Street, Road and Highway Projects

[froggie]

No. The part south of 494 was designed to accommodate 3 lanes, but none of it is on MnDOT's radar.

[jw138]

62 badly needs 3 lanes as well. Minimally from 100 to 77. Ideally from 169 to 5. Is any of that on MnDOT's radar?

[Anondson]

On 169, a few more places between on- and off-ramps could have a full lane, such as 169 Northbound btwn 7 and Minnetonka Blvd, and southbound 169 from 7 clover leaf to Excelsior.

Would suffice instead of full 3-lane for a while.

[go4guy]

Agree on 62. That needs it badly.

[mattaudio]

62 badly needs 3 lanes as well. Minimally from 100 to 77. Ideally from 169 to 5. Is any of that on MnDOT's radar?

Apparently a "pop-up" six-laning of the short stretch from 35W to 77 is closer than we'd expect. Pushed by Richfield. I'd actually like to see 77 signed to/from 35W towards downtown over this short stretch of 62 if that happens.

MnDOT also seems to be slowly upgrading bridges to allow for six-laning westward to the 169/212 junction, but my guess is that's further down the line due to cost. If anything, I could imagine some pop-up aux lanes, maybe west to France Ave, and around the Hwy 100 interchange, to deal with severe choke points.

I think it's sort of sad that the Crosstown project didn't include provision for MnPASS connectivity to west 62 or to hwy 77 via east 62. I'd like to see any new capacity priced rather than free.

[mister.shoes]

62 badly needs 3 lanes as well. Minimally from 100 to 77. Ideally from 169 to 5. Is any of that on MnDOT's radar?

Apparently a "pop-up" six-laning of the short stretch from 35W to 77 is closer than we'd expect. Pushed by Richfield.

Given the crazy number of cars I see traveling WB on 66th at 12th every morning when I do daycare dropoff, it's obvious to anyone paying attention that 66th is a reliever for the Crosstown. The upcoming narrowing of that street + a widening of 62 for a mile and a half would do wonders for the livability of that part of the city.

It will be interesting to see how they squeeze more lanes through that section. Sound walls would have to be included from Bloomington Ave west, right? If they can pull it off without taking a dozen or so houses, I'd be really impressed.

[HiawathaGuy]

62 badly needs 3 lanes as well. Minimally from 100 to 77. Ideally from 169 to 5. Is any of that on MnDOT's radar?

Apparently a "pop-up" six-laning of the short stretch from 35W to 77 is closer than we'd expect. Pushed by Richfield.

Given the crazy number of cars I see traveling WB on 66th at 12th every morning when I do daycare dropoff, it's obvious to anyone paying attention that 66th is a reliever for the Crosstown. The upcoming narrowing of that street + a widening of 62 for a mile and a half would do wonders for the livability of that part of the city.

It will be interesting to see how they squeeze more lanes through that section. Sound walls would have to be included from Bloomington Ave west, right? If they can pull it off without taking a dozen or so houses, I'd be really impressed.

Agreed on the livability. Widening will require some homes. I think about this every time I drive through there to/from work. Not including an eastbound aux lane between Portland and 77 as part of the crosstown redo was a huge mistake, IMO. The backups for both eastbound 62 approaching the commons and southbound 35W to 62 east are primarily a result of the Portland traffic entering the roadway and having to immediately get into moving traffic. If there was an aux lane, there would be far more room for the traffic to sort itself out. I'm hopeful that a widening of this stretch can happen soon. It's been a massive cluster for 20 years!

[seanrichardryan]

The 62/ Cedar interchange is also woefully over-capacity for its 1950s design.

[froggie]

First I've heard of a pop-up for the Crosstown. Wonder if sdho knows anything...

[sdho]

Given the crazy number of cars I see traveling WB on 66th at 12th every morning when I do daycare dropoff, it's obvious to anyone paying attention that 66th is a reliever for the Crosstown. The upcoming narrowing of that street + a widening of 62 for a mile and a half would do wonders for the livability of that part of the city.

It will be interesting to see how they squeeze more lanes through that section. Sound walls would have to be included from Bloomington Ave west, right? If they can pull it off without taking a dozen or so houses, I'd be really impressed.

A few thoughts:
1. In the 66th St planning process, cut-through west of 35W was a much larger concern. For this east segment, the only really negative impact of the traffic currently is the Portland roundabout -- it seems that engineers currently think afternoon traffic requires two lanes SB to get the traffic onto WB 66th and toward the Cedar interchange. The overall traffic count is very low on 66th east of Portland.

2. Frontage roads are generally pretty easy targets when you need more space. In several instances, Richfield has gone to super-narrow alternating loop roads, with trails between -- so it's fully connected for bike-ped, but halfway to a cul-de-sac for motorists. For example, Richfield has a proposal to fit 6 lanes west of Penn Ave without taking any homes.

3. I would really really really hope that both Taft Park and Veterans Park get sound wall coverage, as well as the residential areas. I know the criteria generally are set up based on number of benefitted parties (residents/businesses), but I assume they'd include parks in the project area.

4. Hope such a widening would also be an opportunity to replace the 14th Ave inaccessible ped bridge with an accessible bike-ped bridge at 12th Ave.

[jw138]

4. Hope such a widening would also be an opportunity to replace the 14th Ave inaccessible ped bridge with an accessible bike-ped bridge at 12th Ave.

I don't know this for sure but someone told me that as part of the work being done on the Bloomington Ave bridge, bike-ped lanes are being added. If this is true, it would seem to obviate the need for the 14th Ave ped bridge and it can simply be tore down.

[jw138]

4. Hope such a widening would also be an opportunity to replace the 14th Ave inaccessible ped bridge with an accessible bike-ped bridge at 12th Ave.

I don't know this for sure but someone told me that as part of the work being done on the Bloomington Ave bridge, bike-ped lanes are being added. If this is true, it would seem to obviate the need for the 14th Ave ped bridge and it can simply be tore down.

Ooops... just looked at the bridge on google maps and do see that bike lanes and a sidewalk were present before the bridge work began. I think it's safe to say that whatever they're doing at the present time, the ped-bike crossing will be even better when they're done. Being that the 14th Ave ped bridge is two blocks away, one would think it's simply going to be tore down at the next opportunity.

[mister.shoes]

1. In the 66th St planning process, cut-through west of 35W was a much larger concern. For this east segment, the only really negative impact of the traffic currently is the Portland roundabout -- it seems that engineers currently think afternoon traffic requires two lanes SB to get the traffic onto WB 66th and toward the Cedar interchange. The overall traffic count is very low on 66th east of Portland.

I'm not quite following your traffic patterns. Did you mix up a WB/EB somewhere? Or is my brain not working right?

2. Frontage roads are generally pretty easy targets when you need more space. In several instances, Richfield has gone to super-narrow alternating loop roads, with trails between -- so it's fully connected for bike-ped, but halfway to a cul-de-sac for motorists.

While staring at Google Maps for a while yesterday I did take note of all the frontage roads and tried to eyeball how new lanes would fit through that section by only taking pavement. I couldn't see how the MPLS side between 13th and 15th could avoid losing any houses, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.

For example, Richfield has a proposal to fit 6 lanes west of Penn Ave without taking any homes.

Are these proposals available on Richfield's site anywhere? I drive that section of the Crosstown regularly as well and have long wondered if an additional lane and sound walls could fit without any takings.

[sdho]

I'm not quite following your traffic patterns. Did you mix up a WB/EB somewhere? Or is my brain not working right?

No, your brain is working fine. I meant SB Portland to *EB* 66th traffic during the afternoon. Sorry.

While staring at Google Maps for a while yesterday I did take note of all the frontage roads and tried to eyeball how new lanes would fit through that section by only taking pavement. I couldn't see how the MPLS side between 13th and 15th could avoid losing any houses, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.

That little triangle block in Minneapolis bounded by 62nd, 14th, and Crosstown would probably be a loss, although there is a full frontage road on the north side you could eat into. There's also at least one house in Richfield at 62nd and 11th that might be too close. The plan for taking no homes was only related to the west-of-Penn area, so I'm not sure if anyone has concepts in the 35W-Cedar area that spare all homes, or how many homes would have to go for expansion.

Are these proposals available on Richfield's site anywhere? I drive that section of the Crosstown regularly as well and have long wondered if an additional lane and sound walls could fit without any takings.

The west-of-Penn plan was shown at a Richfield Transportation Commission meeting 6-ish months ago. I don't believe it's online. The plan notably pushed all of the expansion to the south, as Public Works' impression was that the City of Minneapolis was considerably less interested in sacrificing land for Crosstown expansion. If you'd like to see it, you could probably get it from Kristin Asher <[email protected]>, the acting Director of Public Works.

[sdho]

4. Hope such a widening would also be an opportunity to replace the 14th Ave inaccessible ped bridge with an accessible bike-ped bridge at 12th Ave.

I don't know this for sure but someone told me that as part of the work being done on the Bloomington Ave bridge, bike-ped lanes are being added. If this is true, it would seem to obviate the need for the 14th Ave ped bridge and it can simply be tore down.

You're correct that the Bloomington Ave bridge will include both on-street lanes and a MUP on the east side. However, Portland Avenue to Bloomington Avenue is 3/4 of a mile. And both north and south of the Crosstown, Bloomington Avenue is really an "edge" to larger parkland and freeway/airport. 12th Ave goes more directly through neighborhoods.

If you live on the 6100 block between Loren Dr and 14th Ave and want to get to Veterans Park, I don't think you should have to go through the busy Portland interchange or a mile out of your way to use the Bloomington bridge. Bloomington Ave improvements make it a good regional feature (with the Intercity Trail), while a 12th Ave bike/ped bridge would provide better neighborhood connectivity.

And to be clear -- MnDOT may wish to tear it down. They removed the 58th St/35W crossing as part of the the Crosstown Commons project. But I don't think widening a sidewalk on one bridge means it's OK to make a gap between crossings even longer. There will need to be city and neighborhood pressure to either keep the bridge as is or replace at 12th Avenue.

[Didier]

What's going on with the crane alongside 35W in south Minneapolis? They've been working on something forever. It almost looks like tracking.

[mattaudio]

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projec ... index.html

[go4guy]

Very interesting. They had been doing a lot of work this spring in the Wells Fargo Home Mortgage park, now I know what that was all about. That is all done now. The spot right off 35W has been dug up for a really long time.

[Mdcastle]

The LEDs are coming. Mn/DOT has let three contracts to covert virtually every light they maintain to LED. The only exceptions will be the tower and tunnel lights. Also Xcel energy is now offering LED streetlights to cities.

[Mdcastle]

As a project that's on the radar, there is a push to add a ramp from E Bush Lake Road to westbound I-494.
http://www.senate.mn/committees/2015-20 ... dSF926.pdf


*A eastbound off ramp loop was built as part of the I-494 reconstruction, but there was a very nice building where an westbound on-ramp would be built. A proposal to have the ramp cross the railroad track at-grade was nixed by the feds.

*Normally the feds don't like local access and system interchanges in the same place. The lack of an on-ramp was part of the reason local access remained when the US 169 interchange was rebuilt.

*There's quite a bit of traffic from Normandale Lakes wanting to head towards I-494 west. A lot of it goes from 84th to 100, this causes operations problems at the 84th Street intersection where it conflicts with the heavy southbound through and southbound to eastbound movements, and on I-494 westbound where it enters at the MN 100 weave. 84th is forecast to move from LOS F to LOS D. Other locations along 78th were looked at but wouldn't be as attractive to traffic from Normandale Lakes.