We need better driver training. We need better public transit so people have better choices instead of driving. We might even need lower winter speed limits. We shouldn't make the majority of people have to risk prosecution for doing what the road was designed for. If our infrastructure allows a certain speed we should get the most out of our investment. Would we build high speed rail and run trains at 40 mph on it? Either stop building freeways at a design speed of 70 or stop signing those freeways at 55. I'm open to either one. If the people running these studies say it should stay at 55 I would defer to their knowledge to keep the road safe. If the majority of people were driving the speed limit already then I wouldn't be opposed to it because that would be what the people want. But everyone already knows that the freeway is risky and the vast majority still drive over the speed limit knowing the risk.

dajazz
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 163
Joined: May 12th, 2016, 8:11 am

Re: Street, Road and Highway Projects

Postby dajazz » March 9th, 2021, 12:30 pm

60 on 394 is fine. I would’ve kept the Crosstown at 55. Not many places where people are speeding on that stretch.
Exactly this.

Korh
Landmark Center
Posts: 201
Joined: March 8th, 2017, 10:21 pm

Re: Street, Road and Highway Projects

Postby Korh » April 8th, 2021, 8:25 pm

I know this little speed limit discussion ended but something that got pointed out to me recently was that increase and decreasing the speed limit can both lower the amount of cars a single lane of highway can move in an hour in some cases.
The idea is traffic flow rate is based on the (density of cars per mile) X (speed limit), but at higher speeds there's enough drivers (who aren't tailgating a-holes) roughly follow the 2 second rule decrease said density, and if speeds are too low you'll end up moving less cars per hour even when there more tightly packed. So every highway ends up having a different speed sweet spot where its able to move the most cars (safely) per hour.

Trademark
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 142
Joined: March 31st, 2019, 11:22 am

Re: Street, Road and Highway Projects

Postby Trademark » April 9th, 2021, 1:10 am

Is the Chicago ave construction part of the D line?

COLSLAW5
Metrodome
Posts: 69
Joined: April 11th, 2018, 1:20 pm

Re: Street, Road and Highway Projects

Postby COLSLAW5 » April 9th, 2021, 8:16 am

Is the Chicago ave construction part of the D line?
yes work started this past monday

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1872
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Street, Road and Highway Projects

Postby amiller92 » April 9th, 2021, 8:54 am


yes work started this past monday
There was a sign on northbound Chicago around 42nd saying "Chicago Ave closed at 34th starting April 5 (or whatever)." Which is funny because it's been closed at 28th for about a year.

SurlyLHT
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1023
Joined: February 21st, 2017, 3:50 pm

Re: Street, Road and Highway Projects

Postby SurlyLHT » April 19th, 2021, 8:08 am

I used to bike through here all the time and there was no traffic. The article states 4,000 adt which seems really low to justify a $25 million investment. Foley is parallel to 610 and both E. River Road and Coon Rapids Blvd have access to 610 and given the lack of local destinations there just isn't much traffic. Going toward E River Road it's just a residential area and going toward Coon Rapids Blvd would only make sense for local residents who live in the area. Most of the cars using the park and ride come from Coon Rapids Blvd and don't have to cross the tracks to get to the Park and Ride.

Foley is a busy road, but North of Coon Rapids Blvd where it connects all the E/W roads in the city.

Given all the infrastructure needs I'm frustrated that they were able to snag funding for what I see as a needless project. Living in North Mpls I think I'm more sensitive to this stuff.

Mdcastle
Foshay Tower
Posts: 900
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN

Re: Street, Road and Highway Projects

Postby Mdcastle » April 19th, 2021, 8:28 am

Eliminating dangerous railroad crossings and building multi-use trails are always a good idea. And traffic may also increase on Foley if a full interchange gets built at East River Road like the local agencies want.

Point taken though that there might be more worthy projects around. That's a problem with the current system of having most safety and capacity expansion improvement projects originate from the bottom up and then submitted to the Met Council as "popup projects". Unlike say if MnDOT had the money to add to programming and can look at projects with a metro or even statewide view, the Met Council can only pick the best of which projects were actually submitted.

Anondson
IDS Center
Posts: 4331
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Street, Road and Highway Projects

Postby Anondson » April 19th, 2021, 8:38 am

It seems they found a way to loop in a whole new street forking off behind those businesses on the north side of Foley. How much is that for speculative land division of the undeveloped portions of that huge forested parcel?

DanPatchToget
Foshay Tower
Posts: 964
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Street, Road and Highway Projects

Postby DanPatchToget » April 19th, 2021, 9:05 am

I highly doubt the grade-separation will do much to "relieve congestion" on that segment considering the light amount of car traffic, especially now with the pandemic killing off a lot of the bus and park & ride traffic, but it'll definitely be much safer than the current at-grade railroad crossing.

Tcmetro
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1522
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)

Re: Street, Road and Highway Projects

Postby Tcmetro » May 1st, 2021, 12:25 pm

An update on the Highway 13 project at Dakota and study for the rest of the corridor was presented at a Savage City Council worksession on April 12th.

A diamond interchange will be built at Dakota Ave to improve safety for trucks going to and from the port in 2022. The EA will be complete in June 2021.

The study for the rest of the project gives the following staging for converting the rest of the highway to a freeway:
  • Project 1 - Dakota Ave interchange ($32 m)
  • Project 2 - Nicollet Ave interchange or improvements (independent of other projects)
  • Project 3 - Chowen Ave interchange ($25 m)
  • Project 4 - Washburn crossing
  • Project 5 - Lynn-126th-Chowen connector road ($5 m)
  • Project 6 - Quentin "High-T" interchange ($50 m) or Quentin/Lynn split interchange ($65 m)
  • Project 7 - Quentin Ave improvements
One challenge I notice with the Quentin High-T interchange is that the exit and entry ramps would be on the left side of the roadway.

Starting at page 35: http://lfsrv2.cityofsavage.com/WebLinkE ... Page1.aspx


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests